But if you read my post again, I was merely posing a question, there in fact was no accusation. ;)

Personally, I'm a big fan of Gorilla Glue

Answered this as you were asking.

Based on the patterns observable from the face of the signs, it appears that the culprit may have drizzled Elmer's glue in a grid pattern to cover most of the sign, then pressed it against the wall and applied pressure to all parts of the sign until a temporary bond was formed.

The culprit may have gone to the grocery store (or something) afterwards, then returned to make sure the bond was holding. But that's all speculation.

Hmmm, me thinks private investigation should be your new career...;)

Fantastic!

That sounds like the work of more than one person to me, if there is more than one person in Kali not an MM supporter. One gluing, and one sticking, to minimize exposure times.

You could also brush it on, like billboard pasters do, or roll it from a pan, if someone were reading this who was thinking of doing the same.

Good glue, but an epoxy is forever, BTW.

TR

Yes, I was thinking of using a small 4" roller to apply the cement... something along the lines of an outdoor contact cement that can be applied beforehand, then just press signs onto the target for MUCH less exposure time. LOL

RL... looks like an excellent job. I wish I knew who did it to congratulate him or her on it. ;)

How would the culprit carry around 7 plastic signs covered with cement? I think you'd be bending over for Mr. Murphy with that plan. :cool:

Notice the parked cars, which offered concealment for glue application.

Don't you mean "COULD HAVE offered concealment for glue application"?

If we knew who might have done such a thing.

Easier to roll the wall with the glue, then stick the poster on it, if you were interested in speed.

You ever wonder what site the pics of your damaged sign are being posted on for bragging rights?

TR

RL, notice this was still NOT an accusation......;)

The making of an offer does not establish that it was accepted. :D

Counsel:

Do you really want to bandy words over that misstatement?

Your statement implied personal knowledge of the past action.

Will we next discuss the meaning of the word "IS"?

TR

Sorry, I disagree. You can tell from the photo that they offered concealment. "Offered" and "provided" are different things.

Your pal,

Slick Willie

P.S. What exactly do you mean by "is"?

Sir:

So you admit knowing that the cars were there when the glue was applied?

I would resubmit my original statement that a better choice of words would have been "COULD HAVE offered concealment for glue application", unless you have personal knowledge of said application.

IIRC, "IS" is third person, present tense of the English verb, "to be", unless you are a lawyer or a Democrat.

TR

No, I admit nothing and deny everything. You must know who was really involved. I don't appreciate you trying to pin the blame on me. LOL


OK, fine. Want a job?