who says the nat'l m. building is beautiful in the historical point of view or architectural point of view , or whatever? these guys dont know more beautiful buildings were not seen any more, that had been there more than hundreds of years.. who says this building is quite usable? it must be more nice and 'usable' to have a kind of building that makes our thousands of years of 'spirits' and 'traditions' ALIVE if we can perfectly rebuild the original building at the same places, in stead of the results of the intended mal-usage of the evil force. ( i hate to use a word 'usable' in this matter. its more valuable to be called just 'usable' - this word reminds me a pair of chop stick that i throw away after use... ) who says that ugly building is 'worthy' to keep? for what? isnt it more worty to keep more keepable one? if you want to correct my english speel or grammar, you are not supposed to hesitate to tell me. if you are against my idea, THINK again, pella. if still you do think i am on wrong side, then speak out. want to know who i am? go to Admi. siya from simplew