Quote from: Kyle Aaron;919980Out of curiosity, how many of your miniatures are actually painted?

All of my Black Templars have been painted up to the point where shading is done, and I'm still working on highlighting them.  Recently, I've stopped because the Deathwatch grabbed my attention and I'm repurposing my Land Raider, Drop Pod, and Rhinos for that.  Probably the Terminators, too.

Most of the Deathwatch have at least the primer basecoat on them now.  Not assembled entirely, because I'm still working on the Codex to figure out how I'm going to structure formations.  Since there's fuckery to be had with templates and shotguns, I'm not sure how I'm going to put them together just yet.  I might also be stripping down their LRC soon.  I haven't even started on the Corvus.

The holdup with this tends to be a little loophole in the rules where you can swap a Bolter for a Shotgun.  However, it also says something about swapping your CCW for a bolter, and being able to swap that over- essentially, you can have 'no close combat weapon' and have a bolter and a shotgun.  Most likely I won't do this, but it's one of those things that I'd like clarification on.  Most people use WYSIWYG within reason, but I'm not one to push it too far.  

I use a system where I assemble the torso, then the lower legs, and then start painting the three main colors (armor, pauldrons, and basic chest details on the Black Templars).  I try to leave everything else on the sprue primed until I'm ready to use it.  This gives it an 'assembly line' method.  Later on, I'll go and touch up details.  Since I'm a bit lazy, that tends to be "one when I'm watching a movie".  

And later, when the Deathwatch are complete- I'm going to show them off.  By that time, my friend will be back and he can help me get more of them done.  

I've only seen a few people field unpainted armies in my time.  Most of them are just someone who bought a box with two armies, and are 'testing' out the other army that they wanted less.

Quote from: Crüesader;919975And Neil Gaiman spoke in defense of this guy:  https://www.wired.com/2010/02/obscene-us-manga-collector-jailed-6-months/?+wired27b+%2528Blog+-+27B+Stroke+6+%2528Threat+Level%2529%2529

http://www.mtv.com/news/2593182/neil-gaiman-on-the-obscenity-of-manga-collector-christopher-handleys-trial/

There nothing in any of that quoting Gaiman defending child pornography/pedophilia.  The first article doesn't even contain his name.

Quote from: yosemitemike;919982There nothing in any of that quoting Gaiman defending child pornography/pedophilia.  The first article doesn't even contain his name.

I know, the first article was before Neil spoke on it.  

Here's a wiki article.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley

Gaiman raised money for the defense of someone with simulated child pornography.

"Do you remember there was a law passed prohibiting making things that simulated child pornography, even if the things actually weren't?" Gaiman asked, referring to part of the PROTECT Act (18 U.S.C. Section 1466A). (As in situations where an of-age female is in a pornographic situation, but "where she's being presented as if she were 13.") "They said, 'For heaven's sake, we're not talking about art. We're only talking about stuff where you're leading people to believe they're looking at real child porn,'" said Gaiman.

Quote from: Crüesader;919983I know, the first article was before Neil spoke on it.  

Here's a wiki article.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley

He doesn't defend child pornography/pedophilia there either.  He is worried that possession of some of his own work (which is not pornographic and does not endorse pedophilia at all) might be made a crime under this law and, by the letter of the law, it could happen.

Quote from: Crüesader;919983"Do you remember there was a law passed prohibiting making things that simulated child pornography, even if the things actually weren't?" Gaiman asked, referring to part of the PROTECT Act (18 U.S.C. Section 1466A). (As in situations where an of-age female is in a pornographic situation, but "where she's being presented as if she were 13.") "They said, 'For heaven's sake, we're not talking about art. We're only talking about stuff where you're leading people to believe they're looking at real child porn,'" said Gaiman.

That quote doesn't defend child pornography/pedophilia either.  You can keep fishing for something that says that but you won't find it.  I am quite familiar with this case and what was said.  Gaiman didn't say what you say he says.  Here's what he actually said in his own words.  He was not defending Handley as a person.  He was and is defending the principle of freedom of speech.  he did not defend child pornography.  He condemns it quite clearly.  
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

Quote from: yosemitemike;919984He doesn't defend child pornography/pedophilia there either.  He is worried that possession of some of his own work (which is not pornographic and does not endorse pedophilia at all) might be made a crime under this law and, by the letter of the law, it could happen.

I'm not a fan of everything the PROTECT act included, nor am I fan of much of what it goes after.

Quote from: yosemitemike;919984That quote doesn't defend child pornography/pedophilia either.  You can keep fishing for something that says that but you won't find it.  I am quite familiar with this case and what was said.  Gaiman didn't say what you say he says.  Here's what he actually said in his own words.  He was not defending Handley as a person.  He was and is defending the principle of freedom of speech.  he did not defend child pornography.  He condemns it quite clearly.  
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

I'll concede that point, but bring into question this:  He raised money for his legal defense.  Now, whether that 'supports' it or not in your opinion is entirely up to you.  However, as a person I don't tend to lend financial aid to persons that have done something I find deplorable, as that translates directly to 'support'.  According to the case (and you're more familiar with it than I am, feel free to correct me) the guy pled guilty and got a lesser charge.  Had they cracked open the books, he'd have gotten a much worse sentence.  That tells me what he had was pretty risque', in the mildest of terms.  Whether Mr. Gaiman knew it was this bad or not, I don't know.  I would have hoped Mr. Gaiman would have asked to see what titles the guy was reading.

I was in Okinawa for a bit.  They have some very, very risque' comics where little 3-foot-tall flat-chested girls in pigtails are having things done to them.  I can't read the language, there could be something in the writing claiming she's 18 or older and some kind of halfling or something- but the artwork is pretty clearly a naked cartoon child having things done.  Should it be illegal?  I don't even know.  My personal approach is to not purchase or support these things.  I also don't think sex offenders are generally dealt with properly (putting someone on a list and driving them into isolation as a pariah tends to be the last thing you want a potential child predator to do).

Of note, in his writings and responses, he clearly states that he doesn't see drawings as the actual 'real thing' when it comes to defining something as 'child pornography'.  I'm not sure how to process that.  If I make a crude scribble of a girl with no tits, and say 'she's fourteen bro', then I'm not certain that holds the same weight as if I were to take a sophisticated digital art program on the computer and render a 3d image of a naked child to look realistic and then saying "She's not a real person".

I guess it boils down to requiring a 'victim' in some cases, and that's a whole other can of worms.

Quote from: Crüesader;919985I'll concede that point, but bring into question this:  He raised money for his legal defense.  Now, whether that 'supports' it or not in your opinion is entirely up to you.  

I am simply reading what he said about why did what he did.  It wasn't support of child pornography or Handley as a person.  That isn't supporting child pornography any more than insisting on due process for people accused of rape is supporting rape.

Quote from: yosemitemike;919988I am simply reading what he said about why did what he did.  It wasn't support of child pornography or Handley as a person.  That isn't supporting child pornography any more than insisting on due process for people accused of rape is supporting rape.

And I don't think you were.  Mind you, insults earlier were directed toward a specific forum tumor.  Not you.

Of course, if you said "dude they are accusing me of X because I have X and I didn't do anything wrong", well... I'm not sure if I'd be willing to help you get money for a better lawyer.  Ideally, if the guy were as innocent as he claimed to be- he could have walked in there with a cardboard cutout of a lawyer and been fine.  When you have to get a really good lawyer for stuff like this, I approach with hesitation.

He was getting due process.  He entered a plea bargain, admitted guilt- because apparently what was in that book was bad enough to convince the jury he was a pedo.  I don't know what the title was, or the images were, and I don't want to look because I don't want that anywhere near my computer or phone.

Quote from: Crüesader;919989Of course, if you said "dude they are accusing me of X because I have X and I didn't do anything wrong", well... I'm not sure if I'd be willing to help you get money for a better lawyer.  Ideally, if the guy were as innocent as he claimed to be- he could have walked in there with a cardboard cutout of a lawyer and been fine.  When you have to get a really good lawyer for stuff like this, I approach with hesitation.

If I felt that the case represented a large legal issue, I might because of my concern about that larger issue.  Gaiman never said Handley was innocent.  He was concerned about the precedent being set.

Quote from: Crüesader;919989He was getting due process.  He entered a plea bargain, admitted guilt- because apparently what was in that book was bad enough to convince the jury he was a pedo.  I don't know what the title was, or the images were, and I don't want to look because I don't want that anywhere near my computer or phone.

The thing about due process was in relation to current rape law and rape policies on campus where basic due process is very much under attack.  That's a larger issue just like the larger issue of freedom of speech Gaiman was talking about in the Handley case.  Opposing the erosion of due process in rape cases has been portrayed as rape apology in the same way that Gaiman's concern for freedom of speech has been portrayed as support for child pornography.

Quote from: yosemitemike;919994If I felt that the case represented a large legal issue, I might because of my concern about that larger issue.  Gaiman never said Handley was innocent.  He was concerned about the precedent being set.

And I understand that- however, I would have probably elected to remove myself from it financially and still raise those questions.  I'd raise more, and Mr. Gaiman's response is vague about some things.  

If we're going to say 'it doesn't count as porn because it's not a real person', then does that apply to super-realistic computer renders that look indistinguishable from the real thing?  If it isn't 'porn' because it's 'art', then who gets to determine the line between 'porn' and 'art'?  If they're worried that child porn with no exploited children can encourage people to engage in pedophilic activities, then we'll be having our Mortal Kombat/Doom arguments all over again in reference to violence.

Quote from: yosemitemike;919994The thing about due process was in relation to current rape law and rape policies on campus where basic due process is very much under attack.  That's a larger issue just like the larger issue of freedom of speech Gaiman was talking about in the Handley case.  Opposing the erosion of due process in rape cases has been portrayed as rape apology in the same way that Gaiman's concern for freedom of speech has been portrayed as support for child pornography.

I think the part that raises most of the concern is that 'it's not real because there's no victim'.  I'll admit to being harsh and saying he supports child pornography, but I will absolutely say that this might not have been the best case for him to involve himself in.  Lending financial aid to someone is not a wise move, and constitutes support.  Therefore, I'll retract my statement- Neil Gaiman lent financial aid to a child pornography enthusiast.

I'll make the correction in the original post, since you're the only person that didn't go full autism.

Quote from: Crüesader;919995If we're going to say 'it doesn't count as porn because it's not a real person', then does that apply to super-realistic computer renders that look indistinguishable from the real thing?  If it isn't 'porn' because it's 'art', then who gets to determine the line between 'porn' and 'art'?  If they're worried that child porn with no exploited children can encourage people to engage in pedophilic activities, then we'll be having our Mortal Kombat/Doom arguments all over again in reference to violence.

That's a while different discussion.  It can be difficult to define what is and is not porn in clear legal terms.  Laws are often overly broad and vague and this is a real concern.  Provisions of the CPPA, for example, were struck down because it was overly broad.  Overly broad law can be applied to criminalize things that the people passing it never envisioned as criminal offenses.  The Twitter harassment case is an example of this in action.  Who gets to decide?  That's a good question.  Right now, the government does.  I don't trust them to wipe their own butts let alone decide something like that.  Gaiman was worried that his own work could be called child porn because, under the letter of the law, it could be.  It's a valid concern for an artist.

Quote from: yosemitemike;919996Gaiman was worried that his own work could be called child porn because, under the letter of the law, it could be.  It's a valid concern for an artist.

Yes, even looking at the way the laws are written, you can see few loopholes and they tiptoed around the language quite a bit.  

Either way, the point I'd made originally was a dig on the guy worried that WH40k wasn't being 'kid-friendly' enough.  We got a bit off-track, but I'll just say the same argument that '40k is for kids' could also be done for comics- and Mr. Gaiman has done quite a bit of work on Slaanesh's tier.  

Speaking of kid-friendly 40k:

[video=youtube;o8TuA-o8pnw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TuA-o8pnw[/youtube]

I gotta side with Due Process every time, regardless of the alleged crime.

As for "Is it art?", I don't know. Nude child art has a long history and who knows if the Renaissance Masters were pervs or not. Who knows how many fans of nude child art are pervs or art fans? I have no idea where the line is. I am okay with simulated CGI sex acts to be illegal, but I don't think moms posting FB pics of their toddler running around naked should not be considered enemies of the state - even if those images would titillate a freak.

Quote from: Spinachcat;921008...t I don't think moms posting FB pics of their toddler running around naked should not be considered enemies of the state - even if those images would titillate a freak.

You'd be shocked.  FB will remove them as 'pornography'.  Then again, it's facebook.  These are people who take down MRA pages (which, I actually thing are kind of pathetic but harmless, at best funny when tongue-in-cheek) but you can find ISIS fan pages where people are openly asking for recruiting information.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;919980Out of curiosity, how many of your miniatures are actually painted?

Unfair question to anyone who collects miniatures seriously for any game--there is ALWAYS more lead to paint lying around the house somewhere.