Re: small bunny

>    .   .  *  .  .         Merry Christmas!            .  _==_ .  .
>     .   i/.\i .                                     .    (",)   .
>      . i/o'.\i  .              ^aNT                  . ;-(: )-'  .
>    .  i/.'.o.\i.        <an...@ns.vpszk.bme.hu>       .   ( :  ) .
>        ^^^H^^^                                          `-..-'

Now it's a mongrel - a cross between mine and jgs's.
BUT if ppl are just starting in ascii I don't mind them 
taking my work and modifying it. And with small ascii 
like this I'm not going to be so picky as to insist
that I get credit. 

But I must confess to having a bit 
of a "twinge" when somebody uses other ppl's work (not
just mine) as a clear influence or basis but passes the 
whole thing off as their own. 

But where do you draw the line?
Like Nana says, there's only a few ways to come up with
a pic in a few lines. Then again, most asii artists have 
their own style that is distinct and instantly recogniseable; 
it can't always be coincidence when you get such startling 
similarities as with the tree and snowman in this sig. 

In short, I won't insist on ppl giving me credit where small
pis are concerned (and I dont' want to look pathetic by doing 
so) but it does piss me off a teeny bit when ppl take other ppl's 
work, change a couple of the ascii characters and then pass it 
off as original. Like with those macros of joans ascii that turn 
up on AOL. Who should get the credit on those?

What do others think? Am I being pathetic, or do other ppl feel 
hard done by when they see ppl using their own work and suggesting, 
by the omission of initials that it's by the person who "snatched"
it?

-hayley