Zarabanda,

...I think jval's comments are typical in that they show a negative underlying assumption about poser...

I said only of Poser that it is incapable of doing absolutely everything. It is unlikely that even its most ardent devotees will disagree with that simple truth. Other than that I offered no judgement on the merits of Poser- not pro, not con. In fact, I believe it was you that said "...you can't do much inside poser..." Yet somehow you still manage to find me infected with negative assumption. I am truly astounded by your abilities.

...an extreme reliance on semantics...

An opinion is attributed to me via quotation but omits critical words that completely change the meaning of that quotation. But when I object it is simply a matter of semantics? It was not the interpretation of words that concerned me. It was their complete absence! A less self serving interpretation might be to call offering the quotation a lie by omission. I also resisted the presentation of opinion as fact but not with quibbling over words. I flatly rejected the validity of the proposition as a foregone truth. If you believe that is "semantics" then maybe you'll also believe that the sky really is green with pink polka dots. If we are to follow the rule of "So I have said, so it shall be" then let's let the sky follow whimsy as well.

...refusing to accept any form of shared understanding.

I explicitly said "I cannot criticize your wish...", "I do not argue with the concept's simplicity...", "...nor did I offer any form of opposition or trivialization.", "...there is more that can be done within Poser than first apparent...", "I would not say you are necessarily wrong...", "My point was much the same as yours...", "While I do not feel the same as you I encouraged you to pursue your goal..." Just how much shared understanding does one require? Perhaps I should simply prostrate myself and exclaim "Yes oh master!" Will that do the trick?

...The fact of the matter is, anything rendered inside poser IS poser art.

So where did I say it is not? In fact, I do not recall offering any opinion at all on what constitutes Poser Art and clearly stated my inability to do so. It would seem others are not so uncertain about their infallability. I did mention the original intention of Poser but that is a matter of history, not opinion or semantics.

Actually I didn't attempt to evaluate Poser or Poser Art at all. What I did say is that an Exclusively Poser gallery could be problematic and gave my concerns. (I somehow feel it necessary to bring your attention to the words "could be problematic". This does not mean that such a gallery should absolutely not exist. After all, I did suggest that petition. "Problematic" does not imply impossible or necessarily undesireable or foolish. "Problematic" only implies "problematic". Clear enough?) I also said that it might be difficult to find a definition of Poser Art that everyone could accept. Call me naive but I suspect that might have some small degree of relevance to the proposition at hand.

I may not claim the supreme enlightenment of understanding precisely what constitutes Poser Art. But I'll tell you what I do understand. I understand that merely questioning, not even denying, the definition or need for such a gallery is met with derision and attack. I understand that I will be taken to task not for what I have said but for what I did not say. Perhaps the next Poser fad will be a model of a red herring. I also understand that this time I am truly out of here. I'm just not enough of a masochist.

• Jack

ps. Thanks for clearing up my P5 question.