Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Photographing children

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 10:32:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

An interesting discussion, may be of interest to anyone who ever
photographs medium to large groups of 5 year-olds:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Num...

or here:

http://tinyurl.com/6tqes

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

More about : photographing children

Anonymous
March 30, 2005 10:32:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Owamanga (not-this-bit) wrote:
> An interesting discussion, may be of interest to anyone who ever
> photographs medium to large groups of 5 year-olds:
>
>
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Num...
>

Wow, I rarely complain about something wasting my time on Usenet but
that tops all timewasters. Single most pathetic discussion I've ever
read. In my entire life, Internet or not.

Greg
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 4:41:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u4sl415au1f9gdfjsk79n3krrn00dlobbp@4ax.com...
> An interesting discussion, may be of interest to anyone who ever
> photographs medium to large groups of 5 year-olds:
>
> http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Num...
>
> or here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6tqes

Better question:

How many of those thread participants would you have to get together in
basketball court sized room to amass a grand-total IQ of 30?

Methinks quite a few...
Related resources
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 4:44:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:uIO2e.62949$le4.5055@fed1read04...
>
> "Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u4sl415au1f9gdfjsk79n3krrn00dlobbp@4ax.com...
>> An interesting discussion, may be of interest to anyone who ever
>> photographs medium to large groups of 5 year-olds:
>>
>> http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Num...
>>
>> or here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6tqes
>
> Better question:
>
> How many of those thread participants would you have to get together in
> basketball court sized room to amass a grand-total IQ of 30?
>
> Methinks quite a few...

-Although I must admit to pondering strange scenarios... Like wondering how
many milliseconds of vision and cognitive awareness you could maintain as
your head falls after having it lopped off by a gillotine...

I have no desire to personally find out (which would be the ONLY way to know
the answer...but I do wonder some strange things...
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 7:54:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

G.T. wrote:
> Owamanga (not-this-bit) wrote:
>
>>An interesting discussion, may be of interest to anyone who ever
>>photographs medium to large groups of 5 year-olds:
>>
>>
>
> http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Num...
>
>
> Wow, I rarely complain about something wasting my time on Usenet but
> that tops all timewasters. Single most pathetic discussion I've ever
> read. In my entire life, Internet or not.
>
> Greg
>
That good huh? Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
March 31, 2005 10:44:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Like wondering how
many milliseconds of vision and cognitive awareness you could maintain
as
your head falls after having it lopped off by a gillotine...

LOL, I thought I was the only person who ever wondered that. Also,
would you recognize your body over there and would you have time to be
horrified?
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 1:35:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Mark² wrote:

>
> -Although I must admit to pondering strange scenarios... Like wondering how
> many milliseconds of vision and cognitive awareness you could maintain as
> your head falls after having it lopped off by a gillotine...

<sp> Guillotine.

You too, eh? Wanna flip for it? In various fictional ponderings the
lopped off head can see for and hear a brief moment and in others for
several seconds. Someday, in the name of science, they'll wire up some
poor animal and answer the question... in one recently read fictional
book the coroner state that the death would be instantaneous due to
aeroembolism.

One of the more clever 'intant death' scenes I read was last night: A
fellow gets tossed out in the cold of winter night at a processing plant
in Siberia. The temperature is -55°C. After he stumbles around for a
few minutes, getting very cold, he finds his vodka bottle that had
fallen onto the hardpack. He decides the booze will 'warm' him up. Of
course it has rapidly chilled to far below freezing...

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 1:35:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
>

>
> One of the more clever 'intant death' scenes I read was last night: A
> fellow gets tossed out in the cold of winter night at a processing plant
> in Siberia. The temperature is -55°C. After he stumbles around for a
> few minutes, getting very cold, he finds his vodka bottle that had
> fallen onto the hardpack. He decides the booze will 'warm' him up. Of
> course it has rapidly chilled to far below freezing...

horrible! freeze as you drink it.

>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 3:15:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"Toni" <tonitalley1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1112280241.264013.323860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Like wondering how
> many milliseconds of vision and cognitive awareness you could maintain
> as
> your head falls after having it lopped off by a gillotine...
>
> LOL, I thought I was the only person who ever wondered that. Also,
> would you recognize your body over there and would you have time to be
> horrified?

I'm not alone after all!!
:) 

I also wonder whether if the blade stopped immediately...keeping your
severed head pressed against the blade after detachment...whether the
pressing blade might briefly curb the bleeding enough to maintain a bit more
blood pressure...which might allow a few full seconds of awareness.

II get the death penalty someday I think I'll ask for this, and then try and
devise a way to signal someone like you with my eyes one way or the other...

Deal?
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 3:59:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

On 30 Mar 2005 14:05:58 -0800, "G.T." <get.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Owamanga (not-this-bit) wrote:
>> An interesting discussion, may be of interest to anyone who ever
>> photographs medium to large groups of 5 year-olds:
>>
>>
>http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Num...
>>
>
>Wow, I rarely complain about something wasting my time on Usenet but
>that tops all timewasters. Single most pathetic discussion I've ever
>read. In my entire life, Internet or not.
>
>Greg

But did you read it *all* ?

The shame is, even after 50 pages of the stuff, there is *no* good
answer.

<g>

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 3:59:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2005 14:05:58 -0800, "G.T." <get.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Owamanga (not-this-bit) wrote:
>>
>>>An interesting discussion, may be of interest to anyone who ever
>>>photographs medium to large groups of 5 year-olds:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Num...
>>
>>Wow, I rarely complain about something wasting my time on Usenet but
>>that tops all timewasters. Single most pathetic discussion I've ever
>>read. In my entire life, Internet or not.
>>
>>Greg
>
>
> But did you read it *all* ?
>
> The shame is, even after 50 pages of the stuff, there is *no* good
> answer.
>
> <g>
>
> --
> Owamanga!
> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Probably because there just aren't solutions to some problems, at least
not workable ones. You could give the kids a sedative, but then their
reactions wouldn't normal. You could make them stay still (or try),
which would have the same effect. Movie clips are the best I have been
able to manage in many cases.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 3:59:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3qpn41hhsnlueva9hgi5m9gh4mi6r2hsff@4ax.com...
> On 30 Mar 2005 14:05:58 -0800, "G.T." <get.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Owamanga (not-this-bit) wrote:
> >> An interesting discussion, may be of interest to anyone who ever
> >> photographs medium to large groups of 5 year-olds:
> >>
> >>
>
>http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Num...
iew=collapsed&sb=9&o=14&fpart=1&vc=1
> >>
> >
> >Wow, I rarely complain about something wasting my time on Usenet but
> >that tops all timewasters. Single most pathetic discussion I've ever
> >read. In my entire life, Internet or not.
> >
> >Greg
>
> But did you read it *all* ?
>
> The shame is, even after 50 pages of the stuff, there is *no* good
> answer.
>
> <g>

I read about 5 pages looking for something funny or interesting, and fell
asleep. I was at work, too, not good. If I need to fall asleep tonight
I'll go back to it.

Greg
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 6:53:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Toni" <tonitalley1@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1112280241.264013.323860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Like wondering how
>>many milliseconds of vision and cognitive awareness you could maintain
>>as
>>your head falls after having it lopped off by a gillotine...
>>
>>LOL, I thought I was the only person who ever wondered that. Also,
>>would you recognize your body over there and would you have time to be
>>horrified?
>
>
> I'm not alone after all!!
> :) 
>
> I also wonder whether if the blade stopped immediately...keeping your
> severed head pressed against the blade after detachment...whether the
> pressing blade might briefly curb the bleeding enough to maintain a bit more
> blood pressure...which might allow a few full seconds of awareness.
>
> II get the death penalty someday I think I'll ask for this, and then try and
> devise a way to signal someone like you with my eyes one way or the other...
>
> Deal?
>
>
I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
about it.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
March 31, 2005 6:55:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3qpn41hhsnlueva9hgi5m9gh4mi6r2hsff@4ax.com...
> On 30 Mar 2005 14:05:58 -0800, "G.T." <get.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> But did you read it *all* ?
>
> The shame is, even after 50 pages of the stuff, there is *no* good
> answer.

I only read the first errr posting, then got bored ;o)


So to inject a little humour into it

I think the definitive answer would be:

> Good drunken debate from a few nights ago.

> The question: How many 5 year-olds could you take on at once?

Answer from a Mr Michael Jackson: Oh normally 3 or 4
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 2:35:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Mark² <mjmorgan@cox.?.net> wrote:

>I also wonder whether if the blade stopped immediately...keeping your
>severed head pressed against the blade after detachment...whether the
>pressing blade might briefly curb the bleeding enough to maintain a bit more
>blood pressure...which might allow a few full seconds of awareness.

I'm sure the massive shock straight to your central nervous system
(through the spinal cord) would zap you unconscious straight away.
That's not to say dead, just unconscious, like the karate chop to
the neck thing.

--
Ken Tough
April 1, 2005 2:35:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <2+oeTxFS8FTCFw+5@objectech.co.uk>, ken@objectech.co.uk says...
> I'm sure the massive shock straight to your central nervous system
> (through the spinal cord) would zap you unconscious straight away.
> That's not to say dead, just unconscious, like the karate chop to
> the neck thing.
>
> --
> Ken Tough
>

Considering the blood pressure drop from standing up to fast on a hot day can
make you pass out, I dont suppose you could stand the pressure drop and
maintain wakefullnes


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 4:17:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam> wrote in message
news:D 2hrsu$qup$0@pita.alt.net...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "Toni" <tonitalley1@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1112280241.264013.323860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Like wondering how
>>> many milliseconds of vision and cognitive awareness you could
>>> maintain as
>>> your head falls after having it lopped off by a gillotine...
>>>
>>> LOL, I thought I was the only person who ever wondered that. Also,
>>> would you recognize your body over there and would you have time to
>>> be horrified?
>>
>> I'm not alone after all!!
>> :) 
>>
>> I also wonder whether if the blade stopped immediately...keeping your
>> severed head pressed against the blade after detachment...whether the
>> pressing blade might briefly curb the bleeding enough to maintain a
>> bit more blood pressure...which might allow a few full seconds of
>> awareness.
>> II get the death penalty someday I think I'll ask for this, and then
>> try and devise a way to signal someone like you with my eyes one way
>> or the other...
>> Deal?
>
> So, you were saying about IQ...? ;) 

:) 
The IQ comment was more regarding the lack of insight conveyed regarding the
kiddie-brawl question more than the question itself... I note that some
here actually are using their brains to think this goulish quandry through a
bit...
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 8:11:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Ken Tough writes:

> I'm sure the massive shock straight to your central nervous system
> (through the spinal cord) would zap you unconscious straight away.
> That's not to say dead, just unconscious, like the karate chop to
> the neck thing.

People executed by the guillotine remain conscious for a few seconds. A
French doctor once did some observations of executions to determine
this. But a constant and generous blood supply to the brain is
necessary to allow this, and so the period of remaining consciousness
(if any) is extremely brief.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 8:11:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Ron Hunter writes:

> I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
> seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
> about it.

In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
speaking to him.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:42:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Ron Hunter writes:
>> I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
>> seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
>> about it.

>In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
>head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
>speaking to him.

That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:42:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"Ken Tough" <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D Ue05YGItPTCFw47@objectech.co.uk...
> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ron Hunter writes:
>>> I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
>>> seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
>>> about it.
>
>>In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
>>head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
>>speaking to him.
>
> That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
> people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
> I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
> going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
> won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.

There's really only one way to find out for sure, but you have to take the
answer secretly to the grave...
....Any volunteers???
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:42:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:42:00 +0200, Ken Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk>
wrote:

>Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ron Hunter writes:
>>> I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
>>> seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
>>> about it.
>
>>In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
>>head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
>>speaking to him.
>
>That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
>people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
>I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
>going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
>won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.

Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?
-Rich
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:42:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:bl6q415e7mntn968lehftfn71pp8ci5ct1@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:42:00 +0200, Ken Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Ron Hunter writes:
>>>> I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
>>>> seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
>>>> about it.
>>
>>>In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
>>>head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
>>>speaking to him.
>>
>>That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
>>people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
>>I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
>>going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
>>won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.
>
> Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
> head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
> Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?
> -Rich

Hmmm...
No vocal cords...no lungs...no blood pressure...
Talking would be quite a trick indeed!
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:42:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
> head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
> Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?

If you quickly supply an air hose, he might ba able to... gotta slice
below the vocal cords, however.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:42:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

RichA wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:42:00 +0200, Ken Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ron Hunter writes:
>>>
>>>>I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
>>>>seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
>>>>about it.
>>
>>>In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
>>>head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
>>>speaking to him.
>>
>>That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
>>people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
>>I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
>>going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
>>won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.
>
>
> Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
> head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
> Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?
> -Rich

It couldn't talk as that requires air from the lungs (which it no longer
has contact with), and the voicebox is likely to have been severed as well.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 2:44:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <bl6q415e7mntn968lehftfn71pp8ci5ct1@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
>head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
>Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?

If it could, it would sort of imply that the executioner had goofed, because
the lungs would still be attached...
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 6:15:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> An interesting discussion, may be of interest to anyone who ever
> photographs medium to large groups of 5 year-olds:
>
> http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Num...
>
> or here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6tqes
>
> --
> Owamanga!
> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
just don't photograph them or you'll be arrested in this era of
pedophile mania

Alan
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 6:15:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

retoohs wrote:
> Owamanga wrote:
>
>> An interesting discussion, may be of interest to anyone who ever
>> photographs medium to large groups of 5 year-olds:
>>
>> http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Num...
>>
>>
>> or here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6tqes
>>
>> --
>> Owamanga!
>> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
>
> just don't photograph them or you'll be arrested in this era of
> pedophile mania
>
> Alan

That is possible. State law here only requires that a picture be
'provocative' in order to be classified as child pornography. So what,
exactly, IS provocative? What I consider 'cute' may be 'provocative' to
someone else. The classic nude baby on the bearskin rug is DEFINITELY
illegal here. sigh.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 6:15:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:

>
> That is possible. State law here only requires that a picture be
> 'provocative' in order to be classified as child pornography. So what,
> exactly, IS provocative? What I consider 'cute' may be 'provocative' to
> someone else. The classic nude baby on the bearskin rug is DEFINITELY
> illegal here. sigh.

Following some notorious cases like the lady down in Texas a couple
years ago, I would expect (or hope) that law enforcement are standing
back and giving it a re-think.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 6:15:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>
>> That is possible. State law here only requires that a picture be
>> 'provocative' in order to be classified as child pornography. So
>> what, exactly, IS provocative? What I consider 'cute' may be
>> 'provocative' to someone else. The classic nude baby on the bearskin
>> rug is DEFINITELY illegal here. sigh.
>
>
> Following some notorious cases like the lady down in Texas a couple
> years ago, I would expect (or hope) that law enforcement are standing
> back and giving it a re-think.
>

At one point, the hysteria reached the point where the legislature
passed a law that made it illegal to change a baby's diaper, bathe them,
or even to breast-feed!! That one didn't last long!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 9:39:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:42:00 +0200, Ken Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk>
>>That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
>>people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
>>I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
>>going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
>>won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.
>
>Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
>head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.

The massive shock applied to the central nervous system (by
chopping the cord in half, as well as the instant drop in
blood pressure to the "sensors" that make you unconscious would
render you blacked out almost instantly. Surely.

>Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?

A heck of a trick. Maybe some american states could be convinced
to return to the guillotine and we'll find out.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 9:41:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>The classic nude baby on the bearskin rug is DEFINITELY
>illegal here. sigh.

I would hope so. That's absolutely disgusting. A bearskin rug,
how gruesome.

--
Ken Tough
April 1, 2005 9:41:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <6sv9nIAOuWTCFwO2@objectech.co.uk>, ken@objectech.co.uk says...
> I would hope so. That's absolutely disgusting. A bearskin rug,
> how gruesome.
>
> --
> Ken Tough
>

How about if it were a VERY MEAN BEAR???


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
April 1, 2005 10:11:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote:

>A heck of a trick. Maybe some american states could be convinced
>to return to the guillotine and we'll find out.
>
>--
>Ken Tough

Please don't confuse us with the French.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:24:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>>>> "Ron" == Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

Ron> That is possible. State law here only requires that a
Ron> picture be 'provocative' in order to be classified as child
Ron> pornography. So what, exactly, IS provocative? What I
Ron> consider 'cute' may be 'provocative' to someone else. The
Ron> classic nude baby on the bearskin rug is DEFINITELY illegal
Ron> here. sigh.

Just as long as you comply with these few simple rules, there
shouldn't be any problems, no matter what country you are in or where
the photo will be seen:

1. No skin is to be visible AND

2. Child must be your own child AND

3. No (obscene) clothing is to be visible AND

4. Must have written permission from child before performing activity
(ie. taking the photo). This written permission is not valid
unless:
a) child is 5 years or younger and has watched a complete
james bond movie within past hour or
b) child is under 10 years and has watched die hard 1 or
die hard 2 within past hour or
c) child is under 15 years and has constructed own bomb
without any parental assistance
AND

5. Child must be either male or female AND

6. Must have indisputable proof that you are not a pervert or a human
and have written permission from local police station AND

7. Must not be taken at beach, public swimming pool, changing rooms,
etc AND

8. Must not look like it was taken at beach, public swimming pool,
changing rooms, etc AND

9. Must not be taken with a camera on a mobile phone AND

10. Must be taken when full moon is present and must sacrifice the
child after the event to the gods.

I don't think I missed anything.

<grin>

Seriously, some of the moral rules we impose on ourselves are a
complete mess, e.g. we have children watching violent TV shows (and
making bombs too), but we get upset when somebody takes a photo...
--
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:59:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Ken Tough wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The classic nude baby on the bearskin rug is DEFINITELY
>>illegal here. sigh.
>
>
> I would hope so. That's absolutely disgusting. A bearskin rug,
> how gruesome.
>
Fake fur, real baby. But the way current law is written, even a totally
digital creation that resembled a baby would also be illegal...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 2, 2005 2:00:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 17:39:19 +0200, Ken Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk>
mumbled:

>RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:42:00 +0200, Ken Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk>
>>>That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
>>>people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
>>>I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
>>>going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
>>>won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.
>>
>>Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
>>head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
>
>The massive shock applied to the central nervous system (by
>chopping the cord in half, as well as the instant drop in
>blood pressure to the "sensors" that make you unconscious would
>render you blacked out almost instantly. Surely.
>
>>Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?
>
>A heck of a trick. Maybe some american states could be convinced
>to return to the guillotine and we'll find out.


A hoot would be to stick out their tongue at the executioner.

nah nah nah ahhhh.......
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 2:40:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote:

>In article <6sv9nIAOuWTCFwO2@objectech.co.uk>, ken@objectech.co.uk says...
>> I would hope so. That's absolutely disgusting. A bearskin rug,
>> how gruesome.

>How about if it were a VERY MEAN BEAR???

"Oh boy mr. bear, if my wife finds out..."
April 2, 2005 2:40:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <RBWn8GAoGbTCFwYn@objectech.co.uk>, ken@objectech.co.uk says...
> Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote:
>
> >In article <6sv9nIAOuWTCFwO2@objectech.co.uk>, ken@objectech.co.uk says...
> >> I would hope so. That's absolutely disgusting. A bearskin rug,
> >> how gruesome.
>
> >How about if it were a VERY MEAN BEAR???
>
> "Oh boy mr. bear, if my wife finds out..."
>
>

I have one of those ridiculous photos (of me) hidden behind a bunch of stuff
on a shelf where no-one can see it (it was shot around 1946)... That picture
HAUNTED me for the first 18 years of my life.

Why would anybody put their kid out naked on a Bearskin... For that matter,
why would anybody other than an Eskimo skin a Polar Bear (thats the kind of
skin I was plopped on)


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
April 2, 2005 3:12:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"Ken Tough" <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7819DGAnsWTCFwPG@objectech.co.uk...
> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:42:00 +0200, Ken Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk>
> >>That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
> >>people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
> >>I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
> >>going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
> >>won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.
> >
> >Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
> >head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
>
> The massive shock applied to the central nervous system (by
> chopping the cord in half, as well as the instant drop in
> blood pressure to the "sensors" that make you unconscious would
> render you blacked out almost instantly. Surely.
>
> >Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?
>
> A heck of a trick. Maybe some american states could be convinced
> to return to the guillotine and we'll find out.

I'd rather they bring it in here in the UK !!
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:29:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <NJSdnSbU8r6iWtDfRVnysA@giganews.com>, Gizmo <Gizmo@home.now> wrote:
>
>"Ken Tough" <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:7819DGAnsWTCFwPG@objectech.co.uk...
>>
>> A heck of a trick. Maybe some american states could be convinced
>> to return to the guillotine and we'll find out.
>
>I'd rather they bring it in here in the UK !!

So to bring this back on topic, are the photographs in the Daily Mail any
good then?
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 2:54:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

clutch@lycos.com wrote:

>Ken Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
>>A heck of a trick. Maybe some american states could be convinced
>>to return to the guillotine and we'll find out.

>Please don't confuse us with the French.

The death penalty is outlawed by the European Convention on
Human Rights (protocol 13).

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 4:37:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"Ken Tough" <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D Ue05YGItPTCFw47@objectech.co.uk...
> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Ron Hunter writes:
> >> I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
> >> seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
> >> about it.
>
> >In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
> >head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
> >speaking to him.
>
> That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
> people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
> I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
> going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
> won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.
>


It's hard to say since most people who are guillotined are complete basket
cases. At least their heads are.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 8:47:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for
photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were
dropped but how pathetic is that

Alan

Ron Hunter wrote:
> retoohs wrote:
>
>> Owamanga wrote:
>>
>>> An interesting discussion, may be of interest to anyone who ever
>>> photographs medium to large groups of 5 year-olds:
>>>
>>> http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Num...
>>>
>>>
>>> or here:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6tqes
>>>
>>> --
>>> Owamanga!
>>> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
>>
>>
>> just don't photograph them or you'll be arrested in this era of
>> pedophile mania
>>
>> Alan
>
>
> That is possible. State law here only requires that a picture be
> 'provocative' in order to be classified as child pornography. So what,
> exactly, IS provocative? What I consider 'cute' may be 'provocative' to
> someone else. The classic nude baby on the bearskin rug is DEFINITELY
> illegal here. sigh.
>
>
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 8:47:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"retoohs" <AL.KERR@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gtp3e.14918$1S4.1552570@news.xtra.co.nz...
> There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for
> photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were dropped
> but how pathetic is that
>
> Alan

Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe them?
I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complained
about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. are
sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated.

I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the
equivalent of "news vaporware."

Any references?

Thanks.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 8:47:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "retoohs" <AL.KERR@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:gtp3e.14918$1S4.1552570@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
>>There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for
>>photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were dropped
>>but how pathetic is that
>>
>>Alan
>
>
> Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe them?
> I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complained
> about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. are
> sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated.
>
> I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the
> equivalent of "news vaporware."
>
> Any references?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
Which ones?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 8:47:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:kas3e.845$yL2.400@fe08.lga...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "retoohs" <AL.KERR@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:gtp3e.14918$1S4.1552570@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>
>>>There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for
>>>photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were
>>>dropped but how pathetic is that
>>>
>>>Alan
>>
>>
>> Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe them?
>> I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complained
>> about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. are
>> sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated.
>>
>> I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the
>> equivalent of "news vaporware."
>>
>> Any references?
>>
>> Thanks.
> Which ones?

None of the posts in this thread (regarding laws "here" or there as stated)
came with any indication of verification.
April 2, 2005 8:47:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <Xtu3e.65649$le4.27078@fed1read04>, "Mark²" says...
>
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:kas3e.845$yL2.400@fe08.lga...
> > Mark² wrote:
> >> "retoohs" <AL.KERR@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> >> news:gtp3e.14918$1S4.1552570@news.xtra.co.nz...
> >>
> >>>There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for
> >>>photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were
> >>>dropped but how pathetic is that
> >>>
> >>>Alan
> >>
> >>
> >> Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe them?
> >> I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complained
> >> about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. are
> >> sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated.
> >>
> >> I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the
> >> equivalent of "news vaporware."
> >>
> >> Any references?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> > Which ones?
>
> None of the posts in this thread (regarding laws "here" or there as stated)
> came with any indication of verification.
>
>
>

There was a case in the last few years here in the States that recieved LOTS
or "air time" on the TV news.

Some woman (a pro photographer IIRC) had, over the years, taken quite a few
photos of her own kids when they were todlers, in various stages of undress..

Some were of a little girl sitting naked in a backyard plastic wading pool,
some were of her little boy the same way, and on, and on, and on.(there were
LOTS of pictures)

She had, at some point decided to make a "work of art" out of these photos.
I cant remember whether it was just a collage, or a colection of collage in a
book.

IIRC it was in either Texas or Florida where some religious group decided
that it was "kiddie porn" and complained to the authorities about it.

The court case recieved a lot of television coverage, and I remember the
local News-casters having a lot of "Fun" with it, and showing some of the art
over the air.

In some of the collage that I remember seeing over the air, there "seemed" to
be inter-action between the toddlers and some adults.

This case dragged on for at LEAST as long as the OJ trial, but the crux of
the matter seemed to be the apparent interaction between the children and the
adults.

As testimony revealed (slowly) the adults in the photos were the same people
as the children, and the judge seemed to think the whole thing was
ridiculous. (the few times the cameras were in the courtroom the judge was
doing a LOT of eye-rolling and sighing loudly).

The sad part of all of this is that a totally innocent gesture on the part of
someone trying to present a small work of "art" was labeled a "kiddie porn"
producer, and ended up not being able to get work because of the bad
publicity. (free publicity is usually a good thing, but getting labeled a
Kiddie-diddler and then getting no publicity after your exhonoration isnt
going to help you).

Later (by a few years) when it became much easier than it used to be to alter
photos and put things in them that werent there, it was decided that any
depiction of any child that could be considered "erotic" in nature, whether
photographed, drawn, or created out of "whole cloth" could be considered
"Child porn" in the eye of the law in several states. Since I dont follow
this stuff very closely, I dont know if any Federal (US) laws are the same.

Most of the stuff you hear about people "getting in trouble" with photos of
their own kids in various states of "undress" is usually "urban legend" made
up from snippets of this story with new MADE UP details to make it more
lurid.

There have been several cases where the people working in Wal-Mart,
Walgreens, CVS et al, have called the police because of naked children in the
photos someone dropped off for printing, but I can remember hearing of any
case in which the PARENTS were prosecuted and found guilty of any crime.

As has been stated by others, its hard to say what is urban legend and what
isnt (including this story I have just told)




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 8:47:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:kas3e.845$yL2.400@fe08.lga...
>
>>Mark² wrote:
>>
>>>"retoohs" <AL.KERR@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>news:gtp3e.14918$1S4.1552570@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>>
>>>
>>>>There was a guy recently in Queensland (Aust) that was arrested for
>>>>photographing his own child at a park on a swing. The charges were
>>>>dropped but how pathetic is that
>>>>
>>>>Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>Where are all these stories coming from, and why should we believe them?
>>>I know that people are more paranoid than they should be (I've complained
>>>about this problem too), but these stories about illegalities, etc. are
>>>sounding more and more unbelievable, and so far...unsubstantiated.
>>>
>>>I am tending to think that many of the examples in this thread are the
>>>equivalent of "news vaporware."
>>>
>>>Any references?
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>
>>Which ones?
>
>
> None of the posts in this thread (regarding laws "here" or there as stated)
> came with any indication of verification.
>
>
You can get verification on those I stated by checking into the Texas
Statutes online. I am sure there are still some articles online about
the snafu on the previous laws that prohibited even parents from bathing
children, or changing diapers, or breast-feeding. Of course rational
people just ignored those idiot laws, just as they do speed limits...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
!