It seems my favorite newsgroup on the POV-Ray news server has been 
darkened by pornography. Of course I'm talking about binaries.images. 
Webster's dictionary defines pornography as, "obscene literature or 
pictures." Can you call what has been posted anything less? There is a 
time and a place for such things, but I never thought the POV-Ray 
newsgroups would be one of the places.

It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore. I don't 
have to put up with people who insist what they are doing 'has to be 
accepted'. I am not blind to the world portrayed in those images, but I 
don't have to be reminded *every time* I visit the newsgroups. As a side 
note, my message filters don't work or else I'd use them.

Am I the only one (besides Greg, Tyler, Bob, and Patrick) who feels this 
way? Please speak up, or else nothing will be done about it. I hope to 
enjoy these newsgroups again someday.

Happy Raytracing Everyone~

-Samuel Benge

Post a reply to this message

I'm very displeased as well.


"Samuel T. Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:407### [at] hotmailcom...
> It seems my favorite newsgroup on the POV-Ray news server has been
> darkened by pornography. Of course I'm talking about binaries.images.
> Webster's dictionary defines pornography as, "obscene literature or
> pictures." Can you call what has been posted anything less? There is a
> time and a place for such things, but I never thought the POV-Ray
> newsgroups would be one of the places.
>
> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore. I don't
> have to put up with people who insist what they are doing 'has to be
> accepted'. I am not blind to the world portrayed in those images, but I
> don't have to be reminded *every time* I visit the newsgroups. As a side
> note, my message filters don't work or else I'd use them.
>
> Am I the only one (besides Greg, Tyler, Bob, and Patrick) who feels this
> way? Please speak up, or else nothing will be done about it. I hope to
> enjoy these newsgroups again someday.
>
> Happy Raytracing Everyone~
>
> -Samuel Benge
>

Post a reply to this message

> It seems my favorite newsgroup on the POV-Ray news server has been
> darkened by pornography. Of course I'm talking about binaries.images.
> Webster's dictionary defines pornography as, "obscene literature or
> pictures." Can you call what has been posted anything less?

It seems to me that we may run the risk of having a discussion about what is
"art" and what is "pornography", but to the most part I agree with your
assessment. Some of the images posted recently are unnecessarily graphic,
and though the artist may not have intended them to be offensive, they
obviously are to some people, and probably more than those who have spoken
out. For that reason, plus the fact that at least in my country this sort of
image is not allowed to be shown to minors, I think these sorts of images
should not be posted on the POV-Ray newsgroups, despite what artistic merit
they may have. This is regardless of whether they are posted as a URL or
with a warning.

> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore.

Well now, give it some time. It hasn't turned into a pornography fest.
There's only one person posting the controversial images; wait until it gets
sorted out before making a decision like that.

> Am I the only one (besides Greg, Tyler, Bob, and Patrick) who feels this
> way? Please speak up, or else nothing will be done about it. I hope to
> enjoy these newsgroups again someday.

Much as I hate to get involved in controversy, I will admit that I agree
with you on this issue. I think we need to come up with a rule or two
regarding this type of image, and enforce it.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

"Samuel T. Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:407### [at] hotmailcom...
> It seems my favorite newsgroup on the POV-Ray news server has been
> darkened by pornography. Of course I'm talking about binaries.images.
> Webster's dictionary defines pornography as, "obscene literature or
> pictures." Can you call what has been posted anything less? There is a
> time and a place for such things, but I never thought the POV-Ray
> newsgroups would be one of the places.
>
> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore. I don't
> have to put up with people who insist what they are doing 'has to be
> accepted'. I am not blind to the world portrayed in those images, but I
> don't have to be reminded *every time* I visit the newsgroups. As a side
> note, my message filters don't work or else I'd use them.
>
> Am I the only one (besides Greg, Tyler, Bob, and Patrick) who feels this
> way? Please speak up, or else nothing will be done about it. I hope to
> enjoy these newsgroups again someday.

You sure aren't the only one, but I was under the impression that this could a
problem that would solve itself by ignoring it.  Maybe not, and maybe I'm not
willing to find out, hence this reply.

cu!
--
camera{location-z*3}#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*(C/50)#end#macro L(b,e,k,l)#local C=0
;#while(C<50)sphere{G(b,e),.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1
;#end#end L(y-x,y,x,x+y)L(y,-x-y,x+y,y)L(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)L(-y,y,y+z,x+y)L(0,x+y,
<.5,1,.5>,x)L(0,x-y,<.5,1,.5>,x)               // ZK http://www.povplace.be.tf

Post a reply to this message

If it's "art," it sure is <bad> "art."
d.

"Samuel T. Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:407### [at] hotmailcom...
> It seems my favorite newsgroup on the POV-Ray news server has been
> darkened by pornography. Of course I'm talking about binaries.images.
> Webster's dictionary defines pornography as, "obscene literature or
> pictures." Can you call what has been posted anything less? There is a
> time and a place for such things, but I never thought the POV-Ray
> newsgroups would be one of the places.
>
> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore. I don't
> have to put up with people who insist what they are doing 'has to be
> accepted'. I am not blind to the world portrayed in those images, but I
> don't have to be reminded *every time* I visit the newsgroups. As a side
> note, my message filters don't work or else I'd use them.
>
> Am I the only one (besides Greg, Tyler, Bob, and Patrick) who feels this
> way? Please speak up, or else nothing will be done about it. I hope to
> enjoy these newsgroups again someday.
>
> Happy Raytracing Everyone~
>
> -Samuel Benge
>

Post a reply to this message

Samuel T. Benge wrote:
> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore. I don't 
> have to put up with people who insist what they are doing 'has to be 
> accepted'. I am not blind to the world portrayed in those images, but I 
> don't have to be reminded *every time* I visit the newsgroups. As a side 
> note, my message filters don't work or else I'd use them.

You know, you don't have to read every post, nor should someone else's
posting (save that of the admin) deter you from making your own posts.
Common sense says: if you think something will be offensive, don't look
at it.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Samuel T. Benge wrote:
> It seems my favorite newsgroup on the POV-Ray news server has been 
> darkened by pornography. Of course I'm talking about binaries.images. 
> Webster's dictionary defines pornography as, "obscene literature or 
> pictures." Can you call what has been posted anything less? There is a 
> time and a place for such things, but I never thought the POV-Ray 
> newsgroups would be one of the places.
> 
> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore. I don't 
> have to put up with people who insist what they are doing 'has to be 
> accepted'. I am not blind to the world portrayed in those images, but I 
> don't have to be reminded *every time* I visit the newsgroups. As a side 
> note, my message filters don't work or else I'd use them.
> 
> Am I the only one (besides Greg, Tyler, Bob, and Patrick) who feels this 
> way? Please speak up, or else nothing will be done about it. I hope to 
> enjoy these newsgroups again someday.
> 
> Happy Raytracing Everyone~
> 
> -Samuel Benge
> 

I, too, am unhappy with the content of this nature showing up on the groups.

-->Jeff


-- 
No signature here, move along...
--- jgentry at ev1 dot net ---

Post a reply to this message

"Timothy Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote in message
news:4070c191@news.povray.org...
>
> You know, you don't have to read every post, nor should someone else's
> posting (save that of the admin) deter you from making your own posts.
> Common sense says: if you think something will be offensive, don't look
> at it.


Pornography is wrong; it is an affront to the Creator.  Those who find
themselves creators of pornographic content ought not despair on that
account, for there is One who has prepared salvation for them, who says,
"Come to the Feast of the Lamb".  This is the Christian context I come from,
and I believe it to be literal truth.


If there were a newspaper coming into my home where I had to stop to check
the top border to see if a particular page were going to have porn on it,
common sense says don't bring the newspaper into the house, don't support
the publisher.  Common sense says round up persons of good will OF ALL
FAITHS to fight those publishers,  using noncoercive means including
nonparticipation, the soapbox, and the marketplace.


The question for the server owner is whether news.povray.org is to be a
publisher of porn, or even a publisher of URL's to porn images, or porn
hidden in GIF color pallettes.   Once before we faced someone who created
discord in the community over something that had nothing to do with
raytracing (or even beta expirations!).  I have no opinion on the specific
sanction applied to Matt Giwer, but I believe a sanction of some sort is
overdue in this case.

Post a reply to this message

"Timothy Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote in message
news:4070c191@news.povray.org...
> Samuel T. Benge wrote:
> > It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore.
>
> You know, you don't have to read every post, nor should someone else's
> posting (save that of the admin) deter you from making your own posts.

First of all: Oh no! Don't say that Samuel!

Except that to be a part of these povray newsgroups is probably best seen as
a community of just one certain kind of thing (POV-Ray, of course). Meaning,
I think the controversy is about such extreme diversity that it's more of a
deviation from the norm (reflective spheres and other such raytraced shapes)
than merely expression (rusty spheres).
:-)
When povray.general discussions become mostly talk about non-POV subjects
they go (to) off-topic, and this reminds me of the infamous Matt Giwer
expulsion from here. That was about religon or ethics or some-such
controversial topics that were deemed wrong for the groups as a whole. IMO
this might easily be of the same definition, and end result, if it causes an
uproar among a majority or at least the news server administrator(s).

Would be interesting to see a new group crop up for posting explicit
imagery. It would surely be less prone to mistaking it for anything else
than what it's intended for. Problem with that, as I see it, is where to
draw the line. You could subdivide ad infinitum into categories for
photorealism, cartoonism, nudism, etc. Although I don't know of any other
alternatives other than banning or regrouping.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

Timothy Cook wrote:
 >

> You know, you don't have to read every post, nor should someone else's
> posting (save that of the admin) deter you from making your own posts.
> Common sense says: if you think something will be offensive, don't look
> at it.


Yes, and common sense tells me I don't have to support a community which 
continues to allow such images to be displayed for all to see. It's not 
like I go around the Internet looking for things to be offended at. It's 
this simple: I'll stop posting my images and source (whatever it's 
worth) if I believe I'm supporting a community which is tolerant of open 
porn.

The content, IMO, is seriously downgrading the quality and atmosphere of 
these groups.

-Samuel Benge

Post a reply to this message

Hmmmm....

maybe ask the admins to create some new groups?

pov.binaries.images.clean
pov.binaries.images.christian-approved
pov.binaries.images.minors
pov.binaries.images.bland
pov.binaries.images.i-dont-know-art-but-i-know-it-when-i-see-it

images are images - they certainly aren't going to erupt from
a computer screen and physically assault anyone

images are images - for some people, some images certainly assault
their sensibilities, mores, taste, beliefs, dogmas, political leanings,
sense of personal identity, sense of social identity ... etc.

man made images have effects
the same images can have no effects on different men

who would have figured?

Post a reply to this message

gregj;-)565### [at] aolcom news:4070cceb$1@news.povray.org

> Pornography is wrong; 

lol

it is an affront to the Creator.  

ROTFL :)

> This is the Christian context
> I come from, and I believe it to be literal truth.

I belive it to be literal crap.

Btw - http://www.wickedcases.com/kiki/godkills.jpg  ;-)


-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

stb### [at] hotmailcom news:407### [at] hotmailcom

How about creating

povray.binaries.non-for-christians-or-other-sisies

or just:

povray.binaries.adults



-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> "Timothy Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote in message
> news:4070c191@news.povray.org...
> 
>>You know, you don't have to read every post, nor should someone else's
>>posting (save that of the admin) deter you from making your own posts.
>>Common sense says: if you think something will be offensive, don't look
>>at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Pornography is wrong; it is an affront to the Creator.  Those who find
> themselves creators of pornographic content ought not despair on that
> account, for there is One who has prepared salvation for them, who says,
> "Come to the Feast of the Lamb".  This is the Christian context I come from,
> and I believe it to be literal truth.

I don't know of p.b.i beeing a Christian forum, and as your truth might 
not be everyone's truth I don't see why it should rule the forum.

JC

-- 
http://exether.free.fr/irtc (more IRTC stats !)

Post a reply to this message

spa### [at] raf256com news:Xns94C245E6FF056raf256com@203.29.75.35

> povray.binaries.non-for-christians-or-other-sisies

Ups I should clearefie that.

I do NOT think that there is something "wrong" with Christians in general.

Only with this ones with see satan in every erotic image, and have 
issues [problems / complexes] with images of one of nicest things in 
peoples lifes.

And idea of pbi.adult (or simmilar name) is a real suggestion, that group 
will not be mirrored in some countires with have problems with that etc...
(but I do not think it is necessary, same - when having a guestbook often 
owners of web site inform "we do not take any responsibility for following 
content, You are watching/reading/entering on own responsibility).


-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

no### [at] spamfr news:4070e8a9$1@news.povray.org

> I don't know of p.b.i beeing a Christian forum, and as your truth might 
> not be everyone's truth I don't see why it should rule the forum.

Yeap, thats the point IMHO.

I could also state that I'm in example satanist (with im not ofcourse but 
its funny ;) and all
a) posts that do not have 666 in title
b) posts that do not start with "Ave!"
c) povray binaries files that  do not have chmod 666  ;)
are offensive to my relligion ;)

-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

Obviously sex is an important component of human life, and as so, it's 
part of his art. I don't find too much artistic interest in IMBJR's sex 
images though, but I think that such type of images in general have an 
artistic interest. For example alt.b.3d.poser has nice nudity images.

If I follow you, it seems to me that Baudelaire, Michel Ange, Rodin, 
some surrealists etc. would have been banned from the forum.

I really appreciate your images, so it would be a bad thing not to see 
them anymore on the forum.

JC

Samuel T. Benge wrote:

> It seems my favorite newsgroup on the POV-Ray news server has been 
> darkened by pornography. Of course I'm talking about binaries.images. 
> Webster's dictionary defines pornography as, "obscene literature or 
> pictures." Can you call what has been posted anything less? There is a 
> time and a place for such things, but I never thought the POV-Ray 
> newsgroups would be one of the places.
> 
> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore. I don't 
> have to put up with people who insist what they are doing 'has to be 
> accepted'. I am not blind to the world portrayed in those images, but I 
> don't have to be reminded *every time* I visit the newsgroups. As a side 
> note, my message filters don't work or else I'd use them.
> 
> Am I the only one (besides Greg, Tyler, Bob, and Patrick) who feels this 
> way? Please speak up, or else nothing will be done about it. I hope to 
> enjoy these newsgroups again someday.
> 
> Happy Raytracing Everyone~
> 
> -Samuel Benge
> 


-- 
http://exether.free.fr/irtc (more IRTC stats !)

Post a reply to this message

Samuel T. Benge wrote:
> It seems my favorite newsgroup on the POV-Ray news server has been 
> darkened by pornography. Of course I'm talking about binaries.images. 
> Webster's dictionary defines pornography as, "obscene literature or 
> pictures." Can you call what has been posted anything less? There is a 
> time and a place for such things, but I never thought the POV-Ray 
> newsgroups would be one of the places.
> 
> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore. I don't 
> have to put up with people who insist what they are doing 'has to be 
> accepted'. I am not blind to the world portrayed in those images, but I 
> don't have to be reminded *every time* I visit the newsgroups. As a side 
> note, my message filters don't work or else I'd use them.

While i understand this you also have to keep in mind that there are 
only very few postings recently with images attached that can be 
classified as pornographic.  Most postings by the person we are talking 
about here only contain links - which i did not visit and i don't intend 
to.

The real problem to me seems a quite different one, the person who 
posted these does not seem to be interested in feedback from people here 
and does not want to be part of the community.  The broad availability 
of the newsgroups on the web (including google searching) will certainly 
increase the number of this kind of postings.

I suggest you try to get your killfile working for the moment - i am 
pretty sure this problem will vanish after some time in one way or the 
other.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 21 Mar. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

I also don't like very much these images you're talking about but, with
perhaps the exception of one, I don't find them particularly offensive.

What would really bother me is if this person is posting these images just
to cause controversy or discomfort purposefully. That we will never know for
sure.

The problem with your definition of pornography is that it depends on the
definition of obscenity, which is extremely difficult to define in universal
terms.

I think one way to avoid this problem is to prohibit nude or "questionable"
images completely in p.b.i and open a new group which permits this kind of
images. That way we could be sure that no one will be offended. Of course
some will miss some "artistic" samples, but it will be an individual choice
to access this group or remain in the "immaculate" p.b.i.

Just a suggestion.

Fernando

Post a reply to this message

chr### [at] gmxde news:c4r0m4$22c$1@chho.imagico.de

> I suggest you try to get your killfile working for the moment - i am 
> pretty sure this problem will vanish after some time in one way or the 
> other.

The only problem I see here is limiting fredom of choice of contentent to 
present, and trying to force others to own opinions and belivings (like 
that such posts are afrront to "Creator" - lol).

Maybe we should create some sort of Saint Inquisition to ban or posts that 
could offend certain religious groups?

-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

fcu### [at] yahoocom news:40710692$1@news.povray.org

> What would really bother me is if this person is posting these images
> just to cause controversy

Thats one of goals of real art, isnt it?

I find IMBJR pimages medium to quite nice, but I do not see any reason to 
create Censure, is this news group about free software program, or are we 
in some Comunistic/Totalitary art group?

-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

In article <407### [at] hotmailcom> , "Samuel T. Benge" 
<stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> It seems my favorite newsgroup on the POV-Ray news server has been
> darkened by pornography. Of course I'm talking about binaries.images.
> Webster's dictionary defines pornography as, "obscene literature or
> pictures." Can you call what has been posted anything less?

I suppose you are referring to
<http://news.povray.org/3p0e60969ebtssdmsv3h5ji0u1e3u26gsd%404ax.com>?

In that case, this in only on the news server, not the web view.  Apart from
that, there were two images posted in GIF format, but in a hidden way.
While I don't think this should have been done, fact is that by default you
see nothing that would qualify as pornography in those image with the
specified color palette.

> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore.

Don't you think you are a tiny bit over-reacting just because one troll
posted one such image?

> I don't
> have to put up with people who insist what they are doing 'has to be
> accepted'. I am not blind to the world portrayed in those images, but I
> don't have to be reminded *every time* I visit the newsgroups. As a side
> note, my message filters don't work or else I'd use them.

You should just killfile the one troll many here have already killfiled
already.  Or do you really want the administrators of this news server to
declare that something is degenerate art and not allow it?

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

Samuel T. Benge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore.

  I don't understand how that is going to solve the problem.

-- 
#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

> Only with this ones with see satan in every erotic image, and have
> issues [problems / complexes] with images of one of nicest things in
> peoples lifes.

It's not about erotic images, it's about pornography. There is a difference
of taste between those two.

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

> The only problem I see here is limiting fredom of choice of contentent to
> present, and trying to force others to own opinions and belivings (like
> that such posts are afrront to "Creator" - lol).

You should stop referring to the Christian foundation of Greg. I'm not
christian and agree with him: the newsgroups aren't a place for pornography.
Making fun of his oppinion isn't polite nor respectful.

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

#macro tim.nikias (@) #local = "nolights.de" #end 
news:40713288$1@news.povray.org

> the newsgroups aren't a place for pornography.

So what for *.binaries.sex.* are?

I think creating pbi.adults (or in general pb.adults) should satisfie both 
"sides". Just a suggestion.

-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

> Am I the only one (besides Greg, Tyler, Bob, and Patrick) who feels this
> way? Please speak up, or else nothing will be done about it. I hope to
> enjoy these newsgroups again someday.

I too don't like the current spin of images in p.b.i. It is difficult to
propose where to draw a line between erotic, obscenity and pornography
though. What might be considered erotic is perhaps obscene to the next.

IMHO, nude images aren't a problem, but once there's a real sexual explicit
content, I tend to think that the image isn't appropriate for the
newsgroups, depending on the degree of content. That aside, most of us do
have a personal website, so why not use your own gallery for such images?
Those interested may visit the gallery, the others just stay away.

At the moment, I'm pondering whether I should activate a killfile. IMBJR
does have some common sense, but to me, he's too much for confrontation, and
is difficult to discuss with. Also, the magnitude of rather simple scenes
(speaking in terms of complexity for script etc) seems to flood the
newsgroups lately, and though some are of artistic merit, I can't see many
with technical merit. Since he's not after comments at all, I don't get
really why he's posting here, cause there's not much for a POVer to learn
from.

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

> I think creating pbi.adults (or in general pb.adults) should satisfie both
> "sides". Just a suggestion.

The problem, as has been discussed sometime earlier somewhere, is that the
newsgroups don't have means to certify the age of the visitor. Hence we have
to expect kids to be present, which might be 8 or even 6 years old. But I
don't think that anyone that young would find his way here unless he's a
genius or is brought by his mom/dad.

So, if we assume kids of age 12 and up, what kind of images are appropriate
for them?

Sexual explicit content just isn't.

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

#macro tim.nikias (@) #local = "nolights.de" #end
news:407135b8$1@news.povray.org 

> The problem, as has been discussed sometime earlier somewhere, is that
> the newsgroups don't have means to certify the age of the visitor.

Hmm Yes, but separate group could be displayed (via www) in different way 
then other "normal" groups.

And as for news:// well, I think that name .adults is quite clear, and also 
- in same way news://*.sex.* exists.

> So, if we assume kids of age 12 and up, what kind of images are
> appropriate for them?
> Sexual explicit content just isn't.

Btw. I think... what would happened even if just kid see such image? 
If it is *realy* yung he will not understand it, is it is older - well, in 
99.999% cases he would already know how to type "free sex" in google.

And even if so, I think that such image will not kill children. Neither wil 
it destroy its psihics or turn it into monster ;)

But this are just my thoughts, im not a psychiatrist and maybe im totaly 
mistaking.



-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

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

>> The problem, as has been discussed sometime earlier somewhere, is
>> that the newsgroups don't have means to certify the age of the
>> visitor. 

> Hmm Yes, but separate group could be displayed (via www) in different
> way then other "normal" groups.

In addition - why not use authentication for such group? If this is not a 
technical problem fore news.povray.org news-server.

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).

-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

I think this community is intelligent enough not to tolerate somebody 
who crosses the lines several times (anyone heard something about Bill 
lately? Well, aside from that april fool, of course *g*). It's just that 
  it is tolerated longer than in other communities I know.

I got no problem with the content of IMBJR's posts (but that *is* a 
personal opinion). But, as others already pointed out, his attitude is 
just plain stupid (again, my personal opinion). IMHO all he wants to is 
to create emotions like the one in this thread. I do not think that we 
should give him that success.

IMO the best solution is still the good ol' killfile. If this won't work 
on your system, simply ignore his posts. Trolls can't live with being 
ignored.

> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore.
I think that would be kind of a childish reaction. I do not see how this 
would solve the problem. I love your images and - in contrast to IMBJR - 
you are a great member of this community. If everybody who is displeased 
by IMBJR's post would stop posting, he had reached his goal.

Conclusion: Igonore this troll. He will either get more and more 
agressive (and will be baned) or simply die in some lonely corner.

Florian

Post a reply to this message

> Btw. I think... what would happened even if just kid see such image? 
> If it is *realy* yung he will not understand it, is it is older - well, in 
> 99.999% cases he would already know how to type "free sex" in google.

So why are in every country I know only adults allowed to watch, rent, 
buy, posses, etc. porn-material? Don't you think there's a reason for that?

Just because the kids can get the stuff somewhere else, it does not mean 
that you should serve it to them, too. Or do you go out in the 
kindergardens and sell porn, guns, alcohol, drugs, etc. to the kids?

Florian

Post a reply to this message

tor### [at] torfboldcom news:407138cf$1@news.povray.org

> Conclusion: Igonore this troll. He will either get more and more 
> agressive (and will be baned) or simply die in some lonely corner.

So I guess that modern artists, surreal-artists, etc - where all trolles? 

And if peoples would think like You, today we all would oil-paint 3d 
portrets of each other instead of using POV.

Btw, in one of nerws groups I was consider a troll (for some time) bacause 
using PovRay (instead of The Only Allowed By God Tool - 3dSMax).

I realy thought that we have more tollerant peoples here, and that terms 
like freedom are more known.

-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

tor### [at] torfboldcom news:407139d5@news.povray.org

> So why are in every country I know only adults allowed to watch, rent,

Good You added "I know"

> buy, posses, etc. porn-material? Don't you think there's a reason for
> that? 

Reasons are always. Are there wise is another subject.
 
> Just because the kids can get the stuff somewhere else, it does not
> mean that you should serve it to them, too. 

I agree.

> Or do you go out in the  kindergardens and sell porn, guns, alcohol, 
> drugs, etc. to the kids?

Dont You see a slight difference here?

Porn is used to doing *good* (Yourself ;)

Simmilar for alcohol, BUT it is quite toxic for children, and more 
important it makes peoples act stupid and possible *harm* / *kill* others 
(i.e. when driving after drinking).

Guns are used to *kill* or injure other peoples.
Drugs *injure* (or even kill).

making pleasure and discovering human body  
  -Vs-
hurting, injuring, killing

no difference realy?!


-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

In article <407134c3$1@news.povray.org> , "Tim Nikias v2.0" <#macro 
tim.nikias (@) #local = "nolights.de" #end> wrote:

>> Am I the only one (besides Greg, Tyler, Bob, and Patrick) who feels this
>> way? Please speak up, or else nothing will be done about it. I hope to
>> enjoy these newsgroups again someday.
>
> I too don't like the current spin of images in p.b.i. It is difficult to
> propose where to draw a line between erotic, obscenity and pornography
> though. What might be considered erotic is perhaps obscene to the next.

Exactly!

Personally I tend to have no problem with anything that can also been seen
in Greek statues.  Beyond that, I do tend to consider things pornography.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> ..."Tim Nikias v2.0" ... wrote:
>>It is difficult to propose where to draw a line between erotic,
 >>obscenity and pornography though. What might be considered erotic
 >>is perhaps obscene to the next.
> 
> Personally I tend to have no problem with anything that can also been seen
> in Greek statues.  Beyond that, I do tend to consider things pornography.

In many workplaces, even some of the Greek statues are inappropriate.
If you don't believe me, just try putting such a statue on your desk
and see how long it can stay.

On the other hand, if someone did create a well-rendered greek
statue with subsurface scattering, etc. I'd be quite interested
in seeing it outside of the office.

Personally, I like the suggestion of having a separate newsgroup
where all the nude, naked, and obscene pictures would end up;
primarily because even an elegant nude is not something I want
on my screen at work.

   just a lurker...

PS: If you guys are talking about stuff from the same guy who kept
arguing endlessly about JPEG2000s, I aready killfiled him
since he seemed more inclined to stir up trouble than contribute.
Assuming it's the same guy, my guess is that if you block
obscenity he'll just turn to posting uncompressed CMYK files,
or X bitmaps just to keep stirring up trouble.

Post a reply to this message

>>So why are in every country I know only adults allowed to watch, rent,
> 
> Good You added "I know"
I'd be interested if you could tell me in which industrial country this 
is "organized" in a different way.

>>Or do you go out in the  kindergardens and sell porn, guns, alcohol, 
>>drugs, etc. to the kids?

> Dont You see a slight difference here?

> Porn is used to doing *good* (Yourself ;)

[snip]

> Guns are used to *kill* or injure other peoples.
100% ACK. I admit that this wasn't a good argument.

[snip]

> making pleasure and discovering human body  
>   -Vs-
> hurting, injuring, killing
> 
> no difference realy?!

Porn is not always something good (I wonder if it is not almost always 
something bad). It's about how we treat our fellow men: Porns often 
display a kind of relationship between men and women which does in no 
way represent their relationship in a "modern" society (I'm talking 
about treating women as (sex-)objects instead of human beings here). I 
think it's a good thing to prevent young kids from such a way of 
thinking. So porn will not harm children physically and I would not go 
as far as to state it harms them mentally, but IMHO it has a good chance 
to influence their mind in a negative way (Which would be the same as 
alcohol, with the slight difference that the effect of alcohol will 
vanish after some hours of sleep).

Florian

Post a reply to this message

> So I guess that modern artists, surreal-artists, etc - where all trolles? 
Perhaps. But as I handle it today with people like IMBJR (killfile), I 
would have handled it in those times - don't look at their images if I 
don't like them.
I don't know that much about art, but I guess not many of those "old 
trolls" broke into exhebitions of the old-school artists only to show 
their "modern"-art and try to provoke.

> And if peoples would think like You, today we all would oil-paint 3d 
> portrets of each other instead of using POV.
Nope. Don't confuse technical progress with change of moral.

> Btw, in one of nerws groups I was consider a troll (for some time) bacause 
> using PovRay (instead of The Only Allowed By God Tool - 3dSMax).
Could happen to you here, too (if you start posting Max-only images).

> I realy thought that we have more tollerant peoples here, and that terms 
> like freedom are more known.
I think I am more tolerant than many other people (regarding things like 
homosexual marriage (cool!), etc.). But I simply can't stand it if 
someone's only goal is to disturb others. It's like with hooligans in 
football - if they want to beat each other up, they should go to a 
box-club or meet somewhere else where they don't annoy the others.

Florian

Post a reply to this message

> Am I the only one (besides Greg, Tyler, Bob, and Patrick) who feels this
> way? Please speak up, or else nothing will be done about it. I hope to
> enjoy these newsgroups again someday.

I'm with you. And I'll name names. IMJBR has gone too far this time.

My feeling is that IMJBR is no longer showing his "art", but doing so just
to cause trouble. IMHO, there's no place here for that kind of stupid
juvenile behavior.

Regards...

Post a reply to this message

Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:
> povray.binaries.adults

Nah, that would just encourage people to start making real pr0n.

-- 
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : (+44) 0845 1083740 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key : http://pgp.kitty5.com

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> Pornography is wrong; it is an affront to the Creator.  Those who find
> themselves creators of pornographic content ought not despair on that
> account, for there is One who has prepared salvation for them, who says,
> "Come to the Feast of the Lamb".  This is the Christian context I come
> from, and I believe it to be literal truth.

I find that more offensive than any image posted here.

-- 
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : (+44) 0845 1083740 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key : http://pgp.kitty5.com

Post a reply to this message

Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:


> I think creating pbi.adults (or in general pb.adults) should satisfie both 
> "sides". Just a suggestion.
> 

Since you see no problem determining what types of images should go into 
a "pbi.adults," then, perhaps there should be no problem determining 
what types of images should ^not^ be posted in "p.b.images." (hint: see 
your own answer to the first question.)  Simple enough.  Then, I don't 
think there's anything stopping anyone who so wishes from establishing 
their own "pbi.adults" on their own server, if this admin would rather 
not -- and I can understand why they might rather not.

Personally, about the only thing I find offensive is apparently highly 
intelligent people refusing to use a bit of common sense (and I don't 
mean you, Rafal.)

Dave Matthews

Post a reply to this message

"Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C2487AD273Eraf256com@203.29.75.35...
> no### [at] spamfr news:4070e8a9$1@news.povray.org
>
> > I don't know of p.b.i beeing a Christian forum, and as your truth might
> > not be everyone's truth I don't see why it should rule the forum.
>
> Yeap, thats the point IMHO.
>
> I could also state that I'm in example satanist (with im not ofcourse but
> its funny ;) and all
> a) posts that do not have 666 in title
> b) posts that do not start with "Ave!"
> c) povray binaries files that  do not have chmod 666  ;)
> are offensive to my relligion ;)
>
> -- 
> http://www.raf256.com/3d/
> Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
> Computer Graphics



Atleast have some respect for his faith. He probably has some for yours.
lol's and ROFL's at his comments is just not needed.

Post a reply to this message

"Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C25E0B318F0raf256com@203.29.75.35...
> fcu### [at] yahoocom news:40710692$1@news.povray.org
>
> > What would really bother me is if this person is posting these images
> > just to cause controversy
>
> Thats one of goals of real art, isnt it?
>
> I find IMBJR pimages medium to quite nice, but I do not see any reason to
> create Censure, is this news group about free software program, or are we
> in some Comunistic/Totalitary art group?
>
> -- 
> http://www.raf256.com/3d/
> Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
> Computer Graphics


Some art galleries like to display controversial, antagonistic artwork and
some do not. It's always up to the art galleries what they display, and not
showing one artists work is NOT grounds for calling it censoring. If your
work is not acceptable under the standards of one gallery, take it to
another gallery where it will be appreciated.

r.

Post a reply to this message

Samuel T. Benge wrote:

> Am I the only one (besides Greg, Tyler, Bob, and Patrick) who feels this 
> way? Please speak up, or else nothing will be done about it. I hope to 
> enjoy these newsgroups again someday.

I feel the same. As pointed out before I don't object to the nature
of the posting myself, I do object to the act of postings things
that some people might find offensive and especially if the poster
is aware of that.

Everybody using the killfile does not work because that does not
work for _everybody_, there are always new people visiting and
for some people for technical or other reasons it is just impossible
(like apparently in your case).
Also I think it means that in that case we would allow people to
break the rules (or not apply common sense) and that we all
have to act to that individually.
IMHO the judgement should be at the sender.

With IMBJR we have a case where someone had repeatedly broken
the rules of the newsgroup, has been told time and again to use
his common sense before posting remarks that are considered
offensive by others and then proceeds by posting 'art'.
Art here being used in the (IMHO perverted) sense of 'something
that intends to evoke an emotional response from the viewer'.
(This is founded on a logical fallacy: Real art invokes an
emotional response, therefore if something invokes an emotion
it must be art.)
When as in this case the emotions sought after are anger and/or
disgust I personally think a news-group centered on a tool to
create images is not the right place to expose your 'art'.
What makes this case especially interesting is that we here
have someone who is not living in the same world as most
of us, who has shown to have no such thing thar others regard
as 'common sense' and will most probably not be able to restrain
himself (or herself as the case may be). So the ultimate
question is: will he be stopped by the community before
he stops himself? To which the answer ofcourse is: 42.

> Happy Raytracing Everyone~
I will.

> -Samuel Benge
	Andrel

Post a reply to this message

Samuel T. Benge wrote:
> It seems my favorite newsgroup on the POV-Ray news server has been 
> darkened by pornography. Of course I'm talking about binaries.images. 
> Webster's dictionary defines pornography as, "obscene literature or 
> pictures." Can you call what has been posted anything less? There is a 
> time and a place for such things, but I never thought the POV-Ray 
> newsgroups would be one of the places.
> 
> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore. I don't 
> have to put up with people who insist what they are doing 'has to be 
> accepted'. I am not blind to the world portrayed in those images, but I 
> don't have to be reminded *every time* I visit the newsgroups. As a side 
> note, my message filters don't work or else I'd use them.
> 
> Am I the only one (besides Greg, Tyler, Bob, and Patrick) who feels this 
> way? Please speak up, or else nothing will be done about it. I hope to 
> enjoy these newsgroups again someday.
> 
> Happy Raytracing Everyone~
> 
> -Samuel Benge
> 

i find it perturbing that the image displayed contains a second.

having had a look at the home page - free areas, i'm inclined to the
view that potentially i'm exposing myself to legal consequences, if i 
happen to save one image that's nice, but contains something else.

i personally would prefer that images posted are signed as not having
a secondary image embedded, failing that the source is available and
attributable to its source.

that to me implies some requirement/ notion of honour on the part of the 
author/poster, for me that is not a problem, for some however it's a 
problematical concept.

stephen parkinson

Post a reply to this message

In article <40713202$1@news.povray.org>, "Tim Nikias v2.0" <#macro 
tim.nikias (@) #local = "nolights.de" #end> says...
> > Only with this ones with see satan in every erotic image, and have
> > issues [problems / complexes] with images of one of nicest things in
> > peoples lifes.
> 
> It's not about erotic images, it's about pornography. There is a difference
> of taste between those two.
> 
The only major problem being the fact that the difference between the two 
floats some place between someone standing with a sexy pose and stuff 90% 
of us consider porn. In some really conservative groups just the pose 
would be labeled pornographic. The whole entire concept and spectrum of 
views is manufactured BS imho and there are only two outcomes, abandoning 
the whole stupid idea or disallowing any images, no matter how carefully 
you try to avoid them being porn. Some idiot will still insist it is. Or 
are you honestly forgetting the whole BS about the little mermaid castle 
having phallic symbols, the random appearance of the word sex in some 
clouds in the lion king or the butchering of the ages old Rescuers 
cartoon by removing the painting in the background that some people 
complained about. Gee, hope they never make a cartoon with the Sistine 
Chapel and use the original art, which didn't have all the images painted 
over with clothes to make them 'acceptable'....

-- 
void main () {
  If Schrödingers_cat is alive  
    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 12:49:23 +0200, Florian Brucker
<tor### [at] torfboldcom> wrote:

>I think this community is intelligent enough not to tolerate somebody 
>who crosses the lines several times (anyone heard something about Bill 
>lately? Well, aside from that april fool, of course *g*). It's just that 
>  it is tolerated longer than in other communities I know.
>
>I got no problem with the content of IMBJR's posts (but that *is* a 
>personal opinion). But, as others already pointed out, his attitude is 
>just plain stupid (again, my personal opinion). IMHO all he wants to is 
>to create emotions like the one in this thread. I do not think that we 
>should give him that success.
>
>IMO the best solution is still the good ol' killfile. If this won't work 
>on your system, simply ignore his posts. Trolls can't live with being 
>ignored.

1. I'm no troll.

2. I don't require reaction or comment.

3. Yes. You will be seeing much of me in the future.

>
>> It is because of this I won't be posting anything there anymore.
>I think that would be kind of a childish reaction. I do not see how this 
>would solve the problem. I love your images and - in contrast to IMBJR - 
>you are a great member of this community. If everybody who is displeased 
>by IMBJR's post would stop posting, he had reached his goal.
>
>Conclusion: Igonore this troll. He will either get more and more 
>agressive (and will be baned) or simply die in some lonely corner.

See above. And:

4. You also note I've become less aggressive since the start of my
most recent posting season here.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:24:32 +0100, "Tim Nikias v2.0" <#macro
tim.nikias (@) #local = "nolights.de" #end> wrote:

>> Am I the only one (besides Greg, Tyler, Bob, and Patrick) who feels this
>> way? Please speak up, or else nothing will be done about it. I hope to
>> enjoy these newsgroups again someday.
>
>I too don't like the current spin of images in p.b.i. It is difficult to
>propose where to draw a line between erotic, obscenity and pornography
>though. What might be considered erotic is perhaps obscene to the next.
>
>IMHO, nude images aren't a problem, but once there's a real sexual explicit
>content, I tend to think that the image isn't appropriate for the
>newsgroups, depending on the degree of content. That aside, most of us do
>have a personal website, so why not use your own gallery for such images?
>Those interested may visit the gallery, the others just stay away.
>
>At the moment, I'm pondering whether I should activate a killfile. IMBJR
>does have some common sense, but to me, he's too much for confrontation, and
>is difficult to discuss with. Also, the magnitude of rather simple scenes
>(speaking in terms of complexity for script etc) seems to flood the
>newsgroups lately, and though some are of artistic merit, I can't see many
>with technical merit. Since he's not after comments at all, I don't get
>really why he's posting here, cause there's not much for a POVer to learn
>from.

Pity you think of this "community" as merely a technocrat's palace.
Even I admit to finding it more than that.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with "simple" or technically simple.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 19:10:52 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Samuel T. Benge wrote:
>
>> Am I the only one (besides Greg, Tyler, Bob, and Patrick) who feels this 
>> way? Please speak up, or else nothing will be done about it. I hope to 
>> enjoy these newsgroups again someday.
>
>I feel the same. As pointed out before I don't object to the nature
>of the posting myself, I do object to the act of postings things
>that some people might find offensive and especially if the poster
>is aware of that.
>
>Everybody using the killfile does not work because that does not
>work for _everybody_, there are always new people visiting and
>for some people for technical or other reasons it is just impossible
>(like apparently in your case).
>Also I think it means that in that case we would allow people to
>break the rules (or not apply common sense) and that we all
>have to act to that individually.
>IMHO the judgement should be at the sender.
>
>With IMBJR we have a case where someone had repeatedly broken
>the rules of the newsgroup, has been told time and again to use
>his common sense before posting remarks that are considered
>offensive by others and then proceeds by posting 'art'.
>Art here being used in the (IMHO perverted) sense of 'something
>that intends to evoke an emotional response from the viewer'.
>(This is founded on a logical fallacy: Real art invokes an
>emotional response, therefore if something invokes an emotion
>it must be art.)
>When as in this case the emotions sought after are anger and/or
>disgust I personally think a news-group centered on a tool to
>create images is not the right place to expose your 'art'.
>What makes this case especially interesting is that we here
>have someone who is not living in the same world as most
>of us, who has shown to have no such thing thar others regard
>as 'common sense' and will most probably not be able to restrain
>himself (or herself as the case may be). So the ultimate
>question is: will he be stopped by the community before
>he stops himself? To which the answer ofcourse is: 42.

Bizarre.

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

Post a reply to this message