>>>...blocking rain is just a nice bonus to its primary function.
>> In our house and our neighbor's houses, blocking rainwater is its primary function - we do not live in a desert.
> Wherever you live the sun shines, and UV damage can be extensive against materials that are not designed against it. Cladding is about physical protection to the layers underneath.
This is a non-sequitur on at least two levels. Firstly, regardless of the truth of your statement about UV, it does nothing to address the point I was making here. If our houses were stripped of their cladding, they would soon fail - from rainwater damage, long before UV took its toll. Secondly, it is yet another attempt to avoid the overall issue, which is the author's position on the placement of the rain (not vapor or UV) barrier.
You seem to think that you can make an argument by quoting out of context and then stating some vaguely related fact, but, unless that fact has relevance, it does not work. Your comment about roof repair is of the same type.
> You can call the things Foo, Bar, Baz, or whatever you want.
This is just ridiculous. You are not even trying to address the question.
> If you want to argue Joe Lstiburek, be my guest:
I am not arguing with Joe Lstiburek, I asked a question about something he wrote, and have ended up arguing with you about what you mistakenly think would work as answers to that question. Your replies make it clear that you are no Joe Lstiburek.
>> In our house and our neighbor's houses, blocking rainwater is its primary function - we do not live in a desert.
> Wherever you live the sun shines, and UV damage can be extensive against materials that are not designed against it. Cladding is about physical protection to the layers underneath.
This is a non-sequitur on at least two levels. Firstly, regardless of the truth of your statement about UV, it does nothing to address the point I was making here. If our houses were stripped of their cladding, they would soon fail - from rainwater damage, long before UV took its toll. Secondly, it is yet another attempt to avoid the overall issue, which is the author's position on the placement of the rain (not vapor or UV) barrier.
You seem to think that you can make an argument by quoting out of context and then stating some vaguely related fact, but, unless that fact has relevance, it does not work. Your comment about roof repair is of the same type.
> You can call the things Foo, Bar, Baz, or whatever you want.
This is just ridiculous. You are not even trying to address the question.
> If you want to argue Joe Lstiburek, be my guest:
I am not arguing with Joe Lstiburek, I asked a question about something he wrote, and have ended up arguing with you about what you mistakenly think would work as answers to that question. Your replies make it clear that you are no Joe Lstiburek.