>I seem to have struck a deep emotional chord within you, Bruce. This,
among
>other responses you have posted today, suggests a passion for your work
and
>a healthy disdain for many of the things which are part of modern life.

No, in spite of what you may think, I'm a realist, and have an equally
healthy disdain for many of the things of life in the "good old days".

The chord you struck, as I really haven't made clear, has to do with that
"fitness of things" issue.
I have no problem with using modern coatings to preserve deteriorating
masonry; I admire  John Leek for the solution he offered his clients as a
stop-gap measure until they could afford to do a proper job of restoring
their clapboards. What I object to is your notion: " With regard to
tradesman, I would >suggest that the goal of all of us who work in the area
of technological
>development is to eliminate or reduce to the absolute minimum society's
>reliance on craftsmanship.
 (And you accuse me in the next paragraph of overstating my case!)

Its a matter of approach, and an intuitive sense of what your notion leads
to. Lets just say, for instance, that there was a really good quality vinyl
imitation 17th Cent. hand riven clapboard siding on the market.
Would you suggest that John was fulfilling his obligation to his clients or
his trade if he had said; "Look, you can't afford to do anything about
those deteriorating clapboards, so why don't we just tear them off and
replace them with this amazing look-alike in maintenance-free vinyl". Well,
if you are a provider of high tech solutions to some of the problems that
preservation tradesmen encounter, and you live by the credo you proclaim
above, then you might be doing your pocketbook some good, but only, it
seems to me, by creating an environment that is not responsible toward the
goals of preservationism. Certainly, there are times when the only fix is
high-tech. Certainly, there are times when to do a job correctly just isn't
possible given the client's budget, and/or isn't really worth loosing any
sleep over, given the undistinguished quality of the project. But going
from that to a state of affairs, which you seem to devoutly wish for, in
which the contribution of the craftsman isn't even desirable when it is the
cheapest solution, and/or the one most responsive to the goals of
preservation, is a long and perilous stretch.

Bruce