"Your fear is so engrained. Sad."

I just want to point this out as a rhetorical tactic which has become all too common these days: accusing anybody who disagrees with something of being cowardly or afraid without any basis whatsoever. You see it everywhere, and it is totally corrosive to any kind of discourse or thinking. Some examples:

Comment: "Glorification of hedonism through normalization of homosexuality is having a very negative effect on our culture."

Respondent: "WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF GAY PEOPLE, HOMOPHOBE?!"

Comment: "Introduction of large numbers of outsiders into society through unrestricted immigration is breaking down social trust and undermining essential institutions."

Respondent: "WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF IMMIGRANTS, XENOPHOBE?"

etc., etc.

This sort of psychologizing in place of actual response is absolute bullshit and a mark of complete intellectual dishonesty. It is exactly the same thing as kindergartners on a playground calling each other "chicken," and double-dog-daring one another into some kind of stupidity. Predictably, it also often devolves into endless rounds of "AM NOT! ARE TOO!"

DOES NOT!

I do find it interesting that your examples present reactionary points of view as reasonable, by subtly distorting the issues. For example - to blame equal rights for homosexuals for a glorification of hedonism is an obvious straw man, and where is there "unrestricted" immigration. Strangely, you've picked two instances where the relatively powerless are scapegoated for larger societal problems.

But, you're right that Quodam's response was pretty lame.

quondam,

I am trying to understand your critique, can you encapsulate it in 25 words or less?

Preferably in a non-invective declarative sentence(s).

It's not a false accusation, it is a disciplined, systematic analysis of your posting tactics.

It's no secret that you are a fraction of the intellect you consider yourself to be, except possibly to you.

the building sucks.

Fair enough and certainly valid, however, a subjective opinion does not give enough substance with which to carry on a conversation.

Surely with your education you could provide some more insight.

^ meant to quondam

quondam,

I have perused what you have written and I can not find a reasoned argument, only a subjective opinion.

Can you either restate it or show me where the analysis is?

^ or copy paste

your statement above, in quotes.

OOH, semantics. Scintillating, 

I know bullshit when I hear it.

I am not going to devolve this thread any further in a mindless exercise of semantic hair splitting. 

That's not semantics, it word salad.

Real semantics requires disciplined, systematic analysis.

It's just an ugly building I'll suited to it's site or purpose. It is like the Boston City Hall in that respect. Some people have to show their assumed intellectual superiority by saying what a wonderful structure it is and how it should be preserved when it is just a widely-loathed pile of shit.

apologies to everyone for feeding the troll

the building sucks.

Stop calling these pile of diarrhea "architecture." people should just banned them in their cities.