Load bearing wall removal - purlin above issue

[SimonH2]

No, you wouldn't accept it anyway.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

FYI to anybody who clicked the photos.

If you saw the images on photobucket's site that means you just allowed the following sites to run scripts on your PC:

glam.com
pbsrc.com
criteo.com
adsonar.com
quantserve.com
amazon-adsystem.com
scorecardresearch.com


Just thought you might like to know.

What you mean is that no right-minded person would accept that that was a tirade, or a hijack.

 

[SimonH2]

Does it have any relevance at all, even in the slightest, most indirect way imaginable to the thread ? No
Does it come from someone with a track history of such irrelevant postings ? Yes.
Did I actually say that THAT specific posting was a tirade ? No

And should you, in your trade, know that scripts coming with web pages is absolutely normal (and much of the web wouldn't work without them) ? Yes.


I (looking back to check) reasonably politely suggested that your posting was out of place. You then launched well and truly into those tirades you reserve for people who dare suggest that you may not be 100% right and your postings not 100% appropriate to the topic.

And since then, you've just kept digging that deep hole even deeper.

Like I said, if you stop hijacking threads and generally acting like some "forum policeman" then people (and you know darn well it's not just me) will stop criticising you for it. But if you carry on trying to persuade everyone that "the rest fo the platoon is out of step, not you" then you'll keep getting comments about it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Does it have any relevance at all, even in the slightest, most indirect way imaginable to the thread ? No

Yes - because it was 100% relevant to a post made in this thread.

It was just as relevant to the original question as this was:

Despite the press headlines they are more expensive and less "green" than many alternatives.

And I believe in some areas there are now concerns that it's affecting the ecology of woodlands. Wood that would once have been left to rot is being scavenged by people thinking they are being "green and ecological" which is significantly altering the ecology. Many bugs etc need the rotting wood for food or shelter.

to this original question:

I am a DIY freak and not frightened of such a product. Had an estimate and they want £4000 plus another £900 for scaffolding. This includes the complete job with brick hearth. He also said that (unlikely) if the chimney has problems taking a 6" fle liner then the job could get expensive or abort altogether!

First I am going to take out the 4" liner already there and inspect the last section of the chimney where it bends towards the stack. This is at least in the chimney area so if I need to chop into it (say to clear) then that would be done in the loft.

One query I have, what stops me from using a 5" liner? I am going to have a <5KW burner and it will meet the DEFRA regs for that.

Another query is, is the LA cert. sfficient authority to finally approve the installation?

Any input welcome for this project.

So it's OK for you to make "irrelevant" posts, but not me?

Does it come from someone with a track history of such irrelevant postings ? Yes.

So are you reacting with prejudice and bias, not on the merits of what I posted here?

Did I actually say that THAT specific posting was a tirade ? No

So where exactly was the protracted post marked by intemperate, vituperative, or harshly censorious language?

And should you, in your trade, know that scripts coming with web pages is absolutely normal (and much of the web wouldn't work without them) ? Yes.

And should you, before you decide to take exception to a warning about them, be aware that allowing 3rd-party sites to run scripts poses a security risk? Yes.

I (looking back to check) reasonably politely suggested that your posting was out of place.

You made some pretty daft comments:

And of course, if you didn't trust your browser to do something vaguely sensible you'd never ever click on any link whatsoever - mights as well switch of the computer and stick with a good book.

The whole point is that no - you cannot trust your browser to not run 3rd-party scripts. That's what it will do. That is what it is designed to do. That is the behaviour which can be exploited in ways which you might not enjoy. So I said, in effect, "be aware". That's all, just "be aware".

But, in daft comment #2, you decided to call that "policing".

You then launched well and truly into those tirades you reserve for people who dare suggest that you may not be 100% right and your postings not 100% appropriate to the topic.

I wonder if the problem here is that you don't actually know what the word "tirade" means.

And since then, you've just kept digging that deep hole even deeper.

What I have been doing is to continue to defend myself against your irrational and unjustifiable criticisms.

If you would like to add "incredibly deluded" to your catalogue of failings then try expecting me to sit quietly by and say nothing when you post irrational and unjustifiable criticisms of me.

Like I said, if you stop hijacking threads

I did not hijack the thread. I responded, quite reasonably to your repeatedly irrational and repeatedly unjustified criticisms.

do you intend to "police" this like you do the UK Electrics section ?

It's policing as you imply that using a 3rd party image hosting site shouldn't be allowed.

Logical extension to your argument would include :
No-one should use DIY-Not since the site pages call up scripts from 3rd party sites.

Every time someone asks about (eg) a building problem then you'll post you boilerplate electrical stuff just in case they might choose to use an electric tool for the job.

Now please crawl back under your rock and leave the grown ups to their building projects.

acting like some "forum policeman"

There you go again.

I have not told, or even asked, anybody to not use photobucket, and you know damn well that I have not.

I have not told, or even asked, anybody to block 3rd-party scripts, and you know damn well that I have not.

I have not told, or even asked, DIYnot to not use 3rd-party scripts, and you know damn well that I have not.

then people (and you know darn well it's not just me) will stop criticising you for it.

You are the only one here. And you are, and will remain, unable to show a shred of credibility for that assertion.

But if you carry on trying to persuade everyone that "the rest fo the platoon is out of step, not you" then you'll keep getting comments about it.

I wrote ONE short post to make people aware of just how many other sites would execute code on their PC when they clicked on photobucket images. Just one. And I did not try to persuade any of them to do, or not do, anything in relation to that.

I wrote ONE short reply to the OP when he said "Thought this was a building section not an IT section".

And everything else has been dealing with your irrational and unjustifiable criticisms.

 

[SimonH2]

Does it have any relevance at all, even in the slightest, most indirect way imaginable to the thread ? No

Yes - because it was 100% relevant to a post made in this thread.

No, it had 0% relevance to the OPs question.

It was just as relevant to the original question as this was:

Despite the press headlines they are more expensive and less "green" than many alternatives.

And I believe in some areas there are now concerns that it's affecting the ecology of woodlands. Wood that would once have been left to rot is being scavenged by people thinking they are being "green and ecological" which is significantly altering the ecology. Many bugs etc need the rotting wood for food or shelter.

Well, that proves how desperate you are to prove that black = white so you can show yourself to be right and everyone else.
Firstly, as you darn well know, the post you quote here was NOT in reply to the post you mischievously claim it is. Secondly, are you suggesting that comments relating to fuel to go on a WBS are 0% relevant to questions regarding WBSs ?

As for the rest, TL;DR

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No, it had 0% relevance to the OPs question.

I didn't say it did.

I said it had 100% relevance to a post already made. You really do have a serious problem with reading and comprehension, don't you.

Well, that proves how desperate you are to prove that black = white so you can show yourself to be right and everyone else.

No - I'm just showing what a hypocrite you are, and that therefore your criticisms here are not motivated by anything rational or intelligent.

Firstly, as you darn well know, the post you quote here was NOT in reply to the post you mischievously claim it is.

Your comprehension handicap is showing again. I never said it was in reply to it, any more than have said that what I wrote here was in reply to what the original question was.

I said that what I wrote was relevant to a post already made, just as what you wrote in that other topic was.

But apparently whilst that is OK for you to do, when I do it it's policing and I should crawl back under my stone.

Secondly, are you suggesting that comments relating to fuel to go on a WBS are 0% relevant to questions regarding WBSs ?

I'm suggesting that you think they are, even though they were not what the OP asked about. I'm suggesting that you think it's OK for threads to develop, and for people to post things in response to what others write, and not just be limited to only what the original question was. I'm suggesting that you think that when I do the same it's policing and I should crawl back under my stone.

I'm suggesting that you are a hypocrite, motivated by personal dislike.

As for the rest, TL;DR

Oh I think you did. I think you read it and have realised what a mess you've got yourself into, realised that you've been a fool, realised that your position is untenable, and decided to try and dismiss what I wrote.

But if I'm wrong, and you really didn't read it because it was too long for you, then that also points to a comprehension handicap. So severe a one, in fact, that I think you should give up posting on this site - you don't have the ability or the will to cope with the things you initiate.

We've had pages of your incessant whinging because you decided that I was so out of order to post one short warning to alert readers who might not have realised that when they click on an image posted in this thread they will get content from several other websites stealthily running on their systems, that you had to call it policing, that you had to tell me to crawl back under my stone.

And then when I did not let you get away with that, you started banging on about tirades, and hijacking.

You have a serious attitude problem - you need to do something about it.

 

[mikeey84]

Well at least the OP got his purlin supported

 

[ban-all-sheds]

 

[SimonH2]

No, it had 0% relevance to the OPs question.

I didn't say it did.

I said it had 100% relevance to a post already made. You really do have a serious problem with reading and comprehension, don't you.

No, but you keep demonstrating that you do.

Well, that proves how desperate you are to prove that black = white so you can show yourself to be right and everyone else.

No - I'm just showing what a hypocrite you are, and that therefore your criticisms here are not motivated by anything rational or intelligent.

I said that what I wrote was relevant to a post already made, just as what you wrote in that other topic was.

Yes, I comprehend what you wrote, but I'm pointing out that what you wrote was incorrect.

Secondly, are you suggesting that comments relating to fuel to go on a WBS are 0% relevant to questions regarding WBSs ?

I'm suggesting that you think they are, even though they were not what the OP asked about. I'm suggesting that you think it's OK for threads to develop, and for people to post things in response to what others write, and not just be limited to only what the original question was. I'm suggesting that you think that when I do the same it's policing and I should crawl back under my stone.

I'm suggesting that you are a hypocrite, motivated by personal dislike.

Then your are suggesting a falsehood.
Are you so incapable of comprehending that your post had nothing to do with the building topic at all ? Are you also incapable of comprehending that there's a difference between natural thread drift where the topic diverges through related posts, and a complete irrelevance. Let me spell it out :

Topic on WBS -> wood for WBS -> environmental issues round burning wood -> environmental issues of obtaining wood for burning. See, a fairly simple chain of related topics that resulted in natural thread drift.

Topic on purlins -> post with 0 relevance to building. Where's the connection that qualifies that as "normal" thread drift" ?

As for the rest, TL;DR

Oh I think you did. I think you read it and have realised what a mess you've got yourself into, realised that you've been a fool, realised that your position is untenable, and decided to try and dismiss what I wrote.

You can think that if you want, doesn't make it true. I skimmed it, didn't read it in detail.

But if I'm wrong, and you really didn't read it because it was too long for you, then that also points to a comprehension handicap. So severe a one, in fact, that I think you should give up posting on this site - you don't have the ability or the will to cope with the things you initiate.

So now I have to stop posting here because at the time I had to consider getting to work ?

One of your standard tricks when you don't get your own way is to write increasingly lengthy posts (if necessary dragging in quotes from other threads, out of context, to try and support your untenable position). Some of us have noticed - it's a variation of the drunk in the pub who, when he realises he isn't winning the argument, just shouts louder and louder so that competing voices get lost in the noise.

You have a serious attitude problem - you need to do something about it.

Take a look in the mirror next time you think that. People (not just me) have been telling you that for some time. When they do, you turn round with your flame thrower approach to replies - I vaguely recall one answer being along the lines of "how dare you suggest I have a problem".



Now, as for your warning. I still fail to see how it's relevant to this thread.
Trouble is, it's not a "notice" as you seem to think. For those who have a clue what you're talking about then it's not necessary and so not worth posting it. For the rest, it's "ooh, some technical gobbledegook - seems I shouldn't be going to Photobucket". Don't let the fact that you didn't say "WARNING DON'T GO TO PHOTOBUCKET" distract from the simple fact that for the majority of users, if you tell them something like that then the message they will get is that it's some kind of warning not to go to Photobucket.
I know you won't accept that, you've demonstrated that you can't comprehend how "normal users" think when confronted with "technical gibberish".

Oh yes, and don't think I'd failed to notice your bad and deliberately misleading analogy of allowing someone to run <random program> off <random disk> on your computer.

 

[SimonH2]

Well at least the OP got his purlin supported

He hasn't yet !
Do you think he's run out of popcorn yet ?

 

[mikeey84]

Well at least the OP got his purlin supported

He hasn't yet !
Do you think he's run out of popcorn yet ?

I think he has! Snuck it inbetween yours and BAS's slanging match, tiff, constructive argument


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the plus side my steel beam is in and plastered over behind fireproof plasterboard with building control sign off, the block work supporting the purlin has also been replaced all by yours truly. Woohoo

 

[SimonH2]

Oh yes, I was thinking of his other thread

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No, but you keep demonstrating that you do.

it was 100% relevant to a post made in this thread.

NOT "it was 100% relevant to the original post made in this thread"

No, it had 0% relevance to the OPs question.

You can think that if you want, doesn't make it true. I skimmed it, didn't read it in detail.

You said you didn't read it.

So now I have to stop posting here because at the time I had to consider getting to work ?

Maybe you should only post when you have time to do it properly.

One of your standard tricks when you don't get your own way is to write increasingly lengthy posts (if necessary dragging in quotes from other threads, out of context, to try and support your untenable position).

It wasn't out of context - it was very relevant. It was you posting something not in reply to the OP but in reaction to what someone else had written.

Some of us have noticed - it's a variation of the drunk in the pub who, when he realises he isn't winning the argument, just shouts louder and louder so that competing voices get lost in the noise.

Nobody has "noticed" that.

Although I accept that you are not the only one who exhibits the truly awful behaviour of imagining things I have not written, and then having a go at me because they find that they don't like what they've just invented.

Take a look in the mirror next time you think that. People (not just me) have been telling you that for some time. When they do, you turn round with your flame thrower approach to replies - I vaguely recall one answer being along the lines of "how dare you suggest I have a problem".

What you have decided to label a "problem" is the fact that I will not ignore unjustified and unjustifiable attacks on me, and will defend myself to the utmost of my ability.

If you don't want that to happen, then lay off the unjustified and unjustifiable attacks - simples.

Now, as for your warning. I still fail to see how it's relevant to this thread.

You fail to see that if someone posts a link in this thread which when clicked on will cause several other sites to covertly run scripts on people's PCs it's not relevant to comment on it?

Trouble is, it's not a "notice" as you seem to think. For those who have a clue what you're talking about then it's not necessary and so not worth posting it. For the rest, it's "ooh, some technical gobbledegook - seems I shouldn't be going to Photobucket".

So you say.

You also said that I shouldn't have written it because that means I'm trying to police the site.

Unlike, of course, all the posts you've made telling me that I should not be posting. That's not policing at all, is it.

Don't let the fact that you didn't say "WARNING DON'T GO TO PHOTOBUCKET" distract from the simple fact that for the majority of users, if you tell them something like that then the message they will get is that it's some kind of warning not to go to Photobucket.

Actually, I think that there is a good case to be made for warning people not to click on the images in ignorance.

Can you make a good case to show that no site, anywhere, will ever do anything with covert scripts or other active content that the user would rather they didn't?

But it's only in your febrile mind that because I didn't "shut up and say nowt", that because I didn't "keep my trap shut" I must therefore have a problem with it.

It's only in your febrile mind that a "logical" (sic) extension to what I wrote would include saying that no-one should use DIYnot since the site pages call up scripts from 3rd party sites.

It's only in your febrile mind that every time someone asks about (eg) a building problem then I'm going to post "boilerplate electrical stuff" just in case they might choose to use an electric tool for the job.

It's only in your febrile mind that because I won't "crawl back under my rock and leave the grown ups to their building projects" in the face of your egregious nonsense that I'm hijacking the thread.

Oh yes, and don't think I'd failed to notice your bad and deliberately misleading analogy of allowing someone to run <random program> off <random disk> on your computer.

Allowing a whole bunch of random sites to silently run random stuff on your computer is exactly what you are doing when you click on (in this case) photobucket images.

 

[SimonH2]

it was 100% relevant to a post made in this thread.

NOT "it was 100% relevant to the original post made in this thread"

So let me get this right, you are claiming that the post you made suggesting people don't go to Photobucket was relevant to A post in the thread, but not necessarily to the OPs original post ?
In which case, a simple question - which post WAS it relevant to ?

 

[marsaday]

Mental issues BAS ? I think so. Why get so worked up on a blinking forum ?