===== From kingofmycastle@gmx.net: First a dull image and then a long text. What the .... should that be? ===== From tek@evilsuperbrain.com: Very interesting essay on the nature of art and the inherent futility of any attempt to form a qualitative judgement of it. But that still doesn't make this a picture of a fortress, IMHO. ===== From bfranke2@home.com: Way too much text, very boring. I tried, but just could not get though it all. In the future please concentrate on the image, not the text. ===== From jaimevives@mixmail.com: Well, I'm still intrigued why you not put on the image the effort you put onto the explanation... ===== From ZenPsycho@yahoo.com: err.. taking post modernism a bit too seriously eh? are you making a statement about the fortress of standards that the irtc is built on? heh.. hmnn oki doki. ===== From mark.wagner17@gte.net: So what you are saying in your image description is that you are going to ignore the topic and enter your image anyway, right? ===== From youknow@ucan.foad.org: Judging is subjective. It's meant to be. Just as your subjective definition of the round included a fairly limited view that you rejected, my subjective one cannot relate your image to the topic. ===== From msarns@ufl.edu: Whatever it is, it isn't happening in the image. ===== From peter@table76.demon.co.uk: and I thought it was just about skin resisting germs or whatever... if you didn't initially mean "fascia", why keep it, unless it's an extension of the "found objects" idea to cover "found words"?