Chemicals from Wood

[Dave Carnell]

Wood Chemicals

The most offensive promotion of CPES and related products is the claim that because they are derived from wood they retain the properties of wood. This is 100% charlatanic
hokum. Rot Doctor uses it much more than Smith.

1. Their epoxy resins are not derived from wood. They are the same petrochemical products everyone uses, made by companies such as Dow and Shell.

2. Some of their solvents could be made from wood, but it is extremely unlikely that they
are today. In any event, chemical molecules have no DNA or heredity that ties them to
their originating raw material and its properties. When I was a kid you bought “wood alcohol” at the hardware store. It was methanol made by destructive distillation of wood. Ford operated a large continuous wood distillation plant at Iron Mountain, MI, where they made much of the solvents needed for their finishes from scraps of the maple, birch, etc. used to make their car bodies. Ford dealerships around the country sold Ford charcoal from the plant for picnic fires.During our investigation of alternatives to petrochemical
feedstocks in the 70s we discovered why that plant could run for weeks without external
heat. Differential thermal analysis of wood decomposition showed that there was an
exothermic reaction involved that made it self-sustaining. The first synthetic methanol was made in 1925 by DuPont’s synthetic ammonia plant at Belle, WV, as a by-product of the gas purification system of the ammonia plant. It soon became the major source of methanol. The synthetic methanol molecules are identical to those derived from wood, as are the molecules of any other solvent regardless of the raw material source.

Anyone who claims chemicals derived from wood have any properties related to wood is
indulging in worse hokum than P. T. Barnum ever thought of.

[ishmael]

Hmm. Sounds like wooden boat Homeopathy.

[TomRobb]

And in the far corner, Bob Cleek!

I'm at a loss trying to understand all this passionate anger http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/frown.gif

[Ed Harrow]

Ain't that the truth.

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by Ironmule:
The people who use CPES swear by it and say they get better finishes. That's the yardstick I want to measure by.

Those who swear at CPES don't seem to have used it, or in a few cases to have used it for the wrong purpose, thinking that epoxy is epoxy is epoxy...

If people don't understand it's purpose, that's OK, but why the anger and flames?

It offends me because I really dislike the constant advocacy of CPES as the solution regardless of the problem. "I've got X," someone says. Regardless of X, the answer is almost always, "CPES!"

That's up there with http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif the constant advocacy of anti-freeze as the One True Solution (tm). Not that anyone around these parts would ever do that http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/wink.gif

And the Rot Doctor's behaviour on rec.boats.building and other USENET groups years ago earned my enmity and a blace in my killfile: his constant posts recommending CPES as the solution to the problem at hand were made under

* multiple false return addresses
* without reference to or acknowledgement
that he had a financial interest in the
product

were all blatant violations of accepted USENET practice. Once I exposed him as the charlatan he was, he did, grudgingly, start using a .sig identifying himself as the retailer.

Compare and contrast that behavour with that of say, Kern Hendricks of System III, who never made any bones about who he was or his interests in Epoxy. And still provided objective advice and information without trying to hawk System III resins.

It offends me because it is a blatant ripoff. It is, fundamentally, nothing more than a mixture of various solvents (toluene, etc.) with some (not much) epoxy resin.

CPES runs $US 70-90 per gallon. Straight epoxy (System III) retails for about $US 60 per gallon. CPES is more than half solvents (~ 70%).

Challenge: Prove that CPES is something other than just epoxy resin mixed with various solvents. The MSDS says otherwise. Unless CPES contains some other secret and incredibly non-toxic ingredient that the MSDS doesn't mention (which I would have a hard time believing that it does.)

An analysis. Here's some comparative retail prices for solvents (US dollars):

* Acetone: $ 8.52 per gallon
* Methyl Ethyl Ketone: $11.84 per gallon
* Isopropyl Alcohol: $13.90 per gallon
* lacquer thinner: $4.54 per gallon
* mineral spirits: $4.54 per gallon
* toluene: $7.50 per gallon
* naptha: $7.50 per gallon

Using retail prices -- various solvents at $15 per gallon and epoxy at $60 per gallon, well above actual retail prices! -- I compute the cost of materials in CPES at about $26 per gallon, assuming that it's 70% solvent, 30% epoxy. The 200%/$50 markup to bring retail prices up to $70 per gallon (what CPES' best price is) is awfully high.

And that's using retail prices and not the wholesale prices you'll get for buying toluene and epoxy resin by the railroad tank car. You can cut the $26 cost of meterials by well over 100% if you consider the wholesale bulk rate.

That's a lot of money to pay someone for stirring up a vat of stuff. I can't believe that the cost of labor and overhead involved is terribly high.

So I ask you, does Smith and Company's CPES actually provide more than $50 per gallon value-added over what you'll get by mixing similar solvents yourself?

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by Ironmule:
Sounds like you haven't gotten over your mad with the Rot Doc, and blame CPES for his excesses.

It's all about ethics. One is known by the company one keeps.

[ford]

keep it up boys, all this stuff about CPES [resin from wood? oh yeah] is fascinating but makes no difference anyway, you can't get the stuff in Australia.
hmmm if it penetrates that well maybe it will work on my wifes osteoporosis.
just kidding.

[Hazy Chris]

Hi there,
I just thought I'd chime in here. I think you have a point about the cost-at least in terms of the solvent break down-and yes the whole derived from wood thing is crap.
I had a long conversation with Mr Smith a while back in his shop. I asked him what is to stop me from taking his stuff back to my lab and figuring out what is actually in it and concocting my own. While being understandibly evasive, he maintains that there is a few things in there in small quantities that make a large difference in the behavior of the stuff-and further that I would probably have to spend a long time before I got anywhere in figuring out what it was. My guess is that it is some odd surfactant system that works well with all the other stuff in there, and doesn't interfere with the epoxy. (My experience with surfactants, suggests that that is not necessarily a small order.) Now admittedly, the guy sells the stuff and has a damn good reason to try to snow me, but frankly based on the rest of the conversation, I believe him, and what is more I like the guy. What we are paying for when we lug off a two gallon kit of the stuff is the time and energy the guy and his cohorts have spent developing the stuff, testing it and as you said, making it. I can assure you that he is not sitting there fat dumb and happy raking in the cash. But if he was, I'm not sure I'd have any more of a problem with that than I do with the way I am making various other paint and glue and goo makers rich who mark their products up at least as much. In fact, it is rare the actual inventor sees much of anything from something like this.

Having said that, my jury is still out on the stuff. I have a few gallons in my boat, most recently as an undercoat to some topside paint. I think it also might deter worms-and again help in adhesion of the paint that really deters worms. I also think that it probably does a pretty good job of killing spores and certainly live microbes that it can reach-because of the solvents. That is another good reason to use it (or red lead etc)as an undercoat. No better way to slow rot than to reduce the innoculum and keep conditions unfavorable. - Still I don't think it is a cure for already rotten wood. I still cut material out way past the existing rot. Fungal mycelia are made to infiltrate wood, and my money is on them over the CPES any day in that capacity.
I also have a feeling that if you sat down and tried to make a homespun version of CPES, you would probably have reasonable success, maybe to the point that you wouldn't tell the difference in the lifetime of the application. I'm thinking Dave should do just that. Personally, I'm curious to try a comparison, but for now, I'm perfectly comfortable buying Mr Smith a good dinner now and again.

[This message has been edited by Hazy Chris (edited 08-15-2001).]

[Art Read]

Just curious how one might reduce costs of materials by "over 100%"? Do the suppliers pay to take it off their hands?

[TomRobb]

You'd think Smith was mugging your grandmother for her social security check http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/rolleyes.gif

This isn't about curing cancer, folks.

When passions are over the top and the stimulus is more or less innocuous, there's usually some peculiar supressed pychological problem.
Your hour is up. That'll be two cents, please http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/biggrin.gif

[ken mcclure]

Here's a viewpoint from "the other side." I have a company that manufactures dyes for carpeting. I believe that my products are better than anyone elses' out there. When someone asks me what's in my products, why should I tell them? Why should I turn over 25 years of research and development? Just because they asked?

I charge what I believe to be a fair price for my products. Within that price is buried the costs to produce the products, some overhead allowance for the company's cost of carrying dead weight like me, some money for commissions to the sales channel, and -- (small trumpet fanfare) -- some money for profit for the company. Is the company not allowed to make a profit? Why not? Because you don't want to pay that much for the product?

If the product works as advertised, you need to determine whether the cost of the product is in line with the benefits you derive from the product's use. If it is, buy it and thank the manufacturer for providing it. If it's not worth the price to you, go buy something else.

[dasboat]

Here Here KW!
If ya haven't been in business for yourself ya wont have a clue about why things cost as much as they do.
I'm not saying that there isn't price gouging going on,or what smith's practices are about.Setting a price is not as simple as it sounds. http://www.mpz.co.uk/cwm/ups/sicdeth/headscratch.gif
Das

[thechemist]

Sounds as if there are a few business owners or employees here, as well as the idle rich.

Those of us who have to actually work for a living, or help supervise others doing the same thing, may or may not see the checkbook and accounting side of things, depending on the size of their company and who else is taking care of that area.

Setting the price of a product nowadays has less to do with the cost of raw materials than it used to.

In some states such as California, the spiraling cost of health care and insurance is driving up those overhead costs by about ten to fifteen percent a year for large businesses, and twenty to thirty percent a year for a small business. Federal environmental regulations everywhere, while sorely needed in some circumstances but not in most, further force costs up. The Plaintiff's Attorney who specializes in out-of-court settlements [meaning extortion] has further increased the costs of all manufactured goods.

The increasing cost of living due to [whatever social factors] has required companies to increase employee pay at double the "inflation" rate, just to barely keep their employees' standards of living about the same. Otherwise, the skilled ones go elsewhere and they have to hire new [cheaper] ones, and cannot see the training costs.


Costs that were once not a significant part of a business overhead have now grown to where they are the previous year's profit. Costs of complying with new government regulations such as controlling where rainwater goes or what it touches have cost small paint companies many year's profits, and increasingly onerous micromanagement by city and county agencies [for example] drove the De Soto paint company out of Berkeley and into the Mojave desert where land was cheap, even though they were a clean manufacturer and had a nice manufacturing facility. United Parcel service moved their administrative service and billing center out of Modesto a few years ago , to Texas, because it was just too expensive to exist and employ people in California, and their bottom line motivation was keeping the company profitable while avoiding more strikes due to wage demands of their Teamster drivers.

Anyone who does any sort of marketing knows the skills required to produce promotional literature or labels or maintain a web site. It used to require only a draftsman and a local printing company. Now it requires Information Specialists who speak HTML and cost double what a production worker does, and computers, printers, scanners, software, all of which costs a bunch and is obsolete two years later.

Some guy in his back yard fifty or even twenty years ago probably could have made any simple chemical product and marketed it successfully. Now, no one can do that. The cost of regulation compliance, the county fees [now up to six or seven hundred just because you MIGHT generate any hazardous waste] all these things add up to overhead costs that are actually more than the cost of raw materials and more than profits for small businesses, and are comparable to profit margins for mid-size or large businesses. I think the bottom line is that our society is changing, and the increasingly service-oriented and communications/information orientation of society is responsible. I think this change will continue in the next ten years, possibly at a greater rate.

The cost of any product reflects not only labor and material and "overhead" and profit, but all the costs of keeping a company IN EXISTENCE . Today's costs are not tomorrow's costs and if you do not anticipate tomorrows costs you will never sell today's product at a price that guarantees survival. In our society today, it has become surprisingly expensive to do just that.

But, I digress.

Surely someone has a rational question about a simple chemical matter, instead of stating with absolute certitude that someone's formula cannot possibly contain wood-derived resins becasue there is no such thing.

There ARE such things.


Triglycerides [walnut oil, tung, castor or other drying oils used in varnish] are articles of commerce, common as cat hair, and easily modified from their olefin --chemistry to either epoxy or amine by a chemical manufacturing company. For example, water can be added to any double--bond. This gives a secondary alcohol for any unsaturated triglyceride. Epichlorohydrin can be reacted with such an alcohol to give an glycidyl ether, which is an epoxide. Ammonia can be added to such a double--bond to give primary amines, or to any acid to give amides.

The same can be done with any wood-derived resin which has any hydroxyl or unsaturation. They can all be modified in this manner. This sort of chemistry has been in practice on an industrial scale for over a hundred years.

Anyone with a chemical background can see this. It is obvious from the foregoing chemical discussion. Such things exist, and can be EASILY made.

Cardolite [a chemical manufacturer], for instance, makes a variety of phenalkamines and epoxides derived from cashew nuts or the oils of their shells.

I cannot tell you what any epoxy company is using in their products unless they publish their formula, but claims of wood-derived resins are assuredly possible and easily feasable.

As for what ingredients are listed on a MSDS, the OSHA hazard communications standard requires the consumer be informed of the hazards. If a relatively non-hazardous material is dissolved in a hazardous material, the manufacturer need not disclose any but the hazardous ones. If a material is hazardous at a high concentration but present in sufficient dilution, its hazard may disappear compared to other ingredients.

That, in a nutshell, is why you will often not find all of a product's ingredients on a MSDS in the U. S. A. In Europe, different rules apply, but there are many similarities to the foregoing.

[Frank Wentzel]

About a week ago I ordered two gallons of CPES. Total cost, including shipping from California to Florida, was $118.13. So the cost is less than $60/gallon. Definitely not cheap but, if it performs as I expect it will, bearable.

I am a chemist. Even though I specialized in inorganic chemistry (unlike "The Chemist" who obviously is an organic chemist in the coatings field) I could easily experiment with making my own version of "Mystic Elixir" - I have not done so. Not that I haven't mixed up many batches of diluted epoxy for one reason or another, but to try to get the combination of properties that have won over so many forumites is not a trivial endeavor. Smith has done a lot of testing and I don't have the time or money to waste for reinvention of the wheel.

I spoke with Smith briefly when I ordered the CPES. He freely admitted that his MSDS is written to protect his formulation. He has a lot of time invested in developing, testing and promoting his product and he does not want to give it away. As to its price - this is a specialized product not a commodity. Those who expect it to be sold at "cost plus a little bit for the overhead" don't realize the investment necessary to create a demand for a new product. You have to convince your potential customer to buy something he didn't even know existed -let alone needed. Smith is still in that phase - at least in the world outside the Forum. The bad thing about that is that we get to pay to help him promote his product.

As to the Googe Brothers test - I read the data in their magazine ("Epoxy Works" - an excellent resource!). They were doing minor dilutions: only on the order of five or ten percent. In addition they were testing it against their undiluted product. It is not surprising that it tested worse that the pure product in the various tests they performed. But it was not tested for the one thing I am buying CPES for - improving paint and varnish performance. I don't for a minute believe that CPES should be used to "repair" rotten wood - all you will end up with is brittle rotten wood and I see no reason to believe that the rot will not continue to progress. Although CPES is much more compatible with water than regular epoxies I wouldn't trust it to penetrate saturated wood, that would be asking too much. Smith has optimized the properties in one direction at the clear detriment to most of epoxy's other properties - it's the nature of all compromises. If these properties are what you need in a given application great! - if you need other properties optimized, use the epoxy formulated for the properties you desire.

Chemist

Sorry, I had done most of this reply earlier and didn't check before I posted. You covered all I did and much more, with more detail. Next time I'll look before I leap (post)!


[This message has been edited by Frank Wentzel (edited 08-16-2001).]

[dasboat]

Any time my surveyor says"cut to good wood and replace",I slather on CPES to the exposed fresh wood.My primary reason is that I want to prevent the creeping crud from migrating if possible.
I have no idea if I'm achieving something that could not be achieved in a dozen other ways.
I must say though that piece of mind is as important to me as is the quality of my work.
So far I have not had to re do a repair.
Das

[thechemist]

Frank

It's okay. Many people can say the same thing from different viewpoints, and add additional dimensions due to their different experiences and backgrounds. The opinion of another chemist on the subject is itself an enrichment of this [cloud of blue smoke in the air over the pot-bellied stove in the bar] and is something I could not have added no matter what I said.

[Bob Cleek]

Ah yes, I remember those early forum days well... I'd say, "CPES" (I think I MAY have a legitimate claim to inventing the acronym... it used to be called "Clear Penetrating Epoxy Sealer!") and everybody would say, "Never heard of it." A prophet is never welcome in his own land... they say. I guess I have done my job well when I can read the posts above and hear my buddy Steve Smith defended so well! LOL

Hey, count me in about RotDoctor. I think the guy's advertising is full of crap. Wildly overblown. Notice that he can't call his stuff "CPES," either. I don't know what his arrangement with Smith is, but I suspect he has a license to sell the stuff under his own name and Smith can't do diddly about his claims. Buy your googe from Smith at the source and teach the RotDoc a lesson! LOL BTW, anybody ever TALK to the RotDoc over the phone when they had an application question? Hmmmm?

[Dave Carnell]

I sort of stirredup a firestorm, including a vitriolic e-mail from Steve Smith to the effect of how dare I be critical of his products, an analysis of my character, and a statement that he wouldn't send me an MSDS sheet or do business with me. (wonder why he masquerades as Guy Pringle <biggles@grin.net> ). He took a swipe at my spreading the word on the effectiveness of ethylene glycol in killing wood rot, which nets me not a penny.

I offered to publicly retract any false statement he could show I have made about his product and told him it is the hype and hokum used to promote them that is offensive.

I further pointed out that he has a legal obligation to supply an MSDS sheet to anyone who requests it, but I wouldn't press it because I had found the one I got through Fiberlay.

CPES is less than 30% epoxy resin diluted with (from information posted here) isopropyl alcohol, toluene, and styrene. Smith literature claims that the water-soluble solvent, isopropyl alcohol, makes CPES penetrate farther in wet wood. Perhaps, but I suspect the effect is at best marginal because as soon as you add any water to CPES it separates into two phases. I doubt if it is any more penetrating than Git-Rot, which according to T. F. Jones' new book was invented by Platt Monfort of Geodesic boat fame.

All this controversy suggested to me using ethylene glycol as solvent to deliver its rot-killing effectiveness with epoxy. It won't work because glycol is not very soluble in epoxy. However, a stable suspension similar to mayonnaise of 36% glycol in a batch of epoxy (Dow 330 epoxy resin and System Three #2 hardener) quickly cured rock hard, so the glycol doesn't upset the epoxy cure.

Smooth Sailing!

[thechemist]

Thanks for the update, Dave.

What, exactly, was the full text of Smith's communication to you? Did you send something to him to engender that reply, or did he send you some unsolicited communication?

"He said, she said..." is just rumor.....care to share the facts?

[Dave Carnell]

Smith's e-mail was in response to my request for an MSDS sheet for CPES.

[thechemist]

Dave....you used the word vitrolic.....with no evidence to support your opinion. Saying something about what someone else purportedly said without showing the fact of what was actually said opens the door to false data.

Originally posted by thechemist:
What, exactly, was the full text of Smith's communication to you? <snip>
.....care to share the facts?

[Ed Harrow]

Dave, I'd be very interested in seeing a copy of that email... Thank you.

[TerryC]

If Mr Smith is not afraid to do it, he should be the one posting it here. Dave was not the author of it so it's inappropriate for him to post it publicly. How about it, Mr. Smith, care to share with all?

[Bob Cleek]

It somehow seems unfair to hold a gun to Steve Smith's head and demand that he "defend" himself in this forum when our one absolute rule around here is "No self-promotion." Mr. Smith, to my knowledge, has never appeared in here, in person, or under an alias. If he lurks, his self-control speaks volumes for the respect the man must have for the rules around here. Besides, I doubt he gives a shit. People buy his stuff because it works for them better than anything else and apparently there are enough of those kind of people out there to ensure that he is not starving! LOL

[Dale Harvey]

Hey Dave, your anti-freeze didn't do a thing for my feet!, but Smith's CPES sure did a slick job on the fuzzyrot under the side decks of my old mullet launch.

[Dave Carnell]

Dale,

Sorry it didn't do anything for your feet; it has worked for a lot including the guy who sent me an e-mail, "My Feet Adore Dave Carnell". Opened with apprehension, it turned out to be from a police officer on Long Island who cleared up a decades-old case of athlete's foot, as I had.

[Scott Rosen]

I have a proposal for the engineers. It seems CPES is most commonly used by readers of the forum as an undercoat for paint and varnish. Why not do a simple experiment? Take your favorite epoxy glue, thin it, then use it as an undercoat for paint. compare it to CPES used for the same purpose. As a control, you can paint or varnish an untreated piece of lumber. Subject all three to some simulated on-the-water conditions--abrasion, UV light, salt water, chemicals, hot to cold, wet to dry. See what happens and report back. I would guess that because of the different cure rates between most epxoies and CPES, and also because of the blush that most epoxies have as they cure, you will find the CPES is superior for that application. But I'm just guessing. I think that those of you who claim CPES is just snake oil should get some actual data to back up your claims. If you think you can do the job of CPES with an inexpensive epoxy thinned with over-the-counter sovents, then do it. Let us know how it works.

As for the pricing . . . Smith doesn't claim to be selling a discout or a bargain product. There's certainly no deception involved. Unlike, say West Marine, which says its prices are discount, but in fact are as high as you'll find anywhere. Frankly, I wouldn't use more than a gallon of CPES in any one year, and I'm not doing the work professionally, so the extra few dollars won't sway my opinion one way or the other. In fact, Smith's technical support is as good as I've found anywhere for any product of any kind. When I've called or emailed, I've gotten an immediate and thorough response. THAT, by itself, is worth a few extra bucks to me.

[TerryC]

It appears Mr. Smith does read this forum. Here is a copy of what he sent to Mr Carnell. I see nothing here that would cause Mr. Carnell to spout like he did. I was told by Mr. Smith I could post this here.

Subject: From Steve Smith
To: sailor138@netzero.net


Hi, Terry


I'm Steve Smith.


I believe that for me to post on the Wooden Boat Forum would violate
the rule against self-promotion, and I want to be very careful not to
do that. I appreciate all the good things that Forumites say about
my products and I do not want to jeopardize your freedom of speech by
my saying anything about my products or anything concerning them. I
am perfectly happy to let you say whatever you want about anything,
and not have any manufacturer, even me, telling you what to think
about my products or defending them in any way. If I start to do
that, it opens the door for any manufacturer of anything to defend
their products [when does defense become promotion? How do you draw
the line? Perhaps only in response to a specific issue and then only
when invited, but I don't like even that opening of the door that
much.] and I think that an inappropriate use of the Wooden Boat
Forum.


You can always communicate with me on any issue, and I will email
you privately, and you can post that, and likely that would not
violate Forum rules. My e-mail address is on my various web sites,
and in my signature line here.


As for the present issue, which Mr. Carnell seems reluctant to answer
directly, I will paste in here that particular communications cycle:







Hi, Dave I'm Steve Smith. I hear from quite a few of my customers that
you spend a lot of time on-line attacking my products, and going on at
great length about the virtues of Antifreeze for anything. I recall
a couple of years ago you were very interested in being critical of my
Tropical Hardwood Epoxy.


Critical people are critical of other things or other people because
they havedone something toothers or similar terminals. Eventually
the carping criticism, the continuing efforts to hammer down another,
those become something that must be justified by continuing attacks to
make less of that which one has attacked and sought to make less of,
and the action justifies itself, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.


I have nothing against you personally, but you seem a very critical
person and I am really not interested in joining you in playing the
game of criticizing my products and my technology, which is what you
seem to be doing with your life.


I decline to send you anything, and I decline to do business with you.


From: David Carnell <davecarnell@worldnet.att.net>
To: smi3th@smithandcompany.org
Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2001, 4:49:43 AM
Subject: MS-DS Sheet for CPES


===8<==============Original message text===============
Is the MSDS sheet for CPES available online? If not, please send a
copy to:


David W. Carnell 322 Pages Creek Drive
Wilmington, NC 28411-7850


Thank you.


===8<===========End of original message text===========


Terry, you may quote the entire message above, and/or
anything
else I said in this e-mail.

[Adam C]

I'll say it again...have the detractors of CPES used it, or not? if not, go pound dirt.
Get lost, quit knocking the product until you use it. Don't come back with mushy heresay, get the facts. Come back with "I don't like it because I used it and..." or " I like it because I used it and...."

How can you compare and detract products you haven't used? Example: You don't see me cutting System 3 products...I haven't used them.

Let's get on the same page and share some facts. I don't give a shit about Steve Smith or Carnell or what who said to who. Let's just look at the facts.

For those who want to continue debating things they haven't used, here is a good book:

"Your ass and a hole in the ground: a comparative study" written by I.M. Knowitall


Adam

[Ed Harrow]

Ummmmm, Adam, saying something like "Fan from me the witless chaff of such a writer" would be far more eloquent...

[Adam C]

Thanks, Ed.

But as a fellow owner of a pile of sticks, I like this forum because it usually cuts to the chase, and people tell you "do it / don't do it or use it /don't use it"

when you get political bickering it ends up being useless.

kingdom of miscellania exempted, of course :)

[Scott Rosen]

Go Adam!

[Ed Harrow]

While I agree with your thought process I wonder if "[t]he rudness that appeared in [you, you] learned from [your] entertainment." http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif

In an extreme case, and perhaps this qualifies, and I've never used this in anger so to speak: "What so ever cunning fiend it was that wrought upon thee so preposterously hath a voice in hell for excellence." :P

Then, of course, there is the very elegant, "Pardon me sir, I took thee for thy better." http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Cheers, Ed

[Jim Surdyke]

I have searched and searched and searched and still am unable to find the "Thread delete button". I would like to use it on this one!

[Hazy Chris]

Jim, I'm with you. (and Ed) We should all have a look in the mirror and state "Pardon me sir, I took thee for thy better", and Move ON! I just tried it , but I needed more: I was further heard, "I will not be a zealot without foundation......I will not be a knee jerk anti-zealot without foundation......I will not be a patronizing know it all bastard......I will not turn anothers words against their intentions......I'll try not to be petty.... I had a long spell in front of that mirror and it was cathartic. Purged of evil, I feel well enough to start thinking about my boat again.