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

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 18:51:59 +0100, stephen parkinson
<ste### [at] zmemw16demoncouk> wrote:

>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.

So all images should have this declaratrion? Bit of a tall order.

>
>stephen parkinson

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

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:45:05 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>> Bizarre.
>
>BTW, it's also considered impolite in general newsgroup conventions to 
>quote an entire 2-screen message just to reply with a single word. Do 
>try to trim your messages if you expect anyone to read them.

I was trying for maximum effect. Honestly, such things are wasted ....

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

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 18:51:59 +0100, stephen parkinson
> <ste### [at] zmemw16demoncouk> wrote:
> 
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> So all images should have this declaratrion? Bit of a tall order.
> 
> 
>>stephen parkinson
> 
> 
> --------------------------------
> My First Subgenius Picture Book:
> http://www.imbjr.com
second paragraph was a mistake in hindsite
last para is really a succinct comment

stephen

Post a reply to this message

Thanx Darren.

Also for your informatio that IMBJR is apparently still
responding to what I say. It seems not to get into his
brain that I may talk _about_ him, but that I stopped talking
_to_ him and stopped listening. He is on my killfile
and if you had not responded I would know his 'answer'.
I still do not know what was bizarre, but as a matter
of fact I do not care ;).

	Andrel


Darren New wrote:

> IMBJR wrote:
> 
>> Bizarre.
> 
> 
> BTW, it's also considered impolite in general newsgroup conventions to 
> quote an entire 2-screen message just to reply with a single word. Do 
> try to trim your messages if you expect anyone to read them.
>

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:10:41 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>> I was trying for maximum effect. 
>
>Except you do it on pretty much every post you answer.

Sometimes, that's what is required.

>
>> Honestly, such things are wasted ....
>
>What a straight line. ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 00:13:15 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Thanx Darren.
>
>Also for your informatio that IMBJR is apparently still
>responding to what I say. It seems not to get into his
>brain that I may talk _about_ him, but that I stopped talking
>_to_ him and stopped listening. 

Listening? I don't remember being able to shout that loud.

Who cares if you can hear me or no. I can still reply.

>He is on my killfile
>and if you had not responded I would know his 'answer'.
>I still do not know what was bizarre, but as a matter
>of fact I do not care ;).

If you did not care you would not have responded.


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

Post a reply to this message

Samuel T. Benge wrote:

> [...]
> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore.
> [...]

Please continue to post, don't give in.

I'm not personally offended by those images, but I don't enjoy them, and
I don't want my kids seeing them, nor anyone elses.

Also, since I've started ranting, I think that p.b.i.adult is a really
c**p idea. It just invites the server to be classified as a porn site,
I think I'd stop posting here if that ever happened :-)

-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

bil### [at] europeyahoo-inccom news:4071e668@news.povray.org

> I'm not personally offended by those images, but I don't enjoy them, and
> I don't want my kids seeing them, 

> nor anyone elses.

What gives You right to decide what other persons should or should not see? 
Are You some God?



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

Post a reply to this message