I don't want my freedom to express myself with virtual images of children who might be nude considered a federal offense equivalent to using real children. Recommend we write our congresspoeple SOON. Any other comments? Thanks, Pizzaman

If you use those children in sexual-lude-expliotatious-demeening manner then yes it should be banned...if they clearly depict children (I am not talking fairies here you know they have wings and all) in these manners then it is sick and not art...people do this under the guise of 'art' but in truth it is only to get their rocks off.

I think it's the broad room for interpretation that's the real problem. Finding The Line between innocent and pornographic is purely subjective in far too many cases. After all, look at all the flap about adult nudity in the galleries, much less naked children. Defining pornography is something that I doubt will ever be resolved to the satisfation of everyone. Sure, it's next to impossible to please everyone at once, but this one has been argued for years. When it comes to our children, the need for a definition is much stronger, but no less subjective. At one time, I posted a pic of my 5 year old in her underwear. Sounds bad, right? She was standing on her head on the couch, showing off and being silly. It was cute. Parents thought it was cute. It was a Kid Thing. And I got called down by others for posting it, because my child wasn't fully dressed. The only thing "wrong" with it was her lack of complete clothing, yet I was told that I was encouraging pedophiles. I was so horrified by just the thought that I removed the picture. It wasn't that I agreed, but that I was suddenly and completely horrified that anyone would look at my baby in THAT light. Put that now into perspective of CGI. If someone posted a picture created with the same pose and kid underwear, being Purely An Innocent Kid Doing Kid Things, is that wrong or dangerous? Should that be considered as encouraging pedophilia? Some people think it is, and that's the problem with legislation. Obviously, I'm a parent. I worry about my children. I don't think that being naked is wrong, hell, it's a natural state for young children, especially when they just start learning how to undress and dress themselves. I don't want my children to be afraid of or embarassed by their bodies. But I don't want some pervert taking advantage of them either. I also don't want a badge knocking on my door to arrest me because I took a picture of my child in her underwear while she was being goofy. I don't want them knocking on my parents door because Grandma, who is too far away to see them often, was sent a package of pictures of her kids being kids. The "broad brush" approach to legislation SHOULD worry people. Finding The Line is vital.

Very, very, very well said Crypto!! Jack

Making pictures of nude children is not a guaranteed right under the Constitution, whether or not it's common practice in some groups of people. "Dubya" and Ashcroft will listen to legal advice and come up with a proposal on a new "pedophile image law" that is specific enough to get through Congress and withstand court challenges, if they can keep their heads straight and counter the fallacies promoted by pedophile apologists and anti-pedophile extremists.

But where do they draw the line that a rendered child looks too realistic? Give him a green skin tone but nothing else is changed, that's okay because real kids don't have green skin? It's not that I have a problem with them banning child pornography... I have kids and want them protected. The problem is that someone out there is still going to say the fairies are a criminal offense, and laws like these can be used as excuses for witch-hunts. The wording had better be absolutely specific that the rendered child could be mistaken for a real living child. No room for interpretation... show the image to ten adults and ask them if the image is of a real child. If the majority say yes, then it's a punishable image. That way, if someone puts a fairy with wings who looks young standing nude at the edge of a waterfall, the artist is in the clear. You know, even that is wrong... who's to say a rendered fairy looks too young? Can you 100% accurately tell someone's age by looking at them? How many times have you been in a mall and seen what must be 16 year old girls who dress and act 30? I still get carded for cigarettes and booze and I just turned 34. Where the law is involved, and with something as reputation damaging as an accusation of pornography, there has to be no room for interpretation, or potential bias. There's a movie with Madelaine Stowe called "Closet Land" which paints a terrifying picture of what it would be like to live in a society where artists can be arrested, interrogated, tortured, etc. just for creating their art (she was a children's book writer/illustrator). Watch this movie and then tell me you want to live in a country where people can tell us what to render. Put the onus on the criminal who wants to view these types of images and jerk off, not on all artists who render children nude. They am not responsible for, or encouraging, the mis-firing synapses of a pedophile.

I'm really hoping that they do come up with something firm on the issue. I have a fairly open mind, and when I am shocked or offended by something, it has to be Bad. And I've been shocked and offended far too often. That scares me. I want my kids to be safe. I want OTHER children to be safe. I'm scared to watch the news with them. I don't want them to see what's going on out there. I know, however, that no matter how much I try to protect them, it isn't universal or guaranteed. The people that get hurt in the meantime on either side -- children, or artists with purely innocent intentions -- are too many getting hurt. Period. I can only hope that when they do draw that line, logic prevails.

Dang... took so long penning my missive that three people posted in the process. Heh, what I get for doing second and third drafts :P Tilandra

I had the same reaction after seeing your post. :)

Very well stated Tilandra.

...Because your freedom is: "freedom to express myself with virtual images of children"...???!!!!!!!! ...And.computer-generated images about "innocent pedophily" is a good thing which has to be authorized ???!!! Are you kidding me ? Well, you don't say "naked chilren "...am I catching your idea well ? Do you mean "naked children images" ? This, a ......"freedom" ??? Because THIS had something to do with THAT...and I have to tell you something: ANY naked children images shouldn't be allowed to be published. Because it's preconizing and encouraging one of the worst criminality in the wold: Pedophilia. (and you wouldn't even suggest you could be one of them, right ? I think you 've got some of a psycho sick sexual perturbance and disorders in the case of: if ever you think of any "Virtual naked children images freedom of..." should be free to be published anywhere ! Shame on you. Go in any Cathedral or Church and try to j... off peeping the winged little naked Angels on the ceilings and the walls, and tell me if they arouse you !!! Good luck. But absolutely: NO to any kind of public naked chil image anywhere. If there's something NEVER to complain about, then it is to "ask for the "freedom" "to draw naked children". Come on ! That's not innocent.... I don't say that to support JohnAshcpft, because I really think he doesn't care AT ALL about pedophilia and pedophiles. It's just a pretext for him and G.W. B. Team Guys to keep people like me and so many others opponents to their horrble politics, policies and Laws from opening their mouth and shut up with political images, because these "Democrats of_my_a..hole" know that they are part of a "new" dictature for USA_The G.W. B.'s one, and they want everybody who's not in "their line" to shut up and not in their way, they know it would wake people thirsty of Justice and freedom going to revolt against this bunch of Mafiosi. That's the new America we have with Bush.Because they are not only the worst thing for USA, but they are rotten enough cowards and don't even accept any public political debates with adversaires.It's also going in the same way of restraining Liberties in the US. _Free Speech is their enemy. Not Pedophilia. _Now, you can be "virtually" a criminal pedophile monster. You won't never be prosecuted. But you will be forbiddenby the Martial or Suprme Court and put in jail if you dare say or think somehing against their "way"Talking about John Ascroft like me an so many who have begun to wake and revolt aginst G.W.B. tyranny and Coup. That means you will have the right to be a pedophile and that the CHRISTIANS ARE GOING TO BE PERSECUTED AGAIN BECAUSE ONE PRIEST was a wackoo, and one only Archishop's Power and his demential criminal attitude to support te Boston Monster-Priest are enough to condamn a whole religion: We are back to the tie where the Jewish Sahnedrins make the Idiotic Roman Emeror Pilates condamn Jesus, and force him to say such imbeciles thing like admitting "He was the King of the Jews".... _In your very strange "Catholic" American Church (The Protestant Church too, an so many other imbeciles"sects" and other "Happy Christians_who aren't Christians, they just think they are...) the pedophiles will stay free, (I don't say you are, but showing pictures of naked children...: You don't temptate the Devil, Man you must not even provoke these things. the People liberators Che Guevaras and others are the Enemies, because you think they are Commies "Devils", you know, with so many wackoos we have in US and everywhere. I am a Christian, but, you know, the Law should be the same for EVERY citizen, even if you are a priest abusing children in Boston, or his supporter the Boston Archbishop, well they should be both in jail for life. Same if they were rabbies or mollahs. or atheists propagandists. Sme crime, same law => death penalty of life-jail for pedophiles, or the ones who discreetly show ANY images of naked children in public, or emulates potential sexual wackoo-sexual behavior like when you seem to say that publishing your children "images" is a "freedom". _Freedom is not doing ANYTHING mad and stupidly sick: Freedom is doing what we must want to do, and don't do what we must not want to do. Political digresion ((( on purpose, because Democraty is not to accept, admit, support or not punish in the name of "freedom", any kind of crime, any kind of abuse, and any kind of event "happened here in USA" _talking here about G.W. B. crooked falsified "Election", which is an offense AGAINST Democraty. Id you are for Liberty , you keep the guys like him away from any Power, because they are aginst Democraty: You don't help them, siiting there like water-melons, to make your country become a Nazi-Attica State at the White House; No, you invade themedias, you protest with millions people in the streets everyday, you revolt, and you recover a free America. The one we all want ! F... the "would-be" Republicans; I talke dto one of them:"We have chosen the best from amongst the worst ones, but He is a Rublican !" How retarded and moron is that ???!!!))) =>Political digression: So, if AShcroft "forbids" you don't worry, he can't, because he's a d..h -bag _, he will forbid my or all the other one's opponent political images & comments. That was always why artists and free thinkers were the victims of dictators. Pinochet that USA's C.I.A. and NixN's Govt. helped with his fascist pusch (Coup) in Chili in 1973....everything against "communism"...what a joke:Everything for fascism, hidden nazism and support to zionist racist like A. Sharogne....These are the "Democratic" Men and Feminazis elected people for you and me. _This thing about Ashcroft shows once again the determined Hypocrisy of these guys giving you lectures and "forbidding you" to draw pictures of naked children, and in the same time doing nothing against 0,02 % of mentally and sexually-deviated persons, It's not the whole Catholic Church which does such ugly things as the Boston priest, only a tiny bunch of sick bastards that you could find in any other community (precisely in the Political world middle). _My real thought about that point is that too is just another old zionist pretext for their conspiracy against the Christians that they can't stand and hate so much,as they hate Arabs: I mean, trying to discredit the Christianity. That doesn't mean, once again: 1) _That I hate Jewish people. Just SOME THAT NEVER GIVE UP IN THEIR FANATISM in their belief wanting to take over any other rkind of humans than Judaists. But there clairvoyant good people inIsrael, and be sure of that: These ones are against their Leader A. Sharogne, This guy I hate, and his supporters should be banned from the world if we want to get peace on earth. and halas, the good people inIsraeloranywhere else do't have the Political Power , and don't lead the countries "Under the fallacious pretext that they aren't "The Majority" and Established Mafiosi-StateMen, and still doesn't remain to any reasonable minded person that this State has anything to do yet with a democraty. It is a Thocraty, like the Ayatollah States that they hate,,,they are't better than their enemies. (They need an "Edit de Nantes" la Franise separating any religious power from any political power, to have a "sane' Israel. Talking about the religious Israeli parliament: The Likkud...what a dirty joke ! )...Israeli emocrats want laicity and freedom too. Not Zion. But they have no power yet. We'll send friends. (UNited Nations,I hope, wil help ick A. Sharon out !) 2) It doen't mean either that I think that showing "child-porn" even if it's only suggested...by the images and not really "shown" nudity should be SEVERRELY CONTROLLED and absolutely forbidden in ANY public place, (on the Web first ) and other places and these sick-sexual- wackoo guys NOT in jail or more. Tbe "Devil" o the "Beast" , any religion's Hollly Book you choose is always telling that the other one is the "Devil' and the "Beast", the "Devil" or the Beast always deny they are the Devil" or the 'Beast", the enemy isalways the "Axis of Evil forthe Bestial Corrupted zionist and ugly Dictators in this world. We' ll get rifd of them, and of the pedophiles too (priests or not). Alf.

Jesus, Alf, is it possible for you to write a post that ISN'T a novel? I mean I write long posts also, I only hope people don't skim through my posts like I just did with yours. Also, though I think this problem is world wide, I shudder at the thought that you bring so much religon into this subject... the "devil made me do it" principle went out of style a long time ago. The choice to molest a child is not a sickness, it is not satan taking over a body, spiritual corruption, the result of poor parenting... it is a choice and a bad one. The failure to act like a civilized human being, PERIOD. Your rant only shows the true horror which could happen if this law isn't revised properly. One subjected with a bunch of Billy Graham mumble jumble just isn't going to cut it. Jack

From what I gathered after skimming Liftan's post, he is precisely the type of person I'm worried about... the people who have a preconceived notion that all nudity is BAD... that children shown nude in renders are intended for LEWD purposes. I get tons of flak from fundementalist religious fanatics over my choice of religion... that's bad enough. Now I have to worry about what I render too? Yes, what I choose to render and put forth as an image is my ART, and if I want to have 200 nude babies gathered at the feet of an angel surrounded by fluffy white clouds, you probably wouldn't bat an eye... but they're NUDE. Are you starting to get my point? THAT's why the wording has to be very specific, because you'd allow that image because it fits your religious beliefs. If I rendered the same 200 nude babies gathered at the feet of the Lord and Lady (pagan representations) surrounded by a forest glade, you'd probably denouce the image because it doesn't fit your religious beliefs. I don't want anyone to tell me what I can or cannot render, it's as simple as that. There's too much room for personal bias as to what's bad and what's okay. Tilandra

Tilandra you rock!

Long winded incoherent babbling makes little sense, is decidedly NOT profound, and convinces no one. Pity the poor persecuted religious fantics who burn those evil witches at the stake, is that it? It is those demented types who conjure up ideas of jacking off to naked babies in church that are the really scary ones- very few normal people would even think of such things, much less expose their own deviance by prattling on about it in a public forum. Don't worry too much though, those people's mentality is obvious, and luckily they only have internet day at the asylum once a month. :)

Heh, just an opinionated woman saying what she thinks, Thorne :) Tilandra

...Woman ? Okay, if it's a mother, as I said, who finds that naked babies and their cute little butts are adorable. Then it would be okay... Now, about publishing them ? _Well, then I'd still say:"Cute adorable babies butts" can "arouse" and make some sick sexually deviated bastards horney and give them sick criminal ideas Wanting FOR "MORE", though ! _That's why I's still be against it, because it's maybe (never knows) encuraging and give opportunities to pedophilia to express its monstruous "freedom"... ..Because you don't show things that can be used by criminals.(pedophiles) THAT WAS MY POINT. Now this lady (if it's really a woman, other question....!!!!) does what she wants: I tell you, she or "he" (if it is 'HE", then I say: "kill him, kil him, kill him !") won't be prosecuted: John Ashcroft has lost his cause: His project for this one Law of his has been refused and refuted by the High Court. Alf.

So, Liftan, are you saying that anything that could provoke sinful behavior should be banned? If so, then should we not ban religion itself? I agree that pedophilia is sick, perverse, and should be punished strongly. But I don't think that there is a clear line that is crossed. Just because a picture of a kid doing a kid thing might arouse a sicko, doesn't mean that the sicko wouldn't have been aroused no matter what the kid was wearing.

First of all, Liftan, you are proving my point over and over that biased people are dangerous. You are projecting your own beliefs onto other people as to what is acceptable behavior. If a mom thinks a baby's butt is adorable, that's okay? What about a dad? I know plenty of proud dads who think their kid splashing in the kiddie pool is adorable. But you think the moms are okay but the dads are pervs? What a load of sexist crap! Read some of Anne Rice's books that aren't about vampires and then tell me a woman can't be a perv too.

Yes, I am a WOMAN. I am not like 50% of the other so called females on message boards who are 40 year old, beer-gut slinging men getting their jollies off. Trying to create doubt about my true sex is just a silly tactic.

Also, that last paragraph of yours sounds suspiciously like a death threat, Liftan. I'd be very careful how you speak to people on any public forum. Death threats especially are taken very seriously.

My whole point through this entire thread is that people are not meant to sit in judgement of other people when it comes to artistic expression. Doesn't your religion teach that, "Judge ye not, lest ye be judged"? You are not qualified to sit and pass judgement on my beliefs, my artistic expression, or anything else. If this country decides they want to tell me how to express myself artistically, I take exception to that whether or not I will ever choose to express myself that way. Get the picture? I will never, ever, create a picture that could be considered pornographic. I don't go for that sort of thing. However, I don't want anyone saying I can be put in jail if I ever do so. Because when they start saying you can't render this, and you can't render that, pretty soon the only art we'll have are velvet Elvis paintings and cute pictures of kitty cats.

Tilandra

You cannot legislate away everything that could possibly used by a criminal to commit a crime, even if it is a heinous crime. The airplanes used to destroy the WTC were hijacked using BOX CUTTERS. Does that mean that every supermarket stockboy should be suspect? Or that they now have to use plastic spoons to open boxes? geez...

CryptoPooka and Tilandra have made excellent points here. This other person does sound somewhat seriously disturbed and while making wild accusations, is making no sense whatsoever, and should probably just be left alone with his sick and perverted thoughts of babies and churches.

If you get a chance to read the new proposed legislation on pedophile images, you'll see it's very specific. It outlaws real or fake depictions of children engaged in sex acts, so unless your naked fairies or naked babies are doing that, they'll be legal. Don't let the extremists scare you. That's what made the COPA fail the first time - the Clinton administration and the Congress were so confused by extremist-fringe fallacies and their absurd analogies that they made a law that couldn't stand. One other point that is germane: if you attack each other, use "ad hominem" arguments and threats, make ludicrous analogies and call each other names, at that point you've shown your desperation. Keep a cool head if you want to win this argument.

That sounds about like the same as it is now concerning actual photographic images as well. As long as the images are not sexual, or portraying the lewd display of genitals, then artistic nudity is not illegal, even if the subject "appears" to be a minor. I applaud our Supreme Court for making the distinctions that it has. I know many people have described it as "Pedophile's Rights", but they are truly missing the point. It is EVERYONE'S rights to not be arrested under some "catch-all" kind of policy, and it is never a good thing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. Thank you for the information. :)

Repost of a reply I posted in OT about the same thing. Source of quote is http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-896910.html which was referenced by that thread: To me it has nothing to do with "defending pedophile behavior". Pedophiles hurt REAL children and deserve eternal punishment for doing it. This is the attitude that truly bothers me (Ashcroft in that article): "In a world in which virtual images are increasingly indistinguishable from reality, prosecutors are now forced to prove that sexually explicit images involving children were, in fact, produced through the abuse of children, an extremely difficult task in today's worldwide Internet child pornography market." Gee, its too hard for us to find actual crimes and criminals, so we want to be able to prosecute anything that might be a crime or anyone who might be a criminal and screw the proof. A digital rendering that looks like a child is not a child. An adult actor portraying a child is not a child. Ashcroft doesn't want to be bothered by those kinds of little technicalities. He simply wants free rein to go after anyone he wants without being bothered by "proof" or "fact" (his words, not mine). That is wrong, and I oppose any effort to make suspicion that a crime may have taken place sufficent grounds for punishment. If even the lowest form of scum is not "innocent until PROVEN guilty", none of us have any freedom.

I still don't like it. Here's why: Say you're displaying a fairy or baby model in the Showcase forum. R'osity says you have to cover the genitals or put a nudity tag on it. Since you want the most people possible to see your new product, you cover the genitals with the most convenient thing... the model's hand. We've seen these kinds of poses a thousand times here. Uh-oh, better make sure those fingers are positioned just so, or the image could be interpreted as masturbatory. You see what I'm getting at? There is *always" room for interpretation. I still say what people render should not be a criminal act, just because a few pixels are in the wrong place. Tilandra

What makes pedophile images so bad that they ought to be banned? The fact that they depict children in sexual acts alone? It is a fact that there are people around who like this. Banning such pics will not erase their sexual taste. I think that we can quickly agree that the really bad thing about pedophile pictures is the process of making them. Children are abused by making them. Thats the really bad part of it. Having virtual pics of that kind is like introducing a substitute drug for addicts. It contains the problem and prevents criminal acts. Therefore I think we should allow people to produce and view such pics which can be made without hurting real children. It is simply counterproductive to ban a substitute if you want to combat the real thing. Vices do exist. You cannot undo this per decree. CGI is therefore something that will rather protect chidren from real harm than hurt them. If you don't want to view such pics thats a totally different matter. We can tackle this by terms of service of forums and the like. Let them do their stuff in their restricted playgrounds where they cannot hurt real world people.

Lookoo: The problem with that is, virtual child porn is not Nicorette for the pedophile... it isn't going to wean him off the real thing. And the problem with sex offenders is that images are only going to increase their desire for real experiences, not decrease. However, we are debating artist's freedom here, not the virtue of virtual child pornography. I will defend your right to create whatever virtual image you like that doesn't involve the use of living models. That doesn't mean I like the images, or would allow them in my house. Legume shows a good example. These cherubs have physical contact, there is a kiss involved, and genitals are showing. This type of thing would probably get an artist arrested, when interpreted by a zealous prosecutor under the new proposed law. At the very least, the person would be brought up on charges. Even if the case was dismissed, the damage is done to the artist's reputation. Victor Salva, who directed "Powder" and "Jeepers, Creepers" is a convicted pedophile. This transgression has followed him for years, (as it should, in my opinion) but imagine if someone were merely accused of peddling or creating pedophile images? Salva had protestors gathered at the opening of "Jeepers" in an attempt to keep people from supporting a pedophile, even though the subject matter of that film involved no children whatsoever. The stigma of such a thing could follow an artist for the rest of their lives. Do we really want a government attaching such a stigma to the art we create here at R'osity simply because we use the human form? Tilandra

...Anyway, JOHN Ashcroft's Law won't be applied. But I repeat it: Ashcroft or our "clever" President ARE NOT CONCERNED about pedophilia, and what they can say or want to legislate is b...-s..t ! Theydon't care, just theyshow themselves "moral & clean' Order, just for the Show... _The prof of what I am saying that our great President G.W. Bunch -of-S..t refused to say anything like bad comments about the new "coming-up" of fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen running in second place for France president ! This is to tell you HOW MUCH G.W. and Ashcroft are concerned by stopping the real trash in this world. _But, at the opposite, read what Tony Blair, who'd got "b..ls" said about it. Reall, we need brave guys like him here in USA, not the Smirk. Let's kick them out NOW !...Like we did with Richard NixN, and it wouldn't be enough, because G.W> B. & his team are real Felons. Milosevitch or Caucescu Trial STYLE FOR THEM , from the Americans ! and millions people in the streets of Wshington and evry town of USA to REQUEST their condamnation. I think there's only this solution, or either our bIG Country will be soon a parking-lot...You have no idea of what's going on if you don't know at least THIS as a true eventuality, possibility, and even certitude... Sory for the long speech, but I think we have to do it if "we love our American children too."...and not in a pedophile way, no, for keeping Freedom & Liberty for them, at least ! Alf.

Hey why hasn't legume's image above been deleted yet? That's a lot more child genitalia than I posted in my image...

The problem I find with any kind of laws against child nudity is that those laws will apply to real art as well as any kind of sick demented child porn. If ashcroft has his way then people like Anne Ghette will have a real problem when it comes to the images they create.

Answring last Message from Lonifer: _Okay, I was totally wrong, there are no pedophiles, no nazis, no hate, no zionists-racists, neither here on Renderosity not anywhere eldse. Our world is absolutely perfect and yiu are right, nobody has to stand any critiscism at all from noboy, because everybody too, is perfect, in a Brave new world as well here as in the rest of the worls that runs so so round. I don't even see why I (or you) allowed me or anybody who doesn't think exactly like you to be so arrogant with such a paradise in which we are all living. Is that okay ? Bye. Alf.

Same message to the other ones. _I suppose I have to ask myself "How can I sleep at night , because I should be dead to think SO WRONG. ...You certainly have never the single doubt about the perfection of what you think, and the perfect world we are living here, I suppose. I didn't make these pix to please everybody. Sorry. Agreeing amongst ONLY friends cannot teach you always much. But if this is the only thing you can take, I understand everybody has his own limits. Bye. Friendly to the ones who understood what I tried to mean, though, and sorry for the other ones. Alf.

Liftan, not everything is so deeply political.

Every breath you take stinks or will stink, or will stop because of stinkinh politics & politicians, excuse me, Madame, Monsieur, and nothing else. I have to do my jounalist's job somwhere because USA expect a strange guest today. Bad news from Collin Powell.. I have to mail to China Russia, and 56 countries which disaprove USA Decision today.. (LOL..false or true ?....Guess !) _Are you please stopping to write to me ? Are you in love with me ? ..I beg you to stop writing to me. I don't know you. Are you so pretty ? I am 55 years old, you know, and I'm already married and fidel, my wife has the nasty habit to love me, and I have the nasty habit to love her... sorry...Kendra, I love you but. I've no time. And my heart is taken. (LOL) _yOIU KNOW, IT'S JUST A HOBBY FOR ME TO DO POLITICAL CARTOONS, IN REALITY my real job is journalist. _I got no more time for you. See my new "updated " cartoons if you want to geR angry a little bit more against me! (LOL) About stopping writing to me, I am serious.I MEAN it. Thanks. Alf.

...And because I too totally don't care of what SOME of you can say here on thi funny forums...!!! From now on, Iwill only answer to the ones who don't comment and who don't answer (it is up to me anyway...Not my business whether or not if ONLY SOME somnifered ones are not happy.) Please don't "Email me when someone replies" !!!!! (in other french words: "Ariela old nazi Sharogne, hey listen ! Tais-toi quand tu parles".(Shut up when you talk) !LOL) ...Learning a little bit french can't be bad...if it'sjust for fun. You should be glad_ only for this reason, halas, but it's always a good sign..!!!) that "God", certainly_ as far as I know (LOL)_ has chosen long ago American-English as the only Language for the present and the future world to come up (not in Heaven, no, here on Earth !) I think it would be a first good thing to understand if the Beesh Govt. doesn't understand nothing else...And you know it doesn't. ...If nobody has the right to laugh about anything, this world is lost, anyway... Salut. Alf.

Are you for real?
In love with you? Not on your life. As far as "writing to you", this is a forum and if you are getting emails with each response to your posts, then uncheck that little box down below.

If you're going to turn every single discussion into a deep political discussion involving every single political opinion you have on every political subject.... well expect someone to say enough is enough.

Once in a while is fine, but every post?

Well, I still think that if ashcroft and bush get their way they had better remove all those classic paintings from all american museums. Because it will start with images that are realistic and then include those like Legume posted because it can be used to convince a child that it is ok. Why only CG work? Eventually that will expand to pen and ink and charcoal (on the grounds of who may have modeled for it) and then on to oils and sculpture. Children, fairies, nude women and such have always been a part of art. Will they next declare that all nudes are pornographic by the same standards? Furthermore what kind of fanatics are they listening to? I spent years cruising the boylover boards as part of an online watchdog group, over and over the comments to each other were about how they enjoyed the "natural" images of kids they found on the web. Not the nude bathtub images (although they did like them when they could find them) or the school photos. What they enjoyed the most were the kids at play having a good time images. Because they show the essence of childhood. So by these thoughts - all images of children being natural should be banned because those are what pedophiles enjoy as well. What about the mother arrested a few years ago because she took naked pictures of her child streaking through the house and the photo developing company got all fanatical about it and she was charged for taking "pornographic photos" of her child. It's all just so ridiculous, and I say this as someone who not only actively seeks to make others aware - both through an online site but also by going after School websites not to post personal information of children, but also as a victim of sexual abuse as a child. Sounds like if they have their way there will be witchhunts over this and the burning of images outside museums. It is a dangerous line they tread. Moving this country more towards dictatorship then freedom, because this law will declare that it knows what people are "thinking" when they create an image with a child sized model. Do I think that images of children involved in sexual acts should be illegal - you betcha! But where will that line be? A kiss, a hug maybe holding hands?