On 2007-07-19 06:46:47 +0100, ":Jerry:" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

Have you actually provided a constructive answer here? No.

Best form of defence is attack and all that...

Not really. You are making the assumption that I have something to
defend. I haven't.



Have I seen somebody with a concrete drive past its sell by date who
had it topped with tarmac only to see it failing in under two years?
Yes.

So why did you not say that rather than go off on a egocentric trip
about something OP never asked about?

The first point is that it wasn't an egocentric trip. It was an
explanation of a sequence of events and costings taking all of the
potential issues into account.

The point about having seen tarmac drives fail because the base is
inadequate or damaged to begin with ius a perfectly reasonable one.
The OP's base may be fine or it may be in poor condition. The point is
that that should be assessed and accounted for. An outcome of that
may be that it isn't viable to use it. Once having arrived at that
point, a whole range of options open up and it is reasonable to mention
them.




snip

It was for all of those reasons that I made the point that it's
important to look at many options if one wants a good outcome
without the risk of throwing good money after bad,.

To the point that you had "hand made pavers" laid, that is not an
opinion, that is bragging.

No it isn't. It's simply a statement of fact. Handmade pavers were
laid. A contractor did it.


If you were really suggesting that the OP
should not bother with tarmac why did you then reply (in your original
reply) with the following;

"Yes you can

I had this situation for my drive from when
the house was new - a substantial concrete
base of around 100-125mm on top of MOT
type 1 and then about 75mm of tarmac on
top of that."

"During its 20 year lifetime there was one
small crack across part of the width - probably
settlement"

"Other than that, it was certainly durable."

"If you are starting from sound concrete that
looks tired and the area is not too large, then
I think that properly done tarmac is a good
proposition"

Only at the very end did you mention that tarmac *might* not be
suitable in the long term and place any sort of caveat.

The information was all there. I described the best case scenario,
through to the worst case.



I don't and don't need to make any apology or justification for that
approach. If you have a problem with or a lack of understanding
of that concept then it's really your problem and not mine......

Yes, quite right too, those addicted to drugs etc. are never at fault
either - self denial is such a marvellous thing. Sorry Mr Hall, you're
on an ego trip whether you know it or not...

You have very fanciful ideas. That's the charitable explanation.
Another could be that you have some chip on your shoulder and have a
problem if somebody mentions that they have something that you don't or
an idea that you didn't think of first.

To be honest, I'm not that interested in which problem you have and I
am not about to allow it to influence what I choose to say or ideas
that I introduce in comments made in newsgroups just because it doesn't
happen to suit you.