Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> 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 find that more offensive than any image posted here.

-- 
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : (+44) 0845 1083740 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key : http://pgp.kitty5.com

Post a reply to this message

Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:


> I think creating pbi.adults (or in general pb.adults) should satisfie both 
> "sides". Just a suggestion.
> 

Since you see no problem determining what types of images should go into 
a "pbi.adults," then, perhaps there should be no problem determining 
what types of images should ^not^ be posted in "p.b.images." (hint: see 
your own answer to the first question.)  Simple enough.  Then, I don't 
think there's anything stopping anyone who so wishes from establishing 
their own "pbi.adults" on their own server, if this admin would rather 
not -- and I can understand why they might rather not.

Personally, about the only thing I find offensive is apparently highly 
intelligent people refusing to use a bit of common sense (and I don't 
mean you, Rafal.)

Dave Matthews

Post a reply to this message

"Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C2487AD273Eraf256com@203.29.75.35...
> 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



Atleast have some respect for his faith. He probably has some for yours.
lol's and ROFL's at his comments is just not needed.

Post a reply to this message

"Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C25E0B318F0raf256com@203.29.75.35...
> fcu### [at] yahoocom news:40710692$1@news.povray.org
>
> > What would really bother me is if this person is posting these images
> > just to cause controversy
>
> Thats one of goals of real art, isnt it?
>
> I find IMBJR pimages medium to quite nice, but I do not see any reason to
> create Censure, is this news group about free software program, or are we
> in some Comunistic/Totalitary art group?
>
> -- 
> http://www.raf256.com/3d/
> Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
> Computer Graphics


Some art galleries like to display controversial, antagonistic artwork and
some do not. It's always up to the art galleries what they display, and not
showing one artists work is NOT grounds for calling it censoring. If your
work is not acceptable under the standards of one gallery, take it to
another gallery where it will be appreciated.

r.

Post a reply to this message

Samuel T. Benge wrote:

> 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.

I feel the same. As pointed out before I don't object to the nature
of the posting myself, I do object to the act of postings things
that some people might find offensive and especially if the poster
is aware of that.

Everybody using the killfile does not work because that does not
work for _everybody_, there are always new people visiting and
for some people for technical or other reasons it is just impossible
(like apparently in your case).
Also I think it means that in that case we would allow people to
break the rules (or not apply common sense) and that we all
have to act to that individually.
IMHO the judgement should be at the sender.

With IMBJR we have a case where someone had repeatedly broken
the rules of the newsgroup, has been told time and again to use
his common sense before posting remarks that are considered
offensive by others and then proceeds by posting 'art'.
Art here being used in the (IMHO perverted) sense of 'something
that intends to evoke an emotional response from the viewer'.
(This is founded on a logical fallacy: Real art invokes an
emotional response, therefore if something invokes an emotion
it must be art.)
When as in this case the emotions sought after are anger and/or
disgust I personally think a news-group centered on a tool to
create images is not the right place to expose your 'art'.
What makes this case especially interesting is that we here
have someone who is not living in the same world as most
of us, who has shown to have no such thing thar others regard
as 'common sense' and will most probably not be able to restrain
himself (or herself as the case may be). So the ultimate
question is: will he be stopped by the community before
he stops himself? To which the answer ofcourse is: 42.

> Happy Raytracing Everyone~
I will.

> -Samuel Benge
	Andrel

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.
> 
> 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
> 

i find it perturbing that the image displayed contains a second.

having had a look at the home page - free areas, i'm inclined to the
view that potentially i'm exposing myself to legal consequences, if i 
happen to save one image that's nice, but contains something else.

i personally would prefer that images posted are signed as not having
a secondary image embedded, failing that the source is available and
attributable to its source.

that to me implies some requirement/ notion of honour on the part of the 
author/poster, for me that is not a problem, for some however it's a 
problematical concept.

stephen parkinson

Post a reply to this message

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

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 12:49:23 +0200, Florian Brucker
<tor### [at] torfboldcom> wrote:

>I think this community is intelligent enough not to tolerate somebody 
>who crosses the lines several times (anyone heard something about Bill 
>lately? Well, aside from that april fool, of course *g*). It's just that 
>  it is tolerated longer than in other communities I know.
>
>I got no problem with the content of IMBJR's posts (but that *is* a 
>personal opinion). But, as others already pointed out, his attitude is 
>just plain stupid (again, my personal opinion). IMHO all he wants to is 
>to create emotions like the one in this thread. I do not think that we 
>should give him that success.
>
>IMO the best solution is still the good ol' killfile. If this won't work 
>on your system, simply ignore his posts. Trolls can't live with being 
>ignored.

1. I'm no troll.

2. I don't require reaction or comment.

3. Yes. You will be seeing much of me in the future.

>
>> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore.
>I think that would be kind of a childish reaction. I do not see how this 
>would solve the problem. I love your images and - in contrast to IMBJR - 
>you are a great member of this community. If everybody who is displeased 
>by IMBJR's post would stop posting, he had reached his goal.
>
>Conclusion: Igonore this troll. He will either get more and more 
>agressive (and will be baned) or simply die in some lonely corner.

See above. And:

4. You also note I've become less aggressive since the start of my
most recent posting season here.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:24:32 +0100, "Tim Nikias v2.0" <#macro
tim.nikias (@) #local = "nolights.de" #end> wrote:

>> 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.
>
>I too don't like the current spin of images in p.b.i. It is difficult to
>propose where to draw a line between erotic, obscenity and pornography
>though. What might be considered erotic is perhaps obscene to the next.
>
>IMHO, nude images aren't a problem, but once there's a real sexual explicit
>content, I tend to think that the image isn't appropriate for the
>newsgroups, depending on the degree of content. That aside, most of us do
>have a personal website, so why not use your own gallery for such images?
>Those interested may visit the gallery, the others just stay away.
>
>At the moment, I'm pondering whether I should activate a killfile. IMBJR
>does have some common sense, but to me, he's too much for confrontation, and
>is difficult to discuss with. Also, the magnitude of rather simple scenes
>(speaking in terms of complexity for script etc) seems to flood the
>newsgroups lately, and though some are of artistic merit, I can't see many
>with technical merit. Since he's not after comments at all, I don't get
>really why he's posting here, cause there's not much for a POVer to learn
>from.

Pity you think of this "community" as merely a technocrat's palace.
Even I admit to finding it more than that.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with "simple" or technically simple.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 19:10:52 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Samuel T. Benge wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>I feel the same. As pointed out before I don't object to the nature
>of the posting myself, I do object to the act of postings things
>that some people might find offensive and especially if the poster
>is aware of that.
>
>Everybody using the killfile does not work because that does not
>work for _everybody_, there are always new people visiting and
>for some people for technical or other reasons it is just impossible
>(like apparently in your case).
>Also I think it means that in that case we would allow people to
>break the rules (or not apply common sense) and that we all
>have to act to that individually.
>IMHO the judgement should be at the sender.
>
>With IMBJR we have a case where someone had repeatedly broken
>the rules of the newsgroup, has been told time and again to use
>his common sense before posting remarks that are considered
>offensive by others and then proceeds by posting 'art'.
>Art here being used in the (IMHO perverted) sense of 'something
>that intends to evoke an emotional response from the viewer'.
>(This is founded on a logical fallacy: Real art invokes an
>emotional response, therefore if something invokes an emotion
>it must be art.)
>When as in this case the emotions sought after are anger and/or
>disgust I personally think a news-group centered on a tool to
>create images is not the right place to expose your 'art'.
>What makes this case especially interesting is that we here
>have someone who is not living in the same world as most
>of us, who has shown to have no such thing thar others regard
>as 'common sense' and will most probably not be able to restrain
>himself (or herself as the case may be). So the ultimate
>question is: will he be stopped by the community before
>he stops himself? To which the answer ofcourse is: 42.

Bizarre.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message