It's the content of your posts that I take issue with, not your tone. You had the same issue years ago when it came to clothes. You seemed to think categorial knowledge of certain things was enough to overcome thoughtful critique or evade the need for a more analytical approach. Hence, for a long time, you could not appreciate flaws in the fit of your Ralph Lauren suits--because, to you, they were simply Ralph Lauren suits, which for you, imbued them with some undefeatable, intrinsic rightness. We see the same problem now amidst the NSM crowd, who cannot fathom that their tailor is capable of objective mistakes. Developing taste--regardless of context--is instrinsically an analytical venture, as it has to do with deepening one's understanding and appreciation of things, not simply knowing about them. People who rely on labels and categories have zero taste. In the case of design and furniture, you seem to be guided foremost by what things are (whether "Bauhaus" or "Danish" or whatever), when actually, it is infinitely more important why they are what they are. Your categorical rejection of contemporary modern design is a symptom of this fallacy. The merit of classic modernist design has nothing to do with the fact that it is classic modernist, but is found in the conceptual rationality underpinning it. Eames, Corbusier, Saarinen, whoever, would reject any tenacious attachment to any temporal or regional category of design, as a fundamental point of modernism is to never fear doing what is new. Picking an MCM piece on the basis that it is "classic" is a terrible reason to pick an MCM piece. It is a betrayal of everything that makes it worthwhile. Instead, you ought to pick it because your understanding of it makes it beautiful to you. Once you are in that mindset, there is no reason to reject new things simply because they are new.