I was watching This Old House recently and noted all the high tech
materials being used today in home building, tapes, adhesives, foams,
plastics, tec.. In the same show, they had a segment where they were
repairing a stone foundation of an 100 year old house, replacing the
cement and mortar.

I have a question for the group...in your opinion how will the high
tech materials age in comparsion with the 100 year old mortar?

I do know that adhesives, plastics and forms degrade over
time...ceasing to do what they were intended to do.

Is their usage in home building and to a lesser extent woodworking in
the shop going to come back to haunt us?

TMT

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 20:13:07 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

I was watching This Old House recently and noted all the high tech
materials being used today in home building, tapes, adhesives, foams,
plastics, tec.. In the same show, they had a segment where they were
repairing a stone foundation of an 100 year old house, replacing the
cement and mortar.

I have a question for the group...in your opinion how will the high
tech materials age in comparsion with the 100 year old mortar?

I do know that adhesives, plastics and forms degrade over
time...ceasing to do what they were intended to do.

Is their usage in home building and to a lesser extent woodworking in
the shop going to come back to haunt us?

TMT

Perhaps neither is very good. The place I stayed at a couple of times
in Italy was originally built in the 1100's and rebuilt in the 1500's.
The stonework is still in great shape. Interior has been upgraded, of
course.

IMO, some may haunt us. Vinyl siding is good for 30 to 50 years so it
is a given that replacement will be needed and you can plan ahead. I
don't think that is as much of a concern as the hidden items that we
don't see and can be very costly to replace. Plumbing, adhesives in
laminated beams and the like can be costly to repair or replace.

On 11/12/2011 10:13 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
I was watching This Old House recently and noted all the high tech
materials being used today in home building, tapes, adhesives, foams,
plastics, tec.. In the same show, they had a segment where they were
repairing a stone foundation of an 100 year old house, replacing the
cement and mortar.

I have a question for the group...in your opinion how will the high
tech materials age in comparsion with the 100 year old mortar?

I do know that adhesives, plastics and forms degrade over
time...ceasing to do what they were intended to do.

Is their usage in home building and to a lesser extent woodworking in
the shop going to come back to haunt us?

TMT

I believe the method of construction used in a particular location has
more to do with longevity than the materials used. What is good for one
location would never fly in another location.
The house that you are referring to obviously had a relative stable
terrain. Build that same house using the same materials and methods as
that 100 year old house in Houston or along a beach and it would
probably not last 10 years before needing serious maintenance.

On 11/12/2011 11:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
....
Perhaps neither is very good. The place I stayed at a couple of times
in Italy was originally built in the 1100's and rebuilt in the 1500's.
The stonework is still in great shape. Interior has been upgraded, of
course.

....

don't think that is as much of a concern as the hidden items that we
don't see and can be very costly to replace. Plumbing, adhesives in
laminated beams and the like can be costly to repair or replace.

How much of the original plumbing is left in that villa, Ed?

--

On 11/12/2011 10:13 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
I was watching This Old House recently and noted all the high tech
materials being used today in home building, tapes, adhesives, foams,
plastics, tec.. In the same show, they had a segment where they were
repairing a stone foundation of an 100 year old house, replacing the
cement and mortar.

I have a question for the group...in your opinion how will the high
tech materials age in comparsion with the 100 year old mortar?

I do know that adhesives, plastics and forms degrade over
time...ceasing to do what they were intended to do.

Is their usage in home building and to a lesser extent woodworking in
the shop going to come back to haunt us?

Just as lead plumbing and other previous practices have, undoubtedly.

The problem is that if don't use modern materials and methods, the cost
to achieve a presently acceptable standard of energy efficiency and
functionality would be completely prohibitive.

There will be some products/techniques that will prove their mettle and
others that will turn out to have been mistakes just like there have
been from the time the first cave had a rock rolled in front for a door.

--

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 09:52:53 -0600, dpb wrote:




The problem is that if don't use modern materials and methods, the cost
to achieve a presently acceptable standard of energy efficiency and
functionality would be completely prohibitive.

There will be some products/techniques that will prove their mettle and
others that will turn out to have been mistakes just like there have
been from the time the first cave had a rock rolled in front for a door.

We won't really know for another 50 or 100 years on some items. We
often build what may be disposable housing compared to what was done
centuries ago. I'd have to think it would be better to build a house
with 75 year life and affordable rather than 500 year life but
impossible for most of us to ever own.

The place I stayed at in Italy has only had a half dozen owners over
the centuries. It is left down to the family over the generations,
thus affordable to live in. Looking at those buildings and available
materials, tools, transportation, I wonder how it was done and who had
that much money.

In the past decade or so, many small non-descript houses have been
torn down to build McMansions. Some were probably serviceable and
affordable for another 50+ years. They just were not up to yuppie
standards.

You first have to put things in perspective:

Barely two hundred years ago, in Europe in 1800, one hour of reading
light by tallow candle took approximately six hours of the average
worker's wages. At the end of the 20th century, the average wage earner
works approximately one half second for an hour of reading light.

Those much vaunted 300 year old houses in some parts of the world are
horrid, abominable places to live by modern standards, and were
affordable to only a miniscule percentage of the population. I
personally lived in a well kept, 175 year old house in the UK and would
never want to repeat that damp, drafty, and yes, unhealthy, experience.
No amount of upgrading/remodeling, short of total demolition, could make
most of these structures affordable for even a small percentage of
today's population.

Modern building materials and methods, while no means perfect, mean
affordable housing for the masses, even if they don't have the longevity
of what amounts to a man made cave with tacked on amenities.

Count your blessings ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 09:48:05 -0600, dpb wrote:

don't think that is as much of a concern as the hidden items that we
don't see and can be very costly to replace. Plumbing, adhesives in
laminated beams and the like can be costly to repair or replace.

How much of the original plumbing is left in that villa, Ed?

What plumbing? The garderobe would still work (if it's still there) but
crapping into the moat (probably not there) is frowned upon nowadays.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 11/13/2011 12:00 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 09:48:05 -0600, dpb wrote:

don't think that is as much of a concern as the hidden items that we
don't see and can be very costly to replace. Plumbing, adhesives in
laminated beams and the like can be costly to repair or replace.

How much of the original plumbing is left in that villa, Ed?

What plumbing?...

Precisely the point...

--

On Nov 13, 10:52*am, dpb wrote:
On 11/12/2011 10:13 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I was watching This Old House recently and noted all the high tech
materials being used today in home building, tapes, adhesives, foams,
plastics, tec.. In the same show, they had a segment where they were
repairing a stone foundation of an 100 year old house, replacing the
cement and mortar.

I have a question for the group...in your opinion how will the high
tech materials age in comparsion with the 100 year old mortar?

I do know that adhesives, plastics and forms degrade over
time...ceasing to do what they were intended to do.

Is their usage in home building and to a lesser extent woodworking in
the shop going to come back to haunt us?

Just as lead plumbing and other previous practices have, undoubtedly.

The problem is that if don't use modern materials and methods, the cost
to achieve a presently acceptable standard of energy efficiency and
functionality would be completely prohibitive.

There will be some products/techniques that will prove their mettle and
others that will turn out to have been mistakes just like there have
been from the time the first cave had a rock rolled in front for a door.

--

Some things make me chuckle as to how innovative we can be, like when
converting from gaslight to electric light we just ran wires through
the gas lines. In fact, all those thread and fitting sizes used in
electric lamps are a spillover from the gas era. I also remember
taking a short-cut through the boiler room in my high school in
Holland. Lead pipes, asbestos, coal dust and all that **** would shake
loose when they fired up that bad boy when winter came. A little water-
hammer never bother anybody either. That old Ichtus school building is
gone now but I remember every smell and the bullet holes courtesy from
the British as they were strafing the railway, some 300m away from the
school during WW2. I would pay a lot for one those 150+ year old
(maybe even 200?) students desks with inkwell and a slot for a slab of
slate. All of us students had to rub the desk down with linseed oil
the day before we started De Grote Vakantie for the entire summer. But
I digress..... One observation I recall was that there wasn't an
initial or a deep scratch carved in any of those desks.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote:

I was watching This Old House recently and noted all the high tech
materials being used today in home building, tapes, adhesives,
foams,
plastics, tec.. In the same show, they had a segment where they were
repairing a stone foundation of an 100 year old house, replacing the
cement and mortar.

I have a question for the group...in your opinion how will the high
tech materials age in comparsion with the 100 year old mortar?

I do know that adhesives, plastics and forms degrade over
time...ceasing to do what they were intended to do.

Is their usage in home building and to a lesser extent woodworking
in
the shop going to come back to haunt us?
-----------------------------
For everything there is a season,

Turn, turn, turn.

Lew

On Nov 12, 11:13*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
I was watching This Old House recently and noted all the high tech
materials being used today in home building, tapes, adhesives, foams,
plastics, tec.. In the same show, they had a segment where they were
repairing a stone foundation of an 100 year old house, replacing the
cement and mortar.

I have a question for the group...in your opinion how will the high
tech materials age in comparsion with the 100 year old mortar?

The Pantheon is 1885 years old, yet still in excellent
condition. Roman concrete was quality stuff.

I do know that adhesives, plastics and forms degrade over
time...ceasing to do what they were intended to do.

Shame hide glue isn't weatherproof. Fantastically
stable stuff, won't degrade over hundreds of years.

Is their usage in home building and to a lesser extent woodworking in
the shop going to come back to haunt us?

TMT

OSB will rot faster than the glues and hardware used to
cobble it together.

On 11/13/11 4:57 PM, Father Haskell wrote:

OSB will rot faster than the glues and hardware used to
cobble it together.

How is OSB going to rot?
And don't say, when it gets wet. It's neither designed nor intended
to get wet. Any wood will rot when wet.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

In article , says...

On 11/13/11 4:57 PM, Father Haskell wrote:

OSB will rot faster than the glues and hardware used to
cobble it together.

How is OSB going to rot?
And don't say, when it gets wet. It's neither designed nor intended
to get wet. Any wood will rot when wet.

OK, build a dock on pilinge made of ipe and another on pilings made of
pine and see which lasts longer.

Build a boat out of plywood and another out of OSB and see which lasts
longer.

On 11/13/11 8:26 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says...

On 11/13/11 4:57 PM, Father Haskell wrote:

OSB will rot faster than the glues and hardware used to
cobble it together.

How is OSB going to rot?
And don't say, when it gets wet. It's neither designed nor intended
to get wet. Any wood will rot when wet.

OK, build a dock on pilinge made of ipe and another on pilings made of
pine and see which lasts longer.

Build a boat out of plywood and another out of OSB and see which lasts
longer.

Are you blind? Did I not say OSB is not designed nor intended to get wet?

And I thought we were talking about houses, here. How many builders do
you know who are using Ipe for studs, joists, subflooring, sheathing, etc?

Please stay in context.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

In article ocal,
says...

In article , says...

On 11/13/11 4:57 PM, Father Haskell wrote:

OSB will rot faster than the glues and hardware used to
cobble it together.

How is OSB going to rot?
And don't say, when it gets wet. It's neither designed nor intended
to get wet. Any wood will rot when wet.

OK, build a dock on pilinge made of ipe and another on pilings made of
pine and see which lasts longer.

That should have been OSB, not "pine".

Build a boat out of plywood and another out of OSB and see which lasts
longer.

In article , says...

On 11/13/11 8:26 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says...

On 11/13/11 4:57 PM, Father Haskell wrote:

OSB will rot faster than the glues and hardware used to
cobble it together.

How is OSB going to rot?
And don't say, when it gets wet. It's neither designed nor intended
to get wet. Any wood will rot when wet.

OK, build a dock on pilinge made of ipe and another on pilings made of
pine and see which lasts longer.

Build a boat out of plywood and another out of OSB and see which lasts
longer.

Are you blind? Did I not say OSB is not designed nor intended to get wet?

And I thought we were talking about houses, here. How many builders do
you know who are using Ipe for studs, joists, subflooring, sheathing, etc?

Please stay in context.

Your argument was that "any wood will rot when it gets wet".

I recently had a basement flood. Everything made out of OSB, MDF, etc,
is now oatmeal. The cherry and whatnot all need to be dried and likely
refinished. The ipe doesn't look any different from how it always
looked.

There's a wide range of responses to moisture.

On 11/13/11 10:17 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says...

On 11/13/11 8:26 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says...

On 11/13/11 4:57 PM, Father Haskell wrote:

OSB will rot faster than the glues and hardware used to
cobble it together.

How is OSB going to rot?
And don't say, when it gets wet. It's neither designed nor intended
to get wet. Any wood will rot when wet.

OK, build a dock on pilinge made of ipe and another on pilings made of
pine and see which lasts longer.

Build a boat out of plywood and another out of OSB and see which lasts
longer.

Are you blind? Did I not say OSB is not designed nor intended to get wet?

And I thought we were talking about houses, here. How many builders do
you know who are using Ipe for studs, joists, subflooring, sheathing, etc?

Please stay in context.

Your argument was that "any wood will rot when it gets wet".


My argument was in context. Read it again IN CONTEXT.


I recently had a basement flood. Everything made out of OSB, MDF, etc,
is now oatmeal. The cherry and whatnot all need to be dried and likely
refinished. The ipe doesn't look any different from how it always
looked.


See my previous statement. How many building materials are made from
cherry and hardwood. Take you out of context semantics bull****
somewhere else.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 11/13/11 10:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In omain.local,
says...

In , says...

On 11/13/11 4:57 PM, Father Haskell wrote:

OSB will rot faster than the glues and hardware used to
cobble it together.

How is OSB going to rot?
And don't say, when it gets wet. It's neither designed nor intended
to get wet. Any wood will rot when wet.

OK, build a dock on pilinge made of ipe and another on pilings made of
pine and see which lasts longer.

That should have been OSB, not "pine".

Build a boat out of plywood and another out of OSB and see which lasts
longer.


Which makes your statement even more absurd.
Google "context" and get back to me.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Nov 13, 6:35*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
On 11/13/11 4:57 PM, Father Haskell wrote:



OSB will rot faster than the glues and hardware used to
cobble it together.

How is OSB going to rot?

Failure to maintain.

And don't say, when it gets wet. *It's neither designed nor intended
to get wet. *Any wood will rot when wet.

If it stays wet.

In article , says...

On 11/13/11 10:17 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says...

On 11/13/11 8:26 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says...

On 11/13/11 4:57 PM, Father Haskell wrote:

OSB will rot faster than the glues and hardware used to
cobble it together.

How is OSB going to rot?
And don't say, when it gets wet. It's neither designed nor intended
to get wet. Any wood will rot when wet.

OK, build a dock on pilinge made of ipe and another on pilings made of
pine and see which lasts longer.

Build a boat out of plywood and another out of OSB and see which lasts
longer.

Are you blind? Did I not say OSB is not designed nor intended to get wet?

And I thought we were talking about houses, here. How many builders do
you know who are using Ipe for studs, joists, subflooring, sheathing, etc?

Please stay in context.

Your argument was that "any wood will rot when it gets wet".


My argument was in context. Read it again IN CONTEXT.


I recently had a basement flood. Everything made out of OSB, MDF, etc,
is now oatmeal. The cherry and whatnot all need to be dried and likely
refinished. The ipe doesn't look any different from how it always
looked.


See my previous statement. How many building materials are made from
cherry and hardwood. Take you out of context semantics bull****
somewhere else.

Bored now.

plonk

On 11/14/11 8:32 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says...

On 11/13/11 10:17 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says...

On 11/13/11 8:26 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says...

On 11/13/11 4:57 PM, Father Haskell wrote:

OSB will rot faster than the glues and hardware used to
cobble it together.

How is OSB going to rot?
And don't say, when it gets wet. It's neither designed nor intended
to get wet. Any wood will rot when wet.

OK, build a dock on pilinge made of ipe and another on pilings made of
pine and see which lasts longer.

Build a boat out of plywood and another out of OSB and see which lasts
longer.

Are you blind? Did I not say OSB is not designed nor intended to get wet?

And I thought we were talking about houses, here. How many builders do
you know who are using Ipe for studs, joists, subflooring, sheathing, etc?

Please stay in context.

Your argument was that "any wood will rot when it gets wet".


My argument was in context. Read it again IN CONTEXT.


I recently had a basement flood. Everything made out of OSB, MDF, etc,
is now oatmeal. The cherry and whatnot all need to be dried and likely
refinished. The ipe doesn't look any different from how it always
looked.


See my previous statement. How many building materials are made from
cherry and hardwood. Take you out of context semantics bull****
somewhere else.

Bored now.

plonk


You promise?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

IMO, some may haunt us. Vinyl siding is good for 30 to 50 years so it
is a given that replacement will be needed and you can plan ahead. I
don't think that is as much of a concern as the hidden items that we
don't see and can be very costly to replace. Plumbing, adhesives in
laminated beams and the like can be costly to repair or replace.

That's the stuff that worries me, the plastic plumbing that will require the
slab to be jackhammered to be replaced, the stuff held together with
adhesives that is failing a little tiny bit every day. If the house were a
hundred years old at the point where major systems need to be replaced then
everybody got their money's worth, but if it's only thirty years old--yikes.
A lot of commercial buildings these days seem to have a deliberate short
lifespan, nobody expects that strip mall to be around for very long so it
isn't built for the ages, perhaps it's the same way for housing now. The
corporate world seems to want us to throw away everything and buy new stuff
as often as possible, maybe disposable housing is the way of the future.

On 11/14/2011 12:52 PM, DGDevin wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

IMO, some may haunt us. Vinyl siding is good for 30 to 50 years so it
is a given that replacement will be needed and you can plan ahead. I
don't think that is as much of a concern as the hidden items that we
don't see and can be very costly to replace. Plumbing, adhesives in
laminated beams and the like can be costly to repair or replace.

That's the stuff that worries me, the plastic plumbing that will require
the slab to be jackhammered to be replaced,
the stuff held together with
adhesives that is failing a little tiny bit every day. If the house were
a hundred years old at the point where major systems need to be replaced
then everybody got their money's worth, but if it's only thirty years
old--yikes. A lot of commercial buildings these days seem to have a
deliberate short lifespan, nobody expects that strip mall to be around
for very long so it isn't built for the ages, perhaps it's the same way
for housing now. The corporate world seems to want us to throw away
everything and buy new stuff as often as possible, maybe disposable
housing is the way of the future.

In the case of housing, it is not the corporate world, it is the
consumers themselves who insist on tearing down perfectly good housing
to erect larger and more grandiose.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"-MIKE-" wrote in message ...

On 11/13/11 10:17 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says...

On 11/13/11 8:26 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says...

On 11/13/11 4:57 PM, Father Haskell wrote:

OSB will rot faster than the glues and hardware used to
cobble it together.

How is OSB going to rot?
And don't say, when it gets wet. It's neither designed nor intended
to get wet. Any wood will rot when wet.

OK, build a dock on pilinge made of ipe and another on pilings made of
pine and see which lasts longer.

Build a boat out of plywood and another out of OSB and see which lasts
longer.

Are you blind? Did I not say OSB is not designed nor intended to get
wet?

And I thought we were talking about houses, here. How many builders do
you know who are using Ipe for studs, joists, subflooring, sheathing,
etc?

Please stay in context.

Your argument was that "any wood will rot when it gets wet".


My argument was in context. Read it again IN CONTEXT.


I recently had a basement flood. Everything made out of OSB, MDF, etc,
is now oatmeal. The cherry and whatnot all need to be dried and likely
refinished. The ipe doesn't look any different from how it always
looked.


See my previous statement. How many building materials are made from
cherry and hardwood. Take you out of context semantics bull****
somewhere else.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is Jerk Clark you are talking to. His biggest goal in life is to argue.
Do what most of us have done. Killfile him.

DGDevin wrote:


That's the stuff that worries me, the plastic plumbing that will
require the slab to be jackhammered to be replaced, the stuff held
together with adhesives that is failing a little tiny bit every day. If
the house were a hundred years old at the point where major
systems need to be replaced then everybody got their money's worth,
but if it's only thirty years old--yikes. A lot of commercial
buildings these days seem to have a deliberate short lifespan, nobody
expects that strip mall to be around for very long so it isn't built
for the ages, perhaps it's the same way for housing now. The
corporate world seems to want us to throw away everything and buy new
stuff as often as possible, maybe disposable housing is the way of
the future.

Well - let's keep this in perspective. CPVC and PVC have been in place and
tested for far more than the 30 years you mention above. So - they have
proven themselves in that respect. As for the 100 year old plumbling - most
of it is not 100 years old. It's been cobbled and re-fitted and modified
many times over, in those 100 years. How do you really gauge that 100 year
reliability? You would really be hard pressed to find a lot of places that
have simply stood up for 100 years without some intervention in that time.
I know - J. Clarke will certainly rise to this and offer up a one-off
example, or a peripherally related example, but to be fair - how many 100
plus year old structures are exactly as they were built 100 years ago?

Then again, there are the other issues with technologies from 100 years
ago - do you really want lead pipes? They seemed great at one time, but do
you really want those? How about the ****ty wiring - wrapped in cloth or
even worse - post wiring from back then? Do you really want those "time
honored" things in your house?

It's so easy to romanticize these things without thinking about them...

--

-Mike-

On 11/14/11 2:47 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
It's so easy to romanticize these things without thinking about them...

-- -Mike-

Nutshell.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Nov 14, 12:51*pm, -MIKE- wrote:

You promise?

--

* -MIKE-

* "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
* * *--Elvin Jones *(1927-2004)
* --
*http://mikedrums.com
*
* ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

It is remarkable that whenever the PLONK character rears its ugly
little head(arse), John Clarke is always in the mix. Which makes me
wonder if all of us are ****waffles or if Clarke has an exclusive on
that franchise.

One thing that might work, is a group intervention where we all hug
him and try to make him feel that he's really cool and we all love
him. Maybe we can make him smile? Then we'll tickle him till his
handlebar moustache falls off.

Why is he so serious and bitter?

"Robatoy" wrote:

It is remarkable that whenever the PLONK character rears its ugly
little head(arse), John Clarke is always in the mix. Which makes me
wonder if all of us are ****waffles or if Clarke has an exclusive on
that franchise.

snip

Why is he so serious and bitter?
----------------------------
You have to ask?

Think analitis.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
b.com...

"Robatoy" wrote:

It is remarkable that whenever the PLONK character rears its ugly
little head(arse), John Clarke is always in the mix. Which makes me
wonder if all of us are ****waffles or if Clarke has an exclusive on
that franchise.

snip

Why is he so serious and bitter?
----------------------------
You have to ask?

Think analitis.

Or Anal Myopia.

On 11/14/11 5:26 PM, Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
b.com...

"Robatoy" wrote:

It is remarkable that whenever the PLONK character rears its ugly
little head(arse), John Clarke is always in the mix. Which makes me
wonder if all of us are ****waffles or if Clarke has an exclusive on
that franchise.

snip

Why is he so serious and bitter?
----------------------------
You have to ask?

Think analitis.

Or Anal Myopia.


Just a simple case of cranial rectal inversion. HTH

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

In article ,
says...

"-MIKE-" wrote in message ...

On 11/13/11 10:17 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says...

On 11/13/11 8:26 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says...

On 11/13/11 4:57 PM, Father Haskell wrote:

OSB will rot faster than the glues and hardware used to
cobble it together.

How is OSB going to rot?
And don't say, when it gets wet. It's neither designed nor intended
to get wet. Any wood will rot when wet.

OK, build a dock on pilinge made of ipe and another on pilings made of
pine and see which lasts longer.

Build a boat out of plywood and another out of OSB and see which lasts
longer.

Are you blind? Did I not say OSB is not designed nor intended to get
wet?

And I thought we were talking about houses, here. How many builders do
you know who are using Ipe for studs, joists, subflooring, sheathing,
etc?

Please stay in context.

Your argument was that "any wood will rot when it gets wet".


My argument was in context. Read it again IN CONTEXT.


I recently had a basement flood. Everything made out of OSB, MDF, etc,
is now oatmeal. The cherry and whatnot all need to be dried and likely
refinished. The ipe doesn't look any different from how it always
looked.


See my previous statement. How many building materials are made from
cherry and hardwood. Take you out of context semantics bull****
somewhere else.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is Jerk Clark you are talking to. His biggest goal in life is to argue.
Do what most of us have done. Killfile him.

Just fascinating.

On Nov 14, 8:59*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:


Just fascinating.

Only to you.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

Then again, there are the other issues with technologies from 100 years
ago - do you really want lead pipes? They seemed great at one time, but
do you really want those? How about the ****ty wiring - wrapped in cloth
or even worse - post wiring from back then? Do you really want those
"time honored" things in your house?

It's so easy to romanticize these things without thinking about them...

I live in a house with 70-year-old plumbing that is still working fine, so I
guess I can't answer your question for another thirty years. The obvious
things have been replaced a time or two, like the roof. And we had the
place re-wired some years back since modern living involves a lot more
electronics than did the early 1940s. But we're able to upgrade things
because the basic structure is sound, the oak flooring is as solid and
attractive today as it ever was (after being refinished). When I compare
this house to a condo I once lived in the difference in quality is
striking--I'm not going to accidentally put a hole in any of these walls
moving a piece of furniture, the doors are not paper-thin veneer over a
hollow core and so on. My point is not that all modern materials and
techniques are bad, but that in some cases where they have been adopted
because they're cheaper (often by eliminating labor) I have concerns about
the longevity. I've yet so see a plastic that won't eventually be broken
down by UV, so I have to wonder how long these plastic window frames we now
have will actually last. The old ones survived over sixty years with just
the occasional coat of paint.

DGDevin wrote:


I live in a house with 70-year-old plumbing that is still working
fine, so I guess I can't answer your question for another thirty
years.

If you're talking about drains - I agree. If you're talking about water
lines, we might have a discussion platform...


The obvious things have been replaced a time or two, like the
roof. And we had the place re-wired some years back since modern
living involves a lot more electronics than did the early 1940s.

To my point about the romatics who like to see everything that is old as
somehow "better"...

But
we're able to upgrade things because the basic structure is sound,
the oak flooring is as solid and attractive today as it ever was
(after being refinished).

That being different from today's oak flooring in what way?

When I compare this house to a condo I
once lived in the difference in quality is striking--I'm not going to
accidentally put a hole in any of these walls moving a piece of
furniture,

Must be that your condo did not have sheetrock walls? Or it did, and you
did not like the fact that sheetrock is not as strong as plaster, though it
has many other advantages over plaster? Just what was it about this condo
that made it have walls that were so easy to punch through?


the doors are not paper-thin veneer over a hollow core and
so on.

So - don't be cheap and go ahead and put better doors on. Good doors are
still available today.

My point is not that all modern materials and techniques are
bad, but that in some cases where they have been adopted because
they're cheaper (often by eliminating labor) I have concerns about
the longevity.

True points - but they have nothing at all to do with my previous post.

I've yet so see a plastic that won't eventually be
broken down by UV,

And...??? What does that have to do with this topic?

so I have to wonder how long these plastic window
frames we now have will actually last. The old ones survived over
sixty years with just the occasional coat of paint.

And leaked all kinds of cold air in the winter. Yup - they lasted, but they
didn't open and close properly, and they didn't stop any amount of heat
loss. Yup - they were certainly better...

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

I live in a house with 70-year-old plumbing that is still working
fine, so I guess I can't answer your question for another thirty
years.

If you're talking about drains - I agree. If you're talking about water
lines, we might have a discussion platform...

Actually the only plumbing problem we've had has been with one drain that
used Orangeburg pipe on a non-residential part of the property (the garage
drain).

To my point about the romatics who like to see everything that is old as
somehow "better"...

I for one didn't say *everything* was better.

But
we're able to upgrade things because the basic structure is sound,
the oak flooring is as solid and attractive today as it ever was
(after being refinished).

That being different from today's oak flooring in what way?

Which of today's oak flooring? The stuff that can be refinished maybe once,
or not at all? I see quite a difference between solid oak that has been
refinished who knows how many times over the decades and the laminates now
so popular that are in effect disposable flooring.

Must be that your condo did not have sheetrock walls? Or it did, and you
did not like the fact that sheetrock is not as strong as plaster, though
it has many other advantages over plaster? Just what was it about this
condo that made it have walls that were so easy to punch through?

Everything in the place was cheesy--particle board and related materials,
cheap fixtures, things stapled or glued together--I only lived there for a
few years but there is no way I would have purchased the place because I had
no doubt it wasn't going to stand up over time. You can still get the kind
of quality found in our house if you buy something new, provided you're
willing to pay a considerable premium.

the doors are not paper-thin veneer over a hollow core and
so on.

So - don't be cheap and go ahead and put better doors on. Good doors are
still available today.

Of course they are, at a higher price. It's the difference between solid
wood being standard and being an expensive upgrade.

True points - but they have nothing at all to do with my previous post.

Consider the possibility that the discussion doesn't have to run on tracks
you laid down.

DGDevin wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...



That being different from today's oak flooring in what way?

Which of today's oak flooring? The stuff that can be refinished
maybe once, or not at all? I see quite a difference between solid
oak that has been refinished who knows how many times over the
decades and the laminates now so popular that are in effect
disposable flooring.

Ahhh - not fair - you threw in the nasty "L" word. I was not referring to
that junk.


Must be that your condo did not have sheetrock walls? Or it did,
and you did not like the fact that sheetrock is not as strong as
plaster, though it has many other advantages over plaster? Just
what was it about this condo that made it have walls that were so
easy to punch through?

Everything in the place was cheesy--particle board and related
materials, cheap fixtures, things stapled or glued together--I only
lived there for a few years but there is no way I would have
purchased the place because I had no doubt it wasn't going to stand
up over time. You can still get the kind of quality found in our
house if you buy something new, provided you're willing to pay a
considerable premium.

Ok - I understand what you are saying. Cheap is cheap. But - that's a
construction practice issue, not a building materials issue, as I had
thought you were saying.


the doors are not paper-thin veneer over a hollow core and
so on.

So - don't be cheap and go ahead and put better doors on. Good
doors are still available today.

Of course they are, at a higher price. It's the difference between
solid wood being standard and being an expensive upgrade.


Yup - but it's really true - ya gets what ya pays for in this world.


True points - but they have nothing at all to do with my previous
post.

Consider the possibility that the discussion doesn't have to run on
tracks you laid down.

Well - when it (at least...) appears that you were addressing something
another had previously said, then it's reasonable to expect consistency of
thought. Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of your response to my previous
comment.

--

-Mike-