In a message dated 98-01-19 10:44:40 EST, [log in to unmask]
writes:

> I agree with the first statement. But I wasn't looking for anything to be
>  "mutually acceptable" except our in-house definition of modern
>  architecture, which should be, as definitions generally are, non-judgmental

I'm really amazed at how quickly the threads get tangential and wander off
into other discussions, often with as much merit as the first intended
comments. I believe Bruce is correct in requesting we come to some carity of
definitions between us, that we establish some survey markers on the common
ground. The difficulty in agreement on  a definition of the modern I think has
to do with our subjective impressions, as well as any compulsions to make the
definition broad or narrow, or to split it into various subcategories. My
dictionary says, "of or characteristic of present or recent time: not ancient
or mediaeval" My subjective definition places the end of the modern at or
about the assassination of JFK, with the beginning of the post-modern, which
ended when Microsoft went public. I'm sure we are all working on different
subjective timelines. Possibly we should really confuse ourselves and come to
a mutual definition of subjective time.

][<en Follett