Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:

> spa### [at] raf256com news:Xns94C28087FEF8Fraf256com@203.29.75.35

<snip />

> I can write and donate PHP script to register (that will work with either 
> text file and/or MySQL data base, that would be connected to news-server).

And so it begins.
-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> Samuel T. Benge wrote:

<snip />

> (This is founded on a logical fallacy: Real art invokes an
> emotional response, therefore if something invokes an emotion
> it must be art.)

Hey, wait a minute; that was /my/ argument. To /me/, art is what evokes 
an emotion. But, the rest of the paragraph clearly said that art is a 
personal, subjective thing, not objective and logical. Please don't 
quote me out of context.

<snip />

-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> 
> Pornography is wrong; it is an affront to the Creator.

Then let him deal with it as he will.

Otherwise, regardless of how this issue is handled, let it not be 
handled in accordance with religious beliefs simply because religion 
would have it so.

(That's as politely as I can phrase my opinion on THAT matter. For a 
more candid assessment, see Rafal's reply.)

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Doctor Morbius wrote:

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

<snip />

>>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.

He has you there.

-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

Bill Hails wrote:

<snip />

> 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 :-)

I agree. He's been linking to a web-site for the sexually explicity 
(IMHO) ones and have been tagging it as adult content. Both those 
together should be enough to put this to rest, I think.
-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

> 2. I don't require reaction or comment.
That's for example one thing I do not understand about your attitude. 
When you are not interested in other people's reactions or comments on 
your images, why do you post your images here? I mean, I don't post my 
images to renderosity, for example, simply because it's a place to post 
CGI work.

> 3. Yes. You will be seeing much of me in the future.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have anything against your images, I just 
said that I don't like your attitude, which seems to be to simply 
disturb the normal life in these groups.
Although your images are often rather simple (in the technical way that 
is), they have, as others already pointed out, often more artistic merit 
than other posts.

> 4. You also note I've become less aggressive since the start of my
> most recent posting season here.
I noticed that and I think it's a good development :) We aren't an 
intolerant community here. Call us old-fashioned, but IMHO we prefer 
things to change slowly (like with image/video encoding formats).

Florian

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Apr 2004 19:16:44 -0400, "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote:
> What gives You right to decide what other persons should or should not see? 
> Are You some God?

Smoking has side effects to non smokers.
Using deodorants has side effect kilometers above earth.
Supporting Saddam by some countries some years ago had side effects nowadays.
Ignoring Lepper (Polish specific) a few years ago makes our future danger.

Observing wrong behaviours without reaction does not stop wrong behaviours. It
only encourage to propagate this behaviour. There is nothing related to
christianism in it. It's social problem of preserving some respect to
conventional rules so our children could live in peace.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

>>> 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.
> 
> He has you there.

I do not think so. I responded to Darren not to him.
Just as I am responding to you now and not to that
'Doctor Morbius'.

Post a reply to this message

Dan P wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> 
>> Samuel T. Benge wrote:
> 
> 
> <snip />
> 
>> (This is founded on a logical fallacy: Real art invokes an
>> emotional response, therefore if something invokes an emotion
>> it must be art.)
> 
> 
> Hey, wait a minute; that was /my/ argument. To /me/, art is what evokes 
> an emotion. But, the rest of the paragraph clearly said that art is a 
> personal, subjective thing, not objective and logical. Please don't 
> quote me out of context.
> 
> <snip />
> 
Sorry, I did not make that connection. My comment was not related to
yours in any way (which was possibly even in another thread, because I
was be able to find it in this one).
It was meant as an observation of a more general trend in 'art'.

Because my full answer is ridiculously long I moved it to off-topic.

Post a reply to this message

>>Except you do it on pretty much *every post* you answer.

> *Sometimes*, that's what is required.

(Quotes slightly edited to highlight the little contradiction)

Please tell me in which case it would be necessary to quote the whole 
post your refering to as a whole (Quoting the whole post in several 
parts, each answered/commented individually is of course a totally 
different matter :)

http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
(and yes, I know that news.povray.org is not usenet)

Florian

Post a reply to this message