 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I sent this to the IRTC people, now I "carbon copy" it to you:
Greetings,
I am very disturbed about the November-December 2000 stills winner. Quite
frankly, I don't want to see pictures of naked women (or men, for that
matter)! This picture should have been disqualified for inappropriate
content. What right has anyone to post content which is almost universally
considered evil on an innocent raytracing site!? This is not acceptable! I
hope that the judges will have more sense and decency in the future.
______
David McCabe
dav### [at] mac com
http://homepage.mac.com/davidmccabe/
God is good!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What right has anyone to post content which is almost universally
> considered evil on an innocent raytracing site!?
I guess it was almost universally considered good art, because the
winner of the contest is selected by majority rule. Also, the character
isn't exactly engaging in any obscene behavior. Previous rounds have a
witch and a severed head--nothing "evil" about that though huh?
And let's not forget November-December 1999 which also contains naked
folks. Or March-April 1998 which contains a girl wearing a nighty in
bed. Were these past winners just not "evil" enough?
--
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:55:44 -0800, David <mcc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>What right has anyone to post content which is almost universally
>considered evil on an innocent raytracing site!?
Who says POV-ray is innocent? It has condemned me to many hours of hard work
and frustration (plus a few moments of intense pleasure). A bit like sex
really.
----------------------
dav### [at] hamiltonitecom
http://hamiltonite.com/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, that's because I'm quite new to raytacing and just discovered the
IRTC not long ago.
______
David McCabe
mcc### [at] yahoocom
http://homepage.mac.com/davidmccabe/
Jesus loves you!
> I guess it was almost universally considered good art, because the
> winner of the contest is selected by majority rule. Also, the character
> isn't exactly engaging in any obscene behavior. Previous rounds have a
> witch and a severed head--nothing "evil" about that though huh?
> And let's not forget November-December 1999 which also contains naked
> folks. Or March-April 1998 which contains a girl wearing a nighty in
> bed. Were these past winners just not "evil" enough?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:55:44 -0800, David wrote:
>content. What right has anyone to post content which is almost universally
>considered evil on an innocent raytracing site!? This is not acceptable! I
Nudity is evil in your world? How do you bathe?
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
No, Mr. Parker, nudity is not "evil in my world". Pornography is.
______
David McCabe
mcc### [at] yahoocom
http://homepage.mac.com/davidmccabe/
Jesus loves you!
> Nudity is evil in your world? How do you bathe?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news:B6BD4ED9.422B%mcc### [at] yahoocom...
> No, Mr. Parker, nudity is not "evil in my world". Pornography is.
the sparkle of genius.
After all, we are all naked under our suits, dogs and birds are naked in the
streets, even the little fly that disturbs you in a summer evening is naked.
are, at least 14 men naked in view.
Txemi Jendrix
tji### [at] euskalnetnet
http://home.dencity.com/tji
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi David, you recently wrote in irtc.stills:
> What right has anyone to post content which is almost universally
> considered evil on an innocent raytracing site!?
<plonk>
- Lutz
email : lut### [at] stmuccom
Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 02:16:52 +0100, Txemi Jendrix wrote:
>are, at least 14 men naked in view.
Oh, that is pure sacrilege. How can naked people possibly be worshipful?
(Note for the humor deficient: :) )
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David" wrote:
> No, Mr. Parker, nudity is not "evil in my world". Pornography is.
Pornography, LOL.
She's posing in front of a mirror, how is that pornographic?
Are you saying that paintings of nude women from the Renaissance period are
also all pornographic because they involve nudity?
It can't even be considered perverse, after all, the two people in the image
are LIVING TOGETHER. He is not stalking her or spying on her. I don't know
how many people mustn't have picked this up, but the two rooms are JOINED by
an opening in the wall at the back. You can see that light flows in from
the TV in the left to the room on the right, casting a green-blue haze on
the toilet and the far wall, and the ceiling, and also if you brighten the
image a bit, you'll notice that the room on the right casts a pale yellowish
shadow on the far wall and ceiling of the left room.
Just my 2 cents.
--
Lance.
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
