Originally posted by Kickaha You're positively *adorable* when you get your widdle hackles up like that.
And I suppose this passes for wit where you come from? And so rapier sharp!
1) Never have I said that I agreed with the decision to tear it down, have I? Yet you have *assumed* that is my position. Excellent work there in being utterly wrong.
Ah, but you did. You wrote above:
...This particular building is in *incredibly* poor shape, and was built extremely poorly to begin with. It's not a stellar example of the architect's work, and is in very bad shape...this one sounds like it would be just not worth it.
Most people would read that & say you were fine with the idea of destroying it. If what you wrote above means you're now in favor of preserving the house, then I applaud you for that. It's the first reasonable statement you've made in this entire thread, but good for you for coming to this view.
3) Your personal opinion is still your personal opinion. And yes, I did read your blog. It was an emotionally charged rant. I have a hard time taking your 'article' as anything other than biased and prejudicial, but that's fine, it's your position to take.
You just said you weren't in favor of tearing the house down & now you attack my post which holds precisely the same view & you say it was a "rant" & "biased & prejudicial." You can't have it both ways. And as for being my personal opinion...No it's much more than that as it contains quotations & links to architectural historians, the preservationist on the Woodside History commmittee & another preservationist leading the campaign for the house all of whom happen to agree with my view of the matter.
You did link to other sites... other news stories, which you then swiped quotes from.
Do you have a personal interview with anyone? Not that I see.
So let me get this straight...if I use the standard tools of academic researchers & journalists of seeking & finding material from experts on a particular subject & feature that in my post, then that's "swiping quotes." Or is it just me who swipes quotes but any other researcher doing the same thing would be performing a legitmate research function? Or possibly every single quotation in my post must be from original research & interviews which I perform in order for them to be legitimate? Sorry, but that's not the standard by which research is judged. I'm not writing an original book or academic paper. I'm someone who loves good architecture & old homes and knows quite a bit about the architectural preservation movement. Who says one needs to be a PhD to have something legitimate to say on such a subject? Only you, apparently.
Do you have perhaps even a link to a page stating an official position of the National Trust for Historic Preservation? No, just a generic link to their website.
Well, yes I do if you'd bothered to follow the links I'd provided in the post you'd have read the following:
"It's a significant house, and it can continue to serve the community," said Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. "It's symptomatic of a discard society. He ought to buy another lot."
But then if I'd included this quotation directly in my post instead of linking to it,, you'd have called this yet another "swiped quotation."
You have two photos of the house. One taken from another blog, one from the Woodside Historical Commitee... Other than that, though, it all looks quite second-, third-, or further-hand.
So let me see, I found two pieces of archival material documenting the architectural distinction of the house, but because I didn't have to fly down to Woodside, CA. or the Santa Barbara Art Museum to get them, then somehow that makes them cheap & insignificant. Again, that's not how research works. If you find something original & authentic you can use it no matter whether you traveled 1,000 miles to get it or you never left your chair.
This entire asinine personal attack against me
I think the pot's calling the kettle black here. I didn't call you "asinine" or "a whiner" nor did I criticize you at all (though I did criticize what you wrote in your first post in this thread) until you unleashed your attempts at invective against me.
...continuing to draw this out is just making you look even worse.
I suggest that others may find your contribution to this colloquy doesn't put you in the most favorable light either.
No doubt, despite your protestation about how much more imporant things you have to do than listen to me, you'll be back to have the last word. Have it & welcome to it.