On Aug 31, 12:45 pm, Martin wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:36:44 -0700, me wrote:
> >On Aug 31, 11:19 am, Martin wrote:
> >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:02:29 +0100, d4g...@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_
>
> >> chancellor (*)) wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> >He was saying neither of those things. I'm mildly surprised that you
> >> >took that attitude towards it- it seemed like a perfectly fair article
> >> >to me.
>
> >> Me too. I've seen the same changes taking place in Greece and the Cote d'Azur
> >> just before it was completely ruined.
>
> > You realize it could very well be that what you remember, "before
> >the changes", may have already been considered "ruined" by folks
> >at that time who member it before what you saw.
>
> I find that hard to believe in places where there was no development at all.
Actually, considering the point of view with respect to the
condition
of the water itself, yes, they could easily already consider it
ruined.
I'm reminded of a guy who talked about his loss of sense of privacy.
He lived in Alaska and someone, he never saw, walked across
the tundra near where he lived. The footprints remained visible
for months. That image alone had detracted from his enjoyment.
> > I've spoken to many a "native" who have complained about
> >how "ruined" Key West Florida is. It is humorous that it always
> >seems to be "ruined" in the last 10 years or so. That's
> >been consistent for the last 25. One man's trash.....
>
> It was ruined when I went there in 1972. Maybe it was a horrid mosquito ridden
> hole before it was developed.
Not according to Hemmingway who was there in the '50s
('40s ?) Even he grew to object to the level of development.
This was 30 years before Mr. Buffet would write adoring songs.
|