X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f996b,bbebf8a7e22d3714
X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public
From: suzi@centrenet.on.ca
Subject: Re: Adult Ascii Art
Date: 1997/01/10
Message-ID: <852873234.31819@dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 208966325
references: <5a0hpu$fga$1@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net> <32C7004D.3C67@online.no>
 <5aekce$q1q@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> <852527223.26271@dejanews.com>
 <5b2k59$ht1@saturn.brighton.ac.uk>
x-http-user-agent: Mozilla/3.0Gold (Macintosh; I; PPC)
x-originating-ip-addr: 207.176.130.129 ()
organization: Deja News Usenet Posting Service
x-article-creation-date: Fri Jan 10 05:30:28 1997 GMT
x-authenticated-sender: suzi@centrenet.on.ca
newsgroups: alt.ascii-art


In article <5b2k59$ht1@saturn.brighton.ac.uk>,
  ral4@bton.ac.uk (LYFE) wrote:

> better because it would be self-explainitory,
- The pic is self explainitory the way it is. If you can't get the point of it, 
well maybe you should get out a little more. 


> as pictures are suppost to be 
- If pictures are suppost to be self explainitory, then why do people spend 
years studying them???? Is the Mona Lisa self explainitory? Is Pop Art self 
explainitory? And why is it, that when you change the context of a picture, the 
meaning changes, if the pic is supose to be self explainitory (ie says the point 
by its own self)???? A good picture is like a good book, you should have to read 
into it, find subplots, interesting details etc.


> ( apart from those deep meaningful ones, which this is _not_ ))
- You're looking for deep meaning on the internet? You are one sad little 
pumpkin...

Suzi!
suzi@centrenet.on.ca
http://user.centrenet.on.ca/suzi/
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/mydirect/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/7303/index1.html

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet