=====
From sshaw@fas.harvard.edu:
This makes a decent picture, but it really looks to me like it should be a small
part of some larger picture.  The stone, as it is here, fills up too much of
the space for my compositional comfort.  It also looks to me like the text is
raised, rather than carved into the stone, which is something that I have never
encountered.  Finally, is "forggotton" an older spelling of "forgotten"?  I
wasn't able to find it.

=====
From Martin.Magnusson.7121@student.uu.se:
Lovely hazy light.

=====
From jerry@hoboes.com:
Very nice; what's that fuzzy thing in the background, though?
=====
From jull43@ij.net:
While I agree it represents history, it is not history as I can 
see it. Otherwise you have several "jaw drop" effects. 

=====
From bsieker@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de:
I will not hold this against you, but the mispelling disturbs my impression of
the image a  bit. It should be "forgotten"
The engraving appears to be the wrong way round, i. e. it seems to be raised
rather than recessed. If it were really engraved and looks like it does, the
light would have to come from below which does not seem likely given the rest
of the image.
The ridge on the left side of the stone looks correct.
A nice image otherwise, realistic texture for on old stone.

=====
From ethelm@bigfoot.com:
Interesting concept and image.

=====
From 101741.541@compuserve.com:
Quite philosophical concept !
The engraving is a little too fuzzy, and the stains looks 
mor like rust
than damaged stone...  Very evocative...

=====
From bobfranke@halcyon.com:
The texture on the tombstone is fantastic.  However, the 
lettering is backwards.  It should not be raised, it should 
be chiseled.  Or maybe I am just fooled by the lighting 
and my mind can't see it right.  I will have to wait and 
see if anyone else makes this comment.


=====
From r@pluto.icom-solutions.com:
The textures in this are incredibly realistic.
Notable for textures, originality


=====
From r@dialup81-1-37.swipnet.se:
Notable for textures