Jylene wrote on subject of sp:
>You're as bad as Brian! I just transferred most of my "keepers" into my word
>processor, and that left PLENTY of room even with a measly, whinging student
>account.
>By the way, I've noticed very few complaining
> about wasted space and a lot of contributor/lurkers commenting that there are
>a few loudmouths, but they're generally worth it. I didn't even mind Zaha ad
>nausea so much, but could we please get over this passive aggressive stuff
>about length and talk and get back to something FUN?
Exactly, those were the days...
Remember this:
>On Mon, 6 Feb 1995, Stephen Perrella wrote:
>
>> Garry, Zaha's work attempts to vitalize a sense of immobility in stasis
>> architecture. In your view it seems that anyone who attempts to question
>> or manipulate cartesian architecture somehow alienates those that do not
>> have. If Zaha's work is about EVENT or the temporalization of the subject
>> as opposed to IDENTITY in and object, how can her swerve away from
>> normativity not be an attempt to generate an architecture of
>> immateriality: that anyone could RELATE to?
Sorry, it was so funny I just had to repost it.
JW
>You're as bad as Brian! I just transferred most of my "keepers" into my word
>processor, and that left PLENTY of room even with a measly, whinging student
>account.
>By the way, I've noticed very few complaining
> about wasted space and a lot of contributor/lurkers commenting that there are
>a few loudmouths, but they're generally worth it. I didn't even mind Zaha ad
>nausea so much, but could we please get over this passive aggressive stuff
>about length and talk and get back to something FUN?
Exactly, those were the days...
Remember this:
>On Mon, 6 Feb 1995, Stephen Perrella wrote:
>
>> Garry, Zaha's work attempts to vitalize a sense of immobility in stasis
>> architecture. In your view it seems that anyone who attempts to question
>> or manipulate cartesian architecture somehow alienates those that do not
>> have. If Zaha's work is about EVENT or the temporalization of the subject
>> as opposed to IDENTITY in and object, how can her swerve away from
>> normativity not be an attempt to generate an architecture of
>> immateriality: that anyone could RELATE to?
Sorry, it was so funny I just had to repost it.
JW