Hmmmm....

maybe ask the admins to create some new groups?

pov.binaries.images.clean
pov.binaries.images.christian-approved
pov.binaries.images.minors
pov.binaries.images.bland
pov.binaries.images.i-dont-know-art-but-i-know-it-when-i-see-it

images are images - they certainly aren't going to erupt from
a computer screen and physically assault anyone

images are images - for some people, some images certainly assault
their sensibilities, mores, taste, beliefs, dogmas, political leanings,
sense of personal identity, sense of social identity ... etc.

man made images have effects
the same images can have no effects on different men

who would have figured?

Post a reply to this message

gregj;-)565### [at] aolcom news:4070cceb$1@news.povray.org

> Pornography is wrong; 

lol

it is an affront to the Creator.  

ROTFL :)

> This is the Christian context
> I come from, and I believe it to be literal truth.

I belive it to be literal crap.

Btw - http://www.wickedcases.com/kiki/godkills.jpg  ;-)


-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

stb### [at] hotmailcom news:407### [at] hotmailcom

How about creating

povray.binaries.non-for-christians-or-other-sisies

or just:

povray.binaries.adults



-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> "Timothy Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote in message
> news:4070c191@news.povray.org...
> 
>>You know, you don't have to read every post, nor should someone else's
>>posting (save that of the admin) deter you from making your own posts.
>>Common sense says: if you think something will be offensive, don't look
>>at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Pornography is wrong; it is an affront to the Creator.  Those who find
> themselves creators of pornographic content ought not despair on that
> account, for there is One who has prepared salvation for them, who says,
> "Come to the Feast of the Lamb".  This is the Christian context I come from,
> and I believe it to be literal truth.

I don't know of p.b.i beeing a Christian forum, and as your truth might 
not be everyone's truth I don't see why it should rule the forum.

JC

-- 
http://exether.free.fr/irtc (more IRTC stats !)

Post a reply to this message

spa### [at] raf256com news:Xns94C245E6FF056raf256com@203.29.75.35

> povray.binaries.non-for-christians-or-other-sisies

Ups I should clearefie that.

I do NOT think that there is something "wrong" with Christians in general.

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.

And idea of pbi.adult (or simmilar name) is a real suggestion, that group 
will not be mirrored in some countires with have problems with that etc...
(but I do not think it is necessary, same - when having a guestbook often 
owners of web site inform "we do not take any responsibility for following 
content, You are watching/reading/entering on own responsibility).


-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

no### [at] spamfr news:4070e8a9$1@news.povray.org

> I don't know of p.b.i beeing a Christian forum, and as your truth might 
> not be everyone's truth I don't see why it should rule the forum.

Yeap, thats the point IMHO.

I could also state that I'm in example satanist (with im not ofcourse but 
its funny ;) and all
a) posts that do not have 666 in title
b) posts that do not start with "Ave!"
c) povray binaries files that  do not have chmod 666  ;)
are offensive to my relligion ;)

-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

Obviously sex is an important component of human life, and as so, it's 
part of his art. I don't find too much artistic interest in IMBJR's sex 
images though, but I think that such type of images in general have an 
artistic interest. For example alt.b.3d.poser has nice nudity images.

If I follow you, it seems to me that Baudelaire, Michel Ange, Rodin, 
some surrealists etc. would have been banned from the forum.

I really appreciate your images, so it would be a bad thing not to see 
them anymore on the forum.

JC

Samuel T. Benge wrote:

> It seems my favorite newsgroup on the POV-Ray news server has been 
> darkened by pornography. Of course I'm talking about binaries.images. 
> Webster's dictionary defines pornography as, "obscene literature or 
> pictures." Can you call what has been posted anything less? There is a 
> time and a place for such things, but I never thought the POV-Ray 
> newsgroups would be one of the places.
> 
> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore. I don't 
> have to put up with people who insist what they are doing 'has to be 
> accepted'. I am not blind to the world portrayed in those images, but I 
> don't have to be reminded *every time* I visit the newsgroups. As a side 
> note, my message filters don't work or else I'd use them.
> 
> Am I the only one (besides Greg, Tyler, Bob, and Patrick) who feels this 
> way? Please speak up, or else nothing will be done about it. I hope to 
> enjoy these newsgroups again someday.
> 
> Happy Raytracing Everyone~
> 
> -Samuel Benge
> 


-- 
http://exether.free.fr/irtc (more IRTC stats !)

Post a reply to this message

Samuel T. Benge wrote:
> It seems my favorite newsgroup on the POV-Ray news server has been 
> darkened by pornography. Of course I'm talking about binaries.images. 
> Webster's dictionary defines pornography as, "obscene literature or 
> pictures." Can you call what has been posted anything less? There is a 
> time and a place for such things, but I never thought the POV-Ray 
> newsgroups would be one of the places.
> 
> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore. I don't 
> have to put up with people who insist what they are doing 'has to be 
> accepted'. I am not blind to the world portrayed in those images, but I 
> don't have to be reminded *every time* I visit the newsgroups. As a side 
> note, my message filters don't work or else I'd use them.

While i understand this you also have to keep in mind that there are 
only very few postings recently with images attached that can be 
classified as pornographic.  Most postings by the person we are talking 
about here only contain links - which i did not visit and i don't intend 
to.

The real problem to me seems a quite different one, the person who 
posted these does not seem to be interested in feedback from people here 
and does not want to be part of the community.  The broad availability 
of the newsgroups on the web (including google searching) will certainly 
increase the number of this kind of postings.

I suggest you try to get your killfile working for the moment - i am 
pretty sure this problem will vanish after some time in one way or the 
other.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 21 Mar. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

I also don't like very much these images you're talking about but, with
perhaps the exception of one, I don't find them particularly offensive.

What would really bother me is if this person is posting these images just
to cause controversy or discomfort purposefully. That we will never know for
sure.

The problem with your definition of pornography is that it depends on the
definition of obscenity, which is extremely difficult to define in universal
terms.

I think one way to avoid this problem is to prohibit nude or "questionable"
images completely in p.b.i and open a new group which permits this kind of
images. That way we could be sure that no one will be offended. Of course
some will miss some "artistic" samples, but it will be an individual choice
to access this group or remain in the "immaculate" p.b.i.

Just a suggestion.

Fernando

Post a reply to this message

chr### [at] gmxde news:c4r0m4$22c$1@chho.imagico.de

> I suggest you try to get your killfile working for the moment - i am 
> pretty sure this problem will vanish after some time in one way or the 
> other.

The only problem I see here is limiting fredom of choice of contentent to 
present, and trying to force others to own opinions and belivings (like 
that such posts are afrront to "Creator" - lol).

Maybe we should create some sort of Saint Inquisition to ban or posts that 
could offend certain religious groups?

-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message