X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f996b,1998dee0bb30b4b5 X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-03-25 10:51:33 PST Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!news.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!zib-berlin.de!netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!sgigate.sgi.com!olivea!decwrl!hookup!news.sprintlink.net!sashimi.wwa.com!gagme.wwa.com!not-for-mail From: boba@gagme.wwa.com (Bob Allison) Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art Subject: LINE - Numbers Date: 25 Mar 1994 12:51:33 -0600 Organization: WorldWide Access (SM) Chicagoland Internet Services 312-282-8605 708-367-1871 Lines: 30 Message-ID: <2mvbrl$sfa@gagme.wwa.com> References: <2moo0o$2h6@jaws.cs.hmc.edu> <2mmhg7$aio@ivy.bga.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: gagme.wwa.com In article , Greg Webster wrote: > >In a previous article, psamuels@hmc.edu (Out of Order) says: >> >> _ _ __ _ __ __ ___ __ __ _ >>/| _) _) /_| |_ (__ _/ (__) (__) /.\ >>_|_ /__ __) | __) (__) / (__) __) \_/ >> >>Yuck. Can anyone redo the numbers? The 2, 6 and 9 are especially >>horrid. >> >I tend to like all or none of the numbers with tops, but the four seems >unresolved here...the one works better I think. 6 & 9 I like a bit better >now, the zero bugs me. Anyone else? I redid these way to fast to be any good. They're different but not necessarily better. . _ __ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ "| ) _) /_| |_ /_ _/ (_) (_\ / \ _|_ /__ __) | __) \_) / (_) _/ \_/ -- """"""\ """""\ """"""\ """"""\ """""\ """""\ """"""\ """"""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ """"""\ ""\ """"""\ """"""\ """""\ ""\ """"""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\""\ ""\ ""\ ""\""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ """"""\ """""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ ""\ """""\ """""\ ""\ ""\ """"""\ """"""""""\