So you say but you know what? I don't believe anything you say that I can't verify for myself or have independent confirmation for another source.
Only to prove it is you that is clueless. Only 4 minutes between my message and your response.
How is that? I was just commenting on your consistency. ;-)
Seriously, for building a shed?
Like most folks I come here for discussion, information, answers etc, and have over the years been astounded at quality and quantity of information that people are prepared to share - it is what makes this group a formidable source of learning on a diverse range of topics, at least if you are prepared to invest enough time to get the best from it.
Even when posted with the best of intentions, posts that are (or at least appear to be) condescending, willy waving, self serving, holier than thou etc, I personally find only serve as an irritation. I dislike "closed shops" with a passion. As I see it, we are grown-ups here, free to make our own cockups.
I work on a principle counter to yours it seems. Generally I see no reason not to share what I know about something (be that on usenet or with clients paying for my professional advice). I appreciate that there are times when one can read between the lines of a question and realise that the asker is in danger of getting themselves into a potentially dangerous situation - and in those cases I would also back away from a direct answer. However I expect again there we differ in approach, normally at that point I would probe a bit further for more background first to better gauge the question and questioner, rather than moving straight to a "you need to seek professional help" type of response.
Hence even if a questioner concludes that a subject is indeed too "deep" and professional advice should be sought, they at least get to seek it better informed.
I would be interested to know what "pooh" you perceive that one might fall into?
This is usenet, and I know that Dave and most other folks around here have been communicating this way plenty long enough to understand the realities of the situation. People ask for advice, they get answers, some might be good, some will be crap, plenty will be unrelated etc. No money has changed hands, there is no contractual nexus in place, so you use any advice you receive entirely at your own risk, understanding that it may be nothing more than hearsay from someone entirely uneducated and without experience in the domain.
Personally that is a risk I am content with when seeking advice - since I find its not too difficult to work out what advice is useful, what is questionable and what can be discounted out of hand, and to learn the strengths and weaknesses of regular contributors. Its also a risk I am content with when offering advice. Generally I try to give decent quality information, and will not usually resort to invention or guess work without making this clear. I do make mistakes, and post stuff in error from time to time, and presume that readers won't be too disillusioned to realise that ultimately this is their problem, since there are no guarantees offered!
Let's not quibble. Moment (torque) = force * distance. From
Does this mean you've been less than consistent?
less than or equal ;-)
Well if you are an engineer/scientist a quick look at how it works would give you confirmation.
More proof that you have no idea. Guess what? More than 8 hours between your reply and my downloading and reading of it. You can't even see the difference between talking to someone and writing your message on a wall that they occasionally walk past. With that level of understanding its hardly surprising that you get all your facts from wiki as you don't understand anything yourself.
John, I know who supplies more value per posting :-) [Although zero isn't hard to beat] Thanks again for your help.
Dave
snip
As usual you can't see the wood for the trees. I was referring to your claim that "last week it was taking two days for them to arrive on datemas". It doesn't take an engineer or a scientist to trawl through last week's messages to see if you really were replying to messages more than two days after they were originally posted, but I can't be bothered. If you were lying it would just be another lie in a long series of lies and only to be expected.
More obfuscation. You can take as long as you like to read messages but when the timestamps differ by just 4 minutes there has been precious little time for the message to reach your server, let alone time for you to identify it, manually download it and then post an answer.
It does however point to one reason why you post so much rubbish - post first and think about it later.
More lies.
I find that barely credible.
Tim
Well you won't prove anything if you did. When datemas starts putting out 502 errors I use a different server with different delays. It just shows that you don't have a clue.
Where do you think the timestamps are put on then? And your four minute argument is cr@p as all your other "debates" have been. If I sync my reader during that four minute minimum then I don't see your message until I sync again. Its that simple and you are just too stupid to understand something that simple.
Go and read some more wiki articles, don't bother trying to understand them, they are all to much for you.
snip
As usual you have an answer for everything. Whether said answer has any bearing on the truth is however another matter.
It would of course help to appreciate what you are trying to say if you bothered to write in intelligible English. The 4 minutes is the difference between the time stamps, not a minimum. If by sync you mean synchronise then you are just writing nonsense again as the 4 minutes is the time you responded in and nothing to do with what you are doing with your news reader when it is out of sync.
More threadbare lies. Responding to you is getting boring even for me.
I can see its a waste of effort as you are too thick to understand. You can join TMH.
More lies that I can't be bothered to respond to.
It's dennis on the tiles
US Building Regulations aren't free. As far as I can tell, they are written by private companies, and adopted piecemeal by each county or even each city (a "city" being three shacks and a gas station in the USA) in each state. Some of the 'codes' can be viewed but not downloaded or printed for free. ANSI standards are (AFAIK) not free to view or download.
British Building Regulations and Approved Documents/Technical Standards can be viewed and downloaded for free. British Standards have to be paid for.
The reason why the average punter can't gain access to BS standards (for free) is because of the joys of capitalism. British Standards is a private monopoly run for profit, not a public service paid for by the taxpayer.
Membership of certain libraries grants you online access to them, Manchester does, I believe they allow on-line signing up regardless of your physical location, you have to wait for an entitlement card to arrive in the post though.
The gripe I have with the BS docs is their variability in useful content. Some are huge documents stuffed with useful carefully researched and prepared information, and some are practically content free, comprising stuff readily available elsewhere. When a building reg calls up a couple of dozen of them, you could spend a fortune buying all the useless ones!
British Standards don't come cheap, even if you are member and can buy at half price. In my field (structural engineering) you'll often find that a good textbook includes all the useful content and costs just £25+/-
Many of the counties/cities have to republish them under their own name, to make them available for free. Often they modify them in the process.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.