{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1100",
    "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it.  Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.",
    "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'"
  },
  "archive": "urth",
  "thread": {
    "id": 1100,
    "subject": "Father Inire's photo album",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 2,
    "first": "1998-09-08T10:30:42+00:00",
    "last": "1998-09-09T00:01:53+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0018-0123@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Dan Parmenter",
        "address": "dan at lec.com"
      },
      "date": "1998-09-08T10:30:42+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Father Inire's photo album",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "From: \"William H. Ansley\" <wansley at warwick.net>\n\nMantis>> Happily, Inire seems to be just enamoured by little exultantesses, and there\nMantis>> is no evidence of his actually molesting them. Boy, wouldn't that be an\nMantis>> embarassment to the reign of the Autarch Severian."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "I certainly hope no one reading this list thinks that Charles Lutwidge\nDodgson (Lewis Carroll) molested any children. He didn't. He also wasn't a\nchild pornographer - mantis was joking (I hope)."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I guess it depends on how you define \"pornography\".  Dodgson\ndefinitely took pictures of naked little girls.  This is not a\ncontroversial assertion as far as I know, and this is what Mantis was\ntalking about.\n\nD"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0018-0124@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "William H. Ansley",
        "address": "wansley at warwick.net"
      },
      "date": "1998-09-09T00:01:53+00:00",
      "subject": "Re: (urth) Father Inire's photo album",
      "in_reply_to": "<urth-v0018-0123@digest.urth.net>",
      "reply_link": "subject",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Dan Parmenter <dan at lec.com> wrote:\nFrom: \"William H. Ansley\" <wansley at warwick.net>\n\nMantis>> Happily, Inire seems to be just enamoured by little\nexultantesses, and there\nMantis>> is no evidence of his actually molesting them. Boy, wouldn't that\nbe an\nMantis>> embarassment to the reign of the Autarch Severian."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "I certainly hope no one reading this list thinks that Charles Lutwidge\nDodgson (Lewis Carroll) molested any children. He didn't. He also wasn't a\nchild pornographer - mantis was joking (I hope)."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "I guess it depends on how you define \"pornography\".  Dodgson\ndefinitely took pictures of naked little girls.  This is not a\ncontroversial assertion as far as I know, and this is what Mantis was\ntalking about."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Yup, I guess it does. I didn't write \"Lewis Carroll wasn't a child\npornographer despite the fact that he took pictures of naked little girls,\"\nnot because I wasn't aware of that he took pictures of naked little girls\n(as well as clothed ones) but because I assumed that the people who read\nthis list would know this fact.\n\nDespite the fact that this hobby probably indicates a major kink in Charles\nLutwidge Dodgson's personality and sexuality (he never married nor had any\nkind of sexual relationship, as far as anyone knows), the fact remains that\nthe Victorian fashion at the time to idealize small children as completely\npure and innocent beings made it easy to present his photographs as Art.\nDodgson never put his nude photographs on public display, was very\nselective in who he let view them, never published them and requested that\nall the nude photographs be destroyed after his death, which they were.\n\nDodgson always asked permission of parents before he photographed their\ndaughters in the nude (although he might play word games if the parents\ndidn't directly tell him not to) and he never photographed a little girl in\nthe nude who was at all unwilling that he do so.\n\nI think the above statements disqualify Dodgson as a child pornographer.\nWhile I certainly don't find this aspect of Dodgson's artistic endeavors to\nbe particularly appealing, I object to seeing him branded as something he\nwas not.\n\nIf my arguments seem unconvincing, well, everyone is entitled to their own\nopinion. This discussion thread is by now completely off topic and I have\nno intention of contributing any more messages to it.\n\nWilliam Ansley"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}