Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

Anonymous

Having read the article by "Newt", I'm hard-pressed to imagine the guy attended the same event I did.

And I'm in rather a better position to comment. I was the PASTOR. I'm sorry, but anyone who thought this was a SERIOUS wedding obviously never read the script for it. Given that I was hamming up the "Suthuhn Baptist Preachah" routine and occasionally reaching into my duster to "nip the bottle", I'd have to suggest "Newt" is --- shall we say --- less than accurate. :roll:

Nor did Mitch make any of the claims attributed to him in the article regarding "ownership" of Minerva. In fact, part of the ceremony involved a showdown with a "lawyer" from Warner Brothers whereby Mitch was read the riot act in flowing legalese and then accused of trying to make off with...Lola Bunny. The entire thing was scripted and shot through with little skits like that. If Shawn Keller --- excuse me, "Newt" --- claims this was serious, he'd have to be humor-impaired or a liar with a personal problem. Given that his fantastic work on shows like "Bonkers" belies the first category, I'd have to relegate him to the latter.

And he can't even lie well. I was the first to discover his "Single Mink" artwork, and it was lying on the floor of the hotel bathroom as opposed to being posted "all over the place". I found it within a minute of the event's end, so if Keller actually sat through any portion of the event but still had time to run back to the Disney Studios, whip up the picture, color it, run off a bunch of copies, and start posting before the event ended, he must have left scorchmarks in the road.

I know of no other animators besides Keller who were angry with the show. No one stalked out, I'll tell you that --- and the room, seating several hundred people normally, was packed to the point of SRO. I could see everyone coming and going from my position at the podium, and most of the time I had nothing better to do than watch the crowd. If three animators got up and left in a huff, they were pretty circumspect about it. I certainly didn't see anyone who was "totally infuriated" as Keller describes.

As for furries "beating the war drums" over this, some in fact did, but were quickly quashed by Mitch himself, who laughed about it and made it abundantly clear he didn't think this was worth hassling anyone over. For my part, I was pissed off at Keller's lack of class --- he didn't take credit for the art, but his style is distinctive and shows in everything he does. He's a top-notch animator and I love his professional work, but he's the only one who seems to have taken Mitch's marriage to Minerva seriously. Which makes him, at best, a wet blanket, and at worst, a mere troll with artistic talents.

No one went around tearing down the posters. Like I said, none were ever put up in the first place, and the only one anyone saw is the one I myself found in the bathroom...discarded next to the sinks. If it had been crumpled up, or in the garbage nearby, that might indicate it had been posted somewhere, but on top of that it was a pristine copy and had no tape or pin marks. It had never been posted, unless perhaps by telekinesis. So "Newt" is full of it, quite frankly.

Nor was anyone run out from the con. Mr. Keller paints a nifty mental image of he and his (naturally unidentified) associates fleeing the convention just ahead of a mob of irate fans, but in fact nothing actually happened.

Keller's article, rather than a stingingly factual indictment of furries, merely comes across as a rambling tract written by someone who really really hates certain people and wants everyone else to hate them too. Kind of like a Disney-employed Jack Chick.

mouse · Posted: 8/6/2003 7:39:28 AM Post subject:

well first off, are you claiming that newt is shawn keller?

well nevermind

anyway , im not gonna keep raggin on newt cuz i dont think hes a bad guy ,

but calbeck you might want to read the thread
"my story about this "furry fandom" i ran across"
or whatever its called - started by tussan

you can see that newt and minerva, well they have some issues

after reading that , then read that article again and it will give a whole new perspective

although i DO believe everything that is stated to have happened in that article did

Anonymous · Posted: 8/6/2003 9:17:34 AM Post subject:

Well mouse, I was there, and what Keller claims happened didn't.

Mind you, I'm just making an educated guess as to the identity of "Newt". I'm basing that guess on several things --- first and foremost being that the single copy of "Single Minerva" which appeared at the convention didn't get posted to the net and remains in the possession of Mitch Beiro (who is about the least Internet-savvy furry in existence). Thus, odds are high that the copy which appears in the article by "Newt" came from Keller directly.

Also, a lot of the invective about furries in the article is Classic Keller, who has gone so far as to portray Trekkies as being clean upstanding young people compared to Furries being smelly, overaged, undersexed weirdos living in their parents' basement. Which is ironic in the extreme, considering that most people who bash Trekkies use the exact same stereotype. Keller's overemphasis on stereotyping is a key characteristic of his various screeds.

Finally, Keller is one of the few people I know of with a personal beef with Mitch Beiro's fascination for Minerva Mink. I mean, to Shawn, it's PERSONAL. He's expended significant effort to single Mitch out for abuse, taking Beiro's love for Minerva a helluva lot more seriously than Mitch does, and that shows up in the article in spades.

So might I be wrong about the source of the article being Keller? Sure. But I'd take Vegas odds on that.

The New Meat · Posted: 8/6/2003 12:57:26 PM Post subject:

Wow, Newt is Keller. This blows my mind! I wish I wasn't always so out of the loop.

Now Calbech, say what you want about Keller and Minerva and Newt and all, but I won't stand for you badmouthing Jack Chick! He's got more talent in his delusional pinky that Disney's got in its entire animation team. He may be a hate-filled lunatic, but, golly, that's what makes him so loveable.

THE PAGAN MORMON CATHOLIC CONSPIRACY TURNS YOU GAY WITH ITS SATANIC ROCK AND ROLL!

Anonymous · Posted: 8/6/2003 3:37:37 PM Post subject:

You're right, what was I THINKING?! -:D

mouse · Posted: 8/6/2003 5:48:48 PM Post subject:

Well mouse, I was there, and what Keller claims happened didn't.

well i wasnt there so i cant say either way

Mind you, I'm just making an educated guess as to the identity of "Newt". I'm basing that guess on several things --- first and foremost being that the single copy of "Single Minerva" which appeared at the convention didn't get posted to the net and remains in the possession of Mitch Beiro (who is about the least Internet-savvy furry in existence). Thus, odds are high that the copy which appears in the article by "Newt" came from Keller directly.

come on, especially if a ton of these things were made (why the hell would anyone bother making just 1? i aint hard to run off copies of something...) the fact you said they couldnt have gotten back "in time"...whatever, they could have put those things up way after the ceremony. if thier goal was to make fun of mitch , it wouldnt really mater when they put them up.
newt could have pulled one out of the garbage if he was at the con. he might have communicated with shawn keller, and somehow got it. that might be a common image of minerva somewhere that someone altered. you focus on 1 plausible possibility out of thousands and take it as gospel truth.

Also, a lot of the invective about furries in the article is Classic Keller, who has gone so far as to portray Trekkies as being clean upstanding young people compared to Furries being smelly, overaged, undersexed weirdos living in their parents' basement. Which is ironic in the extreme, considering that most people who bash Trekkies use the exact same stereotype. Keller's overemphasis on stereotyping is a key characteristic of his various screeds.

trekkers / furry comparison , this is a common tactic whenever your making fun of anyone and anything. its not kellers "signature", sorry

Finally, Keller is one of the few people I know of with a personal beef with Mitch Beiro's fascination for Minerva Mink. I mean, to Shawn, it's PERSONAL. He's expended significant effort to single Mitch out for abuse, taking Beiro's love for Minerva a helluva lot more seriously than Mitch does, and that shows up in the article in spades.

did you read what i told you to? did you see how newt flipped out on me and jerry for what i thought was extremely tame criticism of minerva? no? why dont you go read that thread now? and then come back and tell me newt sounds like shawn keller...

edit: btw do a web search for minerva mink, and youll find a truckload of people who are totally fascinated with her...more than just mitch, newt and keller

So might I be wrong about the source of the article being Keller? Sure. But I'd take Vegas odds on that.

go ahead, but your going way out on a limb on this one

Anonymous · Posted: 8/6/2003 6:19:45 PM Post subject:

come on, especially if a ton of these things were made (why the hell would anyone bother making just 1? i aint hard to run off copies of something...)

Why would someone make just one? Because he was cheap. Besides, it was obvious that whoever found the picture would show it to Mitch, its intended recipient.

the fact you said they couldnt have gotten back "in time"...whatever, they could have put those things up way after the ceremony.

Fact is, they didn't. Only the one copy ever surfaced. And "Newt" insists that the animators rushed back and forth from the "nearby Disney Studios", so even by his own account it wouldn't have been done "way after".

if thier goal was to make fun of mitch , it wouldnt really mater when they put them up.

Of course not. I'm merely pointing out that the timetable presented by the author of the article, compared to the actual facts surrounding the incident, show that the author is full of it.

newt could have pulled one out of the garbage if he was at the con.

Look at the picture again. See any crease marks? Stains? If it had been stuffed into a garbage can, someone clearly took pains to place it there carefully so as not to mar the art in any way.

he might have communicated with shawn keller, and somehow got it.

Entirely possible. It's also likely that Keller simply wrote the entire article and passed it on to "Newt" for publication. Compare the writing styles --- Newt can't even seem to capitalize and punctuate properly more than half the time. Nor does he seem given to the kind of phraseology that the article uses to describe events and people.

that might be a common image of minerva somewhere that someone altered.

It ain't. As I said, Keller's work is distinctive and the artwork is an original. One look at the linework will tell you that --- it's thinly-inked and unbroken. It shows no signs of airbrushing or pixelation. The pose itself is "all-body" --- altering one part in any substantial way would create a glaring difference. Nope...this is an original Keller piece.

trekkers / furry comparison , this is a common tactic whenever your making fun of anyone and anything. its not kellers "signature", sorry

You seem to have missed the point. Keller is the only person who, when bashing fans of any stripe, has actually sought to remove stigma from one group in order to puff up their value as a comparison to the other. Keller is the ONLY fan-basher I've ever heard of who is on record as suggesting Trekkies are clean-cut and upstanding young people. And that only, specifically, so he can argue that Furries are worse than any other stripe of fan.

Doing that kind of thing is known as self-parody --- the author is effectively admitting that he can't make his point without going to lengths that no one else would.

did you read what i told you to? did you see how newt flipped out on me and jerry for what i thought was extremely tame criticism of minerva?

Yep. Which is why it's evident at this point that Newt didn't write the article. He is, however, credited with it, so kindly understand why I likewise originally credited him with it. After seeing his other writings, I don't think he's capable of putting something that sophisticated together.

His position on Minerva, however, mirrors Keller's, so it's not a stretch to suggest Keller put him up to publishing the piece on his behalf. "Plausible deniability", and all that.

mouse · Posted: 8/7/2003 5:28:27 AM Post subject:

Why would someone make just one? Because he was cheap. Besides, it was obvious that whoever found the picture would show it to Mitch, its intended recipient.

but newt said furries were trying to hide it from mitch.

Fact is, they didn't. Only the one copy ever surfaced. And "Newt" insists that the animators rushed back and forth from the "nearby Disney Studios", so even by his own account it wouldn't have been done "way after".

first off how on earth could you ever know this? one copy SURFACED, doesnt mean there aint 50 more hidden. and "rushing back and forth to the nearby disney studios" whether it takes 10 minutes or 2 hours, then its still rushing back and forth. i really cant find any fault with the wording

Entirely possible. It's also likely that Keller simply wrote the entire article and passed it on to "Newt" for publication. Compare the writing styles --- Newt can't even seem to capitalize and punctuate properly more than half the time. Nor does he seem given to the kind of phraseology that the article uses to describe events and people.

there is a huge difference between sitting down and writing an article , and posting a bunch of flame-messages to a bulletin board. its really not going to be accurate to try to derive someones writing style from a few short, emotional, angry posts like his.

You seem to have missed the point. Keller is the only person who, when bashing fans of any stripe, has actually sought to remove stigma from one group in order to puff up their value as a comparison to the other. Keller is the ONLY fan-basher I've ever heard of who is on record as suggesting Trekkies are clean-cut and upstanding young people. And that only, specifically, so he can argue that Furries are worse than any other stripe of fan.

Doing that kind of thing is known as self-parody --- the author is effectively admitting that he can't make his point without going to lengths that no one else would.

i really gotta disagree with you here, you wanna make someone look bad, you point to someone whos bad already and make them look good in comparison. i will not believe that shawn keller is the only one who does this because it is simply done all the time. and yes while he did that in his comic , that doesnt mean the same tactic couldnt be used by someone (even in the same subject matter) completely unaware of it. it just doesnt take that much imagination to go this route

Yep. Which is why it's evident at this point that Newt didn't write the article. He is, however, credited with it, so kindly understand why I likewise originally credited him with it. After seeing his other writings, I don't think he's capable of putting something that sophisticated together.

His position on Minerva, however, mirrors Keller's, so it's not a stretch to suggest Keller put him up to publishing the piece on his behalf. "Plausible deniability", and all that.

actually the point of me sayign what i said was not that newt did not write the article but rather that newt did not draw shawn kellers horrifying look at the furries, nor did he do furryfans.com

i dont think its that off that someone can hold the same opinion as someone else. i dont think that shawn keller had to put newt up to anything. is shawn keller the only person in the world willing to say bad things about this event?? i doubt it

btw, im not completely disputing your take, mainly just a few of your "facts" which i feel would be illogical for someone to do things that way, and more importantly , just how you are viewign this incident overall

at any rate, you want the answers, lets get newt back here. he left and hasnt returned...i think his email might be newt@peoplepc.com , but that was from an old guestbook posting and it may have been a differnt newt (or maybe he has since changed ISPs) i've been meaning to email shawn keller (or whoever runs furryfans.com) cuz ive been looking for a copy of shawn kellers comic. so ill ask if furryfans@rr.socal.com (whatever it is) if its shawn keller, ill also see if he wants to come here and set the record straight, or at least answer some questions...i doubt it ...hes probably got better things to do

Computolio · Posted: 8/7/2003 5:47:27 PM Post subject:

Speaking of Jack Chick, I found a printed version of one of his tracts on the bus once. I'll treasure it always.

Calbeck: Your theory about Keller going through Newt is a plausible one, if only because everything I've ever heard out of the guy doesn't sound like that article. I imagine Keller told him the story some time ago and Newt simply repeated it for CYD.

However, please keep in mind that even though the story of the Minerva Wedding joke/prank/play/whatever is highly exaggerated, the original act that was put on was pathetic, serious or not. I'm sure it was hilarious in-jokey fun to you and everyone else involved, but to the rest of the planet it looked pretty retarded.

Also keep in mind that the Trekkie comparison present in Keller's comic was typical comedic exaggeration with a shred of truth: Trekkies are a billion times more respected than furries. Why? Because the fuckwad nuts who go everywhere speaking fluent Klingon, killing themselves thinking they're Spock and writing the oldest known form of slash fiction haven't completely taken over. With furries, the equivalent of that takeover happened many years ago. So the comparison works.

Anonymous · Posted: 8/7/2003 6:32:46 PM Post subject:

but newt said furries were trying to hide it from mitch.

Yeah he did. And he was lying. Mitch was the first guy I showed it to. I'm the ONLY one anyone knows who actually FOUND a copy. Ergo, Newt's claim is a load of crap.

first off how on earth could you ever know this? one copy SURFACED, doesnt mean there aint 50 more hidden.

And Osama bin Laden may be sunning himself in Miami. The only known copies are the one I found, and the original Keller owns.

and "rushing back and forth to the nearby disney studios" whether it takes 10 minutes or 2 hours, then its still rushing back and forth.

And still doesn't fit the timeline Newt gives. The studios are not in fact THAT close (the Warner Brothers animation studios eat up most of the area right around the hotel. Wherever the Disney studios were, they were substantially further away.

The show was over in roughly an hour, and supposedly the animators didn't leave at least until the "three jilted actresses" came in, which was about fifteen minutes into the whole thing (also a scripted event). That gave them some 45 minutes to get to the Disney Studios, draw up and color an original piece of art, get somewhere to get copies made, then get back to the convention hotel, all in time to have people just leaving the show find a copy of the work already lying there on the bathroom floor.

Like I said, they musta left scorch marks somewhere.

there is a huge difference between sitting down and writing an article , and posting a bunch of flame-messages to a bulletin board. its really not going to be accurate to try to derive someones writing style from a few short, emotional, angry posts like his.

Having a long history of involvement in Internet flamewars of one stripe or another, going back in excess of a decade, I will happily point out that people tend to write the same way no matter what they're writing. It's habit. Thoughts tend to be more organized and coherent in an article meant for publication, because the author can take whatever time he needs to produce it, but the actual writing style differs very little.

One does not "adopt" poor punctuation and grammatical skills merely because one is in a flamewar. It actually takes more time to write more poorly than one is used to simply because one is not used to it. The occasional typo or slipped capitalization is one thing. A work shot through with bad spelling, poor organization, and grammatical errors is an indication of the author's actual skill...not merely that he is working particularly fast, as you suggest.

i really gotta disagree with you here, you wanna make someone look bad, you point to someone whos bad already and make them look good in comparison.

This is precisely my point, yet you're disagreeing with me. I have to assume you don't quite understand my point.

The point being, of course, that in reality stereotypes about Furries are no worse than stereotypes about Trekkies --- or, for that matter, virtually any other well-known fandom. The descriptions Keller uses regarding Furry fans are identical to those which were in use back in the '40s and '50s to refer to Sci-Fi fans. Replace the tails and fuzzy ears with robot costumes, slide rules and pocket protectors. For Trekkies, add Klingon weddings. Same difference, new target.

But Keller is not satisfied with applying the same stereotype, and pretends that ONLY Furries are deserving of the stereotype at all. Which sends him right over the edge into self-parody.

i will not believe that shawn keller is the only one who does this

Nor have I suggested he is. I merely attribute one article to him. And you're arguing that he can't really have done that much.

it just doesnt take that much imagination to go this route

That much I agree with you on. However, it takes not only imagination (and I'll credit Keller with being VERY creative --- I continue to respect his animation work very highly), but a reason. Keller just plain loathes Mitch Beiro in a very personal fashion. It's his art style on the Minerva pic, and it's his writing style that peg him.

actually the point of me sayign what i said was not that newt did not write the article but rather that newt did not draw shawn kellers horrifying look at the furries, nor did he do furryfans.com

That only follows if Newt was in fact Shawn Keller, which at this point I don't believe he is. Like I said, the only reason I thought he was in the first place was that he was credited with the article. I had not, at that point, even known Newt was writing anything in the forums, and had I known that I would have called him on it in the first place.

is shawn keller the only person in the world willing to say bad things about this event??

Shawn's art, Shawn's writing style. Also, it's an eyewitness account. Shawn's pic, and the description in the account of who drew it (along with the overblown and fabricated account of the artist himself being run out of the convention), indicate that the artist who drew the pic also wrote the article. Go fig.

i've been meaning to email shawn keller (or whoever runs furryfans.com) cuz ive been looking for a copy of shawn kellers comic

I think you'll like it. It's actually a very funny comic for the most part. The only places Keller messes up are where he trips over himself trying to overblow his case. Even for parody, there's an envelope past which it becomes evident that the author is merely grinding a personal axe. At that point, it's more like reading an editorial in the local paper. But I know of a lot of furries who own (and love) that comic, warts and all.

so ill ask if furryfans@rr.socal.com (whatever it is) if its shawn keller, ill also see if he wants to come here and set the record straight, or at least answer some questions...i doubt it ...hes probably got better things to do

Fair enough. Be interesting to hear what he has to say.

Anonymous · Posted: 8/7/2003 6:59:01 PM Post subject:

However, please keep in mind that even though the story of the Minerva Wedding joke/prank/play/whatever is highly exaggerated, the original act that was put on was pathetic, serious or not.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but fact was that the room was packed and everyone was laughing as the jokes rolled on. It was a fan skit, by and for fans, and the only ones taking it seriously seem to be those that just don't like furry fans in general.

Now, for truly pathetic, there's a tape that's been going around fannish circles for years that the later self-mockumentary "Trekkies" was supposedly based off of. Amongst other things, it shows Trek fans trying to recreate certain Greco-Roman passion plays that appeared in the original show --- complete with Spock ears and lamentations about "bitter dregs". All taken TOTALLY seriously. Which makes the tape a total gem. -:D

I'm sure it was hilarious in-jokey fun to you and everyone else involved, but to the rest of the planet it looked pretty retarded.

So does Trek fandom. Or for that matter, just about any fandom. All of which look retarded because most people can't figure out why someone would obsess over something they themselves have little or no interest in. That's entirely understandable...on both sides of the coin.

Also keep in mind that the Trekkie comparison present in Keller's comic was typical comedic exaggeration with a shred of truth: Trekkies are a billion times more respected than furries. Why?

Because the first time you're likely to find out anything about Trek, it's from the umpteen different shows, movies, games, wads of merchandise, et al. Even someone who is by no means a "Trekkie" may be able to carry on a conversation about their favorite past episode and what they liked about it, and may well have a basic understanding of Trek jargon.

Now, introduce that person to a couple of guys in Klingon outfits who insist on having mock batla...bac...WHATEVER those pointy dagger/sword-things are, and the newcomer will prolly go "okay, kinda weird, but sorta neat too". Yet, Trekkies produce very little that is original, going instead for various permutations on what Paramount's already produced, and this creates a certain pre-set amount of control and ratings levels within the fandom that are rarely exceeded. So newcomers always will find something familiar to get used to before they run across anything...peculiar.

Compare that to Furries, which NO ONE knows anything about, and over whom there is no central control. The vast majority of material produced by Furries is original, and thus all control belongs to the individual artists.

There is also no pre-set rating limit, and no limitation on useable material in furfandom. Furries are therefore free to use or ignore disruptor pistols, photon torpedoes, Colt Peacemakers, Warhammer references, or for that matter ANYTHING they can think of.

With furries, the equivalent of that takeover happened many years ago. So the comparison works.

Your point falls flat when you realize that there's extraordinarily little that anyone can point to in furry fandom and say "that's a control zone".

You are nonetheless correct in ONE fashion: what control zones there were, were invaded with intent to transform the fandom into something it was not. Specifically, this happened with ConFurence and the efforts of Mark Merlino and Rod O'Riley to import gay activists who otherwise had no interest in anything "furry" (other than each other) into the fandom.

That, however, backfired as a true control mechanism. Backlash against the ever-more-perverse sexual material and its proponents built up until the first furry regional conventions were created, specifically to give people who were already openly boycotting CF a place to go. Other regional cons were put together to cater to the lifestylers in a counter-backlash. The result is that furry fandom now has conventions with, and without, controls on behavior and content, which is a distinct improvement over what went on before.

What you are actually railing at is the individually-created content, which is heavy on pornography, and that's entirely understandable. But you seem to be missing the fact that there is absolutely no way of controlling that material, and you nonetheless seem to want to blame the fandom as a whole for not controlling it.

Meanwhile, we have plenty of G/PG/R rated material that detractors of furfandom seem to want to totally ignore, and in this they are no more intellectual than someone trying to present Trekkies as all being into K/S slashfic and Klingon-costume sex.

mouse · Posted: 8/7/2003 7:35:17 PM Post subject:

ok calbeck, fair enough
ill agree with you - the article is flawed
if you were there and were the pastor , thats good enough for me

i would just like to point out though:

Wedding of the Year
"As told to Mitch by "Newt""
mitch actually WROTE the article.
Mitch is the CYD admin also

so this is most likely some of the source of the confusion,
newt probably told this story to mitch and mitch wrote the article and expanded from a list of points given to him by newt to use. in other words, if he wrote based on a list of facts by newt, and some of the facts were distorted or flawed, it would skew the whole article which is probably exactly what happened. like i said, newt feels pretty strongly about minerva so that probably bled through whatever he told them

also if there is only one copy of this image , and you gave it to mitch after finding it on the bathroom floor, but say "the animators" whoever that was, didnt have time to go to disney studios? when was it drawn ? and where was it drawn ? any idea?

by the way, lets just assume shawn keller drew this thing, there is more than likely copies of the image on the internet, which is probably where newt and/or mitch(CYD admin) got it from. im sure its somewhere in the furryfans.com website - linkless. by the way is page 3 on that website also refering to this event? its got a fat dude with a beard, holding a ring and roses, and looking for this minerva looking character hiding in barrel.

the only reason i find this article amusing is mainly just because i dont think this wedding would have been that entertaining. it just seems stupid to me ... but i wasnt there , so who knows maybe i would have thought it was funny

(by the way i appreciate your posts here, you have a lot of information on this history of the fandom...from ive read elsewhere too, i also think that merlino is definatly one of the more responsible parties in started furry down the wrong path.)

Mitch · Posted: 8/7/2003 8:24:37 PM Post subject:

Wedding of the Year
"As told to Mitch by "Newt""
mitch actually WROTE the article.
Mitch is the CYD admin also so this is most likely some of the source of the confusion, newt probably told this story to mitch and mitch wrote the article and expanded from a list of points given to him by newt to use. in other words, if he wrote based on a list of facts by newt, and some of the facts were distorted or flawed, it would skew the whole article which is probably exactly what happened.

Yep. I had it from Newt who had it from 'an unnamed source'.

by the way, lets just assume shawn keller drew this thing, there is more than likely copies of the image on the internet, which is probably where newt and/or mitch(CYD admin) got it from. im sure its somewhere in the furryfans.com website - linkless.

It was me who found the image online a while before the article appeared - not on Shawn's site BTW - and sent it to Newt because I knew he'd get a kick out of it.

by the way is page 3 on that website also refering to this event? its got a fat dude with a beard, holding a ring and roses, and looking for this minerva looking character hiding in barrel.

Shawn apparently said (according to this a.f.f. post) that that wasn't meant to be Mitch Beiro at all. Uh-huh. Sure.

Anonymous · Posted: 8/7/2003 10:02:07 PM Post subject:

i would just like to point out though:

Wedding of the Year
"As told to Mitch by "Newt""
mitch actually WROTE the article.
Mitch is the CYD admin also

Ah, my apologies for missing that, then. Looking back at the article, I feel stupid for HAVING missed it...it's pretty darn obvious. - :?

also if there is only one copy of this image , and you gave it to mitch after finding it on the bathroom floor, but say "the animators" whoever that was, didnt have time to go to disney studios? when was it drawn ? and where was it drawn ? any idea?

I'm willing to bet Keller drew it some time before even going to the convention. The wedding had been promoted before the con to drum up attendance, so although the claim is made that the animators only found out AT the con, there's no reason to believe Keller couldn't have known about it beforehand.

by the way is page 3 on that website also refering to this event? its got a fat dude with a beard, holding a ring and roses, and looking for this minerva looking character hiding in barrel.

Yup. And that actually pre-dated the wedding. It was the first animation for the front page of the site. Note the similarity between the "Minerva" character and the picture that appears in the wedding article.

the only reason i find this article amusing is mainly just because i dont think this wedding would have been that entertaining. it just seems stupid to me ... but i wasnt there , so who knows maybe i would have thought it was funny

Well, as told by the article, it just seems sad even to me. But then, the article is pretending the whole thing was serious. If it had been --- brrr. No thanks. They couldn't have paid me enough to REALLY marry a man and a chick in a cartoon costume. But everyone was hamming it up (especially Mitch, who frankly overacted a lot of his lines) and having a ball. Some of the little asides I made were an effort to cover up laughing. -:)

(by the way i appreciate your posts here, you have a lot of information on this history of the fandom...from ive read elsewhere too, i also think that merlino is definatly one of the more responsible parties in started furry down the wrong path.)

Thanks. The fandom's gone downhill since the early days, but I'm hoping it'll stabilize and that the problem folks start learning to behave around other people. It's just a really creative fandom, and I stay simply because I keep running into really cool stuff now and again, even amid the mess.

mouse · Posted: 8/8/2003 4:03:17 AM Post subject:

Thanks. The fandom's gone downhill since the early days, but I'm hoping it'll stabilize and that the problem folks start learning to behave around other people. It's just a really creative fandom, and I stay simply because I keep running into really cool stuff now and again, even amid the mess.

thats the way i look at it. in fact its the reason i lurk around the fandom at all , i hope itll change or maybe even that i am presented the opportunity to bring about change. i truely do appreciate the parable, the fable, with anthropomorphic animals, regardless of whether they are just metaphors or literal. i like how these characters can be used anywhere, they are almost never out of place. i like the art, to me its just fantasy, but its special in the sense that it doesnt nessecarily have to be explained to the reader. you can create a world , populate it with talking animals and never explain why. its just accepted ,why - i dont know, but no ones ever had to sit down and explain to me why cartoon animals can talk. its a vast genre that touches on all things , as you had stated, where other fandoms are so focused theres really no where for them to go. only the general comic book fandom tends to promote as much creativity as furry does. (there may be other fandoms but i cant think of any off hand)

for now i just sort of use furry as a hub to find things that i would like, keep up on comic and cartoon news. also furries are into things that arnt created by thier own fandom but still would be of interest to them, and this is how ive found these things. a good example would be: goodbye, chunky rice - a great story

by the way, calbeck.. you are scott malcomson, right?

Anonymous · Posted: 8/8/2003 11:31:49 AM Post subject:

Yup, I am the Original Malcontent, the Mad Bomber of CF4. -:D

mouse · Posted: 8/8/2003 5:27:57 PM Post subject:

ah nice to meet you, i saw the link you posted in the other thread to your art on yerf

just so you know, i still disagree with you on the more platonic points in our exchange on this thread but we'll just leave it at that

Michael Hirtes · Posted: 8/17/2003 11:05:30 AM Post subject:

Wow, Newt is Keller. This blows my mind! I wish I wasn't always so out of the loop.

Wha? It's after 6 Am here and I've been up all night, so i can't tell if you're joking or not.

Newt is Shawn Keller?

Mitch · Posted: 8/17/2003 11:13:54 AM Post subject:

Wow, Newt is Keller. This blows my mind! I wish I wasn't always so out of the loop.

Wha? It's after 6 Am here and I've been up all night, so i can't tell if you're joking or not.

Newt is Shawn Keller?

Afraid not. But I can see how the impression arose.