bonni, When a member is warned, when an image is pulled, or anything like that which is formal and disciplinary, they are sent both the IM and the email. Some of that, as in removal of images from the gallery, is automated. Members are responsible for keeping their email addresses up-to-date. 300,000 members and this site can't pester folks to change the address of record when members get new email accounts or watch their spam filters. If Heart'Song was getting the newsletter and the ebots and the notices that people had commented on her gallery images, she would have been getting the emails from staff members, too. Carolly

As I understand it, the admin@renderosity address was automatically allowed through, but individual "new" addresses weren't. I know that I had to answer a "challenge" to get mail past the filter there. I wasn't aware that IMs were also sent. Hmm. Curiouser and curiouser. bonni

Same shit, different day. It's really not that difficult to make your own webpages with your own galleries goverened only by your own TOS answering to no one but yourself. **Shrugs

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 07:52

"she would have been getting the emails from staff members, too." If you've read the other threads you would know that she said more than one time that those emails were not send from a renderosity mail addy but from the mods own email addy. While mails from renderosity.com get through others might not. So, not her fault when someone sends an official mail using a private mail addy.

Not wanting to walk into a fire storm, but realizing that saying nothing also says a lot.....
I think that this has gone too far...censureship seems to be invading every part of our society as of late, and I am disheartened to see it creeping in to our artistic communities as well.
I also want to say, that as a comsumer (and believe me when I say that I spend a lot on Poser)...I am not good enough yet to become a merchant...If given the choice, I choose to buy my stuff from those stores that DO still value artistic licience....and the right to make art as the artist sees fit.
I too have seen the art in question, and as the mother of a young child, found nothing wrong, or bad. These were not child porn, nor were they sexually suggestive. I thought they were rather beautiful.
Virginia

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 08:01

.

Virginia, a lot of people feel the same way. I think that is part of the problem. It's not Renderosity's fault necessarily, simply an unfortunate intersection of events. Because of other things going on in society, politics etc. a lot of people are already feeling dismayed, depressed, threatened whatever. It's easy to see things like the incident in question as part of something bigger, just another insult added to injury. That may not be fair, the owners of this site may be flaming liberals or completely apolitical but it will still be perceived on some level as part of a process that people are unhappy with. As a result, what might in another time be just another crazy 'Rosity flap perhaps takes on a deeper emotional significance and makes some people more prickly than they might have been otherwise. Maybe I'm over analysing but that's the way I see it and I certainly sense some of that in myself. That's why I said I think the best thing for the PTB to do would be to let people have their say (which to their credit they mostly do) and avoid rereading the rulebook as if somehow the umpteenth time they do it all dissent will cease. They've made their decision, justified it to their satisfaction and nothing will change the fact that some folks will always think that decision stinks. If they're working on the policy, fine, come back when it's reworked and let us know what it is. No one's talking about truck bombing Rendo HQ. Anyone who wants to leave has left already. Chill. "You can't run a coal mine without machine guns." - Mine owner replying to Claire Booth Luce's question about the presence of armed guards at his mine.

"What part of NO is so hard to understand?"

"The part where a clothed figure with NO genitalia showing is targetted because there might be genitals under their clothes or something."

Lol, Bonni we think alike. That was my response when I read that, damn near word for word. ;)

And that's the point. Not what other sites allow, not what you'll find from the old Masters works and not how many warnings may or may not have been recieved.
It's entirely how the TOS is perceived by someone in the position to issue warnings and bannings.
If no genitals were showing then how could the TOS have been broken?

And that's the question no mods are answering.

I usually avoid these discussions like the black plague, but I have to point out that Renderosity is not making a moral judgment here, it is a commercial one. In the beginning Renderosity did not have a marketplace at all, it was merely some forums and galleries. When the store was added, it was added on the same existing site, and therein lies the problem. With over 1600 merchants here and I am sure quite a HUGE PayPal account, they are not going to risk having that account confiscated (yes, PayPal DOES THAT) and so for the most part they are forced from a business standpoint to tone it down or have quite a large sum of money tied up in limbo for literally months. If the store site and forum/galleries occupied different URLs, they would not have to be so strict. They were not in the past so strict when most of the images in question were originally posted. What happened? Some self-righteous smarmy asswipe complained about Renderosity to PayPal, so Renderosity came to be in the unenviable position of having to crack down on nudity of any sort, especially young looking characters.

I can assure those would-be witch-hunters that they have scored no victory here as far as getting images pulled: it is mainly a business decision where Renderosity is looking out for their own commercial interests (as any business owner would do), nothing more, though admittedly a moderator or two may have gotten a bit overzealous in his/her interpretation of the TOS. My store at faerie-dreams.com does not allow any more nudity than is allowed in the store here, and that is because it is a BUSINESS, not primarily an ART SITE. Check out the PayPal terms of service (only a few hundred pages, hyperlinked) or ask around here for PayPal horror stories of accounts being frozen for the slip of a naked tit and you will perhaps get the idea. Renderosity is a BUSINESS with forums and galleries attached, NOT the other way around.

In closing, since my site name was carelessly associated with this distasteful business, a clarification. FaerieWylde allows more nudity because the store and the forum are on 2 different URLs, 2 different domains, 2 different servers, even 2 different countries, but even so, sexual images of any kind or any age have been and will be deleted at FaerieWylde as well. I can heartily assure you that it has nothing to do with local ordinances, as we are in the same city as Renderosity (about 2 miles down the road, in fact). However, any creeps thinking they can come over to FaerieWylde and post any nasty nekkid kids-with-wings pictures they like will quickly find out otherwise. The images that were pulled here do NOT violate our TOS as there was merely nudity and no sexuality involved.

My, my, my.....how threads can grow overnight. Like mushrooms in the backyard. (I remember the Summer of Love and the feeling that we could change the world). Immediately following the end of WWII, during a brief (very brief) window of time -- a lot of starry-eyed people thought the same thing. Human nature -- including our own -- has a way of destroying our youthful "we can save the world" illusions about ourselves. The experience can be quite traumatic and devastating. It's one reason why a lot of people end up being so bitter in their later years. *********************************************************** As for the central point of this thread -- Renderosity can set their own rules, and the admins can then enforce them in any way that they see fit. For our part -- given that set of rules -- we can decide for ourselves whether we wish to participate in the community -- or not. It's entirely up to the individual. If they won't let me post images that they find questionable for various reasons -- so be it. I'm not going to get all huffy over the issue. Life's too short to spend it getting upset all of the time. Upset comes enough on its own. I don't need to help it along. My attitude about myself (and my "art" -- such as it is) shouldn't be affected by the attitudes of others towards me. If I allow them such power over my own well-being, then I might as well resign. So......if an admin chooses to delete my posts from the gallery......shrug.........who cares? Maybe somebody does, but I don't. I'll just go elsewhere, and post my stuff there. And not worry about it. *********************************************************** Starting "agenda" threads in the forum won't win you any Kewpie (cupie?) dolls.....except from the few people that happen to agree with you already. And that's hardly worth the effort -- other than to merely express one's rage against the unfairness of the world. Which accomplishes exactly nothing. .......other than to take a toll on your own health and emotional well-being.

.

HeartSong has started posting a few of her pics at;

rendervisions.com

Where for artist-by artist really does mean something.

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 13:29

.

I can't add much here, I do find Thornes post very interesting and I have been hearing from other site owners that thats the way to go, separate urls for the store and the art. That way art CAN be art. I was asked to remove one image once and though it hurt to do so I did. The Mod then got back to me and admitted that they had jumped the gun a bit and made a mistake on the image. I found that very gracious.I could have reuploaded it but never got around to it. I haven't been following all that seems to been happening but if this is about Heart'Songs images and if she stops posting here that will be depressing, I sure enjoying getting notice that she has uploaded a new image. Thanks :)

I hate faerie art & think it's childish & shouldn;t be here at all not with all the adult stuff. Looks stupid to have children art mixed with adult art. It should be all adult, problem solved.

LOL Thanks for the imput Birddie. I will allow others more eloquent than I argue the point. I will just say that though I'm grey and shuffle along with a cane I hope I never lose my childishness. :)

Eeek Jon, you call that input LOL ... and if someone has found the adult stuff anywhere over here please send me the link, I like to have a look at it too ... :P

LOL... Slip me the link if you get it Maus. LOL

------------------------------------------------------------- "However, any creeps thinking they can come over to FaerieWylde and post any nasty nekkid kids-with-wings pictures they like will quickly find out otherwise." ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hmm... I was invited by a friend to visit the"Wylde" and was frankly appalled by what I read & saw. I read statements like: "I had to create some custom morphs to giver her body that pleasing shape" and that "pleasing shape" is clearly that of an eight ear old girl !!. pointy ears. "fae"wings and 800 year old bogus cover story not withstanding . @Xeno: you are so right my like minded friend, in pointing out the folly of coming, or sending cronies, into the poser forum seeking to rally an angry mob of villagers to take up pitch forks and torches to storm your "enemies' castle on behalf of ones cause. Just Ask Anton Kissel , or the great "Dodger" or any other would be conqeror of the evil rosity,DAZ Empire, about the public relations effectiveness of such crusades.

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing inherently wrong with most images of naked children (fur rugs, bathtubs, fishing holes). I think bras on mermaids are ridiculous and that clothes on a flying creature will probably act as a drag and get tangled in the thickets. Sexually provocative images are another matter. I find using and exploiting digital children in a sexual manner simply to get hits on an image as distasteful as I'd find exploiting any other type of pornography (including the pornography of violence). The combination of innocence and sexuality must be tremendously erotic to judge from the childish faces and childish bodies in full provocative display. There is a desire for such imagery, or else it wouldn't exist... and the people making kiddieporn would find something else to sell. Instead of pouty-mouthed Lolitas, we might get some mature character packs. HOWEVER, my own preferences aside, I am in favor of following the given, announced, and agreed-to rules of this website. I am here by permission of the site owners. I visit the other sites by their permission. Only on my own site would I feel free to say exactly what I want. Corporate property is just that. Property. Theirs and their rules. A website is property... and you are invited to enter or told to leave. My personal opinion as to nudity doesn't matter the least little bit. If I walk into the DeYoung or the Legion of Honor or any of the other world class art museums here, I am not allowed to hang my own images, photograph theirs, talk loudly, touch anything, disturb the peace, bring in food, walk around naked, have sex in the outside pool, yell through a bullhorn that they discriminate against x, or a hundred other infractions. Their property, their rules, and they have the right to remove anybody not following their rules... any claims to artistic freedom aside. Seven nude kids painted the colors of the rainbow wouldn't be able to walk their galleries, no matter how artistically painted or if Picasso signed each of them on the butt or if the Pope specially blessed them in their innocence. This website is a commercial property and has to follow the rules set out by many, many other companies and legislators. People who persist in violating those rules just make it harder for everyone else. People who persist in rousing the rabble to soothe their own bruised egos just leave a bad smell in the air. Carolly the Opinionated

Human nature -- including our own -- has a way of destroying our youthful "we can save the world" illusions about ourselves. The experience can be quite traumatic and devastating. It's one reason why a lot of people end up being so bitter in their later years. Actually, I found the realization to be a relief. It IS just the way the world is, and to quote the Eagles, things in this life change very slowly if they ever change at all. bonni

.

And don't forget People who enforce those rules have to interpret those rules as written and should not create their own rules on the fly and read between the lines of those rules. get the point?!

(Waves) :] Fish (It's my birthday today - 49!! - so I will NOT get uptight and join in the fracas. I'll just watch for a while and then go have a piece of chocolate cake)

Happy Bday, Fish :) and enjoy your party and the cake and if you don't eat all of it send it my way ;-)

Yes...yes...oh God yes... Chocolate cake with a big scoop of Ben&Jerry double chocolate fudge ice cream sprinkled with shaved Godiva dark chocolate (very immoral). Happy B-day Fish! SWAMP (.)(.) |) (| ( v ) | /

Swamp, you forgot the nudity tag or are you just trying to push the envelope of ASCII art? Nice set of parentheses though.

It's fortunate that (at least some of the time) the peeves and shibboleths of various individuals aren't catered to, otherwise the galleries would be empty. What should we remove next? The fractals-ridiculous computer generated non-art, garish fantasy alien landscapes-buy a Bonstell book and learn to make it look credible, dragons-spare me, cute 'toon animals-grow up, flowing maned Fabio clones-maybe The Advocate would like them, religious art-not interested in your favorite cult, clothed Vickys-if you're afraid of nudity, move to Saudi Arabia.

Let me know when you've removed those and I'll probably have another list.

Message edited on: 03/18/2005 10:35

Now there is a worthy topic!! Fish's Birthday. :) Hope you have a very good B-Day, Fish.:)

Happy birthday Fish......

Veels geluk Fish - I'll have some of that cake too please :)

Okay, I am poking my head in here one last time just to say that IMO, Heart'Song is a talented and very original styled artist, and if she was banned for images that were already here she should have been given a warning to remove them first. The point is the images were here already, and despite 300,000 members yes it takes what? 30 seconds? To add email verification that a message is received. As I said this is a really talented artist, and deserves better treatment imho. Not trying to start any war here, just putting in my 2 cents worth for someone I admire.

Thorne, How many warnings did she need? emails, IMs, and phone calls? This was not a sudden move, but something which has gone on since last year at least. Bannings are given for a repeated pattern of flaunting the rules. You don't get banned unless you continue to ignore the warnings and repeat the offensive behavior a number of times. That is in the TOS. As mentioned above, talent has NOTHING to do with it. Even Picasso or Michaelangelo or Ingres or Rembrandt or any other deservedly great artist can't post images of children with their genitals showing in the galleries at this website. No genitals on underage figures. The treatment of the subject has nothing to do with it. Even the Pope can't hang a naked baby Jesus here or putti with wings... it doesn't matter if it is human, faerie, or godling, with insect wings or angel wings or no wings at all. No genitals on underage figures. Prettiness or ugliness has nothing to do with it. No genitals on underage figures. This website is a private, commercial website which has to follow rules established by other entities, including the government and the banks. The artists who join this site agree to follow rules. The artists who post to the galleries agree to follow rules. Why should an exception be made? Why should Heart'Song or any other aggrieved artist feel that they don't have to follow the rules they signed? As evidenced at PoserPros last month, even site owners (who may have a valid claim to special treatment) have to follow the rules. When posting on your website, I follow your rules, just as I would if I were in your livingroom. Posting on my own website, I can follow my own. Someone who doesn't like rules can buy a domain name and set up a gallery for very little money and effort. Heart'Song is at complete liberty to make her own gallery and post as many naked children as she wants in it... just not on this site. Carolly

The rules were assigned after the images had been in gallery for awhile. The rules came after the image At least give the artist some professioanl courtesy or time to remove an image that wasn't breaking the rules when it was put up at the first place.

I think perhaps many people are not aware of all the details of what goes/went on behind the scenes with these things, and neither do I. I just wanted to publicly show my support for a friend, and I do understand, Carolly, that you are enforcing rules that are in place primarily for business reasons, rules that are not yours personally.

I agree with those who say these kinds of discussions have little constructive value, and that is the main reason I usually stay out of them. I've been in the same position and had complaints, and had these threads started with narrow minded concepts from some who may have never seen the inside of a real art museum, where subjects of all ages occupy many galleries, including the National Art Museum in Washington DC and of course the grand master of museums, the Louvre in Paris. We can't expect the part-time hobbyist to see it from the same perspective as those of us who have had formal college art training and have studied art for quite some years.

But as you have said and we do understand, this is not about grand masters or museums or segregating art galleries by age, race, sex, or any other of the closed boxes that some people have such a hard time thinking outside of. That is not the point, nor the focus of this discussion. The merit of the work is not in question (there will always be admirers and detractors of any artwork), it's about rules and the equitable application of those rules, or the preceived lack thereof. This is not directed to Carolly or anyone personally, because I honestly do not know who was personally involved.

To that I will only say again that Heart'Song a talented artist, but she is also a sensitive human being and I think she genuinely meant no harm or malice; she was literally in tears over this and I understand her frustration. Hopefully we can calmly all work together to reach some closure on this matter. There was breakdown in the system as I understand it, and perhaps incidents like these can help us to see where the glitches and ambiguities lie in the system and remedy those in a constructive way. I'm very sad to see her gallery has been removed, but that is her decision and everyone should be where they feel comfortable.

Hokksdottir, to repeat Heart'songs point as I under stood it before her threads were censored, it wasn't aboout OBEYING the rules, it was about the rules being understood by the VERY PEOPLE WHO WROTE THEM and enforcing them AS THEY WERE WRITTEN!!!!! The tos bans any genitalia on a child, understandably. I have NEVER, EVER, NOT ONE TIME seen ANY genitals on any of Heart'song's pictures of child elves. NOT ONE TIME!!! Do the moderators mean "pelvic area"? If they did, they should say "pelvic area"! To arbitrarily go back two years and start removing pictures that were previously ok is the equivalent of the FCC going bact to three year old radio shows and fining the staions for the shows that were perfectly fine for the previous three years!! IT seems the least we as a society should expect from those who write rules is that they understand what they themselves are writing! How difficult should that be?! If you can't figure out what you mean when you're writing a rule how should anyone else figure out what the hell you're talking about??? I know some wag will see this and lament "why is a newbie commenting on OUR business", so let's be very clear about this. Is there a rule that states I have to have been here for a certain time before I can comment? How long? One week? A month? A year? Does it matter if I've been involved in art and graphics since I was a child (in my fifties now) or that I've been viewing these galleries for about three years now or that I've been concerned with the censoreship tone the entire nation seems to be gripped in lately. I admit that as a mere STORE and not an art gallery Renderosity has the absolute right to post whatever rules it wants to, but YOU SHOULD BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE STATING, not write one thing and then tell the artists "yeah, but we meant this". Specially when bandying about terms like "child porn". And I agree one hundred percent with Thorne, it's about the equitable application of the rules. Also, Heart'song did NOT remove her galleries. They were removed by the moderators. Just to get that clear.

I was not aware of the extent to which this debacle had progressed, or that all of Heart'Songs beautiful and unique galleries had been forcibly removed- how utterly dispicable and narrow minded. This is akin to swatting a fly with a rocket powered grenade. for some reason the term "jackbooted thugs" also comes to mind. Way to overkill, mods. :rolls eyes: I think ol' Uncle Albert said it best, "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions. Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity...and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein

What a shame! I would call it victory of the blockheads but since that could be seen as a personal attack, name calling or violating the TOS I decided to better keep it to myself.

I still consider myself a novice with my poser images, and I dare not classify my art with hers, but one of the reasons I come to this site is because of the work of artists like Heartsong. I have to say hers are some of my favorite images. Her originality and style often get my creative juices to flow, so to speak, and has been an inspiration to me in my own artwork. Without works such as these, I am much less inclined to come here.....and I consider the removal of Heartsongs gallery a loss to us all.

I understand that Heart'Song has been permanently banned and her entire gallery removed (we're talking over 500 images built up over a four year period). Presumably 495 weren't, in the opinion of the Mods, in violation of the TOS. This is a shameful act of vandalism. Nasty, too.

That part of the TOS has been in place for more than TWO years. Warnings were given over months and months and months. How long does it take an artist to realize that the law applies to them? And if anybody here really wants to see all images before the worst offenders get pulled (this includes the anal-reaming hetero couples, babies tortured and dismembered, 12-year-old sex kittens nursing other naked children, and some of the other stuff the mods have deemed against the rules), they can volunteer to join the staff. Until you've had to pass judgement and defend that judgement, you don't know hard hard it is. Until you wade through 200 images posted in a single day, you don't know what drudgery is. Until you listen to the feedback from screaming artists that they are special and don't deserve to have the rules applied to them, you don't know what blockheadedness (to use Puntomaus's term) is. I'm sure that it is very comforting to Heart'Song to see that she has some ardent friends and supporters... including people joining this site just to complain about the enforcement of the rules in her case. But wouldn't it have been better to follow the rules in the first place? Carolly

Ummm, could it be that Heart'Song has "friends and supporters" because she's a caring, friendly, generous person? Sadly she can't see this thread for herself .. she's been banned. You sure Moderators volunteer? You make it sound like a punishment, what with all the screaming artists, the drudgery, the illegal hard-core, and folk complaining all the time. I understand the difficult and unrewarded job they do .. doesn't change the fact that Heart has been treated rather harshly in the circumstances. IMHO, of course. Oh, and you might want to edit your message a bit, Carolly. By listing examples of highly unpleasant pictures you've seen in a post about a banned member rather implies that she produced similar themes in her work. Unfortunately, members can't check the level of depravity in Heart's pictures .. they've all been deleted. Thanks for your co-operation .. wouldn't want you to accidentally violate the TOS with your helpful input, would we? mooch

"And if anybody here really wants to see all images before the worst offenders get pulled (this includes the anal-reaming hetero couples, babies tortured and dismembered, 12-year-old sex kittens nursing other naked children, and some of the other stuff the mods have deemed against the rules), they can volunteer to join the staff." What does this have to do with HS? Nothing of what you listed can be found in any of her images. So why mention what OTHER MEMBERS have done in THEIR images that got pulled and/or banned? By listing those disgusting examples in a thread about HS, it implies that she had these things in her images. That is not only NOT true but also just low on your part.

. :/

How long does it take to convey an idea?!! The idea was NEVER that a rule applies to Heart'Song. The idea is that the moderators are NOT CONSISTENT with their interpretation of the rules they are supposed to be moderating! THAT IS THE POINT!!! SHE ABSOLUTELY FOLLOWED THE RULES!! There is NO MENTION of "PELVIC AREA" in the TOS. There is a rule banning the showing of gelitalia on child-like figures, a rule I HEARTILY AGREE WITH, but there were absoultely NO genitals on the child elves in Heart'Song's work! How long will it take for you to get this??! What was the infraction? Suggestive pics? LOOK AT THE GALLERY! It's FULL of suggestive work, at least in my opinion. Of course one man's sugestive is another man's art. See City of Cincinatti vs Cincinatti Museum of Art/Mapplethorpe Exibit. I am a rule person. I served SIX YEARS in the Air Force and I did very well there. But the people enforcing those rules have to, at the very least, understand what the rules are they're enforcing. Heart'Song's mistreatment begins because the moderators can't understand what the rules say. Are there rules against pelvic regions? NO!!! And by the way, I agree whole heartedly with "TdaC" and "Zrincx". Shame on you for associating Heart'Song's work with the vile stuff you mentioned!! That in itself is a VILE, reprehensible act! And BTW... I joined this forum to comment on the unfair and shabby way an artist was treated...I ALWAYS get into forums and letter writing campaigns when I see a gross injustice stupidly committed! A people loses most of their rights one tiny piece at a time, slowly and insidiously, and it starts on little forums like this all over the country. This wasn't even an issue of idealogy or sensibility. It was an issue of the people who are enforcing the rules arbitrarily applying those rules because they cannot grasp what they are reading. Including Carolly!!! And as I stated before, if there is a rule barring new forum members from commenting then let me know. I AM a rules guy. But BE EXPLICIT! I don't want to be caught up in the stupidity that ensnared Heart'Song. I won't be on this forum much longer, I promise. Oh, and I saw a lament a few days ago about "what can we do?". Well, I NEVER, ever shop at Wal-Mart. And I believe with all my heart they have the ABSOLUTE right to ban items from their store. I also have the right to not drop my hard-earned dollars there. If they want to ban material they consider "subservisive" and "unsuitable", like say, ohhhh..GEORGE CARLIN'S BOOK, that is definitely their prerogative. I shop at other bookstores. And so can you. I am heartened by all those who wrote to defend Heart'Song. All you courageous and conscientious artists, good luck. You are outnumbered.

Twhack! Miss Calliope Havisham brought the rod crashing onto her calfskin bound copy of the Book of Student Discipline. Twhack, Twhack, Twhack! The vibration of the limber hickory made her hand tingle. She couldn't understand it. Never in the years since she had come to the tiny village of Rendon had the pupils been so headstrong, so dismissive of the rules. She must regain order, no matter what. The rules must be followed. "Rule number one," she began for the tenth time... Twhack! The sniggering continued, grew in volume. Twhack, Twhack! The tingling traveled up her arm and suffused through her, stirring a strange spark somewhere in the depths of her womanhood. "Rule numner one, No student shall..." Twhack! Most of them looked at her with amusement, all except Clive. Clive, the intelligent, quiet, one had an odd look of knowing in his heavy lidded eyes. Twhack! Her tongue brushed quickly over her parched lips. Why was it so warm in here? The rules, must remember the rules. They were everything. Twhack! Her bosom heaved against the confining whalebone of her corset. It was no use. They would never listen. And yet, she must continue, even at the cost of her soul. Twhack! From Memoirs of A Country Schoolmistress by Unknown ca. 1820

Naughty boy. Go stand in the corner! All books by 'Anon', 'Unknown' or silly pseudonyms like Ivor Biggun are forbidden. Shameful and lascivious creature. It is quite warm in here, actually. And there is definitely heaving happening.

RE:darth_tar wote; I agree whole heartedly with "TdaC" and "Zrincx". What? I was here allright, but sitting in the corner down at the back all the time, and I swear I didnt make any noise! -which cant be said about certain others. This is yet another alarming and frustrating faerie holocaust in progress. Poor HeartSong babie.

The work in question has been attributed to both Sir Buster Cherry and Lord I.P. Freely. Computer lexical analysis has ruled out both as the author. B U L L E T I N We interrupt this program for the latest bulletin from the Culture Wars: "Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject - or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures." UPI We have received reports that Renderosity admins view the imminent arrival of Poser 6 with the same relief Tom Delay felt at the removal of Teri Schiavo's feeding tube. All questions were referred to the firm's legal representatives Dewey, Chetham and Howe, who declined to comment. We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

"Prettiness or ugliness has nothing to do with it. No genitals on underage figures."

And the fact that there were no genitals? I see that fact continuing to go unanswered. Why are the mods so afraid to discuss that?