(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-23 07:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sjl.livejournal.com
I can read it. And yes, it's so true.

But really, would it be such a bad thing, what with the massive over-population we're dealing with here?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-23 07:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] maharetr.livejournal.com
Drive-by 'yup I can read it' :)

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-23 07:53 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] catsidhe.livejournal.com
Hrmph. Maybe I just need to start wearing my specs again.

Source is here, for the record.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-23 08:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sjl.livejournal.com
How about this slight change?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-23 09:20 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] celsa.livejournal.com
I can read both, but the improvement is certainly clearer.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-23 09:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sjl.livejournal.com
I have to admit, I'm more than halfway inclined to wipe the text and just type it in fresh. It's not the best of sources to begin with.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-23 09:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] araquel.livejournal.com
Noticeably sharper.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-23 11:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tau-iota-mu-c.livejournal.com
Looks artifacty.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-23 08:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] araquel.livejournal.com
Needs sharpened just a tiny bit - I can read it, but the text is ever-so-slightly blurred for me. But I'm 40 next year, so that could also explain it.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-23 10:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_zombiemonkey/
Not only can I read both, but I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-24 01:21 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cthulu-for-pm.livejournal.com
Both are readable, second version is somewhat better.

And I heartily agree with the sentiment.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-24 09:55 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Obviously there aren't many people here.

-- mpp