PDA

View Full Version : Offensive/Angry/Intolerant Views Welcome - anything goes



Gilbert Gjersvik
March 1st, 2003, 11:15 PM
I've been asked to create my own thread under threat of being eliminated as a member of this forum due to my opinions on the Ground Zero site. That said, my suggestion for the 16-acre site is a park with sculptured replicas of important remains of the Towers that stayed standing after the terror attacks. I even have the beginnings of a Web site: http://www.agroundzeromemorial.info.
Extreme comments welcome and no offense taken!
GG

NyC MaNiAc
March 2nd, 2003, 12:09 AM
Well for some reason the web site is not showing up? Is the link correct?

Though I'll wait for my real opinon I've heard you want to make a park where kids can climb pieces of the deceased towers? say it isn't so.

JMGarcia
March 2nd, 2003, 12:50 AM
Are you suggesting a park for the entire 16 acre site?

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 2nd, 2003, 06:03 AM
Maniac,
Here's the link again, this time it should work:
http://www.agroundzeromemorial.info/
GG

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 2nd, 2003, 06:07 AM
Dear JM,
Yes, that is what I'm proposing.
GG

amigo32
March 2nd, 2003, 06:21 AM
Thank you for the comedic value that you have added to this site!
I appreciate your proposal, but you of all people, must realize that what you are trying to sell is being marketed in the wrong genre.

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 2nd, 2003, 06:52 AM
Amigo,
This site is one of the few forums where there is active and sometimes intelligent debate on urban development in general and Ground Zero in particular. Parks are as critical to cities as buildings, and create vitality and allow human interaction in ways that buildings never will. Central Park is a perfect example.
GG

amigo32
March 2nd, 2003, 07:43 AM
You never give up! *I can admire that aspect.

JMGarcia
March 2nd, 2003, 10:35 AM
I am completely and utterly against a 16 acre memorial.

To me personally, the memorial to the dead on the site is only a minor consideration. I even think that saving the foorprints was a bit silly.

To me personally, rebuilding the site as a center of life is the best memorial.

I do understand the need for others to have a memorial commemorating death and destruction on the site and am willing to compromise. But anybody who insists on controlling the entire site for their use/vision is self-indulgent and selfish. Anyone who is uncompromising I pretty much dismiss as an extremist.

TAFisher123
March 2nd, 2003, 11:56 AM
well sir, i dont like it very much, sculptured replicas of remaining steel is well, not pleasant to look at...to be honest it would be a little depressing to see pieces of terrorist destruction....also it would do little to attract companies to the downtown area...besides the trade center site is better for commercial buildings as you already have the transportation infastructure, PATH, subways, tunnels, bridges all in the vicinity.

ZippyTheChimp
March 2nd, 2003, 12:26 PM
I can't argue against the value of parkland anywhere in the city, but this isn't land that was unused. There are economic realities that must be considered.

Besides, even if the entire site was a park, it would be a memorial park - nothing like Central Park.

Comparable parkland is being created nearby. Pier 40 will be developed as part of Hudson River Park - 15 acres.
Triangle at Canal and West will be a park. Also the triangle
at Canal and Varick.

Are you going to enter your proposal in the memorial competition? 5 acres is better than nothing.

TLOZ Link5
March 2nd, 2003, 01:22 PM
My proposal for the Memorial Site is to sculpt replicas of the WTC remains that stayed standing after the terror attacks and place them exactly where they stood at Ground Zero.
The remaining area would be a grassy park that would invite people to touch and interact with these steel sculptures. One day kids might even play on them. They represent the spirit of New York, a city that took a hard shot and like those pieces of the Towers, refused to lay down.
- Gilbert Gjersvik Upper East Side, Manhattan

What a lazy asshole. He wants to just leave all that shit there and hope it turns into a memorial park on it's own. "Maybe even children will play on the twisted rusted metal." Maybe even they'll only lose a few digits in the process. After the first kid trips and slices his throat on a piece of memorial scrap metal, we can have a memorial built for the kids that died at the memorial for those who died at the World Trade Center. I might just vote for this one because I can use all the national holidays I can get.

Ow. *Harsh. *And at the same time quite amusing.

TLOZ Link5
March 2nd, 2003, 01:23 PM
The preceding was from a link to a satirical page on Gilbert's Website. *There were plenty of other [let's say, odd] ideas being flamed on that page as well. *There was one memorial which looked like a giant vagina.

(Edited by TLOZ Link5 at 1:36 pm on Mar. 2, 2003)

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 2nd, 2003, 02:17 PM
TLOZ,
Please note that I included that link on my Web site, even though it was completely inaccurate, for a reason. Others with memorial ideas usually have web sites with glowing comments from visitors. I wanted to make sure no one ever says I tried to sugar coat or hide the criticism. There has been plenty! And no, I don't want kids getting hurt playing on pieces of the towers. I made an observation that someday, someday if this memorial became a reality, kids at the site would just act like kids and play around on the sculptures. It's something kids naturally do in parks. If I have to take heat for suggesting this, so be it. As I always like to say, if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.
GG *

ZippyTheChimp
March 2nd, 2003, 02:26 PM
Holy smokes!!!!

Gilbert's proposal is actually reasonable next to the others. I never would have thought that these were actual ideas.

I like the eye in the sky.
http://www.eel.nu/eel/wtc.shtml

StevenRosenow
March 2nd, 2003, 03:30 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 10:35 am on Mar. 2, 2003
I am completely and utterly against a 16 acre memorial.

To me personally, the memorial to the dead on the site is only a minor consideration. I even think that saving the foorprints was a bit silly.

To me personally, rebuilding the site as a center of life is the best memorial.

I do understand the need for others to have a memorial commemorating death and destruction on the site and am willing to compromise. But anybody who insists on controlling the entire site for their use/vision is self-indulgent and selfish. Anyone who is uncompromising I pretty much dismiss as an extremist.


I'm pretty much with you on the fact that a 16-acre park idea - as well as saving or preserving the tower's footprints is a stupid idea. It's wrong, and has no place in the financial heart of both New York City and the U.S.A.

IMHO, I believe that there is still a chance to sway Libeskind and the folks in lower Manhattan to develop and build a set of Twin Towers of some sort. I only wish that they had the same proportions as the ones before, and the same exterior color (so that they can play with the sunlight - so to speak, just like the Yamasaki Twin Towers did. That's what made the Twin Towers so great, in addition to the fact that they had immense scale.

(Edited by StevenRosenow at 3:34 pm on Mar. 2, 2003)

JMGarcia
March 2nd, 2003, 03:38 PM
IMHO, I believe that there is still a chance to sway Libeskind and the folks in lower Manhattan to develop and build a set of Twin Towers of some sort.

That's what I've been trying to say along, except that Libeskind doesn't need to be swayed. He's just giving Silverstein and the PA the number of floors they want.

If through some miracle Silverstein and the PA decide they want 110 floors of office space I doubt that any architect would say no to them and certainly not one that has already proposed a 111+ building in the only way he could think of to make it acceptable to Silverstein and the PA.

People should really get off Libeskind's case and realize he is the only voice on the inside that can speak for our concerns and the architectural integrity of the site against what will be Silverstein's and the PA's ultimately banal visions.

Anonymous
March 2nd, 2003, 03:47 PM
Quote: from StevenRosenow on 3:30 pm on Mar. 2, 2003

Quote: from JMGarcia on 10:35 am on Mar. 2, 2003
I am completely and utterly against a 16 acre memorial.

To me personally, the memorial to the dead on the site is only a minor consideration. I even think that saving the foorprints was a bit silly.

To me personally, rebuilding the site as a center of life is the best memorial.

I do understand the need for others to have a memorial commemorating death and destruction on the site and am willing to compromise. But anybody who insists on controlling the entire site for their use/vision is self-indulgent and selfish. Anyone who is uncompromising I pretty much dismiss as an extremist.


I'm pretty much with you on the fact that a 16-acre park idea - as well as saving or preserving the tower's footprints is a stupid idea. It's wrong, and has no place in the financial heart of both New York City and the U.S.A.

IMHO, I believe that there is still a chance to sway Libeskind and the folks in lower Manhattan to develop and build a set of Twin Towers of some sort. I only wish that they had the same proportions as the ones before, and the same exterior color (so that they can play with the sunlight - so to speak, just like the Yamasaki Twin Towers did. That's what made the Twin Towers so great, in addition to the fact that they had immense scale.

(Edited by StevenRosenow at 3:34 pm on Mar. 2, 2003)

I'm for something like that too, and I don't think that building on the footprints is disrespceting the dead.

TLOZ Link5
March 2nd, 2003, 06:16 PM
Quote: from ZippyTheChimp on 2:26 pm on Mar. 2, 2003
Holy smokes!!!!

Gilbert's proposal is actually reasonable next to the others. I never would have thought that these were actual ideas.

I like the eye in the sky.
http://www.eel.nu/eel/wtc.shtml


Isn't that pyramid symbol really the insignia of some secret police task force, or something along those lines?

Kris
March 2nd, 2003, 08:52 PM
Your proposal in a way competes with Libeskind's, which might explain why you seem so upset. Not only does yours demand the entire site for itself but it focuses on the "heroism" of the standing remains of the twin towers, while his focuses on that of the slurry wall, which withstood the extreme force of the destruction. The symbolism of the latter is stronger since the wall survived practically intact, whereas the standing remains were parts of annihilated buildings. It certainly would be a pathetic statement to immortalize ruins in what would in essence be a glorified ossuary park for architectural remains. And why not use the actual remains, instead of replicas of them? To attain the dignified effect of a classical sculpture park? Ridiculous. The damaged pieces were sculpted by destruction and you want to perpetuate them as human creations, works of art?

Moreover, I fail to see how your proposal would honor the dead. Libeskind uses the slurry wall as a metaphor for the constitution and the resilience of democracy. What does your sculpture park commemorate, other than destroyed buildings? This reverence for pieces of architecture is all the more surprising and ironic given your attitude - your supposed respect for the deceased by sanctifying the whole site, and your accusation that the architects involved have indulged in narcissism. Would the sculptures be tombs? Or rather monuments to your own incredible pretension and arrogance, disguised as moral duty? The WTC site is not a sacred burial ground; our relatively enlightened society relegates such obscurantist beliefs to things like horror movies such as “Poltergeist” (your example), which we watch to have fun scaring ourselves. Libeskind is selfless enough to provide for the needs of the living, which is what architecture is about, while still reserving a special (and extensive) place for a future memorial. He even makes the effort of integrating the tragedy in the meaning of his design, which however does not unduly restrict the memorial's interpretation.

What’s the matter, is he stealing the show? Do you need a vast blank slate so that all can admire your work without being distracted? Is it so capital that the economy and vitality of Downtown should be compromised? Parks play an important role, but so do many other elements that constitute a city and in this case, clearly, not only a park is needed. You can still enter the memorial competition, but I doubt an idea as morbid and trite as yours will be considered. Thanks for inflicting it on us in two dedicated threads, it was worth it.

(Is this angry/intolerant/offensive enough? You come here with your contempt and lack of respect, then act as if you were personally under attack. What is your problem?)

Izeklah
March 2nd, 2003, 09:16 PM
Very well said.

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 2nd, 2003, 09:19 PM
Dear Christian,
Like Steven from Washington State who called any memorial on the site "a minor consideration," your comments from Switzerland that "The WTC site is not a sacred burial ground; our relatively enlightened society relegates such obscurantist beliefs to things like horror movies such as “Poltergeist” (your example), which we watch to have fun scaring ourselves." *are clear examples that the further you live from New York the less valid and relevant your opinions are to this process.

Kris
March 2nd, 2003, 09:31 PM
What a pathetic evasion.

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 2nd, 2003, 09:31 PM
And that goes for that carpetbagger Libeskind as well!!

Kris
March 2nd, 2003, 09:35 PM
Check his biography, you ignorant fool.

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 2nd, 2003, 09:35 PM
Christian,
All you offer is ad hominem attacks and pontification, you are obviously from Switzerland!
GG

Kris
March 2nd, 2003, 09:36 PM
The spirit of blind contradiction...

ZippyTheChimp
March 2nd, 2003, 09:39 PM
Please explain why you consider this site a sacred burial ground.

I'm across the street, so I trust my opinions are most relevent.

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 2nd, 2003, 09:43 PM
Christian,
I am well aware of his finely tuned media biography, but he seemed quite happy to be in Berlin where his ego was well nurtured until he saw more 'fertile' grounds for his pomposity in the greatest city on earth. If you have any doubts as to the subtle yet vicious drubbing this idiot is going to experience, just look at the picture the photo editors at the NY Times chose for their front page photo of him following the selection process. In New York, you make dart boards with photos like that.
All the best,
GG

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 2nd, 2003, 10:00 PM
Zippy,
It's hard to talk seriously to someone who calls himself The Chimp but as I believe you live in Battery Park from your previous posts, I'll say this. It just is.
GG

ZippyTheChimp
March 2nd, 2003, 10:06 PM
A typical reply by someone without an answer.

I see you've dropped the pretentious "Upper East Side."

Kris
March 2nd, 2003, 10:07 PM
You may have a very sober user name but the irrationality (or just plain idiocy) of your posts makes it hard to talk to you seriously.

Libeskind seems to be doing alright for the time being. NY isn't the greatest city on earth thanks to petty minds mired in bitter envy.

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 2nd, 2003, 10:13 PM
Zippy,
What exactly do you feel when you go by Ground Zero? I'm not dismissing you by not giving you a long answer, but some things just are or aren't. People in ivory towers can write volumes on meaning and that leads to things like the elevation of a building at 1776 feet being a profound representation of the American spirit of independence blah blah blah. Words often become meaningless when there is nothing to support them in reality.
GG

Kris
March 2nd, 2003, 10:15 PM
So just trust the authority of his feeling.

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 2nd, 2003, 10:17 PM
Christian,
I'm actually quite flattered that you think my feeble mind mired in bitter envy is dragging down the city. Ha ha ha, you are the idiot, my friend!
gg

Kris
March 2nd, 2003, 10:20 PM
You are indeed flattering yourself if you think that you are of any consequence whatsoever.

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 2nd, 2003, 10:21 PM
Christian,
So why do you keep responding to me? Go back to Switzerland and make me some cheese!
GG

TAFisher123
March 2nd, 2003, 10:23 PM
Quote: from TalB on 3:47 pm on Mar. 2, 2003[brI'm for something like that too, and I don't think that building on the footprints is disrespceting the dead.

********
From CNN.COM
The Beckman-Kaseman design calls for filling the designated 2-acre field on the west side of the Pentagon with a grove of trees and memorial units -- a glowing light pool and bench-like marker inscribed with the victim's name -- for each victim, arranged in the order of their ages and along the flight path American Airlines Flight 77 took into the building.
*********
The Pentagon memorial does not call for building on the ground where people died....but it being put in a designated area in the vicinity

Kris
March 2nd, 2003, 10:29 PM
I realize this is all about you receiving your required dose of attention, GG. You should be grateful.

Gulcrapek
March 2nd, 2003, 10:38 PM
Gilbert, please do not resort to racism or stereotypes. My (and most others') opinion of you is suffering with every ignorant remark you make.

amigo32
March 2nd, 2003, 11:03 PM
I can't see anything of substance or value in this thread, except for a couple of laughs, I think that you may be out of your league Gilbert.

ZippyTheChimp
March 2nd, 2003, 11:06 PM
I have a long history with the WTC. I have worked in it's highest floors and lowest levels. I was involved in power restoration after the '93 bombing. Fourteen members of my union died on 09/11, as did several of my neighbors.

I was home that day. After the first plane hit, I went outside and witnessed the second. I saw people jump or fall, and explode on the ground. I was on Liberty and South End Ave when 2WTC collapsed, and was caught in the debris. I was rescued by a fireboat and taken to pier 40. I was displaced from my home for 3 months.

Many of my longtime neighbors were traumatized and moved away. One good friend who worked for Dean Witter described the lobby scene in the only way her mind would allow, "There was organic matter on the windows."

I have posted before of the symbolic power of the slurry wall. Whenever I see it, I think of the events of that day, but I also think about good times on the site. The many times on the roof, the one time at Windows on the World.

Regrettably, there has been a separation between victims' families and others concerning the memorial. I find the term Commemorative more descriptive than Memorial. An important historical event occurred on the site. People were victims on many different levels, and the site should relate to their feelings as well. A cemetary is exclusive of all but family members.

ZippyTheChimp
March 2nd, 2003, 11:10 PM
I forgot to add: Tell us what you feel when you pass the site.

dbhstockton
March 2nd, 2003, 11:14 PM
This thread keeps getting more and more intersting.

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 2nd, 2003, 11:22 PM
Zippy,
I have actually never visited or seen the site. I have been quite near it at times but something seemed very wrong about viewing the site like a tourist at the Grand Canyon.
GG

dbhstockton
March 2nd, 2003, 11:32 PM
What about like a tourist at Gettysburg, Pearl Harbor, Normandy, etc?

Also, how can you design a memorial without seeing the site? *Are you aware of how vast it is, how it slopes towards the river, how extensive the underground transit infrastructure is, how there is the secondary tier of badly damaged buildings to the north and south, what the slurry wall looks like, what the parks already in the area are like? *

Oh, what's the use...

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 2nd, 2003, 11:37 PM
Dear DBH,
Exactly,
GG

dbhstockton
March 2nd, 2003, 11:48 PM
What's your story, GG? *Didn't Mommy and Daddy show you enough attention when you were a child?

JMGarcia
March 3rd, 2003, 12:04 AM
I'll discuss just about any facet of the rebuilding with just about anybody but I draw the line at two things.

1. Anybody who thinks the entire site should be a "sacred burial ground". I just don't believe in "sacred burial grounds".

2. Anybody who thinks the WTC complex should be rebuilt as it was. That position is usually held by those who believe Bin Laden is the most important audience for the message sent by what is built there. I personally could care less what Bin Laden thinks about our rebuilding. He is a non-factor. Let him gloat, let him cry for all I care. He'll soon be dead and there won't be any black-eyed virgins waiting for him.

ZippyTheChimp
March 3rd, 2003, 12:05 AM
Quote: from Gilbert Gjersvik on 11:22 pm on Mar. 2, 2003
Zippy,
I have actually never visited or seen the site. I have been quite near it at times but something seemed very wrong about viewing the site like a tourist at the Grand Canyon.
GG

Why am I not surprised?

StevenRosenow
March 3rd, 2003, 02:10 AM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 12:04 am on Mar. 3, 2003
I'll discuss just about any facet of the rebuilding with just about anybody but I draw the line at two things.

1. Anybody who thinks the entire site should be a "sacred burial ground". I just don't believe in "sacred burial grounds".

2. Anybody who thinks the WTC complex should be rebuilt as it was. That position is usually held by those who believe Bin Laden is the most important audience for the message sent by what is built there. I personally could care less what Bin Laden thinks about our rebuilding. He is a non-factor. Let him gloat, let him cry for all I care. He'll soon be dead and there won't be any black-eyed virgins waiting for him.


What is so offensive about rebuilding the World Trade Center as it was?

And you putting me in that arguement about Bin Laden is wrong, because I'm not holding that view. I just wish something very similar would be built to show the generations of the future the architecture that was there - full size - so that they can admire and look at it without the aid of architectural models or photos online or in books which give no scale.

The World Trade Center was world class design that received poor criticism, and was treated unjust. The World Trade Center was never given a chance. And that, I think, is wrong.

I for one admired their architecture, and the design of the siteplan It was a design that was very well ahead of its time, and one that I feel is being poorly judged just because "its plaza was too big" or the buildings lack the stonework of the ESB"

Not every building has to look like the Empire State Building, or the Woolworth building - with stone faces and gargoyles all over the place - to be considered a piece of art. The World Trade Center was a piece of art in its own right. Yamasaki lashed out against mainstream architecture when he designed those - and being critiziced for doing so is just plain wrong.

(Edited by StevenRosenow at 2:17 am on Mar. 3, 2003)

JMGarcia
March 3rd, 2003, 09:07 AM
Steve, there is nothing offensive about rebuilding the WTC as it was in and of itself. If the reason for doing it is nothing more than to prove a point to bin laden then, although not offensive, the reason is weak.

I did not know you were promoting re-building the entire complex as it was so I wasn't speaking of you in particular.

The architecture of the towers had their merits. I never said they didn't. The rest of the complex was much much weaker than the aesthetics of the towers as seen from a distance.

In any case, the reason I won't really discuss either of the two positions I mentioned is that I think they are so incredibly far from reality that its just not worth it. There is no way that the powers that be are going to give up all 16 acres for a memorial and there is no way that the powers that be are ever going to put up a replica WTC.

TLOZ Link5
March 3rd, 2003, 04:24 PM
Quote: from Gilbert Gjersvik on 9:19 pm on Mar. 2, 2003
Dear Christian,
Like Steven from Washington State who called any memorial on the site "a minor consideration," your comments from Switzerland that "The WTC site is not a sacred burial ground..."


Well, it isn't. *A burial ground is where bodies are interred, not where they're found. *You can give me the lecture about the incinerated and pulverized remains that will never be found, but I think we all recall the fact that the pulverized remnants of the towers were carried off by the wind, settling in the Hudson River, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Jersey--and in the lungs of millions of residents of the metropolitan area. *I smelled that dust the day after all the way here on the Upper East Side; for all I know, I could have gotten some of the Cantor Fitzgerald staff in my respiratory system. *And let's not forget that the recovery wasn't confined to just the 16 acres of the WTC site; remains were found at 90 West Street, in the Verizon Building, and at Deutsche Bank Plaza. *Should all those buildings be consecrated as well because, by random chance, some of the victims landed there during the collapse?

You can say that I'm being apathetic or whatever, but I'm not. *I have close friends who lost relatives in the Twin Towers; I've voiced my opinions on this matter to them as well and they agree. *Should there be a substantial memorial? *Of course. *But what should the purpose of this memorial be? *To remember death, or to celebrate life?

TonyO
March 3rd, 2003, 06:44 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 9:07 am on Mar. 3, 2003
There is no way that the powers that be are going to give up all 16 acres for a memorial and there is no way that the powers that be are ever going to put up a replica WTC.


Then what would you like to see put there? *What do you think will really go there?

I see differently. *I see it as a continual process where the public has to push, not drive, the process. *While a replica WTC, exact 1973 design is completely unrealistic, an updated version is a distant possibility. *Distance being time.

NYC4ever
March 3rd, 2003, 07:41 PM
I must agree with Christian. Using pieces of the old building as a memorial is exactly what the terrorists would want. It's like hanging a report card on the refrigerator, you're displaying their achievements. Besides that fact, if you put a park in every spot people were murdered the US economy wouldn't exist. Half the country would be a park. Yes, nothing was as bad as 9/11. Maybe Pearl harbor comes close, but Lower Manhattan needs to be rebuilt, WITH OFFICE SPACE. I have no opposition to a memorial on a good portion of the site, but the whole thing is just ridiculous. I personally think they should rebuild the towers exactly as before, except stronger, and I would serioussly suggest putting Patriot missiles around the city for more security. If you watch the news, we were gonna deploy them in Turkey to protect them from a SCUD attack from Iraq. They can also be used to shoot down airplanes. I think that instead of bowing down to the terrorists, and not rebuilding we should build the towers the same, or even bigger to show them we won't be defeated and that we'll still work in the towers too. It would show how goood our economy is. All we need to do to make that possible is increase airline security and have Patriot missiles as a last resort. If you ask most New Yorkers, they'll tell you they want them as before. It's mostly people from other cities or parts of the country that just want a park, they don't know what makes Lower Manhattan work.

NYC4ever
March 3rd, 2003, 07:47 PM
If they aren't going to rebuild the WTC similar or exactly the same, which is almost a given, i think they need to add more to the Libeskind plan. You see, the towers were (2) 110 stories of working usable OFFICE SPACE, now they want to put in (1) 70 story building of office space, and some others around it. I think they need to add to that because we are supposed to show the terrorists we're stronger than we were before, not weaker. Besides that, does anyone really want the WTC site to be less great than it was before? I think the Libeskind plan is OK, especially since it'll be the tallest in the world. The whole argument for less office space is that people would die high up, but the Libeskind plan has a tourist area higher anyway, why not make the office space taller as well? The economy in lower manhattan needs help, the more people working there the better. The more that'll move in, the more that'll buy food there, etc. But i have a question, will the Libeskind plan really count as the tallest? I heard that they wouldn't use the spire as part of the height. Anyone know about that?

TLOZ Link5
March 3rd, 2003, 08:14 PM
Hey Gilbert, are you the same Gilbert Gjersvik who invented The Amazin' Beer Chiller and is also president of www.beerchiller.com?

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 3rd, 2003, 08:27 PM
TLOZ,
That's me!

Izeklah
March 4th, 2003, 12:58 AM
NYC4ever, wouldn't setting up missle launchers all over NY be just about as dangerous as a plane hitting it's target? Maybe it would work in Iraq, where there is lots of open land, but if you shoot a plane down over a city, it's got to hit something.... The best solution is not to allow hijackings to happen in the first place.

Edward
March 4th, 2003, 02:05 AM
Quote: from Izeklah on 12:58 am on Mar. 4, 2003
NYC4ever, wouldn't setting up missle launchers all over NY be just about as dangerous as a plane hitting it's target? Maybe it would work in Iraq, where there is lots of open land, but if you shoot a plane down over a city, it's got to hit something.... The best solution is not to allow hijackings to happen in the first place.

NYC4ever and Izeklah, I would like to see Wired New York Forum as a place for intelligent discussion. Discussing "missile launchers all over NY" could hardly be qualified as intelligent. Promise me you'll try your best to sound clever in your posts, OK?

Gilbert Gjersvik
March 4th, 2003, 09:51 AM
Edward,
You are starting to piss me off! You said I had to start a thread of my own where opinions of my offensive nature should reside and now you go into this thread of 'offensive/angry/intolerant views welcome' where such views are...welcome, and you start trying to impose yourself! What gives???? I'll bet if I gave you a shock machine you'd start using it on people that deeply offend you! We don't need any more Saddams in the world. Let people speak!!!!!

Izeklah
March 4th, 2003, 05:24 PM
I appoligize.... I had no idea that that post would turn out that way, and the last thing I wanted to do was turn this board into an AOL chatroom. Could you delete my post?


(Edited by Izeklah at 5:29 pm on Mar. 4, 2003)