wen@pro-mercury.cts.COM (System Administrator) (05/14/88)
Am I the only one that receives so much garbage being disguised as programs on APPLE2L? I just received a batch of HI-RES programs for the IIGS including a NUDE of Marilyn Monroe! These are not programs - they are incrediably large (54K) bitmaps of limited (or zero) use to many users. The PING sounds fall in close to the same catagory but may be of use to someone and they are programs under a pretty loose interpretation. Should hi-res photos be distributed or should a short note be posted and these hi-res pictures be distributed by e-mail? UUCP: [ ihnp4 cbosgd hplabs!hp-sdd sdcsvax nosc ] !crash!pro-mercury!wen ARPA: crash!pro-mercury!wen@nosc.mil Voice Phone (619)697-7540 ProLine-mercury BBS (619)697-0261 login=register (1200 baud) satellite/tv conf
dowst@vlsi.jpl.nasa.GOV ("Henry P. Dowst") (05/16/88)
Unfortunately, there are a number of twits out there who enjoy sending Fire House type pictures. GEnie is also full of this drek. I think that one of the disadvantages of the //GS is that it makes it easier to create this crap. Maybe it's the MAC influence. An ignorant user rcise for small minds, an affront to m,any professional women net members,an exe and generally tasteless. Henr Dowst P.S. I am nmot a prude.. It's just that these things are banded about ty of the uploader.They aren't. They are stupid and show the stupidiy
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (05/16/88)
>Unfortunately, there are a number of twits out there who enjoy sending >Fire House type pictures. GEnie is also full of this drek. On the one hand, I agree with the "Fire House pictures" description as an assessment of the artistic merit of most of the pictures distributed on the net. On the other hand, a certain amount of wasteful experimentation is inherent in developing any new artistic medium (which is what computer graphics is rapidly becoming). I recall when a pretty dim view was taken of Andy Warhol's stuff (be it soup cans or Marilyn Monroe), and I expect Rubins had detractors in his day. I haven't even looked at the pictures you're referring to - quite possibly they are "tasteless." However, if the Marilyn Monroe picture is part of the calendar series, there are quite a few art critics that would class you as a cretin for your assessment. >P.S. I am nmot a prude.. It's just that these things are banded about >ty of the uploader.They aren't. They are stupid and show the stupidiy Your postscript calls to mind the line from Macbeth: "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." If not prudish, your reasoning certainly seems anti-intellectual. Perhaps we'd all do well to remember the amorphism about living in glass houses and avoid ad hominum attacks. Some of the pictures may be sophmoric, but it's pretty easy to delete them. So far, no one's sent you a picture alleged to be a "still life" that turns out to a centerfold. I'd think the better question is does this "art" (whether it's Mr Spock or Miss Universe) merit the CPU cycles? After all, the price of a IIgs probably could insure a lifetime subscription to Playboy. It doesn't take more than a couple of these pictures to show what your personal computer can do; what's the point of having 20 Mbytes worth of them? --------------------- Disclaimer: The "look and feel" of this message is exclusively MINE! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) ARPA: sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Murphy A. Sewall BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM School of Business Admin. UUCP: ...ihnp4!psuvax1!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL University of Connecticut