Message text written by Leland Torrence
>photographically document rather than to try and
specify thirty years of field experience.  Further I think allot would be
gained in the name of better building if specifiers devoted more time
qualifying and specifying the craftsman as well as the material. (Mike, I
don't know who should pay for the PUP's: propriatary usage permits.  Are
the
manufacterers the best teachers?)<

This raises a too-infrequently discussed reality or two, with regard to
training.

First of all, a day or 2 or 10 of training will not make a craftsperson out
of someone whose attention span is only as long as it takes them to smoke a
cigarette. So yes, it is important that if you have a project that is
complicated, highly decorative, extremely valuable and historically
irreplaceable that you don't hire Bob's Masonry Plumbing and Auto Body
Repair to do the work, no matter whose training course he has taken.

Are manufacturers the best teachers? I think it's accurate to say that
manufacturers have more focused exposure to the ins and outs of the use of
their own products than anybody else. We also have tremendous motivation to
help make sure that projects are executed with a minimum of product-related
problems, and so we are motivated to train effectively. Let's face it, if
we train well, we don't get the problem phone calls. Of course, there is
also a lot more that goes into good teaching than just having the knowledge
yourself. 

At the same time we should all be aware that there are obvious pitfalls to
be encountered if you rely too much on a single manufacturer, because they
may be motivated to misrepresent that their way is the only way, and there
is never only one way.

Mike Edison