Message text written by "BP - His DNA is this long."
>There is nothing wrong with using recycled plastic 2X4s, especially
considering the quality of most of the wooden ones currently on the market.
But do they belong in restorations? No. No reason, .<

>There's that elitist streak, again, Bruce. I find the "no reason, I'm just
>aesthetically offended" argument troubling. It's not because I think
>plastic 2 x 4's are a good idea for use in restoration, it's because it
>suggests that it's okay to do things without critical thought, "by the
seat
>of your pants", by what "feels right" based on one individual's subjective
>value system. That sort of thinking is a recipe for restoration disaster.

BS! Anyone with any expertise in any field of endeavor relies on "just a
feeling about the
fitness of things" all the time. If the process is filtered through a
acquired expertise and knowledge its an effective method for getting things
done. Ask any scientist or mathematician.

And the idea that "critical thought" is less subjective than intuition is,
to put it bluntly, hilarious. Shall we enumerate some of the results of
rational man practicing "critical thought"  just in the last few years?
Leaving aside things like "welfare reform", Newt Gingrich, health insurance
reform (do I betray a certain bias), all laden with "critical thought", we
can juxtapose your economic realism concerning preservation with the
Chicago school of economics, a bastion of critical thought if ever there
was one, and quickly see that highest use will always find an alternative
to preservation no matter how smart a thinker the preservationist is.

And, by the way, are you married? Or involved with someone? Was your
choice, in what will probably be the most important undertaking of your
life, the result of "critical thought" or a sense of the fitness of things.
The latter? A recipe for disaster!

>If, as many here have suggested, restoration work is a means of expressing
>individuality, my suggestion is:

>1. How about developing the individual knowledge and expertise to
>understand the complete range of technological options, and
>2. then applying them to each individual situation in the most appropriate
>manner, based on the
>3.  unique and individual combination of technical, risk and economic
>factors which must be weighed in every restoration project situation?

Sounds good, except it seems to be leaving out any reference to the soul of
the building and what might make it comfortable.

Sometimes what is cheapest, or least risky just doesn't do the job justice.
Then I say let someone else take responsibility for screwing things up.
I'll find something else to do.

Bruce