In a message dated 10/19/98 2:08:38 AM, you wrote:

<<The client was prepared to knock it down until the local Resistance got wind
of it and created a roar. In-situ is always preferable to moving, moving is
better than non-situ.>>

I know I'm going to get lambasted for this....well, better from this crowd
than another...but lately I've had this strange doubt about that.  When we
accept and move rather than allow to be destroyed, we are expending resources.
Shouldn't we be spending those resources on an equally significant building
that will not be moved?  Is there a time when the only dignified thing to do
with a building is to allow it to become archeology.

John I neversaidthat...and besides you took it out of context...