Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Townie72, post: 1791383, member: 780"] Wow! Talk about a tortured and artificial case for a disgusting money grab. On your last point, are you actually suggesting that the minor changes and improvements to Dome are somehow equivalent to the total destruction of Archbold? That's ridiculous. You must have gotten carried away building your case to come up with that absurdity. Here's a test. Compare three photographs. One of Archbold. One of the Dome in 1982. And one of the Dome in 2016. One of these is different. Which one is it? Now which two are the same? I'd be shocked if SU pursued this. Some one on campus must have a shred of moral fiber. And this would be IMO opinion, wrong and immoral. [/QUOTE]