Any Real experts here ?

[Moo]

Come to think of it, that's a very good idea.

I wonder what JSE thinks about it (if, that is, he's been following the thread so far).

 

[Cloudscape]

Silly? Yes. There's currently an unworkable situation where a "qualified professional" has expressed, in two brief posts, a disapproval of the whole premise of the forum. To return to my analogy that a forum is like a person's front room, a new member has just walked in and said 'Your teaparty is dubious,' without seemingly having had time to sample the scones.

Petty? There is pettiness in the thread. Some of it is what always happens on forums... people fill in time waiting for the next instalment.

If James wants to join in or contribute, no one is going to disagree that everyone is welcome, the moreso if the newcomer has experience, knowledge and contacts to share. There has been no indication that James is offering this 'collaboration', or (returning to my earlier post) that James is not a giraffe.

I can't think of an ending line to this that won't sound petty. :wink:

 

[Lime]

I completely agree with Cloudscape.

 

[biffvernon]

I retired a number of years ago having worked as a consulting engineer on a broad range of projects that included amongst others York Minster...

Ah, that's interesting. Was it your firm that came up with the idea of using a steel rope to tie the East Window on the the chancel walls? And what about the massive concrete foundations that were inserted under the East End? Do you have a view about the efficacy of these measures, advised by highly qualified structural engineers, now that they have been in place for several years?#

I would be less likely to respect the advice of a window maker on the same topic.

Never made a window in me life, Guv. Honest.

P.S. See
4.7 Laterally Loaded Masonry Structures for a description of the steel rope in question.


And for the concrete works see Figure 3.3

 

[Penners]

I completely agree with Cloudscape.

Me too.

I would also offer my oft-repeated defence of the bits of waffle and silliness that appear quite regularly (mea culpa ).

This forum is not, nor is it intended to be, a professional advisory service. The widely-used term for this kind of forum is 'chat room', and despite its vaguely derogatory connotations, that's not a bad soubriquet.

We're a disparate group of people who share a common interest. We're very fortunate to have a number of professionals among our ranks, but first and foremost, we're just folk. So when we get together, we don't just talk incessantly about one narrow subject. We chat. We comment. We make silly jokes. We wander off the subject far and wide.

Why? Because it's fun.

(Cloudscape - I hope that's a suitable ending line. :wink: )

 

[Penners]

Never made a window in me life, Guv. Honest.

Yeah - like I've never made a mistake. :wink:

 

[MdB]

Ok, ok. Let me be a little bit clearer, silliness is fine and I've made my fair share of stupid posts. My problem is with picking holes in somebody that only has posted twice. Sure JSE's post was provocative and the reaction justified but once the point has been made there is no need go into trivia with somebody new. I would love to see JSE come back and post when there is next a structural question and I am sure his answer will be very different from those that normally post. There would then hopefully be a good discussion as to the relative merits of two different approaches to a problem. Unfortunately, I can't see JSE posting again. One person's light hearted banter can be taken completely differently by the butt of the joke. Lets hope he does come back.

 

[Cloudscape]

Show me the joke, please. If you mean the 'Struc-Eng' remark, it's highly unlikely to be his surname, so I doubt very much that he'll take it personally.

Judging by the no-nonsense tone of his posts, and that fact that he is 'retired' (early or otherwise), I'm guessing that he probably has some life experience, and has dealt with all kinds of situations... I think we can assume that he can stand up for himself.

My entire point is that this is an internet forum, with anonymous people - who could be anyone or anything. James' initial post caused a lot of kerfuffle, which is counter-productive. Given that we don't know James from Adam, I don't see why a fairly established community should be flustered by one individual.

Nor do I see why we should accord anyone special respect or special treatment, based solely on the two posts made so far.

Yes, all kinds of experts would be welcome - welcome to pool ideas, and lend us some of their experience... not to confront, and cause us all to waste our lives in this way.

I will address James directly. I think it would be better to speak to him, rather than about him, or on his behalf.

James, your posting style is a little brusque. It's rubbed some people up the wrong way. We understand, from what you say, that you have technical expertise. If that's the case, please join in on the forum. If there is any onus on existing forum members to prove that they have experience, knowledge, competence and empathy with older buildings, then many have done so time and again. At this moment, you haven't, and so forgive some of us for trying to diffuse the awkwardness of the moment.

 

[MdB]

Fair enough.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I like the tea-party analogy for the forum.

You generally develop conversations at a party (and thus credibility and respect with/from the other guests) by sharing your experience and knowledge little by little. The regular posters on this forum have spent a long time develping their credibility in a rather un-self-prepossessing way, and it is quite understandable if the existing guests get a little irked when an arriviste pitches up and disses them without engaging them in a little conversation first.

I do hope James comes back because one of the strengths of this forum is the variety of responses you get if you post a question - the more the merrier. If his professional experience leads him to disagree with some of the posts, then that is to be welcomed - we all learn something in this way; and it might be James who learns something too :wink:

And apologies if anyone is upset if my signal:noise ratio is a little off-topic at times.

Robin (confirmed amateur)

 

[biffvernon]

And I too hope he comes back, not least because I am genuinely interested to know if he knows anything about the steel ropes and concrete foundations used in the York Minster Great East Window. This is definitely not my area of expertise but I did have a conversation about it recently, whilst standing on the scaffolding in a position to touch the said steel. Someone who did seem to know a lot about it seemed inclined to admit that it was probably doing a useful job but if the problem had arisen anew today, it would likely have been solved in a different way.

It would be interesting to hear from a structural engineer (rtd.) who has worked on the Minster.

 

[Flyfisher]

I also hope James will be back. And Beka. And all the other people that have no doubt been scared off by the 'tough love' dished out on this forum. It's only to be expected that there will, occasionally, be disagreements amongst forum members but surely it need not descend into acrimony? People may even - shock, horror - ask 'stupid' questions that the professionals among us find it easy to scoff at and/or ridicule, but "Trust me, I'm an expert" is not a very helpful approach when faced with such situations and surely it's better to either politely explain the reasoning behind an answer that someone might not like to hear or, if that's too difficult, just remain silent instead of descending into sarcasm and/or abuse.

How about a New Year Resolution to make the forum a more welcoming place for new members and more tolerant for all?

 

[Penners]

My problem is with picking holes in somebody that only has posted twice. Sure JSE's post was provocative and the reaction justified but once the point has been made there is no need go into trivia with somebody new.

MdB - you have a fair point. But when someone posts for the first time as provocatively as JSE did, I can't believe that they'd disappear in a huff, just because everyone on the forum wants to have their say in rebuttal. They would surely expect it.

If JSE still feels that his comments were justified, I'm sure he'll come back and add further to this thread, or to others. Let's hope so.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I also hope James will be back. And Beka. And all the other people that have no doubt been scared off by the 'tough love' dished out on this forum. It's only to be expected that there will, occasionally, be disagreements amongst forum members but surely it need not descend into acrimony? People may even - shock, horror - ask 'stupid' questions that the professionals among us find it easy to scoff at and/or ridicule, but "Trust me, I'm an expert" is not a very helpful approach when faced with such situations and surely it's better to either politely explain the reasoning behind an answer that someone might not like to hear or, if that's too difficult, just remain silent instead of descending into sarcasm and/or abuse.

How about a New Year Resolution to make the forum a more welcoming place for new members and more tolerant for all?

So - when someone posts something that is demonstrably wrong, or dangerous, we should just keep quiet about it for fear of offending them?

 

[Moo]

Oh, I do so agree. [this was in response to Flyfisher's post, but Gareth jumped in while I was typing...]
We bought our first house (bog-standard victorian semi) before period properties were considered interesting, and proceeded to remove the upstairs fireplaces and have the whole place damp-proofed. By the time we moved, magazines were appearing and we had learned enough to appreciate the 'period features', but knew nothing about things like lime mortar and letting houses breathe. So we used lots of sandtex and emulsion paint and modern plaster. Our present house suffered from our ignorance to a certain extent (more emulsion paint and modern plaster) because we had not discovered PPUK until the work was done, the carpets laid, and the furniture moved in. (All this, it should be noted, under the aegis of a couple of charming and helpful COs.)
Now, thanks to a lot of kindness and understanding, I am a convert to the cause, and can only regret the mistakes I made, but I don't think that 'tough love' (whatever that means) from a group of complete strangers would have done any good at all. On the contrary, I would have crawled away feeling totally alienated from the whole business of restoration/renovation/whatever one cares to call it.
I think it's a case of "it ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it" and we should respond to questions and comments, however mad or mischievous they may seem, with courtesy and in a spirit of helpfulness. Either that, or not respond at all.

 

[Flyfisher]

So - when someone posts something that is demonstrably wrong, or dangerous, we should just keep quiet about it for fear of offending them?

No.

surely it's better to either politely explain the reasoning behind an answer that someone might not like to hear or, if that's too difficult, just remain silent instead of descending into sarcasm and/or abuse.

Are you suggesting it's too difficult to politely explain the reasoning behind an answer?

 

[Lime]

May I just add that I think there is the world of difference between disagreeing with what someone posts and being personal about the poster.
While some personal aspects of posters do enter into the discussion to act on the impression they give and then project it onto that poster is not always a fair assumption of their character.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

So - when someone posts something that is demonstrably wrong, or dangerous, we should just keep quiet about it for fear of offending them?

No.

surely it's better to either politely explain the reasoning behind an answer that someone might not like to hear or, if that's too difficult, just remain silent instead of descending into sarcasm and/or abuse.

Are you suggesting it's too difficult to politely explain the reasoning behind an answer?

No, but past experience has shown that people who don't accept a polite, well-reasoned response will often persist in posting their half-baked ideas (anyone recall the - now removed completely - 17th century timber-framed cottage windows thread from last month?). Once in a while, lunatics need to be prevented from taking over the asylum.

 

[Moo]

I still think that the best way to deal with the lunatics is to ignore them. As my old grandad used to say, "It's very difficult to have an argument with someone who won't disagree with you." **




**nb - 'won't disagree' is not the same as 'will agree'.

 

[Flyfisher]

Not accepting a well-established fact is one thing but not agreeing with an opinion is quite another, and many of the discussions here involve opinions for which there can be no definitive right or wrong. Sometimes there will be no agreement (and I take Gareth's point about lunatics) in which case I agree with Moo that silence is preferably to abuse.