steimle@zeus.unl.edu (Scott A.) (05/14/89)
Does anyone know of any sources for X-rated GIF files? I've already combed the following hosts. I'm sure that compuserve has tons of GIFS, although I wouldn't know about X-rated ones. In any case, I'm looking for sources that won't cost me any money :-), so any BBS is out. grape.ecs.clarkson.edu 128.153.13.196 hubcap.clemson.edu 192.5.219.1 ix1.cc.utexas.edu 128.8.83.1.21 ix2.cc.utexas.edu 128.8.83.1.29 simtel20.army.mil 26.2.0.74 ssyx.ucsc.edu 128.114.133.1 sumex.stanford.edu 36.44.0.6 surya.waterloo.edu 129.97.129.72 umn-cs.cs.umn.edu 128.101.224.1 uxe.cso.uiuc.edu 128.174.5.54 Thanks in advance. Scott.
arnold@ux.cs.man.ac.uk (Toby Howard) (05/15/89)
In article <1380@zeus.unl.edu> steimle@zeus.unl.edu (Scott A.) writes: >Does anyone know of any sources for X-rated GIF files? Get lost.
bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) (05/17/89)
From article <6138@ux.cs.man.ac.uk>, by arnold@ux.cs.man.ac.uk (Toby Howard): > In article <1380@zeus.unl.edu> steimle@zeus.unl.edu (Scott A.) writes: >>Does anyone know of any sources for X-rated GIF files? > > Get lost. Seconded.
svpillay@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kanthan Pillay) (05/17/89)
In article <1380@zeus.unl.edu> steimle@zeus.unl.edu (Scott A.) writes: >Does anyone know of any sources for X-rated GIF files? Yes.
bdiscoe@tybalt.caltech.edu (Ben W. Discoe) (05/17/89)
In article <283@indri.primate.wisc.edu> bin@primate.wisc.edu writes: >From article <6138@ux.cs.man.ac.uk>, by arnold@ux.cs.man.ac.uk (Toby Howard): >> In article <1380@zeus.unl.edu> steimle@zeus.unl.edu (Scott A.) writes: >>>Does anyone know of any sources for X-rated GIF files? >> >> Get lost. > >Seconded. What is this, a convention of puritans? The inquisition? There are two sides to pornography, and if it happens to offend you, nobody says you have to see it! I'm quite shocked to see a system as <usually> open-minded as the net cluttered with COMPLETELY useless and inappropriate insults. When I originally saw this posting, *I* ignored it because "X-rated" is boring, XX or XXX is more to MY taste. But I see that there are people of quite opposite viewpoints who feel the need to blast their trite, most likely hypocritical insults at a simple, straightforward posting... The reason I'm bothering to post is because I would also appreciate references to pornographic GIF files, anon ftp of course, better quality preferred. If pornography offends you, THIS newsgroup isn't the place to discuss it! ... Ben Discoe, starving tech student and endangered liberal at large.
jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (05/18/89)
In article <10707@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, bdiscoe@tybalt.caltech.edu (Ben W. Discoe) writes: > >>>Does anyone know of any sources for X-rated GIF files? > >> Get lost. > >Seconded. > What is this, a convention of puritans? The inquisition? There are two sides > to pornography, and if it happens to offend you, nobody says you have to see > it! I'm quite shocked to see a system as <usually> open-minded as the net > cluttered with COMPLETELY useless and inappropriate insults. The objection is not to pornography, it's to posting this on comp.graphics. If you want pornography, post to talk.bizzare. ***** Please note ***** This is not cross posted to talk.bizarre. They (the bizzarites) tend to cross post a lot and we don't need it. > When I originally saw this posting, *I* ignored it because "X-rated" is boring, > XX or XXX is more to MY taste. But I see that there are people of quite > opposite viewpoints who feel the need to blast their trite, most likely > hypocritical insults at a simple, straightforward posting... XXX has actually gotten somewhat boring -- maybe I've just seen more of it than you have. > The reason I'm bothering to post is because I would also appreciate references > to pornographic GIF files, anon ftp of course, better quality preferred. If > pornography offends you, THIS newsgroup isn't the place to discuss it! If you get any, post a summary somewhere else. > ... Ben Discoe, starving tech student and endangered liberal at large. If you didn't spend so much on porn, you might not be starving. Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi I believe in absolute freedom of the press. Pax Probiscus! Sturgeon's Law (Revised): 98.89% of everything is drek (1.11% is peanut butter). Rarely able to send an email reply sucessfully. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion.
jdm@hodge.UUCP (jdm) (05/18/89)
In article <8457@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, svpillay@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kanthan Pillay) writes: > In article <1380@zeus.unl.edu> steimle@zeus.unl.edu (Scott A.) writes: > >Does anyone know of any sources for X-rated GIF files? > About a year ago I started using GIF files as sources for images for my Targa 16 card (converted using the GIF2TGA program). I noticed that not only did people not give a damn about copyright laws (it seems anything that can be shoved into a scanner is out there) but there was/is a predominant amount of X-rated stuff out there. Well, within the last few months I have noticed a lot of these GIF and PCX boards have become pay-for-the-good-stuff only boards. Once free BBSs have realized that 14 year olds with sweaty palms will pay fees ($5/hour, $25/month, $100/year, ect.) to have unlimited downloading privilages of visual material that they are not legally old enough yet to buy. Many of these BBS SysOps have actually invested money in the equipment necessary to create such images--only a few of them being law-abiding enough to use uncopyrighted and public domain material though. The answer is "yes", there are many sources on BBSs for X rated GIF files. But, there are very few of these types of BBSs that are still free of charge. -- jdm@hodge.cts.com [uunet zardoz]!hodge!jdm James D. Murray, Ethnounixologist Hodge Computer Research Corporation 1588 North Batavia Street Orange, California 92667 USA TEL: (714) 998-7750 Ask for James FAX: (714) 921-8038 Wait for the carrier
willa@hpvcfs1.HP.COM (----- Will Allen -----) (05/18/89)
Things with an X in their names are rarely free. . . .Will
seibel@cgl.ucsf.edu (George Seibel) (05/18/89)
In article <10707@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> bdiscoe@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Ben W. Discoe) writes: ]In article <283@indri.primate.wisc.edu> bin@primate.wisc.edu writes: ]>From article <6138@ux.cs.man.ac.uk>, by arnold@ux.cs.man.ac.uk (Toby Howard): ]>> In article <1380@zeus.unl.edu> steimle@zeus.unl.edu (Scott A.) writes: ]>>>Does anyone know of any sources for X-rated GIF files? ]>> ]>> Get lost. ]> ]>Seconded. ] ]What is this, a convention of puritans? The inquisition? There are two sides ]to pornography, and if it happens to offend you, nobody says you have to see ]it! I'm quite shocked to see a system as <usually> open-minded as the net ]cluttered with COMPLETELY useless and inappropriate insults. COMPLETELY useless? hardly. A lot of people are *insulted* by pornography. I think both responses were at least as appropriate as the original posting. At least we're discussing it now... ]When I originally saw this posting, *I* ignored it because "X-rated" is boring, ]XX or XXX is more to MY taste. But I see that there are people of quite ]opposite viewpoints who feel the need to blast their trite, most likely ]hypocritical insults at a simple, straightforward posting... Wow. I didn't know there was a classification scheme. Is this an ANSI standard? Seriously, we need to be a little careful about what we do on the net - You may recall that a fairly benign joke in rec.humor.funny precipited a national flap in which the press was referring to a "racist database" Think what a field day they would have with this. "Taxpayers money supports world-wide child-porn network!" ]The reason I'm bothering to post is because I would also appreciate references ]to pornographic GIF files, anon ftp of course, better quality preferred. If ]pornography offends you, THIS newsgroup isn't the place to discuss it! Yeah, and THIS newsgroup isn't the place to go looking for it, either. ]... Ben Discoe, starving tech student and endangered liberal at large. liberal? don't you mean libertarian? George Seibel, UCSF
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (05/18/89)
In article <283@indri.primate.wisc.edu> bin@primate.wisc.edu writes: |From article <6138@ux.cs.man.ac.uk>, by arnold@ux.cs.man.ac.uk (Toby Howard): |> In article <1380@zeus.unl.edu> steimle@zeus.unl.edu (Scott A.) writes: |>>Does anyone know of any sources for X-rated GIF files? |> |> Get lost. | |Seconded. Hey there, blow it out yer pixel. Nothing wrong with X-rated stuff; you don't need to make judgements or be so snarky... Humph, -- __ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \cc/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca `/v/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _< >_ "A kinder, gentler CON..." - A. Weishaupt
barry@eos.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (05/18/89)
In article <1351@lzfme.att.com> jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: >In article <10707@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, bdiscoe@tybalt.caltech.edu (Ben W. Discoe) writes: >> What is this, a convention of puritans? The inquisition? There are two sides >> to pornography, and if it happens to offend you, nobody says you have to see >> it! I'm quite shocked to see a system as <usually> open-minded as the net >> cluttered with COMPLETELY useless and inappropriate insults. > >The objection is not to pornography, it's to posting this on >comp.graphics. If you want pornography, post to talk.bizzare. Lemme guess: you've made a bet with someone about how many silly things you can say in one short sentence, and the sentence above is your masterpiece? First off, talk.bizarre has nothing to do with porn. You want porn, go to alt.sex. Second, the original posting was a simple request for information, "where can I find X-rated GIFs on the wire?" That's neither more nor less appropriate to this newsgroup than "where can I find Star Trek pics to download". What's inappropriate here are moral pronouncements; there are other newsgroups for that. >> The reason I'm bothering to post is because I would also appreciate references >> to pornographic GIF files, anon ftp of course, better quality preferred. If >> pornography offends you, THIS newsgroup isn't the place to discuss it! > >If you get any, post a summary somewhere else. I disagree, and object. I urge the original poster to post a summary of any information he gets. >> ... Ben Discoe, starving tech student and endangered liberal at large. > >If you didn't spend so much on porn, you might not be starving. There are also other newsgroup for cheap shots. - QQQCLC - Kenn Barry ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {most major sites}!ames!eos!barry ARPA: barry@eos.arc.nasa.gov
ray3rd@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ray E. Saddler III) (05/18/89)
In article <1380@zeus.unl.edu>, steimle@zeus.unl.edu (Scott A.) writes: > Does anyone know of any sources for X-rated GIF files? I've already Maybe you should try alt.sex. > Thanks in advance. You're welcome. > Scott. -- Ray E. Saddler III | __ __ __ __ | UseNet Boeing Aerospace | / / / // //| // | uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ray3rd P.O. Box 3999 m.s. 3R-05 | /-< / //- // |// _ | PhoneNet Seattle, Wa. 98124 USA | /__//_//__ // //__/ | 1+206-657-2824
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (05/19/89)
In article <283@indri.primate.wisc.edu> bin@primate.wisc.edu writes: >From article <6138@ux.cs.man.ac.uk>, by arnold@ux.cs.man.ac.uk (Toby Howard): >> In article <1380@zeus.unl.edu> steimle@zeus.unl.edu (Scott A.) writes: >>>Does anyone know of any sources for X-rated GIF files? >> >> Get lost. > >Seconded. Prudes... Try some local BBS's. Most are 'R' rated though. ;-) -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps [not for RHF] | sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 Ideas don't stay in some minds very long because they don't like solitary confinement.
coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) (05/19/89)
In article <11609@cgl.ucsf.EDU>, seibel@cgl.ucsf.edu (George Seibel) writes: > In article <10707@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> bdiscoe@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Ben W. Discoe) writes: > ]When I originally saw this posting, *I* ignored it because "X-rated" is boring, > ]XX or XXX is more to MY taste. > > Wow. I didn't know there was a classification scheme. Is this an ANSI > standard? The XX and the XXX ratings are strictly an invention of the porn movie industry to try and generate more excitement. The difference between X and XXX is determined by marketing hype, not by any type of review and rating system. Obviously it works in some cases. :-) Stephen Coy uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy ps I hope I got the right people associated with the right quotes above. The article was getting a little messy and I might have messed up. My apologies if I did.
bryden@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Christopher F. Bryden) (05/19/89)
In article barry@eos.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: }In article jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: }>In article bdiscoe@tybalt.caltech.edu (Ben W. Discoe) writes: }>The objection is not to pornography, it's to posting this on }>comp.graphics. If you want pornography, post to talk.bizzare. Um, I think that the people in talk.bizzare just got insulted. But, that's alright they're used to it. } First off, talk.bizarre has nothing to do with porn. You want }porn, go to alt.sex. Second, the original posting was a simple request Um, I think the people who post to alt.sex just got insulted. Actually, they were probably amazed at Jim (*cough*) Winer's ability to insult his own intelligence. Definitions of what is pornographic vary ; apparently the world's definitions revolve around Jim. OK, call for a new news group comp.graphics.questionable.requests }for information, "where can I find X-rated GIFs on the wire?" That's }neither more nor less appropriate to this newsgroup than "where can I }find Star Trek pics to download". What's inappropriate here are moral }pronouncements; there are other newsgroups for that. Oh, say like, misc.wanted? The star trek request would have meet less resistance... infact, people might have been obliged to respond to that request. Some people feel that, in a very stylized way, star trek is pornographic. ...ying yang black is white and white is back... let's strike a deal : I won't shove my moral definitions down your throat and in return, you won't shove your moral definitions down mine. }>> pornography offends you, THIS newsgroup isn't the place to discuss it! } There are also other newsgroup for cheap shots. Oh, you mean like alt.flame! Don't get the idea that this is a cheap shot just because I'm posting this there. This converstion really has no relivance to comp.graphics, and one of the best ways to get an unwanted topic out of a news group is to cross post. Chris -- arpa : bryden@vax1.acs.udel.edu | In the land of the blind, bitnet: akr05167 at ACSVM | the one eyed man is king. plato : bryden/itpt/udel ----------------- I could turn you inside out uucp : ...{unidot,uunet}!cfg!udel!udccvax1!bryden | ...what I choose not to do.
misha@aeras.UUCP (Michael Umansky) (05/19/89)
>to pornographic GIF files, anon ftp of course, better quality preferred. If
Oh, Yes, Yes! Enlighten me too of location of any X, XX, XXX, XX...X GIF files!
Thanks, fellow perverts! (spel?)
misha
--
NAME: Michael Umansky (sun!aeras!foxy!misha)
WORK: Arix Corp.; 821 Fox Lane; San Jose, CA 95131
HOME: 4331 Lincoln Way; San Francisco, CA 94122
PHONE: (408) 922-1751 (work); (415) 564-3921 (home)richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (05/19/89)
In article <1351@lzfme.att.com> jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: >In article <10707@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, bdiscoe@tybalt.caltech.edu (Ben W. Discoe) writes: > >> >>>Does anyone know of any sources for X-rated GIF files? > >> >> Get lost. > >> >Seconded. > >> What is this, a convention of puritans? The inquisition? There are two sides >> to pornography, and if it happens to offend you, nobody says you have to see >> it! I'm quite shocked to see a system as <usually> open-minded as the net >> cluttered with COMPLETELY useless and inappropriate insults. > >The objection is not to pornography, it's to posting this on >comp.graphics. If you want pornography, post to talk.bizzare. > >***** Please note ***** This is not cross posted to >talk.bizarre. They (the bizzarites) tend to cross post a lot and we >don't need it. I understand there are some pictures of Jim Winer doing some very curious things with common household appliances that could best be described as ``X-rated'' on the ftp host at Old Dominion University in Norfolk. -- ``So little time, so many watches'' richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
bdiscoe@tybalt.caltech.edu (Ben W. Discoe) (05/19/89)
In article <2659@ssc-vax.UUCP> ray3rd@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ray E. Saddler III) writes: >In article <1380@zeus.unl.edu>, steimle@zeus.unl.edu (Scott A.) writes: >> Does anyone know of any sources for X-rated GIF files? I've already > >Maybe you should try alt.sex. > I was the poster of the "inquisition" article and I've been really amazed at the flood of email and followups I've received. results: 1. Many encouraging or clear-thinking views. 2. Two mindless flames. 3. Several reminders that compu-porn is now mostly on BBSs that CHARGE MONEY. 4. A threatening? reminder that my newsfeed is apparently granted by someone who may not like it used for sending porn gif's around. 5. NO useful tips on where such material might exist. We don't get alt.sex. (And I thought it would be a simple, comp.graphics type request. sheesh.) Ben Discoe, your average starving tech student
raveling@venera.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) (05/19/89)
In article <10707@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> bdiscoe@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Ben W. Discoe) writes: >>> In article <1380@zeus.unl.edu> steimle@zeus.unl.edu (Scott A.) writes: >>>>Does anyone know of any sources for X-rated GIF files? > >What is this, a convention of puritans? The inquisition? A different side to this is that some of the most challenging images for certain types of processing are the X-rated (or R-rated) sort. For color quantization, they're more likely to have a large number of colors that need to be reproduced at high resolution in a relatively restricted volume of RGB space; these tend to be flesh tones in areas with a lighting density gradient. Another case, the one where I noticed this "value" of pinups & such, is in translating dithered monochrome images to grayscale. The challenge here is to distinguish between dithered density gradients and features such as lines and edges that need to be retained at high contrast. To put it a different way by analogy to languages, images have both syntactic and semantic content. There are some that have valuable syntactic content even though their semantic value is at best debatable. Of course there are many with no particular value of either sort. As long as some significant fraction of viewers would be offended by accidentally viewing a given image, I believe it's appropriate to keep that image out of publicly accessible collections where they might encounter it. Perhaps we should have different pools of images with X/R/G ratings advertised in advance. As for my personal view, it depends on the image. My scale for acquired images runs about like this: XXX Yuch (call it porn) -- Deleted XX Distasteful, no "syntactic" value -- Deleted X Distasteful, but kept for algorithm testing R Sometimes mediocre to poor & deleted, Sometimes cute or artful or otherwise nice & kept; If marginally valuable, usually deleted. G Sometimes mediocre to poor & deleted, Sometimes valuable & kept. If marginally valuable, usually kept However, whatever's kept in the R & X classes is kept privately. The kept G images go into the image collection that's publicly available via venera. ---------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@isi.edu
bryden@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Christopher F. Bryden) (05/20/89)
We have a public sun lab that has acquired many images. Most of the images
are non-offensive to most people. These images are keept where everyone
can have access to them. Images that might be offensive to the "resonable
person" have been put in a directory that is executable but unreadable.
all the files in that directory are readable. If a users want to see what
is in that directory, they must ask the person who maintains the images for
a list of the files in that direcotry. Everyone is requested to clear their
console when they leave. Its a very simple system and it works.
I have made two realizations. Clasification schemes, for determining what is
offensive and what is not, fail. Censorship of what images people can displayed
only encourages people to display those images.
A short personal note boardering on a flame :
Thomas, open minds are necessary to discuss matters like this. If you don't
have an open mind, plase stay out of the discussion.
A short disclaimer here :
My opinions do not represent the opinions of ACIT, the CIS department or the
University of Delaware.
Chris
--
arpa : bryden@vax1.acs.udel.edu | In the land of the blind,
bitnet: akr05167 at ACSVM | the one eyed man is king.
plato : bryden/itpt/udel ----------------- I could turn you inside out
uucp : ...{unidot,uunet}!cfg!udel!udccvax1!bryden | ...what I choose not to do.clarke@arnor.UUCP (Ed Clarkee/20480000;07-033,2630) (05/20/89)
From article <319@aeras.UUCP>, by misha@aeras.UUCP (Michael Umansky): --to pornographic GIF files, anon ftp of course, better quality preferred. If - Oh,Yes,Yes! Enlighten me too of location of any X, XX, XXX, XX...X GIF files! - Thanks, fellow perverts! (spel?) It's interesting to see that nobody has been dumb enough to admit to actually having X etc. GIF files for anonymous FTP. Can you imagine the headlines in the news papers? Remember what happened to Looking Funny after that Jewish Ventriloquist joke?? Actually, it'd be kind of fun to watch ... as long as nobody from MY site does it. +==============================+======================================+ | Ed Clarke | Consume waste products, you unclean | | CLARKE at YKTVMZ | offspring of unwed parental units! | | uunet!bywater!acheron!clarke | ** Translation from 'Illegal Aliens' | +==============================+======================================+
phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (05/20/89)
> The objection is not to pornography, it's to posting this on > comp.graphics. If you want pornography, post to talk.bizzare. Wrong. If I had X-rated GIF files, I would not be any more likely to be reading talk.bizzare because of it. That is not the place to ask for exchange of data. > > The reason I'm bothering to post is because I would also appreciate references > > to pornographic GIF files, anon ftp of course, better quality preferred. If > > pornography offends you, THIS newsgroup isn't the place to discuss it! > > If you get any, post a summary somewhere else. If you post somewhere that is not universally distributed, then please cross post here. If it is universally distributed, then would you please post a pointer to what newsgroup you do post on. I for one don't mind it being posted here. I don't recall the name of this group being comp.graphics.puritan, but rather just comp.graphics. Can we please stick to the subject, which is comp.graphics.* --phil
markk@sigma.UUCP (Mark Kimmerly) (05/20/89)
In article <15929@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <1351@lzfme.att.com> (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: >> >>The objection is not to pornography, it's to posting this on >>comp.graphics. If you want pornography, post to talk.bizzare. >> >>***** Please note ***** This is not cross posted to >>talk.bizarre. They (the bizzarites) tend to cross post a lot and we >>don't need it. > >I understand there are some pictures of Jim Winer doing some very >curious things with common household appliances that could best be >described as ``X-rated'' on the ftp host at Old Dominion University >in Norfolk. Really? Are there any involving kitchen utensils? How about plumbing tools? I would be very interested in them if they involved plumbing tools. Especially pipe wrenches. I was told that if you want plumbing tools, you should post to comp.graphics. I was also told that they (the graphites) tend to pass their spare time jamming toilets with paper towels so they'll overflow. -- Markk (professional smart-ass)
tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) (05/21/89)
In article <15929@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon (Richard Sexton) writes: >I understand there are some pictures of Jim Winer doing some very >curious things with common household appliances that could best be >described as ``X-rated'' on the ftp host at Old Dominion University >in Norfolk. While most people probably already disregard many of Richard's postings as folly, I want to point out that there are, to the best of my knowledge, no ``X-rated'' (whatever that is) pictures available via anonymous ftp from any Computer Science machine at ODU. I don't think there are even any GIF files available unless they appeared in one of the sources groups archived here. ...tad
ericl@masscomp.UUCP (Eric Law) (05/22/89)
In regards to the masses of wasted text coming down the line (porn):
Gee, It appears that it's time to press that old 'u' button while in readnews.
But before I do, I'd seriously like to know where else on the net there is
still a newsgroup with decent technical content in regards to computer
graphics? WAS this the only one?
^^^
-Eric S. Lawphil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (05/23/89)
In the absence of comp.graphics.technical, then comp.graphics will have to do.
steimle@zeus.unl.edu (Scott A.) (05/25/89)
In article <10731@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, bdiscoe@tybalt.caltech.edu (Ben W. Discoe) writes: > In article <2659@ssc-vax.UUCP> ray3rd@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ray E. Saddler III) writes: >>In article <1380@zeus.unl.edu>, steimle@zeus.unl.edu (Scott A.) writes: >>> Does anyone know of any sources for X-rated GIF files? I've already >> > I was the poster of the "inquisition" article and I've been really amazed at > the flood of email and followups I've received. results: On the contrary, I am the original poster. Why would you want to stand in front of a flame thrower if not necessary, anyway? After being away from the net for a few weeks, I logged on today and was amazed at the censorship, immaturity, and puritan views that have been flowing through this newsgroup. I submitted a simple, nonoffensive request. Yes, the list below does reflect most of the results besides a useless waste of bandwidth generated from a one paragraph inquirey. > > 1. Many encouraging or clear-thinking views. Mostly those defending my request within this newsgroup. Thanks to those who did. > 2. Two mindless flames. One, actually. > 3. Several reminders that compu-porn is now mostly on BBSs that CHARGE MONEY. I received a few mail messages informing me of some BBS, yes. > 4. A threatening? reminder that my newsfeed is apparently granted by someone > who may not like it used for sending porn gif's around. Many postings about pornography in comp.graphics from the net.cops and net.puritans. And awfully amusing, at that. > 5. NO useful tips on where such material might exist. We don't get alt.sex. Sad, but true. 6. Many mail messages from people admitting to searching for X-rated GIFs as well, and wondering of my progress and responses. Most probably because they were scared to be flamed to death replying to a graphics picture request in a graphics newsgroup. > (And I thought it would be a simple, comp.graphics type request. sheesh.) > Ben Discoe, your average starving tech student As did I, Ben. By the way, do you have a split personality? That you know of, that is... A couple of points to make, reflecting on the bullshit I read: 1) Talk.bizzar has nothing to do pornography or pornographic images. 2) Alt.sex would be a likely candidate, however, most people prefer to talk about SEX, not about where to find images with others engaged in it. 3) Comp.graphics was my pick, since I was requesting sources of GRAPHICAL IMAGES from a COMPUTER GRAPHICS newsgroup. If anyone was offended, they could have refrained from wasting bandwith by stifling thier fingers. Or they could have stuck them up their assholes for all I care. Now you have reason to be offended... Scott.