@JarlavGrenlandUpir that old story again. This church was not historic. It's in that very provided Wiki article (Kudos @pinkprius - usually that's skipped for the sake of the "argument").

It just _looked_ historic.

I dabble in history. Especially medieval period. There is more valueable stuff to rescue. Modern decorated bricks do not belong into this category. Unrelated to the coal idiocy.

@bekopharm @pinkprius just Becuase it's not classified as historic dosnt mean it has history.


@JarlavGrenlandUpir @pinkprius ffs get real. You are pirate party? Aren't you supposed to be the type to decide on facts and do their research?

@bekopharm: Just becuase it was an old building built in the 1800 dosnt mean it dost hold any significent value ( also i read the wikipage befor commenting the orginal comment). I do also have a personal bias towards stuff that looks old. becuase they look more pleasing to my eyes then the modern white buildings with tons of glass.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!