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

"Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C3C9271638raf256com@203.29.75.35...
> 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?

He has the right to express his opinion on the subject just as you do.

--
God

Post a reply to this message

JC (Exether) wrote:

> Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> 
>> "Timothy Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote in message
>> news:4070c191@news.povray.org...

<snip />

>> 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.

Oh G-D, don't feed the troll... :-/
-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message