>Your liking the McMansions is only proof that you're in category A... It is not proof that he is wrong about what makes something good classical architecture,

>Your liking the McMansions is only proof that you're in category A... It is not proof that he is wrong about what makes something good classical architecture, that his explanation of category-B reactions is useless. Exactly. We can have different preferences. His rules are not objective facts about what is "bad" or "good". If it was just an explanation why two architectural styles are different, then that would be fine. But it's worded more like "how one architectural style is right and the other is wrong". >Yes, thank god we work in technology, where there are never any fads, superstitions, or made up rules that people really believe and try to enforce inappropriately. I don't know why you think this is an argument against it. I oppose snobbery and superstitions about technology just as much. I don't think it's quite as bad in technology though. At least one could argue technology rules actually matter. Better user interfaces can make it easier for users to find what they want, and better code styles can make code more readable. Whereas the aesthetic of a house has zero effect on anything and doesn't matter.