[Maxer]

What's the point on commenting on this subject unless you've got a critique to make or a complement to give? Cracking jokes is just going to upset people, so why do it?

[Mihai]

i'm sorry, i forgot we were in church

[DELETED]

DELETED

[Maxer]

[Frances]

i'm sorry, i forgot we were in church

And I'm sorry that you didn't understand my objection. Contemplation and realization of the full scope of the suffering of Christ is a major source of a Christian's spiritual strength. So, yes, I found Betty's remark insulting.

But for some reason, I found Life of Brian to be hilarious. Go figure. I'm not stupid.

[Mihai]

And yet another happy ending. I like this forum

[tom]

Me! Me! Pay attention to me!

İ like this

[Frances]

Leigh at CGTalk can bite me. Asshole.

I questioned their policy and he cut me off after a couple of exchanges. I won't c&p what he wrote to me because I'm against that sort of thing.

[added]

Re: http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=247000

I could not find a reference to this policy. It might be a good idea to make it more plain. Apologies in advance if I missed it.

...

My opinion is that CG art is just that and the subject matter or inspiration is up to the artist. If you feel that religious imagery is unsuitable because it is inflammatory, then censor the flamers, not the artists.

If you feel that religious imagery will somehow offend the non-religious or those of a faith not represented in the imagery, then again, you have censored the artist (and insulted the community) by determining that their work cannot be appreciated as art (good or bad).

Someone cannot fully appreciate La Pieta if they don't know the players in the piece. What adds to its poignancy is the knowledge that this is an image of a mother who just watched her innocent son be executed in one of the cruelest ways imagineable. Anyone who recognizes the crucifixtion, recognizes La Pieta for what it is.

So I guess I find your argument a little specious here.

Respectfully,
Frances Gainer Davey

And...

The only mention of religion was pertaining to discussions, not imagery. It is not an artist's fault if their work cannot be treated as art and critisized as such. It seems that you've implied that I didn't take the time to read your guidelines. This concerns me.

As for those that are offended by religious themes - I am offended by mysogeny and the exploitation of women, which is rampant in its portrayal in the CGTalk forums. I wouldn't dream of requesting that you prohibit mysogenistic and sexist imagery because I feel that it would be a violation of freedom of expression.

[falconking]

Frances, you are my Hero.. I love you... hehehehe

[Maxer]

Way to go Fran! Those people at CG Talk are hypocrites.

[Frances]

I received this email after I contacted CGTalk support

Hello again,

I am sorry but I cannot understand how I was disrespectful to you - you
asked me about the issue and I answered your question, although I am not
sure what your point is. I have explained that our policy on CGTalk is to
not allow overly religious discussions and artwork, and it has been this way
for years - and religion isn't the only one we don't tolerate, since overly
political images and other images with heavy social themes are not accepted
either. You said that you did not know what policy I was talking about, so I
linked you to it. I am not sure why you are pressing this issue when there
is no issue to discuss - it is just something that we do not allow, and most
people are happy with it.

Our rules are in place to prevent people from being offended and to prevent
hateful or contraversial conversations from taking place. Of course we'll
never have 100% of our members happy with the rules, but as I said, most are
happy to abide with them. I cannot understand why you are continuing to
contact me regarding this issue because I don't really understand what your
problem with this system is.

At any rate, I hope this settles this discussion.
Best regards,
Leigh

You were disrespectful to me by cutting me off from communicating with you,
as though by trying to make my point, I was somehow harrassing you or acting
inappropriately. When I take the time to communicate with someone and put
forth suggestions or observations, I expect to come away with some
impression that that person has actually acknowledged what I had to say.

My point is that you should state more plainly your policy regarding
submission of images with religious themes. "Strongly religious themes"
should be on the list with "Pornographic" so that it is clear. You rely on
us to jump to your own conclusions regarding religious images leading to
religious discussions. You have new members every day - how can they guess
what you are thinking or what your vast experience is? I am personally not
interested in submitting such images, I just think it would be wise for you
to clarify your policy to avoid misunderstandings from people in the future.

While I did take an opportunity to voice my argument in favor of the guy who
submitted the crucifixion image, I also took the opportunity to point out
that your policy is not clear and that was probably the reason why the guy
felt discriminated against. I understand why you have the practice in place,
but I don't understand why you don't get it that your policy is not clear
enough to new people and especially to people who do not speak English as
their first language.

- Fran

I will leave it to you all to decide what my problem is with this person. Leigh's problem seems to be with reading comprehension.

Oh, and Leigh can bite me.

[tom]

i always thought other countries already took too much way about freedom of expression and art comparing to my country, turkey. but i see it's strange that they are still trying to make fences around art and expressions or i totally misunderstand everything. i support what fran says now and once we had a discussion about a similar subject with fran... once again i needed to say something TO WORLD (not only to CGtalk, etc):
"Unfortunately you're wrong with your policies about this subject and you cannot make anything go better by putting fences in front of thoughts and art.
Let the world free please!"

[tom]

yes you're right and i'm just laughing at them and IMO they are century behind.

[Frances]

yes you're right and i'm just laughing at them and IMO they are century behind.

The reason for the policy against religious discussions is because they become an administrative nightmare. Apparently, it has been their experience that the membership at CGTalk is not capable of abiding by the rule against religious discussion and is incapable of offering valid and constructive critiques of artwork with religious themes.

Also apparent is that a valid critique of a big-titted archer in a g-string would be "I could do her."

My problem with their policy statement is that it is not explicit enough and has therefore caused at least one person to feel discriminated against.

I wonder why they won't just state that religious imagery will not be accepted? We are expected to conclude from their statement about religious discussions that it includes critiques on religious-themed artwork.

And should it make a difference whether Leigh is male or female? The arrogance I sensed in her replies to my queries was definately non-gender specific.

[Maxer]

Fran,
I have to say I love your humor....."I could do her"....that's great stuff!