Especially to those who post an image in the Poser forum and have to endure the (somewhat) abusive comments because they disagreed with the lack of a nudity tag Not to mention the abusive commments we have to endure on the other side -- eh, Chuck?

Even if the Classic mode was in someone else's name, it should still open. I just wonder if there's insufficient memory to run both OSX and Classic and Poser at once. Alternatively, you might want to do a clean install of the harddrive -- put in the first system installation disk, then go to Control Panels, then StartUp Disk, and switch to the CD. Restart. Install the operating system -- at some point, it'll ask you if you want to do a clean install, which means you'll be completely wiping the system off and starting over (It won't touch your applications, BTW). Once you do this, you can reconfigure the system to your name and any password you might want to put on for network purposes. Go to Control Panels again and change the startup for the hard drive. Restart again; this time, the machine's OS will kick in. Now, once that's done -- go into your Poser. Click once on the application icon. A window will come up with information about the app. There's a drop down about halfway down that will allow you to reset the memory requirements. Throw as much as you can at Poser, because the default is worthless. Try it again and see if it works. In theory, unless you have an absurdly small amount of RAM available, it should do it. Bear in mind, finally, that OSX takes 128 megs to run, so you may not have a lot left over for any apps.

And so the IQ of this place slips yet a few more points. Figures. It wouldn't be so annoying save that we didn't see this kind of nonsense over the vast preponderance of images glorifying death and guns and weaponry, not to mention casual sex and objectification of women -- and since we're all supposed to be so enlightened and open to dialogue, would someone kindly point me to the threads where those are discussed in a mature way? Instead, anytime those issues are raised, look at the responses, kids, and show me where those posts get deleted "because they're not following the proper protocols of respect for our fellow members." But bring this one up and nope: we have to look at it with compassion and understanding for the other person's opinion, no matter how Jurassic it might be. I'm sure there's an explanation for this. Anyone want to give it a try? Just make it probable, okay?

After all the hoopla, this thing had better not just perform but make damn good julienne fries as well.

holier-than-thou Yeah, uh-huh, right. Spare me, huh? Moving on...

Cool!!!!! Thanks! These look like a blast!

Screw it. You guys don't seem to give a damn about anything than your precious "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION", so do whatever the hell you want, which you will anyway. This really is no different from the whiny little jerk who bitched that he couldn't post seven pics in one day, because if they did, they'd get lost in the shuffle of everyone else posting theirs, and he just didn't like that (to be read with an appropriate stamping of the foot). Now we have a bunch of people who think their unfettered right to all the naked tit they can watch is being oppressed and restricted and subject to censorship, which is probably the biggest piece of horseswallow to be posted in here in a really long time. So tap dance around the subject and make all the cutsie little posts you can. The simple fact remains: SHE'S NAKED. THE NUDITY BUTTON APPLIES. Don't like it? Go to Renderotica and give the rest of us a freaking break.

You people freaking amaze me, you know that? ONE LAST TIME: IS SHE WEARING ANY CLOTHES? Uh, no. THEN SHE'S NAKED. Good christ, is that so difficult to understand? Whether or not I'm a mod or an oppressive Nazi or anything else is really irrelevant. SHE'S NAKED, KIDS. SHE'S NOT WEARING ANY CLOTHES. SO THE DAMN NUDITY BUTTON APPLIES. Good lord, with 200,000 members, I find it difficult to believe the collective IQ would drop this low.

Sometimes it's a little better to have it black and white than a whole bunch of greys that make everything so muddy you can't tell anything at all.

Look, guys, it's really simple, so I'll write it once more: Is she wearing anything? No. Then she's naked. Hit the nudity flag. Discussion on that matter closed. Now, let's look at the other side of the coin, as was suggested earlier in this thread. Someone looks at Geo's original thread and posts an image of a naked chick that doesn't have the discrete covering of arms and well-placed legs and doesn't bother to hit the nudity flag since, "Well, Geo didn't, so why should I?" Shall we continue that particular point to its logical conclusion? We become another renderotica. If that's what you want, go there. How difficult is that? >> The picture is question broke NONE of these rules Hey, was anyone talking about SEXUAL CONDUCT? Gosh, no -- we were talkijng about whether or not the young lady in the original thread was NAKED. Which she WAS. Wow. What an insight. >> You are actually not allowed to treat people disrespectfully in this forum<?i> If it's stupid like a duck, I'm gonna call it a duck. Sorry if that upsets anyone (including the ducks). But after reading this thread on the heels of the similarly absurd one over "Well, gee, Mom, why can't I post more than one image a day?????" whine-fest, I'm tired of obtuseness being passed off as victimhood. "I'm politically oppressed when I have to hit the nudity flag!" -- oh, please, spare me. Hit the damn button, then get a life and move on, huh? Until the mods decide to change that particular rule, it's in effect FOR EVERYONE, even the politically oppressed.

. And then suffer the attacks of those who accuse a person of putting a nudity flag on a post (when it didn't really need it) of placing the nudity tag there to gain "extra attention". I've certainly seen that kind of attack as well. ... which is just as stupid, AFAIC. Insofar as people jumping on poor, misunderstood Geo, consider his post above, in which he rants about political oppression. Take a look at some of the wonders in the original thread, who considered the simple request of asking that the rules be followed to be some kind of black-shirt Hitlerism at operation. Sorry, folks, but this is a non-issue. The chick was naked, pure and simple. I don't give a wuss if the "naughty bits" were covered or not. She's naked. Use the damn button. And if you have to use it just to get someone to read your otherwise lame post, then a pox on you as well. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. :)

Must have been a server glitch on my end. Working fine now. Thanks, guys.

One of the main points for me about the nudity falg is that for YOUR censorship you want me to ACTIVELY click the button Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Wake me when the pseudo-political rhetoric is over. >> isn't the bottom line that if everyone involved had used a little more common sense and courtesy What? Are you insane? We're artists! Common sense? Courtesy? Those are lesser beings, thank you! :)

Nudity flags should be set based on, well, ACTUAL NUDITY! .... which, duh, the picture showed. I swear, some people just seem intent on not getting it. Is she wearing any clothes? No. Then she's nude. That wasn't so difficult, was it? I didn't think so. You people seem to think the nudity flag is some kind of brand of prudish shame, to be avoided at all costs in the quest for individual expression (Add a few exclamation points if you want to make that phrase more effective.). Hate to disappoint you, but it ain't. It's just a signifier, nothing more. It lets the browser know in advance what to expect, nothing more. Folks around here have been using the nudity flag for as long as I've been a member here, and no one ever wrote in the threads, "Have you no shame! You used the nudity flag!" Jesus, people, are things so boring out there that you're reduced to bitching when someone points out the model isn't wearing any clothes?

this has been such a great series. Thanks for all the wonderful stuff!