"Hi Don,

I think that Chris is playing with symatics and you are quite correct that the fundamental feature of a Gambrel roof is that it has 2 roof pitches the lower part of the roof attached to the eaves being steeper than the upper part joining to the ridge.

Mr Corkhill's illustration is of a hipped roof with gablet and is not either a gambrel or mansard roof."

That's 'semantics', and I don't believe I'm playing with them. New information is often greeted with hostility, and your comments illustrate that. Facts are facts, and if you want to continue the process of calling an orange an 'apple', as is the case with the word 'gambrel', go right ahead. I'm more interested in getting at the truth of the matter, and not wanting to perpetuate an old mistake. I respect tradition, but not thoughtlessly. Just because something had been called the wrong thing for over 100 years doesn't make it any closer to being right.

Mr. Corkhill illustrates a gambrel, a hipped gable roof. He does not illustrate a Mansard. Not sure where you got that from - did you read the post? Did you look at the sources and their illustrations? My assertions are the result of research and consideration, you seem to have nothing to offer in return other than a refusal to admit the information.

It would have been decent, since you mention me by name in your post, if you had addressed your comments to me directly, instead "Dear Don, "I think Chris has it all wrong...". If we were in a room together, would you behave that way?

I'm not overly annoyed at your remarks, and I also won't let them just slide. I stand by my convictions. If you have reasoned argument to offer, or good historical evidence that contradicts my view, then please bring that forward. Otherwise, simply claiming that x is x because you say so is hardly convincing.