In article <40713202$1@news.povray.org>, "Tim Nikias v2.0" <#macro 
tim.nikias (@) #local = "nolights.de" #end> says...
> > Only with this ones with see satan in every erotic image, and have
> > issues [problems / complexes] with images of one of nicest things in
> > peoples lifes.
> 
> It's not about erotic images, it's about pornography. There is a difference
> of taste between those two.
> 
The only major problem being the fact that the difference between the two 
floats some place between someone standing with a sexy pose and stuff 90% 
of us consider porn. In some really conservative groups just the pose 
would be labeled pornographic. The whole entire concept and spectrum of 
views is manufactured BS imho and there are only two outcomes, abandoning 
the whole stupid idea or disallowing any images, no matter how carefully 
you try to avoid them being porn. Some idiot will still insist it is. Or 
are you honestly forgetting the whole BS about the little mermaid castle 
having phallic symbols, the random appearance of the word sex in some 
clouds in the lion king or the butchering of the ages old Rescuers 
cartoon by removing the painting in the background that some people 
complained about. Gee, hope they never make a cartoon with the Sistine 
Chapel and use the original art, which didn't have all the images painted 
over with clothes to make them 'acceptable'....

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message