:) thnks. W&M, as used by ms.saraswati subu (who
taught grammar to my in school) has been great source
of inspiration . ms.subu used her well-bound well-used
W&M to hit us on the head (gently, as we were
chillun). i use my well-bound well-used MPD likewise.
I feel nostalgically hit on head, gently. and so:
item says "ProfessionalS like architect and builders
responsible..."
not "Professional like architect and builders
responsible..."
not "Professionals like architects and builders
responsible..."
what does W&M say for that? that architect-only are
professionals and builders-only responsible, or that
builders like architect are professionals and
responsible, or that architect-and-builders
combinations are professionals and responsible...
(and check the byelaw-business, besides W&M)
re KT-the-SPA-dean, anyone caring to nail ambiguities,
please tell. anyone wanting to make that regular
teaching exercise also tell (we ought to be able to
pull out plenty for course-ware). as far as I know SPA
and Delhi are not infested with either planners or
architects but by ambiguous architect-planners.
--- "Architexturez."
<interface.services@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > said a senior municipal official.
> > Interestingly the proposed building by-laws will
> hold
> > professionals like architect and builders
> responsible
> > for tampering with the original building layout...
>
> >
> > =======
> > very-interestingly, besides NGO, builders are now
> > professionals like architect!
> >
>
> ah! ah! but it says that nowhere. syntactic
> ambiguity,
>
> "Professional like architect and builders"
>
> is same as:
>
> "Piano, property of a Sea Captain with carved legs"
>
> ref: Wren and Martin standard edition
>
> to equate builders and architects, they would have
> to write
> "professionals like architects and builders".
>
> - Architexturez (gnawing its foot off!)
>
> p.s., the KT Ravindran article was more fun to read,
> anyone care to nail
> ambiguities in that one? do SPA deans need
> differentiate between
> military engineering (all Nicholson & Co., the lot
> on the ridge did in
> 1857) and civil engineering? more important, do SPA
> deans need conclude
> their arguments or follow some norms or (we know
> they are planner
> infested, but still asking) discourse ethics in
> public? do SPA deans
> have even a notion of the notion of scholarly
> responsibilities their
> positions necessitate vis-a-vis the public?
>
> Now *I* am aghast.
>
> cont'd...
> http://plan.architexturez.net/site/anomie/f/050910
>
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00544.shtml
>
> - .A (gnawing its other foot off!)
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
> + Planning collaborative at
> http://plan.architexturez.org/
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
taught grammar to my in school) has been great source
of inspiration . ms.subu used her well-bound well-used
W&M to hit us on the head (gently, as we were
chillun). i use my well-bound well-used MPD likewise.
I feel nostalgically hit on head, gently. and so:
item says "ProfessionalS like architect and builders
responsible..."
not "Professional like architect and builders
responsible..."
not "Professionals like architects and builders
responsible..."
what does W&M say for that? that architect-only are
professionals and builders-only responsible, or that
builders like architect are professionals and
responsible, or that architect-and-builders
combinations are professionals and responsible...
(and check the byelaw-business, besides W&M)
re KT-the-SPA-dean, anyone caring to nail ambiguities,
please tell. anyone wanting to make that regular
teaching exercise also tell (we ought to be able to
pull out plenty for course-ware). as far as I know SPA
and Delhi are not infested with either planners or
architects but by ambiguous architect-planners.
--- "Architexturez."
<interface.services@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > said a senior municipal official.
> > Interestingly the proposed building by-laws will
> hold
> > professionals like architect and builders
> responsible
> > for tampering with the original building layout...
>
> >
> > =======
> > very-interestingly, besides NGO, builders are now
> > professionals like architect!
> >
>
> ah! ah! but it says that nowhere. syntactic
> ambiguity,
>
> "Professional like architect and builders"
>
> is same as:
>
> "Piano, property of a Sea Captain with carved legs"
>
> ref: Wren and Martin standard edition
>
> to equate builders and architects, they would have
> to write
> "professionals like architects and builders".
>
> - Architexturez (gnawing its foot off!)
>
> p.s., the KT Ravindran article was more fun to read,
> anyone care to nail
> ambiguities in that one? do SPA deans need
> differentiate between
> military engineering (all Nicholson & Co., the lot
> on the ridge did in
> 1857) and civil engineering? more important, do SPA
> deans need conclude
> their arguments or follow some norms or (we know
> they are planner
> infested, but still asking) discourse ethics in
> public? do SPA deans
> have even a notion of the notion of scholarly
> responsibilities their
> positions necessitate vis-a-vis the public?
>
> Now *I* am aghast.
>
> cont'd...
> http://plan.architexturez.net/site/anomie/f/050910
>
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00544.shtml
>
> - .A (gnawing its other foot off!)
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
> + Planning collaborative at
> http://plan.architexturez.org/
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com