Goober McTuber wrote:Hope this helps.
Thanks, Gobbles...it does help, but not in the way you had likely intended. What it does help do is reinforce that reading comprehension, and generally keeping up, are not your strong suits. I'll try to work through this slowly for you.
You wrote:Most people would stain the ends of exposed boards, unless they are “monuments to dumbassery”.
And it is EXACTLY those monuments we're talking about here, given that
Dinsdale wrote:I'm not sure if we ever even discussed the absolute monument to dumbassery that just about any DIYer makes, along with many a "professional"
So we're NOT talking about how it
should be done, but rather how it is often unwisely done. Understand the subtle difference here? It gets tougher going forward, though, since we now will introduce the concept of
mutual exclusiveness. In this case, the "if" condition I cited appeared when
I wrote:If the deck is built, then treated on its top surface only (hence, "monument to dumbassery"), many and possibly all of the boards will be treated on only one side.
To which
You wrote:I used my deck to illustrate that I stained the ends of the boards.
See where the problem here is? Your response was outside the bounds of my given "if" condition.
If only the top surface is treated, that means the ends are not. It can't be both ways. That is what is meant by conditions being
mutually exclusive. So you were trying, admittedly lamely, to refute a point I never tried to make. Then, to top it off,
You wrote:Which kind of makes point #3 kinda stupid.
I can understand why you might think this, given your fallacious arguments and your inability to comprehend mutual exclusiveness. I know this is tough, but just focus, and it may become clear to you, though I'm honestly not optimistic. But let's put a positive spin on this. If you continue to believe that point #3 is kinda stupid, then you and that point share some commonality - in your feeble mind, anyway. So at least you're not alone. Silver lining, if you will.