Thought there may be those who would like a walk thru

That's nto what I meant - some things just "go" with where they are.
it's not something I know how to describe or "put my finger on" so to
speak.

But there, too, you get "camps" - the "modern design/materials" adherents
versus the "ancient designs/materials" adherents.

To me, it's like arguing whether clay sculpture is "superior" or
"inferior" to welded steel.

In the end, it depends upon the designer's talent whether something looks
good where it is, or not. And even there, "looks good" i a blend of
environmental *and* historical/cultural factors.

This is why Architectural Design is considered one of the Arts. Yes,thre
are necessary considerations of engineering and materials sceince and so
on, but thre is also that artistic/creative aspect.

>> I don't understand why it has to be an either-or situation.

> It doesn't.

> But one sided critics are what make the world go 'round.

Unfortunately, that's true.

At least they also power sailing ships ;)

> People that look to critics for advice deserve what they get.

> The interested person will see what he sees and make his own

> judgement.

Exactly. I also like background info (such as, why certain types of
designs and materials and so on came to be used in certain ways by local
peoples), but "critics" aren't people I've ever paid much attention to,
at least not once I got past around the age of 12.

> Me, I like FLW's stuff but it's not the end all.

Oh, definitely true. I don't like *all* of his work by any stretch. But
there are a couple things I do like (at least visually) quite a lot.

> You see, I was born with a triple helix DNA, I don't prefer

> contemporary over tradition.

> I'm ecclectic through and through.

> I break it down into bite sized pieces and put them all in my own

> little pidgeon holes.

> Usually I leave red out of the equation. =D

Red...? I don't get it, sorry.

But Ecclecticism, definitely - in everythign. I like all sorts fo
things, but not *all* of anything. I like some of just about every
musical style, from madrigals to classical to ancient instruments; same
for art, same for food, same for everything.

> All artists

>> have their own vision (and, let's face it, ego, since it does take

>> ego to be able to put your work in front of other poeple), but as in

>> all art, there is no true "final authority"/"final arbiter" in that

>> the artist's vision simply is not shared 'in toto' by everyone,

>> everywhere, at all times. And heck, even artists

>> modify/change/develop their own vision.

> Evolution.

> I've remarked on this before.

Yup ;)

> What I like today I may not like tomorrow.

> Live, learn, grow.

Definitely. Keeps one from getting bored - also tends to make one less
boring! ;)

>> SO it baffles me why, if you say, about FLW, "I like this", you're

>> indilging in slavish hero-worhip, but if you say "I don't like that",

>> you jet jumped on by the other camp. I like many of FLW's ideas -

>> the fact that the execution thereof exposed certain

>> flaws/shortcomings does not completely negate ALL of his ideas and

>> designs.

> I agree.

> But there are people out there that don't take the time to *think*

> about what they are agreeing to, they have to be led.

> Don't waste time with such people - automatrons.

Yeah. I guess we're none of us immune to having knee-jerk reactions;
it's just that some baffle me more than others, and the "FLW debate" is
one of them - I don't see a debate, I see some things that are
interesting and/or useful, and some things that, well, aren't.

Like the "80' walkway". I like it for my own reasons, but I can accept
that it doesn't float everyone's boat, however is it a serious design
flaw? I don't think so. OTOH, a crumbling cantilever is a design
flaw...! But IMO, the smart thing to do is to look at the *idea*, and if
it makes sense aesthetically and functionally, figure out how to get the
engineering right, *not* merely reject the entire idea (and belittle
people who like the idea). IOW, I don't personally see why the debate
*is* a debate. I guess some folks just need extra heart stimulation...

>> Or maybe I'm just too accustomed to the philosophy and mentodology of

>> sceince - knowledge is incermental adn builds upon previous

>> knowledge, and the disproof of a theory also increases knowledge.

>> The steam-powered toy (rotating sphere) invented by Heron of

>> Alexandria was interesting, but nobody took that knowledge and built

>> upon it, so the steam engine wasn't developed until a couple thousand

>> years later. In a sense, the fundamental idea was

>> rediscovered/reinvented. I don't see why architecture should be any

>> different - use/adapt the ideas that have merit, and *learn from* the

>> aspects that don't work, rather than throwing the proverbial baby out

>> with the proverbial bath water, which is just as bad as continuing to

>> adhere to things that don't function well.

>> That's how I see it, at least.

>>> IOW, I don't think FLW was unusual but rather ordinary for a

>>> topshelf designer.

>>> I saw a show on PBS one time where someone disassembled an old

>>> custom designed and built home of the early 1900's and restored it

>>> on another site and it was dramatic, the detailing and craftsmanship

>>> of the thing.

>> Reminds me of that old movie with Edgar G. Robinson and Humphrey

>> Bogart, IIRC teh title is "Key West" - the proagonists huddle in a

>> big ol' house to ride out a hurricane, and I always find myself

>> wondering whether that was just artistic license, or what -

>> logically, if comething is as reinforced as some of those old places

>> seem to have been, with all of the tight lathing for walls (rather

>> than sheetrock), and so on, it stands to reason that it'd survive a

>> heck of a lot more wind than some thing made with 2X4s (that aren't

>> really even 2X4s any more) spaced as widely apart as possible and

>> skinned with what are basicaly nothing more than styrofoam panels...

>> OTOH, again, there was also bad construction back then, so the

>> principle holds: learn from both the ideas/methods that worked, and

>> the ones that did not.

> Yeah, but they didn't have to deal with *nominal* dimensions so things

> were actually the size they were rather than the size they used to be.

> IOW, a 2 x 4 was really 2x4 and not 1.5x3.5.

> (who gives a shit if the 2x4 wasn't *sanded*?)

Oh yeah, the Fake Dimensions. Yeesh :p . So sanding is the excuse for
the reduction...? Even if that were true, why does it matter, if
something is a structural unit that's going to be covered? Doesn't the
removal of material make the item less strong...? IMO, things ought to
be called what they are. But then, that seems to be symptomatic of the
last 2 decades orso - meanings/words have become elastic, things to be
bent willy-nilly merely for the sake of insignificant convenience. Ah,
the 2X4 as a symbol of sociocultural malaise... <g!>

Posted by Kris Krieger on May 19, 2008, 3:07 pm

> "Kris Krieger"> wrote

>> "Don"> wrote in

>>> Yeah, but they didn't have to deal with *nominal* dimensions so

>>> things were actually the size they were rather than the size they

>>> used to be. IOW, a 2 x 4 was really 2x4 and not 1.5x3.5.

>>> (who gives a shit if the 2x4 wasn't *sanded*?)

>> Oh yeah, the Fake Dimensions. Yeesh :p . So sanding is the excuse

>> for the reduction...? Even if that were true, why does it matter, if

>> something is a structural unit that's going to be covered? Doesn't

>> the removal of material make the item less strong...? IMO, things

>> ought to be called what they are. But then, that seems to be

>> symptomatic of the last 2 decades orso - meanings/words have become

>> elastic, things to be bent willy-nilly merely for the sake of

>> insignificant convenience. Ah, the 2X4 as a symbol of sociocultural

>> malaise... <g!>

> I believe kiln drying has the most impact on the shrinkage in standard

> lumber today.

> Sanding plays apart but only minimally.

> I don't recall the exact numbers but raw lumber when first harvested

> has something like 20-30% water retention and after kiln drying it is

> around 6%. Pressure treated wood though is reinjected with a salt

> solution and the end result is the lumber becomes almost the size it

> originally was, and very heavy.

Oh, OK - I'd thought the sizes were off because of trimming. I stand
corrected, thanks ;) I know about shrinkage when dealing with wood for
things like furniture and other smaller-scale proejcts, but just assumed
(erroniuosly, it turns out) that Lumber was differnt. It's always
helpful to know the facts ;)

I definitely did not know that about pressure-treated wood. I thought
they coated it with somethign but the salt bit is interesting.

Tangentially, I'll haev to google "how long does PT wood last if in
contact with the ground", now that you've mentioned PT wood (I have a 2'
wide perimeter of stones underlaid with fiberglass landscape fabric
around the whole house and pool decking, to make insect control easier,
but right now, all that's holding it up is that plastic 'lawn edging'
stuff,a nd I'm trying to decide whetehr I want to make the maintenence
even easier by putting something around the stone, since the lawn doods
always end up knocking the stones in to the lawn).

> I've seen PT wood laying on the concrete slab in puddles of its own

> liquid, mostly water.

> PT wood can easily weigh twice as much as kiln dried wood.

> A problem I've seen is where the kiln dried studs join to the PT

> bottom plates.

> The studs are 1/4" narrower than the plate and this causes an offset

> on the interior of the building, which can be reflected in the drywall

> being bent out of shape along the bottom of the wall.

> This is hidden by the baseboard.

I didn't know that - well that explains that. And why baseboards often
don't seem to be flush at both the top and the botton. Interesting.

> When building my garage I considered ripping the bottom plates on the

> tablesaw to match the studs but 16' PT boards are a bear to manipulate

> that way and very slow to cut so I bypassed the whole thing.

Which of course leads one to ask, How'd ya do it?" ;)

Posted by Kris Krieger on May 19, 2008, 4:41 pm

>>> "Kris Krieger"> wrote

>>>> "Don"> wrote in

>>>>> Yeah, but they didn't have to deal with *nominal* dimensions so

>>>>> things were actually the size they were rather than the size they

>>>>> used to be. IOW, a 2 x 4 was really 2x4 and not 1.5x3.5.

>>>>> (who gives a shit if the 2x4 wasn't *sanded*?)

>>>>

>>>> Oh yeah, the Fake Dimensions. Yeesh :p . So sanding is the excuse

>>>> for the reduction...? Even if that were true, why does it matter,

>>>> if something is a structural unit that's going to be covered?

>>>> Doesn't the removal of material make the item less strong...? IMO,

>>>> things ought to be called what they are. But then, that seems to

>>>> be symptomatic of the last 2 decades orso - meanings/words have

>>>> become elastic, things to be bent willy-nilly merely for the sake

>>>> of insignificant convenience. Ah, the 2X4 as a symbol of

>>>> sociocultural malaise... <g!>

>>>

>>> I believe kiln drying has the most impact on the shrinkage in

>>> standard lumber today.

>>> Sanding plays apart but only minimally.

>>> I don't recall the exact numbers but raw lumber when first harvested

>>> has something like 20-30% water retention and after kiln drying it

>>> is around 6%. Pressure treated wood though is reinjected with a salt

>>> solution and the end result is the lumber becomes almost the size it

>>> originally was, and very heavy.

>> Oh, OK - I'd thought the sizes were off because of trimming. I stand

>> corrected, thanks ;) I know about shrinkage when dealing with wood

>> for things like furniture and other smaller-scale proejcts, but just

>> assumed (erroniuosly, it turns out) that Lumber was differnt. It's

>> always helpful to know the facts ;)

>> I definitely did not know that about pressure-treated wood. I

>> thought they coated it with somethign but the salt bit is

>> interesting.

>> Tangentially, I'll haev to google "how long does PT wood last if in

>> contact with the ground", now that you've mentioned PT wood (I have a

>> 2' wide perimeter of stones underlaid with fiberglass landscape

>> fabric around the whole house and pool decking, to make insect

>> control easier, but right now, all that's holding it up is that

>> plastic 'lawn edging' stuff,a nd I'm trying to decide whetehr I want

>> to make the maintenence even easier by putting something around the

>> stone, since the lawn doods always end up knocking the stones in to

>> the lawn).

>>> I've seen PT wood laying on the concrete slab in puddles of its own

>>> liquid, mostly water.

>>> PT wood can easily weigh twice as much as kiln dried wood.

>>> A problem I've seen is where the kiln dried studs join to the PT

>>> bottom plates.

>>> The studs are 1/4" narrower than the plate and this causes an offset

>>> on the interior of the building, which can be reflected in the

>>> drywall being bent out of shape along the bottom of the wall.

>>> This is hidden by the baseboard.

>> I didn't know that - well that explains that. And why baseboards

>> often don't seem to be flush at both the top and the botton.

>> Interesting.

>>> When building my garage I considered ripping the bottom plates on

>>> the tablesaw to match the studs but 16' PT boards are a bear to

>>> manipulate that way and very slow to cut so I bypassed the whole

>>> thing.

>> Which of course leads one to ask, How'd ya do it?" ;)

> The bottom plate protrudes into the rooms and someday I'll deal with

> the baseboard issue.

Doesn't that comprimise the insulation of the room?

> Believe it or not I still don't have the drywall done in my office.

> Its all installed and mudded but there's some serious sanding to do

> and I hate sanding!!!!!

Isn't that why there is Faux Texturing? <G!>

> When I finish the bathroom remodel (no, THAT'S not done either!) I'll

> be back to working on the office.

> Unless my wife commands me to build her wrap around deck on the south

> side of the house first.

Oh jeez, you do BIG projects! I figure the glass (and maybe some
associated woodwork and concrete-molding) will be enough for me. Well,
in addition to diggin in the yard and installing the rest of the stone
borders. I'm more of a landscape type than a building type ;)

> I know one thing though, I WILL have my garage insulated and

> (interior-plywood) sheathed before the next winter comes.

> No way I'm dealing with a cold assed garage for another winter season.

> BTW, the baseboard should be held completely vertical, plumb, and then

> the gap at the top should be caulked.

They seem to have doen it right in this house at least - all the
baseboards, and pretty much anywhere that any sort of framing or other
non-wall element meets the wall, is all caulked, with the caulk overall
smoothed properly. SO I give them credit for that. The house in
Massachusetts had no caulking, just paint, and the baseboards quickly
started to "bow out" and develop gaps. Cheesy workmanship.

Have you ever seen metal baseboards, or metal-cald-woods ones? THat's an
idea that's skittered around in my head off and on for a while, but I
don't recall seeing it anywhere (aside from metal-framed heavy-duty
industrial-type doors). I'm trying to picture how brushed stainless (or
other metal) might look, whetehr it'd be interesting or whether it'd just
look cheesy.

Posted by Kris Krieger on May 20, 2008, 12:16 am

>>>

>>>>

>>>>> "Kris Krieger"> wrote

>>>>>> "Don"> wrote in

>>>>>>> Yeah, but they didn't have to deal with *nominal* dimensions so

>>>>>>> things were actually the size they were rather than the size

>>>>>>> they used to be. IOW, a 2 x 4 was really 2x4 and not 1.5x3.5.

>>>>>>> (who gives a shit if the 2x4 wasn't *sanded*?)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Oh yeah, the Fake Dimensions. Yeesh :p . So sanding is the

>>>>>> excuse for the reduction...? Even if that were true, why does it

>>>>>> matter, if something is a structural unit that's going to be

>>>>>> covered? Doesn't the removal of material make the item less

>>>>>> strong...? IMO, things ought to be called what they are. But

>>>>>> then, that seems to be symptomatic of the last 2 decades orso -

>>>>>> meanings/words have become elastic, things to be bent willy-nilly

>>>>>> merely for the sake of insignificant convenience. Ah, the 2X4 as

>>>>>> a symbol of sociocultural malaise... <g!>

>>>>>

>>>>> I believe kiln drying has the most impact on the shrinkage in

>>>>> standard lumber today.

>>>>> Sanding plays apart but only minimally.

>>>>> I don't recall the exact numbers but raw lumber when first

>>>>> harvested has something like 20-30% water retention and after kiln

>>>>> drying it is around 6%. Pressure treated wood though is reinjected

>>>>> with a salt solution and the end result is the lumber becomes

>>>>> almost the size it originally was, and very heavy.

>>>>

>>>> Oh, OK - I'd thought the sizes were off because of trimming. I

>>>> stand corrected, thanks ;) I know about shrinkage when dealing

>>>> with wood for things like furniture and other smaller-scale

>>>> proejcts, but just assumed (erroniuosly, it turns out) that Lumber

>>>> was differnt. It's always helpful to know the facts ;)

>>>>

>>>> I definitely did not know that about pressure-treated wood. I

>>>> thought they coated it with somethign but the salt bit is

>>>> interesting.

>>>>

>>>> Tangentially, I'll haev to google "how long does PT wood last if in

>>>> contact with the ground", now that you've mentioned PT wood (I have

>>>> a 2' wide perimeter of stones underlaid with fiberglass landscape

>>>> fabric around the whole house and pool decking, to make insect

>>>> control easier, but right now, all that's holding it up is that

>>>> plastic 'lawn edging' stuff,a nd I'm trying to decide whetehr I

>>>> want to make the maintenence even easier by putting something

>>>> around the stone, since the lawn doods always end up knocking the

>>>> stones in to the lawn).

>>>>

>>>>> I've seen PT wood laying on the concrete slab in puddles of its

>>>>> own liquid, mostly water.

>>>>> PT wood can easily weigh twice as much as kiln dried wood.

>>>>> A problem I've seen is where the kiln dried studs join to the PT

>>>>> bottom plates.

>>>>> The studs are 1/4" narrower than the plate and this causes an

>>>>> offset on the interior of the building, which can be reflected in

>>>>> the drywall being bent out of shape along the bottom of the wall.

>>>>> This is hidden by the baseboard.

>>>>

>>>> I didn't know that - well that explains that. And why baseboards

>>>> often don't seem to be flush at both the top and the botton.

>>>> Interesting.

>>>>

>>>>> When building my garage I considered ripping the bottom plates on

>>>>> the tablesaw to match the studs but 16' PT boards are a bear to

>>>>> manipulate that way and very slow to cut so I bypassed the whole

>>>>> thing.

>>>>

>>>> Which of course leads one to ask, How'd ya do it?" ;)

>>>

>>> The bottom plate protrudes into the rooms and someday I'll deal with

>>> the baseboard issue.

>> Doesn't that comprimise the insulation of the room?

> Nah, the cavities are stuffed full and there's Tyvek on the outside.

I see...

>>> Believe it or not I still don't have the drywall done in my office.

>>> Its all installed and mudded but there's some serious sanding to do

>>> and I hate sanding!!!!!

>> Isn't that why there is Faux Texturing? <G!>

> My brother is sending me a hopper for the texturing, he has 2 of them.

> Now I gotta find a compressor.

> (my big compressor was stolen from my storage unit 6 months after we

> moved here <sniff>)

Well, that stinks :(

It's interesting to watch it done - very messy, i.e. kid-like ;)

>>> When I finish the bathroom remodel (no, THAT'S not done either!)

>>> I'll be back to working on the office.

>>> Unless my wife commands me to build her wrap around deck on the

>>> south side of the house first.

>> Oh jeez, you do BIG projects! I figure the glass (and maybe some

>> associated woodwork and concrete-molding) will be enough for me.

>> Well, in addition to diggin in the yard and installing the rest of

>> the stone borders. I'm more of a landscape type than a building type

>> ;)

> Oh we've got THAT stuff going on too!

> Have a couple big ones coming up and the vegetable garden is currently

> starting to take root.

> Right now I'm shopping for a tiller.

I can't say I know anything useful about them. Well, I could say, but
it'd be a lie, so I won't ;)

Did you get to set up that small portable greenhouse? What kind of
vegetables?

>>> I know one thing though, I WILL have my garage insulated and

>>> (interior-plywood) sheathed before the next winter comes.

>>> No way I'm dealing with a cold assed garage for another winter

>>> season. BTW, the baseboard should be held completely vertical,

>>> plumb, and then the gap at the top should be caulked.

>> They seem to have doen it right in this house at least - all the

>> baseboards, and pretty much anywhere that any sort of framing or

>> other non-wall element meets the wall, is all caulked, with the caulk

>> overall smoothed properly. SO I give them credit for that. The

>> house in Massachusetts had no caulking, just paint, and the

>> baseboards quickly started to "bow out" and develop gaps. Cheesy

>> workmanship.

>> Have you ever seen metal baseboards, or metal-cald-woods ones?

>> THat's an idea that's skittered around in my head off and on for a

>> while, but I don't recall seeing it anywhere (aside from metal-framed

>> heavy-duty industrial-type doors). I'm trying to picture how brushed

>> stainless (or other metal) might look, whetehr it'd be interesting or

>> whether it'd just look cheesy.

> Never saw the stuff but a lead might be the metal picture frame

> material I've seen around.

I havent' seen too much aside from the very plain frames - occasionally,
I've seen one that's stamped with a design, but most of the "metal" ones
are faux finishes. Sometimes, they're silver-leaf, which is OK, if given
a protective coat of varnish.

> Careful though, if you hit it with the vacuum cleaner it'll

> dent/scratch.

Oh yeah, that's true - I hadn't thought about scratching. THat's prob.
why it's not used - it'd be like stainless appliances, a pita to keep up
with. People would prob assume it was just wood painted with
Rustoleum/enamel anyway.

> I'm wondering how such a thing would attach to the wall?

> Maybe some sort of clip on the back that would attach to another clip

> on the wall behind the baseboard making it invisible.

I think it'd prob. have to be pressed/fitted onto a wooden form, othewise
it'd dent too easily.

Well, seemed like a better idea than it actually is!

Posted by Kris Krieger on May 21, 2008, 1:56 pm

> "Kris Krieger"> wrote

>> Did you get to set up that small portable greenhouse? What kind of

>> vegetables?

> Not yet, maybe not til next year.

> The place where I want to put it is going to be all torn up in a

> couple months so there's no point installing it now.

> We currently have 6 tomato plants and 6 bell pepper plants planted

> along the south side of the house in full direct sun.

> Last year my wife grew an estimated 80 lbs of tomatoes along there and

> about 30 peppers and 20 lbs of green beans.

That's not too bad an amount for two people.

> We also have about 50 strawberry plants along the NE corner of the

> house that were there when we moved in and they produce well, but the

> berries are of the smaller variety.

Well, from what I've read, smaller fruits/vegetables tend to be more
nutritious, because the larger ones aer usually bread mainly for high
sugar content, and fast growth - ironically, the faster the
fruit/vegetable grows, the less the amount of minerals and whatnot that
are taken up from the soil - it ends up being closer to leaves, in a
sense, in that it's more water and cellulose. Which is why, for example,
a lot of fruit these days does *not* tasete the way fruit did 30 yrs ago.
Most consumers seem to be capable of only tasting "sweet", i.e. sugar,
but when fruits are manipualted to increase the sugat content, it tends
to bollox up the genes and/or development of actual *flavor*.

FWLIW...

> I'm thinking about building a raised bed, maybe 8'x4' and grow some

> lettuce, broccoli and cauliflower.

That sounds good. COnsider a few stalks of corn, too. It does taste
different when you gerow it, allow it to mature naturally, and eat it
immediately after picking. You're also thinking of sunflowers IIRC...?
Have you considered beans of any sort?

> We also want to take a closer look at growing potatoes and carrots.

> My wife has planted hundreds of bulbs of various flavors as well as

> numerous ornamental shrubs (Forsythia, Clematis, etc.) and some

> Dogwood and Redbud trees.

Oh yeah, I go in for flowering shrubs/small trees, too. Ideally, I'd
like to have something blooming all year round (which is doable in the
Houston area and other Southern climates).

THere is a good Redbud for hotter climates, IIRC the detailed designation
is "Cercis canadensis var Oklahoma ssp 'texensis'"; I have one, it's a
type that gets white floweres, it's in the 1/3 of the back yard that I've
been turing into a WHite Garden (just because I've always liked the idea
of that, being able to sit out on warm SOuthern nights an dsee the full
moon lighting up the white flowers). I doubt we'll live here long enough
to finish it, but the plan would be to first plant in a number of white-
blooming shrubs and small trees, and tehn make beds underneath with
various bulbs, perennials, and dwarf shrubs that bloom white. I should
be getting my hands on some white-blooming Hibiscus this weekend.
They're rare in the nursery trade so I had to special-order them.

Anyhoo, FWIW, of you wife likes crepe myrtles, trhere are now miniature
ones that only grow to about 3'X3' and are suitable for growing in pots.

Salvia are also tough plants that can get from 2' to 6' (depending upon
the type); penstemon i ssimilar. You can get all sorts of colors ranging
from reds to purples to blues to white. I think there are also ao couple
of yellows now, too. Typically, Salvia species are perennial and grow to
thickly-shrubby plants about 4'X2'-4'. They attract butterflies, and on
a hot day, give off a sage-like scent - they're related to the herb Sage.
THey're generally what's called "woody perennials" - the stems are, well,
woody, almost like a shrub, but they're not as bstantial as teh stems and
branches of a true shrub. The few that are not perennial tend to reseed
and come back the next year.

HTH!

> I have a little project going on down in the woods.

> I have taken 3 small trees, about 4' tall, located real close together

> and started *braiding* them in a spiral and tied them with some twine.

> Slowly, I will create a twisted topiary.

Cool ;)

I haven't given too much thought to any sort of topiary because it's hard
enough for me to keep up with low maintenence items, but alot of it is
interesting.

Page 4 of 9 < 1 2 3 > last >>

Similar Threads	Posted
Rendering or Walk-through. What is better?	April 2, 2007, 5:47 am
Re: Just when you thought you'd seen everything.....	July 26, 2007, 8:33 am
Re: Just when you thought you'd seen everything.....	July 25, 2007, 10:29 pm
Don -You thought architect licensing was bad	March 23, 2007, 12:48 am
Thought provoking, even if highly flawed	September 7, 2007, 9:27 am

XML Sitemap