I don’t know what the rules are here about double posting, I’m kinda new here, but this seems to be where all the action is. And, I’ve never been able to give just 2 cents worth anyway, so here’s my 10 cents worth.
Jar’s avatar doesn’t offend me that much, although I probably wouldn’t want it covering my entire screen when my Mother or my female associates walked up behind me. Although, that doesn’t seem to be a problem, I tried enlarging the photo (making it a screen background) and don’t seem to be able to do that. Get your minds out of the gutter. Jar was just trying to show some beautiful cantilevers, and those four certainly fit that description very nicely; stunning cantilevers on beautiful, shapely, structures, with four very nice columns (stilts, piers, extended pilings, legs) for support, extending just high enough to keep all the important stuff high and dry and able to withstand the flood in the background. Remember Katrina, those structures were not so nicely supported, nor high enough, columns always have to go all the way up. I don’t think I have ever used the phrases ‘beautiful or stunning cantilevers’ when referring to a cantilever made out of wood, steel or concrete, nor did I ever get as much pleasure out of reflecting on the latter materials or structural elements. I defy any of the Architects here to come up with a more perfect or beautiful design, although they may all think they do with every one of their projects. And, while we might wish that the codes would cover every situation and detail, so there would be no ambiguity, the ICC and other code writers will never do those two structures justice.
Our’s is a serious business, what with a want for quality infrastructure, public safety, economical construction, and all, but we should be able to have a little fun too, without being to offensive or offended. Stuffed shirts are covered in another code, spec. or department or on another forum. Jar, you gotta clean up your act, or you’ll get you’re a$$ kicked off this forum, who do you think you are anyway?
And, I learned the other day that it is not appreciated if you are ****y around here either, and I’m sorry for that transgression. What are you trying to do? You should get much credit for starting a site which might be of considerable value to many, then you get us roped in, and then you try to turn the place into a p**n site. I was going to ask if you could provide me a link to a supplier for a few of those structures, but maybe I shouldn’t or someone will accuse you of pim**ng too.
I’m all for professionalism in our work, but it might be argued that you should know your trade, or code or business well enough so you don’t have to come to this forum, on a regular basis, for advice and interpretation in your everyday work, on something you are supposed to know and understand, if you are really professional at that work. Don’t forget, some fair share of the advice and opinion you get here might not be worth much more than what you paid for it. While I didn’t take the picture or force anyone to pose for it, I don’t find it that offensive. I actually take more offense at the rather high percentage of practitioners who seem to be floundering around understanding basic concepts and intent; on ever more complex codes, intended to cover ever more minutiae; on buildings and infrastructure made more complex, all in the name of eco-green or sex appeal, which are not significant improvements given the amount of difficulty they are to understand and work with. About the only thing the codes and computers, and their promoters and sales reps. haven’t taken over and don’t have figured out yet is professional judgement, experience, and well founded intuition, and the like. There seems to be less and less of that being used these days, God help us when that’s all gone and the computers and codes try to cover that too.