His misguided column and blog responses can be found here:

Dan Brown's column

My rebuttal, which will likely be put on his blog tomorrow, follows:

Wow, Dan. That's one of the most misinformed columns that I've read by a professional journalist in recent memory -- excluding Sun Media hacks with little or no first-hand international experience commenting on the War in Gaza (Eric Margolis is the only Sun Media columnist worth reading on that subject).

Where to begin, when the folly of your bogus (a joke at first, you admit) and ill-informed argument about the E&C was clearly identified on a previous thread.

For starters, though, why would you not talk to London's heritage planner, the chair of London's planning committee, the chair of London's heritage advisory committee or anyone with experience in the field of heritage to get some background, even a quote or two?

If you did you'd know that our concept of "heritage" is always evolving and has changed significantly from the days when built or architectural heritage was considered Alpha and Omega.

Even the significant public outcry that followed the London Advisory on Heritage's initial lack of concern about The 'Wick's fate, snapped several heads in local official-dumb. This supports my premise that our concept of heritage is evolving and always will be evolving. As previously mentioned ad nauseam, there's built, natural, cultural and moveable heritage (collections, artifacts).

The old phone booth and a few other collectibles from the E&C are historical-cultural artifacts, but they don't make the chain restaurant worthy of designation as a heritage site, just as the Lombardo Museum collection doesn't make the brick garage that housed the museum from 1983 to 2007 a heritage site. It's movable heritage.

Regarding your absurd notion that more people cared about the knock-off chain E&C (in a failed downtown mall no less) than the one-of-a-kind Brunswick, that's not borne out by the facts either.

The Brunswick Hotel (nee Brock's Hotel), October 5, 1855-October 18, 2008 (then torched on November 8, 2008)

Joining the Facebook account "Save the 'Wick!" were more than 1,000 people from all over the world in the space of a few months.

Additionally, the Brunswick Hotel had a Priority One listing on London's Inventory of Heritage Resources from 1991 to 2008. This designation was set by London's group of active heritage "experts" -- you know the people who take the time to do their homework and have plenty of experience in the field.

On a related note, I had no interest in drinking or passing time at the E&C for many of the same reasons that I refuse to shop in malls or Big Box stores. They're a nickel a dozen, devoid of any unique personality or authenticity.

I patronize owner-operated originals, not corporate knock-offs with the same decor etc. in all of their stores.

Finally, the Brunswick Hotel was never considered a knock-off of a British pub, nor was it part of a chain. It was an original, with hand-hewn oak timber assembled by pioneer farmers from mature trees in the area.

It was a fine example of a small, early Canadian hotel and tavern, built in 1855 (with adjoining stables) to service London's early agricultural-based and growing industrial economy.

It was a workingman's hotel, both in the beverage room, former luncheonette and hotel rooms upstairs. To compare the E&C and The 'Wick in the heritage department is absurd.

Your notion that just because some people had a good time in the E&C at one time, makes it eligible for heritage protection is equally silly.

Stick to pop culture, Dan. That seems to be your passion and something you know a few things about.

But if you are going to write about what constitutes heritage and what is significant or worthy of preserving, at least make the effort to talk to those actively involved in the field for decades, even if you disagree with their opinions based on bona fide community involvement, experience and research.