drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
maybe lath and plaster

drywall probably gives better sound proofing but what other advantages
are there over paneling

drywall is heavy but easy to cut but it is fragile
once you get it on the wall you have to tape it

then the mud coats and the mess
then the multiple sandings and all the mess
then you have to primer and then a coat or two of paint

paneling you cut it nail it and finish it with a clear coat and you are
done


maybe drywall is cheaper but i am guessing that some engineered panel
products might get close in price


and really maybe metal lath and plaster is the cheapest fastest way to
go

now come to think of it how did drywall replace lath and plaster

On 10/30/2017 6:10 PM, Electric Comet wrote:


drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
maybe lath and plaster

drywall probably gives better sound proofing but what other advantages
are there over paneling

drywall is heavy but easy to cut but it is fragile
once you get it on the wall you have to tape it

then the mud coats and the mess
then the multiple sandings and all the mess
then you have to primer and then a coat or two of paint

paneling you cut it nail it and finish it with a clear coat and you are
done


maybe drywall is cheaper but i am guessing that some engineered panel
products might get close in price


and really maybe metal lath and plaster is the cheapest fastest way to
go

now come to think of it how did drywall replace lath and plaster




Depending upon where you want to use it, think fire and flame spread
ratings.

On 10/30/2017 6:10 PM, Electric Comet wrote:


drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
maybe lath and plaster

drywall probably gives better sound proofing but what other advantages
are there over paneling


Not sure what kind of paneling you are looking at. Is it 1960 again?

replying to Electric Comet, Iggy wrote:
Drywall nor lathe and plaster have no "advantage" over paneling. Paneling is
the advantage. Drywall and plaster are just seamless, and drywall's installed
wrong by most everyone (horizontal idiots listening to the likes of Moron
Frauderson) to kill any minimal hedge of fire protection.

Paneling never needs to be thrown out. You can remove it and put it back as
many times as you want to do wiring 1-year, piping the next year and
insulation in a decade. No waste ever, can't easily pop a hole through it, it
doesn't ding and dent, no crumbing from hanging a picture, can be painted or
stained and highly resistant to water...compared to any gypsum stuff.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodwo...ll-811751-.htm

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:10:38 -0700, Electric Comet
wrote:



drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
maybe lath and plaster

drywall probably gives better sound proofing but what other advantages
are there over paneling

drywall is heavy but easy to cut but it is fragile
once you get it on the wall you have to tape it

then the mud coats and the mess
then the multiple sandings and all the mess
then you have to primer and then a coat or two of paint

paneling you cut it nail it and finish it with a clear coat and you are
done


maybe drywall is cheaper but i am guessing that some engineered panel
products might get close in price


and really maybe metal lath and plaster is the cheapest fastest way to
go

now come to think of it how did drywall replace lath and plaster









Lath and plaster is BY FAR the most expensive, the most work, and the
most mess. Panelling is "so 70s" - definitely simple and cheap if you
buy cheap panelling, and is generally NOT fire rated, so cannot
legally be used in many places without putting drywall up first (no
sanding required) - and drywall is "generally" more damage resistant
than most "panelling"

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 5:10:41 PM UTC-5, Electric Comet wrote:
drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
maybe lath and plaster

maybe drywall is cheaper but i am guessing that some engineered panel
products might get close in price

and really maybe metal lath and plaster is the cheapest fastest way to
go

now come to think of it how did drywall replace lath and plaster

Drywall is fast. I think it became the norm during the 1950s and the post WW2 housing boom. A couple guys could drywall, finish the interior, of an entire house in a couple days and the house was done!!! Kind of like why carpet became the norm too. Easy and quick to install flooring in the whole house in a few hours!!! You're done! When you are building 100 houses a year or more, being able to do things quickly and still look good or at least OK, is important. And as important, the skill level is not that high. No offense to anyone here, but you do not need a high school degree to paint walls, hang drywall, trowel mud, or install carpet. All things that create the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much easier to screw a 4'x8' sheet of drywall to the wall. Or 4x12 or 4x16 sheet. I think drywall comes in 4.5 and 5 foot widths too. You can cover a hell of a lot of area in minutes with drywall. Boom. Done. Kind of like using a roller instead of a paint brush to paint a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:10:38 -0700, Electric Comet
wrote:



drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
maybe lath and plaster

drywall probably gives better sound proofing but what other advantages
are there over paneling

drywall is heavy but easy to cut but it is fragile
once you get it on the wall you have to tape it

then the mud coats and the mess
then the multiple sandings and all the mess
then you have to primer and then a coat or two of paint

paneling you cut it nail it and finish it with a clear coat and you are
done


maybe drywall is cheaper but i am guessing that some engineered panel
products might get close in price


and really maybe metal lath and plaster is the cheapest fastest way to
go

now come to think of it how did drywall replace lath and plaster

they're all a lot more work than the shift and punctuation keys.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
" wrote:

the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much

i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
with a staple hammer in very little time

i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
that is the hard part

but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly


easier to screw a 4'x8' sheet of drywall to the wall. Or 4x12 or
4x16 sheet. I think drywall comes in 4.5 and 5 foot widths too. You
can cover a hell of a lot of area in minutes with drywall. Boom.
Done. Kind of like using a roller instead of a paint brush to paint
a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.

it does not seem that efficient to me with all the steps involved just
to get to the paint stage

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:39:48 -0700, Electric Comet
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
" wrote:

the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much

i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
with a staple hammer in very little time

i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
that is the hard part

but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly


easier to screw a 4'x8' sheet of drywall to the wall. Or 4x12 or
4x16 sheet. I think drywall comes in 4.5 and 5 foot widths too. You
can cover a hell of a lot of area in minutes with drywall. Boom.
Done. Kind of like using a roller instead of a paint brush to paint
a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.

it does not seem that efficient to me with all the steps involved just
to get to the paint stage

Try it once and see if you still think it's so efficient.

On 10/30/2017 8:39 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
" wrote:

the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much

i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
with a staple hammer in very little time

i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
that is the hard part

but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly

And ignores the laws of gravity. . . right!

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:39:48 -0700, Electric Comet
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
" wrote:

the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much

i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
with a staple hammer in very little time

i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
that is the hard part

but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly


easier to screw a 4'x8' sheet of drywall to the wall. Or 4x12 or
4x16 sheet. I think drywall comes in 4.5 and 5 foot widths too. You
can cover a hell of a lot of area in minutes with drywall. Boom.
Done. Kind of like using a roller instead of a paint brush to paint
a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.

it does not seem that efficient to me with all the steps involved just
to get to the paint stage






You have obviously never platered.
You put on the lath, either wood, mesh, or GtpRoc, then you apply the
"scratch coat " and let it dry, then you apply the finish coat - and
if you think THAT is easy --- Well - let's just say the reason lath
and plaster has gone almost entirely from thehomebuilding industry is
there is virtually no-one left under 70 who knows how to do it, or is
willing to learn to do it properly. It is a skill - an art, and a
science, all rolled into one. It is NOT simple, and it is NOT fast -
and it most definitely is NOT CHEAP!!!

With current state of the art materials and equipment, a house can be
totally rocked in one day, and totally taped and mudded in another day
- ready for priming. A good mudder/taper can get the finish coat on
smooth enough it virtually does not need sanding if the primer is put
on with a texture gun - makes the wall finish just a WEE bit gtainy -
not silky smooth like plaster or sanded drywall compound.
With airless spraying, getting a whole house primed takes a matter of
hours, not days.

The pros are FAST!!! (which translates to pretty darn cheap compared
to plastering.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:11:02 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
wrote:

On 10/30/2017 8:39 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
" wrote:

the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much

i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
with a staple hammer in very little time

i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
that is the hard part

but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly

And ignores the laws of gravity. . . right!
If they could spray it on and do it quickly, efficiently, and
cheaply, it would be done on every house. They can't, so it isn't.

Even stuccoing or parging is labour intensive - and it's a LOT simpler
than plastering. Getting a perfectly smooth and straight plaster
finisg is EXTREMELY difficult work.

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:39:51 PM UTC-4, Electric Comet wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
" wrote:

the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much

i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
with a staple hammer in very little time

i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
that is the hard part

but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly


easier to screw a 4'x8' sheet of drywall to the wall. Or 4x12 or
4x16 sheet. I think drywall comes in 4.5 and 5 foot widths too. You
can cover a hell of a lot of area in minutes with drywall. Boom.
Done. Kind of like using a roller instead of a paint brush to paint
a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.

it does not seem that efficient to me with all the steps involved just
to get to the paint stage

Are you trying to bait us, or are you really being serious? Assuming the latter, not sure if you are referring to prefinished paneling so popular in the 60's and 70's or t&g/shiplap boards...In either case, material cost is drastically different, maintenance and ease of installation, is so much simpler with GWB (other than the short learning curve of properly dealing with butt joints). There are any number of tape and finishers that will do the dirty (skilled) work after you install the GWB for incredibly reasonable cost...

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 8:44:06 PM UTC-4, Iggy wrote:
replying to Electric Comet, Iggy wrote:
Drywall nor lathe and plaster have no "advantage" over paneling. Paneling is
the advantage. Drywall and plaster are just seamless, and drywall's installed
wrong by most everyone (horizontal idiots listening to the likes of Moron
Frauderson) to kill any minimal hedge of fire protection.

Paneling never needs to be thrown out. You can remove it and put it back as
many times as you want to do wiring 1-year, piping the next year and
insulation in a decade. No waste ever, can't easily pop a hole through it, it
doesn't ding and dent, no crumbing from hanging a picture, can be painted or
stained and highly resistant to water...compared to any gypsum stuff.
I

You are so funny! Who writes your stuff?

replying to DerbyDad03, Iggy wrote:
Oh, the horizontal drywall absurdity? I can provide proof for that truth.
You'll be surprised how flawed it is, which is in everyway.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodwo...ll-811751-.htm

Electric Comet writes:


drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
maybe lath and plaster

Ha. Ha Ha Ha. That's funny.

On 10/31/2017 7:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Electric Comet writes:


drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
maybe lath and plaster

Ha. Ha Ha Ha. That's funny.



He is from the persuasion of people that believe if they can think it
they can do it.

On 10/31/2017 7:14 AM, Iggy wrote:
replying to DerbyDad03, Iggy wrote:
Oh, the horizontal drywall absurdity? I can provide proof for that truth.
You'll be surprised how flawed it is, which is in everyway.


Please fill us in.

replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be right:

1 €“ DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one drywall panel
CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and are a
TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates, window and
door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets dont sit flat. Using
ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!

2 €“ UNSUPPORTED SEAM €“ Horizontals tapered seam is 90% unsupported,
only 10% (instead of Vertical's 100%) contacts framing, the seam WILL AND DOES
crack. Light switch and countertop electrical boxes within the seam equals
MORE weakness and butt-joint doubled, MINIMUM, efforts.

3 €“ STRUCTURAL DEFECT - Horizontal only reinforces a wall height of 4 or
less, a full-height wall's top-plate is never connected to the bottom-plate.
As in and due to #2 above, Frictional Contact is MINIMIZED (instead of
maximized by Vertical).

4 €“ SEAM DECEPTION...(4'x8' PANELS) €“ Example 1: 48€� tall by 102€� long
wall, Horizontal = 48€� (technically) and its a 24€� wide butt-joint or a
MINIMUM of doubling the 48" (Vertical = the same, generously, 96€� but
theyre easy 6€� wide joints). Example 2: 96€� tall by 102€� long wall,
Horizontal = 222€� with 50% being 24€� wide butts (Vertical = 192€� of 6€�
wide easy joints, yes LESS)...in a Kitchen, Horizontal = 100% of 24€� wide
butts (Vertical = 0%). Yes, Horizontal does the taper area twice (MINIMUM) in
order to hide its butts, so VERY minimally just another 24€� was added AND #5
below was not factored into Horizontal's monumental FRAUD.

5 €“ SELF-DEFEATING ANGLES €“ Horizontal only uses ONE of a panels
tapered edges and PUTS the other taper at the ceiling corner and baseboard,
CREATING (instead of AVOIDING) a twisted angle that MUST be shimmed or
ADDITIONALLY mudded. This too, instantly erases ALL "claimed" benefits of
Horizontal by DOUBLING the seam amount, patching itself to equal Vertical!

6 €“ UNFRIENDLY SEAMS €“ Horizontal celebrates the chest height seam and
PRETENDS theres no 24€�-WIDE floor to ceiling butt-joint OR the EVER
present baseboard bevel of UNFINISHED WORK (Vertical has easy joints and the
top's screwed, taped and mudded later with the ceiling corner and the
baseboard SPOTS can also be done separately).

7 - FIRE HAZARD LIABILITY - Horizontal only fills the coin-thin SEAM'S FACE
and has NO back-blocking, CAUSING smoke and fires spread by inviting
fuel-air for a fire's growth (Vertical is full depth and airtight once simply
screwed-in).

8 - UNSAFE INSTALLATION - Horizontal needs 2-PEOPLE for a safe installation
and the panel is airborne, literally CREATING the chance to CAUSE injury
(Vertical easily tilts-up with just 1-person). Panel lifters aren't even as
easy and safe as Verticals tilt-up.

9 - ADDITIONAL WASTE - When correctly covering a knee wall, half wall, tub
front, column or soffit by first removing both tapered edges, Horizontal CAN'T
use the tapers elsewhere (Vertical can and does). AND, Horizontal WASTES
4-times the mud on their completely unnecessary butt-joints AND baseboard
bevel's...if ever done.

10 - DESTRUCTIVE IGNORANCE - Foundation and Framing crews go to great pains to
make everything flat, level, plumb and square. Horizontal DESTROYS those
efforts with their DEFECTIVE humps and baseboard bevels (Vertical keeps the
perfection).

11 - GRASPING AT STRAWS WITH OUTRIGHT FRAUD - Horizontals FALSELY AND
UNKNOWINGLY wave the absurdly INVALID (FPL439) 1983 testing €œContribution of
Gypsum Wallboard to Racking Resistance of Light-Frame Walls€� by the
self-convicted fraud Ronald W. Wolfe. FPL439 found that ALL tapered
paper-wrapped edges must be FULLY INTACT for Horizontal to beat Vertical,
PERIOD. In the real-world, Horizontal's bottom paper-wrapped edge is REMOVED
BY LAW, for spacing from all floors and thereby COMPLETELY NEGATE Wolfes
inexcusably deceitful and worthless "study" (LAUGHABLE) and summation.

12 - JOINT OR SEAM TREATMENT - According to the ASTM's C840 8.2, Horizontal's
seams MUST be mudded to provide ANY fire, smoke and air travel resistance
(Vertical's SO GOOD that it's NOT REQUIRED to have its seams treated AT ALL).

13 - COSTLY SLOW COMPLICATION - Horizontal's depend upon PRICEY special muds
and even messy tape or taping tools that WASTE mud. Taping tools still require
a 2nd step of knifing the tape and the muds require a mixing step. That's MORE
expense, MORE time, MORE tools and equipment and MORE water...for an INFERIOR
job! Vertical's SUPERIOR with the cheapest ready-mix bucket muds and dry
self-adhesive tape. Again, Vertical's seam treatment is JUST for looks.

14 - FIRE RATING FAIL - Most Single-ply or Single-layer drywall for Commercial
Work is required to be installed Vertically, to obtain drywall's ACTUAL fire
rating. This is well-known by the majority of Horizontals, but you and your
children don't matter to a Horizontal. And for what, to honor the FRAUDS that
taught them wrong? You've now seen that Vertical's FASTER overall and
immensely BETTER in every way.

Only promote HORIZONTAL AS WRONG and confidently cite the above incontestable
FACTS.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodwo...ll-811751-.htm

On 10/31/2017 9:44 AM, Iggy wrote:
replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be
right:

1 €“ DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one drywall panel
CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and are a
TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates,
window and
door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets dont sit flat. Using
ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!

All valid points but in the Houston area I do not see these problems and
the vast majority of dry wall goes up horizontally. Because homes in
this also have other than 8' ceilings, 10, 11, 12 footers are common,
even 16'10' tall walls are common, the but joint is unavoidable
regardless of how the drywall is stacked. Again, I don't see issues,
and that is a visual inspection. The bigger issues are non straight
studs, no drywall direction hides that and creates the issues you
mentioned above concerning pictures and mirrors.

Maybe all the builders are doing it wrong.





2 €“ UNSUPPORTED SEAM €“ Horizontals tapered seam is 90% unsupported,
only 10% (instead of Vertical's 100%) contacts framing, the seam WILL
AND DOES
crack. Light switch and countertop electrical boxes within the seam equals
MORE weakness and butt-joint doubled, MINIMUM, efforts.

Agreed again but you are assuming that the studs are actually 16" OC.
Often studs are 20" OC and walls are not always a perfect length to
avoid butt joints.



3 €“ STRUCTURAL DEFECT - Horizontal only reinforces a wall height of 4 or
less, a full-height wall's top-plate is never connected to the
bottom-plate.
As in and due to #2 above, Frictional Contact is MINIMIZED (instead of
maximized by Vertical).

I could be wrong but I don't think dry wall helps much to reinforce the
connection between the top plate and bottom plate. I do however know
that it helps to prevent racking.



4 €“ SEAM DECEPTION...(4'x8' PANELS) €“ Example 1: 48€� tall by 102€� long
wall, Horizontal = 48€� (technically) and its a 24€� wide butt-joint or a
MINIMUM of doubling the 48" (Vertical = the same, generously, 96€� but
theyre easy 6€� wide joints). Example 2: 96€� tall by 102€� long wall,
Horizontal = 222€� with 50% being 24€� wide butts (Vertical = 192€� of 6€�
wide easy joints, yes LESS)...in a Kitchen, Horizontal = 100% of 24€� wide
butts (Vertical = 0%). Yes, Horizontal does the taper area twice
(MINIMUM) in
order to hide its butts, so VERY minimally just another 24€� was added
AND #5
below was not factored into Horizontal's monumental FRAUD.

5 €“ SELF-DEFEATING ANGLES €“ Horizontal only uses ONE of a panels
tapered edges and PUTS the other taper at the ceiling corner and baseboard,
CREATING (instead of AVOIDING) a twisted angle that MUST be shimmed or
ADDITIONALLY mudded. This too, instantly erases ALL "claimed" benefits of
Horizontal by DOUBLING the seam amount, patching itself to equal Vertical!

Well the bottom is typically covered by base boards so no need to mud
the bottom. The top has to be taped and floated anyway to join the ceiling.




6 €“ UNFRIENDLY SEAMS €“ Horizontal celebrates the chest height seam and
PRETENDS theres no 24€�-WIDE floor to ceiling butt-joint OR the EVER
present baseboard bevel of UNFINISHED WORK (Vertical has easy joints and
the
top's screwed, taped and mudded later with the ceiling corner and the
baseboard SPOTS can also be done separately).

7 - FIRE HAZARD LIABILITY - Horizontal only fills the coin-thin SEAM'S FACE
and has NO back-blocking, CAUSING smoke and fires spread by inviting
fuel-air for a fire's growth (Vertical is full depth and airtight once
simply
screwed-in).

8 - UNSAFE INSTALLATION - Horizontal needs 2-PEOPLE for a safe installation
and the panel is airborne, literally CREATING the chance to CAUSE injury
(Vertical easily tilts-up with just 1-person). Panel lifters aren't even as
easy and safe as Verticals tilt-up.

9 - ADDITIONAL WASTE - When correctly covering a knee wall, half wall, tub
front, column or soffit by first removing both tapered edges, Horizontal
CAN'T
use the tapers elsewhere (Vertical can and does). AND, Horizontal WASTES
4-times the mud on their completely unnecessary butt-joints AND baseboard
bevel's...if ever done.

10 - DESTRUCTIVE IGNORANCE - Foundation and Framing crews go to great
pains to
make everything flat, level, plumb and square. Horizontal DESTROYS those
efforts with their DEFECTIVE humps and baseboard bevels (Vertical keeps the
perfection).

11 - GRASPING AT STRAWS WITH OUTRIGHT FRAUD - Horizontals FALSELY AND
UNKNOWINGLY wave the absurdly INVALID (FPL439) 1983 testing
€œContribution of
Gypsum Wallboard to Racking Resistance of Light-Frame Walls€� by the
self-convicted fraud Ronald W. Wolfe. FPL439 found that ALL tapered
paper-wrapped edges must be FULLY INTACT for Horizontal to beat Vertical,
PERIOD. In the real-world, Horizontal's bottom paper-wrapped edge is
REMOVED
BY LAW, for spacing from all floors and thereby COMPLETELY NEGATE Wolfes
inexcusably deceitful and worthless "study" (LAUGHABLE) and summation.

12 - JOINT OR SEAM TREATMENT - According to the ASTM's C840 8.2,
Horizontal's
seams MUST be mudded to provide ANY fire, smoke and air travel resistance
(Vertical's SO GOOD that it's NOT REQUIRED to have its seams treated AT
ALL).

13 - COSTLY SLOW COMPLICATION - Horizontal's depend upon PRICEY special
muds
and even messy tape or taping tools that WASTE mud. Taping tools still
require
a 2nd step of knifing the tape and the muds require a mixing step.
That's MORE
expense, MORE time, MORE tools and equipment and MORE water...for an
INFERIOR
job! Vertical's SUPERIOR with the cheapest ready-mix bucket muds and dry
self-adhesive tape. Again, Vertical's seam treatment is JUST for looks.

14 - FIRE RATING FAIL - Most Single-ply or Single-layer drywall for
Commercial
Work is required to be installed Vertically, to obtain drywall's ACTUAL
fire
rating. This is well-known by the majority of Horizontals, but you and your
children don't matter to a Horizontal. And for what, to honor the FRAUDS
that
taught them wrong? You've now seen that Vertical's FASTER overall and
immensely BETTER in every way.

Only promote HORIZONTAL AS WRONG and confidently cite the above
incontestable
FACTS.

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 8:14:06 AM UTC-4, Iggy wrote:
replying to DerbyDad03, Iggy wrote:
Oh, the horizontal drywall absurdity? I can provide proof for that truth.
You'll be surprised how flawed it is, which is in everyway.


Why did you pick out that one item? Why did you snip the rest of your list?

The discussion was about drywall vs. paneling, not about one method of hanging drywall
vs. another. Your list of reasons of why paneling is better then drywall is what I find humorous.

Iggy m writes:
replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be right:

[snip refererence-free angry rant]

14 - FIRE RATING FAIL - Most Single-ply or Single-layer drywall for Commercial
Work is required to be installed Vertically, to obtain drywall's ACTUAL fire
rating.

Every commercial installation around here installs the drywall with
the long edge parallel to the floor.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
On 10/31/2017 9:44 AM, Iggy wrote:
replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be
right:

1 €“ DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one drywall panel
CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and are a
TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates,
window and
door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets dont sit flat. Using
ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!

All valid points but in the Houston area I do not see these problems and
the vast majority of dry wall goes up horizontally. Because homes in
this also have other than 8' ceilings, 10, 11, 12 footers are common,
even 16'10' tall walls are common, the but joint is unavoidable

I generally manually taper the butt edges before taping. Doesn't take
long and makes for a cleaner surface.

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:43:27 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
On 10/31/2017 9:44 AM, Iggy wrote:
replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be
right:

1 €“ DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one drywall panel
CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and are a
TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates,
window and
door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets dont sit flat. Using
ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!

All valid points but in the Houston area I do not see these problems and
the vast majority of dry wall goes up horizontally. Because homes in
this also have other than 8' ceilings, 10, 11, 12 footers are common,
even 16'10' tall walls are common, the but joint is unavoidable

I generally manually taper the butt edges before taping. Doesn't take
long and makes for a cleaner surface.

http://butttaper.com/home.htm might be worth looking into...

On 10/31/2017 11:13 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 8:14:06 AM UTC-4, Iggy wrote:
replying to DerbyDad03, Iggy wrote:
Oh, the horizontal drywall absurdity? I can provide proof for that truth.
You'll be surprised how flawed it is, which is in everyway.


Why did you pick out that one item? Why did you snip the rest of your list?

The discussion was about drywall vs. paneling, not about one method of hanging drywall
vs. another. Your list of reasons of why paneling is better then drywall is what I find humorous.


Iggy has been preaching the value of vertical drywall for years. Sadly,
few people listen to him so we are all doomed to inferior houses.

writes:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:43:27 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
On 10/31/2017 9:44 AM, Iggy wrote:
replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never =
be=20
right:

1 =E2=80=93 DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one dry=
wall panel
CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and a=
re a
TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates,=20
window and
door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets don=E2=80=99t si=
t flat. Using
ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!

All valid points but in the Houston area I do not see these problems and=
=20
the vast majority of dry wall goes up horizontally. Because homes in=20
this also have other than 8' ceilings, 10, 11, 12 footers are common,=20
even 16'10' tall walls are common, the but joint is unavoidable=20
=20
I generally manually taper the butt edges before taping. Doesn't take
long and makes for a cleaner surface.

http://butttaper.com/home.htm might be worth looking into...

Which lead me to

https://www.usg.com/content/usgcom/e...-handbook.html

On 10/31/2017 10:43 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
On 10/31/2017 9:44 AM, Iggy wrote:
replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be
right:

1 €€œ DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one drywall panel
CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and are a
TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates,
window and
door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets don€„¢t sit flat. Using
ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!

All valid points but in the Houston area I do not see these problems and
the vast majority of dry wall goes up horizontally. Because homes in
this also have other than 8' ceilings, 10, 11, 12 footers are common,
even 16'10' tall walls are common, the but joint is unavoidable

I generally manually taper the butt edges before taping. Doesn't take
long and makes for a cleaner surface.


Yeah, that is how I see it being done.

replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
Thank you and thank you again for actually reading, as well as comprehending
without emotional bias. Yep, and that's why nice new houses burn to the ground
in 20-minutes. A butt-joint 8', 10' or 12' up wouldn't bother anything and it
would be a horizontal hump instead of vertical...if you didn't turn it into a
taper.

If you know how to map a room or prep the site correctly, you end up with
extremely few corrections in a vertical install. Again, if the panel goes
floor to ceiling, there isn't even a single butt in the entire building.

You're not wrong, drywall can never be considered structural. However, by
connecting the top and bottom plate the drywall can't crack and all movement
is forced into the screws, where they can harmlessly widen their holes if and
as needed.

Correct, but why purposely MAKE anyone's job more difficult by not completing
your job? You wouldn't stand for framers putting in just enough studs to hold
the place up (72"-o.c.) and leave you with finishing their work. Same goes for
the ceiling, try cutting-in a horizontally installed room with a roller. You
can't, the angle's less than 90-deg., instead of more than 90-deg.

Great questions! You're actually the only sane person I've ever run into. I
hope you give vertical a try someday and finally allow drywall to do it's
best. Cracks, sags, specialty compounds, tape indecision, additional tools or
cords and bad-day mud jobs will all go away to leave you with a superior job.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodwo...ll-811751-.htm

replying to Scott Lurndal, Iggy wrote:
Bravo! Yep, a very shallow 1/8" "V" in framing for Vertical or a recessed stud
or butt-board attached to blocking makes all the difference in quality and
speed.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodwo...ll-811751-.htm

replying to Scott Lurndal, Iggy wrote:
Yep, that Handbook is based on the error that's always been in the ASTM...the
word "except" should actually be "especially". But again, I got nowhere with
any of the manufacturers nor the ASTM this year. They just won't recognize
their air-tight requirement was completely abandoned due to 1-wrong-word.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodwo...ll-811751-.htm

replying to Scott Lurndal, Iggy wrote:
It is entirely possible. But, you also may be also seeing just the 2nd layer.
A 2-layer Fire-Rated Assembly usually is required to start-out vertical (for
air-sealing) and the 2nd layer is required to be either perpendicular or fully
offset to the first. Again, it may not be the case, I'm just saying as an FYI.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodwo...ll-811751-.htm

replying to DerbyDad03, Iggy wrote:
Sorry, I didn't see how commonsense, truth, fact and reality was in question.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodwo...ll-811751-.htm

replying to Ed Pawlowski, Iggy wrote:
Yepper, another year of failure in trying to save the world. It's really
amazing that the word "except" hasn't very simply been corrected to
"especially" in 10-years. I got nowhere with any of the manufacturers nor the
ASTM. They just don't see a problem with completely abandoning their own
air-tight requirement.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodwo...ll-811751-.htm

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/31/2017 7:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Electric Comet writes:


drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
maybe lath and plaster

Ha. Ha Ha Ha. That's funny.


He is from the persuasion of people that believe if they can think it
they can do it.

On its face it's easy to do, especially for a single person. Perhaps even
more forgiving. Doing it well so it doesn't look like your 5-year-old took
point... that's an entirely different matter.

I keep meaning to practice on some exposed lathe underneath my staircase.

The previous owner of my house cheaped-out fixing a leaky southerly wall of
a stairwell. His contractors didn't fix the leaks properly. Then they used
drywall to replace the plaster on that entire wall.

I've had (or I think I've had) two of the biggest culprits fixed, but
there's still too much moisture penetration on that wall. The drywall is too
damp and beginning to sag--probably didn't hang it right. An adjacent wall
is still the original plaster+wood lathe, and even with a leaky window (took
awhile to realize) the only serious damage was some peeling paint and a
small, contained area of plaster that needed patching. (Painter got to do
that; not me

At some point I'm going to have to take that drywall down just to see what
the previous homeowner was hiding. And I'm definitely not going to put
drywall back up. The house is too old (1926) and passes too much moisture
(near the ocean). That's fine for plaster, but not kind to drywall. Removing
all the cladding (3 sides clapboards, 1 side stucco) and re-wrapping[1] the
house would be way too expensive (can't even entertain that idea) and
unnecessary.

There are good plasterers here. I live in a major city where there's enough
work to keep the skill alive, not just for high-end restoration work.
(Though I suppose any job putting up new plaster might be considered
high-end.) But they're still expensive given the amount of time involved. So
I may give it a go myself if I can find the time to practice first. I also
need to parge[2] the foundation, which I'm hoping will help me learn some.


[1] The house is wrapped in tar paper, but it's not as impermeable as the
modern stuff, and at 90 years old probably no longer as impermeable as it
once was.

[2] I think the previous owner tried to parge with a portland cement
mixture, which failed horribly. (Pretty sure he was trying to hide some
disintegration.) AFAIU, portland cement is much less water permeable than
the cement used in the old foundation. The parge coat is popping off in
large chunks. The parge coat needs to have the same permeability as the
concrete so the water and salts can pass through to the surface. The parge
coat becomes a sacrificial layer, I guess, extending the life of the
foundation. Presumably a bad parge coat hastens disintegration. Like with
the stairway wall, using modern products piecemeal is just a really bad
idea.

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:16:19 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:39:48 -0700, Electric Comet
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
" wrote:

the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much

i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
with a staple hammer in very little time

i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
that is the hard part

but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly


easier to screw a 4'x8' sheet of drywall to the wall. Or 4x12 or
4x16 sheet. I think drywall comes in 4.5 and 5 foot widths too. You
can cover a hell of a lot of area in minutes with drywall. Boom.
Done. Kind of like using a roller instead of a paint brush to paint
a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.

it does not seem that efficient to me with all the steps involved just
to get to the paint stage

Try it once and see if you still think it's so efficient.

"once"? Ha ha ho ho. I've drywalled a few rooms and many walls over the years. It is damned efficient to hang drywall. Full 4x8 foot sheets cover 32 square feet. Four on a wall and the whole wall is covered. 30-60 minutes later you are done hanging and taping and spreading the first coat of mud. Wait a day and smooth and apply the second mud coat in a few minutes. Wait another day and smooth and apply a finish third mud coat. Smooth it a day later and your are ready to paint. You might have 2-3-4 hours of total time in drywalling and taping and mudding an entire room. Pros of course can probably hang and apply the first coat of mud in under a day to an entire house, including the ceilings. Drywall is cheap and efficient!!! House builders LOVE it for those reasons. And it makes a good looking wall when done too.

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 4:17:04 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:39:51 PM UTC-4, Electric Comet wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
" wrote:

the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much

i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
with a staple hammer in very little time

i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
that is the hard part

but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly


easier to screw a 4'x8' sheet of drywall to the wall. Or 4x12 or
4x16 sheet. I think drywall comes in 4.5 and 5 foot widths too. You
can cover a hell of a lot of area in minutes with drywall. Boom.
Done. Kind of like using a roller instead of a paint brush to paint
a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.

it does not seem that efficient to me with all the steps involved just
to get to the paint stage

Are you trying to bait us, or are you really being serious? Assuming the latter, not sure if you are referring to prefinished paneling so popular in the 60's and 70's or t&g/shiplap boards...In either case, material cost is drastically different, maintenance and ease of installation, is so much simpler with GWB (other than the short learning curve of properly dealing with butt joints). There are any number of tape and finishers that will do the dirty (skilled) work after you install the GWB for incredibly reasonable cost...


I was reading your post and could not figure out what GWB meant. Thought about it awhile and figured out its "Gypsum Wall Board". Drywall.

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 9:44:05 AM UTC-5, Iggy wrote:
replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be right:

1 €“ DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one drywall panel
CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and are a
TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates, window and
door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets dont sit flat. Using
ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!



So, what you are saying is the companies that make drywall sheets, the manufacturers of drywall, are F---ing stupid and DO NOT know how to hang the drywall they have spent millions of dollars building plants to manufacture it.. Do you know drywall comes in 8, 10, 12, 16 foot lengths. And 4, 4.5, 5 foot widths. Why would a drywall manufacturer make these sizes? Most houses in the USA have 8 foot high walls. And 10 to 20 foot wall lengths. So by using two 4 foot wide drywall sheets and various lengths, its easy to cover a wall horizontally. And now days 9 foot and 10 foot walls are getting very common. So drywall manufacturers make 4.5 and 5 foot wide drywall sheets. Use two of them horizontally to cover a wall from floor to ceiling. Go to any drywall retailer and you will find lots of 4x12 and 4x16 drywall sheets. How many walls in a house are 12 or 16 feet tall? Most are 8 feet high. So you can easily stack two 4 foot wide sheets of whatever length horizontally and cover a wall.

Your vertical hanging rant is akin to saying NASA doesn't have a F---ing clue how to launch rockets into space. Yes NASA can build and manufacture good rockets to get into space. But they are stupid on the launching aspect. You know how to launch rockets. You know the right way is to shoot them into the ground so they come out the other side of the earth. That's the right way to do it.

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 3:44:12 PM UTC-4, Iggy wrote:
replying to DerbyDad03, Iggy wrote:
Sorry, I didn't see how commonsense, truth, fact and reality was in question.


Why do you snip our posts to such an extent that there absolutely no context left?

replying to russellseaton1, Iggy wrote:
No, the manufacturers know very well that Vertical's the only right way. They
even make their products specifically for Vertical. If they made it for
horizontal, they'd taper only 1 edge and both ends, so there's never a
butt-joint and never any Carpenter and Painter screwing bevels.

But, the idiots of the world keep training more idiots. So, the manufacturers
just said "hey we can make more money off these fools", after DECADES they
finally stooped to the horizontal level with 4.5' and 5' wide sheets.

And absolutely not, horizontal is not faster. As soon as horizontals have to
do butt-joints, they're spending 4-times the time on them...4-times the mud
too. I know its not easy to accept, but you really have to try it.

Sorry, I can't get into the ISS, NASA, GPS, Voyager, String Theory, Big Bang,
Diamond Rain, Ball Earth or the Moon and Mars here. Post a question on
Homeowners Hub for that bevy of nonsense.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodwo...ll-811751-.htm

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 07:45:43 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/31/2017 7:14 AM, Iggy wrote:
replying to DerbyDad03, Iggy wrote:
Oh, the horizontal drywall absurdity? I can provide proof for that truth.
You'll be surprised how flawed it is, which is in everyway.


Please fill us in.
Remember Iggy is short for ignoramous. It's obvious where he got his
name.