Mole wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.82627d12784c03afb2097e72f24ffd36@106 9256316.cotse.net...
K Smith wrote:


Really? Gosh. There probably are 100 million wood frame houses in the
united states, some more than 100 years old. I suppose that because of
the weakness of wood and the difficulties of attaching it to anyting,
even itself, are really problematical, eh?

Don't twist those houses or they fall down. Don't suddenly lower the
pressure...the nails come out. Don't let the weather barrier get
compromised or they rot. Don't compare house construction to boat
construction. They don't even come close.



I'm not comparing house construction to boat construction. The point,
and perhaps I was too subtle, is that wood frame construction is strong
enough for houses, and wood is strong enough for boat stringers,
assuming whoever does the design does it properly and the design is
correctly implemented and the wood protected.

Karen Elizabeth Smith "gets off" on these little tangents of hers, but
they mostly are absurd or border on it. Wood is a fine boatbuilding
material, and has been for thousands of years. It certainly is "strong
enough" to be used as a boatbuilding material. Does wood have
shortcomings? Of course it does, but so does every other boatbuilding
material.

Ms. Smith is quick to castigate for what she perceives to be "problems"
in the designs and manufacture of boats generally, and, more typically,
boat engines, a position that really is not defensible, if you take a
look at the barely floating derelict of a boat she calls her own and the
rusting piece of crap "diesel outboard" engine with which she
underpowers it.



--
Email sent to is never read.