It starts off well, with an oblique and charming opening - very understated and simple, somewhat reminiscent of much of Bob Huntley's recent work. But then for some reason -- maybe to make room for only like-minded posts -- it abruptly changes gears with a harshly declarative sentence that many average posters will struggle to respond to. Now, I don't mind challenging posts -- see my appreciation of those by Mark Bourgeouis, for example. And, if it would simply stay harsh and declarative all the way through I could accept that, accept it as one of many legitimate styles (though not one of my favourite); but the problem is, it doesn't. Instead, trying to be all things to all posters, I guess, it then proceeds to, on the one hand, dictate exactly how it should be responded to, leaving very few options for differing opinions; and on the other, tries to mitigate this penal approach with an excessive use of emoticons (smiley faces to be precise). It's like a post that has been re-written by several different hands over several minutes, a mish-mash of approaches. (Perhaps "edited" is the better word, I'm not sure). I wish architects would realize -- and I don't mean to be insulting here -- that there is a lot more involved in writing a good post than stringing sentences/ideas together. Sure, that's the fun part -- but the skill and hard work comes in handling all the subtext that is not put on the page for all to see.
Peter