[computer glitch forced premature send just now] On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, David Brauer wrote: > I also want to briefly respond to David Shove: > > Those who argue that graffiti should be tolerated because billboards are > subscribe to the "eye for an eye" ethos (literally), that I think comes up > short. There are many of us who hate billboards AND graffiti - maximizing > visual pollution is a really counterproductive idea.
The following is what I said. "I find BILLBOARDS even uglier - huge, pervasive, intrusive, endless, ugly ugly ugly. Symbols of corporate arrogance and greed. Property-value destroying. An insult to the environment. An insult to citizens. How beautiful it would be were they gone eradicated vanished. The problem is that the people behind them are not poor or young or powerless. It would be joyful to pass a law to fine their parents for their nature-effacing misdeeds. --David Shove Roseville" Where in that statement did I say or imply that graffitti should be tolerated? At NO point did I say I wanted both. I want neither. But I was misrepresented in a way to dismiss my statements about billboards - and very effectively, I see. --David Shove Roseville TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
