hOn Sun, 23 May 2021 15:01:03 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 May 2021 11:14:25 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 May 2021 03:17:43 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 5/21/2021 11:25 PM, Joey wrote:





I priced a hidden-fastner metal roof install and it was twice the
cost
of the GAF Timberline shingles. Guess which I chose.


Did the same about 20 years ago. Made no sense to spend that much
more.

Corse it does when it lasts much longer.
Mine is just as good as it was when new,
now 50 years later.

Same with bricks instead of the stupid
timber you fools use for the walls too.

Bricks were not readily available in many parts of the country.

Only because you fools do your houses using
cheap and nasty timber and sidings. And even
you should have noticed that the timber and
sidings don't actually come from some forest
down the road. Iron ore mine in spades.

If you look at much of the northeast from Boston to Virginia there are
a
lot of brick homes. You need clay and kilns to make them.

Everyone has some clay not too far away.


No, many areas have NO clay within a reasonable distance

Trivial to move the finished bricks from
where they do to where the house is.

Really? 400+ tons of brick is "trivial" to move?

It isnt anything like 400+ tons for a house,
just one semi load, not even a B double.

40x60 house (2400ft^2) x 9' x 38lbs/ft^2 is 34+ tons (slipped a
digit). Still not "trivial" to move hundreds of miles.

- and when
forested land was cut to provide farm land there was lots of timber
litterally at the doorstep. Many houses were built from chestnut,
walnut, maple, birch, ironwood etc where those were the predominant
species. In other areas they were built of sprice and pine and hemlock
and fir.

And that isnt how stick houses are done anymore in the entire USA.

Good thing. That would be a waste of good wood.

Today that is less common - with spruce and pine,
commercially grown and cut, shipped in from across
the country. Still cheaper than shipping bricks

Tents are even cheaper to shift but for some odd reason
few do actually choose to have one instead of a house.

Go for it.

- and less loss from shipping damage.

No bricks are lost to shipping damage when shipped properly.

Breakage is fairly common

Bull**** it is.

but not a high percentage.

Its zero actually.

You're lying again. ...or simply stupid.

Many bricks today are "fired" or autoclaved concrete
- where clay is not common various aggregates
(including recycled concrete) can be used

Yep, my house is much bigger concrete blocks,
shipped from 250 away because they were much
better from there than the locally made ones.

Ugly!

Bull****.

Stupid.

Not readily available in other places

BULL**** with the clay and even you should
be able to work out how to make a kiln.
so they use what they could get,

Bull**** they do with timber, sidings, stupid shingles etc etc etc.

Just as adobe and igloos, you build with what you have.

You don't have timber, metal, shingles etc, stupid. You move
them from where they happen to be to where you need them.

Tad radical I realise.

The homes I grew up in were built with locally produced soft
yellow clay brick - produced less than 10 miles from where the
houses were built - and locally harvested yellow pine and cedar.
(double brick - lath and plaster finish on the inside - timber
framed interior partitions, floors, and roof structure)

That last isnt common at all in the USA anymore.

Neither is lath and plaster either. The world has moved on.

My uncles home out on the sakatchewan prairie on the
other hand was built of lumber shipped in by rail from
out of province as timber, clay, and gravel aggregate
are and were extremely scarce out there.

But easy to ship bricks and that's a small part
of the cost of the bricks even a semi is used.

These were houses built between 1870 and 1942.

And the world has moved on just a tad since then.

Good thing. A friend has horse hair plaster. What a mess.

And horse hair is a bit thin on the ground now too.

The home I have lived in for the last 40 years
the brick veneer is autoclaved concrete brick
manufacturde one city away - less than 30 miles.
The original shingles were manufactured less
than 100 miles away.

And a metal roof would have lasted a lot longer.

Who cares?

Those who inherit or buy the house, that's who.

And I care, why?

I won't be around in 50 years.

Just as true of a tent.

I said, you can live in a tent. I like my house just as is and it's
not UGLY block.

The lumber was shipped by rail or truck across the province -
about 300 miles or less away. The aluminum siding was also
produced (from sheet) less than 150 miles away. It was built in 1974.

But the aluminium would have come far further.

Aluminum is dumb. Even smallish hail will completely destroy it,

Oh bull****.

Yep. Stupid.

not to mention a little wind.

More pig ignorant bull****.

Are you really Speedie's sockpuppet?

One of the purposes of rocks on shingles
(or membrane, for that matter) is weight.

Still cheap and nasty. Like a tent is too.

You seem to like tents. Have at it, Rodie.

These distances would all be considered pretty
much "local" by Australian standards, no????

Nope, not with the state capitals. But with those
the lumber does move much further than the
bricks do. The aluminium vastly further when
you count the bauxite. The steel for what is
now almost universally used for the roofs too.
Most used to be clay or concrete tiles for
decades but they arent common at all anymore.

The roofs are colorbond which even Trump
recognised. Last much longer than stupid
shingles.

Again, who cares?

Anyone with even half a clue, that's who.

I knew you weren't in full control of your faculties. Nice that you
admit it. It is the first step.

On Sun, 23 May 2021 15:17:55 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Bob F" wrote in message
...
On 5/22/2021 6:14 PM, Joey wrote:


"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 May 2021 03:17:43 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 5/21/2021 11:25 PM, Joey wrote:





I priced a hidden-fastner metal roof install and it was twice the
cost
of the GAF Timberline shingles. Guess which I chose.


Did the same about 20 years ago. Made no sense to spend that much
more.

Corse it does when it lasts much longer.
Mine is just as good as it was when new,
now 50 years later.

Same with bricks instead of the stupid
timber you fools use for the walls too.

Bricks were not readily available in many parts of the country.

Only because you fools do your houses using
cheap and nasty timber and sidings. And even
you should have noticed that the timber and
sidings don't actually come from some forest
down the road. Iron ore mine in spades.

If you look at much of the northeast from Boston to Virginia there are
a
lot of brick homes. You need clay and kilns to make them.

Everyone has some clay not too far away.


No, many areas have NO clay within a reasonable distance

Trivial to move the finished bricks from
where they do to where the house is.

- and when
forested land was cut to provide farm land there was lots of timber
litterally at the doorstep. Many houses were built from chestnut,
walnut, maple, birch, ironwood etc where those were the predominant
species. In other areas they were built of sprice and pine and hemlock
and fir.

And that isnt how stick houses are done anymore in the entire USA.

Today that is less common - with spruce and pine,
commercially grown and cut, shipped in from across
the country. Still cheaper than shipping bricks

Tents are even cheaper to **** but for some odd reason
few do actually choose to have one instead of a house.

- and less loss from shipping damage.

No bricks are lost to shipping damage when shipped properly.

Many bricks today are "fired" or autoclaved concrete
- where clay is not common various aggregates
(including recycled concrete) can be used

Yep, my house is much bigger concrete blocks,
shipped from 250 away because they were much
better from there than the locally made ones.

Not readily available in other places

BULL**** with the clay and even you should
be able to work out how to make a kiln.

so they use what they could get,

Bull**** they do with timber, sidings, stupid shingles etc etc etc.

Just as adobe and igloos, you build with what you have.

You don't have timber, metal, shingles etc, stupid. You move
them from where they happen to be to where you need them.

Tad radical I realise.

The homes I grew up in were built with locally produced soft
yellow clay brick - produced less than 10 miles from where the
houses were built - and locally harvested yellow pine and cedar.
(double brick - lath and plaster finish on the inside - timber
framed interior partitions, floors, and roof structure)

That last isnt common at all in the USA anymore.

Neither is lath and plaster either. The world has moved on.

My uncles home out on the sakatchewan prairie on the
other hand was built of lumber shipped in by rail from
out of province as timber, clay, and gravel aggregate
are and were extremely scarce out there.

But easy to ship bricks and that's a small part
of the cost of the bricks even a semi is used.

These were houses built between 1870 and 1942.

And the world has moved on just a tad since then.

The home I have lived in for the last 40 years
the brick veneer is autoclaved concrete brick
manufacturde one city away - less than 30 miles.
The original shingles were manufactured less
than 100 miles away.

And a metal roof would have lasted a lot longer.

The lumber was shipped by rail or truck across the province -
about 300 miles or less away. The aluminum siding was also
produced (from sheet) less than 150 miles away. It was built in 1974.

But the aluminium would have come far further.

These distances would all be considered pretty
much "local" by Australian standards, no????

Nope, not with the state capitals. But with those
the lumber does move much further than the
bricks do. The aluminium vastly further when
you count the bauxite. The steel for what is
now almost universally used for the roofs too.
Most used to be clay or concrete tiles for
decades but they arent common at all anymore.

The roofs are colorbond which even Trump
recognised. Last much longer than stupid
shingles.


And earthquakes are so much fun in brick houses.

Tents do better than stick houses too. They do have a few downsides tho.

You really do love your tents, don't you Rodie.

wrote in message
...
hOn Sun, 23 May 2021 15:01:03 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 May 2021 11:14:25 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 23 May 2021 03:17:43 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 5/21/2021 11:25 PM, Joey wrote:





I priced a hidden-fastner metal roof install and it was twice the
cost
of the GAF Timberline shingles. Guess which I chose.


Did the same about 20 years ago. Made no sense to spend that much
more.

Corse it does when it lasts much longer.
Mine is just as good as it was when new,
now 50 years later.

Same with bricks instead of the stupid
timber you fools use for the walls too.

Bricks were not readily available in many parts of the country.

Only because you fools do your houses using
cheap and nasty timber and sidings. And even
you should have noticed that the timber and
sidings don't actually come from some forest
down the road. Iron ore mine in spades.

If you look at much of the northeast from Boston to Virginia there
are
a
lot of brick homes. You need clay and kilns to make them.

Everyone has some clay not too far away.


No, many areas have NO clay within a reasonable distance

Trivial to move the finished bricks from
where they do to where the house is.

Really? 400+ tons of brick is "trivial" to move?

It isnt anything like 400+ tons for a house,
just one semi load, not even a B double.

40x60 house (2400ft^2) x 9' x 38lbs/ft^2
is 34+ tons (slipped a digit).

And are so stupid that you couldn't manage
to notice that that is an insane number.

Still not "trivial" to move hundreds of miles.

Corse it is, you put it them on a ****ing semi, stupid.

- and when
forested land was cut to provide farm land there was lots of timber
litterally at the doorstep. Many houses were built from chestnut,
walnut, maple, birch, ironwood etc where those were the predominant
species. In other areas they were built of sprice and pine and hemlock
and fir.

And that isnt how stick houses are done anymore in the entire USA.

Good thing. That would be a waste of good wood.

Today that is less common - with spruce and pine,
commercially grown and cut, shipped in from across
the country. Still cheaper than shipping bricks

Tents are even cheaper to shift but for some odd reason
few do actually choose to have one instead of a house.

Go for it.

- and less loss from shipping damage.

No bricks are lost to shipping damage when shipped properly.

Breakage is fairly common

Bull**** it is.

but not a high percentage.

Its zero actually.

You're lying again. ...or simply stupid.

Neither, stupid. Just had a mates house bricks delivered
that way and noticed not a single one broken and have
been looking at how all the others have done things in
the massive great raft of 3 adjacent new subdivisions
and havent seen even a single load with any breakages
because its all done on pallets properly stacked and
they are all brick houses apart from one which used
precast concrete panels.

Many bricks today are "fired" or autoclaved concrete
- where clay is not common various aggregates
(including recycled concrete) can be used

Yep, my house is much bigger concrete blocks,
shipped from 250 away because they were much
better from there than the locally made ones.

Ugly!

Bull****.

Stupid.

Your sig is sposed to be last with a line
with just -- in front of it, stupid.

Not readily available in other places

BULL**** with the clay and even you should
be able to work out how to make a kiln.
so they use what they could get,

Bull**** they do with timber, sidings, stupid shingles etc etc etc.

Just as adobe and igloos, you build with what you have.

You don't have timber, metal, shingles etc, stupid. You move
them from where they happen to be to where you need them.

Tad radical I realise.

The homes I grew up in were built with locally produced soft
yellow clay brick - produced less than 10 miles from where the
houses were built - and locally harvested yellow pine and cedar.
(double brick - lath and plaster finish on the inside - timber
framed interior partitions, floors, and roof structure)

That last isnt common at all in the USA anymore.

Neither is lath and plaster either. The world has moved on.

My uncles home out on the sakatchewan prairie on the
other hand was built of lumber shipped in by rail from
out of province as timber, clay, and gravel aggregate
are and were extremely scarce out there.

But easy to ship bricks and that's a small part
of the cost of the bricks even a semi is used.

These were houses built between 1870 and 1942.

And the world has moved on just a tad since then.

Good thing. A friend has horse hair plaster. What a mess.

And horse hair is a bit thin on the ground now too.

The home I have lived in for the last 40 years
the brick veneer is autoclaved concrete brick
manufacturde one city away - less than 30 miles.
The original shingles were manufactured less
than 100 miles away.

And a metal roof would have lasted a lot longer.

Who cares?

Those who inherit or buy the house, that's who.

And I care, why?

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
you actually are the stupidly selfish and self centered.

I won't be around in 50 years.

Just as true of a tent.

I said, you can live in a tent. I like my house just as is

Yep, you actually are that stupid. Great sig.

The lumber was shipped by rail or truck across the province -
about 300 miles or less away. The aluminum siding was also
produced (from sheet) less than 150 miles away. It was built in 1974.

But the aluminium would have come far further.

Aluminum is dumb. Even smallish hail will completely destroy it,

Oh bull****.

Yep. Stupid.

Yep, you actually are and completely pig ignorant too.

not to mention a little wind.

More pig ignorant bull****.

One of the purposes of rocks on shingles
(or membrane, for that matter) is weight.

Still cheap and nasty. Like a tent is too.

These distances would all be considered pretty
much "local" by Australian standards, no????

Nope, not with the state capitals. But with those
the lumber does move much further than the
bricks do. The aluminium vastly further when
you count the bauxite. The steel for what is
now almost universally used for the roofs too.
Most used to be clay or concrete tiles for
decades but they arent common at all anymore.

The roofs are colorbond which even Trump
recognised. Last much longer than stupid
shingles.

Again, who cares?

Anyone with even half a clue, that's who.

On Mon, 24 May 2021 08:39:10 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Sun, 23 May 2021 11:14:25 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 May 2021 03:17:43 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 5/21/2021 11:25 PM, Joey wrote:





I priced a hidden-fastner metal roof install and it was twice the
cost
of the GAF Timberline shingles. Guess which I chose.


Did the same about 20 years ago. Made no sense to spend that much
more.

Corse it does when it lasts much longer.
Mine is just as good as it was when new,
now 50 years later.

Same with bricks instead of the stupid
timber you fools use for the walls too.

Bricks were not readily available in many parts of the country.

Only because you fools do your houses using
cheap and nasty timber and sidings. And even
you should have noticed that the timber and
sidings don't actually come from some forest
down the road. Iron ore mine in spades.

If you look at much of the northeast from Boston to Virginia there are a
lot of brick homes. You need clay and kilns to make them.

Everyone has some clay not too far away.


No, many areas have NO clay within a reasonable distance

Trivial to move the finished bricks from
where they do to where the house is.

- and when
forested land was cut to provide farm land there was lots of timber
litterally at the doorstep. Many houses were built from chestnut,
walnut, maple, birch, ironwood etc where those were the predominant
species. In other areas they were built of sprice and pine and hemlock
and fir.

And that isnt how stick houses are done anymore in the entire USA.

Today that is less common - with spruce and pine,
commercially grown and cut, shipped in from across
the country. Still cheaper than shipping bricks

Tents are even cheaper to **** but for some odd reason
few do actually choose to have one instead of a house.

- and less loss from shipping damage.

No bricks are lost to shipping damage when shipped properly.

Many bricks today are "fired" or autoclaved concrete
- where clay is not common various aggregates
(including recycled concrete) can be used

Yep, my house is much bigger concrete blocks,
shipped from 250 away because they were much
better from there than the locally made ones.

Not readily available in other places

BULL**** with the clay and even you should
be able to work out how to make a kiln.

so they use what they could get,

Bull**** they do with timber, sidings, stupid shingles etc etc etc.

Just as adobe and igloos, you build with what you have.

You don't have timber, metal, shingles etc, stupid. You move
them from where they happen to be to where you need them.

Tad radical I realise.

The homes I grew up in were built with locally produced soft
yellow clay brick - produced less than 10 miles from where the
houses were built - and locally harvested yellow pine and cedar.
(double brick - lath and plaster finish on the inside - timber
framed interior partitions, floors, and roof structure)

That last isnt common at all in the USA anymore.

Neither is lath and plaster either. The world has moved on.

My uncles home out on the sakatchewan prairie on the
other hand was built of lumber shipped in by rail from
out of province as timber, clay, and gravel aggregate
are and were extremely scarce out there.

But easy to ship bricks and that's a small part
of the cost of the bricks even a semi is used.

These were houses built between 1870 and 1942.

And the world has moved on just a tad since then.

The home I have lived in for the last 40 years
the brick veneer is autoclaved concrete brick
manufacturde one city away - less than 30 miles.
The original shingles were manufactured less
than 100 miles away.

And a metal roof would have lasted a lot longer.

The lumber was shipped by rail or truck across the province -
about 300 miles or less away. The aluminum siding was also
produced (from sheet) less than 150 miles away. It was built in 1974.

But the aluminium would have come far further.

These distances would all be considered pretty
much "local" by Australian standards, no????

Nope, not with the state capitals. But with those
the lumber does move much further than the
bricks do. The aluminium vastly further when
you count the bauxite. The steel for what is
now almost universally used for the roofs too.
Most used to be clay or concrete tiles for
decades but they arent common at all anymore.

The roofs are colorbond which even Trump
recognised. Last much longer than stupid
shingles.
I've seen lots of "colorbond" steel loose it's color in less than 10
years, and sheet steel roofs don't so well with heavy snow loads - or
hailstorms. Having to get back up on a sheet steel roof to re-fasten
it after a wind storm has almost torn it off isn't fun either. (a
friendhas had to refasten his steel "barn roof" twice on the new barn,
and it would have been the third time on the old barn if he hadn't
torn it down. Granted, it wasn't steel framed (very few are)
Clay and concrete roof tiles went away for good reasons - as well as
asbestos cement corrugated roofing.

I've also seen sunlight through MANY steel roofs that were well under
50 years old. My house is 50 years old - the roof decking is still all
original and I just put on the third shingle roof - which will out
last me.

There are also still a lot of asphalt shingle roofs in North America
that are etill sound after 70 years. They were made using asbestos and
lots of asphalt before asbestos was outlawed and oil got expensive.
(diamond interlock, for the most part)

On Sun, 23 May 2021 15:01:03 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 May 2021 11:14:25 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 May 2021 03:17:43 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 5/21/2021 11:25 PM, Joey wrote:





I priced a hidden-fastner metal roof install and it was twice the
cost
of the GAF Timberline shingles. Guess which I chose.


Did the same about 20 years ago. Made no sense to spend that much
more.

Corse it does when it lasts much longer.
Mine is just as good as it was when new,
now 50 years later.

Same with bricks instead of the stupid
timber you fools use for the walls too.

Bricks were not readily available in many parts of the country.

Only because you fools do your houses using
cheap and nasty timber and sidings. And even
you should have noticed that the timber and
sidings don't actually come from some forest
down the road. Iron ore mine in spades.

If you look at much of the northeast from Boston to Virginia there are
a
lot of brick homes. You need clay and kilns to make them.

Everyone has some clay not too far away.


No, many areas have NO clay within a reasonable distance

Trivial to move the finished bricks from
where they do to where the house is.

Really? 400+ tons of brick is "trivial" to move?

It isnt anything like 400+ tons for a house,
just one semi load, not even a B double.

- and when
forested land was cut to provide farm land there was lots of timber
litterally at the doorstep. Many houses were built from chestnut,
walnut, maple, birch, ironwood etc where those were the predominant
species. In other areas they were built of sprice and pine and hemlock
and fir.

And that isnt how stick houses are done anymore in the entire USA.

Good thing. That would be a waste of good wood.

Today that is less common - with spruce and pine,
commercially grown and cut, shipped in from across
the country. Still cheaper than shipping bricks

Tents are even cheaper to shift but for some odd reason
few do actually choose to have one instead of a house.

Go for it.

- and less loss from shipping damage.

No bricks are lost to shipping damage when shipped properly.

Breakage is fairly common

Bull**** it is.

but not a high percentage.

Its zero actually.

Many bricks today are "fired" or autoclaved concrete
- where clay is not common various aggregates
(including recycled concrete) can be used

Yep, my house is much bigger concrete blocks,
shipped from 250 away because they were much
better from there than the locally made ones.

Ugly!

Bull****.

Not readily available in other places

BULL**** with the clay and even you should
be able to work out how to make a kiln.
so they use what they could get,

Bull**** they do with timber, sidings, stupid shingles etc etc etc.

Just as adobe and igloos, you build with what you have.

You don't have timber, metal, shingles etc, stupid. You move
them from where they happen to be to where you need them.

Tad radical I realise.

The homes I grew up in were built with locally produced soft
yellow clay brick - produced less than 10 miles from where the
houses were built - and locally harvested yellow pine and cedar.
(double brick - lath and plaster finish on the inside - timber
framed interior partitions, floors, and roof structure)

That last isnt common at all in the USA anymore.

Neither is lath and plaster either. The world has moved on.

My uncles home out on the sakatchewan prairie on the
other hand was built of lumber shipped in by rail from
out of province as timber, clay, and gravel aggregate
are and were extremely scarce out there.

But easy to ship bricks and that's a small part
of the cost of the bricks even a semi is used.

These were houses built between 1870 and 1942.

And the world has moved on just a tad since then.

Good thing. A friend has horse hair plaster. What a mess.

And horse hair is a bit thin on the ground now too.

The home I have lived in for the last 40 years
the brick veneer is autoclaved concrete brick
manufacturde one city away - less than 30 miles.
The original shingles were manufactured less
than 100 miles away.

And a metal roof would have lasted a lot longer.

Who cares?

Those who inherit or buy the house, that's who.

I won't be around in 50 years.

Just as true of a tent.

The lumber was shipped by rail or truck across the province -
about 300 miles or less away. The aluminum siding was also
produced (from sheet) less than 150 miles away. It was built in 1974.

But the aluminium would have come far further.

Aluminum is dumb. Even smallish hail will completely destroy it,

Oh bull****.

not to mention a little wind.

More pig ignorant bull****.

One of the purposes of rocks on shingles
(or membrane, for that matter) is weight.

Still cheap and nasty. Like a tent is too.

These distances would all be considered pretty
much "local" by Australian standards, no????

Nope, not with the state capitals. But with those
the lumber does move much further than the
bricks do. The aluminium vastly further when
you count the bauxite. The steel for what is
now almost universally used for the roofs too.
Most used to be clay or concrete tiles for
decades but they arent common at all anymore.

The roofs are colorbond which even Trump
recognised. Last much longer than stupid
shingles.

Again, who cares?

Anyone with even half a clue, that's who.
Well, I guss that rule you out, joey!!!

PLONK!!

"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 May 2021 11:14:25 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 May 2021 03:17:43 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 5/21/2021 11:25 PM, Joey wrote:





I priced a hidden-fastner metal roof install and it was twice the
cost
of the GAF Timberline shingles. Guess which I chose.


Did the same about 20 years ago. Made no sense to spend that much
more.

Corse it does when it lasts much longer.
Mine is just as good as it was when new,
now 50 years later.

Same with bricks instead of the stupid
timber you fools use for the walls too.

Bricks were not readily available in many parts of the country.

Only because you fools do your houses using
cheap and nasty timber and sidings. And even
you should have noticed that the timber and
sidings don't actually come from some forest
down the road. Iron ore mine in spades.

If you look at much of the northeast from Boston to Virginia there are
a
lot of brick homes. You need clay and kilns to make them.

Everyone has some clay not too far away.


No, many areas have NO clay within a reasonable distance

Trivial to move the finished bricks from
where they do to where the house is.

- and when
forested land was cut to provide farm land there was lots of timber
litterally at the doorstep. Many houses were built from chestnut,
walnut, maple, birch, ironwood etc where those were the predominant
species. In other areas they were built of sprice and pine and hemlock
and fir.

And that isnt how stick houses are done anymore in the entire USA.

Today that is less common - with spruce and pine,
commercially grown and cut, shipped in from across
the country. Still cheaper than shipping bricks

Tents are even cheaper to **** but for some odd reason
few do actually choose to have one instead of a house.

- and less loss from shipping damage.

No bricks are lost to shipping damage when shipped properly.

Many bricks today are "fired" or autoclaved concrete
- where clay is not common various aggregates
(including recycled concrete) can be used

Yep, my house is much bigger concrete blocks,
shipped from 250 away because they were much
better from there than the locally made ones.

Not readily available in other places

BULL**** with the clay and even you should
be able to work out how to make a kiln.

so they use what they could get,

Bull**** they do with timber, sidings, stupid shingles etc etc etc.

Just as adobe and igloos, you build with what you have.

You don't have timber, metal, shingles etc, stupid. You move
them from where they happen to be to where you need them.

Tad radical I realise.

The homes I grew up in were built with locally produced soft
yellow clay brick - produced less than 10 miles from where the
houses were built - and locally harvested yellow pine and cedar.
(double brick - lath and plaster finish on the inside - timber
framed interior partitions, floors, and roof structure)

That last isnt common at all in the USA anymore.

Neither is lath and plaster either. The world has moved on.

My uncles home out on the sakatchewan prairie on the
other hand was built of lumber shipped in by rail from
out of province as timber, clay, and gravel aggregate
are and were extremely scarce out there.

But easy to ship bricks and that's a small part
of the cost of the bricks even a semi is used.

These were houses built between 1870 and 1942.

And the world has moved on just a tad since then.

The home I have lived in for the last 40 years
the brick veneer is autoclaved concrete brick
manufacturde one city away - less than 30 miles.
The original shingles were manufactured less
than 100 miles away.

And a metal roof would have lasted a lot longer.

The lumber was shipped by rail or truck across the province -
about 300 miles or less away. The aluminum siding was also
produced (from sheet) less than 150 miles away. It was built in 1974.

But the aluminium would have come far further.

These distances would all be considered pretty
much "local" by Australian standards, no????

Nope, not with the state capitals. But with those
the lumber does move much further than the
bricks do. The aluminium vastly further when
you count the bauxite. The steel for what is
now almost universally used for the roofs too.
Most used to be clay or concrete tiles for
decades but they arent common at all anymore.

The roofs are colorbond which even Trump
recognised. Last much longer than stupid
shingles.
I've seen lots of "colorbond" steel loose it's color in less than 10
years,

There was a problem for a while but its gone now.
And it didn't lose its color, just changed color.

and sheet steel roofs don't so well with heavy snow loads

That's bull**** with the right slope.

- or hailstorms.

That's bull****. Not even any dents in my metal decking.

Having to get back up on a sheet steel roof to
re-fasten it after a wind storm has almost torn it off

Never happens here with metal decking.

isn't fun either. (a friendhas had to refasten
his steel "barn roof" twice on the new barn,

We arent talking about barns, we are talking about houses.

and it would have been the third time on the old barn if he hadn't
torn it down. Granted, it wasn't steel framed (very few are)

Ours are.

Clay and concrete roof tiles went away for good reasons

Nope, they are still there, working fine. Just not as
popular now because you need a lot more structure
and a lot more labor and a lot more maintenance
after storms and with **** growing on them.

- as well as asbestos cement corrugated roofing.

For other reasons.

I've also seen sunlight through MANY steel
roofs that were well under 50 years old.

Only the ones done by fools that don't have a clue.

You wont see any thru mine which is now 50 years old.

My house is 50 years old - the roof decking is still all original

Me too.

and I just put on the third shingle roof - which will out last me.

Likely it will but not the new owner.

There are also still a lot of asphalt shingle roofs
in North America that are etill sound after 70 years.

**** all actually.

They were made using asbestos and lots of asphalt
before asbestos was outlawed and oil got expensive.
(diamond interlock, for the most part)

Irrelevant, you cant do that today.

"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 May 2021 15:01:03 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 May 2021 11:14:25 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 23 May 2021 03:17:43 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 5/21/2021 11:25 PM, Joey wrote:





I priced a hidden-fastner metal roof install and it was twice the
cost
of the GAF Timberline shingles. Guess which I chose.


Did the same about 20 years ago. Made no sense to spend that much
more.

Corse it does when it lasts much longer.
Mine is just as good as it was when new,
now 50 years later.

Same with bricks instead of the stupid
timber you fools use for the walls too.

Bricks were not readily available in many parts of the country.

Only because you fools do your houses using
cheap and nasty timber and sidings. And even
you should have noticed that the timber and
sidings don't actually come from some forest
down the road. Iron ore mine in spades.

If you look at much of the northeast from Boston to Virginia there
are
a
lot of brick homes. You need clay and kilns to make them.

Everyone has some clay not too far away.


No, many areas have NO clay within a reasonable distance

Trivial to move the finished bricks from
where they do to where the house is.

Really? 400+ tons of brick is "trivial" to move?

It isnt anything like 400+ tons for a house,
just one semi load, not even a B double.

- and when
forested land was cut to provide farm land there was lots of timber
litterally at the doorstep. Many houses were built from chestnut,
walnut, maple, birch, ironwood etc where those were the predominant
species. In other areas they were built of sprice and pine and hemlock
and fir.

And that isnt how stick houses are done anymore in the entire USA.

Good thing. That would be a waste of good wood.

Today that is less common - with spruce and pine,
commercially grown and cut, shipped in from across
the country. Still cheaper than shipping bricks

Tents are even cheaper to shift but for some odd reason
few do actually choose to have one instead of a house.

Go for it.

- and less loss from shipping damage.

No bricks are lost to shipping damage when shipped properly.

Breakage is fairly common

Bull**** it is.

but not a high percentage.

Its zero actually.

Many bricks today are "fired" or autoclaved concrete
- where clay is not common various aggregates
(including recycled concrete) can be used

Yep, my house is much bigger concrete blocks,
shipped from 250 away because they were much
better from there than the locally made ones.

Ugly!

Bull****.

Not readily available in other places

BULL**** with the clay and even you should
be able to work out how to make a kiln.
so they use what they could get,

Bull**** they do with timber, sidings, stupid shingles etc etc etc.

Just as adobe and igloos, you build with what you have.

You don't have timber, metal, shingles etc, stupid. You move
them from where they happen to be to where you need them.

Tad radical I realise.

The homes I grew up in were built with locally produced soft
yellow clay brick - produced less than 10 miles from where the
houses were built - and locally harvested yellow pine and cedar.
(double brick - lath and plaster finish on the inside - timber
framed interior partitions, floors, and roof structure)

That last isnt common at all in the USA anymore.

Neither is lath and plaster either. The world has moved on.

My uncles home out on the sakatchewan prairie on the
other hand was built of lumber shipped in by rail from
out of province as timber, clay, and gravel aggregate
are and were extremely scarce out there.

But easy to ship bricks and that's a small part
of the cost of the bricks even a semi is used.

These were houses built between 1870 and 1942.

And the world has moved on just a tad since then.

Good thing. A friend has horse hair plaster. What a mess.

And horse hair is a bit thin on the ground now too.

The home I have lived in for the last 40 years
the brick veneer is autoclaved concrete brick
manufacturde one city away - less than 30 miles.
The original shingles were manufactured less
than 100 miles away.

And a metal roof would have lasted a lot longer.

Who cares?

Those who inherit or buy the house, that's who.

I won't be around in 50 years.

Just as true of a tent.

The lumber was shipped by rail or truck across the province -
about 300 miles or less away. The aluminum siding was also
produced (from sheet) less than 150 miles away. It was built in 1974.

But the aluminium would have come far further.

Aluminum is dumb. Even smallish hail will completely destroy it,

Oh bull****.

not to mention a little wind.

More pig ignorant bull****.

One of the purposes of rocks on shingles
(or membrane, for that matter) is weight.

Still cheap and nasty. Like a tent is too.

These distances would all be considered pretty
much "local" by Australian standards, no????

Nope, not with the state capitals. But with those
the lumber does move much further than the
bricks do. The aluminium vastly further when
you count the bauxite. The steel for what is
now almost universally used for the roofs too.
Most used to be clay or concrete tiles for
decades but they arent common at all anymore.

The roofs are colorbond which even Trump
recognised. Last much longer than stupid
shingles.

Again, who cares?

Anyone with even half a clue, that's who.
Well, I guss that rule you out, joey!!!

PLONK!!

JUST ANOTHER STUPID PLONKER.

Too stupid to even notice if you are going to plonk someone,
the last thing you should be doing is to announce that.

"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 May 2021 11:14:25 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 23 May 2021 03:17:43 +1000, "Joey" wrote:



"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 5/21/2021 11:25 PM, Joey wrote:





I priced a hidden-fastner metal roof install and it was twice the
cost
of the GAF Timberline shingles. Guess which I chose.


Did the same about 20 years ago. Made no sense to spend that much
more.

Corse it does when it lasts much longer.
Mine is just as good as it was when new,
now 50 years later.

Same with bricks instead of the stupid
timber you fools use for the walls too.

Bricks were not readily available in many parts of the country.

Only because you fools do your houses using
cheap and nasty timber and sidings. And even
you should have noticed that the timber and
sidings don't actually come from some forest
down the road. Iron ore mine in spades.

If you look at much of the northeast from Boston to Virginia there are
a
lot of brick homes. You need clay and kilns to make them.

Everyone has some clay not too far away.


No, many areas have NO clay within a reasonable distance

Trivial to move the finished bricks from
where they do to where the house is.

- and when
forested land was cut to provide farm land there was lots of timber
litterally at the doorstep. Many houses were built from chestnut,
walnut, maple, birch, ironwood etc where those were the predominant
species. In other areas they were built of sprice and pine and hemlock
and fir.

And that isnt how stick houses are done anymore in the entire USA.

Today that is less common - with spruce and pine,
commercially grown and cut, shipped in from across
the country. Still cheaper than shipping bricks

Tents are even cheaper to **** but for some odd reason
few do actually choose to have one instead of a house.

- and less loss from shipping damage.

No bricks are lost to shipping damage when shipped properly.

Many bricks today are "fired" or autoclaved concrete
- where clay is not common various aggregates
(including recycled concrete) can be used

Yep, my house is much bigger concrete blocks,
shipped from 250 away because they were much
better from there than the locally made ones.

Not readily available in other places

BULL**** with the clay and even you should
be able to work out how to make a kiln.

so they use what they could get,

Bull**** they do with timber, sidings, stupid shingles etc etc etc.

Just as adobe and igloos, you build with what you have.

You don't have timber, metal, shingles etc, stupid. You move
them from where they happen to be to where you need them.

Tad radical I realise.

The homes I grew up in were built with locally produced soft
yellow clay brick - produced less than 10 miles from where the
houses were built - and locally harvested yellow pine and cedar.
(double brick - lath and plaster finish on the inside - timber
framed interior partitions, floors, and roof structure)

That last isnt common at all in the USA anymore.

Neither is lath and plaster either. The world has moved on.

My uncles home out on the sakatchewan prairie on the
other hand was built of lumber shipped in by rail from
out of province as timber, clay, and gravel aggregate
are and were extremely scarce out there.

But easy to ship bricks and that's a small part
of the cost of the bricks even a semi is used.

These were houses built between 1870 and 1942.

And the world has moved on just a tad since then.

The home I have lived in for the last 40 years
the brick veneer is autoclaved concrete brick
manufacturde one city away - less than 30 miles.
The original shingles were manufactured less
than 100 miles away.

And a metal roof would have lasted a lot longer.

The lumber was shipped by rail or truck across the province -
about 300 miles or less away. The aluminum siding was also
produced (from sheet) less than 150 miles away. It was built in 1974.

But the aluminium would have come far further.

These distances would all be considered pretty
much "local" by Australian standards, no????

Nope, not with the state capitals. But with those
the lumber does move much further than the
bricks do. The aluminium vastly further when
you count the bauxite. The steel for what is
now almost universally used for the roofs too.
Most used to be clay or concrete tiles for
decades but they arent common at all anymore.

The roofs are colorbond which even Trump
recognised. Last much longer than stupid
shingles.
I've seen lots of "colorbond" steel loose it's color in less than 10
years,

There was a problem for a while but its gone now.
And it didn't lose its color, just changed color.

and sheet steel roofs don't so well with heavy snow loads

That's bull**** with the right slope.

- or hailstorms.

That's bull****. Not even any dents in my metal decking.

Having to get back up on a sheet steel roof to
re-fasten it after a wind storm has almost torn it off

Never happens here with metal decking.

isn't fun either. (a friendhas had to refasten
his steel "barn roof" twice on the new barn,

We arent talking about barns, we are talking about houses.

and it would have been the third time on the old barn if he hadn't
torn it down. Granted, it wasn't steel framed (very few are)

Ours are.

Clay and concrete roof tiles went away for good reasons

Nope, they are still there, working fine. Just not as
popular now because you need a lot more structure
and a lot more labor and a lot more maintenance
after storms and with **** growing on them.

- as well as asbestos cement corrugated roofing.

For other reasons.

I've also seen sunlight through MANY steel
roofs that were well under 50 years old.

Only the ones done by fools that don't have a clue.

You wont see any thru mine which is now 50 years old.

My house is 50 years old - the roof decking is still all original

Me too.

and I just put on the third shingle roof - which will out last me.

Likely it will but not the new owner.

There are also still a lot of asphalt shingle roofs
in North America that are etill sound after 70 years.

**** all actually.

They were made using asbestos and lots of asphalt
before asbestos was outlawed and oil got expensive.
(diamond interlock, for the most part)

Irrelevant, you cant do that today.

On Mon, 24 May 2021 12:16:23 +1000, %%, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Mon, 24 May 2021 11:25:33 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH yet more of the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: