Legume: Virtualsite, this thread does not need your condescending tone, and neither do I. I'm no idiot, I can read, and I find your dumbing it down for us "mental giants" insulting Tough. You folks aren't even considering the possibility. I don't know TigerD well, but I know what his writing style is like. I gather you don't, nor do you seem to want to. So flame on all you wish. You're just compounding your own errors. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't respond, not after this circus. Momcat: Unless you are also TigerD, I will not be taking your word on what his intent was No sweat off my brow, ma'am. I am, to a much lesser extent, also offended that you would suggest that I and my fellow representatives of Renderotica should be the ones to apologize Be offended all you wish. Doesn't change it. Where they even come into on this discussion I really don't want to know but if you are part of the community or were, you would know this information. I'm not rolling out my leather credentials for your inspection, but let's just say I've been a part of it for probably longer than you, with involvement in the community on an international scale, thank you very much. So yes, I know the community's take on this. I also know that responsible people in the community will admit the possibility of their being wrong. Here, let me hold up this rather large hall mirror for you, shall I? DTHUREGRIF: The way that is most likely to be read is 'child nudity or sex' with both the words nudity and sex tying back to the word child Nope, that's your assumption. By the time he gets to the word "sex", he's off child porn and talking about Rotica. Repeating myself, I know how this guy writes. Apparently some of you don't. Stormrage: Most of them would even take offense at being brought up in this conversation I'm sure they would. But let's not kid ourselves when we talk about Renderotica and "Lifestylers" (and where did this term come from? Jeez, we're all "lifestylers".). While most of the images at R'otica are pretty tame, there are some that even I look at and wonder just what the heck the "artist" considers erotic. Tiger's right: some of them are frightening to people outside the "Lifestyle"... hell, I'd bet to some people inside the "Lifestyle", for that matter. So you're surprised at his reaction? You are doing the same thing you accuse us of by assuming that you know the intent to his words I've had enough communication in the past with him to know how he writes. That's good enough for me. Not for any of you? Sorry. Jack: This overturning of the law was not to open a door to Pornographer's to create virtual child porn, but to actually have authorities make sure that a crime was INDEED committed I'm not sure I agree, Jack. It sent the law back to Congress for re-writing, but until that is done, it has indeed opened the door to kiddie-porn made on the computer, because until Congress says otherwise, it's now perfectly legal to make and distribute kid-porn made through CG means. And while you guys are bashing Tiger's writing style, no one seems interested in that simple little fact. Tell me, Jack, what would you do if you found a CG film of your daughter's rape travelling around the internet? Write it off because there's no victim? People want to do CG films of rape and worse? Fine with me. Go for it and waste the pixels, not to mention the time involved. But the minute you involve kids, no matter who you are, no matter if those kids are "real" or not, you have crossed the line. And I'm personally appalled at the celebratory mood over this law being shot down. Yeah, maybe it went too far. Maybe it was vague. But it was a helluva lot better than nothing at all, which is exactly what we have right now, gang. Someone can take the Poser baby and Vicky with a strapon and put together a rape film that would curl your hair and do so with complete impunity. And that doesn't bother any of you because they're not real?