Catch E.R. Tonight?
Mephit, Floyd
it's still on here). Two guys got into a fight at a con (wasn't it a con?),
both wearing fursuits (kangaroo and opossom). They referred to themselves
as 'furries'. I wonder how many "what the hell?"s were collectively blurted
out in that moment.. The nurse knew what that meant (sorta) and explained
that as someone who dresses up in animal costumes. Apparently 'scritching'
turned into molestation. And just now a tender explanation from the
kangaroo to Dr. Weaver; and wouldn't you know it, she just walked in on the
opossom guy masturbating with the 'pawpet' that a patient gave her. (of
course). I wonder why this subject was brought on the show (and especially
why it was given as much airtime as it was). I hardly ever post but I was
just too suprised not to mention it. I imagine that I don't even have to
give my opinion, it should be obvious (and shared, I hope).
-Brad
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Patrick (Floyd Mephit), Baton Rouge, LA
FMS2admsw/F2as A- C- D H M P- R+ T++ W- Z Sm+ RLM/MH/S a21 cbdn++ d e+ f h-
iwf++ j+ p+ sm++
email: floyd...@hotmail.com, ICQ# 100483312, ph# 225-205-4295
Sarenthalanos
Mephit, Floyd <floyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ct5u2$iph$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> I assume I'm not the only one who watched e.r. tonight on NBC. (actually,
> it's still on here). Two guys got into a fight at a con (wasn't it a
con?),
> both wearing fursuits (kangaroo and opossom). They referred to themselves
> as 'furries'. I wonder how many "what the hell?"s were collectively
blurted
> out in that moment.. The nurse knew what that meant (sorta) and explained
> that as someone who dresses up in animal costumes. Apparently
'scritching'
> turned into molestation. And just now a tender explanation from the
> kangaroo to Dr. Weaver; and wouldn't you know it, she just walked in on
the
> opossom guy masturbating with the 'pawpet' that a patient gave her. (of
> course). I wonder why this subject was brought on the show (and especially
> why it was given as much airtime as it was). I hardly ever post but I was
> just too suprised not to mention it. I imagine that I don't even have to
> give my opinion, it should be obvious (and shared, I hope).
http://www.nbci.com/LMOID/bb/fd/0,946,-0-2176,00.html?shc.nbci.0.er.2176
5/3/01
FEAR OF COMMITMENT
Due to a clerical error, a startled Abby discovers that her suicidal mother
(Oscar-winning guest star Sally Field) is due in court for a competency
hearing and she rushes to testify that she should not be released -- but the
older woman musters an alarmingly masterful display of sanity before the
judge. Meanwhile, Dr. Weaver gives heartbreaking news to a sassy homeless
woman who once hosted a children's show that Weaver viewed as a child. Dr.
Benton steps in to help a junior high school teacher who was once his mentor
and now suffers a cardiac arrest. A busy Benton also injures his hand while
helping a fallen biker and learns that an injured Carla has checked into the
ER with his young son Reese.
TV-PG
=================
Interesting plot twist. One of the most notable all year, from the looks.
Perhaps I should start watching that show. Anyone else witness this
remarkable episode?
-Sar
Cerulean
There's nothing we can do now but watch it all go to pieces.
--
___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 ( S>J37) - ,,'a)ew!J6 ay+ 77!> ue) 6u!y+oN,,
Hollie
<sarent...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Interesting plot twist. One of the most notable all year, from the looks.
>Perhaps I should start watching that show. Anyone else witness this
>remarkable episode?
>
>-Sar
Sure did! I thought it was a very funny comic relief to an otherwise
intense episode.
BTW, are you the same Sar who posts on LKF and Lukaholics Anonymous?
aki.
(sneaux miaoux and Goran Visnjic/Luka Kovac fan)
AfterFox
full of shit that a writer pulled off from all the bad press furries have been
getting.
I for one, definately am not "pleased" with the way furries were portrayed right
there.
AfterFox
Sarenthalanos
Hollie <mal...@IDONTLIKESPAM.concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3af22279...@news.concentric.net...
>
> Sure did! I thought it was a very funny comic relief to an otherwise
> intense episode.
>
Hmmm, I'll have to give it a look. It's on in a half-hour here.
> BTW, are you the same Sar who posts on LKF and Lukaholics Anonymous?
>
> aki.
> (sneaux miaoux and Goran Visnjic/Luka Kovac fan)
Can't say that I am.
-Sar
Joe Strike
types read the magazine, & we could shortly expect some sitcom family's wacky
neighbor or relative to show up walking around in a fursuit for a cheap laff or
two. Guess I was wrong - it happened on 'E.R.' & not on a sitcom. (Thanks a lot,
VF.) Sorry I missed the episode, though (one of countless dozens of series I
never watch - gives me more time to read aff) - it would've been interesting to
see just how wrong they got it.
Here's the brilliant suggestion - how about some LA-based fur volunteering to
become a 'technical advisor' to film or TV shows that want to feature furry
themes/story lines? You know, the same way they get a professional person
(doctor, lawyer, cop) or special interest group (gays, ethnic minorities, Native
Americans etc) to advise them when they feature those kind of characters in
their productions. At least this way we could avoid people just cribbing
inaccurately from an inaccurate magazine article they happened to read.
-J
Rebecca Gallant
There are those that appreciate the genre as a part of sci-fi/fantasy and those
who make it a lifestyle.
I thought they did their research rather well and was even surprised that they
even made an effort to distinguish that there is a difference.
Hell, I was just surprised to see it portrayed in a main stream show at all!
I say kudos to the writers.
Well, that's my .02 cents anyway.
-Becky
"Mephit, Floyd" wrote:
--
******Welcome to my worlds!*******
Gallantry Web Design
http://www.gallantrywebdesign.com
Becky's Wildlife and Fantasy Art
http://www.wildlife-fantasy.com
Quantum Muse
http://www.quantummuse.com
Wild Speculation
http://www.wildspeculation.com
AfterFox
I got the chance to see it and it wasn tall that bad.
People I've been talking to have been saying it's absolutely horrible, a tragedy for
furry. I dunno. the roo guy was far more present than the possum and he didnt
really say any bad things or was portrayed in a negative manner.
*shrug* It'll be forgotten later on, I'm sure.
Heh, only bad thing about this is I hafta explain myself to my coworkers *again* ;)
After (nono, it's a hobby, you see...) Fox
Richard Lowman
Mephit, Floyd wrote in message <9ct5u2$iph$1...@raccoon.fur.com>...
>I assume I'm not the only one who watched E.R. tonight on NBC. (actually, it's
still on here).
>Two guys got into a fight at a con (wasn't it a con?), both wearing fursuits
(kangaroo and opossom).
>They referred to themselves as 'furries'. I wonder how many "what the hell?"s
I was about half-asleep at the time, and then came awake fully at the word....
>The nurse knew what that meant (sorta) and explained that as someone who
dresses up in animal costumes. Apparently 'scritching' turned into >molestation.
And just now a tender explanation from the kangaroo to Dr. Weaver; and wouldn't
you know it, she just walked in on the opossom >guy masturbating with the
'pawpet' that a patient gave her. (Of course).
A former kids TV host homeless and dieing of cancer....
Dr. Weaver-"Mr. Wiskers!...."
>I wonder why this subject was brought on the show (and especially why it was
given as much airtime as it was). I hardly ever post but I was just >too
suprised not to mention it. I imagine that I don't even have to give my opinion,
it should be obvious (and shared, I hope).
Yeah, I think that I have a good idea where the idea came from--a magazine
perhaps and because of the fact that the writers had to come up with something
current before going out on strike.
.....and so it goes.
DishRoom1
>I assume I'm not the only one who watched e.r. tonight on NBC. (actually,
>it's still on here). Two guys got into a fight at a con (wasn't it a con?),
>both wearing fursuits (kangaroo and opossom). They referred to themselves
>as 'furries'. I wonder how many "what the hell?"s were collectively blurted
>out in that moment.. The nurse knew what that meant (sorta) and explained
>that as someone who dresses up in animal costumes. Apparently 'scritching'
>turned into molestation. And just now a tender explanation from the
>kangaroo to Dr. Weaver; and wouldn't you know it, she just walked in on the
>opossom guy masturbating with the 'pawpet' that a patient gave her. (of
>course). I wonder why this subject was brought on the show (and especially
>why it was given as much airtime as it was). I hardly ever post but I was
>just too suprised not to mention it. I imagine that I don't even have to
>give my opinion, it should be obvious (and shared, I hope).
>
I'm not a big fan of "ER", so I didn't watch the episode in question. (I was
watching "Primetime Live" on ABC, opposite of NBC, instead.) So I didn't see
for myself how "ER" depicted furries. Therefore I have no opinion. If the show
portrayed us in a negative light, we can write to NBC and the "ER" producers
mail explaining more about our fandom.
John Shughart
DishRoom1
>Personally, I thought it portrayed both sides of the issue rather well.
>
>There are those that appreciate the genre as a part of sci-fi/fantasy and
>those
>who make it a lifestyle.
>I thought they did their research rather well and was even surprised that
>they
>even made an effort to distinguish that there is a difference.
>
>Hell, I was just surprised to see it portrayed in a main stream show at all!
>
Hey, Rebecca. :x) I hope that the "ER" episode went as you said, because I
didn't ever watch it that night.
Would you please explain a bit about what you watched for me?
John Shughart
Marc Fuller
>
[snip]
>
> Here's the brilliant suggestion - how about some LA-based fur volunteering to
> become a 'technical advisor' to film or TV shows that want to feature furry
> themes/story lines? You know, the same way they get a professional person
> (doctor, lawyer, cop) or special interest group (gays, ethnic minorities, Native
> Americans etc) to advise them when they feature those kind of characters in
> their productions. At least this way we could avoid people just cribbing
> inaccurately from an inaccurate magazine article they happened to read.
> -J
>
I don't think it would work. In the case of professionals, the writers
care about technical accuracy, and the genuine ethnic groups are large
enough and organized enough to be a legal pain in a libel/slander suit.
Furries fall in the same category as sci-fi fans, at best, as far as the
writers are concerned. I.e, a generally defined but non-cohesive bunch of
goof-balls and freaks that they can write in as anything from comic relief
to "example of citizen gone tragically wrong."
Marc Fuller
Akai
>
> I assume I'm not the only one who watched e.r. tonight on NBC.
<kersnippen>
I'm on the west coast here so I just finished watching the episode about
a half hour ago. Never watched the show before but found it generally
entertaining.
The treatment of the fursuiters came across to me as being on the same
level of any other fetish, a better known one being costume-wearing
sci-fi fans. No better, no worse. Something odd to lighten up the tone
of the episode in contrast to some of the more serious bits. Whoever
wrote the episode knows the terminology well enough although it appears
no research was done beyond reading the Vanity Fair article (or
something similar). One who has never heard of "furries" before may be
led to belive that the hobby is all about fursuiting but at least there
was nothing presented to cause a panic either.
Personally I'd be more concerned if one of the news magazine shows like
"60 Minutes" or "Dateline" decided to do an expose.
--
-Akai
"Joseph Javorsky, respected scientist. Now a fiend prowling the
wastelands,
a prehistoric beast in a nuclear age. Kill, kill just to be killing."
-The Beast of Yucca Flats
MiMiC_x9
this (Ikea commercial, TV, "Meet the parents, etc). Do people riot due
to these "horrible displays of independence"? No, of course not. Why? As
people in today's society are far too stressed about the big problems in
their everyday lives than to worry about what goes on behind closed
doors. Tolerance is a slow growing thing indeed... but everything is
accepted eventually. All it takes is time.
MiMiC
--
.:Welcome to a Wonderland of Caffinated Goodness:.
+===ICQ : 65079305===+
.:. "Codename: Birthdark" .:.
A furry story of intrigue, humor, and femme bashing (yay!)
http://www.FurNation.com/MiMiCs_Universe/ (DOWN ATM!)
http://members.home.net/mimic-x9/ (MIRRORED HERE!)
FFS3amwAC-D+H++M+PR++T+++W>++++$ZSm++RLU/BM/CT/LWa-cnuw++++
d++e->++++f-h*>--iw++>wf+++j---p*>+sm#
Marc Fuller
>
> Mephit, Floyd wrote--
>
>
> I'm not a big fan of "ER", so I didn't watch the episode in question. (I was
> watching "Primetime Live" on ABC, opposite of NBC, instead.) So I didn't see
> for myself how "ER" depicted furries. Therefore I have no opinion. If the show
> portrayed us in a negative light, we can write to NBC and the "ER" producers
> mail explaining more about our fandom.
>
> John Shughart
And they'll do the same thing as VF - ignore the umpteen-hundred (or dozen,
or whatever) literate, calm, rational letters, in favor of getting
something juicy out of whatever psycho-nutjob hatemail they get. (And they
will get it from someone.) "Furry fandom" isn't organized enough for them
to care about legally, and isn't large enough for them to care about
alienating politically. The fandom isn't important enough for them to care
about doing accurate research. Since the spooge-meisters and
plushie-humpers are the ones that will get the biggest reaction from the
viewing public, that is how furry will be portrayed. They don't mind
insulting Trekkies, and they're a lot better organized at the moment.
Marc Fuller
Furplay
You see, I own a "ReplayTV" (please forgive the following, since I know
it sounds like a brag when it's not meant to be), of which one of it's
nifty functions is to create a "theme channel" (you type in a keyword,
set the "channel", and the unit will scour it's database (based from the
gist.com TV system) for any and all programs containing that keyword in
the actor/director/show name/show description categories [as well as
search each new listing update once it downloads it from the network
each night] and would set itself to record that show).
Ever since I heard about Mister Duanne's sellout of furry fandom to Mtv,
I've had a "furry" and a "furries" channel standing by to snatch it as
soon as it airs. And so far, it's been quiet on the furry front.
If the media's out to ruin furrydom, they have'nt been advertising it (yet).
[Now when The 700 Club starts doing something on "furries". THAT should
be a weird bit of vid]
--
"Who's driving? Oh my God! Bear is driving!! How can that be?????"
Furplay
>
> Personally, I thought it portrayed both sides of the issue rather well.
>
> There are those that appreciate the genre as a part of sci-fi/fantasy and those
> who make it a lifestyle.
>
> I thought they did their research rather well and was even surprised that they
> even made an effort to distinguish that there is a difference.
>
> Hell, I was just surprised to see it portrayed in a main stream show at all!
>
> I say kudos to the writers.
>
> Well, that's my .02 cents anyway.
>
> -Becky
I'm just talking total bollocks based on what Mephit wrote, but the hint
that 'scritching" was a lead-up to molestation, and someone having a
wank with a hand puppet (oh, imagine the bloody horror that would ensue
if Darell cought this guy doing THAT at CF).
Um, where's the distinguishing that there is a difference?
--
"Who's driving? Oh my God! Bear is driving!! How can that be?????"
* must.......resist.......making........"Goofus and Gallant" references!!
Tara
> Man, I missed it but my friend told me all about it. That sounds like a pile
> full of shit that a writer pulled off from all the bad press furries have been
> getting.
>
> I for one, definately am not "pleased" with the way furries were portrayed right
> there.
>
> A
> fterFox
Hi Afterfoxy! :D
Goodness, isn't that feeding the sterotypes. :/ I've never encountered a
truly insightful and well researched plot.
It's no different than -10 years ago when blacks were portrayed as bank robbers and
hispanics portrayed as drug dealers. +10 years from now furries won't be portrated
as
satan worshippers and child molesters.
But I'm sure some other group will still be sterotyped +20 years from now, it's too
bad writters can't just learn to stop sterotyping. :/
I have a scrip for ER: two writers get send to the ER on fire, everyone watches as
they
burn to death in slo-motion for an hour. ^.^
I'd watch that!
--
Sincerely, ,"-_ \|/
-Capt. Taura M. , O=__ --X--
..__ ,_JNMNNEO=_ /|\
OMNOUMmnne. {OMMNNNEEEEOO=_
UOOOBIOOOEOMMn. 'LONMMMMNNEEEOOO=.__..,,..
UUOOEUUOOOOOOOObe '"=OMMMMWNEEEOOOOO,"=OEEEOO=,._
OOUUUIEEIOONNOIUbe. "7OMMMMNNNNNWWEEEEOOOOOO" "'.
EEBNNMMMNWNWWEEIMMNe. __ 7EMMMNNNNNWWWEEEEEEEOO. " .
NNMMMMWWWMMMWEINMMMNn "=BBEEEEMMMMMMMMNNNWWWEEOOOOO=._ .
http://furry.ao.net/~learfox/
Tara
> Personally, I thought it portrayed both sides of the issue rather well.
>
> There are those that appreciate the genre as a part of sci-fi/fantasy and those
> who make it a lifestyle.
>
> I thought they did their research rather well and was even surprised that they
> even made an effort to distinguish that there is a difference.
>
> Hell, I was just surprised to see it portrayed in a main stream show at all!
>
> I say kudos to the writers.
I don't inject opinion unless I feel my prescription can be an improvement,
in this case it could have. How to get furs into the ER from a con, why not
a stage act on bad or a fur suit catch on fire? Something more creative would
be fine as long as it wasn't so negative, the arguement wasn't all that too much
but I feel the segment was too much portraying `nasty tree-huggers' with very
extreme character.
First rule is to not portray something obscure from mainstream from distant
corners.
Furplay
>
>
> I'm not a big fan of "ER", so I didn't watch the episode in question. (I was
> watching "Primetime Live" on ABC, opposite of NBC, instead.) So I didn't see
> for myself how "ER" depicted furries. Therefore I have no opinion. If the show
> portrayed us in a negative light, we can write to NBC and the "ER" producers
> mail explaining more about our fandom.
>
*sigh* You guys never learn, do you?
Nebulous
'Survivor' last night?
--
Nebulous Rikulau
My furcode
FFCs4a A- C* D H+ M- P++ R+ T+++ W Z+ Sm RLRB/AT a+ cn++ d-- e+ f h+ i+ j+
p+ sm-
Brian O'connell
barcolounger lounging lowest common denominator is laughing at us now... I
make the proposal that we dissolve furry fandom, burn all furry
material, and commit ritualistic suicide immediately...
Either that, or evolve a sense of humor... Your choice...
--
Reverse the e-mail's spelling to reply...
Nashoba
show, and what made it worse was the 'furry' content... or lack thereof.
Well, I guess all who decided to open their muzzles to Vanity Fair got
what they deserved here. Seems like the producers of E.R. had fun
putting this one together after they saw all the plush-screwing,
"weird-sex" supposed 'furs' in Vanity Fair.
I try to stay out of politics because I am very busy and have site
members to take care of, but I do have my opinions at times too. And my
opinion on this is: everyone who took part in the Vanity Fair article,
thanks for nothing...
--
Nashoba
FurNetwork.net, Owner
Joe Strike
tongue-in-cheek. An organized protest by any established special interest group would
get a lot of press attention & make a studio or network very nervous, whereas if
anyone even noticed a protest by furries, it would be as material for another snide
throwaway gag
Joe Strike
had any idea they were onto something when they wrote that 25+ years ago
Furplay
>
> Don't you remember Monty Python's 'mouse party' sketch? I wonder the Pythons
> had any idea they were onto something when they wrote that 25+ years ago
Eek!
Kimba W. Lion
while you do the important business of blaming other people for your
complaint.
Kimba
magnwa
<negativity snipped>
> Nashoba
> FurNetwork.net, Owner
>
Some people take themselves far too seriously. IF you want to make a
difference in this world, make a difference. Being tagged a furry won't
stop that.
Sheesh. Grow up, stop fighting over stupid stuff, and make a difference or
sit down and shut up. :)
Magnwa
Joe Ekaitis
--
Joe Ekaitis
JoeEk...@anthro-animal-art.com
http://anthro-animal-art.com
"Mephit, Floyd" <floyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ct5u2$iph$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
Joe Ekaitis
"Brian O'connell" <1lla...@tsewsu.ten> wrote in message
news:9cu5j9$lok$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
Dean L. Norton
Joe Ekaitis wrote:
> "Fur-turama". . .now THAT was pure genius. :)
My wife was watching ER..I was outside tending to my bonsai grove. She come out
to tell me what was going on...all I could think of was "Man...folks will have a
field day on AFF.." I did come in on the guy in the suit "supposedly" yankin'
off with a puppet...I found it more amusing than anything. But you know...they
probably pull those dumb costumes out of some Hollywood backstage vault because no
real died-in-wool fursuiter would wear those ugly things!!
==========================================
BLATANT PLUGS v1.1 & v2k.5can be found at:
http://www.deanleenorton.com
Also, visit my Delphi Discussion Forum at:
http://www.delphi.com/deanleenorton/
==========================================
Jak Crow
> Hi Afterfoxy! :D
> Goodness, isn't that feeding the sterotypes. :/ I've never encountered a
> truly insightful and well researched plot.
> It's no different than -10 years ago when blacks were portrayed as bank
> robbers and hispanics portrayed as drug dealers. +10 years from now
> furries won't be portrated as satan worshippers and child molesters.
Please. Furry is nothing but an interest group. It's a HELL of a
LOT different than the opression ethnic groups have suffered for YEARS. To
even compare the jokes made at furs' expense to racism is ridiculous.
> But I'm sure some other group will still be sterotyped +20 years from
> now, it's too
Yes, but I'm sure what happens to that group won't be an horrible
and shocking as what's been done to a CERTAIN GROUP of furs
> bad writters can't just learn to stop sterotyping. :/
Certain furs need to realize how funny they are to the rest of the
world.
> I have a scrip for ER: two writers get send to the ER on fire, everyone
> watches as they burn to death in slo-motion for an hour. ^.^
Wow, how enlightened of you.
Bender
Jak Crow
<snip>
> Furries fall in the same category as sci-fi fans, at best, as far as the
> writers are concerned. I.e, a generally defined but non-cohesive bunch of
> goof-balls and freaks that they can write in as anything from comic relief
> to "example of citizen gone tragically wrong."
Which is pretty much correct! :)
Jak Crow
> Similar to what the BDSM crowd has gone through.. they've been the
> "feature" on several episodes of Law and Order: Special Victim Unit.
> Seems to be a popular place to screw with out-of-the-ordinary sexual
> interests, makes for interesting stories (read: anything to do with
> sex that might titillate a jaded audience.) I wouldn't be surprised
> to see furry get "honorable" mention there, if the writer or writers
> have seen the VF article. Feh. As one person put it on
> soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm (paraphrasing): "it's like where the cops
> draw their guns every episode, everything is exaggerated for the drama
> in the story." The problem is, way too many people believe the sh*t
> they see on the tube is an accurate reflection of reality.
Oh good. Compare furry to BDSM. That'll REALLY HELP.
Sarenthalanos
Caballito <cam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3af3ece2...@news.alltel.net...
(snip)
> The problem is, way too many people believe the sh*t
> they see on the tube is an accurate reflection of reality.
Actually, for some people I'd hazard a guess that whatever dreck they see on
the tube IS their reality.
-Sar
Jak Crow
> And they'll do the same thing as VF - ignore the umpteen-hundred (or dozen,
> or whatever) literate, calm, rational letters, in favor of getting
> something juicy out of whatever psycho-nutjob hatemail they get. (And they
> will get it from someone.) "Furry fandom" isn't organized enough for them
> to care about legally, and isn't large enough for them to care about
> alienating politically. The fandom isn't important enough for them to care
> about doing accurate research. Since the spooge-meisters and
> plushie-humpers are the ones that will get the biggest reaction from the
> viewing public, that is how furry will be portrayed. They don't mind
> insulting Trekkies, and they're a lot better organized at the moment.
Just throw in some refereneces to BDSM and racian and I'm sure
you'll get their attention in a letter writing campaign.
Jak Crow
> And they'll do the same thing as VF - ignore the umpteen-hundred (or dozen,
> or whatever) literate, calm, rational letters, in favor of getting
> something juicy out of whatever psycho-nutjob hatemail they get. (And they
> will get it from someone.) "Furry fandom" isn't organized enough for them
> to care about legally, and isn't large enough for them to care about
> alienating politically. The fandom isn't important enough for them to care
> about doing accurate research. Since the spooge-meisters and
> plushie-humpers are the ones that will get the biggest reaction from the
> viewing public, that is how furry will be portrayed. They don't mind
> insulting Trekkies, and they're a lot better organized at the moment.
Just throw in some refereneces to BDSM and racism and I'm sure
Akai
>
> Don't you remember Monty Python's 'mouse party' sketch? I wonder the Pythons
> had any idea they were onto something when they wrote that 25+ years ago
>
>
"....and then they started passing around the cheese..."
Been quite a while since I've seen that one. It seems that the fetish
aspect of costume wearing has been around for a while. There is that
scene in the "Shining" with the dog suit as well.
Akai
>
> On Fri, 04 May 2001 03:34:38 -0500, Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >If the media's out to ruin furrydom, they have'nt been advertising it (yet).
> >
> >[Now when The 700 Club starts doing something on "furries". THAT should
> >be a weird bit of vid]
> decide which animal best represents "buffoon"... Probably just himself
> with a beaver cap or something. ;)
>
> Caballito
"And now we have a story about a young man who says a fox costume led
him down the path of bizarre sexual practices and Satanic rituals, but
when he felt there was no way out he discovered the healing power of
God...right after these messages."
G. Raymond Eddy
> I don't think it would work. In the case of professionals, the writers
> care about technical accuracy, and the genuine ethnic groups are large
> enough and organized enough to be a legal pain in a libel/slander suit.
> Furries fall in the same category as sci-fi fans, at best, as far as the
> writers are concerned. I.e, a generally defined but non-cohesive bunch of
> goof-balls and freaks that they can write in as anything from comic relief
> to "example of citizen gone tragically wrong."
Which means we could eventually see an episode of /Law and Order/
where a fursuiter is found dead in a back alley with his heart blown
through with a shotgun, and they prosecute a fanatic who's read the
Burned Fur Manifesto.
--
___________ G. Raymond Eddy g e d @ r g t n t
(_ _ _ 748 N. Lisbon St. r d y b i h . e (zigzagged)
(__ __)__)(_/ Carrollton, OH 44615-1126 ICQ: #10322859
___________/ http://www.bright.net/~greddy
PeterCat
> Are you telling me that you think that people were watching anyting
> but 'Survivor' last night?
According to the Associated Press, "Survivor" was seen by 36.4 million
people, twice as many as watched "Friends" -- and the follow-on
interview show with Bryant Gumbel was the first program on any network
to beat a first-run episode of "ER" since the drama's first season
(1994). Ratings for "ER" weren't given in the article, but a CBS press
release says the "Survivor" special had 28.01 million viewers. Last
week's episode of "ER" had 17.8 million viewers.
--
The Furry InfoPage! http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/
pete...@Furry.fan.org (PeterCat) Rhal on FurryMUCK (come cuddle!)
--
"I can't believe what he's doing with those shiitake mushrooms!"
Watch "Iron Chef," Fridays and Saturdays at 10pm (ET) on Food Network!
Mephit, Floyd
"G. Raymond Eddy" <gre...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:3AF326E0...@bright.net...
>
> Which means we could eventually see an episode of /Law and Order/
> where a fursuiter is found dead in a back alley with his heart blown
> through with a shotgun, and they prosecute a fanatic who's read the
> Burned Fur Manifesto.
>
> --
> ___________ G. Raymond Eddy g e d @ r g t n t
I was just thinking about that when e.r. was on, that sometime in the future
an episode of Law and Order: SVU would feature 'furry' or fursuiting as the
fetish du jour. I would not be suprised in the least..watch for it.
Mephit, Floyd
"Brian O'connell" <1lla...@tsewsu.ten> wrote in message
news:9cu5j9$lok$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> barcolounger lounging lowest common denominator is laughing at us now... I
> make the proposal that we dissolve furry fandom, burn all furry
> material, and commit ritualistic suicide immediately...
>
>
> Either that, or evolve a sense of humor... Your choice...
>
> --
Suicide? Please no. I'm not really upset about the whole thing, just
disappointed. And yeah, I admit I couldn't help but laugh (it was funny, I
thought) but overall I wish it hadn't been on the show in the first place;
I'm sorta the 'leave well enough alone' type.
I also think it's funny that the average e.r. viewer is a wife-beater..oh
wait, maybe that's not so funny afterall.
Charles Melville
Nebulous wrote:
> Are you telling me that you think that people were watching anyting but
> 'Survivor' last night?
>
I know -I- was. I was watching DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE.
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
Charles Melville
Caballito wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2001 03:34:38 -0500, Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >If the media's out to ruin furrydom, they have'nt been advertising it (yet).
> >
> >[Now when The 700 Club starts doing something on "furries". THAT should
> >be a weird bit of vid]
> I'm trying to picture Pat Robertson wearing a fursuit... but I can't
> decide which animal best represents "buffoon"... Probably just himself
> with a beaver cap or something. ;)
I don't know about Pat Robertson... but Pat Boone might do it.
Charles Melville
Akai wrote:
> Joe Strike wrote:
> >
> > Don't you remember Monty Python's 'mouse party' sketch? I wonder the Pythons
> > had any idea they were onto something when they wrote that 25+ years ago
> >
> >
>
> "....and then they started passing around the cheese..."
>
> Been quite a while since I've seen that one. It seems that the fetish
> aspect of costume wearing has been around for a while. There is that
> scene in the "Shining" with the dog suit as well.
>
Not to mention HOTEL NEW HAMPSHIRE, with Natasjia Kinski in the bear suit.
Atara
>
>
>Nebulous wrote:
>
>> Are you telling me that you think that people were watching anyting but
>> 'Survivor' last night?
>>
>
> I know -I- was. I was watching DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE.
I didn't watch anything last night - I went for a walk with my husband. The
weather here is beautiful!
... for now. Until the mosquitos and the canker worms and the ticks come out.
*sigh*
--
Atara
"Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus."
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/
DishRoom1
>Nebulous wrote:
>
>> Are you telling me that you think that people were watching anyting but
>> 'Survivor' last night?
>>
>
> I know -I- was. I was watching DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE.
I watched "Who's Line Is It Anyway" and "Primetime Live".
John Shughart
Dr. Cat
: I think I'm finally going to throw in with the doomsayers on this one.
: There's nothing we can do now but watch it all go to pieces.
The way Star Trek fandom went to pieces after the Shatner "Get a Life" skit
on Saturday Night Live portrayed them as 30 year old losers living in mom's
basement who had never even kissed a girl? Just like the Star Trek stuff
we'll have no more cons, zines, newsgroups, fan websites, mucks, nothing?
Dang, it was fun while it lasted. Seeya.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Hey wait a minute. Star Trek fandom is still here! Cerulean
tricked me! Dang it! Give me that Furry Fandom membership card back!)
(Disclaimer disclaimer: They do have that whole "trekkies vs. trekkers"
schism though. Maybe this TV exposure will doom us to have conflicts
between people called stuff like "lifestylers" and "burned furs", and...
Oh wait a minute. So what's the problem we're going to have because of
this tv show again? Oh, some people will think we're weirdo perverts?
Well that'll be new, I don't think any of us have any preparation in how to
deal with that totally novel and unexpected reaction.)
Dr. Cat
: Don't you remember Monty Python's 'mouse party' sketch? I wonder the Pythons
: had any idea they were onto something when they wrote that 25+ years ago
Damn them, they ruined the fandom years before the fandom even EXISTED!
No wonder we've always had such problems, it's their fault!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: My friend from Spain (actually he lives in the Netherlands now
even though he's a Spaniard originally) brought a copy of the Mouse Problem
sketch on videotape to Confurence with him. But of course it was in PAL
format, not NTSC. There's a moral to that story somewhere, or an immoral,
but I don't know what it is. Fill in your own.)
ilr
> they
> burn to death in slo-motion for an hour. ^.^
>
>
Ehh, pass, that's a little too flambayant for my taste
-Ilr
Timmy Ramone
-----
/* efdtt.c Author: Charles M. Hannum
<ro...@ihack.net> */
/* Thanks to Phil Carmody <fat...@asdf.org> for additional
tweaks. */
/* Length: 434 bytes (excluding unnecessary
newlines) */
/* Usage is: cat title-key scrambled.vob | efdtt
>clear.vob */
#define m(i)(x[i]^s[i+84])<<
unsigned char
x[5],y,s[2048];main(n){for(read(0,x,5);read(0,s,n=2048);write(1,s
,n))if(s[y=s[13]%8+20]/16%4==1){int
i=m(1)17^256+m(0)8,k=m(2)0,j=m(4)17^m(3)9^k
*2-k%8^8,a=0,c=26;for(s[y]-=16;--c;j*=2)a=a*2^i&1,i=i/2^j&1<<24;for(j=127;++j<n
;c=c>y)c+=y=i^i/8^i>>4^i>>12,i=i>>8^y<<17,a^=a>>14,y=a^a*8^a<<6,a=a>>8^y<<9,k=s
[j],k="7Wo~'G_\216"[k&7]+2^"cr3sfw6v;*k+>/n."[k>>4]*2^k*257/8,s[j]=k^(k&k*2&34)
*6^c+~y;}}
Brian O'connell
flattery...;)
--
Reverse the e-mail's spelling to reply...
"ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:9d062k$rrl$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
Tara
> > It's no different than -10 years ago when blacks were portrayed as bank
> > robbers and hispanics portrayed as drug dealers. +10 years from now
> > furries won't be portrated as satan worshippers and child molesters.
>
> Please. Furry is nothing but an interest group. It's a HELL of a
> LOT different than the opression ethnic groups have suffered for YEARS. To
> even compare the jokes made at furs' expense to racism is ridiculous.
Yes, furry fans are far fewer than racial divisions of humans. But why is that
compare
`ridiculous'? Who's yard stick are you using to measure that to determine that
it is `ridiculous'?
You may appreciate writers portraying something that you participate in an
extreme
fashion of behavour (furries having an argument at a con and doing wierd
things).
But is this the best medical related portrait of furry fans that writers for a
TV show
on network TV can come up with?
> > But I'm sure some other group will still be sterotyped +20 years from
> > now, it's too
>
> Yes, but I'm sure what happens to that group won't be an horrible
> and shocking as what's been done to a CERTAIN GROUP of furs
Yer white, arn't you?
> > bad writters can't just learn to stop sterotyping. :/
>
> Certain furs need to realize how funny they are to the rest of the
> world.
*giggles at you* :)
> > I have a scrip for ER: two writers get send to the ER on fire, everyone
> > watches as they burn to death in slo-motion for an hour. ^.^
>
> Wow, how enlightened of you.
I love it when you take my sarcasim seriously.
--
Sincerely, ,"-_ \|/
-Capt. Taura M. , O=__ --X--
..__ ,_JNMNNEO=_ /|\
OMNOUMmnne. {OMMNNNEEEEOO=_
UOOOBIOOOEOMMn. 'LONMMMMNNEEEOOO=.__..,,..
UUOOEUUOOOOOOOObe '"=OMMMMWNEEEOOOOO,"=OEEEOO=,._
OOUUUIEEIOONNOIUbe. "7OMMMMNNNNNWWEEEEOOOOOO" "'.
EEBNNMMMNWNWWEEIMMNe. __ 7EMMMNNNNNWWWEEEEEEEOO. " .
NNMMMMWWWMMMWEINMMMNn "=BBEEEEMMMMMMMMNNNWWWEEOOOOO=._ .
http://furry.ao.net/~learfox/
Jak Crow
> Jak Crow wrote:
>> > It's no different than -10 years ago when blacks were portrayed as bank
>> > robbers and hispanics portrayed as drug dealers. +10 years from now
>> > furries won't be portrated as satan worshippers and child molesters.
>>
>> Please. Furry is nothing but an interest group. It's a HELL of a
>> LOT different than the opression ethnic groups have suffered for YEARS. To
>> even compare the jokes made at furs' expense to racism is ridiculous.
> Yes, furry fans are far fewer than racial divisions of humans. But why
> is that compare `ridiculous'?
Because saying furs are being treated in a way similar to racism
belittles the seriousness of racism. Now if you want to compare the
ridicule furs experience to, say, trekkies or rabid b5 fans, that would be
way more appropriate.
> Who's yard stick are you using to measure that to determine that it is
> `ridiculous'?
How about the world at large? The "world of furry" is unimportant
to the rest of the planet. If "furry" ceased to exist tomorrow, no one
would notice. I have never understood why people try and make the fandom
out to be more than it is.
> You may appreciate writers portraying something that you participate in an
> extreme fashion of behavour (furries having an argument at a con and
> doing wierd things). But is this the best medical related portrait of
> furry fans that writers for a TV show on network TV can come up with?
What? A pretty accurate representation of many furs? What's the
matter? Too close to home?
>> > But I'm sure some other group will still be sterotyped +20 years from
>> > now, it's too
>>
>> Yes, but I'm sure what happens to that group won't be as horrible
>> and shocking as what's been done to a CERTAIN GROUP of furs
> Yer white, arn't you?
Yes I am. You like playing race cards a lot, don't you?
>> > bad writters can't just learn to stop sterotyping. :/
>>
>> Certain furs need to realize how funny they are to the rest of the
>> world.
> *giggles at you* :)
You're not the rest of the world babe. You're one of the furs on
the receiving end of said laughter.
>> > I have a scrip for ER: two writers get send to the ER on fire, everyone
>> > watches as they burn to death in slo-motion for an hour. ^.^
>>
>> Wow, how enlightened of you.
>
> I love it when you take my sarcasim seriously.
I know sarcasm. When you get around to actually using some, let me
know.
Jak Crow
Cerulean
>Cerulean <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote:
>: I think I'm finally going to throw in with the doomsayers on this one.
>: There's nothing we can do now but watch it all go to pieces.
>
>The way Star Trek fandom went to pieces after the Shatner "Get a Life" skit
>on Saturday Night Live portrayed them as 30 year old losers living in mom's
>basement who had never even kissed a girl?
Everybody already knew what Star Trek is, and what Star Trek fandom
is. "Furry" is being introduced to the public. "There's these people
who have a fetish for dressing up as animals and wanking into puppets,
and they're called furries." People believe the first thing they hear,
so don't expect that definition to ever be corrected.
Incidentally, I think it's ironic that fursuiters are the ones
inevitably caught in the spotlight, because as a whole they seem to be
the one group that hasn't been caught up in the politics of the
fandom. They tend to enjoy what they do, both as an Art and as part of
their Life, and they haven't let themselves be pressured into picking
sides or even acknowledging that the line exists.
This, unfortunately, will likely change when people start to think of
costumes as a source of embarrassment (now that there IS observable
mainstream media attention and not just imagined public perceptions
that could be pinned on anyone), and hence a target for blame. The
early signs are already here, with everyone talking about the tattooed
fellow. And a few prominent pundits already illogically associate the
wearing of tails with every kind of person they despise. Fursuiters
are in danger of being branded across the board with the catch-all
label of "lifestyler" (which means, to those who use it that way,
anyone who "doesn't belong in the fandom") sooner or later. In a few
years, furry fans with short memories will be talking about how
fursuiters that have been in the fandom for decades "invaded from
outside and attached themselves."
If you think this is unlikely, think of the average exclusionist fan's
assumptions today about any person they see carrying around a plush
animal. People who used to think it was just fun to have a plushie
with them are avoiding the association now if they don't fit the
stereotype, and in this way the furry fandom slowly degenerates until
only the living stereotypes will remain.
--
___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 ( S>J37) - ,,'a)ew!J6 ay+ 77!> ue) 6u!y+oN,,
Cerulean
> Which means we could eventually see an episode of /Law and Order/
>where a fursuiter is found dead in a back alley with his heart blown
>through with a shotgun, and they prosecute a fanatic who's read the
>Burned Fur Manifesto.
Well, that presupposes too much knowledge on the part of the writers.
I don't think they would do that one until after it's happened for
real.
Joe Strike
inside a polar bear suit. (Seen a couple of publicity stills, not the movie yet)
> .... There is that
Dr. Cat
: If the media's out to ruin furrydom, they have'nt been advertising it (yet).
Dang, Furplay is saying something POSITIVE about whether furry fandom's
being ruined or not?
Have I wandered into a strange parallel universe by accident?
Man, now I gotta find a Star Trek rerun to watch so I can see if
Mr. Spock has a beard.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Except for that one parallel universe episode, with the
clean-shaven, non-murderous version of Spock.)
Dr. Cat
: Please. Furry is nothing but an interest group. It's a HELL of a
: LOT different than the opression ethnic groups have suffered for YEARS. To
: even compare the jokes made at furs' expense to racism is ridiculous.
Again with this common objection "You can't compare A to B, they're too
different!"
You can compare anything to anything else. Whether it sheds light on the
current subject of discussion depends on what you choose, why, and what
comparisons you make.
Suggesting "you can't make a meaningful point by comparing an extreme thing
to a mild thing" is just yet another version of this whole "Don't compare A
to B" fallacy. Consider the following example:
Mrs. Straw Man: "I don't believe you about that whole 'slap in the face at
a con' incident, I simply can't believe that any human being would ever be
rude or physically violent towards another."
Mr. Excessive Analogy: "Why no, you're provably wrong. Look here, Hitler
ordered the killings of millions of jews and homosexuals, which were then
actually carried out, that's both rude and violent. These ten books prove
that this happened." *thump of ten heavy hardback books hitting the table*
Mrs. Straw Man: "Why good heavens, you're right. I'm so stupid!"
...while proof of somebody being mildly rude and slapping someone at any
time in human history ALSO would have proven Mrs. Straw Man to be wrong,
the far more nasty and violent example proves her ludicrous claim to be
wrong as well. Were she to claim "Your Hitler example doesn't prove that
humans are sometimes violent to other humans for the simple reason that it
is so much more severe than the slapping-people-at-cons behavior under
discussion that it doesn't apply", she'd simply be wrong. She might try
to come up with some OTHER reason to show that the slapping incident in
question was a fabrication, but that first reason she tried was
successfully defeated by that Godwin's-Law-invoking example.
Amusingly enough, my OWN example here is an example of my same principle.
Somebody might foolishly claim that I've proven nothing because I chose
an example of ridiculous claims that real people would likely never make,
and that maybe only claims that ridiculous can be in any way addressed
by examples that are much more extreme than the case under discussion.
...if in fact, it were true that only ridiculous claims can be clarified
in any way by extreme examples, I would have indeed have engaged in some
kind of sneaky trick here, trying to prove something that isn't true.
But the fact is, many many sorts of common claims, opinions, and
discussions contain statements or beliefs that can meaningfully be explored
or clarified by comparisons to things far more extreme. And people do so
in conversation every single day. I will leave it as an excercise to each
reader to construct in their own mind one example of such an analogy
applying to some sort of discussion, debate, or argument.
If you can imagine such an example, you needn't attack my Mrs. Straw Man
story for not adequately proving my case, as you now have your own better
support for my argument. If you absolutely cannot think of any such
example, only then should you post here saying that you think perhaps no
such example can exist, and that I'm trying to defend the usability of
extreme examples more than they in fact deserve.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: But then I'll probably just think up and post a more
reasonable example, and make you look silly.)
(Footnote: Apples and oranges are both roughly spherical, though not
precisely so. Apples tend to deviate a bit more from a spherical shape
than oranges do. They're both fruits, contain seeds, and are sometimes
eaten by human beings, but humans are more likely to eat the skin of an
apple than that of an orange. Apples are generally red, yellow, or green
in color, whereas oranges are orange-colored. Oranges also contain more
vitamin C than apples do. People drink the juice of both fruits, but
generally only use the juice of apples to ferment and drink that way, or
make a "sauce" of the mashed up pulp. Oranges are more acidic than apples,
whereas apples are more crunchy than oranges. Both are available at many
supermarkets.)
Dr. Cat
: Quoth Dr. Cat:
:>Cerulean <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote:
:>: I think I'm finally going to throw in with the doomsayers on this one.
:>: There's nothing we can do now but watch it all go to pieces.
:>
:>The way Star Trek fandom went to pieces after the Shatner "Get a Life" skit
:>on Saturday Night Live portrayed them as 30 year old losers living in mom's
:>basement who had never even kissed a girl?
: Everybody already knew what Star Trek is, and what Star Trek fandom
: is. "Furry" is being introduced to the public.
Ah, I understand this crucial point now. Inform the public first and
then ridicule it on TV, and you can keep having a fandom and cons and
enjoying it. Ridicule it on TV first and let the public that way, and
the cons and fandom and all the rest will surely crumble. You convinced
me, I'm a true believer! Furry fandom will now die!
....ooops, wait. I changed my mind again, now I think it won't die. Wow,
that was scary there for about 3 seconds!
: People believe the first thing they hear,
: so don't expect that definition to ever be corrected.
Did you ever notice that people thought Star Trek fans were geeky losers
BEFORE the Shatner skit, and that many people still think that now?
Hate to tell you - but it's possible to have a fandom or other hobby and
enjoy the heck out of it even if millions of people worldwide think you're
a loser, pervert, weirdo, geek, freek, or sheik.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: But much MORE so if you're a sheik, I mean, a lot of those
guys really have the money to indulge in their hobbies way too much!)
Cerulean
>....ooops, wait. I changed my mind again, now I think it won't die. Wow,
>that was scary there for about 3 seconds!
Sigh. Fandom will continue to exist, as there will always be a subject
to be attracted to, but I'm thinking it will become intolerably
difficult to be active in the hobby once the entertainment industry
has earned their quick sensationalism megabucks training the public to
fear us. I never said "die," I said "fall to pieces," and it's already
been in several pieces for a few years. The furry fandom can look
forward to disintegrating down into its individual fans and some small
clusters and staying that way until the world forgets, which may be a
long time or a short one. Until that point when it all starts over,
there's nothing we can do.
ilr
> I take it "flambayant" was a calculated choice of words...
> Flamboyant is, after all, derived from a french term for "flaming", which
> is the condition the writers would be in... <G>
>
Yeah, you could call it that, or you could just call it a Bad-Pun :)
-ilr
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
>there's nothing we can do.
I can do better than just giving in and giving up.
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen: Still here, still happy.
Anthrofurry Infocenter:
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry
Jak Crow
> Cerulean wrote:
>>there's nothing we can do.
>
> Speak for yourself.
>
> I can do better than just giving in and giving up.
How about "chilling out"?
Dr. Cat
: Quoth Dr. Cat:
:>....ooops, wait. I changed my mind again, now I think it won't die. Wow,
:>that was scary there for about 3 seconds!
: Sigh. Fandom will continue to exist, as there will always be a subject
: to be attracted to, but I'm thinking it will become intolerably
: difficult to be active in the hobby once the entertainment industry
: has earned their quick sensationalism megabucks training the public to
: fear us.
What's going to be so much more difficult about going to a con, browsing
websites or a newsgroup, reading or contributing to a zine, sketching in
a sketchbook, or logging onto a MUCK than it is now? The level of
interaction with the general public required to get to a con generally
involves talking briefly to a travel agent, a few people at an airport,
and someone at the front desk of a hotel. What's going to become so
"intolerably difficult" about that? Calling a furry friends on the phone
or interacting online takes even less contact with the scary scary public.
It's all about interacting with the other participants in the hobby anyway,
and some non-zero percentage of people think it's weird already anyway -
they're quite easy to ignore, unless you have a chip on your shoulder like
maybe a dozen or so people in the fandom do - most of them furry
pornographers of one kind or another.
: I never said "die," I said "fall to pieces," and it's already
: been in several pieces for a few years. The furry fandom can look
: forward to disintegrating down into its individual fans and some small
: clusters and staying that way until the world forgets, which may be a
: long time or a short one. Until that point when it all starts over,
: there's nothing we can do.
Furry fandom has been dividing into pieces because it's been getting
BIGGER. It's too big to have just one con any more, for instance -
but that makes it EASIER to go to cons, not "intolerably difficult",
because there's more likely to be one that's a shorter trip! The
groups of people that it divides into because of highly different
tastes and interests, like alt.lifestyle.furry and alt.fan.furry, these
are hardly heading towards the size of "individual fans", they're quite
sizable and active subgroups. And they still participate in the larger
fandom as much as they wish to, just like the filkers and the Doctor Who
fans and the Pern fans haven't "disintegrated" from the larger sf/fantasy
fandom, and still go to its cons and everything.
No, I can't buy this argument that "some people making fun of us didn't
stop our fun, but more people making fun of us will". I can't see anything
that the general public is likely to do that would stop furry fans from
going to furry cons, or stop furry con organizers from running them. And
if the hotels are willing to keep putting up with the wild, lewd, and
destructive behavior of conventions of dentists, shriners, and other such
hooligans, I think they'll keep hosting the much tamer furry cons. Heck,
some hotels are still hosting BDSM or swinger's conventions, why would
they turn down the money from some fanboys selling each other drawings of
vixens in bikinis?
Anyway I'm not going to stop participating in one single furry fandom
type activity just because more people start thinking it's weird or
icky, and I think thousands of other furry fans are gonna stick with
it just the same way. It's not like they needed Joe Public to be patting
them on the back and saying "Hey, your hobby is wonderful and by the way
totally socially acceptable" in order to coax them to participate before.
Furry fandom's been growing steadily for years and years now, don't see
why it would stop. In fact, the negative publicity might cause some of
the people who'd like to be in furry fandom but didn't know about it to
find out that we exist, and come join in the fun. I think Anthrocon and
Further Confusion will continue to break their own (and each-other's)
attendance records for years to come.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Unless Doug Winger is allowed to continue to draw furry art.
Hey, THAT vixen has a suspicious bulge in her bikini bottoms, what could
possibly be in there unless... Oh-my-GAWD! That's just not right! Nobody
could tolerate that.)
(Disclaimer disclaimer: Except for the people that, you know, like it and
stuff. They can take two if that other guy doesn't want his. Extra
"special sauce" please.)
Gabriel Gentile
> I think I'm finally going to throw in with the doomsayers on this one.
> There's nothing we can do now but watch it all go to pieces.
Glad to have ya aboard. Grape?
--
Gabriel Gentile
spook...@earthlink.net
"We're all f----d. It helps to remember that."
-George Carlin
Tara
> Because saying furs are being treated in a way similar to racism
> belittles the seriousness of racism. Now if you want to compare the
> ridicule furs experience to, say, trekkies or rabid b5 fans, that would be
> way more appropriate.
Are you saying furries are treated as the utmost social group in the world's
eyes?
Favored to every whim and desire?
If not, then what would *you* label furries' treatment as?
> > Who's yard stick are you using to measure that to determine that it is
> > `ridiculous'?
>
> How about the world at large? The "world of furry" is unimportant
> to the rest of the planet. If "furry" ceased to exist tomorrow, no one
> would notice. I have never understood why people try and make the fandom
> out to be more than it is.
Well you just said that furries were not treated negativly in any way remotly
to similar treatment (say racisim). Now you say furries are virtually unknown.
Okay, then why are there sites like `christian parents against furries' and
`stop furries
because they rape animals'? Seems like furries are atleast minimally known,
furry fans
are even on main-stream TV (ER).
So furries are somewhat known, and there are groups that treat furries in a
similar
ignorant and hateful fashion.
> What? A pretty accurate representation of many furs? What's the
> matter? Too close to home?
No, they were portraying Akai, we're not all Akai's. ;P
> > Yer white, arn't you?
>
> Yes I am. You like playing race cards a lot, don't you?
I just thought you needed an increase in yer own med dosage ;)
> You're not the rest of the world babe. You're one of the furs on
> the receiving end of said laughter.
So are you. :p
> > I love it when you take my sarcasim seriously.
>
> I know sarcasm. When you get around to actually using some, let me
> know.
Yer so sweet. ^.^
Cerulean
>> I think I'm finally going to throw in with the doomsayers on this one.
>> There's nothing we can do now but watch it all go to pieces.
>
>Glad to have ya aboard. Grape?
Sorry, I don't intend to be be one of the ones gloating while it does,
so I'm not aboard your ship.
Al Goldman
writes:
>Quoth Gabriel Gentile:
>
>>> I think I'm finally going to throw in with the doomsayers on this one.
>>> There's nothing we can do now but watch it all go to pieces.
>>
>>Glad to have ya aboard. Grape?
>
>Sorry, I don't intend to be be one of the ones gloating while it does,
>so I'm not aboard your ship.
Cerulean, that was a sign of true class.
*sets his Respect-O-Meter up two and a half points*
Al Goldman
Akai
>
> Jak Crow wrote:
>
> > Because saying furs are being treated in a way similar to racism
> > belittles the seriousness of racism. Now if you want to compare the
> > ridicule furs experience to, say, trekkies or rabid b5 fans, that would be
> > way more appropriate.
>
> Are you saying furries are treated as the utmost social group in the world's
> eyes? Favored to every whim and desire?
>
> If not, then what would *you* label furries' treatment as?
"Furries" are not a religion or an economic class or an ethnic group.
They are a fandom on the fringes of science fiction fandom. They are at
the most an amusing oddity in the eyes of the mainstream. They are only
treated as a threat by other fringe groups.
> > > Who's yard stick are you using to measure that to determine that it is
> > > `ridiculous'?
> >
> > How about the world at large? The "world of furry" is unimportant
> > to the rest of the planet. If "furry" ceased to exist tomorrow, no one
> > would notice. I have never understood why people try and make the fandom
> > out to be more than it is.
>
> Well you just said that furries were not treated negativly in any way remotly
> to similar treatment (say racisim). Now you say furries are virtually > unknown.
>
> Okay, then why are there sites like `christian parents against furries' and
> `stop furries because they rape animals'? Seems like furries are atleast
> minimally known, furry fans are even on main-stream TV (ER).
*ahem* The Christian anti-furry website was proven a fake long ago. Pay
attention.
> So furries are somewhat known, and there are groups that treat furries in a
> similar ignorant and hateful fashion.
What he was saying is that the negativity shown toward "furries" is not
comparable in scope or severity to racism. No one has ever been killed
for being a "furry". No one has been denied the right to vote or attend
a school or move into a neighborhood because he or she is a "furry".
Furthermore being a "furry" is strictly a matter of choice, unlike being
part of and ethnic group.
No one has to know that I like to read Usagi Yojimbo or draw funny
animals and it's not something that I wear on my sleeve.
It's only the people who insist on flying their freak flag high that
draw the collective chuckles from the mainstream. That's the point that
been repeated time and time again on this forum.
> > What? A pretty accurate representation of many furs? What's the
> > matter? Too close to home?
>
> No, they were portraying Akai, we're not all Akai's. ;P
Are you saying that the writers for ER were portrying "furries" the same
way that I see them? Strange that you would think that since I primarily
associate the fandom with anthropomorphic media (comic books, novels,
animated works, etc.) and don't give much thought to fursuiters.
> > > Yer white, arn't you?
> >
> > Yes I am. You like playing race cards a lot, don't you?
>
> I just thought you needed an increase in yer own med dosage ;)
Lousy attempt at dodging the question. You are a bigot and will take any
opportunity to use race, religion, class and gender to pidgeonhole
someone you don't agree with.
This makes it all the more amusing that you decry the treatment of
"furries" as being equivalent to racism.
--
-Akai
"Joseph Javorsky, respected scientist. Now a fiend prowling the
wastelands,
a prehistoric beast in a nuclear age. Kill, kill just to be killing."
-The Beast of Yucca Flats
Gabriel Gentile
>>> I think I'm finally going to throw in with the doomsayers on this one.
>>> There's nothing we can do now but watch it all go to pieces.
>>
>> Glad to have ya aboard. Grape?
>
> Sorry, I don't intend to be be one of the ones gloating while it does,
> so I'm not aboard your ship.
Ohhhhh! Y'know what? You want the MOURNING cruise. That loads over at bay
13.
This here's the PARTY boat!
C'mon everybody, CONGA!
~\oYa-ta-ta-ta-ta... HEY! Ya-ta-ta-ta-ta... HEY!~\o
--
Gabriel Gentile
Spook...@earthlink.net
"Tragedy is if I cut my finger,
Comedy is if you walk into an open sewer and die."
-Mel Brooks
Ucalegon
>Joe Strike wrote:
>>
>> Don't you remember Monty Python's 'mouse party' sketch? I wonder the Pythons
>> had any idea they were onto something when they wrote that 25+ years ago
Well, they were on to parodying exposes of homosexuality, if anyone hadn't
heard that.
Acag, Treesong
Acag, Treesong (ucal...@aol.com)
Jak Crow
> Jak Crow wrote:
>
>> Because saying furs are being treated in a way similar to racism
>> belittles the seriousness of racism. Now if you want to compare the
>> ridicule furs experience to, say, trekkies or rabid b5 fans, that would be
>> way more appropriate.
>
> Are you saying furries are treated as the utmost social group in the world's
> eyes?
No, you apparently are.
> Favored to every whim and desire?
I guess that's what you want isn't it?
> If not, then what would *you* label furries' treatment as?
Perhaps considered "weird", just like most other rabid
fandoms. Deal with it.
>> > Who's yard stick are you using to measure that to determine that it is
>> > `ridiculous'?
>>
>> How about the world at large? The "world of furry" is unimportant
>> to the rest of the planet. If "furry" ceased to exist tomorrow, no one
>> would notice. I have never understood why people try and make the fandom
>> out to be more than it is.
>
> Well you just said that furries were not treated negativly in any way remotly
> to similar treatment (say racisim). Now you say furries are virtually
> unknown.
Heh, never said that. I clearly said they're ridiculed, you're the
one that wants to call it "racism".
> Okay, then why are there sites like `christian parents against furries' and
> `stop furries because they rape animals'? Seems like furries are
> atleast minimally known, furry fans are even on main-stream TV (ER).
> So furries are somewhat known, and there are groups that treat furries
> in a similar ignorant and hateful fashion.
And there are people that treat trekkies the same way, but don't
even try to compare it to real class or ethnic discrimination. Please
stop. The melodrama is making my sides hurt from laughing so much.
>> What? A pretty accurate representation of many furs? What's the
>> matter? Too close to home?
>
> No, they were portraying Akai, we're not all Akai's. ;P
But there are more people like that than you would care to admit.
>> > Yer white, arn't you?
>>
>> Yes I am. You like playing race cards a lot, don't you?
>
> I just thought you needed an increase in yer own med dosage ;)
Wow. Are you so weak in your position you feel the need to try
personal insults? Are you projecting your own problems on me? I'm quite
med free thanks. My experience with furry would indicate that many furs
would -benefit- from medication.
>
>> You're not the rest of the world babe. You're one of the furs on
>> the receiving end of said laughter.
>
> So are you. :p
You seem to be laughing in minimal company deary.
Jak Crow
> Tara wrote:
>>
>> Jak Crow wrote:
>>
>> > Because saying furs are being treated in a way similar to racism
>> > belittles the seriousness of racism. Now if you want to compare the
>> > ridicule furs experience to, say, trekkies or rabid b5 fans, that would be
>> > way more appropriate.
>>
>> Are you saying furries are treated as the utmost social group in the world's
>> eyes? Favored to every whim and desire?
>>
>> If not, then what would *you* label furries' treatment as?
> "Furries" are not a religion or an economic class or an ethnic group.
> They are a fandom on the fringes of science fiction fandom. They are at
> the most an amusing oddity in the eyes of the mainstream. They are only
> treated as a threat by other fringe groups.
So when is the war between the trekkies and the furs breaking
out? I think the trekkies would win. They have more weapons. :)
One thing I've always noticed is when something makes fun of furs
in any way, a certain group has to attack the source of the "slight"
en'masse. It's always the same people, which means they don't have any
clue how to defend themselves and end up being too pussy when it comes to
any kind of confrontation. Yet they keep complaining about when Something
Awful has an "awful link of the day" about a furry site, or the pretty
funny search engine that portalofevil.com has for furry sites. For christs
sake, you've got people comparing what's "happening to furry" to something
that has apparently happened to various bondage groups. How the HELL does
that help their case?
>> > What? A pretty accurate representation of many furs? What's the
>> > matter? Too close to home?
>>
>> No, they were portraying Akai, we're not all Akai's. ;P
> Are you saying that the writers for ER were portrying "furries" the same
> way that I see them? Strange that you would think that since I primarily
> associate the fandom with anthropomorphic media (comic books, novels,
> animated works, etc.) and don't give much thought to fursuiters.
I have a feeling the ER thing was more true that these people want
to admit.
>> > > Yer white, arn't you?
>> >
>> > Yes I am. You like playing race cards a lot, don't you?
>>
>> I just thought you needed an increase in yer own med dosage ;)
>
> Lousy attempt at dodging the question. You are a bigot and will take any
> opportunity to use race, religion, class and gender to pidgeonhole
> someone you don't agree with.
It would seem the people that scream racism the loudest
discriminate the most.
> This makes it all the more amusing that you decry the treatment of
> "furries" as being equivalent to racism.
I agree with this statement.
Jak Crow
> Jak Crow <new...@werewolves.org> wrote:
> : Please. Furry is nothing but an interest group. It's a HELL of a
> : LOT different than the opression ethnic groups have suffered for YEARS. To
> : even compare the jokes made at furs' expense to racism is ridiculous.
>
> Again with this common objection "You can't compare A to B, they're too
> different!"
>
> You can compare anything to anything else. Whether it sheds light on the
> current subject of discussion depends on what you choose, why, and what
> comparisons you make.
Sure, you can compare anything to anything else, that doesn't mean
it -applies-.
> Suggesting "you can't make a meaningful point by comparing an extreme thing
> to a mild thing" is just yet another version of this whole "Don't compare A
> to B" fallacy. Consider the following example:
<snip>
I find it's much easier to make a clear point than to play with
circular logic.
Jak Crow
> Tara wrote:
>>
>> Jak Crow wrote:
>>
>> > Because saying furs are being treated in a way similar to racism
>> > belittles the seriousness of racism. Now if you want to compare the
>> > ridicule furs experience to, say, trekkies or rabid b5 fans, that would be
>> > way more appropriate.
>>
>> Are you saying furries are treated as the utmost social group in the world's
>> eyes? Favored to every whim and desire?
>>
>> If not, then what would *you* label furries' treatment as?
> "Furries" are not a religion or an economic class or an ethnic group.
> They are a fandom on the fringes of science fiction fandom. They are at
> the most an amusing oddity in the eyes of the mainstream. They are only
> treated as a threat by other fringe groups.
So when is the war between the trekkies and the furs breaking
out? I think the trekkies would win. They have more weapons. :)
>> > > Who's yard stick are you using to measure that to determine that it is
One thing I've always noticed is when something makes fun of furs
in any way, a certain group has to attack the source of the "slight"
en'masse. It's always the same people, which means they don't have any
clue how to defend themselves and end up being too pussy when it comes to
any kind of confrontation. Yet they keep complaining about when places
like Something Awful has an "awful link of the day" about a furry site, or
the pretty funny search engine that portalofevil.com has for furry web
pages. For christs sake, you've got people comparing what's "happening to
furry" to something that has apparently happened to various bondage
groups. How the HELL does that help their case?
>> > What? A pretty accurate representation of many furs? What's the
>> > matter? Too close to home?
>>
>> No, they were portraying Akai, we're not all Akai's. ;P
> Are you saying that the writers for ER were portrying "furries" the same
> way that I see them? Strange that you would think that since I primarily
> associate the fandom with anthropomorphic media (comic books, novels,
> animated works, etc.) and don't give much thought to fursuiters.
I have a feeling the ER thing was more true that these people want
to admit.
>> > > Yer white, arn't you?
>> >
>> > Yes I am. You like playing race cards a lot, don't you?
>>
>> I just thought you needed an increase in yer own med dosage ;)
>
> Lousy attempt at dodging the question. You are a bigot and will take any
> opportunity to use race, religion, class and gender to pidgeonhole
> someone you don't agree with.
It would seem the people that scream racism the loudest
discriminate the most.
> This makes it all the more amusing that you decry the treatment of
> "furries" as being equivalent to racism.
I agree with this statement.
Akai
>
> Akai <ak...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > It's only the people who insist on flying their freak flag high that
> > draw the collective chuckles from the mainstream. That's the point that
> > been repeated time and time again on this forum.
>
> One thing I've always noticed is when something makes fun of furs
> in any way, a certain group has to attack the source of the "slight"
> en'masse. It's always the same people, which means they don't have any
> clue how to defend themselves and end up being too pussy when it comes to
> any kind of confrontation. Yet they keep complaining about when places
> like Something Awful has an "awful link of the day" about a furry site, or
> the pretty funny search engine that portalofevil.com has for furry web
> pages. For christs sake, you've got people comparing what's "happening to
> furry" to something that has apparently happened to various bondage
> groups. How the HELL does that help their case?
To be fair there are some individuals who claim to have been hurt (on
the job market) as the result of people associating them with the
weirder elements of "furry", thus the Burned Furs were born, but a lot
of it seems to be a case of people being paranoid of just having thin
skin. And some people just love running around claiming that the sky is
falling.
I think there will always be people who like funny animal comics and
'zines, books and movies, whether there is an organized fandom or not,
regardless of what anyone else thinks. Being part of any
narrowly-focused fandom runs the risk of drawing some ridicule, no
matter how well behaved the members might be. Hell, there are acutally
people who hold conventions honoring "Space 1999". In spite of all the
weird looks and people bashing their show they will go on meeting and
enjoying what they love.
Timmy Ramone
>
> ...Hell, there are acutally
> people who hold conventions honoring "Space 1999". In spite of all the
> weird looks and people bashing their show they will go on meeting and
> enjoying what they love.
Gerry Anderson rules! :)
--
"Hey, ho -- let's go!" -Ramones
Kimba W. Lion
>Hell, there are acutally
>people who hold conventions honoring "Space 1999". In spite of all the
>weird looks and people bashing their show they will go on meeting and
>enjoying what they love.
They're just closet furries. (Remember Catherine Schell's character?)
Kimba
Tara
> If not, then what would *you* label furries' treatment as?
>
> Perhaps considered "weird", just like most other rabid
> fandoms. Deal with it.
No, portraying groups irresponsibly, misleading, or extremly is wrong,
deal with it! ;P
> > Well you just said that furries were not treated negativly in any way remotly
> > to similar treatment (say racisim). Now you say furries are virtually
> > unknown.
>
> Heh, never said that. I clearly said they're ridiculed, you're the
> one that wants to call it "racism".
I gave an example that portraying groups by race is another example of
sterotypical
and irresponsable portrale that could hurt their image unfairly.
I never called it nor implied it to be racism. :p
> And there are people that treat trekkies the same way, but don't
> even try to compare it to real class or ethnic discrimination. Please
> stop. The melodrama is making my sides hurt from laughing so much.
*scribbles* mmmhmmm, symptoms of being `white'... ^.^
> > No, they were portraying Akai, we're not all Akai's. ;P
>
> But there are more people like that than you would care to admit.
Uuuh, well I would admit there are *too many* people like Akai.
> > I just thought you needed an increase in yer own med dosage ;)
>
> Wow. Are you so weak in your position you feel the need to try
> personal insults? Are you projecting your own problems on me? I'm quite
> med free thanks. My experience with furry would indicate that many furs
> would -benefit- from medication.
No, I just like to increase yer meds, silly. ;P
Akai
Been such a long time since I saw it last but I sorta do. Turned into a
cute little fox in one episode.
I admit that I did own a model of one of those chunky-looking space
vehicles at one time. I probably would have liked the show better if
they used some "SuperMarionation" action instead of a bunch of wooden
human actors.
--
-Akai
"Remember when you were young, you shone like the sun
Shine on you crazy diamond..."
-Pink Floyd
Dr. Cat
: Dr. Cat <c...@sullivan.realtime.net> wrote:
:> Jak Crow <new...@werewolves.org> wrote:
:> : Please. Furry is nothing but an interest group. It's a HELL of a
:> : LOT different than the opression ethnic groups have suffered for YEARS. To
:> : even compare the jokes made at furs' expense to racism is ridiculous.
:>
:> Again with this common objection "You can't compare A to B, they're too
:> different!"
:>
:> You can compare anything to anything else. Whether it sheds light on the
:> current subject of discussion depends on what you choose, why, and what
:> comparisons you make.
: Sure, you can compare anything to anything else, that doesn't mean
: it -applies-.
It might apply and it might not apply. As covered by my above statement
"Whether it sheds light depends on..." What I was objecting to is the
implication that any comparison involving two thing hugely different from
each other never applies or sheds light. Which is provably false, some
such comparisons DO work quite well.
:> Suggesting "you can't make a meaningful point by comparing an extreme thing
:> to a mild thing" is just yet another version of this whole "Don't compare A
:> to B" fallacy. Consider the following example:
: <snip>
: I find it's much easier to make a clear point than to play with
: circular logic.
Don't make comparisons between two extremely different things that rely
on circular logic, then. But go right ahead and make such comparisons
if they DO apply and DON'T involve circular logic.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Or if you have this much trouble with it, just stop comparing
things. But for goodness sakes let the experienced experts continue to
make their comparisons. And stop complaining to your mom that the people
who can compare stuff to other stuff win arguments more often than you do.
It's unseemly to call attention to your own limitations, and besides, if
you mention that then you're COMPARING yourself to them, aren't you? C'mon
and stop that comparing stuff before you hurt yourself. Put down the
analogy! Step away from that metaphor and come out with your hands up!)
Charles Melville
I didn't see the show, and I haven't bothered to look at the clips, so I
don't really know for a certainty... but I have to admit that this episode
just doesn't really sound like such a big deal overall. It doesn't really
put us in a bad light, although it doesn't seem to be all that much of a good
light either. However... I get a completely different impression of this
epsiode than anyone else who's posted thus far. It seems to me from what
I've been reading here (and someone can correct me if this isn't so) that
there's -still- something of an inaccurate representation here.
Maybe something was mentioned during the scene; I don't know, since I
didn't see it, and I don't recall anyone else mentioning it here, but the
impression I get of Furry Fandom on ER from the discussion I've see so far...
is that we're all a bunch of fur-suited goofs.
(Not that fursuiters are goofs; just that the scene itself is somewhat
goofy in nature.)
Is that it? Is that the extent of how Furry Fandom is seen now? As a
bunch of guys who wear fur-suits? Was there no mention of furry literature,
comics, artwork, etc? It all gets boiled away into a nutshell summary of
'guys dressed up in animal mascot outfits'?
Quite apart from the question of how sane or weird it tried to portray
Furry Fandom as a whole, it portrays a small fragment of the fandom (the
fursuiters) as being the center or the whole of the fandom. I understand it
probably wasn't possible or practical to portray much more than they did
within the context of the show... but all the same, it winds up leaving an
image of Furry Fandom that is nothing at all like the one I participate in.
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
Atara
<3AFB44FC...@zipcon.com>:
>Quite apart from the question of how sane or weird it tried to
> portray
>Furry Fandom as a whole, it portrays a small fragment of the fandom
>(the fursuiters) as being the center or the whole of the fandom. I
>understand it probably wasn't possible or practical to portray much
>more than they did within the context of the show... but all the same,
>it winds up leaving an image of Furry Fandom that is nothing at all
>like the one I participate in.
...just like how most sci-fi con-goers/fans cringe when they think of the
general public's perception of what a convention is like - 99% of the folks in
Klingon or Starfleet costumes.
Welcome to fandom.
--
Atara
"Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus."
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/
Kimba W. Lion
> On the other hand...
>
> I didn't see the show, and I haven't bothered to look at the clips
This is so much like what I just saw on Wednesday's Daily Show (via the
magic of video tape) that I want to burst out laughing.
> Is that it? Is that the extent of how Furry Fandom is seen now? As a
>bunch of guys who wear fur-suits? Was there no mention of furry literature,
>comics, artwork, etc? It all gets boiled away into a nutshell summary of
>'guys dressed up in animal mascot outfits'?
You got it in a nutshell. Just like The Sopranos depicts how every
Italian-American lives.
>it winds up leaving an
>image of Furry Fandom that is nothing at all like the one I participate in.
Maybe it would help if you'd participate just an eensy bit more and look at
the clips. Or maybe you're off to push a resolution through Congress
condemning ER? (Daily Show reference again.)
*ahem* (trying to see if I can explain this)
Not everyone who dons a fursuit would call himself furry, however some who
do wear and perform in fursuits do call themselves furry. And some of those
do, consider it a good way to express the animal inside. Thus, the ER script
was perfectly reasonable. But extrapolating that subset outward to say that
all those who would call themselves "furry" wear fursuits because they have
an inner kangaroo is just as ridiculous as expecting ER to encompass the
entirety of Furry Fandom in the two minutes (and 23 seconds) this subplotlet
got.
> I understand it probably wasn't possible or practical to portray much
>more than they did within the context of the show...
If you understand that, then I don't get what your beef is.
Kimba
(you'd need at least a mini-series...
Coming this Fall! Furry Roots!)
DishRoom1
> On the other hand...
>
> I didn't see the show, and I haven't bothered to look at the clips, so I
>don't really know for a certainty... but I have to admit that this episode
>just doesn't really sound like such a big deal overall. It doesn't really
>put us in a bad light, although it doesn't seem to be all that much of a good
>light either. However... I get a completely different impression of this
>epsiode than anyone else who's posted thus far. It seems to me from what
>I've been reading here (and someone can correct me if this isn't so) that
>there's -still- something of an inaccurate representation here.
>
> Maybe something was mentioned during the scene; I don't know, since I
>didn't see it, and I don't recall anyone else mentioning it here, but the
>impression I get of Furry Fandom on ER from the discussion I've see so far...
>is that we're all a bunch of fur-suited goofs.
>
> (Not that fursuiters are goofs; just that the scene itself is somewhat
>goofy in nature.)
>
> Is that it? Is that the extent of how Furry Fandom is seen now? As a
>bunch of guys who wear fur-suits? Was there no mention of furry literature,
>comics, artwork, etc? It all gets boiled away into a nutshell summary of
>'guys dressed up in animal mascot outfits'?
Yeah. So for we had only Comics Buyers Guide paying attention to furry comics
and related stuff. (Plus CBG also once published a furry-comic themed letter I
wrote to them.) Otherwise any other mainstream media, good and bad, gives most
attention to nothing but people in animal suits (not that I have anything
against fursuiters, either) or those who want to let there "inner animal" out.
When will they do at least an episode about a furry author, or a very great
in-depth interview with a furry artist.
>
> Quite apart from the question of how sane or weird it tried to portray
>Furry Fandom as a whole, it portrays a small fragment of the fandom (the
>fursuiters) as being the center or the whole of the fandom. I understand it
>probably wasn't possible or practical to portray much more than they did
>within the context of the show... but all the same, it winds up leaving an
>image of Furry Fandom that is nothing at all like the one I participate in.
I couldn't help but wonder if our poor relationships with the media would still
be possible if it weren't for that black-and-white indepentent comics crash
with all the bad "Teenage Muntant Ninja Turtle" rip-offs and other bad comics,
which drive furry literature and comics to near obscurity. Also it's been
difficult due to the stiff "cartoons-for-kids-only" ghetto.
John Shughart
Charles Melville
"Kimba W. Lion" wrote:
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
>
> > On the other hand...
> >
>
> >it winds up leaving an
> >image of Furry Fandom that is nothing at all like the one I participate in.
>
> Maybe it would help if you'd participate just an eensy bit more and look at
> the clips. Or maybe you're off to push a resolution through Congress
> condemning ER? (Daily Show reference again.)
Hey, mighty big chip on -your- shoulder too.
>
> *ahem* (trying to see if I can explain this)
> Not everyone who dons a fursuit would call himself furry, however some who
> do wear and perform in fursuits do call themselves furry. And some of those
> do, consider it a good way to express the animal inside. Thus, the ER script
> was perfectly reasonable. But extrapolating that subset outward to say that
> all those who would call themselves "furry" wear fursuits because they have
> an inner kangaroo is just as ridiculous as expecting ER to encompass the
> entirety of Furry Fandom in the two minutes (and 23 seconds) this subplotlet
> got.
But nevertheless it still portrays furry fandom in a very askew manner,
however reasonable the script may be. I understand that given time and show
constraints they probably couldn't have done it any other way, but it's still
askew.
> > I understand it probably wasn't possible or practical to portray much
> >more than they did within the context of the show...
>
> If you understand that, then I don't get what your beef is.
Who said that I had one? I was simply making the observation.
Atara
>This was a misleading depiction, wasn't it.. The guy should have been
>masturbating over a comic, not into a hand puppet.
*chuckle* =)
Kimba W. Lion
> Hey, mighty big chip on -your- shoulder too.
What a bizarre comment.
>> If you understand that, then I don't get what your beef is.
>
> Who said that I had one? I was simply making the observation.
Ah. An "observation" that evaporates when you try to grasp it.
I had ignored you for so long I had forgotten your style of posting.
Thanks for the reminder.
Kimba