To control SPAM, you must now be a registered user to post to this Message Board.
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.
SDR wrote:I do wish Wright's name wouldn't be used as an ingredient in a pun.
There's really no Wright or wrong in that. Sometimes, people just can't seem to help what they Wright down on paper. Other folks believe they have an inherent Wright to do such things. And, then there are those who treat this as almost a religious Wright. Years back I distinctly remember speaking on this very subject with a play-Wright, who told me that choosing whether or not to pun can be altogether fitting, proper and Wright!
Curious about the Charles E Roberts stable, I sought input. Pfeiffer ignores this project in the Monographs and again in Taschen. Storrer includes it, with this entry:
