According to /d/ rules, the face determines if something is furry or not. In the case of Ms. Katt, we can clearly see that she has a human face (with a few features of a cat, classifying her as a catgirl) and a human upper body. Only the lower body is covered in fur. She'd if at all classify as either a catgirl or monstergirl, but not as a furry!
This admittedly rather questionable picture was taken without any sexual emotions involved and merely posted to point out a, in the eyes of P.P.A., rather amusing but not arousing fact.
Furthermore, my client also took such photos of other characters, neither of which are furry. As evident here:http://www.soniccenter.org/forum/index.php?topic=2590.0
This NPC does not refer to the main player character of Grandia 3, but instead is talking to a character that later joins the party, named Ulf (>Picture
<). In addition, the NPC dialogue is not affected by any of the player's actions, nor can any of the player characters be named to represent my client. (These facts were left out of P.P.A.'s original post for comedic value.)
I don't see the relevance of this "evidence" for this trial, the picture P.P.A. posted was from one of the official Archie comics, didn't show anything related to furryness and was used primarily to show the ridiculous faces of the two characters.
And yet again something entirely irrelevant is presented. This post in absolutely no way hints for a membership of the furry fandom. When my client was referring to that theoretical "girl" of Fang, he primarily thought of a human
girl (or didn't think about it at all). Not to mention the whole thread wasn't really serious anyway.
Here he was merely pointing out what he assumed to be a fact (but was proven wrong later anyway).
Ah well, let's analyse this post, shall we?
And Sally ftl indeed. But after all, she's naked. :o
Again, he's just pointing out a fact. And, in the first sentence he even explicitly say that he dislikes
Ms. Sally, which a real furry would definitely not at the sight of her being entirely naked.
Like she having hot sex amirite~
Burning her lovers. XD
Here P.P.A. made a pun and a non-serious hypothesis, neither of which involved any sexual feelings towards the character in question.
I can't remember the context of this. Either way this statement is redundant in itself anyway, as it only points out a logical fact. ...I think. I don't really get this post either.
With this evidence you're only supporting the defence, as P.P.A. proved to find the concept of an animal (Sonic) being in love with a human (Elise) quite disgusting, adding that a (merely romantic, he didn't even think of a sexual) relationship between two members of the same race would be much more acceptable.
And isn't it a furry's (referring to human members of the fandom) desire to mate with an animal or somehting resembling an animal? Why would P.P.A. call exactly this urge morally questionable if he himself was a furry?
WHAT? I, Serene am certainly not a furry. The wings on my back are the only inhumane features on my body, and bat wings would only classify me as an Arc of which I am the last surviving individual, but it wouldn't rank me as anything in a fetish losz. And the things on my head aren't body features but simply a rather unusual sort of hat that can be taken off.
What now, Mr. 242?!