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

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 conclusion of an internal heat source is in no way contradicted by
evidence if discoloration on the external surface of the vinyl siding.
If and only if we had evidence that the reverse side of that siding did
not have comparable discoloration would there be anything to sway things
against an internal heat source. Even so it would not be conclusive
since the atmosphere between the siding and the Tyvek is different from
the outside surface exposed to free air and that could affect
discoloration. The other evidence still points to an internal heat
source.


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?)

You if you think that the discoloration on the outside is somehow
conclusive proof of an external heat source.

I have never maintained that the discoloration is due to a heat source of any
kind, and only a moron would think that I have. I've been quite clear and
consistent in stating my belief that it's due to the stain that the OP already
admitted to having oversprayed on the siding, and/or the solvent that the OP
has already stated he used to clean it up.

We don't at this point have
an answer from the OP on whether the back side of the siding showed
comparable discoloration, and we do have a number of other pieces of
evidence that point away from an external heat source.

We do indeed agree on that: a number of other pieces that point away from an
external heat source. I think they point toward external solvent exposure.


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.

Look again, closely and with an open mind. You're the one fixated on an
external source. I've looked at that possibility and have not found any
likely external source that would cause the damage seen in the photo.

You're not red-green colorblind, by any chance, are you? If not, then you
haven't looked very carefully. The OP already said he had an overspray when
staining the deck, and used a solvent to wipe it off. Curiously, the
discoloration on the siding is very similar to the color of stain visible on
the deck.

The position of the damage extending only about 12" in front of the
railing and continuing behind the railing points strongly against pretty
much any likely external heat source, including a grill, hibachi, jar of
iced tea, decorative sun catcher, etc.

I agree. That's entirely consistent with solvent exposure, as I have
maintained all along. It's clear, though, from the minimal damage sustained by
the Tyvek and the sheathing, that the source was external, not internal.

The fact that the Tyvek was
heated to the point that holes formed in it

ASSUMPTION!! Where is your evidence that the Tyvek was heated *at*all*??

while the siding only sagged
also points away from an external source.

Hardly that. Quite the contrary, actually -- the fact that the siding is
visibly discolored and deformed, while the Tyvek is only slightly damaged,
points strongly *toward* an external source.

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

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