 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR <no### [at] spam here> wrote:
> That "tasteless smut" was an example of quadtree traversal done entirely in
> POV. See one of the scene file groups for the code - since there seemed to
> be a number of doubters as to its provenance.
I don't believe Ken was in any way referring to *how* the image was
done but about its *contents*.
Fighting with server administrators may be a good way to get you
expelled, making you some kind of "martyr", but do you seriously think
anyone is going to care?
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:407522ee@news.povray.org...
> IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> > That "tasteless smut" was an example of quadtree traversal done entirely
in
> > POV. See one of the scene file groups for the code - since there seemed
to
> > be a number of doubters as to its provenance.
>
> I don't believe Ken was in any way referring to *how* the image was
> done but about its *contents*.
>
> Fighting with server administrators may be a good way to get you
> expelled, making you some kind of "martyr", but do you seriously think
> anyone is going to care?
>
Of course some people care, but the povray news server is private and the
issue of who cares about square pegs in round holes is moot.
At least this noisy issue has not been promoted to the level where submitted
images to p.b.i. must be approved by a pre-posting authority.
Concerns about the news server's google-reputation should also
comprise thoughtful contemplation about how the greater ratio of
complaints attract more attention than the relatively few so-called
"objectionable" images.
The clearer the constraints of the AUP, the better able potential
contributors to judge whether to submit. I have no idea if the admins
are reviewing the current AUP (easily available for viewing).
If there are any clarifications to the AUP (or changes) I'm sure there
will a new posting to p.a.f-a-q
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8 Apr 2004 06:01:19 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>> That "tasteless smut" was an example of quadtree traversal done entirely in
>> POV. See one of the scene file groups for the code - since there seemed to
>> be a number of doubters as to its provenance.
>
> I don't believe Ken was in any way referring to *how* the image was
>done but about its *contents*.
>
> Fighting with server administrators may be a good way to get you
>expelled, making you some kind of "martyr", but do you seriously think
>anyone is going to care?
What a bizarre mind you have. Martyr? You speak in terms completely
unsuited to the situation. This ain't religion.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 06:13:18 -0700, Hans de Vries
<han### [at] chip-architectcom> wrote:
>
>> After discussing this with the rest of the server administration we feel that this
>> is in keeping with section 2 of the AUP and we will not object to an appropriately
>> worded message with a link provided to an off-site image. Please make sure that
>> you identify it as adult related material when you do. This will allow others to
decide
>> if they wish to view material of that type at their own discretion.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Tyler
>> News Admin.
>>
>
>This is a site were most poster use their real names in all openess and are as such
My real name is on record. Look it up.
>associated with the nature and contents of the site were they hang out. There are
other
>sites were everybody is anonymus and can freak out without any consequences.
No one is anonymous on the 'net, to think so is very dellusional.
>
>It is not that people need to decide if they want to see something or not. The point
>is that that they don't want do be associated with it. As such it doesn't make any
>difference if the link is to an on-site or an off-site image.
>
>The poster himself (IMBJR/Doctor Morbius) stays anonymus and thus doesn't have this
problem.
Dream on. I'm very transparent. Just because you personally are not
capable of looking up my details does not mean others are not.
>
>Nudity? Erotism? no problem. Pornography? maybe if it is of highly artistic quality.
>Perversity? Vulgarity? Horror scenes? no thanks.
Sounds more like: Real Life? No thanks.
>
>
>Regards, Hans
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:iml5809nrinhmpk7kj7mh1j99e8c23k6d4@4ax.com...
<snip>
Are you so bored you need to resurrect a dead subject to start another fight?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:29:38 -0700, "Ken" <ken### [at] tagpovrayorg>
wrote:
>
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:iml5809nrinhmpk7kj7mh1j99e8c23k6d4@4ax.com...
><snip>
>
>Are you so bored you need to resurrect a dead subject to start another fight?
I've been on holiday and am catching up on posts. Hardly a dead
subject then is it?
Tip: ask/look before you leap.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> What a bizarre mind you have. Martyr? You speak in terms completely
> unsuited to the situation. This ain't religion.
The dictionary definition I'm referring to is "one who suffers for the
sake of principle".
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2004 16:34:03 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>> What a bizarre mind you have. Martyr? You speak in terms completely
>> unsuited to the situation. This ain't religion.
>
> The dictionary definition I'm referring to is "one who suffers for the
>sake of principle".
"Martyr" is a loaded word, no matter what some dictionary you
consulted says.
Stay away from the dictionary and think for yourself.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> "Martyr" is a loaded word, no matter what some dictionary you
> consulted says.
> Stay away from the dictionary and think for yourself.
So you clearly are not interested on what I meant when I used the
word but only in splitting hairs.
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2004 17:01:04 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>> "Martyr" is a loaded word, no matter what some dictionary you
>> consulted says.
>
>> Stay away from the dictionary and think for yourself.
>
> So you clearly are not interested on what I meant when I used the
>word but only in splitting hairs.
I was until you used a word out of its usual context, showing that
your thinking is to be suspected.
It's not splitting hairs, it's called being clear and precise. Try it.
Don't use words like "martyr" - learn that such words are meaningless
in quite a lot of contexts.
Seems that you are easily distracted too. You want to watch that.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
