Message text written by "BP - His DNA is this long."
>Its not a matter of "can survive". I survive because I have managed to
convince enough people that, for certain jobs, hiring me (actually us- its
a two man shop. And it even survived a while back as a six person shop,
until the headaches and the lack of bench time for myself caused me to see
the light) is cost-effective and more to the point qualitatively.

Bruce<

It was not my intention to suggest that there isn't a place for the skills
and values to which you have clearly dedicated yourself. Clearly there is,
but you must recognize that there are practical limitations to what you
suggest, and we cannot paint everything in such black or white terms.

>Don't disagree- but I do have to ask if there aren't sometimes blind
assumptions being made about high-tech solutions meeting those criteria
more effectively? My experience tells me that there's a bit of brainwashing
involved that promotes a jaundiced eye toward even considering more
antediluvian solutions, when sometimes they turn out to be not only
qualitatively better, but cheaper.<

Nobody is more critical than I of "fad" products and technologies that are
brilliantly marketed, achieve remarkable market penetration for a year or
two, and then leave everyone disappointed when the shortcomings and
limitations are discovered the hard way. But this is not what the "critical
thought" I alluded to, (and which really got your liberal politics in an
uproar) is all about. Critical thought is about consensus-building task
groups being formed, drawing from a broad spectrum of industry
professionals. Their task is to take one aspect of restoration - - whether
it is surface preparation in preparation for repair or coating of concrete
- - or a process of guiding selection of repair materials - - or a standard
for applying cement plaster - - and their task is to study current practice
in that pareticular area. Each team member must bring his knowledge,
expertise and experience to bear on the issue at hand.  And out of these
widely varied and often opposed viewpoints, there must come consensus, an
even-handed and reliable reflection of the state of knowledge on the
subject at the time. This consensus is usually built through years of work,
and before it is adopted, it is generally put up for critical review and
amendment by a broader group of membership, any of which may raise
technical objections which must then be addressed before a standard is
finally adopted. Periodically, then, the consensus standard is reviewed.

The system isn't perfect, but it's the best anyone has come up with so far.
And I'd bet there are a lot of people who contribute time and effort to the
process who would strongly object to being accused of brainwashing or being
brainwashed.

By the way, I'm not denigrating your liberal politics in my statement,
above, though I see myself as a dyed-in-the-wool moderate (Moderation in
all things, including Moderation). Politics is one thing, technology is
another. My preference is for the concrete, the quantifiable, the process
that properly followed results in learning of certain truths, regardless of
their potential implications.

Mike E.