At 11:07 AM 5/10/03 -0600, you wrote:

On May 6, Jim Muth wrote:

FOTD -- May 06, 2003 (Rating 7)

...

...

As the month progresses, I shall use nothing but the conventional equal-iteration-band method to render and color the images. There will be no 'evaporated' or 'tdis' images. This limitation will not result in boring images however. The parent fractal has nearly (and in fact, actual) unlimited variety. <<

Just 4 days later on May 10, Jim Muth wrote:

FOTD -- May 10, 2003 (Rating 5)

...

...

Today's image is slow because most of it consists of inside material made visible by the < bof61 > inside fill. But it is not an evaporated image. A good part of it is real material rendered with the < tdis > option. <<

Is this the result of: (1) A promise made but not kept! :-) (2) Just an exception to the proposed FOTD rule for May. (3) Jim reserving the right to change his mind. (4) Jim forgetting to focus on his announced mission. (5) A test to see if his readers are paying attention to his comments. (6) There was not unlimited variety in the parent and Jim was getting bored.

I suspect the answer is (5). ;-)

:-) :-) ;-) ;-) ;-) Choice (1) is true by definition. But considering the unfulfilled promises I have made about the upcoming FOTD CD, it is not too serious a breach. Choice (2) is also true by definition. Choice (3) Ditto. Choice (4) is untrue. I knew all along that I was reneging on my word. This is why I mentioned 'evaporated' fractals in the short discussion. Choice (5) is partially true. I soon realized that my original plan was a hastily conceived and unnecessary limitation. When I intentionally departed from my announced plan, I did wonder how many, if any, would notice it. But the departure was not intended to be a test. I used the other options simply because they improved the image, which, in its original form, was in need of help, and I was rushed for time. Choice (6) is totally untrue. The parent fractal has more variety than I could find in a million lifetimes. Jim M. ;-)