R
Rich The Philosophizer
Guest
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:07:09 -0800, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
Not that that's a _bad_ thing, of course. After all, accomplishing
the same end with the least expenditure of resources could be called
"efficiency." ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
[0] it's in another sub-tangent, never mind.
This could work, but Jim, apparently, is a self-avowed cheapskate.[0]Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:31:54 -0600, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 12:35:43 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
Subject: Bookcase with Shelves supported by brass pins into 1/4"
holes drilled in side walls of bookcase body (oak plywood).
Problem: Cleaning lady stands on edge of a low shelf to reach up to
dust top shelves and rips out two pins, gouging out the drilled holes
:-(
I guess I can fill the holes and re-drill, but I was wondering if
there doesn't exist an over-size insert with a 1/4" hole in it?
Anyone have experience in this area? My Googling only produces how to
do it first time out, not how to repair.
---
If you're going to continue to allow her to stand on the shelves, you
might want to consider getting rid of the pins altogether and
substituting them with 1/2" -> 3/4" thick supports as wide as the
shelves are deep and as tall as the separation between the shelves.
Take out the pins for the bottom shelf, place a support for each end
of the shelf at the bottom of the bookcase, against the risers, and
rest the bottom shelf on the supports. If she's going to be standing
on the next to the bottom shelf, then place a support at each end of
the bottom shelf, against the risers, and rest the next to the bottom
shelf on them. You could even secure them to the uprights of the
bookshelf with flathead wood or sheetmetal screws to make them more
secure and not depend on the weight of the books to keep them in
place.
Or you could buy a step-stool. Or find a big box... ;-)
Hire a taller cleaning lady.
One with nice long legs and a french maid's outfit with the little
miniskirt.
Not that that's a _bad_ thing, of course. After all, accomplishing
the same end with the least expenditure of resources could be called
"efficiency." ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
[0] it's in another sub-tangent, never mind.