[poinq]

The spire was stupid. It was not Iconic. Hardly anyone knew it was there. The front facade, the flying buttress’, the gargoyles, the rose window, and the two bell towers are all iconic. The stupid spire that was the wrong style and placed there 600 years after the cathedral was built, was not iconic. It was far to small to be noticed. And far to modern to fit the building. The spire was probably burned by God, who’s sense of style was offended by the ugly appendage.

[kiryandil]

Say, poinq - instead of beating about the bush, why don't you just come right out and tell us what you REALLY think...      

[Yardstick]

I completely agree. The burning of the spire was the fire’s silver lining.

[Paladin2]

“The spire was probably burned by God....”

Unlikely...[it was most likely attacked by Mad Mo’/Satan...]

“The spire was stupid. It was not Iconic. Hardly anyone knew it was there. The front facade, the flying buttress’, the gargoyles, the rose window, and the two bell towers are all iconic. The stupid spire that was the wrong style and placed there 600 years after the cathedral was built, was not iconic. It was far to small to be noticed. And far to modern to fit the building.”

I find all of that to be true.

The Church was extremely seriously damaged way beyond the spire. I’d be fine with fixing up the place and eschewing the Spire.