In message , Roof
writes
Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:25

Or how about you describe your roof structure to
me and explain how it stands up, for the situation
before and after you converted the roof space?
You're the one making grandious claims, so for the last time, put up
or shut
up.
I wonder if Dribble has got bored with sparking and plumbing and
decided to
morph into a structural expert. At least his hacksaw might find a
justifiable use at last :O


My 'claim' as you put it, is that people that don't understand
structural principles shouldn't give structural advice. You shouldn't
be giving out structural advice in a d-i-y newsgroup. Does this make
any sense yet?



Bit of advice

either offer some useful, practical advice or **** off

uk.d-i-y really doesn't suffer people with wankish attitudes like yours

put up or shut up and **** off, you won't last long in here

--
geoff

In article
,
Owain wrote:
AIUI there is no minimum height for a habitable room,

There is if a new build or conversion. Cost me loadsa money to raise the
ceiling height when extending an existing attic room.

--
*Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roof wrote:
So in the spirit of public newsgroups - explain it then "alleged
expert" so we can all learn from your specialist wisdom.....




It isn't 'specialist wisdom', Jim, it's merely an
understanding of structural principle. You don't
need the knowledge; leave it to the people that
know what they're doing with it.

Would that be like the structural engineer who insisted on having
continuous joists from front to back here only supported at the ends?
Requiring timber brought in from miles away - 10 x 4" 30ft long? Until the
local BS insisted they were supported in the middle because of deflection?
And the same structural engineer who supplied three pages of drawings for
padstones?

--
*A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roof wrote:
My 'claim' as you put it, is that people that
don't understand structural principles shouldn't
give structural advice. You shouldn't be giving
out structural advice in a d-i-y newsgroup. Does
this make any sense yet?

No. There are standard ways of doing most jobs. I'm willing to bet you
don't start from zero when working on a property similar to a type you
know. You'll rely on experience.

--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Roof" wrote in message
...
Jules wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:46:04 +0000, Roof wrote:
I'm a chartered structural engineer and i must confess to being
terrified by much of the 'advice' you're getting on here.

Do you have any experience of fall-out shelters?


Do you?

You are a trainee Steve Firth AICMFP.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 21 Nov, 01:07, "brass monkey" wrote:
You are a trainee Steve Firth AICMFP.

Shouldn't that be a trainee Steve Firth MIstructE?
;-)

Owain


Or, MIcamelshagginginthesaharaE

"Roof" wrote in message
...
lordnelson wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:49 am, 2Bdecided wrote:
We're about to buy a house, and _next_ _door_ the neighbour has
"converted" his loft. He's a roofer, his father is a builder. I don't
know them from Adam.

The conversion (and the loft!) isn't very tall - it's about 6ft tall
along the very middle, but move 1 ft either way and you bang your
head.

He's using it as his main bedroom - though he said that, if sold, the
room couldn't be counted or listed as a bedroom because of the reduced
head height, though it would probably be valued as one.

The bizarre thing is that in this 1973 terraced house, he claims not
to have strengthened the roof, rafters, etc because "it was already
strong enough". He's used kingspan+plaster board, added a velux window
at the back, the stairs are accessed via a door, and the whole thing
looks very nice. Other doors in the house are new, but I've no idea if
they would survive a fire for 30 minutes.

The thing is, I would like to convert the loft of the house we're
buying (next door!) in a similar way. I want a habitable room (not a
loft). I don't care if it doesn't count as a bedroom due to the
height, but I certainly _do_ care that it's safe (they'll be some
records kept up there - they're heavy!), and wouldn't impair a future
sale of the house.

I've searched this group for "loft conversion" stories, and found that
some people seem fine with "attic rooms that aren't really bedrooms",
while others find problems getting a mortgage due to rooms without
building control approval.

So, two questions:

1. how has the neighbour got away with it (or how does he think he'll
get away with it when he comes to sell)?
2. what should I do?

Cheers,
David.

Over the years I have come across many loft conversions that do have
building regulations and/or planning permission. You can spend £1000's
on a loft conversion and it will add no value at all if it is non
compliant. In fact, this would devalue a property. You should call in
a loft conversion expert and they will provide a free survey and
quote, although if you haven't exchanged there maybe an admin fee.


How would you suggest the OP satisfies himself that the 'loft conversion
expert' he selects is competent?

Not by talking to you, that's a cert.

Dont'cha just love these jumped-up 'holier than thou' smart arseholes with
nothing to say of any consequence?
I think we call 'em trolls.

On Nov 21, 12:34*am, John Rumm wrote:
Roof wrote:
No ... not this Newsgroup .... but if you look at a few more threads
you'll find this Newsgroup offers a lot of good old common sense
advice and also professional advice.

That it might be, but it is not the right place to be giving out
structural advice.

Nothing wrong with giving advice, you just need to exercise a little
common sense when deciding what to do with that advice. Without people
freely giving of their time to advice, this group would be much the poorer.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
Owain wrote:
AIUI there is no minimum height for a habitable room,

There is if a new build or conversion. Cost me loadsa money to raise the
ceiling height when extending an existing attic room.


It certainly used to be the case but I think you will find that the
minimum height requirement was restricted to stairs several years ago.

FWIW my downstairs headroom is just 6 feet under the beams which doesn't
much bother me as I am not that tall. The only real problem is lighting.
With the ceiling at just 6 inches higher choice of light fittings is
extremely restricted.

The clearance on the stairs is however another matter. I have long since
learnt to duck on the way down as the clearance is about a foot down on
modern regulations and, as the offending structure is a main floor beam,
there is no easy way round other than repositioning the stairs which
would be a major operation.

Owain wrote:
On 21 Nov, 01:07, "brass monkey" wrote:
You are a trainee Steve Firth AICMFP.

Shouldn't that be a trainee Steve Firth MIstructE?
;-)


No, if you knew what you were talking about, it
would be MIStructE

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roof wrote:
So in the spirit of public newsgroups - explain it then "alleged
expert" so we can all learn from your specialist wisdom.....




It isn't 'specialist wisdom', Jim, it's merely an
understanding of structural principle. You don't
need the knowledge; leave it to the people that
know what they're doing with it.

Would that be like the structural engineer who insisted on having
continuous joists from front to back here only supported at the ends?
Requiring timber brought in from miles away - 10 x 4" 30ft long? Until the
local BS insisted they were supported in the middle because of deflection?
And the same structural engineer who supplied three pages of drawings for
padstones?


What was the structural engineers terms of
appointment? Was an architect involved? Why
didn't you tell the structural engineer in the
first place that he could use an intermediate
support if it made the design any easier. Was the
structural engineer chartered? What fee did you
pay him?

More importantly, and to keep it on topic, what
was the advice you got from your 'resident
experts' when you posted the query on this newsgroup?

geoff wrote:
In message , Roof
writes
Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:25

Or how about you describe your roof structure to
me and explain how it stands up, for the situation
before and after you converted the roof space?
You're the one making grandious claims, so for the last time, put up
or shut
up.
I wonder if Dribble has got bored with sparking and plumbing and
decided to
morph into a structural expert. At least his hacksaw might find a
justifiable use at last :O


My 'claim' as you put it, is that people that don't understand
structural principles shouldn't give structural advice. You shouldn't
be giving out structural advice in a d-i-y newsgroup. Does this make
any sense yet?



Bit of advice

either offer some useful, practical advice or **** off

uk.d-i-y really doesn't suffer people with wankish attitudes like yours

put up or shut up and **** off, you won't last long in here


Geoff, presumably you just got back from the pub?

It may come as some surprise to you, but I don't
need your advice. I don't need to 'put up or shut
up' either. Since you given such a warm welcome,
I think I'll hand around a bit longer.

What time is it now...about 8.40am. What time are
you back down the pub, then?

Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 23:08

Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:25


Or how about you describe your roof structure to
me and explain how it stands up, for the situation
before and after you converted the roof space?
You're the one making grandious claims, so for the last time, put up or
shut up.

I wonder if Dribble has got bored with sparking and plumbing and decided
to morph into a structural expert. At least his hacksaw might find a
justifiable use at last :O

My 'claim' as you put it, is that people that
don't understand structural principles shouldn't
give structural advice. You shouldn't be giving
out structural advice in a d-i-y newsgroup. Does
this make any sense yet?

Oh do **** off you pompous ****.


Fortunately, Tim, the most of my 'debates' are
with people that don't need to resort to swearing.
However, I am aware that sort of environment
exists, especially, it would seem, on newsgroups

Roof wrote:
Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 23:08

Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:25


Or how about you describe your roof structure to
me and explain how it stands up, for the situation
before and after you converted the roof space?
You're the one making grandious claims, so for the last time, put up or
shut up.

I wonder if Dribble has got bored with sparking and plumbing and
decided
to morph into a structural expert. At least his hacksaw might find a
justifiable use at last :O

My 'claim' as you put it, is that people that
don't understand structural principles shouldn't
give structural advice. You shouldn't be giving
out structural advice in a d-i-y newsgroup. Does
this make any sense yet?

Oh do **** off you pompous ****.


Fortunately, Tim, the most of my 'debates' are with people that don't
need to resort to swearing. However, I am aware that sort of
environment exists, especially, it would seem, on newsgroups

And certainly on building sites.

Roof
wibbled on Saturday 21 November 2009 09:07

Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 23:08

Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:25


Or how about you describe your roof structure to
me and explain how it stands up, for the situation
before and after you converted the roof space?
You're the one making grandious claims, so for the last time, put up or
shut up.

I wonder if Dribble has got bored with sparking and plumbing and
decided to morph into a structural expert. At least his hacksaw might
find a justifiable use at last :O

My 'claim' as you put it, is that people that
don't understand structural principles shouldn't
give structural advice. You shouldn't be giving
out structural advice in a d-i-y newsgroup. Does
this make any sense yet?

Oh do **** off you pompous ****.


Fortunately, Tim, the most of my 'debates' are
with people that don't need to resort to swearing.
However, I am aware that sort of environment
exists, especially, it would seem, on newsgroups

I'm not trying to debate with you. I'm trying to tell you you are a pompous
****, or a troll.

I don't bother trying to have meaningful conversations with either class of
being.

I'll put a larger waver on you being a troll, because a real engineer,
especially a pompous blustering ****, would have taken offence and left by
now.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:46:04 +0000, Roof wrote:


I'm a chartered structural engineer and i must
confess to being terrified by much of the 'advice'
you're getting on here.

If you follow what's being suggested then I'm
afraid you'll end up in pretty much the same mire
as your neighbour. You need paid-for professional
advice from an architect or a structural engineer.

Maybe call in to see your friendly LABC initially
and get some good, free advice to point you in the
right direction

I think your fundamental problem is in misinterpreting the status of a
newsgroup! It is not the source of definitive advice for any problem.
It is akin to going down the pub and having a chat with some mates and anyone
else who happens to be stood at the bar.
Presumably in such circumstance, you would feel you had the wit to make a fair
judgement. The great benefit of such diverse views, is in obtaining a range of
opinion, which may include 'I employed such and such a professional and he both
misinformed me and charged me a fortune for the privilege.' It does happen you
know.
If anyone is stupid enough to take as gospel, anything some anonymous individual
quotes on the Internet, then they are destined for a fall.

Andy C

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
Owain wrote:
AIUI there is no minimum height for a habitable room,

There is if a new build or conversion. Cost me loadsa money to raise the
ceiling height when extending an existing attic room.


It certainly used to be the case but I think you will find that the
minimum height requirement was restricted to stairs several years ago.

Right - I'm talking round about '90.

FWIW my downstairs headroom is just 6 feet under the beams which doesn't
much bother me as I am not that tall. The only real problem is lighting.
With the ceiling at just 6 inches higher choice of light fittings is
extremely restricted.

On a new build? Wouldn't that make it difficult to sell? I notice that
youngsters are getting taller. I'm 6 ft, and as a lad was taller than
most. Not anymore.

The clearance on the stairs is however another matter. I have long since
learnt to duck on the way down as the clearance is about a foot down on
modern regulations and, as the offending structure is a main floor beam,
there is no easy way round other than repositioning the stairs which
would be a major operation.

Seems weird not to have a minimum ceiling height these days considering
all the other regs?

--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and **** head's*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roof wrote:
Would that be like the structural engineer who insisted on having
continuous joists from front to back here only supported at the ends?
Requiring timber brought in from miles away - 10 x 4" 30ft long? Until
the local BS insisted they were supported in the middle because of
deflection? And the same structural engineer who supplied three pages
of drawings for padstones?


What was the structural engineers terms of
appointment? Was an architect involved?

Yes. He chose the firm having used them before.

Why
didn't you tell the structural engineer in the
first place that he could use an intermediate
support if it made the design any easier.

I wasn't asked. Had I been I'd have told him he could bear off the *very*
over engineered support between the two ground floor rooms which had been
made into one.

Was the structural engineer chartered?

I've no idea. He belonged to a firm of structural engineers. Who I assume
were qualified since my qualified architect used them.

What fee did you pay him?

Told them to get stuffed and sue me. Thought about suing them.

More importantly, and to keep it on topic, what
was the advice you got from your 'resident
experts' when you posted the query on this newsgroup?

Happened before this group existed. Wish it had - as I know I'd have got
good advice here. You're a newbie here. Stick around before making instant
judgements.

--
*If I throw a stick, will you leave?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roof wrote:
Oh do **** off you pompous ****.


Fortunately, Tim, the most of my 'debates' are
with people that don't need to resort to swearing.
However, I am aware that sort of environment
exists, especially, it would seem, on newsgroups

They do tend to when someone new comes in saying they are the only expert
around. *You* have to prove this, and so far you haven't. Give some good
practical advice and we'll see. This isn't a group about 'just get a pro
in' - it's about DIY. But most will give warnings about employing a pro
where needed.

--
*Geeks shall inherit the earth *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim W wrote:
Fortunately, Tim, the most of my 'debates' are
with people that don't need to resort to swearing.
However, I am aware that sort of environment
exists, especially, it would seem, on newsgroups

I'm not trying to debate with you. I'm trying to tell you you are a
pompous ****, or a troll.

I don't bother trying to have meaningful conversations with either class
of being.

I'll put a larger waver on you being a troll, because a real engineer,
especially a pompous blustering ****, would have taken offence and left
by now.

I dunno. There are plenty who think when they first visit a newsgroup that
they will be the expert. They might well be used to that in their local
pub. A little experience of newsgroups shows no one is ever the expert
about everything. As there are usually several ways of skinning a cat...

--
*If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , Roof
writes
Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 23:08

Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:25


Or how about you describe your roof structure to
me and explain how it stands up, for the situation
before and after you converted the roof space?
You're the one making grandious claims, so for the last time, put up or
shut up.

I wonder if Dribble has got bored with sparking and plumbing and decided
to morph into a structural expert. At least his hacksaw might find a
justifiable use at last :O

My 'claim' as you put it, is that people that
don't understand structural principles shouldn't
give structural advice. You shouldn't be giving
out structural advice in a d-i-y newsgroup. Does
this make any sense yet?
Oh do **** off you pompous ****.


Fortunately, Tim, the most of my 'debates' are with people that don't
need to resort to swearing. However, I am aware that sort of
environment exists, especially, it would seem, on newsgroups

**** off then if you can't handle it - go and join uk.rec.motorcycles
....

I don't see a single useful bit of information that you have imparted in
your short time here



--
geoff

In message , Roof
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Roof
writes
Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:25

Or how about you describe your roof structure to
me and explain how it stands up, for the situation
before and after you converted the roof space?
You're the one making grandious claims, so for the last time, put
up or shut
up.
I wonder if Dribble has got bored with sparking and plumbing and
decided to
morph into a structural expert. At least his hacksaw might find a
justifiable use at last :O


My 'claim' as you put it, is that people that don't understand
structural principles shouldn't give structural advice. You
shouldn't be giving out structural advice in a d-i-y newsgroup. Does
this make any sense yet?

Bit of advice
either offer some useful, practical advice or **** off
uk.d-i-y really doesn't suffer people with wankish attitudes like
yours
put up or shut up and **** off, you won't last long in here


Geoff, presumably you just got back from the pub?

It may come as some surprise to you, but I don't need your advice. I
don't need to 'put up or shut up' either. Since you given such a warm
welcome, I think I'll hand around a bit longer.

What time is it now...about 8.40am. What time are you back down the
pub, then?

No, in fact I haven't had an alcoholic drink of any sort since last
Sunday

You. As others have pointed out come across as a pompous ****

hang around if you have something useful to say otherwise go and take
your evangelical ******** elsewhere - we have little time for it here

--
geoff

In message , Roof
writes
Owain wrote:
On 21 Nov, 01:07, "brass monkey" wrote:
You are a trainee Steve Firth AICMFP.
Shouldn't that be a trainee Steve Firth MIstructE?
;-)


No, if you knew what you were talking about, it would be MIStructE

So, you pay your yearly subs

So what

and you know the difference between lower case and upper case letters

respect here is earned through imparted knowledge, not through letters
one puts after ones thumbprint

--
geoff

Dave Plowman (News)
wibbled on Saturday 21 November 2009 13:15

I dunno. There are plenty who think when they first visit a newsgroup that
they will be the expert. They might well be used to that in their local
pub. A little experience of newsgroups shows no one is ever the expert
about everything. As there are usually several ways of skinning a cat...


Which is interesting. If you have a look at the IET (IEE) forums, the users
group roughly like this:

"Arrrgh no do touch it you will blow yourself up and everyone within 3
streets death to DIY" (suspect some minimally qualified and minimal
experience guild members)

"Straightforward and practical suggestions, sometimes with a: are you sure
you want to do this?" (suspect well qualified and very experienced sparks)

"Deeply insightful return question to make you think and short succinct and
exteremely polite information, often with elements you never even thought
about" (engineers and long term multi-disciplinary sparks)

The 3rd group is where matey claims to be, and yet I have to see a true
master on a forum behave like a prima donna.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:20:34 +0000, Tim W wrote:

Which is interesting. If you have a look at the IET (IEE) forums, the
users group roughly like this:

I really must get round to reading them more!

Pity they don't gateway to Usenet...! :-)
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Owain wrote:
AIUI there is no minimum height for a habitable room,
There is if a new build or conversion. Cost me loadsa money to raise the
ceiling height when extending an existing attic room.


It certainly used to be the case but I think you will find that the
minimum height requirement was restricted to stairs several years ago.

Right - I'm talking round about '90.

FWIW my downstairs headroom is just 6 feet under the beams which doesn't
much bother me as I am not that tall. The only real problem is lighting.
With the ceiling at just 6 inches higher choice of light fittings is
extremely restricted.

On a new build? Wouldn't that make it difficult to sell? I notice that
youngsters are getting taller. I'm 6 ft, and as a lad was taller than
most. Not anymore.

The clearance on the stairs is however another matter. I have long since
learnt to duck on the way down as the clearance is about a foot down on
modern regulations and, as the offending structure is a main floor beam,
there is no easy way round other than repositioning the stairs which
would be a major operation.

Seems weird not to have a minimum ceiling height these days considering
all the other regs?

Very odd. Would make house construction cheaper though as long as there
was still sufficient height to use standard doors. Save over 10% on
brickwork.

Back in the 70s the minimum ceiling height for a habitable room was 7'
6" and for a bay window 6' 6". ISTR that this provision had disappeared
by the time I was involved in a loft conversion in the late 90s but
ceiling height wasn't a problem anyway so I could easily be wrong about
when I first learnt of the change.

Bob Eager
wibbled on Saturday 21 November 2009 15:25

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:20:34 +0000, Tim W wrote:

Which is interesting. If you have a look at the IET (IEE) forums, the
users group roughly like this:

I really must get round to reading them more!

Pity they don't gateway to Usenet...! :-)

They have RSS. I've been meaning to look at gating RSS to NNTP locally here.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Nov 21, 3:27*pm, Roger Chapman wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Seems weird not to have a minimum ceiling height these days considering
all the other regs?

Very odd. Would make house construction cheaper though as long as there
was still sufficient height to use standard doors. Save over 10% on
brickwork.

Ah, but fortunately even noddy house builders know that they can't
drop ceilings too low without shrinking the room - visually it makes
it unsaleable.

What I wish we would do is copy the German/Dutch long overhang eaves,
it makes for dryer walls, longer roof life before reroof and better
aesthetics.


ROOF is not being explicit, but obsfuscating.

USENET discussion was basically...
a) "Loft storage" - you can line a loft for storage, but would be
unwise to load it heavily without checking ceiling joist strength
b) "Loft more habitable" - trying to convert to "more habitable
office" by cheats such as fixed ladder, lining, avoiding the necessary
structural assessment and alteration re roof, floor, fire
c) "Loft habitable bedroom" - creating a habitable bedroom to add
value rather than the appropriately cited "cowboy bodge" requires PP
BR etc - and for the OP a Dormer re headroom

I see nothing wrong with that.

OP needs to be clear in their mind about use.
- "a)" Loft storage
- "c)" Habitable dormer conversion
- because "b)" is not a shortcut to "c)" :-)

Bluntly "b)" is building a shed without house foundations with a view
to convert it to a house later. It will always be a shed even if you
stick Canary Wharf on top of it (or falling through it).

OP might well look at other houses if they DO want c) because it can
directly affect the end cost and thus end value added.

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:50:24 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:
I think your fundamental problem is in misinterpreting the status of a
newsgroup! It is not the source of definitive advice for any problem.
...

I typed most of a sensible, logical reply like that - then I canned it
because I reached the conclusion that Tim's, "Oh do **** off you pompous
****" one-liner was far better

cheers

Jules

"Roof" wrote in message
...
geoff wrote:
In message , Roof
writes
Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:25

Or how about you describe your roof structure to
me and explain how it stands up, for the situation
before and after you converted the roof space?
You're the one making grandious claims, so for the last time, put up
or shut
up.
I wonder if Dribble has got bored with sparking and plumbing and
decided to
morph into a structural expert. At least his hacksaw might find a
justifiable use at last :O


My 'claim' as you put it, is that people that don't understand
structural principles shouldn't give structural advice. You shouldn't
be giving out structural advice in a d-i-y newsgroup. Does this make
any sense yet?



Bit of advice

either offer some useful, practical advice or **** off

uk.d-i-y really doesn't suffer people with wankish attitudes like yours

put up or shut up and **** off, you won't last long in here


Geoff, presumably you just got back from the pub?

It may come as some surprise to you, but I don't need your advice. I
don't need to 'put up or shut up' either. Since you given such a warm
welcome, I think I'll hand around a bit longer.

'Hand' what around ? pray..... certainly don't pass it our way thank-you

In message . com, Jules
writes
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:50:24 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:
I think your fundamental problem is in misinterpreting the status of a
newsgroup! It is not the source of definitive advice for any problem.
...

I typed most of a sensible, logical reply like that - then I canned it
because I reached the conclusion that Tim's, "Oh do **** off you pompous
****" one-liner was far better

Has he gone yet ?

--
geoff

In article ,
geoff wrote:
In message . com, Jules
writes
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:50:24 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:
I think your fundamental problem is in misinterpreting the status of a
newsgroup! It is not the source of definitive advice for any problem.
...

I typed most of a sensible, logical reply like that - then I canned it
because I reached the conclusion that Tim's, "Oh do **** off you pompous
****" one-liner was far better

Has he gone yet ?

He's probably crying to his mates: 'I went there to help and only got
abuse'

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
geoff wrote:
In message . com, Jules
writes
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:50:24 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:
I think your fundamental problem is in misinterpreting the status of a
newsgroup! It is not the source of definitive advice for any problem.
...

I typed most of a sensible, logical reply like that - then I canned it
because I reached the conclusion that Tim's, "Oh do **** off you pompous
****" one-liner was far better

Has he gone yet ?

He's probably crying to his mates: 'I went there to help and only got
abuse'


Made himself as welcome as a fart in a space suit if you ask me ... but then
again I'm not a professional !

In message , Ash
writes

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
geoff wrote:
In message . com, Jules
writes
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:50:24 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:
I think your fundamental problem is in misinterpreting the status of a
newsgroup! It is not the source of definitive advice for any problem.
...

I typed most of a sensible, logical reply like that - then I canned it
because I reached the conclusion that Tim's, "Oh do **** off you pompous
****" one-liner was far better

Has he gone yet ?

He's probably crying to his mates: 'I went there to help and only got
abuse'


Made himself as welcome as a fart in a space suit if you ask me ... but then
again I'm not a professional !


I am

Paaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrpppppp

oops

--
geoff

In article ,
Ash wrote:
He's probably crying to his mates: 'I went there to help and only got
abuse'


Made himself as welcome as a fart in a space suit if you ask me ... but
then again I'm not a professional !

There was a professional farter many years ago - French, I think.
Le Petomane?

--
*Fax is stronger than fiction *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Ash wrote:
He's probably crying to his mates: 'I went there to help and only got
abuse'


Made himself as welcome as a fart in a space suit if you ask me ... but
then again I'm not a professional !

There was a professional farter many years ago - French, I think.
Le Petomane?


What about our own Mr Methane in his green batman suit and cape?

Guaranteed to break wind at parties


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , Ash
writes

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
geoff wrote:
In message . com,
Jules writes
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:50:24 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:
I think your fundamental problem is in misinterpreting the
status of a newsgroup! It is not the source of definitive advice
for any problem. ...

I typed most of a sensible, logical reply like that - then I
canned it because I reached the conclusion that Tim's, "Oh do
**** off you pompous ****" one-liner was far better

Has he gone yet ?

He's probably crying to his mates: 'I went there to help and only
got abuse'


Made himself as welcome as a fart in a space suit if you ask me ...
but then again I'm not a professional !


I am

Paaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrpppppp

oops

I'm fed up of clearing either coffee or wine off the monitor. Could you
please refrain from such comments!

In message , Clot
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Ash
writes

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
geoff wrote:
In message . com,
Jules writes
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:50:24 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:
I think your fundamental problem is in misinterpreting the
status of a newsgroup! It is not the source of definitive advice
for any problem. ...

I typed most of a sensible, logical reply like that - then I
canned it because I reached the conclusion that Tim's, "Oh do
**** off you pompous ****" one-liner was far better

Has he gone yet ?

He's probably crying to his mates: 'I went there to help and only
got abuse'


Made himself as welcome as a fart in a space suit if you ask me ...
but then again I'm not a professional !


I am

Paaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrpppppp

oops

I'm fed up of clearing either coffee or wine off the monitor. Could you
please refrain from such comments!


It wasn't a comment, it was an anal retort


--
geoff

In message , Roof
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Roof
writes
Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Friday 20 November 2009 22:25

Or how about you describe your roof structure to
me and explain how it stands up, for the situation
before and after you converted the roof space?
You're the one making grandious claims, so for the last time, put
up or shut
up.
I wonder if Dribble has got bored with sparking and plumbing and
decided to
morph into a structural expert. At least his hacksaw might find a
justifiable use at last :O


My 'claim' as you put it, is that people that don't understand
structural principles shouldn't give structural advice. You
shouldn't be giving out structural advice in a d-i-y newsgroup. Does
this make any sense yet?

Bit of advice
either offer some useful, practical advice or **** off
uk.d-i-y really doesn't suffer people with wankish attitudes like
yours
put up or shut up and **** off, you won't last long in here


Geoff, presumably you just got back from the pub?

It may come as some surprise to you, but I don't need your advice. I
don't need to 'put up or shut up' either. Since you given such a warm
welcome, I think I'll hand around a bit longer.

Or not ...


--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Clot
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Ash
writes

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
geoff wrote:
In message . com,
Jules writes
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:50:24 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:
I think your fundamental problem is in misinterpreting the
status of a newsgroup! It is not the source of definitive advice
for any problem. ...

I typed most of a sensible, logical reply like that - then I
canned it because I reached the conclusion that Tim's, "Oh do
**** off you pompous ****" one-liner was far better

Has he gone yet ?

He's probably crying to his mates: 'I went there to help and only
got abuse'


Made himself as welcome as a fart in a space suit if you ask me ...
but then again I'm not a professional !


I am

Paaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrpppppp

oops

I'm fed up of clearing either coffee or wine off the monitor. Could you
please refrain from such comments!


It wasn't a comment, it was an anal retort

Maxie! Wow!! You coming out with those sort of things and you being a man
who knows things as well.