On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 18:51:59 +0100, stephen parkinson
<ste### [at] zmemw16demoncouk> wrote:

>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.

So all images should have this declaratrion? Bit of a tall order.

>
>stephen parkinson

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

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:45:05 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>> Bizarre.
>
>BTW, it's also considered impolite in general newsgroup conventions to 
>quote an entire 2-screen message just to reply with a single word. Do 
>try to trim your messages if you expect anyone to read them.

I was trying for maximum effect. Honestly, such things are wasted ....

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

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 18:51:59 +0100, stephen parkinson
> <ste### [at] zmemw16demoncouk> wrote:
> 
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> So all images should have this declaratrion? Bit of a tall order.
> 
> 
>>stephen parkinson
> 
> 
> --------------------------------
> My First Subgenius Picture Book:
> http://www.imbjr.com
second paragraph was a mistake in hindsite
last para is really a succinct comment

stephen

Post a reply to this message

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. 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 ;).

	Andrel


Darren New wrote:

> IMBJR wrote:
> 
>> Bizarre.
> 
> 
> BTW, it's also considered impolite in general newsgroup conventions to 
> quote an entire 2-screen message just to reply with a single word. Do 
> try to trim your messages if you expect anyone to read them.
>

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:10:41 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>> I was trying for maximum effect. 
>
>Except you do it on pretty much every post you answer.

Sometimes, that's what is required.

>
>> Honestly, such things are wasted ....
>
>What a straight line. ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

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

Samuel T. Benge wrote:

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

Please continue to post, don't give in.

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.

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 :-)

-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

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?



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

Post a reply to this message

"Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C3C9271638raf256com@203.29.75.35...
> 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?

He has the right to express his opinion on the subject just as you do.

--
God

Post a reply to this message

JC (Exether) wrote:

> Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> 
>> "Timothy Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote in message
>> news:4070c191@news.povray.org...

<snip />

>> 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.

Oh G-D, don't feed the troll... :-/
-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:

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

<snip />

> 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).

And so it begins.
-- 
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message

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 />

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

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> 
> Pornography is wrong; it is an affront to the Creator.

Then let him deal with it as he will.

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

Post a reply to this message

Doctor Morbius wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 00:13:15 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:
> 
>>Thanx Darren.

<snip />

>>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.

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

Post a reply to this message

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

Post a reply to this message

> 2. I don't require reaction or comment.
That's for example one thing I do not understand about your attitude. 
When you are not interested in other people's reactions or comments on 
your images, why do you post your images here? I mean, I don't post my 
images to renderosity, for example, simply because it's a place to post 
CGI work.

> 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.

> 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).

Florian

Post a reply to this message

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.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

>>> 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'.

Post a reply to this message

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

Post a reply to this message

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 () {
  If Schrödingers_cat is alive  
    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