Remove old tiles first or new tiles on top of old?

wrote:


IMHO tiling on old tiles is a bodge. Best to knock them off and
replaster if necessary. If you tile on top,the tiles will be twice as
deep on the wall and will look orrible!!

you can have it fast or you can have it right!

Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email

Be a good Global citizen-CONSUME>CONFORM>OBEY

Circumcision- A crime and an abuse.
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org /

wrote:


 Either could be best under different circumstances.
Personally, I'm a much too recent convert to the cult of "Whatever's
Easiest". Having been thus corrupted, I'd definitely say leave the
original tiles on if at all possible. You can guess the rest.

--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the EGG to email me.

On 26 May 2005, Rob wrote


Horses and courses, assuming the existing tiles are both sound and
level.  Hacking tiles off inevitably means replastering or boarding-out
the wall -- maybe a good purist's route, but a bit of overkill in my
view.  I[ve had perfectly good results tiling over tiles.  (The only
rule I can think of is a glaringly obvious one:  to avoid aligning the
new tiles with the old.)

The main drawback of tiling over tiles, of course, is that you're
making the wall thicker.  That's not a huge concern in most cases, but
it can screw up fine tolerances -- like refitting sockets where there's
insufficient leeway in the cabling.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

If any old tiles are loose, then your knew ones are going to be loose too
because of that. Any tiles that meet a door might well sit proud of the
doorframe. You *might* need longer faceplate screws for any outlets/sockets
on the tiles.

Ditch the old tiles. they're easily removed with a bolster or similar, or a
large flat screwdriver at a push.

Disclaimer: I'm not a tiler. But I've done lots of tiling.

Perhaps you might like a little reading?

       http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd         :  Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk :  http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

      

Perhaps I've been posting this way on usenet since 1991

keefers wrote:

(wrongly)

Wow! Irritating people & getting killfiled for 14 years! What was
your posting ID then?

So where do you get the "wrongly" from then. There ain't no right or wrong.
A bunch of "rules" made up by some arbitrary bunch doesn't pass for right or
wrong. If there was a "right" way of posting, news posting apps wouldn't let
you do it the "wrong" way.

Personally, I much prefer the way I do it. Obviously, otherwise I wouldn't
do it this way. I'm not alone either. As i recall, these were "the rules"
before the arbitrary bunch came along. I think it's easier to read. I think
it's easier to follow. I don't have to spend half my life wearing out my
finger scrolling my mouse wheel up and down. I don't have to read down any
further than the last post.

If you're uppity about the "rules", then find yourself guilty of posting
off-topic!

I'm absolutely amazed that you can have been on Usenet for so long and still
crosspost. It is in every newbie guide. The fact that Microsoft produces bad
programs that don't comply with the rules is hardly news.

Context posting is not arbitrary. It has been the standard for decades.

Christian.

I meant toppost, not crosspost!

Christian.

I didn't cross-post, I posted to uk.d-i-y. I don't cross-post, and to my
recollection have never done so. I was a newbie when there was no such
definition as a newbie, 'cos everyone was a newbie. Cross-posting was
frowned upon right from the start.

Bottom or top posting isn't a standard, it's a guideline. There are
certainly plenty guidelines which suggest bottom-posting, but I think
they're crap.

You may wish to disobey the standard, but if you do, you'll never stop
getting told to read the newbie FAQs!

Christian.

Thanks for all the info on tiling.

Its a lot of extra work but the guy about to do my kitchen (its tiled right
up to the ceiling on 3 walls!) much prefers to remove the old first.

While we werent on the subject...at the risk of going O.T...

Ive never understood why so many object to cross-posting.  I can understand
it when its abused by spammer trolls to spread their rubbish everywhere but
when its from legitimate users posting to relevant groups wheres the harm?
And if it were so objectionable why is it then possible to do it. (I realise
that some groups reject crossposted messages)

Thanks for your views...

Rob

Rob wrote:

It's not objectionable in the least when used legitimately, as
you say. Multi-posting (the same article to several different
NGs individually) *is*.

Just curious...but why?
It's not as if we have the server disk space issues we had
20 years ago when Usenet first got going.

In article
wrote:

If you have a reasonably intelligent newsreader it only shows you the
message once. And if you reply your reply finds its way back to all the
groups the original was cross-posted to (which is not always
appreciated in the case of thread drift!)

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK  'Software to build on'  http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

Just to clarify, I have no problem with moderate cross-posting either. I
just had a brain fart when writing top-posting.

Christian.

keefers wrote:

What was your posting ID in 1991, then??

I don't have to justify myself to you or anyone. I can't even remember all
the id's I've used, and even if I did, I couldn't be bothered replying with
it. It might have been the same as this. I don't know and I don't care. You
obviously don't believe me. I don't care about that either.

I'm bored with this now.