|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Bill Hails
Subject: Re: Questionable Content on the Newsgroups
Date: 6 Apr 2004 18:34:04
Message: <4073305c@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:
> 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?
No, just a parent.
--
Bill Hails
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>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.
So you really needed to include this last paragraph of my post in your
post, even if you didn't refer to it/comment on it and it had nothing to
do with the rest of your post?
I'm talkin about this paragraph:
>(and yes, I know that news.povray.org is not usenet)
>>
>>Florian
>>http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
> You really think someone's website is the Holy Bible on usenet
> behaviour?
Nope. But in Usenet, there's (in almost all groups) a common sense of
how posters treat each other. It's about respect. If you don't have the
time to prepare your post properly (by choosing the right quotes etc.),
why should anyone else spend his time with it? And don't tell me I don't
have to read/answer your posts. I know that. It's as stupid as saying
"Hey, I know my music is playin at 120db, but if you don't like it, just
stop listening to it".
The link I posted points to only one of thousands such sites where the
rules are actually written down for newbies and people like you -
although I'm afraid that telling you anything about rules in a community
is like trying to sell saunas to snowmen - absolutely hopeless.
Florian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |