>Steve,
>FOUL! Implying David is sheerly lazy just because he chooses not to question
>culture through architecture is a cheap, low blow, not to mention an afront
>to those who would prefer to help grow a culture rather than tear one down.
>
>Mark
mark,
low blows (inexpensive or otherwise) abound on the net, better buckle
your seat belt and be ready to defend your position. ad hominem fouls are
just not called out here...never be taken aback by an afront.
meanwhile, surely you're familiar with the botanical practise of removing
(tearing down) old growth in order to make way for (grow) new life...
rma
>FOUL! Implying David is sheerly lazy just because he chooses not to question
>culture through architecture is a cheap, low blow, not to mention an afront
>to those who would prefer to help grow a culture rather than tear one down.
>
>Mark
mark,
low blows (inexpensive or otherwise) abound on the net, better buckle
your seat belt and be ready to defend your position. ad hominem fouls are
just not called out here...never be taken aback by an afront.
meanwhile, surely you're familiar with the botanical practise of removing
(tearing down) old growth in order to make way for (grow) new life...
rma