EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
"Thank you for covering this topic, and for the useful information it contains. However: Usonian Automatic describes a small subset of Wright's Usonian
designs, not the typical house. Plan shapes are not "typically L-shaped"; there are inline, T-shaped, U-shaped, triangle-based, curved and circular Usonians.
They all have living rooms. The Masson house is not a Wright design but was designed by David Henken -- as your own Dec 17 article made clear. "Toyhill,"
the Sol Friedman house at Usonia, wouldn't be described as an "early" circular design, considering that the Guggenheim Museum and other circular designs
predated it by at least a decade."
Thanks for attempting to write them. I didn't feel like jumping into that (I try to remember the advice of "don't try to correct the Internet").
There's this, on "Usonia": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AUsonia
source for information related to politics, for instance.
But much useful information can be gleaned. Your favorite newspaper almost certainly now has a Web site, and I think it likely that articles
appearing on the web are identical to what they print, on any given day. As for Wikipedia, pages are written, added to, and edited by individuals, some
reliable and others, not. But it's easy to distinguish between them: reliable pieces provide sources, in footnotes which can be checked.
What would I do without IMDb when I want to remind myself of the cast of a movie -- for instance ? Should I be suspicious of such simple (and simply-
verified) data ?
Self-help and DIY videos can be useful, as well, and one way to weed out bad information is to consult as many entries as one can find, to look for
common threads -- and to use common sense in evaluating what one sees.
I'm not willing to throw this baby out with the bath water. There will always be gullible readers, and lying (or misinformed) posters. Would you judge that
most of what a reader finds at Wright Chat is reliable information on the architect ?
PS -- I'm going back to a previous habit, formatting longer posts to restrict the width of the text. Today's wider screens seem to call for this, in my
view. But I'd be interested to know if this results in messy or even illegible posts for readers using smaller devices -- for instance. Feedback welcomed . . .
As I haven't gotten feedback on this issue for nearly a decade, I assume that readers are using displays of sufficient width to make the point moot.
Very long hot links used to be a problem; this seems to have abated, though relatively few readers resort to TinyUrl to shorten their links . . . ?
Really behind the curve -- but not antediluvian, I believe. How about you ? Fisher-Price ? Hand-cranked or Diesel-powered ?