Distinguishing traditional from modern architecture in one easy step

[jaws]

One could argue every movement in architecture is meant to appeal to the masses or certainly speak to them. I'd also argue that modernisim was an architecture that sought to be for the people and shed all of the preconceived chains of "traditional" architecture and most definitly post modernism sought to embody all of the masses with it's easily recognizable iconic design.

And yet people hate them. Modernism was meant to create the new socialist man, and it completely failed to understand what man wanted. Man wants the features of traditional architecture.

Popular music and movies are not art meant to appeal to the masses, they are art that does appeal to the masses.

Perhaps. But, I think a lot of people associate "traditional" design with the Victorian upper middle class predilection for multiple small, single purpose rooms where the women and family privacy can be protected from the cold hard world.

Victorianism was a small period in the history of architecture. I suppose that in San Francisco bay area it is the dominant form of traditional architecture due to historical accident, but otherwise the rest of the world has very little concept of "victorian" styles.

[THX0097]

And yet people hate them. Modernism was meant to create the new socialist man, and it completely failed to understand what man wanted. Man wants the features of traditional architecture.
How can you speak for all of man? You're ignorance knows no bounds.People also hate traditional architecture. Traditional architecture doesn't relate to the contemporary man, we have moved beyond it, it now longer serves us.

Popular music and movies are not art meant to appeal to the masses, they are art that does appeal to the masses.
Based on your previous post this is incorrect, you said they followed a formula. This is a formula known to appeal to the masses. It's common knowledge that hollywood studios prescreen their movies before releaseing them...why? To appeal to the masses. This is art meant to appeal to the masses..no tart that does.....


Victorianism was a small period in the history of architecture. I suppose that in San Francisco bay area it is the dominant form of traditional architecture due to historical accident, but otherwise the rest of the world has very little concept of "victorian" styles.

How do you know that? I live on the east coast and have a very good concept of victorian styles. It appears that you my friend have very little understanding of what modernism truley is (and traditional for that matter) and your argument has deterriated into "everyone" and "regular" terms. I've grown tired of you, your ignorance bores me. Post something once you finish high school.

[jaws]

I know what regular people like because I talk to regular people and this is what they say they like. Of course they don't know that modernism is about rejecting traditional features of architecture, they just know they like the old buildings better.

[BKM]

Victorianism was a small period in the history of architecture. I suppose that in San Francisco bay area it is the dominant form of traditional architecture due to historical accident, but otherwise the rest of the world has very little concept of "victorian" styles.

1. I did not grow up in the Bay Area, and I am very aware that it is not the only style in some Eastern cities.

2. Nonetheless, Victorian architecture is very much the dominant "style" (group of styles, actually) during the period of most rapid urbanization in cities which had their growth spurts before WWII.

3. Modernism and its open floor plan was very much a reaction, a specific reaction in fact, to Victorian design which included a warren of small rooms.

THX0097-relax. Jaws' main purpose is to be inflammatory and stir things up, often by posting nonsense.

[THX0097]

I know what regular people like because I talk to regular people and this is what they say they like. Of course they don't know that modernism is about rejecting traditional features of architecture, they just know they like the old buildings better.

so then you can only talk about your experience but not for all people...especially not if you want to really get to the heart of the topic....It's interesting and speaks volumes how everytime I disprove one of your statements you're never able to counter that...you make these broad statements about everybody likes this or popular art but when it comes down to it you have nothing to support your position other than "I talk to people" c'mon man drop the act.

[jaws]

3. Modernism and its open floor plan was very much a reaction, a specific reaction in fact, to Victorian design which included a warren of small rooms.

That's really not true, there were other styles between the advent of modernism and the end of Victorianism. Art nouveau and art deco were much more "freeform" architectural styles that still worked within the established practices of traditional architecture.

[THX0097]

That's really not true, there were other styles between the advent of modernism and the end of Victorianism. Art nouveau and art deco were much more "freeform" architectural styles that still worked within the established practices of traditional architecture.

HOW IS ART DECO OR ART NOUVEAU TRADITIONAL?

[Luca]

THX: we're just talking past each other. Semantics and hedgehoggery, is my guess

As for the differences between minimalism (modernism) and Art Deco I had a thread on it a while ago you might find interesting (oh, no you won't, you already know everything about architecture ).

BKM: I think you are 'strawmanning' in juxtaposing the pinnacle of minimalist purism against a 'Victorian warren of rooms'. Neither jaws nor I are defending Victorian interior design and drapery, are we? We're talking about exterior building form (look at the thread title). In the respect of 'edge detail' (or traditional ornamentation) the preference is still there and likely to remain so; the fact that most builders in the US and (sadly) elsewhere do this poorly does not mean that it isn't what people want/need.

Jaws: I think the comments on 'popular' architecture are insightful and I agree that what is being produced now is largely dreck. I suppose a middle-brow approach is what is essentially needed, like much of the Edwardian and (yes) Victorian output.

INCIDENTALLY, I’ve been making a study (with pics) of solidly built, traditional form, new-builds that, somehow, look wrong and I’ve come to the conclusion that the poor/lacking window and entrance detailing is the main issue.

[abrowne]

What architecture needs is a "popular" class of architecture, in the sense of popular music and popular movies. An architecture meant to appeal to the masses. This isn't to say that what is currently being produced by homebuilders is popular architecture because in most cases there is no architect involved at all. The homebuilders are trying to create a house that is homely and comfortable, and architects today are completely opposed to that.

Popular music and movies are made by professional artists, but they usually follow simple formulas that the audience can easily understand and enjoy. Every architect today is taught to be and wants to be an experimental architect, but just as the market for experimental movies and music is extremely small so is the market for experimental architecture.

I largely agree with the above, in particular your observation that architects today are, almost without exception, taught to be experimental and little else. This is perhaps of most concern to us, individual movements aside.

A shift must take place in order for more humble architects to financially survive in the world of $300 "home designer" plans.

HOW IS ART DECO OR ART NOUVEAU TRADITIONAL?

They are "traditional" in that they do not DENY THE HUMANITY OF MAN. Do you need your hand held through this? This is the central point of the entire voluminous argument.

[jaws]

HOW IS ART DECO OR ART NOUVEAU TRADITIONAL?

They feature edge detail as well as other common patterns of traditional practice.

A shift must take place in order for more humble architects to financially survive in the world of $300 "home designer" plans.

I don't think the price of cheap home plans matters. How does a fancy restaurant compete against McDonald's and Subway? By offering a higher quality, thus more value, for their product. People will pay more for more value.

Modern architects, even Pierre Koenig, did not understand what people wanted their house to feel like. That's why the cheap plans conquered the market. The architects were no longer providing more value for the extra cost. That's also why Quinlan Terry has all the clients he could possibly want.

[THX0097]

THX: we're just talking past each other. Semantics and hedgehoggery, is my guess

As for the differences between minimalism (modernism) and Art Deco I had a thread on it a while ago you might find interesting (oh, no you won't, you already know everything about architecture ).... AND YET YOU KNOW SO LITTLE IT'S ACTUALLY SAD....

BKM: I think you are 'strawmanning' in juxtaposing the pinnacle of minimalist purism against a 'Victorian warren of rooms'. Neither jaws nor I are defending Victorian interior design and drapery, are we? We're talking about exterior building form (look at the thread title). In the respect of 'edge detail' (or traditional ornamentation) the preference is still there and likely to remain so; the fact that most builders in the US and (sadly) elsewhere do this poorly does not mean that it isn't what people want/need....AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T PROVEN HOW THEY "NEED" IT HAVE YOU...THE FACT THAT HOMEBUILDERS DON'T PROVIDE IT IS PROOF BY YOUR STANDARDS OF ARGUMENT THAT THEY INDEED DON'T NEED IT. RATHER SOME PEOPLE ARE UNABLE TO CHANGE AND HAVE ROMANTICIZED THE PAST INTO SOMETHING THAT WAS SO BEAUTIFUL IE. THE PARISIAN BOULEVARD OR THE TRADITIONAL HOME THAT ANYTHING THAT MOVES BEYOND THAT IS EVIL. WHEN ASKED WHY YOU COME UP WITH NO SUPPORTING ARGUMENT OTHER THAN YOU TALK TO ALOT OF PEOPLE...

Jaws: I think the comments on 'popular' architecture are insightful and I agree that what is being produced now is largely dreck. I suppose a middle-brow approach is what is essentially needed, like much of the Edwardian and (yes) Victorian output. HOW IS WHAT IS LARGELY BUILD TODAY NOT MIDDLE BROW WHEN THE LARGEST MARKET OF HOME BUYERS IS THE MIDDLE CLASS...BASED ON YOUR SIDES PREVIOUS ARGUMENT ABOUT POP MUSIC AND MOVIES THESE HOMES ARE WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS, NOT MORE BRIC-A-BRAC. THE PUBLIC IS MOVING MORE TOWARDS MODERNISM THAN IT IS TRADITIONAL...

INCIDENTALLY, I’ve been making a study (with pics) of solidly built, traditional form, new-builds that, somehow, look wrong and I’ve come to the conclusion that the poor/lacking window and entrance detailing is the main issue.

...AND INCIDENTALLY THIS IS ALL BASED ON YOUR OPINION

[BKM]

INCIDENTALLY, I’ve been making a study (with pics) of solidly built, traditional form, new-builds that, somehow, look wrong and I’ve come to the conclusion that the poor/lacking window and entrance detailing is the main issue.

I would agree with this argument and throw in poor cornice detailing-overly simplified, almost cartoonish brackets, for example. I don't understand why, with modern production technology, good detailing is "too expensive." I would simply argue that modern commercial institutions don't care. Wal Mart doesn't care as much as a local merchant family, small regional chain, or individual. And, a population raised in post-war suburbia doesn't care, either. A few brackets attached to a rancher doesn't make a traditional environment.

Modern architects, even Pierre Koenig, did not understand what people wanted their house to feel like.

.

I would love a Pierre Koenig house, myself.

[Wannaplan?]

How important is "edge detail" to planning and the built environment, anyway?

I spent the week-end in Madison, Wisconsin, at a family reunion and I had a chance to go to Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin. What a beautiful house! At least from the road. Once inside, the ceilings were low and made me feel uncomfortable and uninvited. This is the work of a great architect?! I wonder, how can you have a meaningful discussion about "edge detail" in an urban planning forum by posting images from the exterior of two distinct structures? Why not discuss issues pertinent to planners, like context, the relation of the structure to the neighborhood, and the usefulness of said structure(s) to society as a whole?

It also hit me while driving through the hills of Wisconsin the impact the computer has had on architectural design. It's clear Andrea Palladio didn't have the latest design application to help him create the Villa Rotonda. Computer technology is to modern architecture as "edge detail" is to red herrings.

[THX0097]

How important is "edge detail" to planning and the built environment, anyway?

I spent the week-end in Madison, Wisconsin, at a family reunion and I had a chance to go to Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin. What a beautiful house! At least from the road. Once inside, the ceilings were low and made me feel uncomfortable and uninvited. This is the work of a great architect?! I wonder, how can you have a meaningful discussion about "edge detail" in an urban planning forum by posting images from the exterior of two distinct structures? Why not discuss issues pertinent to planners, like context, the relation of the structure to the neighborhood, and the usefulness of said structure(s) to society as a whole?

It also hit me while driving through the hills of Wisconsin the impact the computer has had on architectural design. It's clear Andrea Palladio didn't have the latest design application to help him create the Villa Rotonda. Computer technology is to modern architecture as "edge detail" is to red herrings.

NOT TO MENTION HOW DOES EDGE DETAILING IMPROVE PEOPLES LIVES, BECASUE THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT JAWS AND LUCA ARE SAYING..THAT TRADITIONAL IS SOMEHOW BETTER FOR PEOPLE THAN MODERN ARCHITECTURE. SO LUCA AND JAWS HOW ARE TRADITIONAL HOMES BETTER FOR PEOPLE THAN MODERN HOMES? CAN EITHER ONE OF YOU SUPPLY AN IMAGE OF THIS EDGE DETAIL IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT?

Computer technology is to modern architecture as "edge detail" is to red herrings???? I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOW...CAN YOU ELABORATE?

[Wannaplan?]

Please turn-off your caps lock.

[jaws]

It also hit me while driving through the hills of Wisconsin the impact the computer has had on architectural design. It's clear Andrea Palladio didn't have the latest design application to help him create the Villa Rotonda. Computer technology is to modern architecture as "edge detail" is to red herrings.

Mies van der Rohe didn't have a computer either.

I would love a Pierre Koenig house, myself.

Alright, let me be clear on what I meant. Modern architects, even Pierre Koenig, did not understand what people's wives wanted their house to feel like

NOT TO MENTION HOW DOES EDGE DETAILING IMPROVE PEOPLES LIVES,

Why does it have to improve people's lives? Does chocolate improve people's lives? Why can't it just be enjoyable?

[bud]

How important is "edge detail" to planning and the built environment, anyway?

I spent the week-end in Madison, Wisconsin, at a family reunion and I had a chance to go to Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin. What a beautiful house! At least from the road. Once inside, the ceilings were low and made me feel uncomfortable and uninvited.

I never noticed that but I am the same height as FLW. The ceilings were of varying heights as I recall when I was there in 1958. At the doorway it was 6’-4” but inside the ceiling was higher. If you are a tall person I understand. When FLW designed a house for a tall person he made appropriate height adjustments such as the house for _____ in Dallas.

Ornamentation is a part of our environment and we could use a lot more or it – as I referenced above - http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fna...positions.html . It seems the lack of it anymore has to do with the fact that architecture is financed by borrowing. To borrow money to build means that what is built will be to the Banker’s delight – that would of course be to save or to make money. So we have sterile, plain vanilla buildings for the most part. What is the remedy? Maybe the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation could help us out.

This is properly called Contemporary Architecture which is a usually a hybrid of some Classical forms expressed in terms of current technology . It is a misnomer to call it Modern which is a true expression of the most advanced technology in terms of materials, machinery and methods of construction, as I tried to explain in my first reply to this thread.

[THX0097]

Why does it have to improve people's lives? Does chocolate improve people's lives? Why can't it just be enjoyable?

WHO SAID IT'S ENJOYABLE.

This is properly called Contemporary Architecture which is a usually a hybrid of some Classical forms expressed in terms of current technology . It is a misnomer to call it Modern which is a true expression of the most advanced technology in terms of materials, machinery and methods of construction, as I tried to explain in my first reply to this thread.

MODERN ART AND ARCHITECTURE WAS A SPECIFIC MOVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ART AND ARCHITECTURE. CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE HAS YET TO BE DEFINED.

Please, enough with the double replies. Please consolidate multiple replies in a single post. And also, please stop shouting.

[THX0097]

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fna...positions.html .
DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THIS?

It seems the lack of it anymore has to do with the fact that architecture is financed by borrowing. To borrow money to build means that what is built will be to the Banker’s delight – that would of course be to save or to make money.
NOT NECESSARILY. WHEN PEOPLE BORROW TO BUY A HOME THE BANK HAS NO SAY IN HOW MUCH "DECORATION" THEY CAN HAVE OR IF THEY CAN HAVE "EDGE DETAILING" OR NOT. PEOPLE VOTE WITH THEIR WALLETS AND CHOOSE LESS RATHER THAN MORE WHEN IT COMES TO DECORATION. AGAIN I WOULD SAY THAT THE MASSES CHOOSE MODERN OVER TRADITIONAL WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR OWN HOMES.
HOW MANY HOMES WERE BUILT LAST YEAR WITH "EDGE DETAILING" LUCA & JAWS. HERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENT WHICH SO FAR HAS ONLY BEEN BASED ON YOUR OPINIONS. GO OUT ON THE WEB AND PRODUCE FOR US HERE SOME EXAMPLES OF HOMES THAT WERE BUILT IN THE LAST FEW YEARS WITH EDGE DETAILING. I CHALLENGE THAT YOU CAN'T AND WON'T AND HAVE NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN FEELINGS TO SUPPORT YOU. THEREFORE YOUR THEORIES ARE WRONG AND NO GOOD. THE CHALLENGE HAS BEEN MADE LET'S SEE IF THEY CAN RESPOND........

This is properly called Contemporary Architecture which is a usually a hybrid of some Classical forms expressed in terms of current technology . It is a misnomer to call it Modern which is a true expression of the most advanced technology in terms of materials, machinery and methods of construction, as I tried to explain in my first reply to this thread.[/QUOTE]...GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL IMAGES, SO WHERE DO YOU PLACE GHERY THEN?

WHO SAID IT'S ENJOYABLE.


MODERN ART AND ARCHITECTURE WAS A SPECIFIC MOVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ART AND ARCHITECTURE. CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE HAS YET TO BE DEFINED.

Please, enough with the double replies. Please consolidate multiple replies in a single post. And also, please stop shouting.

I'M MOVING BETWEEN WORK AND THIS POST, THE SOFTWARE I'M USING REQUIRES CAPITALS. I'M NOT SHOUTING. IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU WOULD INTERPRET THIS AS SHOUTING THOUGH...LOL...I APOLOGIZE IF I HURT ANYONES FEELINGS.

What Is The Issue With Double Replies?

[jaws]

HOW MANY HOMES WERE BUILT LAST YEAR WITH "EDGE DETAILING" LUCA & JAWS. HERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENT WHICH SO FAR HAS ONLY BEEN BASED ON YOUR OPINIONS. GO OUT ON THE WEB AND PRODUCE FOR US HERE SOME EXAMPLES OF HOMES THAT WERE BUILT IN THE LAST FEW YEARS WITH EDGE DETAILING. I CHALLENGE THAT YOU CAN'T AND WON'T AND HAVE NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN FEELINGS TO SUPPORT YOU. THEREFORE YOUR THEORIES ARE WRONG AND NO GOOD. THE CHALLENGE HAS BEEN MADE LET'S SEE IF THEY CAN RESPOND........

http://www.qftarchitects.net

Also see the new house in this thread: http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=24782

Now if you'll excuse us, we're trying to have a discussion with facts that are already common knowledge. If you're not in touch with them you should start by doing your own reading before taking an accusatory tone.

[THX0097]

http://www.qftarchitects.net

Also see the new house in this thread: http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=24782

Now if you'll excuse us, we're trying to have a discussion with facts that are already common knowledge. If you're not in touch with them you should start by doing your own reading before taking an accusatory tone.

and this is your response....a web site of a firm that builds traditional buildings and a bunch of pictures of old (except for one) traditional homes. Now lets compare that to the tens of thousands of new homes built last year and I think we'll see how home owners have voted with their wallets, decoration is overated and for the most part unnecessary and obviously the majority of homeowners agree, except for the obviously incredibly wealthy clients of the firm you give as an example. I wonder if those clients choose that style of architecture as a symbol of their power, wealth and stature.....the regular guy as you put it certainly doesn't live there. I find it incredibly sad that on a forum for public planning these homes are romanticized so....nobody could ever afford to own one of those homes except for a very small elite minority....how do you see this as good public planning when the majority of the public can't live here???
your so called facts are being challanged and you're yet to defend your argument...where's the proof that the public wants homes and buildings with "edge detailing"? Because some firm caters to the romantic tastes of some elite clients doesn't support your argument as a matter of fact not only were more homes built with modernist ideals for the low to middle classes but more homes were built in the modern style for the rich and elite than the traditional style....again you fall short in your supporting argument...I somehow get the feeling you really don't know what your talking about...once you get beyond what you personally like and the romantic notions of traditional homes and french boulevards your unable to defend you broad stroked statements about what people want in their public and private spaces...I understand you like them but that's as far as it goes and that's as far as your able to take it.....I love how the gist of your opening argument was how buildings today don't have edge detailing and that's what people desperately really desire and that's why new construction and modernism has failed the "regular guy" and if only more public projects were but traditional then things would be better...but the reality is that society has moved beyond the "traditional" architectural style, partly because it's a more rigid style and doesn't relate to the contemporary world...it's not a a living style, it's rules don't apply, it's construction methods are antiques...it's dead and rigid...the proof can be seen in that firms portfolio, the amount of resources required to build one of those homes is grotesque...how can this be seen as an example of an architectural style for the common man? You might as well erect a pyramid....you're talking about the minority like it was the majority and it's simply not my friend your argument is flawed and you refuse to see it...the facts that you say are common knowledge, that you base your argument on are wrong and you refuse to see it...you only want to have a discussion in a bubble with people of like mind who will reinforce your opinions with out challenging them. What is the purpose of this forum if not to challenge your own preconceived notions and grow intellectually...seriously do you really think you've got the answer to any of the issues that face public planning? I mean could "edge detailing" really be the answer...I mean how many years ago was it used..and the problems still exist..if it were the answer would we be having this discussion? wouldn't it have stood the test of time by now? I mean are you proposing giving it another shot because it worked so well the first time? It's like the pyramids man..let it go, it doesn't fit todays society, it was appropriate in it's time and that's it....do you get what I'm saying?

[Luca]

How important is "edge detail" to planning and the built environment, anyway?.

Well...this IS the sub-forum titled Design, Space and Place...

To try to answer your question: you will have doubtlessly observed that there are places that, beyond their immediate 'practical' use attract people. More than a few people have tried to study what it is about such places that attracts lots of people, what sort of patterns are present. What could be described as 'objectively attractive'* architecture organized spatially to provide a mix of sense of enclosure as well as some vistas (terminated or leading) tends to be a common denominator. This is in fact the reason I became interested in urban form and architecture.

* By 'objectively attractive' I mean attractive in the way that certain face types are shown by cognitive researchers tot be thought attractive by a vast majority of the population polled (especially in a properly conducted experiment). In a properly conducted experiment, my guess (I have yet to test this), is that a building like this would come out well



AND it has edge detailing

I would agree with this argument and throw in poor cornice detailing-overly simplified, almost cartoonish brackets, for example. I don't understand why, with modern production technology, good detailing is "too expensive." I would simply argue that modern commercial institutions don't care. Wal Mart doesn't care as much as a local merchant family, small regional chain, or individual. And, a population raised in post-war suburbia doesn't care, either. A few brackets attached to a rancher doesn't make a traditional environment.

I think that, sadly, most can't even tell any more; that taste has been debased by exposure to substandard archtiecture so long that it has devolved. It's a bit liek a brutalized/absued person turning inward. As foir teh affordability, I agree. We're much richer than renaissance Itaqlians and yet...

II would love a Pierre Koenig house, myself.

Plees to show peecture?

[Wannaplan?]

AND it has edge detailing

But that is only one design feature of many more. What is the point of defining a "litmus test" for structures in order to help you, me, or anyone else to distinguish traditional architecture from modern architecture? That is the point of this thread, right?

[NHPlanner]

<snipped>

It seems the lack of it anymore has to do with the fact that architecture is financed by borrowing. To borrow money to build means that what is built will be to the Banker’s delight – that would of course be to save or to make money.
NOT NECESSARILY. WHEN PEOPLE BORROW TO BUY A HOME THE BANK HAS NO SAY IN HOW MUCH "DECORATION" THEY CAN HAVE OR IF THEY CAN HAVE "EDGE DETAILING" OR NOT. PEOPLE VOTE WITH THEIR <snipped>

I'M MOVING BETWEEN WORK AND THIS POST, THE SOFTWARE I'M USING REQUIRES CAPITALS. I'M NOT SHOUTING. IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU WOULD INTERPRET THIS AS SHOUTING THOUGH...LOL...I APOLOGIZE IF I HURT ANYONES FEELINGS.

What Is The Issue With Double Replies?

Looks like the capitalization thing is intentional, since part of your post is in all caps, and portions are not. All caps is the 'net equivalent of shouting, please stop. Multiple consecutive replies is post padding, and is against the Board rules. See: http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showp...29&postcount=3 2.6 Post padding / low content posts Post padding should be avoided. Post padding is making a post with no real purpose or content, out of laziness or just to increase post count stats. Post padding includes: ✱ "Roll call," "consecutive number game", "last poster wins", "99 bottles of beer", "control-v", and "increase your post count" type threads and posts. ✱ A URL alone, with little or no commentary. ✱ Two or more consecutive messages in a thread to reflect one train of thought ("Oh, and one more thing ..."). Users can amend and edit their posts up to six hours after posting. Staff may consolidate or delete posts to improve readability of a thread. ✱ Short followup messages that contribute nothing to a thread, such as "I agree" or "Me too"

[THX0097]

Looks like the capitalization thing is intentional, since part of your post is in all caps, and portions are not. All caps is the 'net equivalent of shouting, please stop. Multiple consecutive replies is post padding, and is against the Board rules. See: http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showp...29&postcount=3

ACTUALLY YOUR WRONG (SORRY AT WORK AGAIN AND I'M NOT SHOUTING BUT RATHER SITTING QUIETLY TYPING) THE LOWER CASE WAS THE ORIGINAL QUOTE, MY RESPONSE WAS THEN IN CAPS DUE TO MY WORK SOFTWARE...THEN MY SECOND POST (WHICH APPARENTLY IT'S HORRIBLE TO HAVE A SECOND THOUGHT ABOUT A TOPIC RIGHT AFTER YOU HIT THE SEND BUTTON AND REREAD YOUR OWN ORIGINAL POST) WAS DONE IN LOWER CASE AFTER SHUTTING DOWN MY OTHER PROGRAM.

WHY WOULD SOMEONE INTENTIONALLY USE CAPS? TO INDICATE YELLING?