"geoff" wrote in message
...
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

Maxie! Is that what you are into? I though your flatulence problems had been
sorted by now. I know you broke wind loudly in public in Watford on
Saturdays afternoons. But Maxie!

"geoff" wrote in message
...
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

Maxie! What a man!!! No shame at all! No wonder people avoid you.

"geoff" wrote in message
...

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

Maxie! Do not porkie tell! My word!

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

Maxie! Some religion would do you some good. You need it.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
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

Maxie! I thought you had been cured of constant swearing. Have the police
stopped roping you in for swearing at people in the streets in Watford?

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
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

Maxie! Is that what you are into? I though your flatulence problems had
been sorted by now. I know you broke wind loudly in public in Watford
on Saturdays afternoons. But Maxie!


What's this - been hidibng the pills under your tongue again ?

Nursie won't be pleased with you



--
geoff

In message , John
Rumm writes
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 ?

Seems like it...

he does not seem to want to reply to the posts that would actually
engage him in meaningful dialogue either, which is a shame if he really
is a good as he thinks he is.


Didn't strike me as the sort who would be willing to impart useful
information to mere mortals. He was a "professional"

--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
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 ?

Seems like it...

he does not seem to want to reply to the posts that would actually
engage him in meaningful dialogue either, which is a shame if he
really is a good as he thinks he is.


Didn't strike me as the sort who would be willing to impart useful
information to mere mortals. He was a "professional"



Hello Geoff. No, still here, just had better
things to do.

I'm curious. What's this Maxie thing? Seems you
have a fan. Does your reputation go before you, then?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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'


Don't follow. Care to explain?

Andy Cap 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.

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


Hi Andy. Can I suggest you read your contribution
before you post it? You've defeated your own
argument.

"Roof" wrote in message
...
geoff wrote:
In message , John Rumm
writes
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 ?

Seems like it...

he does not seem to want to reply to the posts that would actually
engage him in meaningful dialogue either, which is a shame if he really
is a good as he thinks he is.


Didn't strike me as the sort who would be willing to impart useful
information to mere mortals. He was a "professional"



Hello Geoff. No, still here, just had better things to do.

I'm curious. What's this Maxie thing? Seems you have a fan. Does your
reputation go before you, then?


Steffie Graf had a fan.

Adm

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.


So between you and your architect, you screw the
job up and blame the structural engineer?

In message , Roof
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
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 ?

Seems like it...

he does not seem to want to reply to the posts that would actually
engage him in meaningful dialogue either, which is a shame if he
really is a good as he thinks he is.

Didn't strike me as the sort who would be willing to impart useful
information to mere mortals. He was a "professional"



Hello Geoff. No, still here, just had better things to do.

I'm curious. What's this Maxie thing? Seems you have a fan. Does
your reputation go before you, then?

No, its our resident troll

If you come down off that high horse and join in the spirit of the NG,
you'll soon find out


--
geoff

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.

One of the advantages of corresponding with a group such as this over
many years (rather than leaping in from the dark brandishing one's
willy[1]), is that you get to know the backgrounds of the regular
posters. You learn which are building inspectors, builders, and
engineers etc in real life, and what projects they have successfully
undertaken. You also get to see lots of advice on a wide range of topics
exchanged. Some of those topics you may know nothing about, while others
may be within your domain of expertise. You can hence learn which advice
is likely to be good, which is a handy pointer that needs following up
elsewhere, and which is likely to be doubtful.

If you genuinely have useful information to give (rather than "go find
an 'expert' and pay them), why not contribute some of it? We have a wiki
site full of articles; perhaps you would like to author some on the
structural aspects of loft conversions?

[1] Alas we see if from time to time, names pop up with much hot air and
bluster, then disappear a couple of days later to never be seen again.



John, I feel I'm bashing my head against the
proverbial brick wall here. A newsgroup IS NOT
the forum to discuss structural issues.
Presumably some of the contributers here may be
sufficiently well-versed to explain to a poster
how to wire up a 3-pin plug, but where structure
is concerned there are simply too many
variables/issues to take into account that would
preclude anyone from giving anything other than
generic advice - go appoint a professional.

In this thread, your pal Dave Plowman has cited
his own experience where he maintains the
structural engineer got it wrong. I'm struggling
to understand how that could happen with a very
simple structure such as a house. And there rests
my case. You can't adequately convey enough
information in a newsgroup thread, either as an
original poster or a contributer, without risk of
being misunderstood.

Roof wrote:

What's this Maxie thing? Seems you
have a fan. Does your reputation go before you, then?

Well let me see. Anyone wandering into this newsgroup has a few fairly
simple choices to make. They can decide to provide some relevant content
or they can sit there shouting that everyone else is wrong but
apparently unable to offer constructive advice themselves.

They can also read the posts and come to conclusions about who is
helpful and who is a nutter. Usually the clued-up manage this fairly
quickly, especially when it comes to realising that Drivel is a
headcase. You have, in a remakably short time, decided to align yourself
with the ****wit and to blather about your superior knowledge while
showing zero evidence to support the claim. Well done, that should
guarantee your (temporary) status as a clown. A few more posts in like
style and you'll simply become kill-file fodder.

geoff wrote:
In message , Roof
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
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 ?

Seems like it...

he does not seem to want to reply to the posts that would actually
engage him in meaningful dialogue either, which is a shame if he
really is a good as he thinks he is.

Didn't strike me as the sort who would be willing to impart useful
information to mere mortals. He was a "professional"



Hello Geoff. No, still here, just had better things to do.

I'm curious. What's this Maxie thing? Seems you have a fan. Does
your reputation go before you, then?

No, its our resident troll

If you come down off that high horse and join in the spirit of the NG,
you'll soon find out



And, perhaps, if you were to engage brain before
opening one very large mouth, then maybe this
newsgroup would get more contributers that knew
what they were talking about?

Steve Firth wrote:
Roof wrote:


...A few more posts in like
style and you'll simply become kill-file fodder.

And why do you think that matters to me?

Hopefully, the OP has gone outside this newsgroup
to secure the proper advice that he needs.

On 22/11/09 19:15, Roof wrote:

maybe this newsgroup would get more contributers that knew
what they were talking about?

Contributors who know their stuff are welcome, but far more welcome if
they actually contribute their stuff to the group.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Roof wrote:

What's this Maxie thing? Seems you
have a fan. Does your reputation go before you, then?

Well let me see. Anyone wandering into this newsgroup has a few fairly
simple choices to make. They can decide to provide some relevant content
or they can sit there shouting that everyone else is wrong but
apparently unable to offer constructive advice themselves.

They can also read the posts and come to conclusions about who is
helpful and who is a nutter. Usually the clued-up manage this fairly
quickly, especially when it comes to realising that Drivel is a
headcase. You have, in a remakably short time, decided to align yourself
with the ****wit and to blather about your superior knowledge while
showing zero evidence to support the claim. Well done, that should
guarantee your (temporary) status as a clown. A few more posts in like
style and you'll simply become kill-file fodder.


Nice one Steve

"Pot calling the kettle black" mean anything to you?

Adam

Andy Burns wrote:
On 22/11/09 19:15, Roof wrote:

maybe this newsgroup would get more contributers that knew
what they were talking about?

Contributors who know their stuff are welcome, but far more welcome if
they actually contribute their stuff to the group.


Andy, I'm struggling to understand your point
here. My first post to this thread was to advise
the OP to get paid-for professional advice, which
was the right way to go.

What am I missing?

Roof wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Roof wrote:


...A few more posts in like style and you'll simply become kill-file
fodder.

And why do you think that matters to me?

Because presumably since you're taking the time to type out your
****witted opinion you actually want some people to read it. Unless of
course you're as big an onanist as you are making yourself out to be.

Hopefully, the OP has gone outside this newsgroup
to secure the proper advice that he needs.

Hopefully you'll get your head out of your srse before you suffocate.
Well actually hopefully not, you do seem to like it up there.

Roof
wibbled on Sunday 22 November 2009 19:05

John, I feel I'm bashing my head against the
proverbial brick wall here. A newsgroup IS NOT
the forum to discuss structural issues.

Let me see... This newsgroup has been here for over 15 years.
You've been here (apparently) for 3 days. We'll discuss what we like and if
you don't like it, you've already had some suggestions what you can do.

Presumably some of the contributers here may be
sufficiently well-versed to explain to a poster
how to wire up a 3-pin plug, but where structure
is concerned there are simply too many
variables/issues to take into account that would
preclude anyone from giving anything other than
generic advice - go appoint a professional.

Many things here have untold numbers of variables.

In this thread, your pal Dave Plowman has cited
his own experience where he maintains the
structural engineer got it wrong. I'm struggling
to understand how that could happen with a very
simple structure such as a house.

I'm struggling to understand how an established builder can think pouring
SLC onto asphaltic floor adhesive is a good idea. Or how the same person
can think balancing a lintel on a single column of celcon blocks (1/2
length) with two weedy screws as wall ties is good workmanship.

The answer is simple. Some professionals are lazy/bodgers/clueless/******s
or combinations thereof. I'm sure your claimed profession is far from
immune from having its share of lazy/bodgers/clueless/******s.

And there rests
my case. You can't adequately convey enough
information in a newsgroup thread, either as an
original poster or a contributer, without risk of
being misunderstood.

So?

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

Jules wrote:
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

Hi Jules. So by your own admission you accept
that this reply of yours is neither sensible nor
logical?

Roof
wibbled on Sunday 22 November 2009 19:15


And, perhaps, if you were to engage brain before
opening one very large mouth, then maybe this
newsgroup would get more contributers that knew
what they were talking about?

You mean like you? Yes, we really need extra blatherers who contribute
nothing whilst proclaiming that they know everything.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

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.

Having read the advice, it's difficult to WTF you are on about. The
majority of the advice has indicated the potential problem areas and has
included several recommendations to get professional advice.

I'm calling "troll" on this, especially since you share the inability to
spell or format a post to usenet with several common (very common)
trolls.

Roof wrote:

maybe this newsgroup would get more contributers that knew what they were
talking about?

If you want to be considered as a "contributer" (sic) then you're going
to have to contribute something. Something more than self-aggrandising
puff that is.

ARWadsworth wrote:

"Pot calling the kettle black" mean anything to you?

Since on the one occasion you asked me for my advice, I gave it
unstintingly and to the best of my ability, perhaps you could explain
what your complaint is? Other than your bizarre concept of being mates
with the Medway pratt, that is.

Or you could do what you have done on previous occassions which is to go
off the deep end and act like an over-testosteroned tosser. Your call.

Tim W wrote:
Roof
wibbled on Sunday 22 November 2009 19:05

John, I feel I'm bashing my head against the
proverbial brick wall here. A newsgroup IS NOT
the forum to discuss structural issues.

Let me see... This newsgroup has been here for over 15 years.
You've been here (apparently) for 3 days. We'll discuss what we like and if
you don't like it, you've already had some suggestions what you can do.

Presumably some of the contributers here may be
sufficiently well-versed to explain to a poster
how to wire up a 3-pin plug, but where structure
is concerned there are simply too many
variables/issues to take into account that would
preclude anyone from giving anything other than
generic advice - go appoint a professional.

Many things here have untold numbers of variables.

In this thread, your pal Dave Plowman has cited
his own experience where he maintains the
structural engineer got it wrong. I'm struggling
to understand how that could happen with a very
simple structure such as a house.

I'm struggling to understand how an established builder can think pouring
SLC onto asphaltic floor adhesive is a good idea. Or how the same person
can think balancing a lintel on a single column of celcon blocks (1/2
length) with two weedy screws as wall ties is good workmanship.

The answer is simple. Some professionals are lazy/bodgers/clueless/******s
or combinations thereof. I'm sure your claimed profession is far from
immune from having its share of lazy/bodgers/clueless/******s.

And there rests
my case. You can't adequately convey enough
information in a newsgroup thread, either as an
original poster or a contributer, without risk of
being misunderstood.

So?


What is the span of the lintel and the loading?
What is the size of the block pier and the
compressive strength of the block / mortar? Did
the pier have to be block bonded into the
adjoining masonry?

Is this a residential or commercial/industrial
application?

Who supervised the work? Did the builder have
drawings to work to?

Who did the structural calculations? Did the job
get Building Regulations approval?

Do you understand the difference between trade
membership and professional qualifications?

Steve Firth wrote:
Roof wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Roof wrote:

...A few more posts in like style and you'll simply become kill-file
fodder.
And why do you think that matters to me?

Because presumably since you're taking the time to type out your
****witted opinion you actually want some people to read it. Unless of
course you're as big an onanist as you are making yourself out to be.

No, not 'people', just the OP. If you chose to
read it then that's your prerogative. I won't
lose any sleep over it if you didn't, just as I
won't if you 'kill-file' me. And clearly, you
haven't done that yet.

I must confess I've never come across 'onanist'
before, but would nevertheless point out that it
is you that is making it out I am one, and not me.

In message , Roof
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Roof
writes
geoff wrote:
In message X5mdnbf47JYMAJXWnZ2dnUVZ7qFi4p2d@bright
view.co.uk, John Rumm
writes
geoff wrote:
In message
s.gmail.com, Jules
ail.com 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 ?

Seems like it...

he does not seem to want to reply to the posts that would
actually engage him in meaningful dialogue either, which is a
shame if he really is a good as he thinks he is.

Didn't strike me as the sort who would be willing to impart
useful information to mere mortals. He was a "professional"



Hello Geoff. No, still here, just had better things to do.

I'm curious. What's this Maxie thing? Seems you have a fan.
Does your reputation go before you, then?
No, its our resident troll
If you come down off that high horse and join in the spirit of the
NG, you'll soon find out


And, perhaps, if you were to engage brain before opening one very
large mouth, then maybe this newsgroup would get more
contributers that knew what they were talking about?

There you go again

Try not being an arsehole for once

I AM a contributor who knows what he's talking about

and I've been doing so for years


--
geoff

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:15:01 +0000, Roof
wrote:

And, perhaps, if you were to engage brain before
opening one very large mouth, then maybe this
newsgroup would get more contributers that knew
what they were talking about?


I think you miss the whole point of uk.d-i-y, which is to discuss
doing things yourself around the home rather than paying specialists
to do them for you.

When that involves simple tasks that are easily within the reach of a
person who is reasonably intelligent and blessed with a reasonable
amount of common sense, that's fine. When it goes beyond that, and
into the realms of needing professional advice, that's where problems
begin.

You, as a construction professional, have a choice to make. You can
either offer constructive advice or stay away altogether.

But you have chosen a Third Way, which consists of a combination of
(1) studiously avoiding offering any constructive advice and
(2) abusing anyone who doesn't immediately beat a path to your door
and pay you in exchange for your opinion.

That this approach endears you to no-one on here should not surprise
you, yet you seem irrationally upset by the hostility - all of which
you have thoroughly earned.

Do you think your negative attitude will increase your future fee
earnings, or reduce them? My bet is very firmly on the latter. ;-)

Shhhhhhh ...... X Factor's on TV now and if them horrible twins go then
there's only one more oink left to go to make my day (hint)

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
ARWadsworth wrote:

"Pot calling the kettle black" mean anything to you?

Since on the one occasion you asked me for my advice, I gave it
unstintingly and to the best of my ability, perhaps you could explain
what your complaint is? Other than your bizarre concept of being mates
with the Medway pratt, that is.

Or you could do what you have done on previous occassions which is to go
off the deep end and act like an over-testosteroned tosser. Your call.

Is there a newsgroup that does not call you a ****, ****, ****** or Mr Small
Penis?.

You are a sales rep with a slaphead and a bad combover that sells overpriced
olive oil from a **** car.

Adam

Roof
wibbled on Sunday 22 November 2009 19:56

Do you understand the difference between trade
membership and professional qualifications?

I understand the difference between a useful human being and a troll.

Been fun, but have real work to do now. Bye...

plonk

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:15:01 +0000, Roof
wrote:
And, perhaps, if you were to engage brain before
opening one very large mouth, then maybe this
newsgroup would get more contributers that knew
what they were talking about?


I think you miss the whole point of uk.d-i-y, which is to discuss
doing things yourself around the home rather than paying specialists
to do them for you.

When that involves simple tasks that are easily within the reach of a
person who is reasonably intelligent and blessed with a reasonable
amount of common sense, that's fine. When it goes beyond that, and
into the realms of needing professional advice, that's where problems
begin.

You, as a construction professional, have a choice to make. You can
either offer constructive advice or stay away altogether.

But you have chosen a Third Way, which consists of a combination of
(1) studiously avoiding offering any constructive advice and
(2) abusing anyone who doesn't immediately beat a path to your door
and pay you in exchange for your opinion.

That this approach endears you to no-one on here should not surprise
you, yet you seem irrationally upset by the hostility - all of which
you have thoroughly earned.

Do you think your negative attitude will increase your future fee
earnings, or reduce them? My bet is very firmly on the latter. ;-)


Bruce, before I reply to you post, tell me what
you do for a living?

On Nov 22, 7:47*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
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.

Having read the advice, it's difficult to WTF you are on about.

Me too. You can do loft-storage, loft-storage with lipstick, or
habitable bedroom by BR PP. That is it. What is he on about.

You Need A Professional... flamin hell, when you hear THAT phrase you
KNOW it's a "whoever" with a gap in their schedule! Professional Troll
(with lipstick).

Still, could be worse, a chartered environmentalist... now that
FRIGHTENS ME.

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:35:55 +0000, Roof wrote:


Hi Andy. Can I suggest you read your contribution
before you post it? You've defeated your own
argument.

My point was, that having a chat down the pub can reveal useful information but
one anonymous voice couldn't be relied on. It's you who's asserting that anyone
would be stupid enough to take such an opinion at face value. I like to credit
people with a bit more common sense than that, but with a vested interest I
guess it's understandable that you favour a more protectionist stance.

Bruce, before I reply to you post, tell me what you do for a living?

Will this thread end with "My dad's bigger than your dad" ?

"geoff" wrote in message
...



I AM a contributor who knows what he's talking about

Now I have to clean my screen.

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:12:36 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:15:01 +0000, Roof
wrote:

And, perhaps, if you were to engage brain before
opening one very large mouth, then maybe this
newsgroup would get more contributers that knew
what they were talking about?


I think you miss the whole point of uk.d-i-y, which is to discuss
doing things yourself around the home rather than paying specialists
to do them for you.

When that involves simple tasks that are easily within the reach of a
person who is reasonably intelligent and blessed with a reasonable
amount of common sense, that's fine. When it goes beyond that, and
into the realms of needing professional advice, that's where problems
begin.

You, as a construction professional,

Who _says_ he is? We have no idea of his name and/or qualifications,
or even where he's located.

:-)

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:12:36 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:15:01 +0000, Roof
wrote:
And, perhaps, if you were to engage brain before
opening one very large mouth, then maybe this
newsgroup would get more contributers that knew
what they were talking about?

I think you miss the whole point of uk.d-i-y, which is to discuss
doing things yourself around the home rather than paying specialists
to do them for you.

When that involves simple tasks that are easily within the reach of a
person who is reasonably intelligent and blessed with a reasonable
amount of common sense, that's fine. When it goes beyond that, and
into the realms of needing professional advice, that's where problems
begin.

You, as a construction professional,

Who _says_ he is? We have no idea of his name and/or qualifications,
or even where he's located.

That's a function of newsgroup, Frank. You should
know that.