# Why don't we sue CSI?



## Cloudchaser (May 24, 2009)

If this couple can sue CSI for defemation, we can sue over that Fur And Loathing episode!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/la-fi-ct-csi-realtors23-2009may23,0,1436185.story


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (May 24, 2009)

LOL @ idea of furries having tangible/verifiable damages.


----------



## Kangamutt (May 24, 2009)

Please, for the love of God, don't give those butthurt zealots any ideas.


----------



## Aura (May 24, 2009)

lol it's a good point, sorta. I don't see how someone was seriously offended by csi. It gets a lil dicey, but that's what makes CSI, CSI lol. Bah. What episode are they sueing it for anyway?


----------



## lilEmber (May 24, 2009)

You know they did nothing wrong, but I wouldn't doubt it would be possible to file a class action lawsuit against them, I for one liked the episode and would be against the lawsuit.


----------



## ~secret~ (May 24, 2009)

Hey I dont like CSI, but why the hell would I sue them for? So they made furries look bad. I'd bet that half the people who watched that episode didnt care about furries before or after the episode. The other half dont even know what a furry is. Let's face it, 6 billion people dont watch CSI.

Only problem I had with that episode was that it was the same pile of shit they always show, just this time they wrapped it in some nice little furry wrapping paper.


----------



## AlexInsane (May 24, 2009)

Shut.
Up.
-_-


----------



## Panzermanathod (May 24, 2009)

Suing them over the furry episode and the article have 2 different contexts. They sued for defamation of character and that there were characters possibly based off of them.

You, a furry, can't sue just because they "give furries a bad name".


----------



## lilEmber (May 24, 2009)

Panzermanathod said:


> Suing them over the furry episode and the article have 2 different contexts. They sued for defamation of character and that there were characters possibly based off of them.
> 
> You, a furry, can't sue just because they "give furries a bad name".



No, but a collection of furries can file a class action. Though I doubt you'd win.


----------



## AlexInsane (May 24, 2009)

Are you kidding me? The lawsuit wouldn't even get off the ground.

Making people BAWWWWWWWWW isn't against the law. Grow a pair, for Christ's sake.


----------



## Telnac (May 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You know they did nothing wrong, but I wouldn't doubt it would be possible to file a class action lawsuit against them, I for one liked the episode and would be against the lawsuit.


For once, I must agree with you.  I caught the humor and satire of the episode, so I knew their interpretation of furries was hardly the truth.  But it was the first thing that really clicked in my mind that the furry community really DID exist... and that there were other freaks out there just like me.

So if it weren't for that episode, I can honestly say I'd be in a dark closet somewhere never knowing there were other sick bastards like myself.


----------



## Isen (May 24, 2009)

I _do _wish that I could somehow punish them for further complicating real trials by giving jurors ridiculous ideas about forensic science (see The CSI Effect).


----------



## Kanic (May 24, 2009)

I would rather not try to turn this into a really serious matter. What's done is done, and it can't be changed. Yes, it sucks that the episode gave a really negative view of the furry fandom to the public, but the fandom needs to get a thicker skin and learn to laugh at themselves for once. If you aren't laughing, you aren't living.


----------



## shebawolf145 (May 24, 2009)

Oh yea...lets sue them so people will like us more...so not only will we be sick bastards we'll also be big whiney babies (no offense to babyfurs).

Go ahead and do it....I need something new to laugh at.


----------



## Wulf (May 24, 2009)

One assumes that this thread is in jest? 

No? 

Shit...

It is a most excellent idea, if you want to engender a bit more ignorant hatred towards the fandom that is...


----------



## SipyCup (May 24, 2009)

Dont sue but if CSI does reruns make them stop playing it. I dont know if CSI does play reruns but if they do make them not play that one again


----------



## Bokracroc (May 24, 2009)

Use the ep to your advantage.
When someone says you have weird kinky sex just say, "It's more sex than you'll ever get!" And _Oh burn!_ them 8) Hi-five someone if necessary


----------



## Icky (May 24, 2009)

Bokracroc said:


> Hi-five someone if necessary


But only if you can find someone willing to touch you after you explain.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (May 24, 2009)

1. Shut up.
2. That episode is old as hell, among many furries it's regarded as a joke.
3. That couple _might_ have a miniscule touch of legitimacy in their case. Not so with furries. 
4. No lawyer is going to touch a case like that.
5. Shut up.


----------



## lilEmber (May 24, 2009)

Telnac said:


> For once, I must agree with you.  I caught the humor and satire of the episode, so I knew their interpretation of furries was hardly the truth.  But it was the first thing that really clicked in my mind that the furry community really DID exist... and that there were other freaks out there just like me.
> 
> So if it weren't for that episode, I can honestly say I'd be in a dark closet somewhere never knowing there were other sick bastards like myself.


And I bet there's at least a hundred others like yourself.


----------



## ~secret~ (May 24, 2009)

Bokracroc said:


> Use the ep to your advantage.
> When someone says you have weird kinky sex just say, "It's more sex than you'll ever get!" And _Oh burn!_ them 8) Hi-five someone if necessary



Alright now that's a good one, might try it on my friends sometime.


----------



## Smelge (May 24, 2009)

So can I sue CSI because it's shit and I don't like it?


----------



## Sernion (May 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> And I bet there's at least a hundred others like yourself.


And I'm one of them. x3
Still, the episode is hilarious. The convention and furmeet part is just priceless. 

"Oh come on, I was just there for the yiff!"


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 24, 2009)

Stop fucking whineing over old news. i doubt CSI Intentionaly set out to harm the fandom in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## Thatch (May 24, 2009)

Please tell me you're just kidding. I will have to kill you otherwise.


----------



## Altera (May 24, 2009)

oh please do, it will be hilarious to watch butthurt furies flailing around for "defamation".

(I swear, the bad rep isn't because of CSI.)


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 24, 2009)

Even if some furrie tried to sue them, i very much doubt the case would stand up in court.


----------



## LizardKing (May 24, 2009)

While we're at it, let's sue SA, they're even worse. 

And ED too, let's sue them!

FUCK YEAH!


----------



## Beta Link (May 24, 2009)

Suing the writers of CSI for that one episode over a little butthurt isn't going to get us anywhere. Seriously. >_>


----------



## Irreverent (May 24, 2009)

Sernion said:


> And I'm one of them. x3



This.



> Still, the episode is hilarious. The convention and furmeet part is just priceless.
> 
> "Oh come on, I was just there for the yiff!"



I need to get that on a T-shirt.


----------



## Jashwa (May 24, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> While we're at it, let's sue SA, they're even worse.
> 
> And ED too, let's sue them!
> 
> FUCK YEAH!


 And every troll on the internet ever! Let's find out their names and sue them for making our fandom look bad!

I can see not wanting us to have a bad name, but suing them would not do anything because there's no chance in hell that you win.  Also, it'd just make us look like a bunch of crybabies and reinforce the b'awwwing stereotype.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (May 24, 2009)

Just the world needs, more idiotic lawsuits.

I watched the episode and it's quite freaky but there's absolutely nothing to get upset about. If furs weren't compete drama queens it'd just be a freaky but cool episode. Oh no, they said furs are into yiff! Well that just happens to be true! No the way furs are shown isn't how every fur is but there are furs like that. Also you don't see doctors trying to sue CSI when they have a doctor who kills patients (I saw that on Law and Order I think) or lawyers suing it when they show a laywer accepting bribes. why not? Because it's not a documentary and isn't meant to reflect the entire group of people. Just grow up.


----------



## Seprakarius (May 24, 2009)

Really, I wouldn't bother. For one, the effort seems frivolous. For two, doing something like this would probably lend credence (and attention) to the thing, if you really wanted to avoid those.

However, I don't really watch TV, and I don't care either way. CSI is meant to be entertainment, and is a work of fiction. Meh.


----------



## Imperial Impact (May 24, 2009)

Op @

What the fuck, This is dumb, No one cares about the CSI episode.

It furries like you who made the fandom awful!

Also, You

You gay son, Might as well put on the daisy dukes right now and see rent


----------



## NightWolf714 (May 24, 2009)

They did better with the furries than with other sub groups. *shrugs*


----------



## Ikrit (May 24, 2009)

because they have money


----------



## Digitalpotato (May 24, 2009)

Maybe the adult baby community or attachment therapy advocates will jump on the bandwagon and they'll finally stop making dumb@$$ episodes.


----------



## Sam (May 24, 2009)

ithought the whole episode was really funny on CSI. But then I find it funny to dressup as a six foot bannana and go skateboarding in the mall.


----------



## HoneyPup (May 24, 2009)

The couple suing have a good reason. It is their names and their identities being shown in the episode. Furries have no reason to sue.  



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Just the world needs, more idiotic lawsuits.
> 
> I watched the episode and it's quite freaky but there's absolutely nothing to get upset about. If furs weren't compete drama queens it'd just be a freaky but cool episode. Oh no, they said furs are into yiff! Well that just happens to be true! No the way furs are shown isn't how every fur is but there are furs like that. Also you don't see doctors trying to sue CSI when they have a doctor who kills patients (I saw that on Law and Order I think) or lawyers suing it when they show a laywer accepting bribes. why not? Because it's not a documentary and isn't meant to reflect the entire group of people. Just grow up.


I agree.

And I really don't think CSI was trying to "give furries a bad name" They just thought of a good plot that happened to involve furries. I didn't think the episode was really all that bad.


----------



## pheonix (May 24, 2009)

lol you gotta be kidding me. Unless he was friends with some furry and took his name and put it in the ep you can't do shit. Did you read the article and or know anything about law? *facepalm*


----------



## Toaster (May 24, 2009)

lol, retarded furfag, it's just a show. Get over it.


----------



## Jashwa (May 25, 2009)

Ornias said:


> lol, retarded furfag, it's just a show. Get over it.


 You're not as funny as Whitenoise, just give up.


----------



## pheonix (May 25, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> You're not as funny as Whitenoise, just give up.



Oh snap!


----------



## Gavrill (May 25, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> You're not as funny as Whitenoise, just give up.


This a million times.

Where is Whitenoise lately?


----------



## Zrcalo (May 25, 2009)

D: but I like CSI.


----------



## Omians (May 25, 2009)

People should know is that episode of CSI  only touched the part of the furry world of Fursuiters  wasnt talking about the rest of them


----------



## Skullmiser (May 25, 2009)

This(The couple) reminds me  of the Star Trek Voyager episode "Author Author." The Doctor wrote a holo novel entitled "Photons Be Free" which was of the Starship Vortex under the command of Captain Jenkins. All the characters were in the Holo Novel were obviously based on the crew of voyager, however the doctor insisted that they were dissimilar, or at least not the crew of voyager itself.

Maybe CSI could be sued for "Fur and Loathing" by some furry convention organization that would have diminished sales as a result of the episode?


----------



## Liam (May 25, 2009)

I prefer Law and Order.  Every CSI episode I've seen has left me irritated somehow.  Like certain talkshows and just about every reality tv show out there.
Also, this would add to the number of stupid lawsuits in the legal system.  It's not worth it.


----------



## pheonix (May 25, 2009)

CSI is only good for backround noise while browsing the net.


----------



## BigPuppy_Stuart (May 25, 2009)

Because it will get us nothing except maybe more negative publicity.


----------



## whoadamn (May 25, 2009)

Altera said:


> oh please do, it will be hilarious to watch ______ furies flailing around for "defamation".
> 
> (I swear, the bad rep isn't because of CSI.)


I don't know what to say except you should try again, unless you like demitting your points with the hypocrisy generated by your choice of words; consider they were a product of the people you target.

Should this be carried through, and I come across a video of some extremist furry whining about CSI's representation of the fandom, I will laugh, but that certainly doesn't mean I will reiterate any of the words uttered by the person I'm laughing at.

In one sentence: Fill in the blank with a better word.


----------



## X (May 25, 2009)

simply put, nothing of value was lost.

therefore, we have no reason to sue; and, dont start with that "but it ruined the reputation of the fandom ;_;" BS.  the pornographic and fetish filled sides of this fandom threw its respect (if it had any in the first place) out the window before CSI had anything to do with it.


----------



## Beta Link (May 25, 2009)

A thought just occurred to me. If someone is ignorant and shallow-minded enough to judge the entire fandom based on an episode of a freakin' TV show with as crap cringe writing as CSI, should we really _care_ what they think? That, and what I said before about suing them getting us absolutely nowhere.


----------



## Kittiara (May 25, 2009)

Or maybe everybody who still cares about that episode and thinks it made everybody in America hate furries can quit bawwwing long enough to stop being butthurt prats.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 26, 2009)

Cloudchaser said:


> If this couple can sue CSI for defemation, we can sue over that Fur And Loathing episode!
> 
> http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/la-fi-ct-csi-realtors23-2009may23,0,1436185.story


 
Firstly, only an idiot would come up with such a suggestion.  I'll let that infer what that says about you.

Secondly, anyone can file a law suit for almost god damned anything.  Winning said lawsuit on the other hand is another issue.

Thirdly, their suit alledges that the CSI episode represented two PARTICULAR people where as the furry episode only represented the entire fandom with characters not based on any specific people.  'The Furry Fandom' is not a person and no one can sue on it's behalf.

Fourthly, one would have to prove that the CSI did actual damage.  This would be quite difficult as there is extensive evidence of the furry fandom making themselves look like a bunch of dramatic fucktards that only screw around with each other since about 1980, long before CSI ever existed.  Back in the 80's the popular term for the furries at scifi cons was 'Skunk Fuckers'.  The furry fandom would probably have a better chance of sueing itself for damages that it's done to it's own image.  I'm certian that there's a lawyer that would love to both take on that case and defend it for the fandom simultaniously for a healthy fee.

Fifthly, such a law suit would only proceed to PROVE that the furry fandom is nothing but dramatic fucktards because only dramatic fucktards would be dumb enough to come up with such an idea.  (Agian, go back to the point about sueing yourself, it might not be such a bad idea).

Sixthly, yiff in hell, skunkfuckers.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 26, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Sixthly, yiff in hell, skunkfuckers.



You know, it wouldn't really be hell if we could yiff in it. Most (if not all) furries would probably consider it heaven. To me, thats a good thing


----------



## Kaamos (May 26, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> You know, it wouldn't really be hell if we could yiff in it. Most (if not all) furries would probably consider it heaven. To me, thats a good thing



It would really depend on _what _you had to yiff. Since it's hell it would probably be something horrifying that you wouldn't enjoy.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 26, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> It would really depend on _what _you had to yiff. Since it's hell it would probably be something horrifying that you wouldn't enjoy.



I hadn't thought of that, damn good point.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 26, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> It would really depend on _what _you had to yiff. Since it's hell it would probably be something horrifying that you wouldn't enjoy.


 
"Welcome to hell!  You get all the sodomy you want!"
"YAY!"
"With that AIDS infected pile of rocks!"
"...  ...Wait, can I die of AIDS in hell?"
"Of course, then you go to... Wait, did they cut out the part about Super Hell in the bible?  My boy, you're in for a suprise!  Now get to the rocks or it's 60mins in the closet of fire for you."
";_;"


----------



## Ricky (May 26, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Fourthly, one would have to prove that the CSI did actual damage.  This would be quite difficult as there is extensive evidence of the furry fandom making themselves look like a bunch of dramatic fucktards that only screw around with each other since about 1980, long before CSI ever existed.  Back in the 80's the popular term for the furries at scifi cons was 'Skunk Fuckers'.  The furry fandom would probably have a better chance of sueing itself for damages that it's done to it's own image.  I'm certian that there's a lawyer that would love to both take on that case and defend it for the fandom simultaniously for a healthy fee.



CSI was pretty accurate; if anything they _didn't go far enough_ and could have made things look a lot more twisted.

What I don't understand is what the big deal is about the sex stuff in the first place.  Look...  Sex is OK.  Kinky sex is actually pretty common too -- the only people I really hear whining about it all the time is furries and maybe Mormons or something.  In the episode, the naughty bits were in a private room party.  That's NOT bad.  If you want to see bad, look up Dore Alley or the Folsom Street Fair.  I don't see people who are into only light bdsm whining about how the crazier ones are getting peed on or spanked in public.  Now THAT'S bad.  As opposed to humping in a fursuit.

I know sex isn't explicit in the definition of what's "furry" but it's a large theme, there are adult sections of cons, etc.  People who aren't into it well that's fine, but could maybe quit whining about how it makes us all look bad.  Nobody cares except furries.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 26, 2009)

Ricky said:


> What I don't understand is what the big deal is about the sex stuff in the first place. Look... Sex is OK. Kinky sex is actually pretty common too -- the only people I really hear whining about it all the time is furries and maybe Mormons or something. In the episode, the naughty bits were in a private room party. That's NOT bad. If you want to see bad, look up Dore Alley or the Folsom Street Fair. I don't see people who are into only light bdsm whining about how the crazier ones are getting peed on or spanked in public. Now THAT'S bad. As opposed to humping in a fursuit.


 
Because the furry fandom doesn't know the meaning of the word 'discretion'.  They don't understand that there are times and places for certian discussion and other times and places where that discussion would be inappropriate.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 26, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Because the furry fandom doesn't know the meaning of the word 'discretion'.  They don't understand that there are times and places for certian discussion and other times and places where that discussion would be inappropriate.



This is why i keep my furryness to an online environment. I never speak of it to anyone irl. I also only speak of it on designated sites such as here at FA.


----------



## whoadamn (May 26, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Because the furry fandom doesn't know the meaning of the word 'discretion'.  They don't understand that there are times and places for certian discussion and other times and places where that discussion would be inappropriate.


Do you just throw away all your apples when a few go sour?



> What I don't understand is what the big deal is about the sex stuff in the first place. Look... Sex is OK. Kinky sex is actually pretty common too -- the only people I really hear whining about it all the time is furries and maybe Mormons or something. In the episode, the naughty bits were in a private room party. That's NOT bad. If you want to see bad, look up Dore Alley or the Folsom Street Fair. I don't see people who are into only light bdsm whining about how the crazier ones are getting peed on or spanked in public. Now THAT'S bad. As opposed to humping in a fursuit.


Anything that opposes a norm is detested by society, simple. Nearly every major conflict is a direct example of this.


----------



## Ricky (May 26, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Because the furry fandom doesn't know the meaning of the word 'discretion'.  They don't understand that there are times and places for certian discussion and other times and places where that discussion would be inappropriate.



Tact is a good thing to have -- I'll agree with you there.  Aside from a couple of furry forums I might troll on occasion to amuse myself I think I'm a pretty civil and respectful person.

Nothing that bad has really happened, though.  I've heard of isolated incidents and if someone is acting like a twit in public someone should probably call them on it but again, it's only isolated incidents.  And ones that only furries really know or care about.  The "bad name" is all in furries' heads because nobody really cares.


----------



## Molotov (May 26, 2009)

Aah...thanks for giving me the laughs for the night. Now I can sleep easy.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 26, 2009)

whoadamn said:


> Do you just throw away all your apples when a few go sour?


 
You know, usually when one apple in the bag goes bad, the rest are going bad too.  That's why you don't see an apple with one rottong and the rest pristine.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 26, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> You know, usually when one apple in the bag goes bad, the rest are going bad too.  That's why you don't see an apple with one rottong and the rest pristine.



Well thank Google people are not like fruit. One may go bad but that does not mean the rest will.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 26, 2009)

Also stupid thread is stupid. You can't sue CSI for it's episode. Now if MTV snuck into AC without permission and did a slanderous segment based on it, than Anthrocon can sue for damages, and possibly slander and or libel.


----------



## Kaamos (May 26, 2009)

What is AC and what goes on there that furries would need to hide?

Edit: Oh Anthrocon, but still, what is there to hide?


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 26, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> Edit: Oh Anthrocon, but still, what is there to hide?


 
It's a good question.  The furry fandom claims that there is nothing to hide and that it is entirely misrepresented.  The furry fandom however hides the 'nothing' as best it can anyway, because we all know that acting suspicious is the best way to avoid suspicion.


----------



## Alisu (May 26, 2009)

What's the absolute worst that happens at AC? Possible kinky fursuit sex? I honestly don't think that's worth getting suspicious over.


----------



## paxil rose (May 26, 2009)

I pray to God enough people attempt to actually do this...


----------



## Whitenoise (May 26, 2009)

Alisu said:


> What's the absolute worst that happens at AC? Possible kinky fursuit sex? I honestly don't think that's worth getting suspicious over.



Fursuiters feeling up people's kids :V .


----------



## whoadamn (May 26, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> Fursuiters feeling up people's kids :V .


LOFL


----------



## Alisu (May 26, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> Fursuiters feeling up people's kids :V .



That's what flamethrowers are designed for.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 26, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> What is AC and what goes on there that furries would need to hide?
> 
> Edit: Oh Anthrocon, but still, what is there to hide?



Anthrocon does not have anything to hide. However MTV does have a history of trying to sneak in with moles set up, so they can get the moles set up to do perverted stupid stuff in the con that most furries would never do in a con...and pass it off later as a representation of what goes on there.


----------



## Ricky (May 26, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Anthrocon does not have anything to hide. However MTV does have a history of trying to sneak in with moles set up, so they can get the moles set up to do perverted stupid stuff in the con that most furries would never do in a con...and pass it off later as a representation of what goes on there.



Are there any examples to back this up?  The Sex2k episode seemed pretty fair to me, and I don't think they made anything up however some of the people in the episode that were interviewed were pretty bizarre...

However it seemed fair and it didn't seem like anything was actually embellished...


----------



## Ozriel (May 26, 2009)

Ricky said:


> Are there any examples to back this up?  The Sex2k episode seemed pretty fair to me, and I don't think they made anything up however some of the people in the episode that were interviewed were pretty bizarre...
> 
> However it seemed fair and it didn't seem like anything was actually embellished...



Do not believe evertyhing what the media says.

I would say that the person dressed as a Playboy bunny was one example...before the staff and the Head had told the person to "put some clothes on, this is a family place".

The staff at Anthrocon is strict on such things, such as pubic perversion. If you didn't listen to the staff, then Kage would be on your ass in an instant. It is also stated (and recited) that reporters have the "Kage seal of approval" to give interviews, and if they do not have such a badge, then do not answer then and report them to Staff.


And on topic: This thread is stupid, the idea is stupid. Stop it.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 26, 2009)

I dunno, I'm liking this idea about sueing the furry fandom more and more.


----------



## Ikrit (May 26, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> Fursuiters feeling up people's kids :V .



Barny popped into my head for some reason...


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 26, 2009)

Oh wait, is it possible to even sue a group of people primarily financed by welfare cheques? D:


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (May 26, 2009)

Why can't u guys just drop this already, its old as hell. Who in there right mind watches reruns anyways >.>


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2009)

paxil rose said:


> I pray to God enough people attempt to actually do this...



So we can laugh at there stupidity of thinking it'll actually work? Can't wait.



Ark said:


> Why can't u guys just drop this already, its old as hell. Who in there right mind watches reruns anyways >.>



I watch reruns of things cause I don't have cable. :/ I do agree with you on one thing thought, why is this thread still alive?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 26, 2009)

pheonix said:


> So we can laugh at there stupidity of thinking it'll actually work? Can't wait.
> 
> 
> 
> I watch reruns of things cause I don't have cable. :/ I do agree with you on one thing thought, why is this thread still alive?



I'll be laughing along with you if any furre tries to sue.



AshleyAshes said:


> Oh wait, is it possible to even sue a group of people primarily financed by welfare cheques? D:



All the furrie freinds i have actually hold jobs. appart from a couple, and the ones that are too young to work.


----------



## pheonix (May 26, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I'll be laughing along with you if any furre tries to sue.



Hell could you imagine the bawing that will come from the population when they fail in there endeavor? XD So much lulz.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 26, 2009)

I haven't seen the OP post anything since his first post in here, did we scare him off? o.o


----------



## Ricky (May 26, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I haven't seen the OP post anything since his first post in here, did we scare him off? o.o



Yes, but it's nothing more than the usual reaction whenever CSI gets mentioned on a furry board anymore...  You live and learn, right?


----------



## paxil rose (May 26, 2009)

pheonix said:


> So we can laugh at there stupidity of thinking it'll actually work?



Exactly.

One word, man; FurryOps...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 26, 2009)

paxil rose said:


> Exactly.
> 
> One word, man; FurryOps...



wtf is FurryOps? o.o


----------



## Freehaven (May 26, 2009)

Lawlin' at +1 trolling by Cloudchaser.


----------



## paxil rose (May 26, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> wtf is FurryOps? o.o




http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=42072&highlight=FurryOps


----------



## Jashwa (May 27, 2009)

paxil rose said:


> http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=42072&highlight=FurryOps


 LOL, that is all I have to say.


----------



## PaulShepherd (May 27, 2009)

As much as it's quite a good idea, I'd say it's not. We can try to correct our image to society all we want, but the fact is, not everyone will like us. There will always be trolls and idiots that bash on us for being apparently something negative. 

Well, give it a try, but don't expect the best results.


----------



## Hakoge (May 27, 2009)

... Uhm.

I'm against the idea of suing over that stupid episode.

One, _it's freaking CSI._

Two, half of the fandom has already done a damn good job of butchering the "reputation" of us furries long before that episode. :/

And lastly, that episode is _old news._ Seriously, if anyone's actually planning on suing them over something stupid like this, they really need to take a chill pill and get out of the basement for a while.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (May 28, 2009)

Who cares about that CSI episode. CSI, MTV and Vanity Fair did nothing to the fandom. I saw that episode when I was younger and I thought nothing of it. I found the fandom WAY after that episode, because when I watched it all I saw was another CSI episode. I think it was the first CSI episode I saw ever saw, too.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 28, 2009)

Hakoge said:


> Two, half of the fandom has already done a damn good job of butchering the "reputation" of us furries long before that episode. :/


 
Hello, do you feel wounded by the actions of the furry fandom?  Perhapps you'd like to join my class action suit agianst the furry fandom? ^_^


----------



## Zrcalo (May 28, 2009)

8D I love CSI. 
in fact CSI was one of the reasons for getting me in the furry fandom... 
that and /b/.

yeah it makes no sense.


----------



## Ricky (May 28, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> CSI, MTV and Vanity Fair did nothing to the fandom.



If anything it brought more people in...  A certain other forum (2 letters and a number in between) went from about 500 people to now I think it's at about 15-20,000.  Mind you it also says something about those people who joined, looking at the forum 



Hakoge said:


> half of the fandom has already done a damn good job of butchering the "reputation" of us furries long before that episode. :/



For whomever heard of it, at all...  *shrugs*


----------



## angergod (May 28, 2009)

In order to sue somebody, you have to prove damages were done.

also, they probably have better lawyers.  Besides, who cares in the first place?


----------



## Zenof (May 28, 2009)

dont sue.. it costs too much money.. just beat them with a bat till they are in a coma. but be sure noone knows it was us *evil grin*


----------



## Arcadium (May 29, 2009)

I hope to god this is meant to be a joke, and that no-one sues them. I hate CSI, and not only for that ONE episode. BUT, they did nothing wrong. Freedom of Speech is a beautfle thing.


----------



## capthavoc123 (May 29, 2009)

There was absolutely nothing in the "Fur and Loathing" episode of CSI that I have not seen perfectly replicated at Anthrocon.

You can't sue for defamation of character if the things you are supposedly being defamed for are actually true.

I'm quite aware this was a troll thread, by the way.


----------



## Redregon (Jun 15, 2009)

if you want to "sue" someone, why not sue the furries that demanded and were granted positions as consultants regarding the fandom for that episode?


----------



## FourLetterWord (Jun 15, 2009)

capthavoc123 said:


> I'm quite aware this was a troll thread, by the way.



is troll a kind word for dumb


----------



## Panzermanathod (Jun 15, 2009)

A troll can be dumb, but it's not required. They're just shit starters.


----------



## Deleted member 19863 (Jun 15, 2009)

To be honest; I lol'd at that cat who's  name was "Sexy"


...and it was guy.


----------



## waterwolf23 (Jun 16, 2009)

It seems like a good idea but, you can't sue them.
1.We are furries aren't all like that.As painful as it is to hear people who know nothing about it talk crap we can't do anything.
2.Its a show that makes tons of money plus.
3.It gives them more reasons to dislike us although that feeling is slowly dying .I quoted it in my signature.


----------



## cpam (Jun 16, 2009)

capthavoc123 said:


> There was absolutely nothing in the "Fur and Loathing" episode of CSI that I have not seen perfectly replicated at Anthrocon.



Funny thing is, I didn't see much of anything in the episode that looked like anything I'd seen at furry cons.  A banquet?  A seminar? (And well-attended at that; most cons I've been to are lucky to have any well-attended _panels_.)  And the fact that it was in Las Vegas to begin with was a huge stretch -- as if any furry con could afford hotel space in Vegas, let alone any fans affording it.  And, of course, the over-emphasis on furry costuming to the exclusion of pretty much everything else, and the over-riding idea that it was all about the fans wanting to _be _animals.


----------



## cpam (Jun 16, 2009)

Redregon said:


> if you want to "sue" someone, why not sue the furries that demanded and were granted positions as consultants regarding the fandom for that episode?



Why?  The episode wasn't _their _fault.  In fact, according to posts that were being made at the time, a lot of their consultations were being ignored when it didn't suit the story the producers wanted to film.


----------



## cpam (Jun 16, 2009)

waterwolf23 said:


> It seems like a good idea but, you can't sue them.
> 1.We are furries aren't all like that.As painful as it is to hear people who know nothing about it talk crap we can't do anything.
> 2.Its a show that makes tons of money plus.
> 3.It gives them more reasons to dislike us although that feeling is slowly dying .I quoted it in my signature.



None of which are really good reasons for _not _suing.

_Better _reasons for not suing are that it's just not practical.  Although the story was unbalanced in its portrayal, it wasn't actually incorrect or intentionally slanderous.  And it didn't use any actual furries in the story.  That is, there were no real names or personalities used, nor was any real furry con represented.  It was all fictional.  So there's no legal grounds for a suit.


----------



## south syde dobe (Jun 16, 2009)

cpam said:


> None of which are really good reasons for _not _suing.
> 
> _Better _reasons for not suing are that it's just not practical. Although the story was unbalanced in its portrayal, it wasn't actually incorrect or intentionally slanderous. And it didn't use any actual furries in the story. That is, there were no real names or personalities used, nor was any real furry con represented. It was all fictional. So there's no legal grounds for a suit.


 
^ This


----------



## MHFC (Jun 16, 2009)

because the culture of suing people for saying something you don't like is A Very Dumb Thing Indeed and people need to lighten up a little.


----------



## ijp290 (Jun 17, 2009)

Whats with everyone and that damned episode? It's a misconception on the part of CSI, obviously written by someone who didn't know much about the fandom, or didn't know diddly-squat and just ran off a suggestion.

I kinda liked the episode. Some girls at school who know I'm furry bring it up sometimes (mainly when they're trying to understand what I'm about). It's nice to know where they get their info from.


----------



## cpam (Jun 17, 2009)

ijp290 said:


> Whats with everyone and that damned episode? It's a misconception on the part of CSI, obviously written by someone who didn't know much about the fandom, or didn't know diddly-squat and just ran off a suggestion.



Sure it's a misconception.  That's what riles a lot of fans, in that it misrepresents the fandom and gives the general public a very broad and incorrect stereotype of what a furry fan is.  And the show has no excuse for getting it wrong, as they had a couple of furry fans on the set as technical advisors -- the producers simply decided to ignore them when the facts got in the way of the script.


----------



## Shadow (Jun 17, 2009)

Dear God, this topic is still going?! D8


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 17, 2009)

Cause we were teleported back in time two weeks like an episode of Star Trek!


----------



## Shadow (Jun 17, 2009)

I blame the crash.

Also of which what took a part of my location list.


----------



## Noben (Jun 17, 2009)

I'm not sure I'm remembering correctly, but didn't Grissom buy a print at the convention they went to?


----------



## Deleted member 19863 (Jun 17, 2009)

cpam said:


> Sure it's a misconception.  That's what riles a lot of fans, in that it misrepresents the fandom and gives the general public a very broad and incorrect stereotype of what a furry fan is.  And the show has no excuse for getting it wrong, as they had a couple of furry fans on the set as technical advisors -- the producers simply decided to ignore them when the facts got in the way of the script.



Especially the stereotype that all furrys are sex addicts that have nothing better to do than to furpile or jack off to furry porn. that's what's depressing about this situation... D:


----------



## PriestRevan (Jun 17, 2009)

Failure. Furries cannot sue a tv show for having it's own fursuit. That's like me suing you because you have a raccoon fursona.

That and defacing furries is funny anyways. I'm sure a judge will laugh.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 17, 2009)

Furries just don't like it cause it speaks partly of the truth. I mean the show had to have researched somewhere. Probably asked furries at a CON about the fandom then picked out the parts that would make an interesting storeyline in the show. I very much doubt CSI deliberately targeted the worse side of the fandom. They used what they could make a storey out of, big deal, live with it.


----------



## Carenath (Jun 17, 2009)

Now why couldnt this thread.. have been made after 29th May... and gone to oblivion like the others.


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 17, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Now why couldnt this thread.. have been made after 29th May... and gone to oblivion like the others.



They are too lazy to make their own, so they necro old topics.


----------



## FourLetterWord (Jun 18, 2009)

im gonna sue this thread for being the fucking epitome of thin-skinned babby whining that deserves all the trolling it can get


----------



## Excitement! (Jun 18, 2009)

if the furrrrie fandom fought CSI:crime scene invenstigation who would win??


----------



## moonchylde (Jun 18, 2009)

Excitement! said:


> if the furrrrie fandom fought CSI:crime scene invenstigation who would win??


 
Pirates always win. :mrgreen:


----------



## cpam (Jun 19, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Furries just don't like it cause it speaks partly of the truth. I mean the show had to have researched somewhere. Probably asked furries at a CON about the fandom then picked out the parts that would make an interesting storeyline in the show. I very much doubt CSI deliberately targeted the worse side of the fandom. They used what they could make a storey out of, big deal, live with it.



That's pretty much what happened.  They did have technical advisors on the show, but the producers ignored them when the facts were inconvenient to the story.  Whether or not it spoke the _truth _in any way is what's highly debatable.  It seems they simply took the most visual and vicarious aspects, of which is only a tiny percent of a real furry con; can it really be said that this tiny part is really the truth, even if its factual?  It's like saying that it's true that all soldiers are mindless and soulless killing machines bent on atrocities because a very, very few actually have done so; the statement is really a distortion of the truth, and everybody suffers as a result.


----------



## Zrcalo (Jun 19, 2009)

cpam said:


> That's pretty much what happened.  They did have technical advisors on the show, but the producers ignored them when the facts were inconvenient to the story.  Whether or not it spoke the _truth _in any way is what's highly debatable.  It seems they simply took the most visual and vicarious aspects, of which is only a tiny percent of a real furry con; can it really be said that this tiny part is really the truth, even if its factual?  It's like saying that it's true that all soldiers are mindless and soulless killing machines bent on atrocities because a very, very few actually have done so; the statement is really a distortion of the truth, and everybody suffers as a result.




well in order to make it a crime, of /course/ they had to use the dark side of the fandom... no one would've thought the episode would've been good if they used the lighter side.. 
in my opinion, I'm honoured that CSI acknowledged the existance of furries, and being a fur myself I have no problem with it.


----------



## HoneyPup (Jun 19, 2009)

Zrcalo said:


> well in order to make it a crime, of /course/ they had to use the dark side of the fandom... no one would've thought the episode would've been good if they used the lighter side..
> in my opinion, I'm honoured that CSI acknowledged the existance of furries, and being a fur myself I have no problem with it.


Yep. If it showed what furries were really like it would be boring to most of the TV show's viewers.


----------



## Azure (Jun 19, 2009)

You want to know why we can't sue CSI.  Because none of you fucks can afford a lawyer, and even if you could, he'd laugh your ass right of his office, after he took your money of course.  This thread is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## foxmusk (Jun 19, 2009)

this is a dumb idea and you are dumb. >:C


----------



## pheonix (Jun 19, 2009)

Why is this even still alive? Unintelligent = more feedback which is just terrible. What would even make a person think that this would even be possible?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 19, 2009)

I am wondering just why this thread was dug up from the graveyard.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 19, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> You want to know why we can't sue CSI. Because none of you fucks can afford a lawyer, and even if you could, he'd laugh your ass right of his office, after he took your money of course. This thread is why we can't have nice things.


 Awesome.


----------



## Amu (Jun 20, 2009)

If people sued for every single thing that offended them, everyone would be bankrupt from court costs. 

There is something called freedom of speech. If something offends you, refute it politely, or suck it up.


----------



## cpam (Jun 21, 2009)

Zrcalo said:


> well in order to make it a crime, of /course/ they had to use the dark side of the fandom... no one would've thought the episode would've been good if they used the lighter side..



But... it's the only side that was shown.  For that matter, the only view it gave of the fandom was the fursuit side.  All in all, it was pretty unbalanced.


----------



## cpam (Jun 21, 2009)

Amu said:


> There is something called freedom of speech. If something offends you, refute it politely, or suck it up.



Freedom of speech _does_ have limits.  You can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater if it isn't true, for instance.  And you can't indiscriminately lie about people; that's why there's slander and libel laws.  Not that any of it applies in this instance, but.


----------



## cpam (Jun 21, 2009)

prettylilpup said:


> Yep. If it showed what furries were really like it would be boring to most of the TV show's viewers.



That kind of criteria never seems to apply to other equally boring scenarios, though, does it?  It's only as boring as it's portrayed.  Or as it's _not _portrayed, I suppose.


----------



## Lukar (Jun 21, 2009)

Honestly, I had forgotten the episode for several weeks until right now.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 21, 2009)

cpam said:


> But... it's the only side that was shown.  For that matter, the only view it gave of the fandom was the fursuit side.  All in all, it was pretty unbalanced.



No, the show spoke the truth, wether we like it or not. And please use the multi-quote button.


----------



## cpam (Jun 21, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> No, the show spoke the truth, wether we like it or not. And please use the multi-quote button.



If you really believe that, then you've never really been to a furry con.  I've been to several off and on since the fandom first got together, and no con was ever like the one portrayed.  No, the show was fixated on one aspect and that was all they were interested in.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 21, 2009)

cpam said:


> If you really believe that, then you've never really been to a furry con.  I've been to several off and on since the fandom first got together, and no con was ever like the one portrayed.  No, the show was fixated on one aspect and that was all they were interested in.



And how do you know what furries do behind closed hotel room doors?.

And if you believe that no fursuiter does anything sexual in their fursuit, then i suggest you take a trip to Xtube.com and search fursuit. That and ONE con does not represent ALL cons. 

Oh yes and may i remind you of that guy that was mentioned earlier in thread organising a sexfest in his hotel room at the next con?, now tell me CSI was bullshitting.

If you believe CSI was lieing then you are comeing across as a bit naive to me.


----------



## coolkidex (Jun 21, 2009)

It'd be kind of hard because there isnt a leader of the furries... yet. *Cough* ZEN *COUGH*

I was offended by CSI's portrayal of furries, but... Whatever. People have very fucked up ideas of what all furries are.


----------



## cpam (Jun 21, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> And how do you know what furries do behind closed hotel room doors?.
> 
> And if you believe that no fursuiter does anything sexual in their fursuit, then i suggest you take a trip to Xtube.com and search fursuit. That and ONE con does not represent ALL cons.
> 
> ...



What furries do behind closed hotel room doors is their own business and is _not _part of the convention; the episode strongly implied it was the major point of the fandom.  And I never said that such things _never _happened, but that they are a very _small _part of the fandom and do _not _represent the fandom as a whole, or even in any significant part.  Nor did I say that CSI was _lying_, but that they _misrepresented _the fandom by showing a particular side of it -- a particularly sleazy side shown _specifically _for its sleazy qualities -- and giving it _far _more prominence than it has in reality.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 21, 2009)

I'm gonna answer this seriously because I feel like being a dick.

Sue 'CSI' for Defamation?

So let's imagine in some magical fantasy world 'The Furry Fandom' was some how a person that could be represented in court and it was sueing Jerry Bruckheimer Television and CBS Productions for defamation of character. Defamation is more commonly refered to as 'libel' in the United States so we'll be using that term for the remainder of this.

The most signifigant legal defense for a libel suit is one simple thing. The truth. If I made you look bad with lies, that's libel. If I made you look bad with truth, verifyable facts about you? Well it sucks to be you, trial over.

Let's look at what libelist things the CSI episode Fur And Loathing presented.


It showed us a furry couple having an arguement cause the guy was sniffing the crotch of another chick, who was infact not only a man, but Willie Garson.

1) Furries argue amongst them selves including relationship issues and cheat on each other. There isn't enough space on all of the internet to list off every example of batshit crazy furry drama. So this was the truth.

2) Some male furries have female fursonas and even female fursuits. Also truth.

Next up?


Furries have fursuit sex parties at fur conventions.

1) As Taryn The Red HIV Panda so clearly showed us all recently, these kinds of parties happen at actual furry conventions.

2) But that's not all! Other sex parties are being planned. You can even see some announced at the LJ group titled 'Fursex'. I won't directly link this, but it's not safe for work and if you want to find it, Google for 'fursex' and 'LiveJournal' together. It features topics of sex parties for various conventions and furries showing themselves jerking off in their fursuits. Once agian TRUTH.


Finally, the other thing it showed us! Almost all furries own fursuits! ...Okay that one is actually not true. Fursuits are expensive and the majority of the active fandom does not own a fursuit. ...However showing the majority of the fandom in posession of fursuits was not libel either, it doesn't make furries look good or bad. It was inaccurate but harmless.

Conclusion...

*THE ENTIRE FURRY FANDOM REALLY IS THE SHIT HOLE THAT THE MEDIA PRESENTS IT TO BE, SO QUIT BITCHING ABOUT THE 'LIES' WHEN YOU'RE LIVING OUT THE HORRIBLE TRUTH YOURSELVES YOU FUCKING FURFAGS.  CONSIDDER YOURSELVES LUCKY THAT THE MEDIA HASN'T REALIZED THE TRUE CANCER OF THE FANDOM IS THE DRAMA.  DR. PHIL COULD DO AN ENTIRE SEASON ON FURRY DRAMA.  ONE WHOLE EPISODE DEDICATED TO STUMBLES THE STAIR DRAGON EVEN!*


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 21, 2009)

It's a TV show.  It's not accurate.  It's supposed to be entertaining, accuracy be damned.  (Whether it's actually entertaining or not is a whole other matter.)  Why is this thread still going on?


----------



## foxmusk (Jun 21, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> *THE ENTIRE FURRY FANDOM REALLY IS THE SHIT HOLE THAT THE MEDIA PRESENTS IT TO BE, SO QUIT BITCHING ABOUT THE 'LIES' WHEN YOU'RE LIVING OUT THE HORRIBLE TRUTH YOURSELVES YOU FUCKING FURFAGS.  CONSIDDER YOURSELVES LUCKY THAT THE MEDIA HASN'T REALIZED THE TRUE CANCER OF THE FANDOM IS THE DRAMA.  DR. PHIL COULD DO AN ENTIRE SEASON ON FURRY DRAMA.  ONE WHOLE EPISODE DEDICATED TO STUMBLES THE STAIR DRAGON EVEN!*



you've said pretty much what i've been thinking but not feeling like typing out.

there is nothing pleasant or positive to this fandom. we're a bunch of people who roleplay and dress as anthropomorphic animals. a large part of the fandom is nothing but perverts, fetishists, infantiles and zoophiles. hell, we even have a few fucking pedophiles, and i'm not talking lolicon.

we are a fandom that openly supports sexual deviance, and flaunts jokes of rape, pedophilia, zoophilia, and other crude subjects. Hell, the best-known joke from the furry fandom is the fucking "Cockwaffle", which is the most idiotic thing ever. the top artists are the ones who draw close to nothing but porn. Hell, the most popular artists in the fandom, Blotch, have SO much potential, and they choose to draw close to nothing but straight up pornography.

A large majority are nothing but drama whores and sex fiends who cyber in public. this fandom is pretty much the sludge pit of the internet. 4chan isn't even as bad as this is. For Christ's sake, zoophiles are welcomed with open fucking arms.

what is there to be proud of? why should we sue CSI for telling the truth?

EDIT: also, now that i'm thinking about it, who the hell would get the money if we had sued CSI and won? that wouldn't happen, but who were you thinking would get it? Blotch? Adam Wan? Our Motherland, the Furaffinity?


----------



## Panzermanathod (Jun 21, 2009)

Although I wouldn't be so absolute, I do agree with it.

And, really, as you said you can't exactly sue for "Defamation of character" if there isn't any real defamation in the first place.


----------



## HotActionYiffFur (Jun 21, 2009)

I feel embarrassed for being associated with this fandom sometimes


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 21, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> Hell, the best-known joke from the furry fandom is the fucking "Cockwaffle", which is the most idiotic thing ever.



I had to look it up, and I had a hell of a time finding it, too.  Krystal's sandwich is more well-known.



HarleyParanoia said:


> EDIT: also, now that i'm thinking about it, who the hell would get the money if we had sued CSI and won? that wouldn't happen, but who were you thinking would get it? Blotch? Adam Wan? Our Motherland, the Furaffinity?



Certainly not Alan T. Panda.


----------



## foxmusk (Jun 21, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> I had to look it up, and I had a hell of a time finding it, too.  Krystal's sandwich is more well-known.
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not Alan T. Panda.



go to photobucket and furaffinity and search "cockwaffle", you'll get answers. :V


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 21, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> go to photobucket and furaffinity and search "cockwaffle", you'll get answers. :V



Already did.  Thanks.  It's a good thing I've learned how to unsee things.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 21, 2009)

cpam said:


> What furries do behind closed hotel room doors is their own business and is _not _part of the convention; the episode strongly implied it was the major point of the fandom.  And I never said that such things _never _happened, but that they are a very _small _part of the fandom and do _not _represent the fandom as a whole, or even in any significant part.  Nor did I say that CSI was _lying_, but that they _misrepresented _the fandom by showing a particular side of it -- a particularly sleazy side shown _specifically _for its sleazy qualities -- and giving it _far _more prominence than it has in reality.



I am going to agree with Ashley and Harley here. CSI Did not depict the furpile was happening at a con itself, it was at night, and considering it was in a "room" with just a handfull of furries i am guessing it was in somesort of hotel suit. 


So again, as Ashley has also said CSI was actually being truthfull and sticking to the facts. Bare in mind also they DID NOT deliberately set out to make the fandom look bad, the fandom does that well enough on its own.


----------



## cpam (Jun 21, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> there is nothing pleasant or positive to this fandom.



Quite the contrary -- there is a lot here to find that is pleasant and positive, provided you are inclined to see it.  Most of the cons put on charity drives to support one or another cause, usually for animal shelters.  There is often an outpouring of support for those down on their luck or stricken by tragedy -- except, perhaps, from those who prefer to wallow in schadenfreuden.  There are plenty of art, stories and strips done by creators that are quite enjoyable to read: Little Tales, Freefall, Doc Rat, Faux Pas, etc.



HarleyParanoia said:


> we're a bunch of people who roleplay and dress as anthropomorphic animals.



Speak for yourself.  I do neither, and know of very few people in my circles who do.  (One, to my knowledge, in fact.)



HarleyParanoia said:


> a large part of the fandom is nothing but perverts, fetishists, infantiles and zoophiles. hell, we even have a few fucking pedophiles, and i'm not talking lolicon.



And how do you determine that it is, in fact, a _large _part that so comprises the fandom?  Was there a poll?  While I think that _any _percentage of such individuals within the fandom is a shame, claiming that they are the majority is an overblown and unproven _exaggeration_.



HarleyParanoia said:


> we are a fandom that openly supports sexual deviance, and flaunts jokes of rape, pedophilia, zoophilia, and other crude subjects.



Untrue.  Again, while some might openly support this, this is not to be taken that the fandom as a whole supports it.



HarleyParanoia said:


> Hell, the best-known joke from the furry fandom is the fucking "Cockwaffle", which is the most idiotic thing ever.



Bestknown joke!?  Never heard of it.



HarleyParanoia said:


> the top artists are the ones who draw
> close to nothing but porn. Hell, the most popular artists in the fandom, Blotch, have SO much potential, and they choose to draw close to nothing but straight up pornography.



Who are the top artists, and who says that they are?  I see a lot of artists who don't do porn, and only do cheesecake at most (and some who don't even do that), and a few others who do _some _porn as opposed to a lot of it.  Perhaps the problem lies more in where you are looking and in what you are looking for.



HarleyParanoia said:


> A large majority are nothing but drama whores and sex fiends who cyber in public. this fandom is pretty much the sludge pit of the internet. 4chan isn't even as bad as this is.



That sounds more like discriminatory dismissal than fact.



HarleyParanoia said:


> For Christ's sake, zoophiles are welcomed with open fucking arms.



Again, untrue.



HarleyParanoia said:


> what is there to be proud of? why should we sue CSI for telling the truth?



I think it's already been determined that its entirely impractical to sue for a number of reasons.


----------



## cpam (Jun 21, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I am going to agree with Ashley and Harley here. CSI Did not depict the furpile was happening at a con itself, it was at night, and considering it was in a "room" with just a handfull of furries i am guessing it was in somesort of hotel suit.



No argument there.  But the depiction of it at all implies that it was part of the con and that it was a significant part of the fandom.  Not much was said or done to dispel that implication, which is why I say the episode was unbalanced



RandyDarkshade said:


> So again, as Ashley has also said CSI was actually being truthfull and sticking to the facts. Bare in mind also they DID NOT deliberately set out to make the fandom look bad, the fandom does that well enough on its own.



CSI did nothing it could be sued for, I agree.  But that does not mean that it was entirely truthful; It was very specific about what it showed and what it did not show, and a lie of omission is still a lie.


----------



## Panzermanathod (Jun 21, 2009)

cpam said:


> very specific




That's the whole point. It's a specific case. For specific people.


----------



## cpam (Jun 21, 2009)

Panzermanathod said:


> That's the whole point. It's a specific case. For specific people.



You just lost me.  I don't think we're on the same track here.  How do you mean?  When you say, "specific case for specific people", are you saying it was intentionally slanted towards a specific portrayal for the benefit of those being portrayed?


----------



## Panzermanathod (Jun 21, 2009)

It was being specific about a certain prefabricated furry situation. We know that all furries don't wear fursuits and do furpiles. Saying they omitted truth is saying that they should have, on each episode, have a Magic School Bus styled debunking.

It's a specific case. Don't treat it more than as such.


----------



## moonchylde (Jun 21, 2009)

It's a t.v. show. Everything on that show is fake. Anyone who actually belives what they see on said show is an idiot. Anyone who is upset or insulted by people who belived what they saw on t.v. has three options; educate, ignore, or laugh like hell at the stupidity of someone who belives everything they see on television. 

Besides, if your going to cast blame on t.v. for making us look bad, cast it at Mtv and their "True Life: I'm a Furry" crap. According to that all furries are underage homosexual sluts in cat suits who'll fuck anyone five minutes after meeting them, so long as they, too, have a cat suit. Or, of course, you could cast blame on all the butthurt whiners who actually think that litigation is the best way to get back at someone who doesn't like them. Grow a thicker skin and get over it, not everyone's going to like you. Other people's approval isn't really neccessary, ok? Civil litigation is like the world's biggest net troll... so quit feeding it!


----------



## cpam (Jun 21, 2009)

Panzermanathod said:


> It was being specific about a certain prefabricated furry situation. We know that all furries don't wear fursuits and do furpiles. Saying they omitted truth is saying that they should have, on each episode, have a Magic School Bus styled debunking.
> 
> It's a specific case. Don't treat it more than as such.



Ah.  I see.

Well, it shouldn't really need a debunking.  A balanced portrayal from the beginning would have been more suitable.


----------



## cpam (Jun 21, 2009)

moonchylde said:


> It's a t.v. show. Everything on that show is fake. Anyone who actually belives what they see on said show is an idiot. Anyone who is upset or insulted by people who belived what they saw on t.v. has three options; educate, ignore, or laugh like hell at the stupidity of someone who belives everything they see on television.



It's tempting, but it's also troubling.  The fact is that a lot of people _do _believe what they see on TV because, you know, if it wasn't true, they wouldn't say it.  I know how silly this sounds, but it is the human condition; say a lie long enough and often enough and it will be believed.  Look how many people to this day believe that Iraq somehow bears some responsibility for 9/11 and that this is why we invaded.  Look how many people accepted Bush and his administration on faith for eight years.

It's dangerous to ignore it, and foolish to laugh at it.  I'll go with education.


----------



## ScruffyHyena (Jun 21, 2009)

Why are people arguing about old, bad television shows anyway?

Theres a really simple solution to being offended by a TV show.

Turn it off.

*Gasp* What a concept!! I take away some of their money and ratings, awesome! Ohh...wait, I can't bitch and moan about "Liiiieees!!!" and all kinds of other things.

I love the furry fandom, I really do, but come on. We aren't some super serious socio-economic/ mildly political group. We are people who like to chill out and talk about, create, critique, etc. anthropomorphic animal artwork.

Calm the hell down. It's not like we didn't _choose_ to be furries. We did, whether you want to admit it or not. Just because you have liked it for as long as you can remember, be it Robin Hood, Winnie The Pooh, or Road Rovers (I even fall into this category) you still CHOSE to pursue it, and if you can't take responsibility for choices, you should be able to afford internet anyway.

Good day, sir.


----------



## cpam (Jun 21, 2009)

ScruffyHyena said:


> Why are people arguing about old, bad television shows anyway?



Who's arguing?



ScruffyHyena said:


> Ohh...wait, I can't bitch and moan...



Who's bitching?



ScruffyHyena said:


> We are people who like to chill out and talk about, create, critique, etc. anthropomorphic animal artwork.



And aren't we doing just that?



ScruffyHyena said:


> Calm the hell down.



Who's excited?

It's just a topic and we're having an interesting discussion about it.  That's all.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 21, 2009)

Unless you are a fursuiter yourself who participates in organised furpiles, i wouldn't worry about it. The episode depicted fursuiters and furpiles, I don't do either, therefore i don't care about the episode cause that part of the fandom does not apply to me. 

Why complain about something that a very small minority of the fandom partake in? 

When those officers in the show went to the room where the furpile was going on there was what?, a dozen suiters? ish?, out of how many furries that attend a con? what i am saying is the show only used a part of the fandom that very few furries partake in.


----------



## cpam (Jun 21, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Unless you are a fursuiter yourself who participates in organised furpiles, i wouldn't worry about it. The episode depicted fursuiters and furpiles, I don't do either, therefore i don't care about the episode cause that part of the fandom does not apply to me.



The show didn't really differentiate much between fursuiters and the common furry con-goer, did it?  It pretty much gave the impression it was all one and the same.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 21, 2009)

Panzermanathod said:


> It was being specific about a certain prefabricated furry situation. We know that all furries don't wear fursuits and do furpiles. Saying they omitted truth is saying that they should have, on each episode, have a Magic School Bus styled debunking.
> 
> It's a specific case. Don't treat it more than as such.


 
Ya know, CSI shows on every episode, that someone is a MURDERER.  Maybe they should debunk that, after all, it's convinced the entire populus to hide in their homes, fearing that EVERY HUMAN BEING is a murderer and will be convincted by a slim series of clues.

Oh wait, no it doesn't.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 21, 2009)

cpam said:


> The show didn't really differentiate much between fursuiters and the common furry con-goer, did it?  It pretty much gave the impression it was all one and the same.



The furpile only had fursuiters in full suits at it. The con scene at daytime had people in partial and full suits and even some not in any suit walking around. People should pay attention to detail. Other than that, i will agree with you here, they didn't differentiate much between them.


----------



## cpam (Jun 21, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> The furpile only had fursuiters in full suits at it. The con scene at daytime had people in partial and full suits and even some not in any suit walking around. People should pay attention to detail.



Ah, well, you see?  Even _I_ didn't remember that, and I'd seen it more than once.

The brain is rather selective at times about what it retains and why.  And it seems we're _all_ affected that way.  Yes, people should pay attention to details.  But we always tend to remember the _wrong _details, when we remember them at all.


----------



## cpam (Jun 21, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Ya know, CSI shows on every episode, that someone is a MURDERER.  Maybe they should debunk that, after all, it's convinced the entire populus to hide in their homes, fearing that EVERY HUMAN BEING is a murderer and will be convincted by a slim series of clues.
> 
> Oh wait, no it doesn't.



Y'know, there was a time where people were concerned about Black portrayals on TV, that they were either portrayed as pimps, gangsters or servants.  There was also concerns voiced that women were either shown as hookers, teachers or housewives.  It wasn't strictly true, but it happened enough to support the concern of stereotyping.  It's easy to create a stereotype without thinking, and even easier to perpetuate it.  All cops use excessive force, all politicians are on the take, all gays are out to destroy the traditional family, etc etc.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 21, 2009)

cpam said:


> Ah, well, you see?  Even _I_ didn't remember that, and I'd seen it more than once.
> 
> The brain is rather selective at times about what it retains and why.  And it seems we're _all_ affected that way.  Yes, people should pay attention to details.  But we always tend to remember the _wrong _details, when we remember them at all.



People also remember things differently. Hence why witness statements the police take, for the same incident will varey with one ore more facts. Because people interprate things differently.


----------



## |||||||||||||||||||| (Jun 22, 2009)

Why do people get such a hissy fit over this episode? its one of my favs.


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 22, 2009)

|||||||||||||||||||| said:


> Why do people get such a hissy fit over this episode? its one of my favs.



Fursecution complex.  *shot*  I'm not a coyote!


----------



## Henk86 (Jun 22, 2009)

Nah, a lawsuit would be too time consuming. Plus I don't care enough to file one.


----------



## cpam (Jun 22, 2009)

|||||||||||||||||||| said:


> Why do people get such a hissy fit over this episode? its one of my favs.



Well, I don't know that it's a 'hissy fit', but the question has already been addressed earlier in the thread: basically, it bothers a lot of people because its an unbalanced representation and makes the entire fandom out to be something that its not.  That may not bother some people, but it does bother a lot of others.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 22, 2009)

BRB, emailing episode ideas to Dr. Phil.


----------



## ArielMT (Jun 22, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> BRB, emailing episode ideas to Dr. Phil.



Why?  He'll only blame it on video games...


----------



## -m- (Jun 23, 2009)

Who cares about Crimes Solved Instantly who watches that crap anymore?


----------



## KiloFox (Jun 23, 2009)

Cloudchaser said:


> If this couple can sue CSI for defemation, we can sue over that Fur And Loathing episode!
> 
> http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/la-fi-ct-csi-realtors23-2009may23,0,1436185.story


 i don't nesecarily agree with either course of action, but i WOULD like to see CSI get their just deserts and learn to actually DO SOME FUCKING RESERCH FIRST!!! it was a horrible episode too! i'm tired of newspapers, news reporters, and TV shows picking apart facts so that they can bastardize it and make it sell commercial slots, newspapers, ad slots etc... it's fucking annoying as hell, and they need to learn not to! such is why i do not read the newspaper, watch the news, etc...


----------



## cpam (Jun 23, 2009)

-m- said:


> Who cares about Crimes Solved Instantly who watches that crap anymore?



I watch it every week.  Judging by the ratings, I'd guess a whole lot of others are also watching.


----------



## I am a communist (Jun 23, 2009)

Jeez, am I the only one who found that episode absolutely hilarious? I WAS THERE FOR THE YIFF!


----------



## Zrcalo (Jun 23, 2009)

I am a communist said:


> Jeez, am I the only one who found that episode absolutely hilarious? I WAS THERE FOR THE YIFF!



I thought it was hilarious... it was also the reason why I even learned about/joined the furry fandom.. 

:3 I luff CSI... and I luff furs...
;; I'm also a homosexual christian if it makes anyone feel better...

goddamn am I full of opposites.


----------



## I am a communist (Jun 23, 2009)

Zrcalo said:


> I thought it was hilarious... it was also the reason why I even learned about/joined the furry fandom..
> 
> :3 I luff CSI... and I luff furs...
> ;; I'm also a homosexual christian if it makes anyone feel better...
> ...



Damn son, does half of you hate the other half?


----------



## Amino (Jul 7, 2009)

Cloudchaser said:


> If this couple can sue CSI for defemation, we can sue over that Fur And Loathing episode!
> 
> http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/la-fi-ct-csi-realtors23-2009may23,0,1436185.story



Good god, just shoot yourself now.

Groups DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS. Individuals have rights. You cannot infringe on the rights of a group, only individuals.

This sort of shit logic by intellectual adolescents is the reason why muslims and other religious groups are able to push towards banning "defamation of religion" in countries such as the UK.


----------



## Bacu (Jul 7, 2009)

Amino said:


> Good god, just shoot yourself now.
> 
> Groups DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS. Individuals have rights. You cannot infringe on the rights of a group, only individuals.
> 
> This sort of shit logic by intellectual adolescents is the reason why muslims and other religious groups are able to push towards banning "defamation of religion" in countries such as the UK.


...why....

Why did you dig this damned thread up again? = _=

Could we get this locked, please?


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 7, 2009)

Oh God, I thought this died.  

*smacks Amino with newspaper*  Bad troll, bad!


----------



## Ricky (Jul 7, 2009)

fail troll is fail


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 7, 2009)

Ricky said:


> fail troll is fail



You like digging up old threads er somethin?


----------



## SnowFox (Jul 7, 2009)

This thread is dead, and you should be too.

... no wait, that came out wrong.

Necro's are bad, and you should feel.... ah screw it. I stand by my first comment.

This thread was terrible from the start


----------



## Ricky (Jul 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> You like digging up old threads er somethin?



Why are you quoting me?  I'm not the one who dug it up 

And this thread sucked anyway; why would anyone dig it up except to troll.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 7, 2009)

Ricky said:


> Why are you quoting me?  I'm not the one who dug it up
> 
> And this thread sucked anyway; why would anyone dig it up except to troll.



Lol sorry i qouted you cause i saw your post last. and yeah sucky thread now, lets let the thing die. *leaves the thread to rot in peace*


----------



## RoqsWolf (Jul 7, 2009)

Cloudchaser said:


> If this couple can sue CSI for defemation, we can sue over that Fur And Loathing episode!
> 
> http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/la-fi-ct-csi-realtors23-2009may23,0,1436185.story


 The link's not working for me and it keep leading me to this page  http://www.sun-sentinel.com/topic/services-shopping/real-estate/real-estate-buyers/T50025013.topic

Well I don't think we would be able to sue anyone.


----------



## KrystalsLover (Jul 7, 2009)

secretfur said:


> Hey I dont like CSI, but why the hell would I sue them for? So they made furries look bad. I'd bet that half the people who watched that episode didnt care about furries before or after the episode. The other half dont even know what a furry is. Let's face it, 6 billion people dont watch CSI.
> 
> Only problem I had with that episode was that it was the same pile of shit they always show, just this time they wrapped it in some nice little furry wrapping paper.


 dude theres just above 6 billion people on earth...are we teh only people who care? XD


----------



## ArielMT (Jul 7, 2009)

Can we have someone come take away this dead horse, please?

Thanks.


----------



## TheRedRaptor (Jul 7, 2009)

Dead horse
Beat it
Oh yeah.

I wonder just how many people have met a "Furry" in The Off-Line World?
A fair number are in it for the sex.
I am not in it for the sex, but it can be a means to an end.


----------



## pheonix (Jul 7, 2009)

I pray this retarded debate doesn't reignite. :/


----------

