New FURRY Website!

21 views
Skip to first unread message

Daphne Lage

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to
FURRY LITTLE SECRET

Your new source for exotic and erotic furry art on the web!

http://www.egoraven.com/furry/

If you would like to start getting updates about the new FURRY LITTLE SECRET
website and related news, reply to this message via e-mail and PLEASE put the
following in the subject line:

[FURRY] E-mail list

If you do not put the above in the subject line, your reply will end up going to
the wrong folder and might get lost and we sure wouldn't want that!

Enjoy! ^_^


Daphne Lage

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to
Daphne Lage <egor...@egoworks.com> wrote in message
news:82ha5q$ce2$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> FURRY LITTLE SECRET
>
> Your new source for exotic and erotic furry art on the web!

GAH! I can't believe I got my own website wrong!

The correct address is:

http://www.egoworks.com/furry/

*Now* you can enjoy!

Sorry about that!

unread,
Dec 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/21/99
to
All of the art here is censored and has HUGE watermarks. Don't waste
your time.

DishRoom1

unread,
Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99
to
Some rude person named Skrowl wrote--

:>All of the art here is censored and has HUGE watermarks. Don't waste
>your time.

I hope someone teaches you manners. Whenever somebody's art is "crap" or not
depends on the art itself, not becuase of the watermarks nor cencoring pixles.

Personally I think the art from Daphne is often fantastic to look at. The
watermakers, used to dicourage internet piratcy, aren't too dark to ruin
viewing the pics. You can still find the fine line and form of the figures in
the art. As for the pixeling up the "naughty" areas, it's just fine with me and
I can sure enough imagine what's blurred under those pixels. In order to see
the whole picture would mean buying the pic you like to see from Daphne.

Other artists, like Sara Palmer, treated their adult work the same way. It
doesn't make their sites less enjoyable.

Jetstone Tigre Dish...@aol.com

Daphne Lage

unread,
Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99
to
Just my 2 cents...

Anyone who complains that my pictures are "crap" on the sole basis that my
watermarks are big and *gasp!* the naughty bits are pixelated, weren't planning
on purchasing anything anyway. Most people who look at my site so far had no
problem with the watermarks or pixels - heck, I even warn everyone *ahead* of
time that the pictures are watermarked and censored so if that was a problem, he
shouldn't had gone ahead.

Also, judging from the fact that his beef was with the adult pics (for some
reason I didn't get the original post so I don't know if he did complain about
the clean stuff) makes me question this person's intentions even more. If you
want my images without pixels and watermarks, pay your $10 + shipping like
everyone else.

And honestly, I really couldn't care less that someone thought my work is crap,
especially if their reasons for calling it that has no validity at all. (Wah!
Her work sucks because I can't see the meticulously detailed 6 inch shlong!) Uh
yeah...

Not everyone can be fans and I don't expect them to. And they're not buying my
work anyway so they're the least of my concerns.

Just a little anecdote before I sign off:

While at Duckon I overheard some guy talking about how he had about 3 gigs worth
of furry art that he had taken from the Internet and how he could make a fortune
selling prints of those images. His rather *minor* concern for getting in
trouble with the artists stopped him from actually doing so but I wonder how
many people *don't* have that pesky problem.

This is why I have watermarks and pixels. This is also the reason a lot of
artists *don't* put their stuff on the web at all. Deal with it or don't.

And thanks for the support to those of you who ARE fans! *kisskiss* ^_^

On to do more "crappy" art...

--Daphne Lage
****************************************************************
THE EGOWORKS
Comic Book & Fantasy Art by Daphne Lage
http://www.egoworks.com/
****************************************************************
"The only thing you can change is yourself,
but sometimes that changes everything." - Anonymous
****************************************************************

Hangdog

unread,
Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99
to
Daphne Lage wrote:

> Anyone who complains that my pictures are "crap" on the sole basis that my

> watermarks are big and *gasp!* the naughty bits are pixelated,<snip>

<joke>

"Hey---her watermarks aren't big enough!!!"

\</joke>

--Hangdog


Allen Kitchen

unread,
Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99
to

Hey, check out the pixels on HER! :)


Besides, DL makes some beautiful drawings.

Allen Kitchen (shockwave)

Dr. Cat

unread,
Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99
to
Daphne Lage <egor...@egoworks.com> wrote:

> And thanks for the support to those of you who ARE fans! *kisskiss* ^_^

> On to do more "crappy" art...

Please keep drawing that "crappy" art, I like it. :X)

*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*

(Disclaimer: This post was paid for by the committee to re-elect Herbert
Hoover.)

Michael E Campbell

unread,
Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99
to

"$Ł" <skr...@skrowl.esuf.net> wrote in message
news:38604131...@news.fuse.net...

> All of the art here is censored and has HUGE watermarks. Don't waste
> your time.

Oh, so I shouldn't waste my time on the closest thing to a true professional
artist that this genre has, both in terms of skill and behavior, because
she's protecting her source of income? I shouldn't pay attention to the
excellent art, dynamic use of color and all around excellent cretive skills
(as opposed to the cookie-cutter work of some other artists in this genre)
because it has marks on it to protect it from being mooched by thieving
pirates like yourself?

Thanks for pointing this site out though, I'll be wasting a lot of my time
and money on the artist it belongs to. She deserves it.


Michael Campbell (tig...@mindspring.com)


ka...@my-deja.com

unread,
Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99
to
In article <38604131...@news.fuse.net>,

skr...@skrowl.esuf.net ($Ł) wrote:
> All of the art here is censored and has HUGE watermarks. Don't waste
> your time.

Daphne Lage's art is wonderful, IMHO. I hear sour grapes from a would-
be thief. I will continue to purchase her art, and I love the new
website. She is one of the most professional and nicest artists in the
fandom.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

--
Kagur


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Daphne Lage

unread,
Dec 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/30/99
to
<ka...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:84ghug$5o0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> In article <38604131...@news.fuse.net>,
> skr...@skrowl.esuf.net ($Ł) wrote:
> > All of the art here is censored and has HUGE watermarks. Don't waste
> > your time.
>
> Daphne Lage's art is wonderful, IMHO. I hear sour grapes from a would-
> be thief. I will continue to purchase her art, and I love the new
> website. She is one of the most professional and nicest artists in the
> fandom.

Yanno, if I blush any more I'll end up glowing in the dark!

Thank you! Thank you all! =^_^=

Charles Groark

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
ka...@my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <38604131...@news.fuse.net>,
> skr...@skrowl.esuf.net ($Ł) wrote:
> > All of the art here is censored and has HUGE watermarks. Don't waste
> > your time.
>
> Daphne Lage's art is wonderful, IMHO. I hear sour grapes from a would-
> be thief. I will continue to purchase her art, and I love the new
> website. She is one of the most professional and nicest artists in the
> fandom.

Actually, Kagur, he performed a very useful public service: he's relieved
some net congestion. Now thieves like him won't be clogging up the net
accessing Daphne's site. (grin) He'll probably go elsewhere to steal,
though.

Daphne has posted a remark along the lines of "Ya pays yer ten bucks to see
what ya wanna see." (Intentionally nowhere near exact, but that was the
gist.) Well, some of us pay a *lot* more than that (we commission Daphne
to do what *we'd* like to see) and, as one of them, it *really* ticks me
off that somebody badmouths her and her site simply because he can't steal
work that took her a *very* long time and a *great* amount of effort to
create. She works hard at this: she's entitled to make a few bucks.

I'll love the new website more when it's completed. (big grin)

As for Daphne's professionalism, IMHO, it's unquestioned and
unquestionable. Over the years I've been purchasing and commissioning her
work, there have been two occasions where she has failed to deliver what I
asked for. In each case, I pointed this out to her *politely.* In each
case, she started work to correct the problem. (Since they involved
commission pieces, there was no way she could correct them *immediately.*
She corrected the mistakes as quickly as she could, considering.) That is
one of the ways I define professionalism: not merely that you can do
something, but that you treat errors (both your customers and your own) as
part of business. You screw up, you apologize and then you fix the error.
Daphne's *highly* professional, in her work and her business-like attitude
toward it.

The one thing you *forgot* to mention, Kagur: she's *very* easy on the
eyes... (grin)

Charlie


Kagur

unread,
Dec 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/31/99
to
>Now thieves like him won't be clogging up the net
>accessing Daphne's site. (grin) He'll probably go elsewhere to steal,
>though.

I certainly hope he learns from this...but probably not.>

Daphne's *highly* professional, in her work and her business-like attitude
>toward it.

Indeed she is. She is also very nice to her fans. I recall that, earlier this
year, she posted that she was trying to get a new job and was removing some of
her erotic artwork from the net. A fan lamented that all of his favorite
artists were leaving, and that it was his fault. She reassured him publicly
that it was not so. I remember thinking, " Now, there's class for you":)

>The one thing you *forgot* to mention, Kagur: she's *very* easy on the
>eyes... (grin)

Very true.


Kagur

Jack Furlong - jfurlong at ix dot netcom dot com

unread,
Jan 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/1/00
to
In article <84dfcd$f1s$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>, "Daphne Lage" <egor...@egoworks.com> wrote:

>On to do more "crappy" art...

Please do, I like your stuff :)

kodak

unread,
Jan 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/1/00
to
In article <84dfcd$f1s$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>, Daphne Lage
<egor...@egoworks.com> wrote:

> Just my 2 cents...


>
> Anyone who complains that my pictures are "crap" on the sole basis that my

> watermarks are big and *gasp!* the naughty bits are pixelated, weren't planning

No, your pictures are crap because they are poorly drawn and horribly
inked -- your art is just plain UGLY.

> on purchasing anything anyway. Most people who look at my site so far had no
> problem with the watermarks or pixels - heck, I even warn everyone *ahead* of
> time that the pictures are watermarked and censored so if that was a problem,
> he shouldn't had gone ahead.

It's been said before that main reason that your art ever sold at all
was because you drew spooge. Go fig. ;)

> On to do more "crappy" art...

How unfortunate.

Charles Groark

unread,
Jan 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/1/00
to
kodak wrote:

> In article <84dfcd$f1s$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>, Daphne Lage
> <egor...@egoworks.com> wrote:
>
> > Just my 2 cents...
> >
> > Anyone who complains that my pictures are "crap" on the sole basis that my
> > watermarks are big and *gasp!* the naughty bits are pixelated, weren't planning
>
> No, your pictures are crap because they are poorly drawn and horribly
> inked -- your art is just plain UGLY.

Okay, kodak. You're entitled to your opinion; I'm entitled to my own massively
differing opinion. But just for the record, whose art in this field *do* you like?


> > on purchasing anything anyway. Most people who look at my site so far had no
> > problem with the watermarks or pixels - heck, I even warn everyone *ahead* of
> > time that the pictures are watermarked and censored so if that was a problem,
> > he shouldn't had gone ahead.
>
> It's been said before that main reason that your art ever sold at all
> was because you drew spooge. Go fig. ;)

Daphne's art in Tall Tails has survived publication by GRU, Vision and is now being
published by Radio Comix (Elin Winkler and company). Pretty impressive survival
history for a comic that has no spooge. Might even make a reasonable person think
some people might actually like the story and/or art...

> > On to do more "crappy" art...
>
> How unfortunate.

Unfortunate for *you,* perhaps. A happy occurence for some of us.

Charlie


Daphne Lage

unread,
Jan 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/2/00
to
kodak <east...@netcom.com> rambled in message
news:010120001429137013%east...@netcom.com...

> In article <84dfcd$f1s$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>, Daphne Lage
> <egor...@egoworks.com> wrote:

> > Anyone who complains that my pictures are "crap" on the sole basis that my
> > watermarks are big and *gasp!* the naughty bits are pixelated, weren't
planning
>
> No, your pictures are crap because they are poorly drawn and horribly
> inked -- your art is just plain UGLY.

Aww, you flatter me. And I'm supposed to take your vague opinion seriously
because...? You might as well have said "they suck 'cause they suck!" Well, so
what? Go patronize artists you DO like then. If I don't have art that you like
or want then there's nothing I can do about it. *shrug*

> > on purchasing anything anyway. Most people who look at my site so far had no
> > problem with the watermarks or pixels - heck, I even warn everyone *ahead*
of
> > time that the pictures are watermarked and censored so if that was a
problem,
> > he shouldn't had gone ahead.
>
> It's been said before that main reason that your art ever sold at all
> was because you drew spooge. Go fig. ;)

Yeah, so? That used to bother me a lot but I've come to accept it. People like
the spooge and I don't mind giving it to them. But there are people who like my
spoogeless at as well so I can't argue with that either. And wait till you see
the next update!

And BTW... why do you insist on using smilies after comments that are obviously
NOT intended to be either humorous or "cute"? That's something that I see a lot
in your postings and I think it comes off as horribly dishonest. But hey - who
am I to you anyway? Do whatever you want.

> > On to do more "crappy" art...
>
> How unfortunate.

It's *your* problem. *You* deal with it.

The unstoppable...

Cerulean

unread,
Jan 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/2/00
to
Quoth Daphne Lage:

>And BTW... why do you [kodak] insist on using smilies after comments that are


>obviously NOT intended to be either humorous or "cute"? That's something that
>I see a lot in your postings and I think it comes off as horribly dishonest.

It's the latest mutation of the "Humour is exempt from being
offensive" school of thought. The practice of putting a smiley on a
comment meant as a good-natured jest is beyond the comprehension of
beings with no intrinsic understanding of "good-natured." All they can
see is that a colon followed by a parenthesis somehow have the magical
power to make a person unaccountable for anything 'e says. So, like
the famous cargo cult, flamers copy the behaviour and expect the same
results.

--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( pn>S-,,'6u!Joq aJam hayL 'a7doad >unJp aJam aJayL,,

Random

unread,
Jan 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/2/00
to
You know.. Before a few minutes ago from the time I'm making this post,
I've never seen Ms. Lage's work. I'm not artist, but it doesn't take a
coprologist to recognize shit. The basic forms are off on her work. The
composition is bad.. The most strikingly horrible aspect of her 'art'
is the coloring! I want to know if Ms. Lage is color blind or is
tripping when she colors her work. I've seen 5 years olds do better in
their pokeyman coloring books. I've heard tell she attended art
school.. But I wonder if she actually graduated. I'm guessing if she
did, it was more from her other skills than the art ones.
--Random

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages