Perhaps you might think I’d be insulted by you calling someone else’s morphologic attempt an emissive contraption. You might also think that you can use whatever quotes you like out of context while arguing against the, “gloss of scientific validity”. That’s actually kind of entertaining. I’d prefer it if you had something constructive to add to the argument. I’ve read Design Issues, but there might be folks on here who aren’t willing to pay $60 to figure out why you’re brilliant and a whole slough of designers are mere can-do-ist twits. It has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, that good examples or methods are what we would all like to see. Now that you’ve successfully annihilated the MGX stool, perhaps you would like to install a better example in its place. We’re all pretty educated as to why design can’t hold a candle to nature, and we’re all about dismantling glossy facades. However, there’s a lot of info out there, and I for one would like to sift through it in a civil and educated manner. So pretty please, with sugar on top, let this thread die, or actually contribute something to the equation other than a sign change.