IPMS RULING ON NUDES
Tara6180
Rufus
--
-Rufus
Dean Eubanks
Dean
julian hales
were you taking about model figures?
--
CHILEAN ROSE spiderlings for sale £1.20 each
Please visit www.thesnakeshop.co.uk
Sheffields premier exotic animal store
What do the numbers mean when next to reptiles?
I have 1.2.0 Leopard Geckos, a total of 3
1=Males.2=Female 0=unkown sex M.F.U
-Reptiles-
Green Iguana's 1.1.0 Leopard Gecko's 1.2.1
Bearded Dragon 1.1.0 N. American Pine Snake 1.0.0
Frog eyed Geckos 0.4.0 African Rock Python snake 0.1.0
-Spiders!-
Chilean Rose Tarantulas 1.2.20
-Cockroaches-
Madagascan Hissing 3.10.100? Cuban 0.0.20
-Misc.-
8 Zaire Millipedes 0.0.8
2 Giant African Land Snails and Arthur the dog!!
"Tara6180" <tara...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011110011346...@mb-cu.aol.com...
Bustoff RC
a health hazard. Most of the membership I know already sniff the chairs. I'll
try again next time.
DMeriman
David D. Merriman, Jr.
r/c submarines, 'the only way to fly!'
"Barns! Cargrave!... Come back here!!!"
Mike
>
> What are your opinions on banning nude figures from our > organization
That depends on what kind of figure they have.
--
Mike Dougherty
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
Daryl Carpenter
I have a diorama of a nude SS Stormtrooper posing, in a sexually suggestive
manner, in front of the Enola Gay. Are there any rules against that?
Daryl
The 2001: A Space Odyssey Technology Site-
http://members.tripod.com/Aries_1B/index_m.htm
Remove CRM114 to E-mail.
"It's not that I oppose it war, it's just the whole "killing" thing that upsets
me"
R.J. Goldman
"I'm just wondering about all the classic art I was exposed to over the
years, in the Gallerys around the world . I wonder when the heads of IPMS
have last been to a gallery like the corchren in D.C. ?
IncubusNitemare
Sean Neilan
Peace leads to strength. Strength leads to war. War leads to weakness. Weakness
leads to peace.
Imagine what we will learn when people are not afraid to ask whatever they
wish?- JH
If sense is so common, why do so few people have it?
LICIN
Why not? At least it is somewhat OT having to deal with the paramilitary
organization we all send our dues to. :-)
As far as thinking of not renewing my membership because of it. Well I have
been torn between re-upping and not and there has been a couple of things this
year that have me hanging on the NO side of that fence. The nude thing being
one. I however have no problem with graphic models being put on display at a
seperate area like at Wonderfest. I do think some of the guidlines including
Nose Art and such is a bit extreme though. The last problem I have is the Nats
coverage issue of the Journal. Look through all the photos in the Essay then
read the text. Anything missing?
As far as allowing nude membership? I can't stand to see most of you guys when
you are clothed let alone naked. Myself included :-)
Cheers,
Max Bryant
fence.
Mark Wilson
wrote:
If he's nude, how do you know he's SS?
Mark Wilson
The Sleeping Giant has awoken....
http://home.earthlink.net/~mmwilson2/
RAAM FAQ:
http://home.earthlink.net/~mmwilson2/RAAMFAQ/index.html
Kevin Brown
aircraft, etc. Is it fair to single out one faction of the hobby such as
figure modelers and to ignore similar subjects built by other modelers?
If you are going to apply a standard then you must apply it fairly.
Kevin
"Tara6180" <tara...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011110011346...@mb-cu.aol.com...
Mike
>
>
>
> If he's nude, how do you know he's SS?
>
Tat's I'd suspect.
Mark Schynert
mmwi...@earthlink.net wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2001 13:05:12 GMT, lyra...@cs.comCRM114 (Daryl Carpenter)
> wrote:
>
> >::Satire Mode::
> >I have a diorama of a nude SS Stormtrooper posing, in a sexually suggestive
> >manner, in front of the Enola Gay. Are there any rules against that?
> >Daryl
> >The 2001: A Space Odyssey Technology Site-
> >http://members.tripod.com/Aries_1B/index_m.htm
> >Remove CRM114 to E-mail.
> >"It's not that I oppose it war, it's just the whole "killing" thing
that upsets
> >me"
>
> If he's nude, how do you know he's SS?
Swastika instead of a fig leaf?
I'm so pleased to see this thread back. Never mind that the label is
totally misleading, since it merely solicits opinions from those most
assuredly not in charge, rather than informing us of the latest
promulgations from those in charge. Never mind that it was disgust (oops,
discussed) to death last time. Never mind that certain individuals who
consider themselves in charge in this matter suffer from a level of
cranial petrification that truly boggles. None of that matters. No, what
matters is that we continue to beat this horse until we have reduced its
bones to dust.
Yeah, I re-upped, even though I consider the choice actually made on this
to be wrong, wrong, wrong. Why did I? Easy. I have a touch more
credibility taking verbal whacks at the powers that be if I am a member.
Anyway, I belong to IPMS, not IPMSFFTANN (IPMS For Figures That Are Not
Nude)--the organization thankfully transcends its officers and
publication, since it gives the hobby at least some basis for nationwide
commonality.
Mark Schynert
Rufus
Ditto. They'll probably lose me as a member.
--
-Rufus
Rufus
--
-Rufus
Jean S and/or Jeff C
drops of superglue are going, and never let your knife roll off the
table : )
--
Jeff C
RLHD
IncubusNitemare
>drops of superglue are going, and never let your knife roll off the
>table : )
>
i think attendence would drop by about 99% if half of the modelers whom i've
seen showed up butt naked.
The Raven
the nude ruling............
--
The Raven
** Undisputed President of the ozemail.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.
** Conqueror of the uunet.* NG's
"Daryl Carpenter" <lyra...@cs.comCRM114> wrote in message
news:20011110080512...@mb-bd.news.cs.com...
Jose Altube
IncubusNitemare <incubus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011110195325...@mb-mq.aol.com...
> >Nude modellers should be welcome to join IPMS, but watch where the
> >drops of superglue are going, and never let your knife roll off the
> >table : )
> >
>
> i think attendence would drop by about 99% if half of the modelers whom
i've
> seen showed up butt naked.
Do not disregard the noise-atenuating properties of clothing. Jose.
Ron Smith
their membership.
Ron Smith
Ron Smith
Rob Gronovius
You don't have an albino big brother who'd ask him if he really was there for
the hunting? ;)
Rob Gronovius
Major
US Army
William J. Banaszak
>
> can we please nt do this thred again?
We could always go back to the digital prostate manipulation one again.
;)
Bill Banaszak, MFE
William J. Banaszak
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Rufus
--
-Rufus
Ron Smith
white though.....:)
Ron Smith
R & S Grinberg
news:iv0rutcjvgnvpk2bo...@4ax.com...
> On 10 Nov 2001 13:05:12 GMT, lyra...@cs.comCRM114 (Daryl Carpenter)
> wrote:
>
> >::Satire Mode::
> >I have a diorama of a nude SS Stormtrooper posing, in a sexually
suggestive
> >manner, in front of the Enola Gay. Are there any rules against that?
>
> If he's nude, how do you know he's SS?
>
And won't Enola's being gay bring a whole new discussion into being? Will
we let her join?
Robert G
R & S Grinberg
--
Robert Grinberg
'Let's make us medicine of our great revenge,
to cure this deadly grief.'
Wm Shakespeare / MACBETH
"Rob Gronovius" <rgron...@aol.comno.spam> wrote in message
news:20011110230533...@mb-cr.aol.com...
DMorris517
segregated.
Dave
Royabulgaf
>segregated.
>
"We shall overcome...." Kim M :+)
Rufus
trying to display it" policy to me.
Now I'm even more inclined to let my IPMS membership lapse into history.
--
-Rufus
Mark Schynert
incubus...@aol.com (IncubusNitemare) wrote:
> >Nude modellers should be welcome to join IPMS, but watch where the
> >drops of superglue are going, and never let your knife roll off the
> >table : )
> >
>
> i think attendence would drop by about 99% if half of the modelers whom i've
> seen showed up butt naked.
>
>
> Sean Neilan
I'm not sure I understand the math here.
Mark Schynert
Phil Campbell
out on the market, how can you ignore them? While I agree that most of them
are not to even my jaded tastes, Mascot Models comes to mind, there are some
that are quite nice and if I've built and painted it I should be allowed to
enter it into a contest.
Besides, no one says anything about the nude nose art that is plastered on some
of the A/C I've seen at shows.
RWalker581
11 TIME CASCAR STOCK CAR CHAMP STEVE ROBBLEE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AS A SPECIAL
GUEST SPEAKER FOR THE 4TH ANNUAL SOUTHERN ONTARIO HOBBY SHOW, SUNDAY JANUARY
20TH 2002.
THE SHOW WILL BE HELD AT THE BEST WESTERN LAMPLIGHTER INN 591 WELLINGTON ROAD
IN LONDON, ONTARIO CANADA. THOUSANDS OF MODEL BUILDERS FROM ACROSS ONTARIO AND
PARTS OF THE SURROUNDING UNITED STATES ARE EXPECTED FOR THE REGIONAL EVENT.
SOME OF THIS YEAR'S MAJOR SPONSORS INCLUDE, PLAYING MANTIS, MICROPLAY,
REVELL-MONOGRAM, AMT/ERTL, XACTO KNIVES AND BLADES, LUBE TECH AUTOMOTIVE
CENTRES, HOBBYLINKAMERICA.COM, MARY BROWN'S CHICKEN RESTAURANTS, AND BORGFELDT
INC, KROEGER INC, MIKERIAN MERCANTILE, AND HOBBYCRAFT CANADA.
A FULL SLATE OF EVENTS ARE PLANNED FOR THE REGIONAL EVENT, INCLUDING AN
AIRBRUSH SEMINAR BY IPMS MASTER MODELLER LARRY WATSON, AND A UNIQUE SEMINAR ON
MODEL PHOTOGRAPHY FOR THE WEB.
THERE WILL ALSO BE AN ANIME FILM FESTIVAL TIED INTO THE SHOW HOSTED BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO ANIME FILM CLUB.
MICROPLAY WILL BE HOSTING A VIDEO GAME COMPETITION. "THE IDEA IS TO CROSS
PROMOTE HIGH TECH HOBBIES WITH TRADITIONAL HOBBIES," SAID SHOW FOUNDER AND
PROMOTER RICHARD WALKER. "IF KIDS ARE INTO VIDEO GAMES TODAY THEN LETS GIVE
THEM VIDEO GAMES. WHILE THEY'RE ENJOYING THE HIGH TECH STUFF WE'LL INTRODUCE
THEM TO A WHOLE WORLD OF HOBBIES THEY MAY NOT HAVE SEEN. MODEL KITS, SLOT
CARS, WE'LL HAVE IT ALL AT THE SHOW, AND THERE'S A LOT OF DOVE TAILING BETWEEN
THE MOVIES, THE VIDEO GAMES, AND THE TRADITIONAL HOBBY PRODUCTS OUT THERE.
IT'S A WIN WIN SCENARIO FOR THE PEOPLE ATTENDING THE SHOW, THE VENDORS, THE
CONTESTANTS, THE KIDS, AND THE HEALTH OF THE RELATED HOBBIES."
SHOW DOORS OPEN AT 9:OO AM. THE MODEL CONTEST WILL BE JUDGED USING AN OPEN
POINTS SYSTEM BY I.P.M.S. MEMBERS.
"IT'S MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER MODEL SHOW. THERE WILL BE EVENTS HAPPENING ALL
DAY, BUT WE'VE BEEN CAREFUL NOT TO OVEREXPAND. WE'RE KEEPING OUR FOCUS ON
HOBBIES, AND ESPECIALLY MODEL BUILDING. WE WANT TO EXPAND THE HOBBY AND INJECT
NEW BLOOD INTO IT, BUT WE RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING THE SHOW'S
CREDIBILITY BY RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF VENDORS THAT WILL BE ALLOWED ON SITE.
ONLY VENDORS WITH GOODS OR SERVICES RELATING TO THE HOBBIES AT THE SHOW WILL BE
ON HAND, AND THIS YEAR THERE WILL BE MORE OF THEM THAN EVER BEFORE," SAID
WALKER.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT THE SHOW PROMOTER DIRECTLY, AT
rwalk...@aol.com, OR CALL 1-519-685-2624.
DMeriman
instrument of mass death?
Please! Think.
We dare not evoke the wrath of Rusty (bulge and all) and the other
self-appointed arbiters of 'taste'.
Ben Geunther has a possible solution to the issue: put the 'questionable'
models on tall tables - that way the kids can't see them without the aid of a
ladder. Simple.
David D. Merriman, Jr.
r/c submarines, 'the only way to fly!'
"Barns! Cargrave!... Come back here!!!"
Francis X. Kranick, Jr.
DMeriman wrote:
> What's more horrible to you: a miniature nude or a miniature depicting an
> instrument of mass death?
>
> Please! Think.
(snip)
Ummm, ...thought you weren't a member of IPMS...
--
Frank
IPMS/USA 20352
"Watch it - I say - watch it fizz!"
- Foghorn Leghorn
*****************************
Francis X. Kranick, Jr.
CAD Drafter/CAFM Administrator
University of Scranton
Scranton, PA USA
kran...@uofs.edu (work)
fran...@usnetway.com (home)
(570) 941-7898 - voice
(570) 941-6220 - facsimile
DMeriman
>DMeriman wrote:
>
>> What's more horrible to you: a miniature nude or a miniature depicting an
>> instrument of mass death?
>>
>> Please! Think.
>
>(snip)
>
> Ummm, ...thought you weren't a member of IPMS...
>
>--
>Frank
>IPMS/USA 20352
>
I am not a member of the IPMS. I don't qualify - I'm not much of a
kit-assembler, you see.
However, from time to time, I will lower my sights a bit (the IPMS is, after
all, simply a collection of kit-assemblers) and will stoop down to give that
organization a few moments of my precious time. Don't confuse my aid as any
heart felt expression of regard for that organization - the IPMS has yet to
attain the stature warranted to gain my full support. Some day, maybe, but not
yet. So, Frank, as you can appreciate, joining the IPMS would be, you
understand, a 'step down' for me.
Consider my offered insights to things IPMS as gifts to that community, Frank.
Nothing more.
No need to thank me, Frank… glad to help you potential model builders out
there with advice and comment. Your gratitude is reward enough for me.
Ron Smith
Francis X. Kranick, Jr.
SHIP MDLR
>self-appointed arbiters of 'taste'.
Yeah, you don't want to encur the wrath of a damn liar like Merriman. He'll
post his lies about you as well. At least some of us have taste.
Rusty White
SHIP MDLR
What? You mean to insinuate Merriman is a liar? What a revelation!
Rusty White
Rodolfo
> What are your opinions on banning nude figures from our organization
I have only a consideration about it: why ban nude figures when during
Gulf war, in 1991, it started to redecorate ariplanes with nose art,
including nude female?
Bye,
Rodolfo.
Dave Williams
"Rodolfo" <rudy...@libNOSPAMero.it> wrote in message
news:3BF13EC2...@libNOSPAMero.it...
The entire reason for all this is:
Mommy brings little Johnny to an IMPS Nats to see some model airplanes or
tanks. Little Johnny sees some nude women figures in addition to the planes
and tanks. Mommy fears Litttle Johnny's mind is permanently warped by the
exposure and hire a slick lawyer to sue the pants off IPMS. IPMS goes
bankrupt trying to defend themselves.
Rightly or wrongly, that is my understanding of the reason behind it. Would
all the people who are raking IPMS over the coals for their decision agree
to pay any legal fees and settlements that IPMS might incur? If so, then
sign on up.
Dave
Rodolfo
> The entire reason for all this is:
>
> Mommy brings little Johnny to an IMPS Nats to see some model airplanes or
> tanks. Little Johnny sees some nude women figures in addition to the planes
> and tanks. Mommy fears Litttle Johnny's mind is permanently warped by the
> exposure and hire a slick lawyer to sue the pants off IPMS. IPMS goes
> bankrupt trying to defend themselves.
>
> Rightly or wrongly, that is my understanding of the reason behind it. Would
> all the people who are raking IPMS over the coals for their decision agree
> to pay any legal fees and settlements that IPMS might incur? If so, then
> sign on up.
>
> Dave
I have understood the problem. It is the solution that I have no understood.
There are other method, as to expose those models in another room with written
exactly what there are inside.
I don't understand also all that related topics about sex. It is natural that we
are different, male and female, and it is not showing differences that will warp
children's mind, but hiding them.
I understand that this is an OT topics here, but this is what I fill about that.
Bye,
Rodolfo.
Dave Williams
"Rodolfo" <rudy...@libNOSPAMero.it> wrote in message
I agree there seem to be better ways to handle this. Segretating entries,
or posting warning signs that the contest room might contain things that
some people might find offensive seem much better ways to go and would
provide the same protection. I don't necessarily agree that the IPMS way is
the best way, I was just trying to explain the issue behind their actions.
Whether or not some kid is actually "damaged" or not is irrelevant. In the
US legal system, what is right and what is true do not always matter. Even
if one is right, the cost of defending oneself can lead to financial ruin.
Dave
Chris Bucholtz
"The entire reason for all this is:
Mommy brings little Johnny to an IMPS Nats to see some model airplanes or
tanks. Little Johnny sees some nude women figures in addition to the planes
and tanks. Mommy fears Litttle Johnny's mind is permanently warped by the
exposure and hire a slick lawyer to sue the pants off IPMS. IPMS goes bankrupt
trying to defend themselves."
How about this: Little Johnny sees a diorama with a dead German solidier and
THAT warps his little mind, or so his mommy says. Should we ban military
subjects?
If we ban all subjects that have the possibility of causing some form of
distress in viewers, we will have nothing on the tables. No organization that
promotes expression can be held liable for the many reactions of spectators to
that expression; those reactions are the responsibility of the viewer, or in
the case of minors, the viewer's parents.
Really, this is an answer that makes no sense to a problem that doesn't exist
in the first place. The offending models at Chicago that inspired this
constituted .095 % of the entries, and the locals running the show exhibited
great common sense in allowing them to compete and be out of the view of
sensitive eyes.
If someone ever does sue the IPMS over the content of a contest, the
organization would have an ally in its defense that many members might recoil
at: the American Civil Liberties Union. Ultimately, that's what any suit over
visual expression is about.
--Chris Bucholtz
Richa5011
and other issues is objectionable for three reasons:
1. It is ineffective as it is written, due to imprecise definitions and
apparent contradictions.
2. As it is currently written the new Policy actually fosters a greater risk of
litigation than it resolves.
3. The new Policy actually obviates the judgment and common sense of the local
Contest Directors, who will be in the best position to determine a entries
appropriateness.
Firstly, allow me to express some qualifications:
1. I have been a member of this Society for some 23 years. I have also had the
privilege to serve as Contest Director for our Chapter or most of the past 7
years, including serving in our large annual contests and two Regional
Contests. This gives me a fair level of practical experience in running model
contests.
2. The following are solely my personal views, I make no claim to speak for
others or my local IPMS Chapter.
3. I both understand and, in general, agree with the concept of prohibiting
certain "sexually explicit" subjects to protect both minors and the legal
position of IPMS USA and it's local chapters. People are welcome to build such
things for their own amusement, but there some things that are clearly not
appropriate for public display.
4. I do not object to the new Policy based upon Constitutional, Artistic or
Creative reasons (though these are real and significant issues as well). I
object at a more fundemental level. My primary objection to the new policy is
because it is so poorly defined and illustrated. It is a written policy that
seems to "strain the gnat and swallow the camel". That is to say, the new
Policy is so poorly written that it leaves significant loopholes while
inadvertently impacting more main stream models and modelers than the minors it
is intended to protect.
To me personally, the first real problem with this Policy is that, on one hand
the National states:
"As with all such matters, we expect and depend upon the personal discipline
and good judgment on of all IPMS members. "
On the other hand, with the publishing of this Policy, they have removed from
equation the "good judgment" of the local Contest Directors as to what is and
is not acceptable. For as long as I can remember the Society has had the
following in their contest rules:
Section I, #5 - "The Chief Judge will exclude/remove from competition any entry
considered by Contest officials to be inappropriate or offensive to generally
acknowledged standards of taste and acceptability"
This rule alone allows the local Chief Judge to exclude any offensive entry
whether "sexually explicit" or involving other themes that may be offensive.
The better policy would be to use this rule and keep using the "good judgment"
of the locals that has worked well in the past.
Various ones have raised valid points about the nudity found in aircraft nose
art and the scale Playboy centerfold that is a part of Shep Paine's famous
diorama. By strict interpretation of the new Policy, both would be forced into
a curtained area or excluded all together. Too much, too far! So would a
parade diorama that depicted the guy with the shovel that follows the horses
and elephants. I also recall a boxed diorama that won Best of Show at Nationals
about 20 years ago that depicted a hanger, complete with pigeon droppings from
the 1/72nd scale pigeons in the rafters....under the new policy that would be
excluded or sequestered.
Comments from the IPMS National have suggested that the new policy will not
impact nose art and similar things. However, there is no distinction made in
the new policy between figures (3D) and nose art (2D). If it is a case that
the National simply does not intend to enforce the policy on nose art, then
that is truly foolish as that will open the National up to more litigation.
Nat Richards
IPMS # 13182
DMeriman
Well done.
Winks
He'll try and force you to build what he tells you in the way he wants it
done. Or, he will not let you into the Nats. Ooooooooohhhhh.
"SHIP MDLR" <ship...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011113095634...@mb-fw.aol.com...
Royabulgaf
>I am not a member of the IPMS...Blah blah blah >David D. Merriman, Jr.
I dunno. You and Rusty White sound made for each other. Kim M
DMeriman
>
>>I am not a member of the IPMS...Blah blah blah >David D. Merriman, Jr.
>
>I dunno. You and Rusty White sound made for each other. Kim M
...I've asked him to have my baby. No answer yet.
Maiesm72
>...I've asked him to have my baby. No answer yet.
I think that I'm going to puke! What a horrendous thought.
On the other hand, what a diorama!!!!
Tom
Rodolfo
> I understand that this is an OT topics here, but this is what I fill about that.
>
> Bye,
> Rodolfo.
Sorry for my english, but I was meaning "fell", not "fill".
Bye,
Rodolfo.
TOMAC1947
> On the other hand, what a diorama!!!!
Mercifully, it could never be displayed.
-- John
DMeriman
... at the moment.
Richard Bernecki
to this newsgroup, you are assuming most modellers excercise good
judgement. That is a mistaken assumption and why IPMS probably had to
implement the rule. Thankfully, many of the posters are not IPMS
members or those that are and disparage the club should consider not
renewing. If this issue makes you want to leave the club, all I can
say is "get a real life".I know it is against normal IPMS thought that
we should not discourage modellers from joining, but after reading
much of the negative comments from some posters, I'm glad they are not
members or are not considering rejoining (yeah! right!).
Rich
IPMS #11470
rich...@aol.com (Richa5011) wrote in message news:<20011113134517...@mb-mj.aol.com>...
> To me personally, the first real problem with this Policy is that, on one hand
> the National states:
>
> "As with all such matters, we expect and depend upon the personal discipline
> and good judgment on of all IPMS members. "
>
> On the other hand, with the publishing of this Policy, they have removed from
> equation the "good judgment" of the local Contest Directors as to what is and
> is not acceptable. For as long as I can remember the Society has had the
> following in their contest rules:
>
Winks
this one. And, Dave, it would truly be modelling and not kit assembling.
And it could never offend Rusty as he has no bulges to display.
"Maiesm72" <maie...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011114014827...@mb-ma.aol.com...
DMeriman
Rusty on a stirrup equipped hospital gurney.
(How does breakfast taste the second time around?)
DMeriman
He'll get a 'bulge' reading the above, no doubt..
Nice guy, Rusty. I hear he's in the IPMS.
Some of my best friends are common kit-assemblers. Rusty's my good buddy.
Shane W
Rodolfo wrote
>Rodolfo wrote:
>
>> I understand that this is an OT topics here, but this is what I fill
about that.
>>
>
>
Apologies unnecessary. Probably you mean "feel" not "fell" but we understand
just fine. I'm quite sure I wouldn't even get close in your language.
Shane
Rufus
forgo renewal of my IPMS membership this year and step down as president
of my local chapter over this issue. I just flat think it's wrong. And
it looks like I'm not the only one...
--
-Rufus
Royabulgaf
>
>...I've asked him to have my baby. No answer yet.
>
>David D. Merriman, Jr.
So it didn't work out with you and Madonna? Kim M
bru...@realtime.net
:
: This is a good point, but unfortunately from reading many of the posts
: to this newsgroup, you are assuming most modellers excercise good
: judgement. That is a mistaken assumption and why IPMS probably had to
: implement the rule.
You seem to feel that your standard of "good judgement" is
the proper one, from your tone. Frankly, what was on display at
Chicago this year was pretty tame, IMNSHO.
What I want to know is what will IPMS/USA do if some elderly
person with a number tatoo'd to the inside of their left elbow
comes in and complains about all of the swastikas that are on
the "toy airplanes". Or will they duck behind the "but that's
historical" cop out?
And, before you bother, yes, I am a member of IPMS/USA, and,
yes, I have fought this battle locally, and lost.
What I am more interested in is how many "defenders of morals
and public purity" police IPMS plans to send to the local contest,
to insure that the chattle are following their decrees.
Finally, why is it that we sneer at Europeans for baning
the display of the swastika, but can't find the courage to tell
a few whiners to stuff it when _gasp!_ a breast is displyed?
Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes
DMeriman
LOL
(so, what is it that Rodman has that I don't... er... never mind).
Mark Schynert
royab...@aol.com (Royabulgaf) wrote:
Nah, she's not a real woman--she's assembled.
Mark Schynert
Nick Pedley
"Tara6180" <tara...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011110011346...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> What are your opinions on banning nude figures from our organization
Where can I read a copy of these rules that have everyone hot and bothered?
Nick
Richard Bernecki
newsgroup who thinks their "standard" is wrong? Time for therapy. I do
agree that the folks at Chicago did the right thing, and a separate
viewing area is prefered to elimination of the entries or having them
"exposed" for all to see.
Rich
IPMS #11470
bru...@realtime.net wrote in message news:<3bf3...@giga.realtime.net>...
> You seem to feel that your standard of "good judgement" is
> the proper one, from your tone. > Bruce
Francis X. Kranick, Jr.
Rufus wrote:
> Good opportinity to express to someone with expertise that I plan to
> forgo renewal of my IPMS membership this year and step down as president
> of my local chapter over this issue. I just flat think it's wrong. And
> it looks like I'm not the only one...
>
> --
> -Rufus
While I could say "Fine, we don't need you.", the fact of the matter is IPMS/USA
does need you, disagreeable to the subject as you may be.
Is this a valid-enough reason for you to react this way? Is this topic *that*
dear to you? Or, is it the fact that someone else is imposing their policy on you?
For one, *I* feel there should be something done. I do not think "questionable"
subjects should be allowed for all to see. A separate, cordoned-off area would be an
easy solution to the issue. Is your basic problem with the new guideline the fact
that some restraint needs to be applied? Do *you* think no restraint needs to be
applied?
I've not heard any constructive solutions from you yet and I wondered what you
may have to say on it other than threats to leave, step down, etc. What would you
have IPMS/USA do?
IPMS/USA had to act on this and could not send it out as a referendum. Maybe it
was a wake up call to judges and clubs that something could pop up and bite you.
There are lots of things I'd like to see changed in IPMS/USA. There are also a
lot of things I'd leave be as they work fine. Make your argument to the right people
and do it well. But, you have to do it as a member.
--
Frank
IPMS/USA 20352
"Watch it - I say - watch it fizz!"
- Foghorn Leghorn
*****************************
Francis X. Kranick, Jr.
CAD Drafter/CAFM Administrator
University of Scranton
Scranton, PA USA
kran...@uofs.edu (work)
fran...@usnetway.com (home)
(570) 941-7898 - voice
(570) 941-6220 - facsimile
Rufus
my high school days I was an award winning jewelry maker and sculptor.
I was lead to study (and coach) 3D art as an adjunct to my hobby. I
guess I tend to think of model builders - especially those who have
better skills than I do - more as artists than "just" modelers.
If you respect the work of others, (and belive me, I do - especially
when they can do something I can't and do it better) then you have to
admit that some of the more advanced figure builders these days (I'm
particularly in awe of the ones that place actual hair on their figures)
posess some pretty impressive skills. On the average people build what
they like or what is popular in the culture and most of what is popular
among figure modelers seems to be sci-fi, comic book, horror, and
fantasy figures. I don't blame kit builders for choosing such subjects
- they are interesting, colorful, and definite attention getters when
executed skillfully and on display. If they are human figures, they may
posses some sexual content - explicit or not.
I find the IPMS "build but don't show" policy not only distasteful, but
flat out DISRESPECTFUL of the skill of these builders, of the IPMS
membership as a whole, and of my own skill as a builder. As I
mentioned, I have some idle skill at sculpting. I've been thinking
about taking it up again as a diversion from my usual aircraft subjects
and will probably select a subject as described above for a starting
point. To think that I would continue to belong to an oganization (any
organization) which would sequester my ability or the ability of others
to display their work to the general public or their peers while
ostensibly "promoting the hobby" is absurd.
IPMS had a choice - they could have adopted a policy which would require
the clear and direct advertisement of the content of an exibition and
let the public decide if it wanted to enter. That's one of the founding
tenants of the priciples of freedom of speech and expression. Instead,
they chose to knukle under to political pressure on an issue which I'm
sure has plenty of standing legal precedent in the art world, not to
mention that the social standard of "seperate but equal" has also been
tried and scraped by the courts. This would have been an easy fight to win.
Yes - I am the president of a very small club, have been for a very long
time, and the club does need me. Will my departure make a difference?
Probably not. But this issue is personal to me, and should be personal
to anyone with any pride in their own ability or respect for the ability
of others. I know I certainly didn't get a notification of a VOTE on
the issue - just a "heads-up" that it was going to happen from my
Regional Director, whom received my un-edited feedback.
I don't feel any discomfort about not being affiliated with IPMS other
than the way forward for my own little club. Our membership experienced
a boom in growth this year after a severe slump. How can I stand in
front of those new builders and tell them that they can't openly display
their work in public if they choose the "wrong" subject, right from the
start? I simply won't, and that's that.
I've read that there is a grass-roots campain in Europe these days to
return copy protected CDs to the vendor as "defective" in protest
against the practice. Maybe we should use that as the model in this
situation. It works for me.
--
-Rufus
bru...@realtime.net
:
: What can I say? It's the only standard I have.
:
I believe you have successfully avoided the obvious point
that it isn't "your standard" that is the problem, it is your
apparent willingness to impose your standards on others that is
the problem.
My standard, well, is my standard. I don't attempt to ban
offensive models (and I use "offensive" very literally here)
from display - I simply ignore them. And, to return to the root
of this edict, the three (?) models at the Chicago IPMS/USA
National Convention, none of them struck me as notable in the
areas of subject matter, execution or offensiveness. Now, if
any of the modellers who entered those figures read this, allow
me to state that I didn't do more than glance at the models
before the judging started to see what had some folks knickers
in an apparent uproar. And, since I don't judge figures, I had
no reason (or desire) to scrutinize the entries in any detail.
So, please, do not intrepret my lack of interest in your entry
as some kind of judgement of them.
As "Rufus" noted, why do we, as an organization, kowtow
to people who refuse to take responsibility for their actions
(as in, calling the organizers, and asking what kind of models
are likely to be on display), while at the same time attempting
to convince people that our works are "art" and not "toys"?
After all, we behave like they are toys, and naughty toys at
that.
And, lets note that IPMS/USA does NOT ban nudes - a model
of "David" is deemed appropriate. Along that line, one would
think that a model based on Marilyn Monroes' Playboy centerfold
is also acceptable - after all, "David" likely has more exposed
genetalia than Marilyn. Now, while we can (likely) all agree that
something based on any of the more hardcore "gentleman's magazines"
is not approrpriate for public display, that still leaves a very
large gray area, and who is to say what shade of gray is the
demarcation line between acceptable and not acceptable?
And, let me point out that, IIRC, IPMS/USA bans "prominent
or bulging genetalia". While I believe this was designed to
eliminate the erect phallus, it could be applied to "Barb Wire"
or "Elvira" models by the more sanctimonious modelers one
encounters. Will the E-board of IPMS/USA be on hand at every
local contest to insure that their dictates are propery
intrepretated, based on their "one true standard"?
Remember, Slick Willie didn't have sex with Monica. Extensive
carnal knowledge, yes. Sex? Nope. According to him, of course...
One more point - I believe the discussion of "banned nudes"
had obscured the ruling against graphic gore and violence, as well.
As I recall, a very well done WWI trench scene diorama did very
well at, ummmm, Va. Beach? Columbus? Orlando? (not that it matters),
but I believe this new ruling would prevent that entry from being
entered/displayed today. I have to ask why? Anybody who has
studied WWI _should_ be revolted by the terrible conditions the
troops endured in the trenches...
Richard Bernecki
> And, lets note that IPMS/USA does NOT ban nudes - a model
> of "David" is deemed appropriate. Along that line, one would
> think that a model based on Marilyn Monroes' Playboy centerfold
> is also acceptable - after all, "David" likely has more exposed
> genetalia than Marilyn. Now, while we can (likely) all agree that
> something based on any of the more hardcore "gentleman's magazines"
> is not approrpriate for public display, that still leaves a very
> large gray area, and who is to say what shade of gray is the
> demarcation line between acceptable and not acceptable?
This is why, in a republic, the majority opinion is the rule of law.
To say that everyone has a different standard, and as such, no rule
can be made is ridiculous. This is the argument of the person in a
vocal minority. As has been stated in this thread, we are talking
about an average of three entries out of 2000 that will be affected.
My opinion is, so be it. To follow the logic on this thread, Congress
would never be able to pass a law unless it was passed with 100% of
the votes in favor. Or let's not pass a law because someone feels that
their rights are being violated. Gee, why do we lock up people in the
child porn industry. Do you think a model depicting a child porn act
should be shown to the public because we don't want to offend the
sensibilities of the "artist". Give me a break! If the majority of
IPMS members disgree with my standard, they should take a stand on the
issue. Majority rules is the way it works, and if I or someone else is
in the minority, we have a couple of choices. If Rufus wants to quit
IPMS, so be it. If he ever gets a traffic ticket, I hope he argues
that his rights have been violated. Maybe he'll give up his
citizenship. When I was a kid, we always had some poor baby that took
his football home when he couldn't get his way. "If you don't like my
model, I'll leave the society." Bye.
Rich
#11470
Mark Schynert
bern...@aol.com (Richard Bernecki) wrote:
> bru...@realtime.net wrote in message news:<3bf4...@giga.realtime.net>...
> > And, lets note that IPMS/USA does NOT ban nudes - a model
> > of "David" is deemed appropriate. Along that line, one would
> > think that a model based on Marilyn Monroes' Playboy centerfold
> > is also acceptable - after all, "David" likely has more exposed
> > genetalia than Marilyn. Now, while we can (likely) all agree that
> > something based on any of the more hardcore "gentleman's magazines"
> > is not approrpriate for public display, that still leaves a very
> > large gray area, and who is to say what shade of gray is the
> > demarcation line between acceptable and not acceptable?
>
> This is why, in a republic, the majority opinion is the rule of law.
Ever heard of the concept of tyranny of the majority? Majority votes may
be the rule of law (although note that IPMS members DID NOT VOTE on this
(and frankly, based on typical turnout for IPMS elections an referenda,
very few members might have voted in either direction)), but minority
rights are entitled to protection against majority opinion. Discrimination
against blacks was a majority-endorsed standard not so long ago. Golly, it
must have been right.
> To say that everyone has a different standard, and as such, no rule
> can be made is ridiculous.
And it's equally ridiculous to say that every time there is contention
over some matter of opinion, that the most restrictive possible rule (or
any rule) is justified. A little cost-benefit analysis makes sense before
over-reactive rules are dropped on us from on high. Exactly what benefits
are we getting from this rule? I have seen essentially three postulated:
(1) IPMS and/or its member clubs won't get sued.
(2) The Youth of America will not be corrupted.
(3) The vast majority of us are fundamentally offended by such models, yet
the vast majority of our event organizers are so damned stupid that they
are incapable of devising simple, on-the-spot solutions to keep such drek
from polluting the main exhibit hall, and thus we have to vaguely and
explicitly ban "something" to keep from losing all enjoyment in the
contest.
As for (1), as has already been pointed out more than once in this thread
and its percursors, Nazi symbols, girlie nose art and WWI trench gore are
all potentially offensive, and what is to prevent IPMS being sued over
models involving these elements? Nothing.
As for (2), I am sympathetic to those parents who have such a poor
relationship with their kids, or so little understanding of the influences
their children are subjected to both outside their home, and inside
(Internet, video games, TV) that they think looking at lewd sculptures is
going to turn a child into a life-long pervert and child molester, as
opposed to everything else that's out there. One would hope that the
physical isolation exemplified in Chicago will offer that last-ditch line
of defense for these kids.
That leaves us with (3). It's an interesting argument. I invite you to
hang your hat on this one and defend it publicly here. Or maybe there's
yet another potential benefit that I missed that in no way involves any of
these other elements. I'd love to see it (whatever it is) intelligently
articulated here. However, I am not going to hold my breath waiting for
same.
>This is the argument of the person in a
> vocal minority. As has been stated in this thread, we are talking
> about an average of three entries out of 2000 that will be affected.
> My opinion is, so be it. To follow the logic on this thread, Congress
> would never be able to pass a law unless it was passed with 100% of
> the votes in favor.
This is mixing apples with oranges. If Congress passed a law anything like
this, it would get swatted down by the first Federal District Judge before
whom it was raised. It is so far beyond the pale of constitutionality that
nobody in a sophisticated jurisdiction would even try to enforce it. IPMS
is a private organization, not subject to the same strictures as a
law-making body. That means it can be a lot more careless about how it
proceeds, and also that what it has to say means much less.
>Or let's not pass a law because someone feels that
> their rights are being violated. Gee, why do we lock up people in the
> child porn industry. Do you think a model depicting a child porn act
> should be shown to the public because we don't want to offend the
> sensibilities of the "artist".
True artists know that they risk rejection every time they put anything
before the public. Worring about the artist's sensibilities is not an
issue for me, nor should it be for anyone else. It's not about that at
all. It's about justifying a policy of restrictionwhich carries costs and
ostensibly delivers benefits; the entire argument ought to be about what
the cost is to all of us, and what the benfits returned (if any) are. The
'straw man' of child porn is not uselful here, because child porn
unequivocally victimizes at least those children used to make the porn.
That in and of itself is a crime. Tell me, was one of the models in
question in Chicago child porn? If not, why in the Hell are you throwing
that into the mix?
>Give me a break! If the majority of
> IPMS members disgree with my standard, they should take a stand on the
> issue. Majority rules is the way it works, and if I or someone else is
> in the minority, we have a couple of choices. If Rufus wants to quit
> IPMS, so be it. If he ever gets a traffic ticket, I hope he argues
> that his rights have been violated.
You're mixing fruit again. Traffic tickets are designed to deter unsafe
driving and raise revenue. This policy of IPMS does neither.
>Maybe he'll give up his
> citizenship.
This is something we should all consider. With citizenship comes
constitutional rights. I think we're finding in these difficult days that
constitutional rights might cost more than they're worth. Indeed, arguing
for First Amendment rights might very well be a subversive act. And in
truth, there are very few matters today that require new and open
thinking. These few should perhaps be left to our betters, such as those
in charge of IPMS policy.
>When I was a kid, we always had some poor baby that took
> his football home when he couldn't get his way. "If you don't like my
> model, I'll leave the society."
No, I think a more accurate paraphrase would be "If you won't let this
other guy show his model, which I may or may not like, but respect his
desire to exhibit, I'll leave the society." Of course, that wouldn't have
worked very well with the crybaby and the ball, thus leaving you bereft of
an anecdotal ending to your argument.
> Bye.
> Rich
> #11470
I'll tell you what offends me. Luft'46 models. Quite apart from a real
question whether most of these paper projects could even have flown, irt
seems to me that it amounts to saying "how sad that the Nazis did not stay
in power long enough to put these wonders in production, so even more
Allied aircrews and troops could be killed." See, I too am subject to
irrational preferences. Don't ever elect me to any IPMS office, as I will
personally ban all LUft '46 entries form contests throughout the solar
system.
Mark Schynert
bru...@realtime.net
Excellent response, Mark.
:
: Don't ever elect me to any IPMS office, as I will
: personally ban all LUft '46 entries form contests throughout the solar
: system.
:
Hey, I think I can support that! It is sad that we have
models of "napkin planes" (tanks), but we don't have a good
P-40B/C. Sigh.
Tara6180
DMeriman
>
>
Of course you do. It's spelled, 'modeler'.
GarryDrummond
Here, it's spelled 'modeller'.
"DMeriman" <dmer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011117092255...@mb-bd.aol.com...
Dan
> >
> >
>
> Of course you do. It's spelled, 'modeler'.
*You're* trying to give spelling advice? It is to laugh. Better work on
the beam in own your eye before concentrating on the mote in someone else's.
By the way, "modeller" is *not* a misspelling. It's a variation and
perfectly acceptable, even if uncommon in this country.
So, as usual, you're wrong.
Berneckir
>rights are entitled to protection against majority opinion. Discrimination
>against blacks was a majority-endorsed standard not so long ago. Golly, it
>must have been right.
Golly, it wasn't right.But, we build models for fun. Period. What we do will
not save 1 life, improve anyone's social condition or make this country a
better place to live. The issues we discuss on this newsgroup affect less than
400 people and very few of us agree. This is not a social rights issue. If the
few models get banned at a contest, we will all live to espouse another day. If
you believe this issue is on the same level as racial persecution, you must
have some ego!
>And it's equally ridiculous to say that every time there is contention
>over some matter of opinion, that the most restrictive possible rule (or
>any rule) is justified.
I never said that. This is one isolated situation that I seem to disagree with
others on this newsgroup about. Do you guys have a real life that this is such
an issue?
> A little cost-benefit analysis makes sense before
>over-reactive rules are dropped on us from on high. Exactly what benefits
>are we getting from this rule?
Give me a break again. A cost benefit analysis of this IPMS rule. Some people
get a bruised ego because they can't display a model they built. It was built
to shock, titillate, offend or to fulfill someone's fantasy life. Period.
Guess what, we'll all wake up the next day, no worse for wear. Besides, it will
be fodder for future threads. Poor offended modelers unite!
>(1) IPMS and/or its member clubs won't get sued.
When was the last time any model club got sued for something like this? Anyone
that would bother has too much time or money on their hands. Why not join the
Peace Corps and really do something important.
>That means it can be a lot more careless about how it
>proceeds, and also that what it has to say means much less.
My point exactly. A non important issue.
>Traffic tickets are designed to deter unsafe
>driving and raise revenue. This policy of IPMS does neither.
Contraire. It is derived to hopefully bring more revenue into the Contest by
having more people show up
.>This is something we should all consider. With citizenship comes
>constitutional rights.
This is where we really disagree. I am proud to be a citizen. Yes, some of my
opinions are not those of the majority, but there is no where else I'd rather
live. I have not seen one crucial right taken from anyone recently that doesn't
have safeguards attached to it. You do something to subvert this country, I
want you caught and neutralized. Period.
>Don't ever elect me to any IPMS office, as I will
>personally ban all LUft '46 entries form contests throughout the solar
Why not run. You'd be surprised who might vote for you. At least you seem to
care about the society. That's good.
Rich IPMS #11470
Berneckir
Uh, David. Let me explain something to you that your parents may have
missed..... You need a man and a woman, not two men : ).
Rich
Winks
"DMeriman" <dmer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011117092255...@mb-bd.aol.com...
Greg Plummer
Model building may be fun but it's really not important in the grand
scheme of things. If one shows up to a contest, any contest, with a
model or diorama that the organizers object to, well, it won't - and
shouldn't - be shown, especially if they don't have the screened off
section ala the nationals. No, your civil rights haven't really been
violated, you're not Rodney King, and life will go on. Having said
this, I think there are very few if any models that will fall into
this category. Any that do will probably be from a modeler that is
deliberately building an offensive piece in a fit of immaturity, not
artistic inspiration. The modeling community doen't really need this
at a public display.
I think IPMS/USA is attempting to convert this common sense "rule of
thumb" into an actual rule, and the results seem silly. It would be
better if they just left this non-issue in the hands of the contest
organizers. If a group is competent enough to run a contest they
should be able to handle pieces that are built just for shock value.
Lawyers may be around every corner here, but I don't think we should
fear lawsuits. As I said before, modeling really isn't that
important... Just my 2 cents worth,
Greg P.
Phil Campbell
>this, I think there are very few if any models that will fall into
>this category. Any that do will probably be from a modeler that is
>deliberately building an offensive piece in a fit of immaturity, not
>artistic inspiration
I'm not so sure about that. Especially having heard about a Holocaust Train
Diorama that was put into the segregated area, as it fell under the new ruling.
Yes, it may have been offensive to some viewers sensabilities, however it was
depicting a Historical event that did happen.
Also, I think back to a diorama that I did several years ago, depicting a
German soldier who had gotten out of a Horche Command car to relive himself and
was holding up the a Panzer IV that was travelling behind him. Everyone in my
club thought it was a good diorama, but if my reading of the "new rules" is
accurate, this diorama wouldn't be allowed to be shown if I took it to a
contest now. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Phil Campbell
LICIN
Youre right.
Also to the gent that don't think many of these models are available. Well
guess again. They are available and in alot of scales. Just have a bare breast
and you are done. At my club meet on Friday night a figure bust was on display.
She was clothed but had a set of erect nipples that would have entered any room
5 seconds before she did. I wonder if that would have been allowed on a regular
contest table?
Cheers,
Max Bryant
Phil Campbell
>She was clothed but had a set of erect nipples that would have entered any
>room
>5 seconds before she did. I wonder if that would have been allowed on a
>regular
>contest table?
According to what I was told, it would be allowed but in a sectioned off area.
What wouldn't be allowed would be any model or figure that depicts or suggests
that any sexual act. So, my Global Marketing figure of Lara Croft with one
breast showing and her shorts undone, would be allowed but in a sectioned off
area. However, my Verlinden vignette "What did You do in the War, Daddy", with
a soldier and a woman lying in bed wouldn't even be allowed in the contest,
since it suggests that a sexual act had taken place.
Phil Campbell
Shane W
DMeriman wrote
>>as a modeller i'm starting to feel segregated from my hobby.
>>
>>
>
>Of course you do. It's spelled, 'modeler'.
Not in my dictionary.......
Shane
Dustin May
Why not have a self imposed rating system like TV and movies? It seems to
work just fine for them. If I had kids, I would have absolutely no problem
letting them see a PG-13 movie at the age of 13. And the TV rating system
is even better.
So, as a non-IPMS member, here are my suggestions for ratings:
NV - Nudity, vulgar. This would be the equivalent of NC-17. No one under
18 will be permitted to enter. A warning sign must be posted.
NA - Nudity, artistic. This would be works of art that *happen* to include
nudity. Of course, everyone that looks like they are under 20 will be ID'd
before entering and no children under 13 will be allowed after 6:00pm.
NM - Nudity, modest. This would be equivalent to R. Same rules as above.
SS - Sexually suggestive. This would be equivalent to PG-13.
V - Violent or suggested violence or models portraying figures, vehicles, or
aircraft used in violence. Everyone wanting to view these displays must
sign an affidavit stating they will not sue IPMS or any related
organization.
N - Nazi or other potentially offensive insignia or markings. Same rules as
V.
G - No nudity, sexually suggestive, or sexually explicit material.
Of course, the model builder will be responsible for applying the rating(s)
that apply to their models. Sections of the display area will be set up for
each rating and permutation of ratings.
Personally, I think this is the most fair and equitable solution.
</sarcasm>
--
Dustin May
"Phil Campbell" <ncamp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011119175038...@mb-fx.aol.com...
Chris Bucholtz
"However, my Verlinden vignette "What did You do in the War, Daddy", with a
soldier and a woman lying in bed wouldn't even be allowed in the contest, since
it suggests that a sexual act had taken place."
Doesn't EVERY figure suggest that a sexual act had taken place at some point?
;)
--Chris Bucholtz
Maiesm72
>;)
>--Chris Bucholtz
Not according to a segment of thepopulation best known for wanting everyone
else to believe and worship only in their way.
I think they tell their kids about the stork or the cabbage patch.
You run accross them occasionally in teaching. Makes one wonder how in the
world they ever managed to procreate.
Then there are the Shakers. No sex allowed. Ever. Kind of explains why they are
now limited to a handful of old ladies. Great furniture, though.
Tom
TOMAC1947
> why they are now limited to a handful of old ladies. Great furniture,
> though.
I thought that they went extinct about four or five years ago.
John Hairell
Model the Verlinden set with each figure having at least one foot on
the floor, as they used to do in bedroom scenes on TV in the '50s.
That way it signals that there is no sexual intent. Even if they
don't have their clothes on...
IPMS = International Prudes Modeling Society
John Hairell (guar...@erols.com)
Maiesm72
Could be. My neighbors a few years back have a very popular Shaker Workshop
store. At that time there were a few of the old girls still around.
Tom
Phil Campbell
>nudity. Of course, everyone that looks like they are under 20 will be ID'd
>before entering and no children under 13 will be allowed after 6:00pm.
>
Most contests I've been to, the contest is over and the exhibit hall locked up
by 5:00 pm
Phil Campbell
Phil Campbell
>
>
Not all, My Lara Croft, by Global Marketing looks like she's lost her clothes
while fighting off some supposedly evil supernatural creatures, or a bunch of
lust crazed Tomb Raider fans....:-)
Phil Campbell
Chris Bucholtz
Actually, my point was that for the subject of a figure to exist in the first
place, there had to be.... Aw, forget it!
--Chris Bucholtz
dynodave
> What are your opinions on banning nude figures from our organization
folks are making WAY too big a deal about this,take some of this
excess energy and write an article for the journal
DMeriman
An EXCELLENT, constructive idea.
He's right, you know, Rusty... why don't you write an article for the Journal?
Oh... just a moment... you quit. I forgot. Sorry.