I second that, Tom. I would prefer to be able to see PDML stuff on the screen, even if there are children present, at work, the libraries etc., where I don't want do cause others to feel embarrassed. Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 13. juli 2004 21:36 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Many of us, and let me presume all of us, filter out all kinds of things we don't want to see or hear. My satellite TV controller has plenty of filters set up. This constant filtering from all sources becomes exhausting and tiresome. I personally would prefer that the PDML, and by extension the PUG, does not become a forum for the display of what some would consider sexually explicit images, even if there's a warning/disclaimor. It's as simple as that. I know that's probably too much to ask and that somone will suggest this a public forum that reflects the disparate views of it's constituents. Which is true. I still would wish that nudity, whether considered art by some or pornography by others, does not become a topic of this list. Tom C. >From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three >shot series) >Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:17:08 -0400 > > >On Jul 13, 2004, at 2:29 PM, Bob Blakely wrote: >> >> >>"Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't >>bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?" >> >> >We already have that. No one here is bombarded with sexual images. For one, >sex and artful nudity are not the same thing. More importantly, to the best >of my knowledge no one on the forum has ever referenced a nude without >indicating that viewer discretion is advised. If you choose of our own free >well to view the piece, that certainly doesn't constitute bombardment. >Paul >
