Quote - Showing unrealistic huge penises merely turns men into sexual objects
 for the gratification of others.

What's the problem? If women can have huge boobs why men can' have huge penises.
Some enjoy big boobs, other enjoy big penises.

Quote - If you create a picture of Nazis standing in front of a swastika, with "KILL ALL JEWS!!"
 as a big legend, then that is clearly wrong, and probably also criminal.

If you create a picture of ... standing in front of ...., with "KILL ALL MUSLIMS!!"
as a big legend, then that is a front page of some newspaper, and probably also patriotic.

Quote - I wanted to hear from her wether the fact that Che is popular chic as opposed to Nazi imagery being verbotten would have an effect: I can see large [and small] boobed young women wearing Che Guevara shirts in any major city or campus, none of whom would ever stick a swastika on their chest. Is one man's mass murderer another man's mass murderer - or does popular chic make a difference? Howzabout a Hammer and Sickle t-shirt? Or a Pol Pot flag? Or a Janet Reno banner?

Well duh, OF COURSE popular opinion is a major consideration.  In many parts of the Middle East, Osama bin Laden is considered a great hero.  How far do you think you'd get with an avatar of his picture and corresponding forum name and the like?  That's a rhetorical question, I don't really have a lot of interest in anybody actually trying this.

Quote - In many parts of the Middle East, Osama bin Laden is considered a great hero.  How far do you think you'd get with an avatar of his picture and corresponding forum name and the like?

That's is an interesting question.
Renderosity is an international community, even most of the member are from the American continent and Europa, aslo exist members from the Middle-East and Asia.
Muslim contries have no big participation in the internet yet, can be by technical, political, religious and freedom questions, but internet is expanding in an astronomical way, countries that were forbiden or with restricted access are having much more participation today.
Poser is forbiden in some Islamic countries, but not all Islamic contries are so fundamentalist and even some fundamentalists are becoming less resctritive in some subjects and more in other subjects.
We can expect that in the comming years we'll have much more participation of many different countries and so comes the problem: Some personages as Bin Laden, can be the Demon in person in a group of countries and a great hero or avatar in other group of countries.
As no country has the right to impose his will on other country, the only solution is to accept it, if you don't like don't look and close your eyes.

uh, Kawecki...can you prove that Poser has been forbidden by Islamic countries?  I mean, specifically.  not in general.

In Saudi Arabia.
Strictly and taken in a fundamentalist way, the Muslim religion forbides any representation of humans, can be in paintings, sculptures, etc.
As Poser deals specially  with humans, is a 3d representation of humans, is something that cannot be allowed if you follow word by word the religion.
Of course that most of their people are not so fundamentalists, but some goverments yes it are!!!

Quote - As no country has the right to impose his will on other country, the only solution is to accept it, if you don't like don't look and close your eyes.

You're greatly in error - this "problem" is a very old and dead issue.  The general rule for private business is "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."  Freedom of Speech is a concept that does not apply to internet discussion fora, especially commercial ones like Renderosity.  They can apply what rules they like, and if these rules don't meet your standards, then you are the one that needs a solution.

Note that I'm note especially happy or angry about this aspect of private discussion fora, I'm only pointing out reality.  They're not 100% even handed, they don't have to be, and that's the way it is.  When you get on the Renderosity board of directors you can start dictating what the "only solution" is.

I am not sure if in Yemen too.

Quote - You're greatly in error - this "problem" is a very old and dead issue.  The general rule for private business is "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."  Freedom of Speech is a concept that does not apply to internet discussion fora, especially commercial ones like Renderosity.  They can apply what rules they like, and if these rules don't meet your standards, then you are the one that needs a solution.

Who is wrong is you!!, Renderosity is an international community and if you want to look at the commercial side, Renderosity is formed by 50% of Bondware and 50% of more than 2000 vendors.
The 50% is American of one company, but the other 50% is spreaded around the world!

"American" was not something I said, that's your choice of word.  Private Business is the operative concept.  The point is, they apply their own standards as they see fit, and they have no particular mandate for being very objective, nor do they get any commercial benefit from that.

Quote - In Saudi Arabia.
Strictly and taken in a fundamentalist way, the Muslim religion forbides any representation of humans, can be in paintings, sculptures, etc.
As Poser deals specially  with humans, is a 3d representation of humans, is something that cannot be allowed if you follow word by word the religion.
Of course that most of their people are not so fundamentalists, but some goverments yes it are!!!

bzzzzzt!  Wrong.  Maybe nude humans.  Or depictions of Muhammad.  But, humans, in general, depicted in art are not violations of the tenets of the Islamic faith.  Or illegal in any country, as far as I'm aware.

Quote - > Quote - The question is, what counts as glorification. If you create a picture of Nazis standing in front of a swastika, with 'KILL ALL JEWS!!' as a big legend, then that is clearly wrong, and probably also criminal.

Should that be criminal? I'm not so sure the question is "what counts as glorification?".

Incitement to murder is a crime in many countries.

Incidentally, Ironbear will recall a related discussion on another site as to whether a picture can be considered as depicting forced sexual intercourse or consensual intercourse with an element of play-acting. Conclusion: it depends on what words appear below or above the image. You cannot judge from the image alone.

Quote - > Quote - In Saudi Arabia.

Strictly and taken in a fundamentalist way, the Muslim religion forbides any representation of humans, can be in paintings, sculptures, etc.
As Poser deals specially  with humans, is a 3d representation of humans, is something that cannot be allowed if you follow word by word the religion.
Of course that most of their people are not so fundamentalists, but some goverments yes it are!!!

bzzzzzt!  Wrong.  Maybe nude humans.  Or depictions of Muhammad.  But, humans, in general, depicted in art are not violations of the tenets of the Islamic faith.  Or illegal in any country, as far as I'm aware.

Actually, traditional Islam does forbid all images, not just of humans. Which is why decorative Islamic art is entirely made up of abstract patterns. But I don't think there is any modern Islamic country that forbids images in general as part of the legal code.

That was my point ;)  It's just that....early morning postings do no one any good ;)  Neither does erroneously stating that a country bans a computer program without any proof.  ;)

Quote - bzzzzzt!  Wrong.  Maybe nude humans.  Or depictions of Muhammad.  But, humans, in general, depicted in art are not violations of the tenets of the Islamic faith.

Not nude humans, any human at all!
If you look at Islamic art, they have magnificent works, paintings, tapestry and walls covered of images, but if you look at them you will see that are only landscapes with animals and birds. Humans are very difficult to be found in their art, even exist in some few artistic works.
Today they are less restrictive depending on how fundamentalist or ortodex they are. In general Mohammed is not allowed to be represented, but even in the most fundamentalist I don't see any restriction about their political or religious leaders, you know, as usual, the rules applied to poor mortal souls cannot applied to politicians, they are above all!

well, yes and no. I've seen medieval depictions of humans in Turkish art. Mainly historical paintings, or religious ones. The odd thing (well, to a Westerner), is that Mohammeds' body and clothing are portrayed, but his face is like a white sheet over it. 

There are ads with people in some Islamic countries, it depends on how open they are. Saudi Arabia is very strict (Wahabi Sunnis, sort of the Muslim version of Southern Baptists..;). No women driving, Islam is the state religion, and conversion to other religions can be punished severely. Religious police roam the streets with canes, and punish anything they don't like with harsh words or worse. I don't know if Poser is specifically banned there, but I wouldn't be surprised that if they knew it was out there, they would ban it. I haven't been to Saudi Arabia (never closer than Istanbul), but my father has, and I've heard stories.

Jen, Just ask the makers of Poser, You can't buy Poser in a lot of Arbic Countrys. Even the Gulf E. There postal service will not mail them, and you can't buy it to be downloaded either.
The people are naked, untill clothes are put on. I know this is a big NO!!!

IronBear-hugs long time no see.

David; I can't figure out why you wanted Stalins picture? He was planning to whip out the Jews when he died. ( thank G-d) Shalom David.

Quote - David; I can't figure out why you wanted Stalins picture? He was planning to whip out the Jews when he died.

This is not correct, you must know that Joseph Solomon Davidovitch (Stalin) was a Jew the same as most of the members of his goverment.
What is ignored or very little known is that Communists were divided into two groups than were mortal enemies: Trotsky and Lenin and both were Jews.
Stalin was of the group of Lenin, also Kruschev was. What have done Stalin was exterminate Jews belonging to the Trotsky's group and of course, not Jews had the same destiny.

Quote - > Quote - Showing unrealistic huge penises merely turns men into sexual objects

 for the gratification of others.

What's the problem? If women can have huge boobs why men can' have huge penises.
Some enjoy big boobs, other enjoy big penises.

Quote - If you create a picture of Nazis standing in front of a swastika, with "KILL ALL JEWS!!"
 as a big legend, then that is clearly wrong, and probably also criminal.

If you create a picture of ... standing in front of ...., with "KILL ALL MUSLIMS!!"
as a big legend, then that is a front page of some newspaper, and probably also patriotic.

I posted that as sarcasm but to also make a point that the puritans who object to big boobs seem to be silent when the reverse is done to men. I ask if men also deserve protection from sexual exploitation. If the answer is no then there is nothing special about women that allows them protection. If big boobs are wrong then so are massive penises. If one is allowed then all should be allowed.

Why is it when straight men like something its vilified and evil yet when gay men, lesbians and women like something its OK and acceptable? How many lesbians also look at those pics of women with big boobs? Why don't we vilify them for also exploiting women?

And big penisses are also a problem for men, you don't know what to do with it or where put it, making a knot sometimes helps a little.

I hear you can also roll it up into a spool if necessary.

Well, it takes some training, but you can put it to use like a prehensile tail. Can be quite handy for opening the door when you have your hands full of groceries...

*Quote - "*Quote - "In Saudi Arabia.
Strictly and taken in a fundamentalist way, the Muslim religion forbides any representation of humans, can be in paintings, sculptures, etc.
As Poser deals specially  with humans, is a 3d representation of humans, is something that cannot be allowed if you follow word by word the religion.
Of course that most of their people are not so fundamentalists, but some goverments yes it are!!!"

bzzzzzt!  Wrong.  Maybe nude humans.  Or depictions of Muhammad.  But, humans, in general, depicted in art are not violations of the tenets of the Islamic faith.  Or illegal in any country, as far as I'm aware."*

Actually, traditional Islam does forbid all images, not just of humans. Which is why decorative Islamic art is entirely made up of abstract patterns. But I don't think there is any modern Islamic country that forbids images in general as part of the legal code.

*Sorry:  you're all wrong.   There's a very old mosque in Damascus that not only has images of the human form, but even depicts Mohammed.   That mosque is one of the earliest in existence, much more recent than the great mosques of Cairo and Istanbul  which (otherwise) would seem to bear out Phantast's comments.   Precisely what is or isn't permitted in Islam is a minefield, partly because most Muslims speak no more Arabic than I do (i.e. none, apart from about three words) and partly because even native Arabic-speakers have a problem with texts composed fourteen centuries ago.   Unfortunately, that permits the proliferation of inaccurate  interpretations of the text.      (If you want an analogy, there are artworks, including a famous sculpture by Michelangelo in Rome, which faithfully follow a mis-translation of the Old Testament, which gave the prophet Moses horns.)   Note that I use the word "composed".   Mohammed never wrote a word.   In common with most of our ancestors who were his contemporaries (all of mine, I am quite sure), Mohammed could neither read nor write.

Quote - I know we can't exactly do that with an image of Hitler, but we can look at the image, along with the description, and, using common sense, see whether or not the image is, indeed, glorifying any aspect of the holocaust, or whether it is simply an image of Hitler. Or an image containing the Swastika. Or (insert your imagery of choice).

Jeni

Ok, there's the thing, and that's really the crux that this "Politically correct"/"Politically incorrect" debate thing hinges upon: Why is "glorification" a criteria for banning expression, whereas "condemning" is a criteria for "allowing" it? What makes glorification of a less valid expression than condemnation, in these instances? Applies no matter where it's flipped: there's those who would fight to the death to protect a right to glorify Stalin, FDR, or Pol Pot while thinking nothing of using deadly means if they were allowed to to ban Nazi imagery - and vice versa. [Or you can watch the double standards in the politically correct community between the outcry over the Danish cartoons and the blind eye towards Christian bashing.. with the cynics among us observing that the primary difference seems to be that Christians don't blow people up for mocking Christ. There's any number of examples to pick from.] Is it a nebulous "'Right' to not be offended"? Popular conception? Heh - profitabity? ;) [Not a sneer: a desire to not annoy potential customers is acceptable in a business venture] [I'm going to stipulate that what we're discussing is Renderosity's policy on this, and note further that "freedom of the press" always is dependant on owning the press, in practicality: the ability to truly censor or censure a self-publication medium like the web is doubtful at best - anyone can own a press these days, and the medium for publicizing their efforts] I'm predominately curious, not judgemental here, as you can probably tell by my tone. Censure in artistic media always has seemed to me to be a pecuiliarly mindless pursuit: people who engage in selective versions of it seldom seem to do so from well thought out or objective criteria, and it endlessly fascinates me watching the contortions presented as justifications. ;]

ok..not sure about this, but in the interest of keeping the thread going..;)

Stalin's original name was Djugashvilli, and he was Georgian. He actually started on the road to Orthodox priesthood until he decided to give communism a shot.  Trotsky was Jewish, but Lenin was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. If he's Jewish, it's news to me (but, I could be wrong). Russians claim they can tell Jewish names (in Russian), but I don't know.

Stalin was formulating another purge (the Doctor's Plot), and was going to round up a great number of Jews and execute them, when he died of (possibly) natural causes.

There may be a lot of of Muslims who aren't fluent in Arabic, but the Koran (you say Quran?) is written in a specific form of Arabic, with all sorts of marks indicating  correct pronunciation. Muslims would likely need to have at least a working knowledge of Arabic, but it could bear the same analogy as 1950's Catholics and Latin. There's a phrase that's uttered to become a Muslim (I don't know it exactly, and I may be wrong, but I think it's 'there is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet')

There's not just one, Monolithic Islam. There's sects (Sunni, Shia, Wahabi, Druze, Dervish, Alawite, and on and on), and sects, and crosses with other religions (Sihks), and they all have different takes on portrayal of humans. I think it's a safe bet you'd have a hard time in Saudi Arabia getting a copy of Poser, but in Turkey or Malaysia, it might be a little easier. Just an educated guess on my part.

Quote - Russians claim they can tell Jewish names (in Russian), but I don't know.

There's a simple rule:
Ortodox and Catholics never used names from the Old Testament., on the other side names from the New Testament are the most used.
But this no an absolute rule, if a person has a name Abraham, David, Sarah, Solomon, etc, it only means that he is not Ortodox or Catholic, but he can be Jew, Protestant or some foreigner.
If a person has a name John, Peter, Paul, Mary, etc, is very probable that he is an Ortodox, but he also can be a Jew.
There are also another rules, but I know very little of Russian language.
Stalin is not a name, is only an aka, it means as something made of steel, Djugashvilli, sounds as another aka, but I don't know what it means.
Lenin is another aka, it looks something as "lazy". Ulianov (Lenin) is from Jewish origen, the same as most of the people that made the Revolution.

To avoid some confussion, the fact that Ortodox and Catholics from Russia, Poland or other countries never used names from the Old Testament has nothing to do with Jews or any sort of racism. It is based on the essence of Christianism itself.
Jesus came to reform the Jewish religion , bring good news and create a new from of life for Jews and for not Jews.
The Apostols that followed Jesus abandoned their previous life and engaged in a new style of life.
They had Jewsish names and Jesus changed their names by a new and different name, meaning that a new life has begin.
Names that belongs to the Old Testament are names of the past before Jesus, if you use a name from the Old Testament it means that you are living in the past without the reveleation of Jesus or you haven't accepted Jesus.
The most common names used by Russians are from the New Testament, but they also use ancient traditional names that has nothing to do with Christianism and the Church was unable to overcome their old tradition.

Lenin (Ulyanov, as you correctly state) was not a Jew.   I've never heard anyone doubt that Djugashvilli was an authentic name from Gori, in Georgia.   Trotsky's real name was Bronstein.   Not sure how we got on to that, but (Pakled) you're absolutely right about the so-called "Doctors' Plot", which was a blatantly anti-Semitic concoction, invented to justify Nazi-style atrocities against the Jews of the USSR. 

On other points, though, marks to indicate correct pronunciation are no use to people who can't begin to read the script in the first place.   How many 1950s Catholics in Liverpool, New York, Santiago, or - let's be honest - Rome could have made sense of a single line of Latin?   Guides to correct pronunciation are a million miles away from guides to meaning.    Marks indicating meaning are  impossible, other than in the very, very general Chinese  method, or in the extremely specific and impractical  technique of pictograms.

Between the Wars, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk introduced the Latin alphabet to Turkey.   In one sense, this was a reform in the best sense of the word.   In another, it was an act of state control.    Writing Turkish in the Arabic alphabet (as happened under the Ottomans) makes about as much sense as insisting that English be written only with fridge-magnets.   Arabic is an alphabet designed for a single range of sounds.   It works fine, for the intended language, just as the Greek alphabet is great for Greek and Cyrillic is perfect for Bulgarian, or Russian.   The Latin alphabet, though, has proved infinitely more flexible, as English, Welsh, Hungarian, Polish, Swedish and Turkish itself (to name only a few), have abundantly proved.

There is, all the same, a "1984" element to changing the alphabet.   Pre-Ataturk Turkish was full of Arabic and Persian words.   His reforms involved, naturally, a complete re-writing of the Turkish dictionary, in which, it is said (I am in no position to confirm this), all words of Arabic and Persian origin were jettisoned, to the extent that a highly educated Turk today has extreme difficulty reading pre-Ataturk texts.   Dictionary "reform" always carries a hint of "Newspeak" about it.   Turkish is far from unique.   Think of the USSR, where Azerbaijan had the Cyrillic alphabet imposed, at roughly the same time as Turkey was switching to the Latin script.   The USSR insisted that Azerbaijan spoke a language called "Azeri".   Azerbaijan today is hardly a haven of liberty, but it has, at least, acknowledged that "Azeri" is really Turkish, adopting the Latin alphabet, so that they can import dictionaries, rather than doing the "1984" job on them.   (That is still a problem for all those who have grown up with learning to read Turkish in the Cyrillic alphabet, though.)

Final example:  in Taiwan, where Traditional Chinese continues to reign supreme, literacy is as high as anywhere in the world (with the possible exception of Iceland).   Mainland China introduced "Simplied Chinese" a long time ago, but retains far lower levels of literacy.   Do you think "Simplified Chinese" was really introduced to make Chinese easier to read?

Quote - The Latin alphabet, though, has proved infinitely more flexible, as English, Welsh, Hungarian, Polish, Swedish and Turkish itself (to name only a few), have abundantly proved.

Is is incorrect in case of Poland. Poland has adopted the Latin alphabet, but it is a nightmare to read or write something.
Russian alphabet has 36 letters, but Latin only has 26 that is not enough for expressing the required sounds, so for expressing these sounds you need to combine several letters.
You have, ch, sz, rz, s with ', s with dot, z with ', z with dot, o with ', a and e with a hook, l cut by /, and more.
You  write "przszy...", too much letters for only two sounds.
 It's a nightmare!!!!, well Chinese is worst.

I'm going to allow that someone with the username "kawecki"  knows a great deal more than I do about Polish.   My point was, really, that  the Latin alphabet allows  Polish to create those sounds with "sz" and rz" etc. and allows Czech and Slovak to use diacritical marks to create much the same sounds in a shorthand way.   The result is that the sound "ch" (English and Spanish)  = "cz" (Polish)  = "cs" (Hungarian).  For another example, "sh" (English and Albanian) = "sch" (German) = "ch" (French) = "s" (Hungarian) = "sz" (Polish).   The Latin alphabet is the best of the European alphabets, precisely because it can accommodate all of these variations, even if they seem baffling.   Greek and Cyrillic could, if they wanted to;  presumably, Hebrew and Arabic could, too.   The fact is that that they don't.   Try transliterating Welsh into Cyrillic.  Take it from me:  you can't.   A less extreme example?    Try Catalan in Cyrillic.   Tthat's impossible, too. 

I suspect that the reason these other alphabets are inflexible is that they are very closely associated to religions.   The Latin alphabet was, too, but I believe that the Latin genie escaped during the Early MIddle Ages, with important non-Latin texts being written, using the Latin alphabet, using Anglo-Saxon, Welsh, Irish and, later, continental languages.   The Catholic hierarchy doesn't appear to have cottoned on to the significance of language until the cusp of the Reformation, when Tyndale published his English Bible.   Tyndale was murdered, but the pass had already been sold, because Dante, Petrarch and Chaucer were long in print, using the Latin alphabet in ways that separately served their Italian and English needs.

Quote - Just a quickey, was talking some chaps about what can post or not post on renderosity.
Now question's raised were if someone did historical art of SS troop's would it be banned, as if banned wont people say.
Ban any military pic of modern jewish solder's as arab's would not like, or especialy any american solders pictures as to what is happen in iraq.
Now 1 thing if someone posted an avatar of hitler would that be banned as 1 chap has an avatar of joseph stalin, the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century.
Even russians are saying he may have wiped out 40 million people instead 20 million.
Now my question is simple after all the butchers of the 20th century and some in power today where is the line drawn on what can be posted.
What is peoples thought's on the matter, if someone can post an avatar of stalin or the other great butcher, mao of china who wiped out 70 million people, if so then can an avatar of hitler be posted.
I hate to see someone post an avatar of bonzo george bush, and his hollynes jesus tony blair holding hand's.
Now that would be real horrific sight.

I'm going to answer this with a quick reply, now this is my opinion only.

If you feel like doing an image of SS troops fighting then do so, if anyone looks at it and finds they don't like it because of what it depicts then they can use the "report" link which is under an image.
Now in my own opinion i can't see the difference between an image of SS troops fighting or American troops fighting. In fact i honest can't see why you wouldn't be allowed to post an image like that "unless" you use that image to send a message to a race...gee how many images have you seen with troops in it fighting...

These are my own opinions not those of any political parties or religious groups.. 

*for ironbear...lots of sense in the post

"Why* is "glorification" a criteria for banning expression, whereas "condemning" is a criteria for "allowing" it?"

this is the one where i'd go even further and ask  "does a painting with nazis and kill all jews glorify the holocaust or denigrate the nazis. why can't it just be a piece of work that depicts what happened? does a painting of rice fields stacked with skulls depict the horror of the killing fields or does it say" hey wasn't this fun.  sometimes a work that in some way does depict the glorification of some foul deed(lets say the rape of the sabine women) but the art isn't in the glorification. thats a by product. the art is in it's depiction. it shows the kind of people who the painting glorifies and in doing so reminds us of mans inhumanity to man. is that a bad thing. i think every now and then we should look at pics of nazis dancing on jewish graves and smiling less we forget what really happened, so our kids and our kids kids can ask. "did those sick bastards really kill all those jews. did that sick bastard really create a countryside of rice fields covered in human remains. did they really kill teachers" sometimes it's better to see the sick mind than feel it's force after we sweep it under the carpet jmo

billy

hmm..wow..;)
Cyrillic comes from St. Cyril, a Greek monk who came up with a 'Cyrillic' alphabet to be able to spread the Bible into Russian lands. This has been going on for centuries, and even today missionaries spend time coming up with ways to translate the Bible into various languages that don't have the written word.  Cyril had to make up a few letters for sounds that require several letters  in Latin (Cyrillic is based on Greek, Cy bein' Orthodox and all..;) So it depends on the country (Poland is one of the few countries  in Eastern Europe that actually went Catholic as opposed to Orthodox, so that explains some of the 'bad blood' between them and Russians, and how they wound up with the 'Roman' alphabet..;)

Actually, the 'Latin' alphabet didn't start out with 26 letters, more like 22. Ol' Claudius tried to shoehorn some more in, but they faded with his death. As mentioned above, various peoples have had to add cedillias, diacritical marks, add letters, and take some away (the Yogue [sp?] and thorn- all those 'ye's you see in old signs, etc., are actually 'thee', because a long y symbol  was a 'th' sound). Middle English (well, actually later than that, up to the 18th) century, those 'ffs were actually 's' sounds. Such is progress..;)

Joseph is a New Testament name (though I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't go farther back), so I guess that follows the rule (?).  Leon and Vladimir, I suppose they're Russian (I'm pretty sure there were some Vladimirs out there). Russian names usually break out into first, then the middle, which usually comes from mother  or father (Dmitrovich for a male, or Martanova, for a woman, for example. I.e., son of Dmitri, or daughter of Marta), then the last name.

Revolutionaries in Czarist Russian had 'revolutionary' names, in part to avoid being caught by the Czarist secret police (the Okhrana). Lenin comes from being exiled to the Russian east, it comes from the Lena river, which he went on the trip over. Stalin, is the Man of Steel (makes you wonder about those pinkos who came up with Superman..;), Trotsky, I got no idea..;)

As I understand it, Jesus was a Jew, and thought of himself as one. It was Paul (who hijacked most of the New Testament, which is a large part of 'collected letters of'), who went to the Gentiles (non-Jews, except for Mormons, who refer to non-Mormans as Gentiles, including Jews..I don't understand it, I'm just explaining it..;) There have been some complications since then, but things are more or less under control..;)

Until fairly recently (the 90's), anti-Semitism was alive and well (actually, there's neo-Nazis in Russia..still trying to wrap my head around that...;) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (nothing to do with the Matrix..;) had a colorful career in Russia, and their pogroms didn't end with the October (actually November, the Russian calender was weeks behind ours..;) Revolution, they just threw more groups in there.

Quote - I'm going to allow that someone with the username "kawecki"  knows a great deal more than I do about Polish.   My point was, really, that  the Latin alphabet allows  Polish to create those sounds with "sz" and rz" etc. and allows Czech and Slovak to use diacritical marks to create much the same sounds in a shorthand way.   The result is that the sound "ch" (English and Spanish)  = "cz" (Polish)  = "cs" (Hungarian).  For another example, "sh" (English and Albanian) = "sch" (German) = "ch" (French) = "s" (Hungarian) = "sz" (Polish).   The Latin alphabet is the best of the European alphabets, precisely because it can accommodate all of these variations, even if they seem baffling.   Greek and Cyrillic could, if they wanted to;  presumably, Hebrew and Arabic could, too.   The fact is that that they don't.

Polish "cz" is not the same as "ch",  the equivalent to "ch" is c with '.
The same with "sz" that is not the same as "sh" or "sch", in this case the equivalent is s with '.
Latin is unable to provide all these sound, there are needed at least more 10 letters, something that Cyrilic has.
Some languages are similar to other. Portuguese is very similar to Spanish and Italian is similar. Both use the Latin alphabet that is enough for their sounds. A Spanish is able to understand a Portuguese text and with some effort Italian.
On the other side Polish and Czech are similar, both use the Latin alphabet, but as the Latin alphabet is unable to provide the needed sounds each country used a different combination of Latin letters, so each one is unable to understand what is written in the others text..
Poles and Czechs are Catholics so they adopted by religious reason he Latin alphabet, but the correct would have been the Cyrical alphabet that have the resources needed for the language.
I all of them should have used the Cyrilic alphabet, a Czech would be able to understand a Polish book and with some effort a Russian or even a Bulgarian book.
Latin is perfect for Spanish, but not for some other languages that could had a much better alternative.

At least my name is very easy, Latin works fine for "kawecki" with the only difference that "c" is not "k", is something similar to "tz" or the same as German "z".
But for my name Ricardo that is Ryszard in Polish things get complicated, you have the "sz" that is similar but different to "sh" and the "y" is not "i". The "y" is a sixth vowel that has no equivalent sound in English, German or Spanish, I don't know how to describe how it sounds. In French exist a similar sound but I don't remember what letters they use for it.

I've always wondered if you pronounced your name the Polish way or whether your family had "Latinized" it after emigrating (it happens). I guess you've answered that now.

As for Chinese writing (which is, of course, different from spoken Chinese languages) it was kept deliberately difficult in historical times to make it harder for people to pass the qualifying exams into the Civil Service. It must be the only example of a language that was intended as a barrier to communication ...

Contrast written Vietnamese, which uses the Latin alphabet, but with special signs to indicate the tones.

Oh, and about whether Islam bans depictions - just remember that the Judaeo-Christian Bible also bans such things: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth ..."

What differs is how you interpret that and whether you choose to obey it or not.

Quote - *for ironbear...lots of sense in the post

"Why* is "glorification" a criteria for banning expression, whereas "condemning" is a criteria for "allowing" it?"

this is the one where i'd go even further and ask  "does a painting with nazis and kill all jews glorify the holocaust or denigrate the nazis.

To me it says a great deal about the poster, one way or the other, just as a "liberal" proudly wearing a Che t-shirt displays a great deal about their iliberalism. One reason I'm not being too judgemental on the policy aspects is that every private site like this has some degree of censure built into their policies, either imposed by law, or determined by choice. Renderotica disallows beastiality from legalities. Rotica disallows child imagery from choice. Some forms of violent erotica are disallowed there by practicality: our CC proccessors have policies against it. Both Daz and Animotions disallow nudity. [Animotions allows it in the store to a limited extent, only on admin judgement call, but not in the galleries and forums] Both for similar reasons. All of the various sites censure child porn. RFI, which is widely considered a wide-open libertarian site, will censure some postings that might cause elgeneralissimo legal problems with his hosting. Practicality again. I'll censure something that crosses too far over the line into seditious or insurrectionist rhetoric just as I refrain from it: it has potentially lethal consequences. What constitutes "too far" is a judgement call. Private property. The property owner(s) makes the Rules, because they're paying for it. Deal with it or go elsewhere, or get your own property and make your own rules. I don't have any objections to debating wether the rules make sense; I don't deny the right of the site owner(s) to make them.

"Why is "glorification" a criteria for banning expression, whereas "condemning" is a criteria for "allowing" it?"

It all depends on context. Decisions are made on a team basis after discussion and taking many different points into account such as text posted with the image, title, gallery chosen, historical accuracy, and much more. 

Quote - Actually, traditional Islam does forbid all images, not just of humans. Which is why decorative Islamic art is entirely made up of abstract patterns. But I don't think there is any modern Islamic country that forbids images in general as part of the legal code.

The Taliban defaced/destroyed/prohibited from exhibition works of art because they had images of animals on it. Informally, they would allow depictions of animals in a landscape, but if there were too many in the painting they would decide it was actually a depiction of the animals. I saw on TV how the curator of the Kabul Museum of Art had painted over (on the paintings glass) five of seven ducks in a stream in a 19th century landscape painting until it was deemed acceptable.

Quote - Oh, and about whether Islam bans depictions - just remember that the Judaeo-Christian Bible also bans such things: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth ..."

What differs is how you interpret that and whether you choose to obey it or not.

There is no Judaeo-Christian Ten Commandments. There is a Jewish interpretation, and multiple Christian interpretations. (Heck, even how they are numbered varies.) The Jewish interpretation of the 2nd Commandment links the graven image clause with the prohibition against other gods. (For Jews, the first commandment is "I the LORD am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage".)

www.auok.org/numbering_10.htm for more on the variations.

on the other hand, the pictures in the Hagia Sophia were plastered over, and preserved that way, until a Century or so ago.  The Taliban took the 'neighborhood watch' approach to 'one-upsmanship' to the final extreme. It happens when you don't have any accepted opposition.

Quote -
There is no Judaeo-Christian Ten Commandments. There is a Jewish interpretation, and multiple Christian interpretations. (Heck, even how they are numbered varies.) The Jewish interpretation of the 2nd Commandment links the graven image clause with the prohibition against other gods. (For Jews, the first commandment is "I the LORD am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage".)

I'm well aware of these details, which are irrelevant to my point, which is that there were, historically, people who considered themselves to be Christian and who believed that all pictures were wicked (iconoclasts), just as there have been Muslims with the same idea. And of course, those who interpret the Scriptures differently.

Hence, and this is the main gist, you cannot argue in flat terms that Islam or Christianity bans all images. It depends on the interpretation, which has varied historically.

Iconoclasts are more known in Orthodox than Catholic (though they hold no monopoly..;).
Even some of the  Puritan-like sects had their run-ins with idolatry and pictures.

There were two very intensive spells of Protestant iconoclasm in England:  during the Reformation under Henry VIII (which hardened into ultra-Protestant doctrine under Edward VI) and then during the Commonwealth, between the execution of Charles I and the restoration of Charles II.   Oliver Cromwell, though, had the good sense to sell off the hugely valuable painting collection of Charles I, rather than creating a Savonarola-style bonfire out of it.

Most of the vandalism to ancient Egyptian sites is reputed to have been done by early Coptic Christians (I suppose that the evidence for that comes down to associated artefacts, such as the Diocletianic fort at Luxor, which is comfortably pre-Moslem, or to graffiti).   Often the face has been carefully vandalised, sometimes the whole body.   The vandals seem to have taken care to preserve the general shape of the destroyed sculpture.   Perhaps, the idea was to remove the impurity of human depiction, while retaining the structural integrity of very substantial buildings.

Iconoclasm already had a pretty impressive pedigree in Egypt.   For one thing, early New Kingdom sculptors could do a useful sideline in erasing evidence of the Hyksos invaders.   Then along came Akhenaten, who decreed that all traces to the god Amun be erased.   Following Akhenaten's death, the priesthood of Amun regained the upper hand and it was the turn of the shrines of the Aten to be hacked to bits.