"Gordon Arnaut" wrote

If you disagree with something I said, then address it in civil terms as I
have done when I disagreed with the other poster's point. There is no
excusable reason to launch into a personal attack and what I wrote "crap."


I am normally a _very_ civil person, but I go off the deep end when someone
makes a post retorting to have a command of subject matter, then displays an
utter *lack* of grasp on the subject. People who know no better might
believe you, and commit a design change/substitution that kills them. this
is big stuff, with life ending possibilities.

In order to have a compression fracture to take place, the wood has to be
compressed past the ultimate failure of the species, in compression, or if
it were bent, in rupture on the side of the board that is in the "low" side
of the bend. How much force would be required would then depend on the
specifics of the size of the stock. I would dare to say, that the loads
required would be HUGE; it would be enough to crush the floor, and
suspension, and blow the tires of a UPS truck, if it were say, a spar, of
unremarkable size. That is not going to happen from having a box, or boxes,
or even a V-8 engine sitting on it. How ridiculous!

If you purport to write as an expert, dispensing advise, you must be
prepared to take your lumps when you blow it.

You blew it.

Oh, by the way, pot, kettle, black. You seemed to do a pretty good job of
not addressing me in a civil manner.

I do not have a personality disorder, nor am I odiferous, nor am I an idiot.
I was, however, bold enough to call you bluff on a subject you should not be
writing about, if you are so far off base from knowing the basic causes of
this kind of failure in wood.

It seriously makes me wonder how far off base you are on the rest of the
figures and concepts you wrote about. I might suggest that other readers
also view the previous posts made by you with a *very* large grain of salt.

Civil enough? If not, tough. Live with it.
--
Jim in NC