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

I suppose I should apologize to andrel for changing my name just to 
subvert his killfile, and for repeatedly being a troll.

This is hard for me.  Old habits die hard, you know.

I am a troll.  I am insensitive.  I apologize profusely.

But I am not going to change.

Ian Dickinson of East Sussex,
(aka: IMBJR, Doctor Morbius)

Doctor Morbius wrote:
> 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

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 19:23:42 -0700, Xplo Eristotle
<xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote:

>Greg M. Johnson wrote:
>> 
>> Pornography is wrong; it is an affront to the Creator.
>
>Then let him deal with it as he will.

Yes, and judging by the way it's been dealt with it would appear to be
ok with Him.

>
>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

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:19:52 +0200, Florian Brucker
<tor### [at] torfboldcom> wrote:

>
>> 2. I don't require reaction or comment.
>That's for example one thing I do not understand about your attitude. 

Don't worry about it. It is a simple concept - it just takes a bit of
getting used to.

>When you are not interested in other people's reactions or comments on 
>your images, why do you post your images here?

To express my mind.

> I mean, I don't post my 
>images to renderosity, for example, simply because it's a place to post 
>CGI work.

I pick here because I have POV work to express.

>
>> 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.

Thank you. As for my attitude, it's perhaps because there's a degree
of difference between me and the average person here.

>
>> 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).

Well it's not as if one person can make them go any faster.

>
>Florian

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:15:26 +0200, Florian Brucker
<tor### [at] torfboldcom> wrote:

>>>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 :)

Quite simply: As the need fits.

>
>http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html

You really think someone's website is the Holy Bible on usenet
behaviour?

>(and yes, I know that news.povray.org is not usenet)
>
>Florian

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:02:02 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>>>> 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'.

Sophistry.

>

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:43:23 -0600, IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:

>I suppose I should apologize to andrel for changing my name just to 
>subvert his killfile, and for repeatedly being a troll.
>
>This is hard for me.  Old habits die hard, you know.
>
>I am a troll.  I am insensitive.  I apologize profusely.
>
>But I am not going to change.
>
>Ian Dickinson of East Sussex,
>(aka: IMBJR, Doctor Morbius)

Oh the repeated joy I get when this happens. It's like someone
discovering a magic trick they think no one has ever tried before only
discover everyone has had a coin pulled out their ear by their uncle.


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

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:02:00 -0500, Dan P <dan### [at] yahoocom>
wrote:

>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.

I shall be continuing with that policy as it seems to fit in with the
general atmosphere here.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

In article <paj470tquqgovupb6rulap3ac4e8ul9g6b@4ax.com>, abx### [at] abxartpl 
says...
> 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.
> 
Conventional?? Whose convention, the US, British, Japanese, people living 
in the amazon rain forest that may only see their first computer next 
week and consider clothing and don't have a clue what anyones else's 
'conventional' view is? Conventions changes from one country to another 
with respect to some of this stuff, like everything else. Which one 
prevails, since postings here could come from any or all such sources, at 
least in theory. I have no problem with the idea of our children living 
in peace, but I have seen way to many cases where that peace is broken, 
not by their exposure to something, but the intolerance or anger of those 
that thought it was "wrong". And I am not just talking about pictures. 
psychological harm has to come about as a result of both exposure and 
"how" everyone else handles it. The later factor is far more important 
and more damage happens due to people being unwilling or unable to deal 
with what happened in a sane fashion, than ever came about due to someone 
seeing a picture. By making the mere exposure to such things the source 
and not your reaction and lack of proper time spent talking about it as 
the root cause of problems, it absolves you of the blame when, having 
done nothing but said, "don't look at that, its bad", but not why turns 
out to be ineffective. The fact that other cultures may handle the 
situation completely differently, but have no more or less problems than 
your proves the lie that it is the subject matter and not the parents and 
society's reaction to it that gives rise to the problems.


-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message