[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
