In a message dated 7/31/98 4:37:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

<< Now the damn thing is causing all sorts of problems
 that they never had with the tile.  preservation/common sense can save
 money. >>

I'm trying to figure out how to express to the uninitiated that the
methodology used in HP is not arcane or particularly expensive as much as good
and proper maintenance. The minute you say preservation the eyes begin to
bulge thinking "EXPENSIVE." To do the right thing is often to not do the wrong
thing, which may in some cases mean doing nothing at all. Or to do a lot less
than is imagined has to be done. In the end not doing the wrong thing saves
the building, and doing the right thing can save money.

The best example I have is where the owner paid to have roofing cement spread
all over the side of their masonry building thinking it will waterproof --
five years later they are asking me what I think and all I can tell them is
that they should not have done it. They paid good money for their problems. It
would have cost less to repoint the wall and if anything to apply a clear
breathable coating. Is it lack of knowledge that leads to the bituminous
coating? The petrochemical companies used to publish brochures to the
waterproofing industry expounding the benefits fo roofing cement. The benefit
I see is that someone could make a lot of money learning how to remove it
without damaging the already deteriorated substrate.

][<en