+
From: David Sucher <dsucher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 08:41:29 -0800
What I find puzzling both about the initial article from the TIMES and
SOME of the remarks here is that they are all so vague and full of
code-words. I've been to Windsor Castle. As a baseline to understand
the discussion, I was trying to draw a mind's-picture of the winning
proposal and it's physical location at Windsor.
Could not do, of course based on the TIMES.
So no can make judgement about the Windsor proposal.
What interests me is how anyone else can so judge IF their information is
based on the article jya posted. It seems that we should have a 'text' so
to speak in front of us...a discrete physical object, a relationship of
molecules that we actually sense BEFORE we start to discuss it.
Or have I missed something about modern critical discourse? (as we
intellectuals put it.) i.e. the subject matter exists only as impulse: it's
physical form irrelevant? :) Are we no longer actually even purporting to
discuss Windsor Castle re-model (FHA Financing not needed) but simply some
code words...'Prince Charles' on one side...'innovative and challenging'
on the other? So it seems to me.
May I chide you all?
comfort101