From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Sep 28 2007 - 22:17:14 CDT
On 9/28/2007 4:23 PM, James Kass wrote:
> William J. Poser wrote,
>> If the Christian fish is encoded, I demand equal space for the Darwin fish.
> Shouldn't the latter be considered a glyph variant of the former?
Glyph variants that have diametrically opposite semantics? I know you
are a font designer, but that seems to be stretching things a bit - or
was that still meant in the April Fools' Day context?
> However, the Christian fish symbol has currency; its use is widespread.
> It is just as likely a character as CHI RHO, CADUCEUS, STAR AND
> CRESCENT, or SKULL AND CROSSBONES.
There is something to that view. I think one of my earlier postings had
a "not" missing. At least the quoted text seems to say the opposite of
what I thought I was saying....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 28 2007 - 22:20:26 CDT