SFIA Thesis
 
 

The making of Authentic Architecture

Introduction and Overview - Part One
go to Part Two • go to Part Three

 
 

This THESIS is based on the following experience:

THAT a new way of working can be accomplished by the tight integration of processes, environments and tools...
THAT this way is based on the nature of mind and networks therefore it is complex and emergent...
THAT among a myriad of applications, this allows a new practice of architecture...
THAT this new practice facilitates the creation of AUTHENTIC Architecture which is financially and ecologically sustainable and can be afforded by a much greater portion of the population than contemporary architecture now allows...
THAT this is accomplished by integrating design, engineering, fabrication, building, development, maintenance and use as a single system which is based on life-cycle economics...
THAT Architecture is, by necessity, inclusive of what today is considered to be separate: interiors, buildings, armatures, infrastructures, landscape, communities, mega-structures, regions and the planet itself...
THAT architecture shelters, arranges the flow of utility transactions in home, office, communities and population centers, and is both the fact-based, non-distorted EXPRESSION of a culture’s values and also one of the great shapers of those values...
THAT architecture is not a visual art - it provides a context for life to be experienced as art...
THAT the primary challenge, in the generation ahead, is that Planet Earth is being turned into a human artifact by default - not by intention and design...
THAT the present configuration of society and its intellectual and organizational structures cannot deal with this reality and is in fact rapidly making it so...
THAT a deliberate local-to-global effort is required if we are to accomplish a civilization and planet that supports free life in it’s myriad forms...
THAT a Program and process to do this is possible and constitutes a minimum MORAL response to the conditions we humans have created and imposed on Planet Earth as a system.

This experience, which I report, is my 50 years of professional work in the domain of architecture, what I have learned from this work, from the great masters I have been privileged to know and study, and from the legacy of civilizations that have proceeded ours and who failed the test of time as we are now in jeopardy of so doing.
This is written as a manifesto, a program, a call to arms and a hope that we might step up to the challenge of our times and advance to the next great expression of what it means to be HUMAN.

Matt Taylor
ELSEWHERE
October 31, 2004

 
 
Statement of Purpose
Frank Lloyd Wright [link] once said that one should take a long time preparing to become an architect. I have certainly did that although I had no idea, when I started out, that it would take me nearly 50 years. It has not only taken me this long, it has taken the last 5 years working on this autobiographical part of my web site to make sense of it all and to be able to present the totality of my life’s as an integrated concept [link].
 
This electronic document is the first of three steps that will culminate in my achieving this ambition: first, to receive my Masters degree from SFIA [link]; second, to write my exam for a license [link]; third, to establish an on-going and artistically/financially successful personal practice of architecture [link] compatible with but separate from what I am now doing with MG Taylor Corporation and tsmARCHITECTURE. This practice is to be my “retirement” plan [link].
 
These are not neatly linear steps, of course; they are benchmarks along a path I have pursued in by mind since 1952 [link] and, professionally, since 1956 [link]. It goes without saying that my sense of what these steps are - and mean - and their criteria for success has evolved a great deal since I first walked into an architect’s office looking for a job [link] and since I started working in this profession [link].
 
Four years ago (January 2000), when I started teaching at SFIA, I told Fred Stitt that my Thesis for my degree would be the course [link] itself. Since then, I have decided that, although this does make up a significant part of what I want to say, it is not in itself, complete. It is the lessons I have extracted from the totality of my professional and life experiences - including the documentation of the last few years as my architectural work has started to grow with built examples and some level of popular acceptance - that has to be the scope of this Thesis. This means that the Thesis and its reference materials are composed of this entire web site which has been both an autobiographical effort and an ongoing, daily documentation of my last 5 years of work [link].
 
This may seem like a strange approach, perhaps self-centered, perhaps lacking in objectivity and adequate references to things outside my own direct experience. I will argue the contrary. One has only their own experience to report no matter how rigourus their research. In addition, no matter the many great teachers [link]. I found along the way - and there have been many - I had to teach myself how to become an architect; and, by my standards, I am just at the threshold of deserving that title. I will argue that this circumstance, also, is a reflection of the way things truly are and expresses a commonly overlooked generality. I have long wondered how it is posible to receive a Master’s degree in Architecture (or any subject) without having built - without having demonstrated MASTERY [rbtfBook]. The most interesting - and heuristic - aspect of my career has been the curious route - so full of apparent detours and setbacks - that has delivered me to the place where I am today. A place that is the accumulation of experiences and skill sets without which it would not be possible for me to build what I have long held in my head as an ideal and a possibility. It has taken nearly 50 years to get to “start” and I have as yet not collected my $200. I have, however, accumulated a set of experiences that are unique and ideally suited for what I set out to do. In retrospect, it has been an almost perfect education.
 
While everyone’s path is different and each has to find their own way, I am convinced that had I followed a more “normal” course I would have failed long in advance of the opportunities that I now have before me. I believe that this is not just an isolated, idiosyncratic sample but that there exists generally applicable lessons to be extracted from this quest [link] of mine; and, that the conventional way of teaching architecture, and practicing it, is why we have so little of it that processes authenticity [link].
 
My Thesis, then, is an annotated index to several thousands of, yet incomplete, Notebook pages that document a 48 year journey. These annotations make-up my best compilation of what it is that I have learned and why I believe that these principles are important and can be applied beyond one person’s singular art.
 
It is a fair question to ask: “why now?” “Why at this moment in time is it important to “complete” this Thesis?” The answer is actually simple. Something is happening. My approach to architecture, which has been long resisted and ignored and has required enormous effort to bring to the attention of a world distracted by many mundane and superficial things, is “suddenly” becoming accepted. This acceptance is demonstrated both by a number of opportunities and a much greater and active resistance on the part of many in the design/build profession. You know that you are getting someplace when you become serious enough to be opposed not just ignored. Without question this is a tipping point. Why? NOW I cannot answer although I certainly will seek that insight as I prepare these notes. It is this moment, however, when the shift is surely happening and yet the outcome is uncertain that is particularly poignant. Is this yet another blip that will lead to failure and disappointment? Or, in fact has enough been learned to accomplish success? This is an easy assessment after the outcome but makes a far more important statement before it. Heinlein said that “if it ain’t documented, it ain’t science.” If it cannot be replicated it is not science either. If what I have learned cannot be applied to a much greater arena than one life, the report may be amusing - and even insightful - but of little utility. If it processes no “predictability” it remains questionable and it will be discounted.
 
And, there is at least one more reason WHY. The projects now underway are the first that get even close to the threshold of the architectural realm I have sought with dedication and passion. I tell people that what I am building today is what was in my head in the late 50s and early 60s. This implies nearly a 50 year lag between vision and realization. I confess that this is true. I am not happy about it but it is what it is. This is a strange circumstance, however, before I could see it, there was a vision of architecture that possessed me; long before I could build it, it taunted me; long before I could employ it, I had deep dissatisfaction with the function of almost all buildings; long before I could satisfy others, I knew there was far more to be realized; long before I could form a practice - a ValueWeb - there was a persistent emptiness for a community of Cathedral Builders [link]; long before it was affordable, I knew there was another side to the economic equation [link]. It is difficult, even now, to express how deeply dissatisfied - and alienated I was from the very beginning - and still am. When I started, I knew nothing - not even what I wanted. I did know I wanted nothing to do with what I saw around me. Today, it remains much the same - this gap - even though I know a great deal more about it. I have developed knowledge, skills, brand and organizational leverage. The work now being done just starts to be what I have sought - it is, at least - at last - a glimmer. And, this is not only about the thing of it - it is about the spirit - the total experience of using it [link]. It is difficult to express the massive scale and scope of my failure; more so the optimism and persistent expectation that indeed this vision can be, must be - will be - made real.
 
So, at this moment; at this cusp, I plant my flag and stake my claim. This ARCHITECTURE that I am talking about is very different that what has been done before. Not just the thing of it but the spirit of it, how is is made and how it is used. The results to come will provide the only measure of veracity for what is said. You will have to recreate [rbtfBook] [link] it to make it real for yourself. But then, that is your story and I hope that you will tell it someday.

“What a man does...
that he is”

Frank Lloyd Wright

 
Context, Purpose and Content
It is a sad commentary on the state of things that serious architects often feel compelled to put a qualifying word in front of the concept architecture. Wright applied organic; Bruce Goff absolute, Schindler transparent, Lautner timeless, and so it goes. I have resisted this but in moments of weakness I have felt compelled to use the term AUTHENTIC [link]. (suitably done in capitals much to the annoyance of the literary types who actually know how to express what they want to say in words). Truth to tell “authentic” does get at what I am about as does the term fact-based. To me, architecture has a mission and this mission is grounded in the reality of what a building is and what it does. This is dependent on what makes the concept HUMAN mean something. I call myself the last of the humanists and I am only being fastidious by half. What I mean as “human” is not simply “what humans do.” In fact, sadly, what humans do a great deal of does not strike me as being very human. Being an idealist as well as a humanist - I am not sure the two can be separated - means that my lodestone is an ideal conception of a perfected human state. I realize, in confessing this embarrassing point, I am excommunicated from the present state of ISM be it fundamentalism, commercialism or the many other isms that pass for thinking and intellectual/emotional independence in a world increasingly devoted to dogma, unthinking habit and excess [link] - and, I fear, self-destruction of all kinds. No, I am an idealist [link] and I hold myself and our race to a very high set of standards. I believe that architecture can express these standards in concrete terms, facilitate a life-style based on them and, by its very nature and how it is made, require us to live up to these standards - at least in the making of our HABITATS. The highest practice of these standards is necessary in order for this architecture to be created. In other words, it cannot be faked. It IS. Authenticity is everything - and in everything.
practical
It follows, then, that I reject almost every action called for, in today’s world, in the name of the practical. “The evaluation of the concept practical, Dr. Ferris, depends on that which you wish to practice[rbtfBook] - especially in the realm of architecture which is the practice of making ideals practical. It just seems to me that if you are going to cut down a tree that the wood should make something as wonderful; if you are going to disrupt an animal’s habitat, risk the creation of pollution, employ people to work and spend energy (as a measure of effort) and money (as a measure of value) that the result should add to the beauty of the world and our way of experiencing it; that is should endure though a natural life-cycle and it should promote the physical and mental health of all. Seems to me. The result should be better than what was. If it cannot be thus... what justifies it? Why do it?
human
Now I know that there are many opinions regarding all this and almost anything can be justified in the name of the economy (unless, of course, one questions if there really is an economy other than a model that adds up a number of transactions by someone’s standards - usually based on the impact on them - who then declares it “good” or “bad”). A great many living creatures are dying in the name of this abstraction. Life, today, is often sacrificed to an abstraction - dwell on this for a moment. You see, I do not think that the focus of the humanist is about humans. It is about what humans should be paying attention to and, consequently, doing. It gets down to if you think of life - all life, not just human life - as sacred or profane. You can call it as you will but because the universe is integrated there is no escaping the consequences. “Structure Wins” [link].
 
Well, I digress - or so it might appear.
 
The work to follow is presented in six sections starting with principles that, in my experience, have proven useful in the production and use of architecture. When I started out in this profession, although my sensibility was true (that is to say sense-able and sensitive), I believed the opposite on nearly every one of them. It took many hard knocks to learn them - I am a stubborn man. I will follow this by a discourse on what I think is distinct in my approach to the making and using of architecture and, then, a criticism [link] of several architects worthy of the name. As part of this, I will offer a criticism of my own work, both projects and executed works, with an illustration of these works and their related precursors and successors. Then, the lessons from life that lead me (sometimes kicking and screaming) to this practice. For, if the approach is not distinct and if there are no lessons derived, and no examples illustrating the principles and lesions, then on what basis can a degree of mastery be awarded? The last piece of this THESIS, will offer some pointers to the road ahead - the work yet to be done; which is a far greater distance than the entire road behind. All of these comments will be linked to my web site, my SFIA and ReBuilding the Future Courses and other references. These links are an important aspect of the story. Without them it would be incomplete and a distortion. You will find that there is an epistemology in all this and this is the basis for a tight integration of the many aspects of mental processes that too often, and for too long, have been held in opposition to one another. In this THESIS, the rational, experienced-based, intuitional, emotional and spiritual are bound together in a fact-based Design/Build/Use systemic approach which is disciplined, yet heuristic, and open ended [link]. This is the real message under the theory and practice of architecture presented here. This potential of MIND is both the means to the architecture and the reason for the architecture. I will show that the same architecture is to be found in the buildings we build, in music, in the neural net of a single human, in a social network - in structures of many kinds. It is the pattern common to all these that the study of the organic [link] will yield endless expression. These same structures also form the basis for the processes [link] by which this architecture can be built [link] and used [link].
 
It is important that you understand that I have said something very radical here, and, if you understand this, you will understand two more things: why a life [link] is a legitimate subject of a thesis and why, despite the great universality encompassed in this “report,” it will have no value to you unless you recreate [link] it all for yourself.
 
Principles
what_is_a_ principle
A principle is not a principle unless it is as constant and universal as any concept can be - that is, up to very limits of the conceptual as a distillation of, and descriptor of, a far more complex reality than human language can “hold” and define. It is not a principle unless it describes an universal aspect of a field of effort both in its ideal state and its generic - as a category. In other words, it is equally true for “good” - i.e. full expressions - and “bad” - i.e. meager expressions - of the principle. A valid principle can be applied in the design process as an active agent in the generation of unique works.
principles_of_architecture
Therefore, the principles below are both a specification of the ideal of architecture, and its practice, and a statement of its nature that can be seen to be valid throughout its entire history and - at present - its conceivable future. These are not all the relevant principles. The focus here is on those that are most distinct to my approach and most missing from common practice.
 
 

All architecture works are universal and unique; each global and site specific.

link for detail

 

The scope of architecture is the entire built human artifact, including infrastructure, and how it interfaces with what we call nature - on the scale of a single building, a complex, a city, bio-region and the entire planet itself.

link for detail

 

Architecture is a social and experiential art - it is not a visual art.

link for detail

 

Architecture is a highly collaborative art - this includes, equally, those who build it and those who use it - now, and into the future.

link for detail

 

Architecture emanates from both craft and technological practices - both are tools and means of production; both have equal validity. Every work will be some combination of both and that combination is determined by the nature of the work and the circumstance of its making.

link for detail

 

The processes of research, design, engineering, manufacturing, building and using are tightly integrated and cannot be separated from one another.

link for detail

 

The purpose of architecture is to facilitate the process of living, express specific human aspirations and values that are appropriate to each individual work, and its setting, while offering an unique viewpoint of reality that is transforming for its inhabitants.

link for detail

 

The subject of any work of architecture is the experience of the life lived and the process of, and integration of, purposeful work within it.

link for detail

 

Architecture provides for all life forms equally: human, animal, plant - it removes conflict between them and brings harmony to LIFE and the total experience of it.

link for detail

 

The “art” of building a work, and the value of the experience of doing so, is as important as the end result - the means and the ends are one.

link for detail

 

An architectural work is never finished, it continually evolves - reuse and adaptability are natural and built in.

link for detail

 

The size, budget and social circumstance of a work has no bearing of its architectural potential or quality.

link for detail

 

Architecture is a continuum of time and history - past present and future; it is the deep pattern language that transforms any historical period and style; each work draws from the past, references its own time and predicts the future; and, every work will have style which it the “chunking” of the qualities of its time.

link for detail

 

The esthetic aspect of any architectural work is its theme, derived from the nature of the place, time and purpose of the work and its use; it is IDEA made real - as fact - in the daily living with and the total gestalt, detailed expression and integration of, every aspect of the work. Architecture is “frozen music” only it is not frozen; it is art that you move through, and act with, as you experience it; and, as both you and the work, itself, changes.

link for detail

 

While made of material thing-ness, the essence of architecture is not that - architecture is idea made real by being made concrete and by being the environment within which a life is directed and experienced; architecture is “external development.”

link for detail

 

Every living being experiences architecture in an unique way and participates in its manifestation (that is, the causing - making and living - of it) in an unique way.

link for detail

 
 
Principles have utility only if they are stated in a way that indicates the path of, and, conceptually and emotionally, compels action along that path to facilitating the practice of an art. There are many criteria that must be met in the creation of architecture [link] - these principles stand “meta” to these criteria and are contained within them. The tragic aspect of architecture, today, is its lack of philosophical context - with the rebellion against a dogmatic “modernism,” the baby was thrown out with the bath water.
focus_of_my_work
My work has focused on bringing philosophy back to architecture - both in terms of what it is and how it is made - in a way so that it remain emergent and cannot degenerate into a dogma.
 
Distinction
the_distinction_of_my_work
I have, in 48 years, worked in almost every aspect of the total system that makes up the production and use of buildings and their landscape. I have performed work structured in the conventional way and when integrated, cross-functionally, in a Design/Build/Use process. It is these experiences, as a sum, that have lead me to conceive of both the objective and practice of architecture in radical terms. I find that I am even further from the main stream of architectural practice today than when I first started work.
 
 

DESIGN BUILD USE:

The D/B/U model [link] is the core of my practice approach and the area of my first serious break with the profession I entered [link]. One of my mentors through me out of his office when he discovered I had worked for Tishman as a field engineer [link]. The breaking apart of these three aspects of practice constitutes in my mind the single greatest reason why time and cost factors today are way out of hand. I cannot conceive working any other way and do not believe that truly complex, large scale Authentic Architecture will be accomplished without an integrated D/B(manufacturing)U process.

When I started in architecture, design/build was in decline. Now a bastardized version has become acceptable but is still not common. I did not think up D/B; I came along several thousand years too late for this and the first serious words that FLlW had with me was his endorsement of this approach. The USE aspect of a full practice model is my innovation. I am not the first person to design, build and operate an environment but I am the first (as far as I know) to make it a practice ideal as well as a habit. I believe that it is an essential requirement of design competency and necessary to understanding building economics. Beyond even these considerations the divorce of use from architecture is I believe the primary reason that despite engineering and stylistic innovations over the last century that the function of most building types has hardly advanced at all [link].

link for detail

scope_of_architecture

SCOPE OF ARCHITECTURE:

Not only is the practice of architecture limited (engineering and building being exorcized) the scope of building categories is highly truncated. On the inside, the vast majority of technical systems (electrical, lighting acoustic, HVAC, computer systems, etc.) as an integrated aspect connected to each other and the rest of the building’s functionality, are not a typical architect’s concern. Interiors have become specialized and mostly the mere selecting of manufactured goods that are largely out of the architect’s ability to influence. Interior design is becoming an anarchism except in very high end situations. Mostly, superficial decoration rules. The landscape is now someone elses to worry about - at least we call them landscape architects (and planners) and many of them practic this aspect seriously and well. Infratructure (roads, highways, power grids, transportation systems, monuments, city-scapes, mega-cities) is considered totally out of scope [link]. Yet, we are building mega-cities by default. When people tell me that they could never live in a mega-city I tell them that they are - just a poorly designed one. Add it all up and we are designing a PLANET by default [link]. We are about to go into space [link] yet I see few architects involved.

All of this is Architecture yet neglected as such. The notion of architecture has been reduced to the creation of building shells (in which the engineering is twisted, stuffed and disguised); placed on grids (imposed on bio-regions); partially augmented by “sub-division” “master” plans based on questionable real estate models [link]; with pre-packaged, regurgitated interiors made up of products that usually do not go well together. The design process is largely one of hand-offs and despite hard work and the desire to integrate all of this little is accomplished other than spending about 50% of the cost of the building on tiers and ties of an organization model/process that if ever drawn up would look like a nightmare from a century ago but ballooned all out of proportion and scale from any our Victorian ancestors could have possibly conceived.

It is not that architects are not trying nor that they lack talent. They are taking on a task that is impossible given the structure of relationships in which they work, their education and experience (both of which which are inadequate), the rule of UpSideDownEconomics [link], and a paradigm that still takes notions like the Nation State [link] seriously and refuses to understand that we are living in a highly connected 21st century Planetary society. We use the connectivity to try and exercise the old work processes harder and faster in a vain attempt to catch up with an accelerating system collapse. Everyone is working longer, taking on more stress and risk and getting less and less for it. The average person cannot afford architecture the the few (a year) “great works” (which is what passes for R&D) are purchased at great expense and usually, controversy, too often being reduced to a monument of someone’s misapplied ego.

Xanadu [link], offers a hint at a different way to conceive of a building and it’s function. It would clearly have to be built another way.

If you want to give yourself a few hours of scarey thoughts, think about another 25 years [link] of this. What will our Planet be?

Another aspect of the scope issue is we seem to think that architecture need only address human needs. Where did this idea come from? Plants and animal survive by the strategy of migration. We are unecessarly cutting them off from this ability thereby enormously increasing their risk of extinction. This ethics of this are simply “might make right.” Humans, as a species, are powerful and careless and plants, animals and planet get what they get [link].

link for detail

 

VALUEWEB PRACTICE:

The way to get past this complexity, the need for expertise and the need for integration - the requirements of economics, ecology and ethics - is to practice a scaleable and inclusive organizational strategy which I call a ValueWeb [link].

link for detail

 

CONCEPT OF FUNCTION:

link for detail

 

ENVIRONMENTS FOR ALL LIFE:

link for detail

 

ARCHITECTURE IN THE CONTINUITY OF HISTORICAL TIME:

link for detail

 

RESOLUTION OF THE SOUL/BODY DICHOTOMY; THE INDIVIDUAL VRS. SOCIETY SPLIT; THE PRACTICAL VRS. IDEAL DIASTER:

link for detail

 

CONCEPT OF THE ECONOMY OF ARCHITECTURE:

link for detail

 
 
Each of these distinctions, itself, is a sufficient venue for a lifetime of work. Taken together, they make a synergy that not only rejects the totality of architectural practice as we know it, they form an almost insurmountable barrier between myself and the various professions that now define architecture. While there are many individuals I like and enjoy working with, the scope of the difference I have come to have with these professions as a whole is extraordinarily challenging.
what_is_an_architect
An example is the whole issue of the architectural license. I never wrote my examination because in the 60s and 70s, when I would have naturally done this, there was great hostility to the practice of design/build. It was considered a conflict of interest and unethical. Architects who did design/build were constantly being threatened with the revoking of their license. I, of course take the opposite view. If an architect is one who practices the creation of architecture then not to be involved in the entire process of design, manufacturing, building and using is not to practice architecture. I consider the vast majority of “architects” to be architectural designers. There is validity in this role. Not every professional has to take on the whole scope of making architecture. There is legitimacy in specialization throughout the process in any complex system. No one can master the entire scope and detail of architecture across the many different kinds of possible building types (I have given this educational challenge deliberate attention and diligence and have done so to a greater degree than anyone I know. Even so, total mastery is impossible). However, when the process disintegrates into the competency ghettos we have today and when the single biggest expense of a building is the cost of trying to knit it all back together, then this is taking specialization way to far. It also shows the hidden consequence of legislating out of existence the key systems integration role necessary to the economical creation of architecture. Most architects would not consider me an architect. I do hold a license and I do not run a conventional office. I do not consider them to be an architect because they have abandoned the role of MASTER BUILDER. Filippo Brunelleschi would understand what I am talking about. He is often promoted as the father of the profession as we know it, however, modern practice does not begin to approach his practice scope. He was an artist, inventor, engineer, builder and entrepreneur. If he had to work in today’s practice structure there is little likelihood he could have accomplished the level of innovation that he did when building, several hundred years ago, what is still the worlds largest span with a masonry dome.
system_integrator_role
I have resolved this lack of integration issue by the creation of the ValueWeb architecture and the invention of the SYSTEMS INTEGRATOR role. I am, now, just beginning to conduct projects explisitly by use of this method. Today, it is legally possible for a variety of professionals to take on the SI role because the various professional societies have stopped fighting the, yet unnamed, master builder function. There does not exist, however, an overall legal framework to do this explicitly and well. The licensed architect still remains “in charge” without the education, willingness, practice model and legal support to do this role properly.
 
This is but one example of the conflict between my definition of architecture and its practice and what have become the entrenched, legalized modern reality. There are several others of equal weight which will be addressed in another place.
 
 
 
Part two of this overview continues with CRITICISM, ILLUSTRATION, LESSONS and THE ROAD AHEAD sections of this Overview.
Part Three will focus on the the technical aspects of my work. This will be approached in four subsections; the first, on the Patent and mind/brain theory that forms the foundation of the Taylor method and, thus, the concept of human processes upon which any valid architecture must rest; the second, on certain aspects of design and design processes that form the basis for my approach to this task; the third, on design/build techniques essential to integrating the various work processes necessary to the task of physically making architecture; and fourth, on the business and organization aspects of building and employing ValueWebs for the creation of ARCHITCTURE.
 
Go to Thesis Introduction and Overview Part Two
Go to Thesis Introduction and Overview Part Three
Return to Thesis Index
Return to INDEX
Architectural Projects 1952 - 2004
 

Matt Taylor
Nashville
February 20, 2004

 

SolutionBox voice of this document:
VISION • STRATEGY • DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

 

 



posted February 20, 2004

revised October 14, 2004
• 20040220.402101.mt • 20040267.247652.mt •
• 20040305.200980.mt • 20040307.445120.mt •
• 20041006.117191.mt • 20041014.241121.mt •

note: this document is about 45% finished

me@matttaylor.com

Copyright© Matt Taylor 2004

 
 

 

Search For:
Match:  Any word All words Exact phrase
Sound-alike matching
Dated:
From: ,
To: ,
Within: 
Show:   results   summaries
Sort by: