In article , "Pete C." wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:

You're quite the moron aren't you? You are the only one who has ever
suggested that there would be discoloration on the vinyl siding. Vinyl
siding will soften to the point of sagging from gravity well before it
will discolor. The photos the OP posted clearly do not show any
discoloration on the siding either.

Moron? Me? No, actually, Pete, I think that would be *you* here. The
photos
the OP posted VERY CLEARLY show substantial discoloration of the siding.
Here's the link that was in the original post:
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Squisher/IMG_6627.JPG

Now go look at that for the FIRST time, Pete, since it's blindingly
obvious
you've never seen it before. See the discoloration, MORON?

I've looked at it several times and it's abundantly clear that there is
no discoloration of the siding, only a change in the shadows and the
reflection angle due to the deformation. Perhaps if you clean the crud
of your monitor and or get some glasses you'll be able to see this fact.

"Abundantly clear" only to someone who has already made up his mind to refuse
to see any evidence that contradicts his assumptions. (Perhaps you'll
recognize yourself.)

To anyone else, the discoloration is plainly obvious. Your continued denial
that any discoloration exists is astonishing.

Your have given a clear example of overlooking other possibilities and
fixating on your conclusion.

Me? No. Just like with the "moron" comment, that would be *you*, Pete, not me.
You overlooked the possibility that your LCD monitor prevented you from seeing
the discoloration because you were fixated on your conclusion of an internal
heat source. And because this conclusion is contradicted by *exterior*
discoloration, you denied that any such discoloration existed, and even went
so far as to impugn my intellectual capacities simply because I am able to see
that which you refused to see. That's an example of overlooking other
possibilities and fixating on a conclusion, to be sure -- but not on *my*
part.

The discoloration was not visible on an LCD
monitor, it is on a CRT monitor.

The discoloration that you so heatedly denied ever existed.
The discoloration that I was a "moron" for seeing.
The discoloration that everyone could see except you. (Who's the moron?)

That still doesn't change the conclusion since all the other evidence
points to an internal heat source,

There is *no* evidence *at* *all* pointing to an internal heat source, and
considerable evidence pointing to exterior solvent exposure or exterior heat.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.