Strumms wrote: » Regardless of the intent of its being there, for the glory of god or the glory of mascarpone cheese... most people see it as a feat of beautiful architecture and by proxy a feat of mans ingenuity. That’s a fact.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » They are saying 20 years to fix it. What a pity. And it will be a building site until then, we little or no access to it.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Theres two of ye in it, the ultras of the atheist movement who despise the cathedral because it is Catholic, and the ultra catholics who think we can't mourn a building unless we are Catholics. Tiny groups to be fair but vocal. I'd mourn the Taj Mahal if it burnt to the ground, and I mourned the destruction of the Buddhist statues. No man is an island. No culture is an island.
iamwhoiam wrote: » I feel sad for people who cannot see the wonder and beauty of Notre Dame They are so busy trying to be edgy and seek attention that the beauty passes them by . Thats sad really
iamwhoiam wrote: » You have absolutely no idea about the people singing and their lives so your conjecture is pointless
Snow Garden wrote: » To be honest the area around the Taj Mahal is an absolutely kip. So much pollution and rubbish.
Sofia Damaged Lodging wrote: » The geometry of Gothic architecture is all about aspiration and elevation, symbolizing humankind reaching beyond itself and toward God. Given what we know about medieval Christianity, it's virtually impossible to look at Notre Dame as representing man's ingenuity -- that's very much an Enlightenment model of thinking that did not come into vogue for nearly half a millennium after Notre Dame was built.
GM228 wrote: » York Minster took 4 years, Windsor Castle 5, whilst it is bigger giving more challenges I can't see it taking 20 years.
coolshannagh28 wrote: » The use of tuned stone to create a building with such height and light 850 years ago which can still survive a catastrophic fire is a homage to ingenuity.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » What happened to Notre Dame is as big an event as the blowing up of the Parthenon imo.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » For people saying “Who cares, it’s just a building” - I’ve never visited Paris but my favourite church that I’ve visited is Hallgrímskirkja in Reykjavík. A sparse, sleek beauty of a building, both inside and out with amazing views from its spire. I would be devastated if it was destroyed. Absolutely devastated. People can feel attached to buildings that they have visited. Sometimes just for the beauty of the building, sometimes because of the memories thinking about that place brings. Great architecture and art exist because it resonates with many of us so deeply. I feel sad thinking about the artworks that were lost in the collapse of the World Trade Center. Obviously that sadness doesn’t supersede the sadness I felt at the senseless loss of life. It’s many tiers below that sadness but it still exists.
kippy wrote: » There are helicopters and planes that can be used in firefighting, however these are: 1. Usually only used on forest/brush/gorse fires. 2. Operate from a decent height. 3. Would not usually be too accurate with here the water falls (and as such may miss the fire entirely and or causing more harm than good due to the inaccuracy of the water and weight of said water on wooden structure IF most of it fell on the Cathedral. In addition to their impracticality for this issue, they would be used very rarely near Paris and I doubt any could be mobilised fast.
Manic Moran wrote: » Just because we most frequently seen wildfire drops doesn't mean it's the only way to do it. Fire departments in high density high-rise cities such as Tokyo and Moscow would beg to differ with the above. They have helicopters specifically designed for spraying into fires in high-rise buildings or from above. Think of them as flying hose platforms. There just isn't such an equipped helicopter in all of France, apparently.
Cienciano wrote: » It's not even trolling, it's that stupid. It's like comparing the Concord to a Lada. "It's just a vehicle to bring you from A to B". It's like flat earthers, is such a dumb stance to take it's not worth taking the time to explain or argue.
Snow Garden wrote: » Taj Mahal is in big trouble already.https://www.businessinsider.com/taj-mahal-under-threat-of-demolition-due-to-neglect-and-pollution-2018-7 To be honest the area around the Taj Mahal is an absolutely kip. So much pollution and rubbish.
Danzy wrote: » In this line of specific firefighting work it is safe to say there is no other force who would have a fraction of the expertise, in most they would have none, never mind multi generational.
Anteayer wrote: » It's been at the heart of an empire and saw an idealistic Republic lose its way with the coronation of Napoleon Bonaparte.
topper75 wrote: » Agree with your sentiment but just to be pedantic about this point: Just because Boney was a tyrant does not mean the period before him was all that idealistic. The were backstabbing the ****e out of each other. They basically ate themselves. Or were going to until he gave focus.
storker wrote: » Yep the scale of St. Peter's is amazing and you can't help but be awestruck. I particularly like the striped stonework of the cathedrals in Siena and Orvieto. Likewise, although it's not a cathedral, the Pantheon in Rome. I can't understand how anyone of sound mind could fail to be impressed. I'm another of those atheists who likes churches, and speaking of Rome, I'd highly recommend Sant' Andrea delle Fratte which is just a small block or two from the Trevi. Not big, and doesn't look like anything special from the outside, but amazingly ornate inside...numerous side altars (or whatever they're called) and not a square inch of undecorated wall or ceiling. Beautiful. We found it quite by accident..just passing by when my wife said "Let's just take a quick look in here..."
Mrcaramelchoc wrote: » Its amazing the rich French people are falling over themselves to donate money to fix a building.but poverty and homelessness are rife there to.i don't see the rich running to their aid.its a **** ing building.
