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

I'm not responding to any one or any one particular point here.  It's
already been covered that not everyone is the same religion.  The question I
have, concerning religious statements, what difference does it make?
Without saying what I am, if I say "I Believe", that is my personal
standpoint, and has no bearing on anyone else.  My belief is my belief and
nothing more.

The line between adult and porn is a fine one, and as far as I've been able
to discover, nobody has been able to nail it down exactly.  It depends a lot
on the customs of your country, your own personal thoughts, and little else.
There is a point that it is obvously one or the other, but it's the shades
of gray that are troublesome.

Next comes "What is art?"  If you want a good flamefest, that one question
is more than enough to cause one.  (No, don't start it.)  There are purists,
theorists, and the "No holds barred" in every group.  Artists are a funny
group, art to one is pure shite to another.  Diddabum, no more can be said.

What is acceptable?  It's quite obvious that over the years certain
conventions have become accepted on the groups, some far more lenient than
others.  "Chief troll in charge of creating useless threads"  (Imbjr)
obviously feels that these conventions are something to be challenged, but
for what reason, only God knows, and he ain't saying.  No, I haven't seen
his images, as he has the places of honor in my killfile.  (Two entries in
the killfile, and both of them honoring him.)

Art, if my interpretation of the word is correct, most likely not, can both
stir emotions, or cause one to think.  It can entertain, it can inform, it
can stimulate.  Mammalian instincts being what they are, there are times
that I wouldn't want to be seeing suggestive pictures.  It can also serve as
a memorial, whether public or private of events that are significant in one
way or another to someone.  The problem with art is trying to define what is
and isn't.

I don't think I'm alone in that I have memories of my early teens, fleeting
seconds that affected me in one way or another.  Mere seconds that I now
realize helped to mold me to what I am today, what I like, and what I
dislike.  I have done some of them using the infamous Poser, and the more
infamous Judy, along with the much maligned Dork, but only to try to hang on
to something from the past.  At the time I lived them, I didn't see them as
particularly erotic, but from the few people that have seen them, and the
ones using the younger Poser models, the first thing I hear, "Kiddie porn."
They please me, but I have the benefit of memory as to what they mean, no
one else does.  They'll never be published, or posted.  The moments are
somewhat intimate, but are things I'm sure everyone has experienced in one
way or another.

Let's not try to define and pigeon hole every facet of life.  We can portray
life, or fantasy, or complete fiction, and trying to classify everything is
totally unproductive.  The conventions for the POV groups are well
established, there is no need to try to redefine what is acceptable and what
isn't.

Cheers

Greybeard

Post a reply to this message

GreyBeard wrote:

> I'm not responding to any one or any one particular point here.  It's
> already been covered that not everyone is the same religion.

<snip:whoa />

What gave you that idea? I'm a Prustitarian. You can be too for $20(US) 
+ shipping/handling.

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

Post a reply to this message

In article <4074c699$1@news.povray.org>, r.b### [at] sbcglobalnet says...
> I'm not responding to any one or any one particular point here.  It's
> already been covered that not everyone is the same religion.

I wasn't talking about religion in general. A lot of countries with what 
should have the same 'basic' religion have completely different views on 
this very subject. There was even a study published in Scientific 
American that stated that as a general rule, Americans collectively are 
actually more restrictive and obsessive about nudity and the like than 
the majority of Catholics. We ranked on the scale between strict 
moralistic views and relaxed ones under middle eastern countries. While 
the gap between the most extreme of them and the most extreme people in 
the US was fairly wide, there was also what I personally consider to be a 
very uncomfortable overlap, given the sort of insane stuff some groups in 
the middle east believe.

No telling how accurate the study is, but almost no one would argue that 
there hasn't been a general perceived trend towards moralizing in the 
last 10+ years here. It doesn't matter what source the proclamations of 
morality come from. Differences exist, even often travelling a few 
thousand miles to a different state, where just trying to by a sex toy 
can get both you and the person selling it thrown in jail, never mind the 
fact that only maybe 2 or 3 out of the 50 states have such laws. Religion 
just happens to be the most common excuse for this sort of nonsense.



-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message

> Apparently, watermellons are considered pornographic in many arabic 
> countries, and I've actually received official threats when I had a web 
> site that had pictures of watermellons on it. 

You're kidding, right?

Florian

Post a reply to this message

Program ended abnormally on 08/04/2004 12:16, Due to a catastrophic Darren New 
error:

> Florian Brucker wrote:
> 
>>> Apparently, watermellons are considered pornographic in many arabic 
>>> countries, and I've actually received official threats when I had a 
>>> web site that had pictures of watermellons on it. 
>>
>>
>> You're kidding, right?
> 
> 
> I am 100% absolutely dead serious. I kid you not.
> 

Some overly PC Americans also frown upon watermelons because it was a major part 
of the slaves' diet.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   videotron.ca  */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> GreyBeard wrote:
> 
>> There is a point that it is obvously one or the other, but it's the 
>> shades
>> of gray that are troublesome.
> 
> Apparently, watermellons are considered pornographic in many arabic 
> countries, and I've actually received official threats when I had a web 
> site that had pictures of watermellons on it. There really isn't any 
> good definition of porn, no.

I wouldn't consider them porn, but I think they're kinda seedy.
*padum-ching!*
*tap tap tap* Is this thing on?

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

Post a reply to this message

> I believe in this case it was the resemblance to breasts.

Well. Normaly I try not to criticise someone because of his believes, 
but this is just plain stupid IMHO. So everything round is considered 
porn because it might look like breasts? Like footballs, oranges, etc... 
Seems kind of quixotic (had to look that one up *g*) to me. Imagine you 
would have had bananas and eggs, too, on that page...

Florian

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ade82a874f92d68989a19@news.povray.org...
> Religion
> just happens to be the most common excuse for this sort of nonsense.
>
Probably, but also misses my point, which is probably not too clear to begin
with.  (Ongoing war with the English language, now in it's 62nd year.)
While it can be argued that religions have probably had an overall good
effect on manking, some of the most horrific injustice has also been done by
people in clerical garb.  Nuff said.

Once again, the conventions of these groups has been set over the years,
more by people having the restraint to use a little common sense before
posting something either offensive by accident, or by design.  I have seen
nothing in past postings that I would object to anyone seeing, but as I
stated, I haven't seen the image that started this thing.  For anyone to
post something outside of those conventions is nothing short of stupid,
rude, loutish, and the act of someone that is somewhat below the mental
level of a prosimian.  After the years that the POV groups have been here,
there is nothing wrong with staying inside the mostly voluntary constraints.

If someone wants to post something outside of those constraints, then they
should post only a link, to a page containing a warning of it's content, and
a link to the image in question.  Let the one that wants to be on the
outside go through the trouble, not everyone else.  If it's worth looking
at, people will look, if it isn't, the word will be spread quickly enough.

Greybeard.

(No hair, just beard.)

Post a reply to this message