 
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
| Sender: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:37:39 -0700 |
| In-Reply-To: |
<v03102803b242b1904b40@[208.213.126.12]> |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
At 02:18 PM 10/8/98 -0400, Dan Becker wrote:
>Am I not interpreting this right? I take this to mean, George, that one
>always uses the two words in tandem -- "historic preservation" -- to
>distinguish oneself from the "tree-hugging environmental wacko"
>preservation syndrome. When speaking of buildings, never say simply
>"preservation," in order to avoid bruises....
Yeah, pretty much. "Preservation" without the modifier means you have to
do a lot of fast talking ....
>But it's moderately ok to say you do historic preservation?
>
To over-state the case just a wee bit, yes...they'll leave the chain saw
idling when you say "Historic" Preservation, rather than really revving it
up if you for the Historic part....:)
George Kramer, M.S.
Historic Preservation Consultant
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
