=====
From agage@mines.edu:
Very pretty.

=====
From wozzeck@club-internet.fr:
Sorry, I spent several minutes trying to find out how your "famous" surface
looked
like... However it is nice, and its ununderstandability could be a part of its
charm!

=====
From bill.marrs@pureatria.com:
What's a non-orientable surface?

=====
From sonya_roberts@geocities.com:
I have no idea what a "non-orientable surface" is, but it looks very cool.  I
like the colour banding that
happens in the image.

=====
From 93johnst@scar.utoronto.ca:
Nice use of colors.

=====
From amarok@geocities.com:
All those colours are really beatiful.

=====
From gmccarter@hotmail.com:
Asymmetry can be beautiful.
So exactly what is a "non-orientable surface", anyhow?

=====
From cfusner@enter.net:
Fairly simplistic composition, though the object is interesting. The
most intriguing part is the colors. Where did they come from? No source,
so I can't check to see if they are reflected off something out of
camera range. They certain add just enough of a touch to make this
image worth looking at.

=====
From alex@astro.queensu.ca:
hard to follow, would be better as an animation(if you could submit them.)

=====
From SSchanevil@aol.com:
Too few objects in the scene to make it especially interesting.  Excellent
texture though.

=====
From marvil@algonet.se:
Nice colours. I'd like to have this thing as a paper-weight. There could be
something more in the picture, though.

=====
From bsieker@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de:
The surfaces are not smooth, but consists short straight pieces which makes the
image look like (excuse me) "cheap" computer graphics. POV can do better than
that with bezier patches, there are some global parameters for spline
subdivision level.


=====

From web_user@griffin.itc.gu.edu.au:
pretty
Notable for textures


From web_user@sf-pm1-28-28.dialup.slip.net:
Notable for lighting