It's generally so easy to adjust by hand it's not worth cluttering up your computer with more pose files.

Why stop there? You could go on and say that you disbelieve in the theory of relativity, quantum physics and the rest. These scientists - what they say is just their opinion and who trusts them to get anything right?

"Keeping themselves to themselves" looks OK on paper. Apartheid looked OK on paper ("separate development" seems innocuous). The devil is in the detail, as apartheid demonstrated.

My understanding is that fan art use of characters like Batman is acceptable in a completely non-commercial context only. So a free comic, posted on a free site with no commercial aspect, would be permitted. (As an example, the Heroine Comics site.) But if the site was partly commercial (e.g. it had a store, like this site), then one would be in danger.

Quote - > Quote - And "because I like it" is not sufficient reason.

Actually I think you'll find that is the BEST & ONLY reason anything can be called Art.

Absolutely not. In that case, tea is Art, because I like tea. Anything is Art, and the term becomes useless.

The criterion for Art is profundity of expression. Art is what transcends the trivial. I think some people here need to read some serious Art criticism.

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.

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.

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.

Quote - Art is conceptual, it is in the eye of the beholder.  What one person finds as art another will see as trash.  I feel because of this our children should be taught the basics but not graded on it.  And the same goes for people who use Poser, D|S, Bryce or any of the other 3D programs out there.

If WE all liked the same type of things this world would be a very dull place.  

You are making the familiar error of confusing "what you like" and Art. Art is not in the eye of the beholder. Something does not become Art just by someone saying "It's Art". It may do if that person can then say why it's Art. And "because I like it" is not sufficient reason.

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.

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 - Um, Kawecki, I hate to burst your bubble, but there is no recorded history of a time before political correctness existed. Read almost any piece of ancient literature to verify this :)

On the other hand, read a few English novels written in the first quarter of the 20th century and you may be taken aback by the casual antisemitism and racism.

Quote -
If you really, really can't resist the unrequested critique, perhaps a private pm might be a better alternative than what amounts to public ingratitude.

I don't think it's "public ingratitude" at all. I think a pm would be worse, because one can dash off a forum reply with less effort than making a pm, and a pm is more directed and personal - so to my mind the forum post is "lighter".

However, I agree with xantor, I've seen trees just as scrawny as this one. It looks good to me.

Happy Christmas!

Quote - I believe Karen was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "dirigible-boobed" comment. 
Basically, posting an image that glorifies any atrocity committed by man is going to get removed.  It doesn't matter if it was committed by the Nazi's, Romans, Egyptians, Crusaders, Or other soldiers of any other nation, creed, etc.  If you want to create an image specifically created to glorify that sort of violence, that's your business.  Posting it here will most likely result in its' removal and a warning on your member record.

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. But take away the words, and the image alone is ambiguous. It could be construed as for or against. The same picture would make equal sense with the words "FACES OF EVIL" over it.