"Show Me": Book Review
Terry J. Wood
Bryan Morris <mor...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
>post it here!
>what do you think free speech and public forums are all about?
The book isn't about naturism. Post it in misc.kids or one of the book
or library discussion groups. That's the appropriate free speech forums
for the review.
>do you think it will be any more offensive than tony and chuck
>constantly flaming each other? ^^^^^^^^^
Well, that's *another* topic altogether. ;-) My objection to posting this
in rec.nude is that the book is not about naturism.
Terry
Bryan Morris
what do you think free speech and public forums are all about?
do you think it will be any more offensive than tony and chuck
constantly flaming each other?
bryan
Bert Clanton
I assume that this is addressed to me, as the author of that review..
I didn't post my review here in rec.nude for two reasons.
First, the review is, among other things, an almost picture-by-picture
description of the pictorial contents of the book; and some of those
pictures are frank enough, and offensive enough to some people, to have
gotten the book banned in this country as "child pornography". While (as I
observed in my review) this evaluation seems totally and excruciatingly
silly to me, I wish neither to offend nor to open myself to possible
prosecution. I'd rather be paranoid than locked up.
Second, there are those regular posters in "rec.nude" who consider topics
like the book "Show Me" to be off-topic for "rec.nude". While I don't
agree with these posters, I respect their point of view.
So I hereby reiterate my offer: if you want to read my review, request it
by e-mail, and I'll send it to you.
Best wishes,
Bert
Bert Clanton
Wood) wrote:
> In article <4e7pm7$m...@news.cc.ucf.edu>,
> Bryan Morris <mor...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
>
> >post it here!
>
> >what do you think free speech and public forums are all about?
>
> The book isn't about naturism. Post it in misc.kids or one of the book
> or library discussion groups. That's the appropriate free speech forums
> for the review.
>
> >do you think it will be any more offensive than tony and chuck
> >constantly flaming each other? ^^^^^^^^^
>
> Well, that's *another* topic altogether. ;-) My objection to posting this
> in rec.nude is that the book is not about naturism.
>
> Terry
I agree: the book is NOT about naturism, and that's one of the reasons why
I didn't post my review here. Nor am I aware of any other existing
newsgroup where it would be "on topic". Yet I have been asked to e-mail it
to about a dozen people already, presumably by "rec.nuders". So there
appears to be SOME audience for such "off-topic" postings here. What's the
solution?
Best wishes,
Bert
Terry J. Wood
Bert Clanton <be...@sonic.net> wrote:
>I agree: the book is NOT about naturism, and that's one of the reasons why
>I didn't post my review here. Nor am I aware of any other existing
>newsgroup where it would be "on topic".
I can think of a few, including some that deal with library issues. But
when all else fails, there's always misc.misc.
>Yet I have been asked to e-mail it
>to about a dozen people already, presumably by "rec.nuders". So there
>appears to be SOME audience for such "off-topic" postings here. What's the
>solution?
If you say you have nudes of Gates McFadden, you'll get a lot of e-mail asking
for a posting, presumably by "rec.nuders". Does that mean we should post
or should we e-mail those nudes of Gates?
Nuff said?
Terry
Bert Clanton
Wood) wrote:
Not quite enough said.
In my view (one possibly not shared by most "rec.nuders") the book "Show
Me" has relevance to social and ethical issues related to the
body-acceptance which naturists claim to favor. Claims that the book
constitutes "child pornography" have been made in this newsgroup, by
people who have seen the book, with no complaints that such claims are
"off-topic". Statements by other "rec.nuders" who have seen the book, and
who don't believe that it constitutes "child pornography", have also been
posted here. Until recently, I had never seen the book; now I have. So I
participated in the controversy, but by e-mail rather than by a newsgroup
posting. One can hardly be faulted for engaging in "off-topic" e-mail!
If your point is that we should e-mail such "off-topic" messages rather
than post them in "rec.nude": I think it's a shame that so many people in
this newsgroup don't feel that social issues related to body-acceptance
are appropriate "rec.nude" topics. But I honored that opinion, though I
don't agree with it.
Best wishes,
Bert
Terry J. Wood
Bert Clanton <be...@sonic.net> wrote:
>In my view (one possibly not shared by most "rec.nuders") the book "Show
>Me" has relevance to social and ethical issues related to the
>body-acceptance which naturists claim to favor. Claims that the book
>constitutes "child pornography" have been made in this newsgroup, by
>people who have seen the book, with no complaints that such claims are
>"off-topic".
You mean, 'no complaints that such claims are "off-topic"' THIS WEEK.
We've complained about this for over a YEAR. We're just tired of having
to complain about it again and again.
"Show Me" is a hot button. It has little to do with Naturism, but there
are lots of folks who'd love to paint naturists with the "Show Me" brush.
"Show Me" was debated when it was first published in a number of relavent
forums, including the children's library forum.
But "Show Me" has little (if anything) to do with naturism.
Attempts to get rec.nude going down the kiddy-pedo-porn debate which lasted
all of last year are futile. We've hear it all before. In fact, we heard
it all before in the very first month of the 'debate'. We just got to hear
it all 12 times over last year.
Enough is enough. At least for me.
>If your point is that we should e-mail such "off-topic" messages rather
>than post them in "rec.nude": I think it's a shame that so many people in
>this newsgroup don't feel that social issues related to body-acceptance
>are appropriate "rec.nude" topics. But I honored that opinion, though I
>don't agree with it.
Body-acceptance is an appropriate topic. Kiddy porn/sex-education is not.
("Show Me" discussions remind me of the "Tastes Great!/Less Filling!" beer
commercials).
If you want to talk about Body-acceptance surely there must be publications
and books other than "Show Me" to talk about; publications and books
directly related to naturism?
If you can't find anything but "Show Me" to talk about, it's clear that the
"body-acceptance" discussion isn't really about "body-acceptance", isn't it?
It's about that "awful/wonderful" book "Show Me". This is a clear sign that
the discussion should not be in rec.nude. But nobody wants to debate this
in misc.kids. It's only "fun" in rec.nude. ;-)
But feel free to ignore my advice. I'm not your mother -- I can't
keep you from discussing "spanking", or "kiddy porn", "gun control" or
any other off topic subject. I know how to use a kill file. Just about
everyone else does too. We'll live.
But the entire subject is a good argument as to why a moderated group is
so clearly needed.
Terry
Bert Clanton
Wood) wrote:
> In article <bert-30019...@pm154.sonic.net>,
> Bert Clanton <be...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >In my view (one possibly not shared by most "rec.nuders") the book "Show
> >Me" has relevance to social and ethical issues related to the
> >body-acceptance which naturists claim to favor. Claims that the book
> >constitutes "child pornography" have been made in this newsgroup, by
> >people who have seen the book, with no complaints that such claims are
> >"off-topic".
>
> You mean, 'no complaints that such claims are "off-topic"' THIS WEEK.
> We've complained about this for over a YEAR. We're just tired of having
> to complain about it again and again.
>
Who's this "we"?
The actual situation appears to be that there are "we's" who are
complaining (whose views I respect, and whose views I honored by posting
my review by e-mail, rather than in "rec.nude"), and there are also
"we's", also obviously readers of this newsgroup, who were interested
enough to request that I e-mail the review to them. So there appear to be
two schools of thought here. I even went so far as to honor the school to
which I do not belong.
> "Show Me" is a hot button. It has little to do with Naturism, but there
> are lots of folks who'd love to paint naturists with the "Show Me" brush.
I certainly agree that "Show Me" is not about Naturism, as Naturism
presently defines itself; and I have to agree also that there are a lot of
people who have distorted views of Naturism, which they try to spread.
Both of these facts, however, do not affect the merits or demerits of
"Show Me". BECAUSE "Show Me" might reasonably be considered off-topic
here, I did not review it here. BECAUSE there ARE apparently quite a few
readers of "rec.nude" who ARE interested in "body-acceptance" issues, as I
understand that term, I offered to share my evaluation of the book with
them by e-mail. I believe that I acted in such a way as to honor the
interests and sensibilities of both groups.
>
> "Show Me" was debated when it was first published in a number of relevant
> forums, including the children's library forum.
>
> But "Show Me" has little (if anything) to do with naturism.
>
Agreed, though I'm sad that Naturism defines itself so narrowly. Indeed,
the fact that Naturism DOES define itself so narrowly is the main reason
why I am no longer a Naturist. That should be a result acceptable both to
morally conservative naturists and to me.
> Attempts to get rec.nude going down the kiddy-pedo-porn debate which lasted
> all of last year are futile. We've hear it all before. In fact, we heard
> it all before in the very first month of the 'debate'. We just got to hear
> it all 12 times over last year.
>
I'm making no such attempt.
> Enough is enough. At least for me.
>
> >If your point is that we should e-mail such "off-topic" messages rather
> >than post them in "rec.nude": I think it's a shame that so many people in
> >this newsgroup don't feel that social issues related to body-acceptance
> >are appropriate "rec.nude" topics. But I honored that opinion, though I
> >don't agree with it.
>
> Body-acceptance is an appropriate topic. Kiddy porn/sex-education is not.
> ("Show Me" discussions remind me of the "Tastes Great!/Less Filling!" beer
> commercials).
>
In my view, if body-acceptance is an appropriate topic, then moral and
social issues related to body-acceptance should also be appropriate
topics. And in my view, sex-education (e.g., "Show Me") is a moral and
social issue related to body-acceptance. But I did not attempt to "push"
that issue. Instead I offered to review BY E-MAIL a book related to that
issue. My review has not appeared in "rec.nude", and will not.
> If you want to talk about Body-acceptance surely there must be publications
> and books other than "Show Me" to talk about; publications and books
> directly related to naturism?
>
I make a distinction between "body-acceptance" and "skin-acceptance". In
my view, "Show Me" is a book which is DIRECTLY related to issues of
"body-acceptance". "Skin-acceptance" is an issue in which I no longer take
a great deal of interest, except to give my good wishes to those who DO
still take an interest in it. And from my perspective, Naturism, as it
presently defines itself, is about "skin-acceptance".
> If you can't find anything but "Show Me" to talk about, it's clear that the
> "body-acceptance" discussion isn't really about "body-acceptance", isn't it?
> It's about that "awful/wonderful" book "Show Me". This is a clear sign that
> the discussion should not be in rec.nude. But nobody wants to debate this
> in misc.kids. It's only "fun" in rec.nude. ;-)
>
Oh, I can indeed find many things other than "Show Me" to talk about with
respect to "body-acceptance". But what IS clear to me is that any
discussion of "Show Me" is about true "BODY-acceptance", NOT about
"SKIN-acceptance". Whether that is a clear sign that the discussion should
not be in "rec.nude", is a matter about which at least two points of view
seem to be represented among participants in "rec.nude".
I would guess that "Show Me" would be even less acceptable in "misc.kids"
than in "rec.nude".
> But feel free to ignore my advice. I'm not your mother -- I can't
> keep you from discussing "spanking", or "kiddy porn", "gun control" or
> any other off topic subject. I know how to use a kill file. Just about
> everyone else does too. We'll live.
>
> But the entire subject is a good argument as to why a moderated group is
> so clearly needed.
>
Somehow I feel that "gun control" is a LEETLE bit more peripheral to
"rec.nude" than are "spanking" and "kiddy porn".
But I completely agree as to the need for a moderated newsgroup.
As for me, I'll continue to respond to interesting postings in "rec.nude".
Some of them, whose off-topichood is obvious even to me, I'll respond to
by e-mail. With respect to others, I guess I'll continue to assume that
the fact that a particular thread is fat and continuing, means that a lot
of "rec.nuders" are interested in it, and that I therefore have license to
participate in it, however "un-Naturist" my viewpoint may be.
Best wishes,
Bert
Tony Lawrence
: The actual situation appears to be that there are "we's" who are
: complaining (whose views I respect, and whose views I honored by posting
: my review by e-mail, rather than in "rec.nude"), and there are also
: "we's", also obviously readers of this newsgroup, who were interested
: enough to request that I e-mail the review to them. So there appear to be
: two schools of thought here. I even went so far as to honor the school to
: which I do not belong.
And I certainly do not understand why.
The person making the most noise about this is Terry Wood. Now, Terry's
not a bad guy, and he gets off some *really* funny one liners now and
then, but it's plainly obvious that he's uncomfortable with sex.
Now, that's not so unusual. Heck, Bert: "Show Me" makes *me* uncomfortable.
I don't like it, and would much prefer to bury my head in the sand and
let the kids grow up in ignorance until some magic day when they figure
it out for themselves.
As to being off topic, well, I've already made my views plain on that.
It's on topic because body acceptance *is* part of what we preach, and
to pretend that parts of our bodies do not have sexual function is
just ludicrous.
: In my view, if body-acceptance is an appropriate topic, then moral and
: social issues related to body-acceptance should also be appropriate
: topics. And in my view, sex-education (e.g., "Show Me") is a moral and
: social issue related to body-acceptance. But I did not attempt to "push"
: that issue. Instead I offered to review BY E-MAIL a book related to that
: issue. My review has not appeared in "rec.nude", and will not.
Bert, you are 100% correct. Do not allow Terry to determine the content
of rec.nude. As he constantly reminds us, he knows how to use a kill
file. Let it be so.
: Oh, I can indeed find many things other than "Show Me" to talk about with
: respect to "body-acceptance". But what IS clear to me is that any
: discussion of "Show Me" is about true "BODY-acceptance", NOT about
: "SKIN-acceptance". Whether that is a clear sign that the discussion should
: not be in "rec.nude", is a matter about which at least two points of view
: seem to be represented among participants in "rec.nude".
And since not all of us agree with Terry, you should post. Period.
--
Tony
Terry J. Wood
Bert Clanton <be...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> You mean, 'no complaints that such claims are "off-topic"' THIS WEEK.
>> We've complained about this for over a YEAR. We're just tired of having
>> to complain about it again and again.
>Who's this "we"?
I'm sure this "we" could include Tim, Peterd, and a number of others.
I'm in close contact with Tim and Peterd. I've not asked them,
but it's entirely possible they are in this "set". I'll let those who
think they are in this set identify themselves -- if they still READ
rec.nude and haven't been driven out by now.
(But I AM 100% sure that the 'we' refers to the mouse I keep in my pocket).
As you probably know, constant off-topic postings serve to drive folks
out of a newsgroup. The clowns from a.s.t can attest to this.
But I'll give rec.nude this -- there are a core group of rec.nude
readers who, when faced with spam or obvious trolls, do complain about
what is posted here to news admins. Many a troller has learned that
rec.nude is not rec.pets.cats; for we don't get mad. We get even. ;-)
>The actual situation appears to be that there are "we's" who are
>complaining (whose views I respect, and whose views I honored by posting
>my review by e-mail, rather than in "rec.nude"), and there are also
>"we's", also obviously readers of this newsgroup, who were interested
>enough to request that I e-mail the review to them. So there appear to be
>two schools of thought here. I even went so far as to honor the school to
>which I do not belong.
As I said before, if you post here that you have GIFs of Gates McFadden
in the nude, you'll get bombarded with requests for them, or offers to trade
pictures. Do you think these people are naturists?
{H*ll, by just writing the above paragraph, I'll get no less than three
e-mail messages asking for the GIFs. I'm always amazed at how little people
understand what is written. Then again, maybe I don't write very well.}
So why is it that we get reports that the AOL nudist chat rooms are filled
with those looking for "sex talk" and "gif swapping"? Do you think
those people are naturists? If they are, they aren't the naturists
that *I* know and associate with.
Many people who are not naturists and have no interest in naturism read
and post to this group.
So it's not surprising to find folks who are more than willing to post
and discuss and flame off topic things.
But it's OK, in my book, that many people reading this group aren't
naturists. It gives them a chance to learn about naturism. But the
group should stay on topic. Dicussions about the Bible, Gun Control
and Sex Education could be discussed here if there is a naturist tie
in. But I have yet to see much of that.
Mostly what I see is people using rec.nude as a general "chat" group.
Hey, if I put the words "Nude beach" in a posting, can I talk about
being stranded on a desert island? ;-)
It's something to think about. All I ask is that folks consider if the
conversation wouldn't be more appropriate in another group or in e-mail.
>As for me, I'll continue to respond to interesting postings in "rec.nude".
>Some of them, whose off-topichood is obvious even to me, I'll respond to
>by e-mail. With respect to others, I guess I'll continue to assume that
>the fact that a particular thread is fat and continuing, means that a lot
>of "rec.nuders" are interested in it, and that I therefore have license to
>participate in it, however "un-Naturist" my viewpoint may be.
As I said, I'm not you're mother. You have to use your own judgement in
these matters. Keeping rec.nude useful for naturists is becoming more
and more difficult.
Surely we can "have fun" and stay on topic?
Terry
PS: Anybody having parts for a 57 Chevy please contact me. BTW: The Chevy
is nude, so this is on topic. Does anybody else fix their car in the nude? ;-)
Bert Clanton
Wood) wrote:
> In article <bert-31019...@pm189.sonic.net>,
> Bert Clanton <be...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >> You mean, 'no complaints that such claims are "off-topic"' THIS WEEK.
> >> We've complained about this for over a YEAR. We're just tired of having
> >> to complain about it again and again.
>
> >Who's this "we"?
>
> I'm sure this "we" could include Tim, Peterd, and a number of others.
> I'm in close contact with Tim and Peterd. I've not asked them,
> but it's entirely possible they are in this "set". I'll let those who
> think they are in this set identify themselves -- if they still READ
> rec.nude and haven't been driven out by now.
>
> (But I AM 100% sure that the 'we' refers to the mouse I keep in my pocket).
>
> As you probably know, constant off-topic postings serve to drive folks
> out of a newsgroup. The clowns from a.s.t can attest to this.
>
> But I'll give rec.nude this -- there are a core group of rec.nude
> readers who, when faced with spam or obvious trolls, do complain about
> what is posted here to news admins. Many a troller has learned that
> rec.nude is not rec.pets.cats; for we don't get mad. We get even. ;-)
>
I think my offer to e-mail a book-review to people who request it might
indeed make an interesting test-case, and I invite you to refer it to the
newsadmins.
>
> >The actual situation appears to be that there are "we's" who are
> >complaining (whose views I respect, and whose views I honored by posting
> >my review by e-mail, rather than in "rec.nude"), and there are also
> >"we's", also obviously readers of this newsgroup, who were interested
> >enough to request that I e-mail the review to them. So there appear to be
> >two schools of thought here. I even went so far as to honor the school to
> >which I do not belong.
>
> As I said before, if you post here that you have GIFs of Gates McFadden
> in the nude, you'll get bombarded with requests for them, or offers to trade
> pictures. Do you think these people are naturists?
>
But I haven't offered to e-mail nude photos. I offered to e-mail a
book-review on a subject that I, and several people who received it from
me, believe to be very much on-topic here--or that it OUGHT to be
considered on-topic, even if it isn't so considered. As for whether an
E-MAIL can be off-topic for a newsgroup, I suggest that you refer that
interesting question to the newsadmins too.
I suspect that people who request nude photographs of other people whom
they don't know personally, are indeed not naturists. If any such people
request nude photographs from ME, I'll tell them they're in the wrong
newsgroup. Fair enough? Meanwhile, I'll probably continue to adhere to a
view somewhat different from yours as to what is appropriate for posting
here. But I'll also continue to try to be somewhat sensitive to the
opinions of people who don't agree with me.
> {H*ll, by just writing the above paragraph, I'll get no less than three
> e-mail messages asking for the GIFs. I'm always amazed at how little people
> understand what is written. Then again, maybe I don't write very well.}
>
> So why is it that we get reports that the AOL nudist chat rooms are filled
> with those looking for "sex talk" and "gif swapping"? Do you think
> those people are naturists? If they are, they aren't the naturists
> that *I* know and associate with.
>
Nor are they the naturists that *I* know and associate with. If they
request gifs or sex-talk from me, I'll refer them elsewhere.
> Many people who are not naturists and have no interest in naturism read
> and post to this group.
>
> So it's not surprising to find folks who are more than willing to post
> and discuss and flame off topic things.
>
Would you please quote for me that passage in the "rec.nude" FAQs which
specifies precisely what topics are on-topic for this newsgroup? And
perhaps another passage which designates you personally as arbiter of what
accords with that specification and what does not?
> But it's OK, in my book, that many people reading this group aren't
> naturists. It gives them a chance to learn about naturism. But the
> group should stay on topic. Dicussions about the Bible, Gun Control
> and Sex Education could be discussed here if there is a naturist tie
> in. But I have yet to see much of that.
Perhaps you might look more closely. A few of us think we see tie-ins that
you apparently miss.
> Mostly what I see is people using rec.nude as a general "chat" group.
>
> Hey, if I put the words "Nude beach" in a posting, can I talk about
> being stranded on a desert island? ;-)
>
> It's something to think about. All I ask is that folks consider if the
> conversation wouldn't be more appropriate in another group or in e-mail.
>
As soon as there's a newsgroup called something like
"alt.body-acceptance", I'll start posting to it, and stay off of
"rec.nude", thereby leaving this newsgroup completely to the
skin-fanciers. Meanwhile, *faute de mieux*, I'll continue to contribute to
the closest thing I can find to such a newsgroup, which presently is
"rec.nude". I'll see if I can make "skin-acceptance" do for
"body-acceptance".
Best wishes,
Bert
--
"For what we are beginning to wake up to today ...is that we have for millenia structured our social instititions and our systems of values precisely in ways that serve to block, distort, and pervert our enormous human yearning for loving connections."---Riane Eisler, "Sacred Pleasure", p. 383
TomMeginCT
about the book, we are interested in learning more about it. I assume you
have included your feelings whether or not it is indedd pronogrphic?
Thanks, Meg
Mohunch
Wood) writes:
>I get the feeling that a line
>from an old "western" is needed:
>
> "What we have here, is a failure to communicate"
Gee Terry, I never realized that 'Cool Hand Luke' was a western.
Or did 'Cool Hand Luke' steal that line from some earlier western movie?
Mo'
Naturist/Libertarian/Atheist
Bert Clanton
Wood) wrote:
> >>
> >> As I said before, if you post here that you have GIFs of Gates McFadden
> >> in the nude, you'll get bombarded with requests for them, or offers
to trade
> >> pictures. Do you think these people are naturists?
>
I replied:
> >But I haven't offered to e-mail nude photos. I offered to e-mail a
> >book-review on a subject that I, and several people who received it from
> >me, believe to be very much on-topic here--or that it OUGHT to be
> >considered on-topic, even if it isn't so considered. As for whether an
> >E-MAIL can be off-topic for a newsgroup, I suggest that you refer that
> >interesting question to the newsadmins too.
>
> OK. Now I'm sure that we aren't communicating! This would explain why
> we got started down this path in the first place. If you have a threaded
> newsreader, go back and read my posting where I originally talked about
> offering GIFs. You'll see that my point then (as is my point now) is not
> that YOU are offering gifs, but if ANYONE mentions the word GIF and "Gates
> McFadden, non-naturists who lurk will pester you for them.
>
> That's all I'm saying.
>
I WAS aware that you weren't ACCUSING ME of offering nude gifs. My point
was that it seemed to me that you were drawing an analogy between
pandering to prurient interest by offering to e-mail nude pictures, and
pandering to prurient interest by offering to e-mail a supposedly
off-topic sexually oriented book-review. I understood you to be implying
that OF COURSE I'd get a lot of requests for mu review, since I, like
someone who offers to e-mail nude gifs, was appealing to prurient
interest. If you DIDN'T intend such an implication, I indeed misunderstood
you, and I apologize for my misunderstanding. DID you intend such an
implication?
My reply, which you quoted, was basically meant to say that I felt that
such an analogy didn't hold, since it had not been my intention to appeal
to prurient interest. Do we have a better mutual understanding now?
Bert Clanton
Wood) wrote:
> OK. Now I'm sure that we aren't communicating! This would explain why
> we got started down this path in the first place. If you have a threaded
> newsreader, go back and read my posting where I originally talked about
> offering GIFs. You'll see that my point then (as is my point now) is not
> that YOU are offering gifs, but if ANYONE mentions the word GIF and "Gates
> McFadden, non-naturists who lurk will pester you for them.
>
> That's all I'm saying.
>
> So feel free to post what you like.
>
> Terry
I have another thought. It might not be such a terrible idea to e-mail my
review to non-naturist lurkers who DO have a prurient interest in "Show
Me"! They might learn from it that there is possibly a non-prurient
attitude toward children's nude bodies.
Terry J. Wood
Bert Clanton <be...@sonic.net> wrote:
>My reply, which you quoted, was basically meant to say that I felt that
>such an analogy didn't hold, since it had not been my intention to appeal
>to prurient interest. Do we have a better mutual understanding now?
I would hope so. Take care.
Terry
Terry J. Wood
Bert Clanton <be...@sonic.net> wrote:
>I have another thought. It might not be such a terrible idea to e-mail my
>review to non-naturist lurkers who DO have a prurient interest in "Show
>Me"! They might learn from it that there is possibly a non-prurient
>attitude toward children's nude bodies.
Knock yerself out! Go for it!
Terry
Tony Lawrence
: But I'll give rec.nude this -- there are a core group of rec.nude
: readers who, when faced with spam or obvious trolls, do complain about
: what is posted here to news admins. Many a troller has learned that
: rec.nude is not rec.pets.cats; for we don't get mad. We get even. ;-)
And he's proud of it.
Note that Terry is not just talking about some egregious and repeated
offense: if someone unkowingly posts ONE inappropriate article to
rec.nude, Terry complains. No, not to the poster, which is what
Bert or I would do, but directly to their service provider.
The "core" he speaks of includes, of course, Tim Keene, who baits
with offers of sexy pictures, and then sends any replies to law
enforcement.
We have words for such people, but I won't bother using them here.
Terry wants to "take back the net" ? Terry is what is *wrong* with the
net.
--
Tony
Terry J. Wood
Bert Clanton <be...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> But I'll give rec.nude this -- there are a core group of rec.nude
>> readers who, when faced with spam or obvious trolls, do complain about
>> what is posted here to news admins. Many a troller has learned that
>> rec.nude is not rec.pets.cats; for we don't get mad. We get even. ;-)
>I think my offer to e-mail a book-review to people who request it might
>indeed make an interesting test-case, and I invite you to refer it to the
>newsadmins.
A test case? What are you talking about? I get the feeling that a line
from an old "western" is needed:
"What we have here, is a failure to communicate"
>>
>> As I said before, if you post here that you have GIFs of Gates McFadden
>> in the nude, you'll get bombarded with requests for them, or offers to trade
>> pictures. Do you think these people are naturists?
>But I haven't offered to e-mail nude photos. I offered to e-mail a
>book-review on a subject that I, and several people who received it from
>me, believe to be very much on-topic here--or that it OUGHT to be
>considered on-topic, even if it isn't so considered. As for whether an
>E-MAIL can be off-topic for a newsgroup, I suggest that you refer that
>interesting question to the newsadmins too.
OK. Now I'm sure that we aren't communicating! This would explain why
Elenje
longer at the stage where "Show Me" would have been useful, I did manage
to find others (also published in Europe), aimed at a slightly older
audience (teens), which were helpful. My grandkids don't seem to have
much of a problem.
The basic problem of what is and what is not on topic is rather thorny. I
think Bert's last post on "body acceptance" and "skin acceptance" has
merit. As probably one of the premier steerers of discussion off topic, I
guess I have no right to pontificate, but if it has to do with nudism (not
just naturism) and attempts to promote it or discourage it, then I think
it is sufficiently on topic to be presented. But that's just my opinion,
not necessarily a "fact". L. (Of course, the nude=sex problem is always
with us.)
tim keene
>Terry J. Wood (tj...@pitt.edu) wrote:
>
>: But I'll give rec.nude this -- there are a core group of rec.nude
>: readers who, when faced with spam or obvious trolls, do complain about
>: what is posted here to news admins. Many a troller has learned that
>: rec.nude is not rec.pets.cats; for we don't get mad. We get even. ;-)
>
Justifiably so, I believe.
>Note that Terry is not just talking about some egregious and repeated
>offense: if someone unkowingly posts ONE inappropriate article to
>rec.nude, Terry complains. No, not to the poster, which is what
>Bert or I would do, but directly to their service provider.
I understand that is to avoid dealing with aggressively, but cowardly
(strange juxtaposition) people, such as yourself.
>The "core" he speaks of includes, of course, Tim Keene, who baits
>with offers of sexy pictures, and then sends any replies to law
>enforcement.
I do bait - with offers of a young female (14 YO CWF) - Why, do you
*like* those people asking around for pictures - If so, I'll be happy to
forward my mail to you - on your request, only, of course.
>We have words for such people, but I won't bother using them here.
Why not, Tony - you've obviously used them before, haven't you? And
you've stated that words which I consider vulgar (or rude) are OK for
conversation with anybody - what's stopping you? By the way, do you have
a mouse in your pocket?
>Terry wants to "take back the net" ? Terry is what is *wrong* with the
>net.
>Tony
I have pretty much figured you out, Tony - you pick fights, and have said
on numerous occasions, killfiling is just sticking your head in the sand
- and to an extent, I have agreed with that thought, for me anyway. You
are an obnoxious, and cowardly poster, who is also quite intelligent.
That is a pity, and more a pity that you dropped out of school, if that
is true. I tend to believe so, because of your denigration of those more
educated than yourself. Of course, this isn't a medical opinion - but
I'd guess that you are overcompensating for an inferiority complex - you
only feel good when putting down those you consider your superiors. As
much as it is possible to pity such a guttermouth, I do pity you.
attilla
--
attilla the hun (Tim Keene)
Best Process server/Skip-Tracer
in known world. (408-262-7021)
att...@netcom.com
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Terry J. Wood (tj...@pitt.edu) wrote:
>
>: But I'll give rec.nude this -- there are a core group of rec.nude
>: readers who, when faced with spam or obvious trolls, do complain about
>: what is posted here to news admins. Many a troller has learned that
>: rec.nude is not rec.pets.cats; for we don't get mad. We get even. ;-)
>
>And he's proud of it.
I suppose I must come down on the side of Terry then.
>Note that Terry is not just talking about some egregious and repeated
>offense: if someone unkowingly posts ONE inappropriate article to
>rec.nude, Terry complains. No, not to the poster, which is what
>Bert or I would do, but directly to their service provider.
If someone post, GET RICH QUICK, advertises a WWW service, cheap phone
calls, asks for sexy pictures, posts binaries to non-binary groups and
particularly if they spam or crosspost to a large number of groups which
includes this one, you bet I complain to the postmaster at that site.
The second chance they get is when they have persuaded their own sysop
that they understand the consequences of what they are doing. Past
history has shown that there are a vast number of occasions where the
return address is fake, the account was 'only left open for a minute',
the person concerned has replied with abusive email, the item was
withdrawn by a repost of the material, etc. etc.
Everybody is responsible for their own actions. That includes the first
time.
>The "core" he speaks of includes, of course, Tim Keene, who baits
>with offers of sexy pictures, and then sends any replies to law
>enforcement.
Tim does not bait. His wording is always careful as to the content of
what he has 'available'. What would you suggest we do with those who
post to him seeking pictures of naked 14 year old girls? Pat them on the
head and say, there, there....
>We have words for such people, but I won't bother using them here.
I almost certainly have a large set of words for the group of people who
perform the sort of irresponsible actions that you seem to take so
lightly.
>Terry wants to "take back the net" ? Terry is what is *wrong* with the
>net.
Acting in a responsible way is a normal adult action. I have not seen a
post from Terry that was not responsible. I only wish I could say the
same for others.
--
Richard Linsley Hood | Poole, Dorset UK | email: rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk
"Programming is mirroring the world, inside a computer" Larry O'Brien 1991
ED MCNALLY
Robert J. Pease
: NAKED COMPUTING? Iguess the guys could count a little higer
*
CAREFUL!!
this could be a sticky issue
*
Terry J. Wood
>Been watching the discussion between TerryW and BertC. While I am no
>The basic problem of what is and what is not on topic is rather thorny. I
>think Bert's last post on "body acceptance" and "skin acceptance" has
>merit.
I too think Bert's arguments have merit. Please understand that I do not
disagree with Bert about very much.
But I have read the book in question. I saw it as part of a Library Science
class. So I do know the text. AND the book was extensively discussed in
rec.nude just a few months ago. It's a hot button where very little will
come of naturist discussion. It quickly degenerates into discussion of
"kiddy porn vs. sex ed". Neither are on topic for rec.nude.
If one wants to discuss "body acceptance" books, please choose another book.
Much could be discussed which would lead to real naturist discussion.
Then again, as I said, I ain't your mother. You're all grown ups and can
decide what to do for yourselves.
Terry
Tony Lawrence
: I have pretty much figured you out, Tony - you pick fights, and have said
: on numerous occasions, killfiling is just sticking your head in the sand
: - and to an extent, I have agreed with that thought, for me anyway. You
And I have pretty much figured you out, Tim. Whenever anyone disagrees
with you or chastises you for your immature actions, you turn sullen
and angry, and make all sorts of nasty accusations. Should the person
you attack respond in kind, you then adopt this holy pose in which you
complain about their nasty attitudes, etc. You *are* the provocateur,
Tim, and I can certainly testify to that.
: are an obnoxious, and cowardly poster, who is also quite intelligent.
Your attacks on aolers and other newbies are what, Tim? Your childish
attempts to suck people into your "picture" scam, is what, Tim?
Intelligent? Useful? Or obnoxious and cowardly?
I have no use for little people like you, Tim. Angry, bitter, constantly
putting other people down: this is Tim Keene, and he is proud of it.
--
Tony
Tony Lawrence
: Tim does not bait. His wording is always careful as to the content of
: what he has 'available'. What would you suggest we do with those who
: post to him seeking pictures of naked 14 year old girls? Pat them on the
: head and say, there, there....
Although there are many to pick from, this has to stand proudly as
the most moronic opinion ever uttered by Mr. Hood.
What I'd "suggest", Richard, is that Tim not engage in this childish
activity at all.
Other than the insanity that is presently overtaking this country,
what is inherently prurient about pictures of 14 year old girls?
I see pubescent girls at our camp. Shall we tell them that they
cannot be naked because they are not old enough? If they appear
in a family album, shall I tell the parents that they cannot show that
album to us because it is pornography?
The whole think smells awful, and Tim's childish little game only
adds to the stench.
--
Tony
Tony Lawrence
: Tim does not bait.
Yet, Tim himself, in this very thread, says:
: I do bait - with offers of a young female (14 YO CWF)
Richard continues:
: His wording is always careful as to the content of
: what he has 'available'. What would you suggest we do with those who
: post to him seeking pictures of naked 14 year old girls? Pat them on the
: head and say, there, there....
Somewhere around here we have a "picture" book which is entitled
something like "Lisa Ann: Portrait of a Young Model". It was actually
our daughter who bought it, because at one time she was interested
in modeling (ended up as a budget analyst, but at thirteen, who
knows?).
I glanced at that the other day because I was moving some books to
make room for the constant influx of new books. The pictures are
of a young, perhaps 14 or 15 year old girl. Some of them are ordinary
pictures of a young girl just doing the things that young girls
do: sports, hanging with the family, studying, and so on.
Some of them, however, are "posed". Of course they are "posed", she's
a model! And the clothing? Oh, the usual: some teenage outfits,
some rather older, some bathing suits... and a picture of her showering.
Oh, it's very tasteful. No nipples or pubic hair. Even the bathing suit
shots are "tasteful". But this *is* a very pretty young girl, and if
a fifteen year old boy wouldn't find that book arousing, I'd be very
surprised.
What shall we do about such things, Richard? Is my daughter to blame
for buying such pornography? Should we lock me up for glancing
through the book and commenting that the girl is pretty? Shall we
make sure that I never let the book fall into the hands of a horny
fifteen year old?
Now let's carry it a little further. Personally, I cannot begin to
understand why anyone would want a picture, nude or otherwise, of
someone they don't know. Yet I see Janet offering pictures of
herself, and nothing in anything she has posted indicates that she
is doing so in the expectation that they will be used to assist
in masturbatory fantasies. So apparently *some* naturists think
that swapping nude pictures of each other is interesting in some
way.
We get N magazine. Every issue has pictures of naked people
within. In some cases, the purpose of the pictures is obviously
to show the resort or place where these people are, and in other
cases, the people are "famous" within the nudist community, and
that is why their pictures are shown. But in other cases, the
pictures seem to have no other purpose than simply to portray
naked people. And so what? We *are* nudists.
But do you think some people might have prurient interest in N
magazine? Though pictures of children seem to be absent in
recent years (no doubt due to the hysteria about "child pornography"),
such pictures used to appear.
What should we do about people who buy such magazines, Richard?
There are plenty of people who would quite cheerfully send them
off to jail for possessing such pictures.
Tim's baiting only adds to the hysteria. It is childish, disgusting,
and completely inappropriate for this newsgroup.
--
Tony
Tony Lawrence
: That is a pity, and more a pity that you dropped out of school, if that
: is true. I tend to believe so, because of your denigration of those more
: educated than yourself. Of course, this isn't a medical opinion - but
: I'd guess that you are overcompensating for an inferiority complex - you
: only feel good when putting down those you consider your superiors. As
: much as it is possible to pity such a guttermouth, I do pity you.
Now Tim's a psychiatrist.
I never put down my superiors, Tim. Only moronic little fools
who try to drive away every dissenting thought that enters a newsgroup.
It's kind of funny, though. There are a handful of people here
who I consider unusually intelligent. I've had differences with
some of them now and then, but I still consider them to be bright
and valuable people, and I will say so even when I disagree strongly
with their opinions.
Interestingly enough, Tim Keene and Peter DeMos have belittled almost
every one of these people. It's plain to me that these people
*are* better educated and intrinsically brighter than any of Tim's
adoring fans can ever hope to be. Yet they are belittled.
What was that you were saying about inferiority complexes, Tim?
--
Tony
Bert Clanton
(TomMeginCT) wrote:
I've promised two things:
I won't post the review on "rec.nude", since it could reasonably be
considered off-topic (although I don't consider it all that much
off-topic); and
I WILL post the review to anyone who sends me an e-mail requesting it.
I have not only included my FEELINGS about whether it is pornographic, but
also my REASONING about whether it is pornographic.
Bert Clanton
> Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : Tim does not bait. His wording is always careful as to the content of
> : what he has 'available'. What would you suggest we do with those who
> : post to him seeking pictures of naked 14 year old girls? Pat them on the
> : head and say, there, there....
>
[snip]
Tonu replied:
> Other than the insanity that is presently overtaking this country,
> what is inherently prurient about pictures of 14 year old girls?
> I see pubescent girls at our camp. Shall we tell them that they
> cannot be naked because they are not old enough? If they appear
> in a family album, shall I tell the parents that they cannot show that
> album to us because it is pornography?
>
> The whole think smells awful, and Tim's childish little game only
> adds to the stench.
>
> --
> Tony
I'd agree, Tony, that there is absolutely nothing inherently prurient
about pictures of 14 year old naked girls, and indeed nothing prurient
about 14 year old naked girls in the real world at your camp. We should
not tell 14 year old girls that they cannot be naked because they are not
old enough. If they appear in a family album, we should not tell their
parents that they can't show that album to us because it is pornographic.
Having said that, I still think that we ought to make some attempt to
consider the motivation of people who post to Tim asking for pictures of
naked 14 year old girls; and that if our intuitive evaluation is that the
asker is asking out of prurient interest (even though the PICTURES
THEMSELVES are not prurient in intent), we ought not to send the pictures.
I also think that there's a very high probability that anyone who sends a
request for nude pictures of 14 year old girls to Tim is requesting the
pictures out of prurient interest. Not 100% probability, but, say, maybe
98%. Don't you really agree, Tony?
I have to confess that I LIKE Tim's little game. Smells fine to me!
As for what to do with such people, how about ignoring them?
Terry J. Wood
Tom Higgins <thig...@imtn.dsccc.com> wrote:
>-> "What we have here, is a failure to communicate"
>I think you made a boo-boo here. I remember that line from "Cool Hand Luke"
>which was not a "western".
You get old and the first thing that starts to go is the memory. I could
swear I hear Clint or Arnold or The Duke say that line! ;-) The next thing
you know, I'll be putting old movie lines like "Round up the usual suspects!"
into my signature!
Terry "I'm not gonna hit ya. The H*ll I ain't!" Wood
PS: But what we DO have here IS a failure to communicate!
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Tim does not bait. His wording is always careful as to the content of
>: what he has 'available'. What would you suggest we do with those who
>: post to him seeking pictures of naked 14 year old girls? Pat them on the
>: head and say, there, there....
>
>Although there are many to pick from, this has to stand proudly as
>the most moronic opinion ever uttered by Mr. Hood.
I would like to thank you for your obviously well considered and
thoughtful comment. It speaks volumes about the weight of intellect,
content and veracity of all of your posts to this group.
>What I'd "suggest", Richard, is that Tim not engage in this childish
>activity at all.
That is your opinion. Others obviously differ. As you have pointed out
elsewhere no-one can force anyone to do or not do something on the 'net.
As you don't wish to perform this action why don't you just let Tim get
on with what he (and I) consider is reasonable adult reaction to this
type of blatant attempt to get what can only be described as pedophilia.
>Other than the insanity that is presently overtaking this country,
>what is inherently prurient about pictures of 14 year old girls?
Nothing in particular. But would you care for copies of your daughters
nude pictures (assuming you have/had one) to be posted to the 'net on
say one of the alt.binary groups? One of your friends daughters. My
daughters? How old do they have to be to be acceptable to publish them.
9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14. Pick a number.
>I see pubescent girls at our camp. Shall we tell them that they
>cannot be naked because they are not old enough?
Slightly different, don't you think, to posting copies of pictures taken
at that camp to the 'net? I too encounter a reasonable number of naked
bodies of all ages and both sexes, but rather importantly I don't see
them as sexual objects.
> If they appear
>in a family album, shall I tell the parents that they cannot show that
>album to us because it is pornography?
Whilst others (rere to name a few) may have a problem with pictures of
nude children I am quite prepared to accept that a family album is just
a little different from the use of nude child images in pedophilia or
pornography. Do you believe there is no difference or don't you care?
>The whole think smells awful, and Tim's childish little game only
>adds to the stench.
A much larger stench is that generated by those who are not prepared to
take reasonable, measured, adult responses to this sort of activity. The
law (in most countries - including the far more 'liberal' parts of
Europe) still quite rightly take a very dim view of pedophilia and the
use of the 'net to spread this sort of image is not acceptable.
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Tim does not bait.
>
>Yet, Tim himself, in this very thread, says:
>
>: I do bait - with offers of a young female (14 YO CWF)
>
>Richard continues:
>
>: His wording is always careful as to the content of
>: what he has 'available'. What would you suggest we do with those who
>: post to him seeking pictures of naked 14 year old girls? Pat them on the
>: head and say, there, there....
I thought I had followed up this reply but I find that as usual Tony is
unable to hold his thoughts together for more than a few minutes in a
row so I will have to answer this one as well.
>Somewhere around here we have a "picture" book which is entitled
>something like "Lisa Ann: Portrait of a Young Model". It was actually
>our daughter who bought it, because at one time she was interested
>in modeling (ended up as a budget analyst, but at thirteen, who
>knows?).
>
>I glanced at that the other day because I was moving some books to
>make room for the constant influx of new books. The pictures are
>of a young, perhaps 14 or 15 year old girl. Some of them are ordinary
>pictures of a young girl just doing the things that young girls
>do: sports, hanging with the family, studying, and so on.
>
>Some of them, however, are "posed". Of course they are "posed", she's
>a model! And the clothing? Oh, the usual: some teenage outfits,
>some rather older, some bathing suits... and a picture of her showering.
>
>Oh, it's very tasteful. No nipples or pubic hair. Even the bathing suit
>shots are "tasteful". But this *is* a very pretty young girl, and if
>a fifteen year old boy wouldn't find that book arousing, I'd be very
>surprised.
>
>What shall we do about such things, Richard? Is my daughter to blame
>for buying such pornography? Should we lock me up for glancing
>through the book and commenting that the girl is pretty? Shall we
>make sure that I never let the book fall into the hands of a horny
>fifteen year old?
From where do you arrive at the description of it being pornography.
Certainy not from me, even though you do try to put those words in my
mouth. The definition seems to be yours alone, so any 'blame' must lie
with you.
>Now let's carry it a little further. Personally, I cannot begin to
>understand why anyone would want a picture, nude or otherwise, of
>someone they don't know. Yet I see Janet offering pictures of
>herself, and nothing in anything she has posted indicates that she
>is doing so in the expectation that they will be used to assist
>in masturbatory fantasies. So apparently *some* naturists think
>that swapping nude pictures of each other is interesting in some
>way.
Janet is presumed to be an adult - at least from her postings. What
consenting adults get up to is very much up to them, provided they at
least attempt in passing to observe the Osca Wilde edict.
>We get N magazine. Every issue has pictures of naked people
>within. In some cases, the purpose of the pictures is obviously
>to show the resort or place where these people are, and in other
>cases, the people are "famous" within the nudist community, and
>that is why their pictures are shown. But in other cases, the
>pictures seem to have no other purpose than simply to portray
>naked people. And so what? We *are* nudists.
Are you trying to suggest that N is pornography? I am not and never have
been. For my sins I even have been known (in the past) to defend the
less than helpful H & E against a pornographic label. (probably before
your time on this group - but why don't you look it up on Deja news - it
may still be there - or there again you could just take my word for it).
>But do you think some people might have prurient interest in N
>magazine? Though pictures of children seem to be absent in
>recent years (no doubt due to the hysteria about "child pornography"),
>such pictures used to appear.
As they do in BN, the house magazine of CCBN here in the UK.
>What should we do about people who buy such magazines, Richard?
>There are plenty of people who would quite cheerfully send them
>off to jail for possessing such pictures.
Why do you assume that includes me. You only pose that out in left field
suggestion because you seem unable to construct a reasoned, rational
argument as to why Tim actions are a measured, sensible and above all
adult reaction to the pedophiles.
>Tim's baiting only adds to the hysteria. It is childish, disgusting,
>and completely inappropriate for this newsgroup.
And of course your actions and post are without doubt the most sane,
logical, caring and accurate reflection that Naturism could want in this
group?
Tony Lawrence
: Are you trying to suggest that N is pornography? I am not and never have
: been. For my sins I even have been known (in the past) to defend the
: less than helpful H & E against a pornographic label. (probably before
: your time on this group - but why don't you look it up on Deja news - it
: may still be there - or there again you could just take my word for it).
No, Richard, *I* don't think N is pornography.
Why am I not surprised that Richard cannot see the connection between
this and Tim's childish game?
That's part of the problem with this group: you get into arguments with
people who you have to lead by the nose to the most obvious conclusions.
Well, I don't have the patience for it this morning, Richard. Perhaps
later on in the day.
--
Tony
Tony Lawrence
: >What should we do about people who buy such magazines, Richard?
: >There are plenty of people who would quite cheerfully send them
: >off to jail for possessing such pictures.
: Why do you assume that includes me. You only pose that out in left field
: suggestion because you seem unable to construct a reasoned, rational
: argument as to why Tim actions are a measured, sensible and above all
: adult reaction to the pedophiles.
Omigod.
Richard, you need some coffee. Or perhaps some tuna fish. Or perhaps
even more drastic action is required to bring your brain into functioning
order.
I DO NOT assume that group includes you, Richard. There *is* a group
I would put you in after this amazing analysis, but that's not the one.
Sheesh! Reasoned, rational argument. I can just imagine what *that*
must mean to you.
--
Tony
Tony Lawrence
: I thought I had followed up this reply but I find that as usual Tony is
: unable to hold his thoughts together for more than a few minutes in a
: row so I will have to answer this one as well.
I'll try to take it very slowly for the benefit of certain readers.
I brought up two examples of children appearing in photographs. The
first was a book about a young model, and the second was N magazine.
In the first case, few reasonable people would consider that book
to be pornography, although there is little doubt that any random
pubescent male would find it quite useful for masturbatory fantasies.
As this is true, there is no doubt that any random pedophile could
also use it for the same purpose.
In the second case, we as nudists do not find the pictures dangerous
or inapropriate. However, there are certainly those who would think
that and worse. I would imagine that N thinks long and hard before
publishing a child's picture today, if they would do so at all. We
all know why, and needn't spend time in that mess.
Tim's baiting game is despicable for a number of reasons. In the
first place, it plays into the perception that *any* picture of
a child is pornographic. If this is true, then the book I referred
to is pornographic, as are countless other pictorial representations
of children. Nikki's hysterical ranting aside, few intelligent
adults believe that every "posed" picture of a child, nude or not,
has sexual intent.
Richard's ranting about "how would you like pictures of *your*
daughter" is the typical b.s. presented to defend this sort of attitude.
We *have* pictures of our children in the bathtub, as I'm sure
most parents do. That some perverted and very ill person could
gain sexual stimulus from such pictures is undoubtedly true, but
completely unimportant. Such people can be stimulated by anything
that involves a child; it is not necessary for the child to be
naked or provocatively posed. It is simply that they are a child.
This is the second objection I have to Tim's little private amusement;
it is bait, and it could incite someone to action. Richard defends
Tim by claiming that Tim only responds to specific instances that
indicate a person already interested in such material. This is
completely ludicrous: if Tim were responding privately, that argument
could be made, but Tim responds publically. The intended target
of Tim's post may be one person, but millions read it.
Beyond that, Tim's discernment and judgement in these matters is highly
suspect. Richard suggests that only perverts and the like get these
responses from Tim, but in actual fact, almost any sort of post is
apt to beget Tim's offer. This is the third objection: By responding
with this garbage in highly inappropriate situations, Tim slanders
innocent people by implication.
--
Tony
Tom Higgins
->
->A test case? What are you talking about? I get the feeling that a line
->from an old "western" is needed:
->
-> "What we have here, is a failure to communicate"
Terry;
I think you made a boo-boo here. I remember that line from "Cool Hand Luke"
which was not a "western".
Tom H.
---
!
! The shortest distance between two points is under construction.
!
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Are you trying to suggest that N is pornography? I am not and never have
>: been. For my sins I even have been known (in the past) to defend the
>: less than helpful H & E against a pornographic label. (probably before
>: your time on this group - but why don't you look it up on Deja news - it
>: may still be there - or there again you could just take my word for it).
>
>No, Richard, *I* don't think N is pornography.
Well as I too have never drawn that conclusion, where does it leave your
original post about me in this thread? You, without any thought as far
as I can tell, accused me of believing this to be true. It just suited
your case that I 'must' believe this to be so.
>Why am I not surprised that Richard cannot see the connection between
>this and Tim's childish game?
Why am I not surprised that you are completely careless as to whether I
hold the views that you were so quick to ascribe to me?
>That's part of the problem with this group: you get into arguments with
>people who you have to lead by the nose to the most obvious conclusions.
Whereas you never jump to conclusions, posts insults or make up things
you believe others 'must' believe in? Or it may be possible that you
only have short term memory and like goldfish who allegedly are only
able to concentrate on the last thing they encounter. (I take that back,
the fish always remember when it is feeding time so they at least must
have some longer term memory).
>Well, I don't have the patience for it this morning, Richard.
I rather suspect that past (and I'm afraid future) events have proved
that you almost never have any patience.
> Perhaps
>later on in the day.
On your previous record this will be in about 10 minutes time when you
have re-read the post that prompted you to reply in the first place, and
then, if we are really lucky, a further one or two replies to the same
item later on.
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: >What should we do about people who buy such magazines, Richard?
>: >There are plenty of people who would quite cheerfully send them
>: >off to jail for possessing such pictures.
>
>: Why do you assume that includes me. You only pose that out in left field
>: suggestion because you seem unable to construct a reasoned, rational
>: argument as to why Tim actions are a measured, sensible and above all
>: adult reaction to the pedophiles.
>
>Omigod.
>
>Richard, you need some coffee. Or perhaps some tuna fish. Or perhaps
>even more drastic action is required to bring your brain into functioning
>order.
Another careful, well reasoned argument by Tony without the slightest
hint of any malice in it.
>I DO NOT assume that group includes you, Richard. There *is* a group
>I would put you in after this amazing analysis, but that's not the one.
So would you care to put a few words together to argue exactly why
ignoring what can only be described as attempts to obtain child
pornography over the 'net is an adult reaction to such actions. I do
realise that you prefer to just tell that person that they are naughty
people and should make sure they go about it in such a way as not to be
quite so visible.
>Sheesh! Reasoned, rational argument. I can just imagine what *that*
>must mean to you.
I think my history here on rec.nude leaves people well able to judge my
ability to construct logical, balanced and well reasoned argument. Just
as I believe that they are capable of judging you in exactly the same
way.
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: I thought I had followed up this reply but I find that as usual Tony is
>: unable to hold his thoughts together for more than a few minutes in a
>: row so I will have to answer this one as well.
>
>I'll try to take it very slowly for the benefit of certain readers.
Oh good, it looks like we all might learn something. Settle down
children and read very carefully.
>I brought up two examples of children appearing in photographs. The
>first was a book about a young model, and the second was N magazine.
This was in response to my suggestion that Tim only posted his 'offers'
to those who came to this group seeking nude pictures, and in particular
those of children. So I sure that Tony regards the move to books and
magazines as an extremely accurate and logical progression.
>In the first case, few reasonable people would consider that book
>to be pornography, although there is little doubt that any random
>pubescent male would find it quite useful for masturbatory fantasies.
>As this is true, there is no doubt that any random pedophile could
>also use it for the same purpose.
As I completely agree with this analysis shall we take it as read (or
should that be viewed).
>In the second case, we as nudists do not find the pictures dangerous
>or inapropriate. However, there are certainly those who would think
>that and worse. I would imagine that N thinks long and hard before
>publishing a child's picture today, if they would do so at all. We
>all know why, and needn't spend time in that mess.
Sentiments that have been expressed well and loquaciously in this group
before and undoubtedly will be made again. So far so good.
>Tim's baiting game is despicable for a number of reasons. In the
>first place, it plays into the perception that *any* picture of
>a child is pornographic.
Totally wrong. Tim's pictures are 'offered' in such a way as to most
definitely NOT give that impression. That is a conclusion that is drawn
by Tony only because it suit him to so believe. If anyone does not
accept this interpretation please do go and read the posts that Tim
offers this 'service' to as well as his replies and see if it conforms
to my definition or Tony's more than slightly distorted picture.
> If this is true, then the book I referred
>to is pornographic, as are countless other pictorial representations
>of children. Nikki's hysterical ranting aside, few intelligent
>adults believe that every "posed" picture of a child, nude or not,
>has sexual intent.
As someone who in the past had more than one 'discussion' with Nikki
about just this topic I find it more than slightly amusing to find
myself arguing from the other side now. I find that Tony's posts are
almost as far out sight in one direction as I found Nikki's in the
other. I do not accept that nude pictures (of any sex or age) are bad
but I would not wish to condone by inaction the use of such images as
pornography.
>Richard's ranting about "how would you like pictures of *your*
>daughter" is the typical b.s. presented to defend this sort of attitude.
>We *have* pictures of our children in the bathtub, as I'm sure
>most parents do. That some perverted and very ill person could
>gain sexual stimulus from such pictures is undoubtedly true, but
>completely unimportant. Such people can be stimulated by anything
>that involves a child; it is not necessary for the child to be
>naked or provocatively posed. It is simply that they are a child.
Tony very carefully fails to answer the critical question. Would he want
these pictures posted to the 'net, particularly in reply to the sort of
enquires that Tim gets. That was the question posed, but ever so
carefully not answered. Not whether they should be taken in the first
place.
>This is the second objection I have to Tim's little private amusement;
>it is bait, and it could incite someone to action. Richard defends
>Tim by claiming that Tim only responds to specific instances that
>indicate a person already interested in such material. This is
>completely ludicrous: if Tim were responding privately, that argument
>could be made, but Tim responds publically. The intended target
>of Tim's post may be one person, but millions read it.
So you would prefer that these sort to things went on in private so as
not to disturb your sensitivities? History is littered with examples of
those who found it convenient to 'look the other way'.
>Beyond that, Tim's discernment and judgement in these matters is highly
>suspect. Richard suggests that only perverts and the like get these
>responses from Tim, but in actual fact, almost any sort of post is
>apt to beget Tim's offer.
OK Tony. I challenge you to produce just such an innocent post and Tim's
reply. You have made a direct statement that you should have no problem
backing up. Put up or shut up.
> This is the third objection: By responding
>with this garbage in highly inappropriate situations,
Please post an example of this.
> Tim slanders
>innocent people by implication.
Slandering by implication? Leaving aside as to whether you have a clever
machine that speaks these posts to you, assassination by innuendo is
something that is all to easy to read into something when you are
determined to find fault.
tim keene
>the most moronic opinion ever uttered by Mr. Hood.
>
>activity at all.
You had in mind a method of stopping me? I'll stop if several of the
people I respect here ask me to do so. Until then, Ramona will make
periodic appearances. At least, she is on topic, being nude.
>Other than the insanity that is presently overtaking this country,
>what is inherently prurient about pictures of 14 year old girls?
Nothing at all wrong with taking the pictures. Asking us to send them,
and making that communication through rec.nude, is wrong.
>I see pubescent girls at our camp. Shall we tell them that they
>cannot be naked because they are not old enough? If they appear
>in a family album, shall I tell the parents that they cannot show that
>album to us because it is pornography?
How about if they appear in Hustler magazine? Do we tell them that we're
'sorry', but a guy requested the information, on rec.nude, and we sent
it? You *like* this idea?
>The whole think smells awful, and Tim's childish little game only
>adds to the stench.
>Tony
Well, I have to bow to you expertise, when it come to stench. You are,
truely, the king.
tim keene
>tim keene (att...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: That is a pity, and more a pity that you dropped out of school, if that
>: is true. I tend to believe so, because of your denigration of those more
>: educated than yourself. Of course, this isn't a medical opinion - but
>: I'd guess that you are overcompensating for an inferiority complex - you
>: only feel good when putting down those you consider your superiors. As
>: much as it is possible to pity such a guttermouth, I do pity you.
>
>Now Tim's a psychiatrist.
What part of 'this isn't a medical opinion' didn't you understand?
>I never put down my superiors, Tim. Only moronic little fools
>who try to drive away every dissenting thought that enters a newsgroup.
Little? Me? Thank you.
>It's kind of funny, though. There are a handful of people here
>who I consider unusually intelligent. I've had differences with
>some of them now and then, but I still consider them to be bright
>and valuable people, and I will say so even when I disagree strongly
>with their opinions.
>
>Interestingly enough, Tim Keene and Peter DeMos have belittled almost
>every one of these people. It's plain to me that these people
>*are* better educated and intrinsically brighter than any of Tim's
>adoring fans can ever hope to be. Yet they are belittled.
Perhaps I owe some apologies. Name them, Tony. Or admit to being a
liar.
>What was that you were saying about inferiority complexes, Tim?
>Tony
Obviously, nothing you understand.
Tony Lawrence
: Having said that, I still think that we ought to make some attempt to
: consider the motivation of people who post to Tim asking for pictures of
: naked 14 year old girls; and that if our intuitive evaluation is that the
: asker is asking out of prurient interest (even though the PICTURES
: THEMSELVES are not prurient in intent), we ought not to send the pictures.
The last person whom Tim responded to in this manner merely asked
for "pictures of nudism". He received a whole raft of inane and
mocking replies, plus Tim's little offering.
: I also think that there's a very high probability that anyone who sends a
: request for nude pictures of 14 year old girls to Tim is requesting the
: pictures out of prurient interest. Not 100% probability, but, say, maybe
: 98%. Don't you really agree, Tony?
I don't know. As I've said before, I don't understand why anybody wants
pictures of anyone. It's totally outside my understanding. I do recall
some email correspondence with someone who thought Tim was making
a real (somehow "legitimate" doesn't fit here) offer. That person
didn't like Tim (surprise!) and wanted to reply just to hassle Tim
somehow. I never was clear on just what he had in mind, but I advised
him of the true nature of the post, so I assumed he didn't follow
through.
But let's assume you are correct, that only a vanishingly small percentage
of replies would either be honest or the result of confused minds. Is
this type of scam adding to the perception of sleaze on the net or
not? Let us also note that not everyone Tim responds to has given
any indication of interest in such matters; the person referred to above
certainly did not.
Do you honestly feel that this sort of post does not add to the
perception that there *is* something inherently prurient in pictures
of children? Do you think that we, as nudists, should be contributing
to that perception? If mere pictures of children are obscene, how
can we justify children being allowed at camps? Are we not saying
that Nikki is correct?
: I have to confess that I LIKE Tim's little game. Smells fine to me!
: As for what to do with such people, how about ignoring them?
Excellent idea, Bert.
--
Tony
Tony Lawrence
: I couldn't agree more. I've often sent messages to postmasters
: complaining of inappropriate messages. If someone simply posts something
: off-topic, I'll e-mail that individual, but abuse is a different story.
Abuse certainly is a different story.
But we have had simple, totally inoffensive posts by swingers here
that have caused certain folks to go off in a feeding frenzy.
I agree that such posts are off topic. I agree that if the person
continues to post, complaining to his provider is in order.
One post is not abuse. A friendly note explaining that much
of rec.nudes readership goes nuts over anything sexual is enough
warning for any intelligent person.
--
Tony
Michael Starr
>complex - you only feel good when putting down those you
>consider your superiors.
>
Actually, Tim, that sounds exactly as if you were describing
YOURSELF in terms of a third party. It sounds like "projection,"
a term taught way back in Psychology 101.
-
Michael
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Bert Clanton (be...@sonic.net) wrote:
>
>: Having said that, I still think that we ought to make some attempt to
>: consider the motivation of people who post to Tim asking for pictures of
>: naked 14 year old girls; and that if our intuitive evaluation is that the
>: asker is asking out of prurient interest (even though the PICTURES
>: THEMSELVES are not prurient in intent), we ought not to send the pictures.
>
>The last person whom Tim responded to in this manner merely asked
>for "pictures of nudism". He received a whole raft of inane and
>mocking replies, plus Tim's little offering.
I suppose what I don't understand is why you think that the responses
the poster got were inappropriate. The potential group of people who
could post that request as a legitimate requirement are so small and so
unlikely to do so to this group as to make the likeyhood of it being
'genuine' tiny.
>: I also think that there's a very high probability that anyone who sends a
>: request for nude pictures of 14 year old girls to Tim is requesting the
>: pictures out of prurient interest. Not 100% probability, but, say, maybe
>: 98%. Don't you really agree, Tony?
>
>I don't know. As I've said before, I don't understand why anybody wants
>pictures of anyone. It's totally outside my understanding.
This may explain your lack of understanding of the issues here.
> I do recall
>some email correspondence with someone who thought Tim was making
>a real (somehow "legitimate" doesn't fit here) offer.
So what sort of reply did you post to them?
> That person
>didn't like Tim (surprise!) and wanted to reply just to hassle Tim
>somehow. I never was clear on just what he had in mind, but I advised
>him of the true nature of the post,
Ah, you told him it wasn't really nude pictures, just some scam and that
he would be better employed finding his images elsewhere.
> so I assumed he didn't follow
>through.
But is happily able to continue his search for child pornography
unhindered by any thought that Tony did anything else other than condone
his activities.
>But let's assume you are correct, that only a vanishingly small percentage
>of replies would either be honest or the result of confused minds.
Highly likely, at least in my experience here on rec.nude.
> Is
>this type of scam adding to the perception of sleaze on the net or
>not?
So let's see. Reporting people who are searching for pornography (child
or otherwise) to an appropriate authority to follow up on is somehow
adding to the perception of sleaze on this group. All legitimate posters
to this group, or anyone who follows 'netiquette and browses for more
than a day or two, would be well aware that those sort of requests are
totally off topic for this group. That is apart from questioning if
such requests would be appropriate in ANY setting.
> Let us also note that not everyone Tim responds to has given
>any indication of interest in such matters; the person referred to above
>certainly did not.
They posted asking for 'pictures of nudism'. Can you conceive of a
logical reason for someone asking for pictures of that type on this
group? Please do not suggest that they might be looking to see if they
would like to join the Naturist/Nudist lifestyle.
>Do you honestly feel that this sort of post does not add to the
>perception that there *is* something inherently prurient in pictures
>of children?
No. People who are looking for nude pictures of children they could not
possibly know are in serious need of help, and not help in finding the
images either.
> Do you think that we, as nudists, should be contributing
>to that perception? If mere pictures of children are obscene, how
>can we justify children being allowed at camps? Are we not saying
>that Nikki is correct?
A completely unreasonable extension to the argument. Posting pictures of
naked children to the 'net has no relevance to whether they should be
allowed to go naked in clubs, at home, at the beach or indeed have their
picture taken in the first place. None at all that is unless you are
seeking to win an argument you have already lost.
>: I have to confess that I LIKE Tim's little game. Smells fine to me!
>
>: As for what to do with such people, how about ignoring them?
>
>Excellent idea, Bert.
As I said elsewhere, history is littered with examples of those who
thought that 'looking the other way' was an acceptable excuse. Equally
so, going out as Nikki did and proclaiming that 'all nude pictures of
children' are bad and should be outlawed, and that Naturism itself was
to blame for not seeking out those people who might be in the 'movement'
after such things and rooting them out at all costs, is the other
extreme. A sensible, adult balance has to be struck between those two
limits. Tim seems to have struck one that meets with most peoples
approval (other that Tony's).
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>J. P. Griffin (gri...@news.usit.net) wrote:
>
>: I couldn't agree more. I've often sent messages to postmasters
>: complaining of inappropriate messages. If someone simply posts something
>: off-topic, I'll e-mail that individual, but abuse is a different story.
>
>Abuse certainly is a different story.
>
>But we have had simple, totally inoffensive posts by swingers here
>that have caused certain folks to go off in a feeding frenzy.
There is one Naturist group (well three if you include alt.cult.nudism
and uk.rec.naturism). There are numerous alt.sex groups. Keeping the two
separated is a reasonable aim.
>I agree that such posts are off topic. I agree that if the person
>continues to post, complaining to his provider is in order.
I treat them the same way as I treat those who post GET RICH QUICK,
CHEAP PHONE CALLS, and WANT NAKED BROADS. I pass a copy of the message
to the sysop and let the sysop decide if any action is required. If the
posts are so 'innocent' then there can be no harm in that surely.
>One post is not abuse. A friendly note explaining that much
>of rec.nudes readership goes nuts over anything sexual is enough
>warning for any intelligent person.
Most Naturists accept that nude <> lewd. A large number of those who are
not Naturists don't. Blurring the line between swinging and Naturism
does
not help public opinion.
tim keene
> Michael
No, actually, I wanted to elevate my status here, and thought that
persuading you to attack me was the best way to do that.
Tony Lawrence
: Well as I too have never drawn that conclusion, where does it leave your
: original post about me in this thread? You, without any thought as far
: as I can tell, accused me of believing this to be true. It just suited
: your case that I 'must' believe this to be so.
Richard: NOTHING I said in any post could or should in ANY way
be interpreted as "accusing" you of anything at all.
Nor was the post even ABOUT you.
I'm sorry that you cannot seem to follow my reasoning. I'm sure
that the fault is mine entirely.
I really have exhausted my patience in making my meaning clear. If
you do not understand it yet, please comfort yourself with the
knowledge that you were neither accused nor assumed to have any
such opinions.
--
Tony
Tony Lawrence
: Oh good, it looks like we all might learn something. Settle down
: children and read very carefully.
Good advice. It's a shame you can't follow it.
: Totally wrong. Tim's pictures are 'offered' in such a way as to most
: definitely NOT give that impression. That is a conclusion that is drawn
Then why refer someone requesting them to LEA?
: As someone who in the past had more than one 'discussion' with Nikki
: about just this topic I find it more than slightly amusing to find
: myself arguing from the other side now. I find that Tony's posts are
: almost as far out sight in one direction as I found Nikki's in the
: other. I do not accept that nude pictures (of any sex or age) are bad
: but I would not wish to condone by inaction the use of such images as
: pornography.
Same question. If Tim's posts are not bait, then what is the problem
with someone requesting the pictures?
You really can't have it both ways, Richard.
: So you would prefer that these sort to things went on in private so as
: not to disturb your sensitivities? History is littered with examples of
: those who found it convenient to 'look the other way'.
I'd prefer that we not use rec.nude in a war that can spread far
beyond our intentions.
: OK Tony. I challenge you to produce just such an innocent post and Tim's
: reply. You have made a direct statement that you should have no problem
: backing up. Put up or shut up.
The very last instance of this was in response for someone who
asked for "pictures of nudism", nothing more.
--
Tony
Tony Lawrence
: This was in response to my suggestion that Tim only posted his 'offers'
: to those who came to this group seeking nude pictures, and in particular
: those of children. So I sure that Tony regards the move to books and
: magazines as an extremely accurate and logical progression.
While against my judgement, I will try one more time.
The books and magazines are examples of nudity that we as nudists
find acceptable, but that other folks often do not.
I think we have all agreed that none of us have any feelings that
pictures of a 14 year old girl are necessarily obscene, but we
also know full well that many *do* think that any picture of
such a child *is* automatically obscene.
It is my opinion that Tim's "Ramona" posts contribute to the
type of thinking that could end up with very innocent people
being charged with child pornography or worse.
Richard seems to have made some argument in another post that
Tim's post implies nothing that would indicate obscenity. I
say "seems" to because I am not entirely sure that this is what
Richard was saying, and I certainly do not want him once again
claiming that I am ascribing motives or views to him.
But, if I have interpreted correctly, what then would be the
point of referring those unfortunates who request the pictures
off to law enforcement agencies?
Are we saying that any picture of a nude 14 year old girl *is* obscene?
And therefor, any person expressing interest in same *must* be
a pedophile?
I am really puzzled by this. I quite understand that Richard
and Terry detest me fully, but it is rather amazing to me that
they would take this position merely to defend Tim Keene's
little hobby.
--
Tony
Steven Winner
Clothing builds up static charges that can dmage computer chips...but if
you have no clothing on, there's little chance you'll have static
problems as long as you don't move from your desk!
Terry J. Wood
tim keene <att...@netcom.com> wrote:
>You had in mind a method of stopping me? I'll stop if several of the
>people I respect here ask me to do so. Until then, Ramona will make
>periodic appearances. At least, she is on topic, being nude.
Start it Tim. Right now. Start!
If these "net.naturists" want pictures of a 14 Y.O. CWF, and you have the GIFs
then by all means mail it to them. I think she looks like a DOG, but that's
my own opinion. To others, she may look really HOT. But if folks post here
looking for pictures, I think you should give them what the deserve.
Terry
PS: Sorry, boys. All out of Counselor Troi gifs right now. But I do have
some nudes of Crusher! (Of course, they're nudes of WESLEY Crusher, but most
of you won't read far enough before you hit that "r" key).
Tom Higgins
->tim keene (att...@netcom.com) wrote:
->
->: Perhaps I owe some apologies. Name them, Tony. Or admit to being a
->: liar.
->
->Oh, I'm a liar, Tim. You've never put down anyone who is obviously
->your superior. Not Adam Reed, not Peter Brennan, not anyone.
->
->I'm just a sick, confused liar.
->
->Nor have you ever, ever attacked any newbie here, nor made stupid
->disparaging remarks about people with aol accounts. Never, never
->never.
->
->--
->Tony
Look everybody! Tony finally got it right.
Tom (it is nice to see him admit it) H.
Tony Lawrence
: Oh, I'm a liar, Tim. You've never put down anyone who is obviously
: your superior. Not Adam Reed, not Peter Brennan, not anyone.
: I'm just a sick, confused liar.
Actually I might be confused about Peter Brennan. It could well be
that I am thinking of dear Peter DeMos. For some reason, Peter
and Tim tend to blend together in my mind.
My sincere apologies for possibly maligning you on this point, Tim.
--
Tony
Mighty CheefDan![tm]
: Of course, you will get a differing opinion
: from Roy Radow, and others - Do you want to be where *they* are?
Is it warm there?
(I mean where they are now, not where they'll end up eventually.)
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Why am I not surprised that you are completely careless as to whether I
>: hold the views that you were so quick to ascribe to me?
>
>This only serves to remind me that so many NG problems are caused
>by the simple fact that people cannot read.
...
>Just for my education, Richard, could you possibly extract whatever
>it was that caused you to believe this and delineate the thought
>process that was involved?
>
>I am so curious to know how this could be.
From your own words earlier in this thread:-
>Somewhere around here we have a "picture" book which is entitled
>something like "Lisa Ann: Portrait of a Young Model".
...
>What shall we do about such things, Richard? Is my daughter to blame
>for buying such pornography?
As it is clear from the content of the rest of the post that you do not
consider this item to be pornographic, and as there were only two people
in this particular thread, the implication is quite clear that I WILL
consider the item to be pornographic. You then go on to discuss N
magazine is similar terms. If anyone were to take that message in
isolation, if would be very difficult for them to assume anything other
than I was in opposition to your belief that these items are not
pornographic.
I most humbly apologise if I have so badly misunderstood the effect and
intentions of this missive so carefully delivered. Perhaps it was after
all an attempt to move the discussion into the realms of abstract
scholastic inquiry; to dissociate itself from the this all too muddy
reality.
Or is it that I totaly misunderstood your laudable efforts to
deliberately not answer the question that has been posed.
"Which group of genuine Naturists do you know that would ask for nude
pictures of 14 year old girls they have never met to be posted to them
over the 'net?"
Bert Clanton
I have just read a sequence of 7 meta-off-topic postings. Ostensibly
referring to the admittedly off-topic topic entitled "'Show Me': Book
Review", they are in fact an exchange of pleasantries between Tony and
Richard, and are thus off-topic with respect to that off-topic topic!
The mind boggles!
Best wishes,
Bert
--
"For what we are beginning to wake up to today ...is that we have for millenia structured our social instititions and our systems of values precisely in ways that serve to block, distort, and pervert our enormous human yearning for loving connections."---Riane Eisler, "Sacred Pleasure", p. 383
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Richard: NOTHING I said in any post could or should in ANY way
>be interpreted as "accusing" you of anything at all.
Thank you so much for your attempt to clear up any obvious
misunderstandings I may have had about the material you previously
posted.
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Oh good, it looks like we all might learn something. Settle down
>: children and read very carefully.
>
>Good advice. It's a shame you can't follow it.
Interesting, I thought I had read quite carefully and unserstood exactly
what you had to say.
>: Totally wrong. Tim's pictures are 'offered' in such a way as to most
>: definitely NOT give that impression. That is a conclusion that is drawn
>
>Then why refer someone requesting them to LEA?
I suppose ti was too much that you would understand this reference. Let
it just be noted that you would have had to be around on this group for
a little time longer than you have for this to have any meaning. i.i it
was 'in' joke.
>: As someone who in the past had more than one 'discussion' with Nikki
>: about just this topic I find it more than slightly amusing to find
>: myself arguing from the other side now. I find that Tony's posts are
>: almost as far out sight in one direction as I found Nikki's in the
>: other. I do not accept that nude pictures (of any sex or age) are bad
>: but I would not wish to condone by inaction the use of such images as
>: pornography.
>
>Same question. If Tim's posts are not bait, then what is the problem
>with someone requesting the pictures?
I actually cannot think of a group of people who could reasonably ask
that pictures of nudes ( particularly children) be posted to them by
those on this news group. Can you?
>You really can't have it both ways, Richard.
I very rarely try to have it both ways. At my age you can't be too
careful.
>: So you would prefer that these sort to things went on in private so as
>: not to disturb your sensitivities? History is littered with examples of
>: those who found it convenient to 'look the other way'.
>
>I'd prefer that we not use rec.nude in a war that can spread far
>beyond our intentions.
So you do prefer that it goes on in private. I'm afraid that I am unable
to 'look the other way'. I do not wish to promote the view in the
outside world that Naturism is inherently sexual and I do believe that
by inaction we will help to encourage that view. I do however take what
I believe to be a balanced and adult reaction to it, not the 'over the
top' reaction of say Nikki. It is measured, almost certainly effective
and cast very little, if any, bad side effects on Naturism per se and
this group in particular.
>: OK Tony. I challenge you to produce just such an innocent post and Tim's
>: reply. You have made a direct statement that you should have no problem
>: backing up. Put up or shut up.
>
>The very last instance of this was in response for someone who
>asked for "pictures of nudism", nothing more.
Give be any logical reason, that makes any sense what so ever, that the
request had a sensible Naturist connotation.
Tony Lawrence
: Perhaps I owe some apologies. Name them, Tony. Or admit to being a
: liar.
Oh, I'm a liar, Tim. You've never put down anyone who is obviously
your superior. Not Adam Reed, not Peter Brennan, not anyone.
I'm just a sick, confused liar.
Nor have you ever, ever attacked any newbie here, nor made stupid
disparaging remarks about people with aol accounts. Never, never
never.
--
Tony
tim keene
>tim keene (att...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Perhaps I owe some apologies. Name them, Tony. Or admit to being a
>: liar.
>
>Oh, I'm a liar, Tim.
We all know that, now.
>You've never put down anyone who is obviously
>your superior. Not Adam Reed, not Peter Brennan, not anyone.
I don't actually recall putting down Peter Brennan, although he has said
things which suggest he isn't fond of me. I haven't put Adam down,
although I often tease him about his use of polysyllabic language.
Neither is a newby, to my recollection. Are you saying they are among
the clueless? Better discuss that with *them* before labeling them with
it.
>I'm just a sick, confused liar.
Now you're starting to repeat yourself.
>Nor have you ever, ever attacked any newbie here, nor made stupid
>disparaging remarks about people with aol accounts. Never, never
>never.
I know you have trouble reading, Tony, so I'll make it simple. I have
never made any comments about *the people* who are on AOL - a fact which
you are completely aware. The problem is, I can't keep you from lying
about it . . .
>Tony
Tony Lawrence
: Nothing at all wrong with taking the pictures. Asking us to send them,
: and making that communication through rec.nude, is wrong.
But offering the pictures is not wrong.
Truly amazing.
Let's see, Tim: which position are you taking? Richard says there
is no reason for anyone to assume that the pictures you are offering
are obscene or have prurient interest.
Is that your position, or are you, in fact, baiting? I know you
have already answered that once in the affirmative. I just want
to be sure that this is what you are doing.
Just so there is no doubt about it: are you deliberately phrasing
your Ramona posts in the hopes that pedophiles will respond and
ask for Ramona's picture?
--
Tony
Bert Clanton
It's about another of our favorite off topic topics, namely, the Rabid
Religious Right. But since the "'Show Me' : Book Review" topic seems to be
a repository of off-topic topics, it seems an appropriate venue for THIS
off-topic topic.
I stole this from "alt.censorship".
In article <4etcmg$n...@nntp.crl.com>, iv...@crl.com (J.M. Ivler) wrote:
> Help build the first list of "indecent" sites. If you know of the URL to
> a site that has anything to do with religion, send it to:
> iv...@wwinfo.com with the subject "kill-site" and the URL. It will be
> added to a list of "indecent" sites that will be used to test the
> legislation.
>
> -----
> Bible thumpers have a problem with book burning when it is their book
> being thrown into the fire.
> Indecency is in the eye of the beholder.
A Christian, whose pseudonym is Captain Nerd, replied:
Some of us "bible thumpers" have a problem with book burning, period!
I have been a Christian for almost 30 years, and I resent anyone
trying to control speech, thought, or press! And by anyone, I include
the "Christian" Coalition!
I support you in this action! The best thing that could happen would
be for my fellow Christians to wake up, and realize that only free
speach *FOR EVERYONE*, is the only way for us to be free to spread
the Gospel. And punishing non-Christian speech is not going to make
Christian speech more welcome, in fact it will make people hate us
more than usual, and for good reason!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It looks like this is the most offensive speech our Government has
heard, or else they wouldn't be deliberately trying to legislate around
it.
I see nothing in there about "protecting our children" from "indecency."
Cap.
--
==============================================================================
= Captain Nerd's Secret Identity Revealed! Millions Express Disinterest! =
= see it all at http://www.access.digex.net/~cptnerd/ =
==============================================================================
I couldna said it better myself! Whaddaya think, Tony baby?
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: This was in response to my suggestion that Tim only posted his 'offers'
>: to those who came to this group seeking nude pictures, and in particular
>: those of children. So I sure that Tony regards the move to books and
>: magazines as an extremely accurate and logical progression.
>
>While against my judgement, I will try one more time.
I'm sorry to have put you to so much trouble.
>The books and magazines are examples of nudity that we as nudists
>find acceptable, but that other folks often do not.
Agreed.
>I think we have all agreed that none of us have any feelings that
>pictures of a 14 year old girl are necessarily obscene, but we
>also know full well that many *do* think that any picture of
>such a child *is* automatically obscene.
Agreed.
>It is my opinion that Tim's "Ramona" posts contribute to the
>type of thinking that could end up with very innocent people
>being charged with child pornography or worse.
I think you are most definitely in the minority on this. I have met no-
one who accepts that your 'look the other way' attitude is in any way
conducive to promoting the Naturist lifestyle.
>Richard seems to have made some argument in another post that
>Tim's post implies nothing that would indicate obscenity. I
>say "seems" to because I am not entirely sure that this is what
>Richard was saying, and I certainly do not want him once again
>claiming that I am ascribing motives or views to him.
OK. I will try to make it crystal clear for you. The 'offers' that Tim
makes are such that I cannot conceive of someone who is a Naturist
responding to requesting a copy of Tim's photographs. The very first
time I saw his reply to someone else with his 'offer' I immediately
understood his intention. That is straight away. No emails to Tim asking
about it. No posts to this group seeking clarification. I truly cannot
conceive of there being genuine people in Naturism who would not have a
similar reaction.
>But, if I have interpreted correctly, what then would be the
>point of referring those unfortunates who request the pictures
>off to law enforcement agencies?
Because I cannot 'look the other way' as you seem to be prepared to do
and believe that any other Naturist adult on this group would have the
same reaction.
>Are we saying that any picture of a nude 14 year old girl *is* obscene?
No.
>And therefor, any person expressing interest in same *must* be
>a pedophile?
Please would you spell out for me VERY clearly, as I quite obviously
fail to understand, just which group of people you believe would
innocently ask for a picture of a nude 14 year old girl who they have
never met and are not likely to. That is other than those seeking sexual
gratification out of it. This is the point that you continually fail to
answer. You thrash around proclaiming that Tim's posts are all wrong.
You indicate that 'innocents' might be caught up in a trap not of their
own making. Yet you always fail to come up with even the remotest
suggestion as to who these people might be and why they 'innocently'
could get caught in this web.
>I am really puzzled by this. I quite understand that Richard
>and Terry detest me fully, but it is rather amazing to me that
>they would take this position merely to defend Tim Keene's
>little hobby.
Pity far more than detest. I find you to have all the hallmarks of a
classic bully. You post wildly, often with multiple posts to one item,
sometimes within minutes of one another. You seek to force your opinions
on others but then turn round and say that you are not interested in
their opinions in reply. Once challenged you resort to this slightly
pathetic attempt to seem more 'reasonable'. You fail to substantiate any
of your wilder exaggerations. You have, in your short time here,
attempted to dominate by shear quantity of words and now are resentful
of those who instinctively react to bullies of all types.
Elenje
Clanton) writes:
>
>I have another thought. It might not be such a terrible idea to e-mail my
>review to non-naturist lurkers who DO have a prurient interest in "Show
>Me"! They might learn from it that there is possibly a non-prurient
>attitude toward children's nude bodies.
>
>
Now that's a neat idea. I wonder if the Gov't will come down on you for
kiddy porn? (Don't tell me that "they" shouldn't, because it's not kiddy
porn, go back to the poor mother in NYC who lost her kids for months
because she had used them as models for a series of illustrations for
"Water Babies"). Down with Jesse Helm! L
Elenje
<rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk> writes:
> assassination by innuendo is
>something that is all to easy to read into something when you are
>determined to find fault.
>
>
My suggestion to both Tony and Richard is to avoid assasination, and
innuendo. I haven't assasinated anybody for MONTHS (now murder...). L.
Ludis Langens
(Bert Clanton) quoted from article <4etcmg$n...@nntp.crl.com> by
iv...@crl.com (J.M. Ivler):
>
> Help build the first list of "indecent" sites. If you know of the URL to
> a site that has anything to do with religion, send it to:
> iv...@wwinfo.com with the subject "kill-site" and the URL. It will be
> added to a list of "indecent" sites that will be used to test the
> legislation.
This reminds me of a TV ad which I find annoying (and it even has an
ObNude part.) The ad is for Time-Life's Bible education videos for
young children. It includes short clips and story lines of various
parts of the videos. The stories seem to be of only one specific
interpretation and seem to not bring up the possibility of other
viewpoints. In fact, they are so literalist that they seem _wrong_
based on how I learned the same stories. And also, the commercial
is _long_, probably two full minutes.
Now for the ObNude part: One of the stories excerpted in the commercial
is the Garden of Eden. They show some little kids repeating what
they have just learned from the video. One of them says, "They were
just running around naked with no clothes on." This is followed by
the kids giggling and laughing at the idea in a very critical making-
fun-of way. I find this insulting.
I was surpised that Time-Life was selling these. I expected the
seller to be something like the 700 club or equivalent.
Will the v-chip have an "R" rating? (R for religious.)
--
unsigned long BinToBCD(unsigned long i) {unsigned long t;
Ludis Langens return i ? (t = BinToBCD(i >> 1), (t << 1) + (i & 1) +
lu...@netcom.com (t + 858993459 >> 2 & 572662306) * 3) : 0;}
Tony Lawrence
: As it is clear from the content of the rest of the post that you do not
: consider this item to be pornographic, and as there were only two people
: in this particular thread, the implication is quite clear that I WILL
: consider the item to be pornographic. You then go on to discuss N
: magazine is similar terms. If anyone were to take that message in
: isolation, if would be very difficult for them to assume anything other
: than I was in opposition to your belief that these items are not
: pornographic.
I never knew that the rhetorical question was an American invention.
Still, one would have thought that the practise would have spread
across the pond by now.
All I can say, Richard, is the simple phrase that we Americans use
when confronted with the inexplicable, the outrageous, the incomprehensible:
Duh.
--
Tony
--
Tony
Tony Lawrence
: You posted that Tim had made his 'offer' to someone who had completely
: innocently posted to this group. Until and unless you can substantiate
: that allegation you are as best guilty of a deliberate and calculated
: exaggeration and at worst of lying.
Oh, Richard, I have substantiated it. No doubt Tim will give
us more examples himself as time passes. Just be patient.
: You mean Tim's boss. Oh no, you obviously mean someone who you believe
: is intellectually or culturally more gifted than Tim. Being someone who
: has always believed that everybody is entitled to their own opinions and
: that care and consideration should always be attempted by all to all. I
: will not accept that a 'superior being' has more rights than anyone
: else. A cat (dog?) may look at a queen (king?) and quite reasonably
: comment of how they look. Sometimes they really do have no clothes.
Richard, Richard, Richard. Do I have to hold your hand every minute?
This silly "superiority" business was Tim's idea, not mine.
--
Tony
Tony Lawrence
: They posted asking for 'pictures of nudism'. Can you conceive of a
: logical reason for someone asking for pictures of that type on this
: group? Please do not suggest that they might be looking to see if they
: would like to join the Naturist/Nudist lifestyle.
So, a person who is interested in "pictures of nudism" is automatically
a sleaze-ball.
It's fascinating. Logically, one would think that if this request
indicates a warped personality, then a person who actually visits
a nude beach or camp must be equally disturbed.
Would you care to explain why someone requesting "pictures of nudism"
is a pervert while someone asking for directions to Haulover Beach
is not?
--
Tony
Ketil Albertsen
>Please would you spell out for me VERY clearly, as I quite obviously
>fail to understand, just which group of people you believe would
>innocently ask for a picture of a nude 14 year old girl who they have
>never met and are not likely to. That is other than those seeking sexual
>gratification out of it. This is the point that you continually fail to
>answer. You thrash around proclaiming that Tim's posts are all wrong.
>You indicate that 'innocents' might be caught up in a trap not of their
>own making. Yet you always fail to come up with even the remotest
>suggestion as to who these people might be and why they 'innocently'
>could get caught in this web.
Now, this request wasn't directed to me, but anyway I'd like to make
an answer/comment on it, because I think I am in that "group of people
who would innocently ask for a picture of a nude 14 year old girl who
they have never met and are not likely to":
In my bookshelves, there are a number of books with beautiful nature
photos - of wild animals I'll never see in real life, except possibly
from a far distance or in a zoo, never in the environment shown in the
photos; even though I see their beauty on a photo only, I truly enjoy
those pictures. I see photos of landscapes - dramatic ones, relaxing
ones, even provocative ones, of places in the world that I will never
visit; yet I repetitively sit down by my fireplace looking at these
pictures. I have bought flora books just for the aestetics of the flower
photos alone. I bought a thick book with portraits of presumably well
known people - I know only a few of the faces myself, and none of them in
person, but the photographic artwork is excellent, whoever these people are.
I was given a book called Sisters under the skin - from the dust cover
picture it looked like a softcore porn book, but it turned up to be a
beautiful collection of photos of girls and women, from childhood to old
age, great photo art. Stern (the German publisher of a magazine of the
same name) published a book containing the photos from the first three world
exhibitions of photography, under the title: Was ist der Mensch? (I think
the English title was "The world of Man") - This could hardly be called a
photo representation of *beauty*; yet to me it is a very valuable book,
showing so many aspects of the world of Man, some cruel, some beautiful,
some funny, some disgusting. I am very happy to own it.
Most of these books (and a whole lot of others in my shelves) have pictures
of people I don't know, places I will never see (well, mostly...), and
flowers I will never pick. Yet, they books are really valuable to me.
The human body of a 14 year old girl may very well be a beautiful one, just
like an seagull floating through the air, like a flower clinging to a rock
in heavy wind, like an autumn landscape. Be it with or without clothes on -
the girl, that is. In fact, young human bodies have inspired painters
through all ages to make great art, using oil paint as their tool, to the
extent that the "art term" for nude pictures, act, is known to almost
everyone.
That doesn't imply that every oil painting of a nude body is great art -
you have to see it to judge it. There are no objective criteria to classify
a painting as "great art" or bad (well, maybe sometimes as bad, but often
even that can be argued); every person will have to judge for oneself.
If some guy on the net says "I've got some beautiful photos I made at the
west coast of Ireland", I might tell him "Let me see them". I've seen some
good photos from that area before, although I have never been to Ireland,
and have no plans to go there. Some more or less random amateur photographer
I encounter on the net may or may not have the skill to catch the beauty of
the landscape that I have seen in other photos from that part of the world;
I'll have to see his photos to judge.
If the same guy says "I've got some beautiful act photos I made of this 14
year old girl I met at the CO resort", I might tell him "Let me see them".
I've seen great photo art of 14 year old nude girls/women, even of people
I've never met and will never meet. Some more or less random amateur
photographer I encounter on the net may or may not have the skill to catch
the beauty of the human body that I have seen in other act photos; I'll have
to see his photos to judge.
So, I am one of those people who might want to see photos of human bodies,
with or without clothes. On the other hand, whether those are, by some
standards, "pornographic" or not, means nil to me. If some people say
they are, let them! If anyone would like to define criteria for classifying
me as 'innocent' or not, let them do that, too. Maybe the classification of
me as innocent or not depends on whether I think that those photos of the 14
year old girl is an artistic expression of the beauty of the human body - I
don't care. If I do *not* consider the photos great art, it may also affect
my 'innocence', although I guess most criteria for that classification is
affected by whether I delete the file or not after I made my judgement; in
either case, that doesn't worry me.
If I myself find that the photos are so bad that my innocence (whatever that
is...) is threatened, I'll probably delete the file immediately. This is
similar to me walking into a book store, thumbing through an art book and
deciding that the socalled 'art' makes me sick (that happens!) - I'd close
it and forget it the best I could. (That's not always possible; eg. the
paintings of the well known Norwegian painter Edvard Munch makes me sick,
so sick that I know there really must be something about him, that makes
him that provocative to my well being... But here in Norway, you just can't
hide completely from E. Munch paintings!)
Richard explicitly asks for "other than those seeking sexual gratification
out of it". I may obtain a picture eg. of a nude 14 yo girl as a plain act
photo, as art. Nevertheless it might arose me sexually, more or less
accidentally. Sure, that happens with oil paintings of nude bodies too, and
it happens with photos of clothed people of various ages as well. I've seen
so many nude bodies and photos of same that the absence of clothes seems to
have very little effect on my erotic feeilings; in fact, the presence or
absence of clothing has a much larger effect on my perception of the beauty
of the human body than on the erotic stimulation I feel. But *if* I should
feel such stimulation, then what? I don't feel that any 'innocence' of mine
is threatened, so it doesn't bother me. Some fifteen year old boy sees the
same picture are even more likely to have such reactions - even if I showed
him the picture only as an example of artistic act photo, completely
unrelated to erotic aspects (beyond the fact that all act does have a
certain element of erotics, even when the form of expression is semi-
abstracted oil painting). So what? Should I sacrifice his art education
until he is 18, pretending he is still 'innocent' in the sense 'have never
had bodily erotic reactions'? (By the way, in Norway that would be 16.)
Oh, come on! If I have reasons for showing him any sort of art, including
photo art, that happens to be based on human, unclothed bodies, that
happens to be of some 14 year old girl, I don't see any good reason why I
should hold it back for the reason of protecting some sort of 'innocence'
we all know is a fantasy (even at much younger age than fifteen). If he
can go with me to a CO beach and see a lot of real world, live, nude 14
year olds that he does not know and might never get to know, there is no
reason why he should not see the same or other girls pictured in act photos.
Whether it is me or someone young boy having erotic reactions to act photos,
that is completely, 100%, uncorrelated to the artistic qualities of the
work. There are lots of great act that is very erotically stimulating, and
there are lots where erotic aspects are neglible. And there are lots of
artistically poor photos (by my personal judgement, of course) that are yet
erotically stimulating - you might label that "porn" if you like - and
lots of the pictures I see are neither great art nor stimulating, they are
simply boring, in all respects. *Those* I'd like to see less of! Boring
pictures do no good to anybody. But unfortunately, people who want to
censor photos completely ignore the worthless pictures; rather, they will
throw out a lot of artistic beauty because they see a possibility for
someone construing other aspects of the picture as 'indecent' (or some
related term) regardless of the positive values of the work. Too bad.
ketil
tim keene
>tim keene (att...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: from Roy Radow, and others - Do you want to be where *they* are?
>
>Is it warm there?
>
>(I mean where they are now, not where they'll end up eventually.)
Actually, I was speaking of their mind-set - but, given that set as I
understand it, I believe that people of their apparent mind-set are
occasionally offered free housing, means, and regular heating. And,
assuming they continue, I would guess your second supposition to be true,
also.
Richard Kenner
>Would you care to explain why someone requesting "pictures of nudism"
>is a pervert while someone asking for directions to Haulover Beach
>is not?
Both or neither might not be a legitimate request, but experience shows
the former is far more often a sign of a voyeur than the latter.
Tony Lawrence
: Pity far more than detest. I find you to have all the hallmarks of a
: classic bully. You post wildly, often with multiple posts to one item,
: sometimes within minutes of one another. You seek to force your opinions
: on others but then turn round and say that you are not interested in
: their opinions in reply. Once challenged you resort to this slightly
: pathetic attempt to seem more 'reasonable'. You fail to substantiate any
: of your wilder exaggerations. You have, in your short time here,
: attempted to dominate by shear quantity of words and now are resentful
: of those who instinctively react to bullies of all types.
Such a marvelous paragraph must deserve a replay.
--
Tony
Richard Linsley Hood
<ketil.a...@idb.hist.no> writes
[A reasonable explanation of seeking a range of artistic photographs on
all topics via the 'net and from other sources.]
My first question to you is, would you post a request to one of Tim's
'offers' based on your search for such artistic images? If the answer is
yes, do you believe that even if he was not convinced that your request
was in fact genuine and therefore passed on your request to the
appropriate authorities, that you would be harmed by such an action? If
indeed you are only seeking to extend your own private wide ranging
image collection there should be no cause for alarm.
Do you not agree that there are significantly more people out there
seeking such images for sexual gratification than for artistic reasons?
I am slightly worried that you seem totally careless as to whether the
images you have are pornographic or not. Do you believe that child
pornography should be eliminated or do you not accept that there are
those whose actions should be limited in order to reduce the harm they
may do to others?
Please note I am not suggesting that Nikki's 'all nude images are bad'
attitude should in any way be a limit our lives. What I am seeking is
some reasonable balance that serves to protect those that require it but
leaves the freedoms we all would desire. How best do you believe we can
achieve those ends. Do you accept that some compromise is required?
Tony Lawrence
: "Which group of genuine Naturists do you know that would ask for nude
: pictures of 14 year old girls they have never met to be posted to them
: over the 'net?"
Let me be sure I understand you, Richard.
There is nothing obscene about nude pictures of a 14 year old girl
whom you have never met.
But anyone who wanted such a picture must want it for an obscene
purpose?
Oh, and you still haven't explained why the person who asked for
"pictures of nudism" is a pervert but the guy who wanted directions
to Haulover isn't.
Perhaps you could tie this all together into something that will
take my breath away.
--
Tony
J.P. Allen
<much text deleted>
>It is my opinion that Tim's "Ramona" posts contribute to the
>type of thinking that could end up with very innocent people
>being charged with child pornography or worse.
>Tony
How can an innocent person be charged for this crime without some
type of evidence? I think Tony's brain is working overtime to come
up with this highly abstract conclusion. I have never seen a post
about Romona (from Tim) that did not reference her as a dog (of
the four foot type)!
Tony... I used to sit here at the screen and consume all my free
time making what I thought were interesting arguements and valid
points. What I realized was that I had become addicted to the
_net_ and that it was time to work on my real life. I am not
telling you to "get a life," but it might not hurt to pick up a
book now and then, rather than turn on the computer.
I have an assignment for Tony; how about telling us about a
positive experience that you had at some club or beach. Something
that we all might enjoy.
Joe Allen
--
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: As it is clear from the content of the rest of the post that you do not
>: consider this item to be pornographic, and as there were only two people
>: in this particular thread, the implication is quite clear that I WILL
>: consider the item to be pornographic. You then go on to discuss N
>: magazine is similar terms. If anyone were to take that message in
>: isolation, if would be very difficult for them to assume anything other
>: than I was in opposition to your belief that these items are not
>: pornographic.
>
>I never knew that the rhetorical question was an American invention.
I dare say the english language was the amalgamation of more than a few
sources from all over the world, and that the basis for such constructs
has been around for say the last 1000 years or so. If I had only thought
you were indulging in such an interesting gramatical construct then I
dare say that I would not have repsonded in such a fashion. Re-reading
that, and other posts in the same thread, I stand by my interpretation
of what you were attempting to imply.
>Still, one would have thought that the practise would have spread
>across the pond by now.
Oh, such vicious sacasm.
>All I can say, Richard, is the simple phrase that we Americans use
>when confronted with the inexplicable, the outrageous, the incomprehensible:
>
>Duh.
That's what you use when answering the question
'Why do you prefer to look the other way when confronting obvious
attempts at child pornography rather than dealing with the situation in
some sort of adult fashion'
is it? I rather thought so.
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: You posted that Tim had made his 'offer' to someone who had completely
>: innocently posted to this group. Until and unless you can substantiate
>: that allegation you are as best guilty of a deliberate and calculated
>: exaggeration and at worst of lying.
>
>Oh, Richard, I have substantiated it. No doubt Tim will give
>us more examples himself as time passes. Just be patient.
I must have missed it. I did take the time to look through all the other
threads and 'low and behold' not a single example could I find of you
actually posting a rebutal to this. A lot of referral to things you said
had happened in the past. All suitably vague. Much like this one. Put up
or shut up. You are at best guilty of gross exaggeration. I leave the
worst interpretation as an exercise to the reader.
>: You mean Tim's boss. Oh no, you obviously mean someone who you believe
>: is intellectually or culturally more gifted than Tim. Being someone who
>: has always believed that everybody is entitled to their own opinions and
>: that care and consideration should always be attempted by all to all. I
>: will not accept that a 'superior being' has more rights than anyone
>: else. A cat (dog?) may look at a queen (king?) and quite reasonably
>: comment of how they look. Sometimes they really do have no clothes.
>
>Richard, Richard, Richard. Do I have to hold your hand every minute?
>This silly "superiority" business was Tim's idea, not mine.
Oh so the
>You've never put down anyone who is obviously your superior.
was a quote from Tim's post not yours, despite the fact it had your
signature at the end of it? Silly me. I'll never get used to this
technology, it has the habit of tripping me up when I least expect it.
Terry J. Wood
Peter F. DeMos <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>One thing is for sure, we do police our own. I think this group gets more
>people set straight on appropriate netiquette, and/or more people bounced
>from their provider for incredibly innapropriate postings to this group than
>any other 8 combined I know of. *I* think it is cuz there really *are* some
>n/n's here. We tend to get drowned out. But, we are active, and not reticent
>about reporting abuses. <big smile>
Yea, don't ya just HATE dem "hallway monitors"? ;-)
Terry
tim keene
>Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: You posted that Tim had made his 'offer' to someone who had completely
>: innocently posted to this group. Until and unless you can substantiate
>: that allegation you are as best guilty of a deliberate and calculated
>: exaggeration and at worst of lying.
>
>Oh, Richard, I have substantiated it. No doubt Tim will give
>us more examples himself as time passes. Just be patient.
You are lying again, Tony. I can always tell you are lying, because we
see you post.
>: You mean Tim's boss. Oh no, you obviously mean someone who you believe
>: is intellectually or culturally more gifted than Tim. Being someone who
>: has always believed that everybody is entitled to their own opinions and
>: that care and consideration should always be attempted by all to all. I
>: will not accept that a 'superior being' has more rights than anyone
>: else. A cat (dog?) may look at a queen (king?) and quite reasonably
>: comment of how they look. Sometimes they really do have no clothes.
>
>Richard, Richard, Richard. Do I have to hold your hand every minute?
>This silly "superiority" business was Tim's idea, not mine.
>Tony
Actually, Tony, your own denigration of those who have an education was
the referent, here. You are quite intelligent, and I believe any
feelings of inferiority you may have are all in your head.
Ketil Albertsen
>My first question to you is, would you post a request to one of Tim's
>'offers' based on your search for such artistic images?
I might very well do - it depends on context, whether I would expect
to find anything of artistic value in those pictures or not. To phrase
it differently: If it sounds if the pictures are simply boring, I wouldn't
take the effort, irrespective of the persons being clothed or not.
>If the answer is
>yes, do you believe that even if he was not convinced that your request
>was in fact genuine and therefore passed on your request to the
>appropriate authorities, that you would be harmed by such an action?
If his announcement and my request was phrased in such a manner that the
pictures in question *might* be artistic act photos, I guess I could
defend myself pretty well, without being harmed. But notice that I am
living in Norway - every summer almost any newspaper in this country brings
beach photos that would be clearly classified as child porn in the US.
(Maybe Great Britain goes together with the US here.)
>Do you not agree that there are significantly more people out there
>seeking such images for sexual gratification than for artistic reasons?
Most likely that is the case, yes. I say: So what. Sexual gratification
in itself has done no harm. I am serious - that is my real opinion.
>I am slightly worried that you seem totally careless as to whether the
>images you have are pornographic or not.
Porn is in the eye of the beholder. Those newspaper beach photos doesn't
turn into child porn until they cross the pond to the US (or possibly GB).
Unless the photos show obvious sexual activities, like intercourse or
masturbation, they are in no way pornographic here in Norway, regardless of
the subject's age.
>Do you believe that child
>pornography should be eliminated or do you not accept that there are
>those whose actions should be limited in order to reduce the harm they
>may do to others?
Warning - Liberal opinions follows:
If something *happens* in the real world *regardless of whether someone
records it or not* and is "good" and morally acceptable in itself, then
it is no less good and morally acceptable even if someone records it -
that be as a textual description, a sketch made with a pencil on a pad,
a sound recording made with a tape recorder or with a camera.
If there is nothing wrong or immoral in me observing this event (but:
spying on someone, or being present against their will, *is* immoral!),
then it is noting immoral in me, to help my failing memory, make some sort
of recording of it, that be writing down words, makin a sketch, recording
the sound or taking a photo. If it is OK that I see it with my eyes, I
cannot see why it would be immoral to use technical aids (like a sketch
pad or a photo) to recall memories of it later. Nor can I see that the
recording which helps my memory in itself can be considered immoral.
To me personally, this is a fundamental principle that you'll have a hard
time making me set aside.
I can see a whole lot of naked kids; there is nothing wrong or immoral
about naked kids at the beach or other places. Pictures of naked kids
are not at all immoral in themselves. Although many Americans might
disagree with me, there is nothing wrong or immoral about masturbation
(even mutual masturbation), and there is nothing wrong or immoral about
eg. me "catching" my daughter masturbating. I might even watch other
people having sexual intercourse without there being anything wrong or
immoral about that, too. And a consequence of my principles is that a
photo of the same would not in itself be immoral - even if those
photos might be clearly pornographic. Sure, those people I watch might
request that I don't take pictures, make sound recordings, draw sketches
or make textual descriptions of the event, and it would be wrong or
immoral doing that against their will. But that is a different moral
question - that of disregarding other persons' wishes, not one due to
the nature of the action being recorded.
So, the conclusion is: If it happens anyway, and noone present objects
to it being recorded, I find the existence of recordings including
photos to be morally acceptable. I will not agree with a general
statement that "child porno should be eliminated".
NB NB - Note that I have strictly limited my discussion in two ways:
First, I assumed that the event would take place even without anything
being recorded - I am not talking about arranged situations in front of
a camera or other recording device. Second, I have considered only the
mere existence of photos, not how they are used.
So let me extend it to arranged situations, call it "modelling work"
if you like. If a situation is arranged that might also have occured even
without such arrangement, and then be good and moral, then it does not
affect the morality of neither the situation nor the resulting recording
that it was arranged. If you could take your kids to the beach and just
happen to make a couple snapshots, it would be morally OK. If you arrange
a photo trip to the beach for the purpose of taking pictures, that's OK
too, even if it is arranged for that sole purpose. It doesn't have to be
a beach - if it is OK for my friend and professional photographer to see
my daughter's body at home, it is also OK for her to appear naked in
front of his camera. To bring this discussion in contact with the subject
line of this thread: The "Show Me" book displays a series of situations
that is perfectly good and moral if it happens without any recording of
it, at the kids' initiative when they are alone. Some of the things shown
are definitely sexual, hence pornographic - mutual masturbation is
pornographic, but we don't mind kids doing it in the bushes or hiding
in the barn. If they haven't been taught that there is anything wrong with
it, they might very well do it on request for the purpose of making a book
- most kids would be *proud* of appearing in a book known in most of the
western world. So although pornographic, the photos are not condemnable
but just as moral as the action pictured. (I grant the right to anyone who
think mutual masturbation is morally wrong to also think that pictures of
it are immoral, but to me, masturbation is OK, even mutual).
Sometimes, situations are arranged to create recordings of events that
would *not* be considered good and moral - that be rape, killings,
mutilations of various kinds - if it happened in real life, with or
without recording of the event. Unfortunately, we accept almost without
objection arranged (/simulated) murders, bodies being torn apart, people
being smashed in car accidents... We accept it as entertainment, pastime.
And if someone can make a recording of a *real* killing (eg. a video
of a bank robbery in which a couple clerks are being shot by the robber),
the TV news will play it again and again and again. Even more so in war
reports - in that context, it is presented as "heroic" (it is always our
guys killing, the "enemy" being killed) and great. I think this is terrible.
Obviously, this extends to sexual violence too; we should be deeply
worried by sex being mixed up with violence.
There is a level inbetween: That the subject being pictured could have
agreed to taking non-condemnable (but possibly sexual) pictures, but
does not agree; hence force of some kind or another (not necessarily
physical) is used against the subject. Forcing someone against their will
is condemnable. However, I distinguish between the process and the result
- the result isn't necessarily condemnable even if a specific process of
creating that result is. If I put two picutres side by side, of two models
of similar body proportions, similar envionment, similar poses, the only
significant difference being two different faces, it is artificial to
judge one result (photo) as moral, the other as immoral. "You'll have to
burn that photo, and that one, but this one you can keep"...No. Fight
against the production of photos using models who are forced, but judge
photos as photos, not as processes.
Finally: The *use* of recordings (of any kind, but photos in particular)
that according to the above are "morally acceptable", so they are
allowed to exist. How can a posessor of such a recording make use of it?
Think of a stone carving of a nude 14 year old girl - how can the sculptor
use it? Can he sell it? Can he make copies of it? Will it hurt the model
if he starts serial production of it in concrete, so that the girl's body
may appear as decoration in hundreds or thousands of private gardens?
Will it hurt the girl? Will her classmates laugh at her, ridicule her?
Will the postman request that she undress because he has seen her statue?
OK, make that an oil painting: At an exhibition, a painter displays a
picture of a young girl that the majority of the audience can identify as
the painter's daughter. Will they condemn her as being immoral, not suited
as girlfriend for their sons?
Or make it a newspaper photo to illustrate a Sunday paper summer report,
showing a crowded beach, the journalist having made an interview with your
daughter and she appears in the foreground of the picture - without clothes,
of course, as you are naturists.
Or make it your daughter and her boyfriend, selected for displaying minimal
swimsuits in the summer Sears catalogue?
Or the same two, without the swimsuits, in a book intended to inform other
young people about what their bodies are like, showing them what their
bodies are for, like in Show Me?
None of these uses of a recording in any way whatsoever harms the subject.
Given the existence of the photo, and that the pictured activity is good
and moral, I in fact have a hard time seeing any serious harm done to the
subject by him/her allowing others to see it. Eg. in a nudist setting,
if the boy next door could go with her to the CO resort and see her naked
in real life, there is nothing harm with him seeing her picture. And I am
quite sure under those conditions he wouldn't ridicule her from the photo.
And she probably wouldn't object to him seeing the photo, if she lets him
see her live.
If the subject refuses publication, there is another situation again. Some
very fashion-aware 16 year old may scream "You do *not* show that picture
of me in that age old dress! It looks terrible! I can't imagine how someone
could force me to wear that when I was 14!". Or alternatively, in a
naturist family: "You do *not* show that picture of me at the beach when
I was fourteen! I look terrible! I can't imagine how I anyoune could force
me to wear my hair that way!".
The situations are not *that* different. If the first picture was suggested
for publication in a brochure marketing the social offerings of The US
Viking Society, I would find it wrong to ignore the girl's protests. If the
second one was to create a review of hair styles in the 90s, an objection
based on the hair style being outdated would be laughable, ignorable.
OK, I construct situations in which the pictures are used in a way that is
not intended for "sexual gratification", yet someone may use them for this
purpose. So what. Guess what I think? I think that the total number of
persons who masturbate to the Sears catalogue is far higher than those
masturbating to Calvin Klein ads - it doesn't take nude models. Are the
models of the Sears catalogue harmed? In that case they are being harmed
wihtout knowing it themselves, without ever getting to know it, and the harm
has no effect on their lives. Some harm! Those who resort to Calvin Klein
ads, the Sears catalogue or to photos showing happy, nude kids and adults at
nudist resorts, for their "sexual gratification" will simply choose other
images to look at if you forbid some of them. A few years ago, one Norwegian
soft-core porn magazine presented a full-page photo of knot hole in a pine
trunk. (It is probably against current US law to tell what it resembled...)
Remember how few lines it took to make "dirty" drawings when we were boys?
Trying to pretend that "sexual gratification" can be prevented by forbidding
*one* recording techniques is just silly. In my boyhood days, you would have
had to forbid pencils and scraps of paper... We "harmed" the girls in those
days, too - we drew triangles, writing some girl's name underneath, passing
the slip from boy to boy in the classroom, one by one glancing over at the
girl whose name was written under the triangle. In a nudist environment,
that would have been just silly. In modern Norway (which in this respect
has changed a lot since I was a boy), it is almost as silly.
The primary reason why people seek "sexual gratification" through nude
pictures is not that the subjects are nude, but the excitement of seeing
something forbidden. The recent law change in the US is going to support
this strongly; maybe the total amount of nude pictures will be reduced,
but that which is present will to a much higer degree serve such functions.
>What I am seeking is
>some reasonable balance that serves to protect those that require it but
>leaves the freedoms we all would desire. How best do you believe we can
>achieve those ends. Do you accept that some compromise is required?
My problem is that the current trends are a conflict between one side saying
"It is OK with us, we are not worried about it at all", and the other side
saying "But your lack of worry worries us!". So a middle of the road
compromise would have to be to make the one side start building up some
unfounded, artificial worries - enough to make the other side believe that
there is now sufficient worry about it.
No, to me this is not a question of compromising in order to "protect" eg
my daughter. To her, pictures of her face or of her nude body is all the
same, to herself as a person; the same applies to pencil sketches, textual
descriptions or whatever. But there is a question of politeness - she knows
that both her grandmothers might be offended by her relaxed relationship to
nudity, and to the subject she discusses openly with her daddy, so she knows
what is appropriate in this and that setting. We also know that wherever
there might be Americans around, we should protect them somewhat, in case
they turn out to be the sensitive kind (I would turn down a request to post
beach pictures to protect *Americans*, not to protect my daughter).
And we should take care to honor the laws wherever possible.
But to me, there is no viable compromise requiring us to adopting the idea
that nudity is wrong, that pictures of something that is good and moral are
in themselves bad and immoral, that sexual reactions are inherently bad and
immoral, or that someone can be harmed without ever noticing it or knowing
about it. I can accept a compromise based on rules for polite behaviour, but
not one based on condemning.
ketil
Peter F. DeMos
>As you probably know, constant off-topic postings serve to drive folks
>out of a newsgroup. The clowns from a.s.t can attest to this.
>But I'll give rec.nude this -- there are a core group of rec.nude
>readers who, when faced with spam or obvious trolls, do complain about
>what is posted here to news admins. Many a troller has learned that
>rec.nude is not rec.pets.cats; for we don't get mad. We get even. ;-)
etc, etc, etc....
One thing is for sure, we do police our own. I think this group gets more
people set straight on appropriate netiquette, and/or more people bounced
from their provider for incredibly innapropriate postings to this group than
any other 8 combined I know of. *I* think it is cuz there really *are* some
n/n's here. We tend to get drowned out. But, we are active, and not reticent
about reporting abuses. <big smile>
peterd
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
Accuracy is often worth repeating.
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: "Which group of genuine Naturists do you know that would ask for nude
>: pictures of 14 year old girls they have never met to be posted to them
>: over the 'net?"
>
>Let me be sure I understand you, Richard.
>
>There is nothing obscene about nude pictures of a 14 year old girl
>whom you have never met.
There is nothing inherently obscene about non sexual nude images of
anyone whether I have met them or not.
>But anyone who wanted such a picture must want it for an obscene
>purpose?
...may want it for..... is closer to the truth. I have never said must.
That is your own invention. What I, and others, have said is that if
Tim's carefully worded 'offers', are replied to in a fashion that
indicates that they ARE wanted for obscene purposes, then the names of
those making the requests should be passed on to the appropriate
authorities.
You said that in no circumstances should this occur. You did not see
that this was an adult reaction to the situation and that you would
prefer that they were politely asked by email to go and try their luck
elsewhere.
I am still waiting for you to came up with an example group of genuine
Naturists who would be likely to post such a request in the first place
though. (I think this is now the eight time and still to attempt to
answer).
>Oh, and you still haven't explained why the person who asked for
>"pictures of nudism" is a pervert but the guy who wanted directions
>to Haulover isn't.
>
>Perhaps you could tie this all together into something that will
>take my breath away.
The temptation is very great, but I am basically a passivist at heart.
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>In article <ATcwoHAr...@dakal.demon.co.uk>, Richard Linsley Hood
><rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>. I truly cannot
>>conceive of there being genuine people in Naturism who would not have a
>>similar reaction.
>
>Perhaps the key word here is "naturism". One of the strengths of this
>group is the fact that it also appeals to those who are not naturists, but
>_merely_ nudists.
A distinction rarely drawn this side of the pond in the UK and almost
never in the rest of Europe. As far as most, if not all, people are
concerned over here the two words are interchangeable. I do understand
that a clear distinction exists in the US but, ...two nations separated
by a common language....
> I am perfectly willing to look at pictures of nude 14
>year old girls--also boys, 30 year old men or women, 50 year old men or
>women, or 5 year old boys or girls. I think the human body, in many
>cases, is a very attractive sight. I appreciate Michelangelo's David,
>much of Rodin's work, the ancient Greek and/or Roman statues, even (to
>some extent) the highly erotic Far Eastern pictures. What the hell is
>wrong with enjoying an attractive nude?
Nothing at all. I assume that you mean from an aesthetic point of view.
If you mean from a sexual point of view then I would have to have grave
doubts about the propriety of people of considerably older years being
sexually attracted to images of 5, 10 or 13 year olds of either sex.
> If I have the chance to acquire a
>_good_ picture, I will probably take it. At the moment, I don't see any
>offers that would tempt me. If you enjoy being in the nude, why can't you
>enjoy seeing others in the nude? L.
As I have never said that and do not believe it to be true I'm not sure
where you get that suggestion from.
tim keene
>Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: attempts at child pornography rather than dealing with the situation in
>: some sort of adult fashion'
>
>obvious case of child pornography.
Will you please quote the entire article, Tony? I don't recall the
heading, and re-reading it might shead some light on it, for me, anyway.
>Dealt with in an adult fashion, of course.
>
>--
>Tony
tim keene
>J.P. Allen (jal...@nasa.win.net) wrote:
>
>: How can an innocent person be charged for this crime without some
>: type of evidence? I think Tony's brain is working overtime to come
>Strange. I think you perhaps cannot read very well. None of
>Tim's baiting indicates the species of Ramoma.
Actually, I often refer to her as a dog, or as a bitch. People who know
me would know that since I don't swear, or use other rude words on the
internet, this must refer to her species. But I will grant, at times, I
merely mention that I have pictures of Ramona. I don't, however, offer
them, but mention that I have them. This is so a truely desirous poster
must send me E-Mail to get the supposed pictures (well, not supposed, I
guess - but I can't currently find them . . . :-}). And I don't send
them all directly to the police - I'd guess about half do end up in the
hands of 'others'.
>: Tony... I used to sit here at the screen and consume all my free
>: time making what I thought were interesting arguements and valid
>: points. What I realized was that I had become addicted to the
>: _net_ and that it was time to work on my real life. I am not
>: telling you to "get a life," but it might not hurt to pick up a
>: book now and then, rather than turn on the computer.
Sorry I didn't warn you, Joe. Soon, he will begin calling you names. I
had thought to take all the flac he produces - but I was wrong - Tony
apparently has time to spend for all of us.
>I've done so, and will do so again. At the moment, however, I'm
>interested in exploring *this* issue. If you are not, don't
>read it.
>Tony
Actually, he appears interested in bouncing me, Peter, and Terry *off*
the net. And anyone who won't agree with him that we're evil, I would
suppose. I have no plans to leave - but I admit, I do find it wearing to
open rec.nude every day, and find more unsubstanciated allegations which
I find damaging. My sense of humor alone loses enough friends, I fear,
and I don't care to be burned for the things I *haven't* done. I at
first opposed a moderated group - but I'm beginning to have second
thoughts.
tim keene
>In article <peterdDM...@netcom.com>,
>Peter F. DeMos <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>people set straight on appropriate netiquette, and/or more people bounced
>>from their provider for incredibly innapropriate postings to this group than
>>any other 8 combined I know of. *I* think it is cuz there really *are* some
>>n/n's here. We tend to get drowned out. But, we are active, and not reticent
>>about reporting abuses. <big smile>
>
>
>Terry
*Please*, Terry - not while he's living at our house!
:-} Attilla
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Richard Linsley Hood (rich...@dakal.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: 'Why do you prefer to look the other way when confronting obvious
>: attempts at child pornography rather than dealing with the situation in
>: some sort of adult fashion'
>
>Ayup. Like the gentlemen who asked for "pictures of nudism". An
>obvious case of child pornography.
You assume that these requests are always innocent. Tony merely post his
'offer' in such a way as to be attractive to only those who are not
indeed as innocent as we all would hope that they are.
>Dealt with in an adult fashion, of course.
As you regard 'looking the other way' as being an adult reaction I
severely doubt your ability to form any reasonable opinions in such a
case.
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Excellent post, Ketil.
This does indeed show to all on this group your basic attitudes to sex,
children, pornography and Naturism more clearly than anything I could
every have said.
Richard Linsley Hood
<ketil.a...@idb.hist.no> writes
>
>>I am slightly worried that you seem totally careless as to whether the
>>images you have are pornographic or not.
>
>Porn is in the eye of the beholder.
Actually no, pornography is defined in law, even in Norway.
> Those newspaper beach photos doesn't
>turn into child porn until they cross the pond to the US (or possibly GB).
A picture of a naked person is not in itself pornographic unless it
contains obviously sexual images as you yourself admitted below.
>Unless the photos show obvious sexual activities, like intercourse or
>masturbation, they are in no way pornographic here in Norway, regardless of
>the subject's age.
>
>>Do you believe that child
>>pornography should be eliminated or do you not accept that there are
>>those whose actions should be limited in order to reduce the harm they
>>may do to others?
>
>Warning - Liberal opinions follows:
>
>If something *happens* in the real world *regardless of whether someone
>records it or not* and is "good" and morally acceptable in itself,
And if the act is in itself not 'good'?
>I can see a whole lot of naked kids; there is nothing wrong or immoral
>about naked kids at the beach or other places.
Agreed.
> Pictures of naked kids
>are not at all immoral in themselves.
Agreed.
> Although many Americans might
>disagree with me, there is nothing wrong or immoral about masturbation
>(even mutual masturbation),
In private, agreed.
> and there is nothing wrong or immoral about
>eg. me "catching" my daughter masturbating. I might even watch other
>people having sexual intercourse without there being anything wrong or
>immoral about that, too.
I rather think that if you were to say that you liked to stay and watch
then everybody would be able to draw their own conclusions as to your
predispositions.
> And a consequence of my principles is that a
>photo of the same would not in itself be immoral - even if those
>photos might be clearly pornographic.
In this case taking a picture of the above described event would in
effect be the same as staying to watch.
> Sure, those people I watch might
>request that I don't take pictures, make sound recordings, draw sketches
>or make textual descriptions of the event, and it would be wrong or
>immoral doing that against their will. But that is a different moral
>question - that of disregarding other persons' wishes, not one due to
>the nature of the action being recorded.
>
>So, the conclusion is: If it happens anyway, and noone present objects
>to it being recorded, I find the existence of recordings including
>photos to be morally acceptable. I will not agree with a general
>statement that "child porno should be eliminated".
I rather thought that this would be the case.
>NB NB - Note that I have strictly limited my discussion in two ways:
>First, I assumed that the event would take place even without anything
>being recorded - I am not talking about arranged situations in front of
>a camera or other recording device. Second, I have considered only the
>mere existence of photos, not how they are used.
If you would stay to watch your own daughter masturbating or take
pictures of the same (after all the event would continue whether you
were there or not) then I rather think that the authorities, even in
such a liberal place as Norway, will take a very dim view of the
situation.
>So let me extend it to arranged situations, call it "modelling work"
>if you like.
You could just as easily call it pornography or prostitution.
[snip .. the rest of a standard justification of voyeurism and
pornography in general]
Richard Linsley Hood
writes
>Now let's get back to the important things, shall we?
Like you wanting to 'look the other way' if any pedophiles are around.
Elenje
>. I truly cannot
>conceive of there being genuine people in Naturism who would not have a
>similar reaction.
Perhaps the key word here is "naturism". One of the strengths of this
group is the fact that it also appeals to those who are not naturists, but
_merely_ nudists. I am perfectly willing to look at pictures of nude 14
year old girls--also boys, 30 year old men or women, 50 year old men or
women, or 5 year old boys or girls. I think the human body, in many
cases, is a very attractive sight. I appreciate Michelangelo's David,
much of Rodin's work, the ancient Greek and/or Roman statues, even (to
some extent) the highly erotic Far Eastern pictures. What the hell is
wrong with enjoying an attractive nude? If I have the chance to acquire a
Tony Lawrence
: I couldna said it better myself! Whaddaya think, Tony baby?
I think that "true" Christians can be very nice people to live
with. Too bad so few of those who call themselves that actually
are.
Still deluded, of course :-) Doesn't make you a bad person.
--
Tony
Tony Lawrence
: Accuracy is often worth repeating.
As is idiocy.
--
Tony
Tony Lawrence
: In article <DMGD0...@world.std.com> a...@world.std.com (Tony Lawrence) writes:
: >Would you care to explain why someone requesting "pictures of nudism"
: >is a pervert while someone asking for directions to Haulover Beach
: >is not?
: Both or neither might not be a legitimate request, but experience shows
: the former is far more often a sign of a voyeur than the latter.
Aha.
I knew that an intelligent response had to be out there somewhere :-)
OK. Now, assuming this is true (and how much experience have any
of us really had in this area?), does it justify taunting and
baiting with this silly Ramona scam?
There are some other questions to be asked, but we'll start here.
--
Tony
Tony Lawrence
: In article <DMGD0...@world.std.com> a...@world.std.com (Tony Lawrence) writes:
: >Would you care to explain why someone requesting "pictures of nudism"
: >is a pervert while someone asking for directions to Haulover Beach
: >is not?
: Both or neither might not be a legitimate request, but experience shows
: the former is far more often a sign of a voyeur than the latter.
Actually, few have a lot of experience with people asking for nude
pictures. However, Richard K. is quite correct: experience has
taught us this, though perhaps in a more subtle way.
It is our experience of society's reaction to nudism and/or sexuality
that has taught us here. It has taught us that only the extremely
naive (which could include both the very stupid and people from
other cultures) or the somewhat sleazy WOULD ask for such pictures.
That's a slightly different way of looking at it, and I think
it's important. No "normal" person would do such a thing (not
publically, anyway: privately is another avenue to explore!),
and we are fully aware of that.
But why? "Why" is the most important question here, and to answer
it, we need to be very careful to differentiate between the
answers the textile population will give and those the nudist
population will give.
--
Tony