snicker I'm not certain that was fair to camels, spin.

Quote - That doesn't make me a liar

Actually, it does. And I do have the manners and social grace of a rabid skunk when dealing with someone like you. I'm quite happy with that. ;] Kinda hard to insult me with "annoying", when I work at being so, and "little" when it's inaccurate. Your site does "market" celebrity likenesses, in multiple senses of the word "market". That makes your statements false, and your subsequent spinning of that makes you a liar. You may be safe in gambling that Pfeiffer and Ryan aren't likely to visit the RMP and that Renderosity won't have to explain their definitions of marketing to their representatives. Fortunate.

Quote - I reckon I have another 50 or so years to go before I start suffering the terrible and depressing symptoms of that disease.

That leaves less flattering excuses for your behavior, then. ;] > Quote - None of the examples given above are marketed as lookeylikeys.

When in doubt, hairsplit innaccurately? :) They're recognizeably "lookeylikeys" - celebrity lookalikes - wether they're labeled as such or not. You sell them, you provide advertising services for them - vendors banners, peripheral benefits of Renderosity marketing, front page exposure, newsletter exposure - you market them. As a brokerage, you market them on consignment in exchange for a percentage of revenue. > Quote - Some of the advertising copy states that they are inspired by "celebrities".

Gives the RMP a loophole for profiting off of Jeri Ryan's and Michelle Pfeiffer's likenesses without actually acknowledging that you're doing so up front. > Quote - All of them have been run past the marketplace admins and found acceptable.

Which is Rendo corpospeak for: "We think our transparent 'inspired by' dodge covers us legally from liability if Jeri Ryan happens to notice" and "The decision was made above me so I'm not to blame". snicker - - - - - -

You made a blatantly false statement. And got called on it, with examples that it was false. Next you'll lock the thread rather than choke out a simple "It's possible I was mistaken"? ;)

Quote - If you have a problem with the examples above, please take it to the MP admins. Cheers.

Not having a problem with the examples, karen. I was pointing out that your flat statement was a falsehood: Evidentally you do market celebrity lookeylikeys here at the RMP. Now, I'm not thinking you were lying per se. Lying is such a harsh word. :) I just figured you disremembered due to the forgetfulness that comes from having alzheimer's set in from you bein' the Senior Marketplace Tester an' all.

Ummm... could you define "market", while we're at it, karen? :) http://market.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=34533&vendor=29647 I'm not sure that word means what you seem to think it means...

Quote - Celebrity likeness is a whole other kettle of fish. We do not market celebrity lookeylikeys here.

Oh really now. You don't? So, if I go look, I'll find say... not a single Jeri Ryan clone in the etire RMP, huh? http://market.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=36000&vendor=29647 Uh huh. Yeppers. You betcha. :)

If you guys are serious about wanting to do this... why not someone 1) register a domain name for the "Poser Hall of Fame" and start a site designed to hold the list (and the nominees) and 2) put together a group [prefferably of people not on the nominees list] to vote on new additions and 3) set up a form where people can send in nominations anonymously? There's lots of talented web designers in the community, lots of people with hosting space, and lots of people who'd be good at sorting out nominees. Do it right, not just a thread in a forum that'll be buried 40 pages deep in a few weeks and forgotten. ;]

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.

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. ;]

Quote - I believe Karen was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "dirigible-boobed" comment.

I know she was being tongue-in-cheek, I didn't need the translation. I'm neither humour nor sarcasm impaired, Morrigan. 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?

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?".

Quote - "whilst a dirigible-boobed woman wearing an SS cap, swastika armband and little else would not." - Karen

So, would a dirigible boobed woman wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt be acceptable, or not?

Quote - I don't want to lock what should be an informative thread. Please stick to discussing the issues and models, not each others' communication styles.

Ok, coolness. I don't have Vicki 4, so I'm probably more qualified than anyone here to say that she's both The Greatest Advance In Poser Model History, and She Blows Chunks. [Pay up, Dan. Celebrity Endorsements aren't cheap, yanno. I threw in the "Blows chunks" as a freebie.] Speaking as the only one here with style, what's wrong with discussing communications? ;] And, as applies to most poserdom issues, this one started silly and hit complete absurdity in about 8 posts - verging on a New Renderosity Record. Happy now, Karen? I fulfilled the Obligatory Anti-Thread Drift Nailing Requirements. JUST for you. ;) Merry Christmas. > Quote - I'm sure we can disagree with each other and have spirited debates without the forums catching fire, can't we?

No. Come Peshkwe - Our Job Here is Done. Hiyo Pewter - Away! rides off snickering in all directions at once

Might try it, Trekkie. What... you looking for a mettalic ursine for Christmas? ;]

Quote - Nothing personal, as I hope both you and IB knows. :o)

Ratz. It's just not fun if I can't take it... personal. sigh

Quote - the metallic ursine and his peers?

You gotta watch Names, T'grrl. Say it three times and you might conjure something. ;) Oh... wait... was I supposed to wait for three? (o0) digs out tattered copy of Demon Rulebook and pages through riffle riffle... yup. Damn. Err... oopsie? g

Quote - By the way these guys must be living in the Thunderdome where discussions are made that way: made some rude comments then hit the opponent down :-) In our civilized cities we do it the civilized way :-)

If you folks are "civilized", I'm glad I'm one of those Thunderdome Barbarians. You seem to be operating under a misapprehension: The Peaceful Nomads of the Thunderdome wish only to extend their hand in Friendship and Amity to all, and to counter the propaganda of the Mhendacious running dog imperialists and their poserite lackeys. Thunderdome really does not want to take over The Communities. We only wish peaceful co-existence with the Communities of the Poser. We really are peaceful pastoral nomads, and we are only looking for a little art and culture. We're really sorry that we broke some stuff, and we strenously deny the allegations of plunder. Someone else started the fire, the damage to the CuriousLabs was inadvertent, and it was not our yak, but someone else's yak entirely... Ok, so maybe it was our yak, afterall. I'm not tellin'. Burn Last! ;) Whatever ya'll are smokin', quit bogarting. I do hope you brought enough to share with the rest of the class, huh?