=====
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"?