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.
"I see this as a business model that is failing financially..."
"All the complexities should be addressed before advertising for free labor..."
"I'm afraid that this effort is being run by a group that doesn't understand 'fundraising 101'...."
And my personal favorite:
"The concept of an architect working for free to recreate a FLW building is bizarre and a formula for disaster. By and large you get what you pay for......No competent architect will agree to work for the two years it will take to do the project for free. I doubt that an incompetent will agree to that, but they may have success in recruiting an incompetent architect doing a [half-assed] job that will result in a [half-assed] building built by a [half-assed] contractor. For what purpose? If they found a free architect, fundraising would be next to impossible and the results would be grossly embarrassing and mocked in the media."
And the predictable response from my dear friend SDR:
I look forward to your publicly posted letter to the Ryerson team calling them incompetent. In the meantime, as I actually have a life, I will not be checking this chat room regularly, until of course, the next positive story is published about the progress of the Pavilion. But the rest of you dear friends enjoy talking about your complete mastery of the English language.
We have your record of posts, of course; that's easy to find here by clicking on your name. But there's nothing in the record to tell us something about
you -- so that we could know who we're dealing with, you understand ?
I'm not your "dear friend" yet, but I hold out hope that we could get along -- at least. Let's assume for the moment that you could become a trusted and
treasured member of the Wright community, as represented, in part, by this forum.
Peter asked, in response to your last post, "Which criticisms have been Ã¢â‚¬Å“proven completely wrongÃ¢â‚¬Â�?" -- a question I'd like to see answered, too.
You restate some of the criticisms that have been posted so far. Do you intend to address them ? You seem to be "in the know" about the project,
so, do you have answers for the Doubting Thomases among us ?
Can you answer any of the questions that architect DRN posted, above ? He mentions reasonable and pertinent technical issues that the architectural
team must be dealing with, and that, if addressed convincingly here, might assuages some of the obvious angst.
If you're not in a position to respond to any or all of those queries, perhaps you could suggest to whom we should address our concerns ?
To observe the development of a project like this without a healthy amount of skepticism is simply naive. Critical thinking need not be feared; in fact, it might be of benefit to the final results of the project.
I wonder why you seem so belligerent as a response to our curiosity? You seem intent on scolding us for not being aware, when in reality some of us here have been trying to keep up with the scant news surrounding this project.
We do want it to succeed!
For someone who is an architect and a Taliesin Fellow, I am baffled by your research and statistical skills, Mr. Grant.Roderick Grant wrote:This may be a case of guilt by association: Yew-Thong Leong is a very controversial figure, with a lot of former, disgruntled students venting their spleen online. In 1996, according to Corpun.com (World Corporal Punishment Research) he is "a seasoned con man," who has said, "I'll change ... trust me." Sounds like something an active con man would say. I would advise anyone close to this project to tread carefully.
Firstly, I am not the con-man you referred to ( https://www.corpun.com/sgju9607.htm ) ... he lives in Singapore and I in Canada, and I am much better looking ( https://www.ryerson.ca/architectural-sc ... ong-leong/ ). Unless you are long-sighted, I fail to see the resemblance between us: No, Mr. Grant, we do not look alike ... not all of us do, even if we are of the same race.
Secondly, I believe you have visited this webpage http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRat ... ?tid=18107 when you stated Ã¢â‚¬Å“a lotÃ¢â‚¬Â� of my former students venting their spleen. I counted the reviews. You should try it, the reviews numbered under 2-figure so I think you are capable of counting that high, unless you are being malicious: No, Mr. Grant, 11 out of 93 is NOT Ã¢â‚¬Å“a lotÃ¢â‚¬Â�. It is, statistically, 11.8%. In other words, 88.2% of my students actually like me. In fact some, 74% (now that's Ã¢â‚¬Å“a lotÃ¢â‚¬Â�), actually thought I am Awesome.
Perhaps I can be forgiving and may attribute the above two points as mistaken identity and the ignorance of simple High School maths, respectively ... since I am actually and factually good looking and awesome (you may also add generous and humourous to the list if you wish).
But to suggest I am Ã¢â‚¬Å“controversialÃ¢â‚¬Â�, Ã¢â‚¬Å“an active con manÃ¢â‚¬Â� and then to warn others Ã¢â‚¬Å“to tread carefullyÃ¢â‚¬Â� (none of these words you paraphrased or used in quotation) would be considered a malicious and slanderous act on your part, don't you think Mr. Grant?
You know where to contact me to discuss apology, redress and compensation Ã¢â‚¬â€œ just Google me. It is really that simple Ã¢â‚¬â€œ I mean, I found you Mr. Grant.