Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Craven so wants a cookie Monday, September 23, 2002 - 01:23 (Agree/Disagree?) everyone, Sorry about the "emperor's new clothes" routine. I'll explain the illusion for the "daft" if needed. In case you are the sensitive type you don't need to worry about being daft to not see this. Inability to recognize optical illusions is not indicative of intelligence. It might even be a tell-tale sign that says you are firmly rooted in reality. In any case, optical illusion blindness and smarts are not mutually exclusive. (reply to this comment)

from monger Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:04 (Agree/Disagree?) You f&^%#$* rule, dude! I had to stare blankly at it for like 10 seconds to get it, even with your pictures underneath, ...but DAMN Craven! Total opposites women there! Bloody brilliant! (reply to this comment)

From Craven Sunday, September 22, 2002, 12:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Not mine, it's old as the hills I drew it from memory and have no ever been able to determine its origin. ALL my art has little illusions embedded in them but with the resolutions allowed you won't find them.(reply to this comment)

From monger Sunday, September 22, 2002, 13:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, 300px wide at 40K is a bitch!(reply to this comment)

From monger Tuesday, September 24, 2002, 03:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Incidentally, all of your pictures besides 'Unicorn' are slightly OVER 300 pixels wide (this one's 333)...how did that happen??(reply to this comment)

From Craven loves PHP Tuesday, September 24, 2002, 18:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I'd love to be able to say it's because I'm special and Jules thinks the world of me but I think she gave a little leeway with it (e.g, says the limit is 300 but allows for more), dunno. I had a cool picture that was blocked but I didn't bother to resize it.(reply to this comment)