No, I haven't given up. I still don't think it's a crescent. I know what a crescent is. (Among other things, in some heraldic systems it is the emblem of the second son.) And I still think the argument (not its proponents) on your side is ridiculous and paranoid. I suppose it is good to make the architect aware of a possible interpretation of an unintended and inadvertent aspect of his design.
The character of the response to the statement of a dissenting view suggests to me that there something going on here of which I am not aware. I, personally, am not worried about crypto fifth column Islamofacist sympathizers tricking me or the nation into paying homage to the perverted heresiarch. I am suspicious of arguments which need their proponents to imply that they are just so much more on the ball and so much wiser even than the bereft who have a strong personal connection with the memorial that those who disagree with them can only be vicious or stupid.
I guess contempt for those who disagree with one is not confined to Islamofascists.
Calling his detractors kooks in the same sentence he implies they're humorless and stupid, is not, in the opinion of the terribly subtle Mad Dawg, "going personal."
No, I haven't given up.
There is no one so determined as a person determined to be wrong.
The artist SAYS it's a crescent. The memorial committee SAYS it's a crescent. But Mad Dawg says it's not. In his infinite subtlety he knows both the unseen nuances and subconscious motivations of the artist and the committee members which even they themselves cannot see.
I still don't think it's a crescent. I know what a crescent is.
And you are the ONLY person in the galaxy who does. Congratulations.
(Among other things, in some heraldic systems it is the emblem of the second son.)
Among other things, no doubt, it is the shape of the bowl you use to cut your hair. And that is as relevant to the subject at hand as some inane arcana about the second son; the inclusion which is is pretentious and pedantic [but its proponent -- of course -- is not.]
And I still think the argument (not its proponents) on your side is ridiculous and paranoid.
Another not badly intended and terribly subtle remark.
I suppose it is good to make the architect aware of a possible interpretation of an unintended and inadvertent aspect of his design.
What utter nonsense.
As Captains Quaters blog made clear when the design was first proposed:
"This was not mere ham-fistedness. There is no group more attuned to symbolism and the “meaning” of structures than architects. It is their business to take drawings and, ultimately, wood, glass, and stone, and create meaning out of it. That this design is in some way accidental or coincidental is preposterous."
And I would parenthetically add, among all architects, memorial architects are the ones most highly attuned to the symbolism of their designs.
The character of the response to the statement of a dissenting view suggests to me that there something going on here of which I am not aware.
Talk about gormless irony.
[The statement, that is, not -- of course -- its proponent.]
I, personally, am not worried about crypto fifth column Islamofacist sympathizers tricking me or the nation into paying homage to the perverted heresiarch.
In your overarching desire to attribute motives to your detractors which they do not have, you are projecting. [Or perhaps your argument, but -- of course -- not you, are projecting.] No one on this thread has made any such argument, so you can go and argue with your straw man and leave the rest of us "kooks" alone. Again, at the time the design was first adopted, a blogger (Junkyard Blog) laid out the artists motivations best:
"Look, this was almost surely conceived innocently by an idealistic liberal as symbolic of “peaceful Islam” healing and bonding with those slaughtered for Allah,"
There is no grand conspiracy here, just the usual banality of lefty political correctness. The number of glass blocks employed in the design is 44, intended -- by the artist's explicit direction, -- to symbolize the people who died on flight 93. Unfortunately, one cannot get to that number unless one also includes the terrorists in the count. Another accident? Or does the subtle Mad Dawg count differently from the the rest of us paranoiacs as well? The point is that the artist's intention is clearly that of a reconciliation between the victims and their murderers in Eternity. And what better way could there be to reconcile them other than within the crescent of the true and correctly understood peaceful Islam which has never done, or thought any man harm (retch, puke, barf)?
I am suspicious of arguments which need their proponents to imply that they are just so much more on the ball and so much wiser even than the bereft who have a strong personal connection with the memorial that those who disagree with them can only be vicious or stupid.
More projection.
I guess contempt for those who disagree with one is not confined to Islamofascists.
You are not contemptible. But your ideas are. They are also absurd: to claim more knowledge of a design than the architect himself is truly preposterous. Give up.