🚀 go-pugleaf

> > I am looking for females willing to pose in the nude ...
> 
> [IGNITION]
> 
> Get this kind of crap out of net.rec.nude.  Naturists are not the kind of
> people who get their kicks out of trashy sexist magazines.  We respect
> ourselves and other people.  We are mature enough to understand that true
> human qualities are independent of clothing and other meaningless attributes.
> We do not approve of gawkers or those who want to exploit what we regard as
> entirely natural.
In the United States of America we have what is know as the First Amendment
which allows anyone the freedom to express themselves in any shape or form.
This, in fact, is the basis for most of our suits in court to get anti-nude
beach laws (etc.) off of the law books.  While I may agree in principle as to
what you are saying I do not like some of the specific things you mention.
By stating "trashy" magazines you are implying that some forms of nudity should
be banned by law.  It seems to me you are saying that people should be free
to go without clothing only under those circumstances which you approve of.
[Getting asbestos suit on]  Why is it that I have seen some of the so-called
trashy magazines at our local nude beach at Rooster Rock?  If naturalists are
so "non-gawkers" why do they feel the need to look at magazines of unchothed
persons?  Seems to contradict you viewpoint of the magazines as obviously they
read the magazines for something other than the pictures.  Or do they gawk
like non-naturalists do (per your comments)?
> 
> > Am willing to split all prizes, etc. on a 50-50 basis.
> 
> This is no less than amateur pimping.  It has no place in this newsgroup.
Obviously you have never photographed models professionally, they usually
expect some form of payment.  Even animal models require payment to their
owners.  When you get out of the University and into the real world, you
will discover that no one works for free.  Splitting of fees, prizes, etc.
earned by photographs taken constitute "wages" which both the photographer
and the model are entitled to.  However, you are correct in one respect,
I am an amateur, it takes much work and dedication to forsake a regular job
and work as a professional photographer or artist.  My painting and
photographing are strictly amateurish.  


> 
> ---
> Marc Majka

As to why I posted this in net.rec.nude as opposed to net.micro or even
net.women -- it would seem to me to be fairly obvious.  While 80% of the
females readers of net.rec.nude probably have no interest in modeling, 
maybe 20% might.  In net.women, probably 99.99% would have absolutely
no interest and for the .01% missed, big deal.  The women who read 
net.women get upset when someone talks to them while they have untied
the top of their bikini (if you do not believe me, read the current raging
argument in net.women).  Mentality like that would outlaw all clothes
optional beaches everywhere.  

By the way, I do respect you right to fame (blowtorch) me, this again is
guaranteed by the 1st Ammendment (to the U.S. Constitution).  I am surprised
that it made it past the Canadian censors, however.  This gets this
conversation off to what would be better discussed in net.politics, so I
will get off of my soapbox, except to say that most of the magazines that
may be enjoyed in the U.S. are either not available in Canada or are a
bowlderized version (spelling?).
--Bill--

Summary:

In <69@ubc-vision.UUCP> majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (Marc Majka) writes:
>
>> From: wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert)
>> I am looking for females willing to pose in the nude ...
>
>[IGNITION]
>
>Get this kind of crap out of net.rec.nude.  Naturists are not the kind of
>people who get their kicks out of trashy sexist magazines.  We respect
>ourselves and other people.  We are mature enough to understand that true
>human qualities are independent of clothing and other meaningless attributes.
>We do not approve of gawkers or those who want to exploit what we regard as
>entirely natural.

I am a nudist/naturist and I get kicks out of trashy sexist magazines.  They
have no connection, but they are not mutually exclusive.  Just because I don't
equate nudity with sex in most instances, it doesn't neccessarily follow that
I don't make that connection in certain contexts.

-- 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mark D. Freeman                     Guest account at The Ohio State University
StrongPoint Systems, Inc.				    mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP
209 Olentangy Street					  Mdf@Ohio-State.CSNET
Columbus, OH  43202-2340		       Mdf%Ohio-State@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
							 !cbosgd!osu-eddie!mdf
I disclaim even my very existance.

Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion,
 Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science.
		-- Gary Zukav from "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In article <389@tekigm2.UUCP> wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) writes:
>> > I am looking for females willing to pose in the nude ...
>> 
>> [IGNITION]
>> 
>> Get this kind of crap out of net.rec.nude.  Naturists are not the kind of
sans hostility, agreed. My *opinion* is that it's just inappropriate.

>which allows anyone the freedom to express themselves in any shape or form.
Sure, you can do whatever. My request is to not do it here.

>Obviously you have never photographed models professionally, they usually
I think net.rec.photo would be an appropriate place to look for models.

Phew! I can't believe all this noise about nude models. Especially from
naturists! Why do you, of all people, immediately jump to the conclusion
that photography of nude models is going to have sexual connotations?

Nudes (of either sex) can be very tastefully rendered in several media, 
photographs being one of them. Go check out Rubens and Michaelangelo for
a few examples of painting and sculpture, and then check out the
internal assumptions you have about this subject!

chris

In article <69@ubc-vision.UUCP> majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (Marc Majka) writes:
>[IGNITION]
>
>Get this kind of crap out of net.rec.nude.  Naturists are not the kind of
>people who get their kicks out of trashy sexist magazines.  We respect
>ourselves and other people.  We are mature enough to understand that true
>human qualities are independent of clothing and other meaningless attributes.
>We do not approve of gawkers or those who want to exploit what we regard as
>entirely natural.
>

Dear Marc,

	Get off the fence.  Either people have a right to do what they want
with thier bodies (including nude olympics, nude bathing, and posing
for magazines) or they *don't* because they might offend someone.  Where
do you stand?  Sounds pretty much on the *don't* side -- you just draw
your lines differently.  Nobody was coercing *you* to pose.  How about
you let the people do what they want.  By the way, I know literally
dozens of people who would be interested in this offer (except that they
*won't* want to go to Oregon unless travel expenses are reinbursed) and
I *know* that they would be pretty insensed with the implication that they
aren't naturalists.

>> Am willing to split all prizes, etc. on a 50-50 basis.
>
>This is no less than amateur pimping.  It has no place in this newsgroup.

Get serious.  I presume that you have never posed in the nude, but I used
to pose for classes of art students a lot.  And I damn well got *paid* for
it.
-- 
Laura Creighton		
sun!hoptoad!laura		(note new address!  l5 will still
ihnp4!hoptoad!laura		 work for a while....)
hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa

I always thought it was really wierd that "naturists" and "nudist camps"
seemed to attract uptight people who just happen to want to take their
clothes off.

(Personally I'm more of a hedonist -- pleasure seeker -- and nudity in
the right surroundings is just one kind of pleasure.)

But I'm surprised that someone who likes to take pictures, who wants to
meet people who likes to have their picture taken nude, gets flamed
by this group.  I thought you-all had more class.

I was thinking of sending a donation to help the nude beach legal fight
but if it ends up that I'm helping nude prudes, they can fight their
own battle.  If this is the prevailing attitude I may as well unsubscribe.
-- 
# I resisted cluttering my mail with signatures for years, but the mail relay
# situation has gotten to where people can't reach me without it.  Dammit!
# John Gilmore  {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,nsc}!hoptoad!gnu    jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa

In article <460@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
> But I'm surprised that someone who likes to take pictures, who wants to
> meet people who likes to have their picture taken nude, gets flamed
> by this group.  I thought you-all had more class.

I posted a reply to the "nude model" message, though I'm not sure it got out
to the net properly.  In summary, I said that the only type of nude
photography that I find objectionable is just the kind encouraged by the
magazines mentioned by in the original article (High Society, Stag, Swank).
These soft-porn mags generally display women in unnatural poses designed to
cast the women as objects of lust for men.  Not only is this degrading to
women, but it propogates the concept that nude equals lewd.  It's this
equation which stirs up many conservative Christians to oppose efforts to
designate free beaches, and it's certainly the reason the Accomack County
council passed its unsupportable ordinance which closed the free beach on
Assateague Island.

Believe me, I'm not a prude.  Art which depicts people in natural and erotic
poses can be quite pleasing to me.  I'd be interested in hearing whether you
believe *any* pornographic art is acceptable, or if you agree that
pornography which degrades women should be discouraged.

> I was thinking of sending a donation to help the nude beach legal fight
> but if it ends up that I'm helping nude prudes, they can fight their
> own battle.  If this is the prevailing attitude I may as well unsubscribe.

It may help a few "nude prudes", but it will ultimately help you too.  You
stated that you're a hedonist who happens to like nudity too.  But if your
personal liberties are restricted by laws passed by people who have been
conditioned to associate nudity with offensive magazines, you won't be able
to enjoy your pleasures.

I personally know the people fighting the Accomack ordinance (which is
basically a societal dress code!).  I've participated with them in
conservation projects carried out with the Chincoteague Wildlife Refuge and
Assateague Island National Seashore, including contruction of a sand fence
behind the de facto free beach to protect the freshwater marsh there.  The
ordinance they're fighting has truly national scope, since it confronts
directly the consitutional question of whether the government is allowed to
restrict your freedom of expression (1st Amendment) by demanding a certain
public (state of) dress.  I hope you decide to support them.

I'll probably post in a little while an article from the latest ``Clothed with
the Sun'' which addresses this very issue.  It descibes a Naturist artist's
attitude towards unclothed art.  Not all Naturists have views which agree
with his or mine, and I'm not sure what the "prevailing attitude" is, but I
would say it's not predominantly prudish.
-- 
Steve Nahm
amd!ubvax!sxnahm
or
amd!ubvax!sxnahm@decwrl.DEC.COM
       (formerly decwrl.arpa)

> Phew! I can't believe all this noise about nude models. Especially from
> naturists! Why do you, of all people, immediately jump to the conclusion
> that photography of nude models is going to have sexual connotations?
> 
> Nudes (of either sex) can be very tastefully rendered in several media, 
> photographs being one of them. Go check out Rubens and Michaelangelo for
> a few examples of painting and sculpture, and then check out the
> internal assumptions you have about this subject!
> 
> chris

 I am not against this guy for advertising at all. I think he has the 
right, but I think you missed the point.  His advertisement listed
several magazines he would be sending pictures to. One of them
was SWANK.  Go buy a copy and then try to make a comparison to
Michaelangelo or Rubens. :-)
 If a picture in swank doesn't have sexual conotations, it isn't in
  swank.

-- 
                   Martin Van Ryswyk
	 {dual,lll-crg,ucbvax}!ucdavis!deneb!ccs025     uucp
           ucdavis!deneb!ccs025@ucbvax.berkley.edu      arpa

> Now, it would be stupid of me to take Marc Majka's personal position as the
> official position of the Naturalist movement without checking it out further.
> What do the rest of you think?  And are there any official positions I
> could look up?  
> -- 
> Laura Creighton		
> ihnp4!hoptoad!laura 
> hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa
/* ---------- */

Quoted without comment from the World Guide to Nude Beaches and Recreation
by Lee Baxandall (second edition):

   The Naturists emphasize that clothes-optional life-styles provide an
alternative both to puritanism and pornographic exploitation.  We believe
that the more acceptance of the body is suppressed, the more degrading
pornography we're going to see and the more puritanical reaction there
will be.  We reject both directions and steer a middle course - the
rational, healthy course - with naturism.

The Naturists
P.O. Box 132-W
Oshkosh, Wisconsin, 54902
---

Ales Fiala
{ihnp4|hplabs}!hpfcla!ales

> > But I'm surprised that someone who likes to take pictures, who wants to
> > meet people who likes to have their picture taken nude, gets flamed
> > by this group.  I thought you-all had more class.
> 
> I posted a reply to the "nude model" message, though I'm not sure it got out
> to the net properly.  In summary, I said that the only type of nude
> photography that I find objectionable is just the kind encouraged by the

I love it, I love it.  As the original poster of the "ad" may I say that.....












you have all been had!  The posting was posted just to see what sort of
reactions would be obtained.  I had the feeling that this group was just 
about dead, last summer when the weather was great this group had only 
about 1 or 2 postings a week.  Finally there is some traffic.  And, a lot
of good philosophical questions have come out about the purposed of nudity,
the interests of each member, etc.  Good questions have come up also about
what are the feelings of persons on a clothes optional beach when someone
shows up with a camera vs individual rights vs first amendment rights, etc.

However, may I suggest that the discussions continue, as there obviously 
are some strong feelings over the subject of nude modeling (no, I do not
really photograph nude models -- not that I would pass up the opportunity
if it presented itself -- I do not even have a 35mm camera that is operational)
particularly those who object to it on the grounds of indecency!  I find the
contradiction in when nudity to be obscene or indecent to be hilarious coming
from a group of supposedly nudist (naturalists).

			 -- Bill Dippert --

> you have all been had!  The posting was posted just to see what sort of
> reactions would be obtained.  I had the feeling that this group was just 
> about dead, last summer when the weather was great this group had only 
> about 1 or 2 postings a week.  Finally there is some traffic.  And, a lot
 
  Someone posted something like this on net.jokes a while back
just to pi** people off and see what happened.  Everyone felt
kind of used, except those who caught on and felt priveledged to
be 'in' on the joke.  Now I gather from your recent posting
that you posted the original article in order to jump start
conversation.  I hope that the few readers of this group do
not get bent out of shape, as those in net.jokes did (myself included).
It would just be a waste of time and ruin a discussion that has already
started.
   Having said that, I will give my meager little opinion on the
subject.  I see nothing wrong with nude photography that is
done in taste and with a more artistic approach than "Here
he/she is and Oh look, he/she has one/two (three ;-) ) of
these!!"  Photographs of nude models are an art form like
anything any other in that there are good pictures and bad.
I guess it is a matter of personal preference. My personal favorites
are black and whites with backlighting that pay good attention
to the subtle curves of a woman's body.  My favorite was done
by a Swede (who's name I don't recall) that was far enough away
to show the model's whole body (curled up some) yet had such clarity
as to show the outline of the soft , normally invisible, body
hair.(stomach, hips etc..)
      As for photographs that stray from the above stated personal
criteria, I have only one thing to say.  If the model, photographer,
and reader are all of consenting age and do indeed consent,
it is really none of my business.
                Just a few thoughts....
  [please *do* disagree with me and let us all know your own
   feelings.  I think naturists are like any other group of
   people, there are many different factions of the group 
   whith different beliefs.]



-- 
                   Martin Van Ryswyk
	 {dual,lll-crg,ucbvax}!ucdavis!deneb!ccs025     uucp
           ucdavis!deneb!ccs025@ucbvax.berkley.edu      arpa

0@hoptoad.uucp> <421@ubvax.UUCP> <414@tekigm2.UUCP> <153@ucdavis.UUCP>
Sender: 
Reply-To: steves@kepler.UUCP (Steve Schlich)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: MicroPro Int'l Corp., San Rafael, CA
Keywords: 


>you have all been had! [the original article was bogus, intending to
>stimulate discussion]

I have read the discussion with interest, but I don't like being had.
If you want to start a relevant discussion (and this was one), why not
simply ask a legitimate question?
-- 

One town looks very like another /
with your head down over your pieces, brother.
       ---from "One Night in Bangkok"
            Steve Schlich, MicroPro Product Development
{dual,hplabs,glacier,lll-crg}!well!micropro!kepler!steves

In article <421@ubvax.UUCP> sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP (Stephen Nahm) writes:
>These soft-porn mags generally display women in unnatural poses designed to
>cast the women as objects of lust for men. 

HUH?  I rather thought they provided visual images as objects of lust
for anyone.  At least, never in my time of looking at heavily modified
pictures that probably started with a female human model have I ever
had someone burst into my house and demand that I stop lusting because
I'm a woman.  (Nor, in fact, have I had that problem when cruising the
male nudes in mags oriented to gay men.  "Stop looking, this isn't for
the likes of YOU!")

> Not only is this degrading to
>women, but it propogates the concept that nude equals lewd.

This nonsense again!  Feh!  By the time a picture is put into one of
those airbrushed wondermags, it ain't a woman.  This argument always
reminds me of the folks who believe that taking your picture puts your
soul in a box.  I politely refrain from photographing such folks, but
be damned if I'll refrain from snapping shots at others who don't
share that superstition.  Or looking at the photos when they're
available.  Or permitting folks to take pictures of me with my nakes
hanging out iff they and I agree on the use of those photos.

(BTW, Bill, I didn't offer to model for you because you'd probably
find me over-abundant, as well as for geographic reasons.  But if my
bod matched the social norms for porn models, and our zipcodes had the
first few digits in common, I'd have suggested a meeting for
discussion, at least.)

And in any case, the real problem is that there are a lot of folks
trying to establish the idea that sexually stimulating is bad.  Even
though we all come from a long line of people who found each other
stimulating.  As someone, probably Lenny Bruce, said, "I like things
that make me hot!"

>pornography which degrades women should be discouraged.

You've lost me.  How can I be degraded by anything but my own
actions?  If I stopped naking not because I think it's too cold, or
because I think it's not right for me, but because someone _else_ said
it was wrong, THAT _would_ degrade me.  But neither looking at, nor
posing for, sexually enchanting photos degrades me.

>It may help a few "nude prudes", but it will ultimately help you too.  You
>stated that you're a hedonist who happens to like nudity too.  But if your
>personal liberties are restricted by laws passed by people who have been
>conditioned to associate nudity with offensive magazines, you won't be able
>to enjoy your pleasures.

How, pray tell, will rolling over for the immoral minority, and
agreeing that sexually stimulating equals bad or offensive, protect my
liberties?  I like sex, I like naking around, I enjoy porn that
matches my preferences, and I don't waste my limited social time with
people so warped by xian propaganda that they think the flesh and
urges god(s|dess|desses) created are dirty.  (If SHe didn't like
flesh, why did SHe make so jiggling much of it?)

You say yourself that these folks have been conditioned to associate
nudity with offensive (?) magazines -- why should I give them half of
their claim by joining them in flaming sexy mags?  With equal logic,
I could argue that _they_ should go naked.  (0=0)

I've never joined a naturalist-oriented organization for this precise
reason.  Claiming that nudism is MORE wholesome than wearing clothes,
while finding something offensive in the use of those parts not
customarily exposed doesn't make sense to me.  But it seems endemic in
the nudist culture.  I'd rather wait for another snowstorm that
permits making x-rated snow angels, or visit my farming friends.

				STella Calvert

		Every man and every woman is a star.

Guest on:	...!decvax!frog!wjr
Life:		Baltimore!AnnArbor!Smyrna!<LotsOfHitchhikingAndShortVisits>
			!SantaCruz!Berkeley!AnnArbor!Taxachusetts
Future:			...	(!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)

In article <638@frog.UUCP>, wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes:
>I like naking around...
and elsewhere:
>I'm not a naturist -- I'm a nake.

I'm not a grammarian, but it sounds better to say you're a naker than a
nake.  (The verb, to nake, implies action.  Someone that nakes is a naker.
A politcally minded naker might be a nakerist.)

> And in any case, the real problem is that there are a lot of folks
>trying to establish the idea that sexually stimulating is bad.

I think this might be the central issue you expressed in your response.  I
happen to agree that a) there are alot of folks doing this; and b) their
doing this is not useful.

I wouldn't doubt that there are a number of people who are members of
organized nudism who align themselves with this notion, though I'd wager the
majority would be members of the tradional clubs, rather than the the
Naturists (capital N).  I don't see this as a problem for me, though, since
I can choose not to associate with them.  (Someone else posted Baxandall's
philosophy from the World Guide: Naturists aren't into puritanism.)

>>pornography which degrades women should be discouraged.

>You've lost me.  How can I be degraded by anything but my own
>actions?

I don't suppose that *you* personally can be degraded by anything except
whatever you choose to be degraded by.  It so happens that some people
choose to feel degraded when they are indirectly (or directly) victimized by
sexist actions.  I don't suppose I have to justify that porn is a sexist
activity.  As to whether anyone is victimized by it, that's certainly open
to debate.  It's pretty clear, though, that some people feel they are.

> This nonsense again!  Feh!  By the time a picture is put into one of
> those airbrushed wondermags, it ain't a woman.

Gee, they look alot like women...

We have laws that protect pornographers.  Thankfully they cannot be
prohibited from publishing their interpretation of "all the nudes that's
fit to print" due to the First Amendment.  All of our rights would be
meaningless if they were subject to selective application.

But those people that feel that pornography is undesirable also have the
right to express this point of view.  The first response I saw to the Nude
Model message was an example of this.  I happen to agree with this too:
pornographers need not apply to net.rec.nude.

Users of Usenet can choose to ignore such statements; they can also ignore
other norms of net behavior such as not purposefully posting misleading
messages just to see what happens.  We can all be glad Usenet is not a
crowded theater where shouting "pornography!" could cause a stampede that
might hurt someone.  (Although I guess a flood of messages on the net could
cause someone's phone bill to be hurt...)
-- 
Steve Nahm                  UUCP route:       {amd|cae780}!ubvax!sxnahm
sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP           Internet address: amd!ubvax!sxnahm@decwrl.DEC.COM

> And in any case, the real problem is that there are a lot of folks
> trying to establish the idea that sexually stimulating is bad.  Even
> though we all come from a long line of people who found each other
> stimulating.  As someone, probably Lenny Bruce, said, "I like things
> that make me hot!"
> 
> I've never joined a naturalist-oriented organization for this precise
> reason.  Claiming that nudism is MORE wholesome than wearing clothes,
> while finding something offensive in the use of those parts not
> customarily exposed doesn't make sense to me.  But it seems endemic in
> the nudist culture.  I'd rather wait for another snowstorm that
> permits making x-rated snow angels, or visit my farming friends.
> 
> 				STella Calvert
>

Absolutely!

I have had a difficult time trying to understand why nudism has
a thoroughly asexual point of view.  Is it so they can have greater
acceptance among the mundanes?  If so, then the word "naturist" is
incorrect because sexuality, in it's purest sense, IS natural.

The idea of having to go to somePLACE to "nake" also, doesn't seem
right.  It's nice to have a resort environment that allows me to
drop the clothes (the first thing I do when I get home at night),
but "naturist camps" still don't seem to fit the bill...
I'd rather not have to bother with the travel time and the
negated sexuality, which in many ways, can be as unnatural as
celibacy.

Oh well.

 Gary
(hplabs,allegra,ihnp4)oliveb!olivee!gnome
"The meek shall inherit the Earth.  The rest will inherit the stars."

In article <449@ubvax.UUCP> sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP (Stephen Nahm) writes:
>>I like naking around...
>and elsewhere:
>>I'm not a naturist -- I'm a nake.

>I'm not a grammarian, but it sounds better to say you're a naker than a
>nake.  (The verb, to nake, implies action.  Someone that nakes is a naker.
>A politcally minded naker might be a nakerist.)

Good grief!  Grammar coals in net.rec.nude!  (*Note that I carefully
did not accuse you of _flaming_!  Thanks for the laugh!*)

I found "nake" as a noun in one of L.Neil Smith's books as a racist
insult used by chimpanzee citizens about homosaps.  So while you're
probably more historically correct than I, I'm a nake.

>I don't suppose that *you* personally can be degraded by anything except
>whatever you choose to be degraded by.  It so happens that some people
>choose to feel degraded when they are indirectly (or directly) victimized by
 ------
>sexist actions.  

You are not responsible for the consequences of my choosing to believe
that god is an old woman with a beard; why should other women's
beliefs affect my behavior?  It's another variation on the theme "this
offends me, so you should stop." Accept that argument, and you'll end
up wearing clothes because others find naked flesh offensive!  I find
Jerry Falwell offensive -- does this obligate him to commit suicide?

>I don't suppose I have to justify that porn is a sexist
>activity.

Is porn sexist because men buy more than women do and are therefore
presumably driven by their glands to waste money?  Or what?

>We have laws that protect pornographers. . . . All of our rights would be
>meaningless if they were subject to selective application.

Glad we agree on this most important point!

>pornographers need not apply to net.rec.nude.

We don't have to agree here, thank goodness.

				STella Calvert

		Do what thou wilt -- not just a good idea, 

				it's the law!

Guest on Account:	...!mit-eddie!frog!wjr
Life:			Baltimore!AnnArbor!<LongStrangeTrip>!Taxachusetts
Future:			...	(!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)