In a message dated 11/17/00 10:48:47 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<<And what sheltered
world do you live in that has led you to conclude that we of the
architectural persuasion needn't concern ourselves with tawdry matters like
(ugh) money?>>

I didn't say it wouldn't be a "concern"...

 : an uneasy state of blended interest, uncertainty, and apprehension

 ...I said (in jest as my text implies) it shouldn't be an "issue"

: a final outcome that usu. constitutes a solution (as of a problem) or
resolution (as of a difficulty)

And I would beg to differ on your definition of "modern" also.  ( b : of,
relating to, or characteristic of a period extending from a relevant remote
past to the present time).     While awnings may indeed be "historic" in many
instances, they are still in use.  Granted, by few homeowners and probably as
few businesses.  I would say that they are not "contemporary" perhaps, but in
the context in which I was writing, I stand by my opinion that awnings would
have been considered redundant in a "modern" home.  Again, while the text
does not specifically spell it out, I was remembering my grandmother's
specific situation in the 1960's-70's.  I would also doubt that the existance
of awnings automatically meant that servants lived within as your reply
intimated.  And finally while I welcome, of course, any commentary upon my
humble or at the very least light-weight opinions, please be so kind as to
bracket your comments so that when someone else is reading the same it does
not appear that the "snotty" comments were included by me in the original
text.

Thanks,

Mark