from another LONG thread about technique, especially
technique involving lug "use". this was a reply i posted:

i agree with what you say here and now feel compelled to
add this as a follow-up to my post: the text you pulled was
from a story i was commissioned to write for the Rivendell
Reader; to be written to express my feelings, but more importantly,
to speak to that magazine's audience in a language that would
communicate the company's lug culture. my reasons remain
my reasons, but the motivation was to draw a line between
people who do it the "Riv" way (i.e. frames with lugs) and
all the others. that was the assignment. the story was one of eight
by eight different builders - all appeared in the same magazine.

there's no disputing that aesthetics and craftsmanship are
traits that can be defined only on a personal level. had i gone
that deep into the issues, the text would have been cut and
edited. but - and this is a big but and a rhetorical question,
how much does the tig "thing" owe to industry for forcing the
issue and taking that route to cut costs and labor? would
many builders these days be welding had they not followed
the lead of mass-makers whose use of it all but legitimized
the process? i'll never know. my guess is few would weld
if the timeline was different.

i think welding is very cool for many reasons but i still
view lug brazing as the best way to join steel tubes for
the reasons i wrote about:

"Simply stated, my decision to use lugs is not made to bring
along the past or to venerate it. Lug assemblies are the most
rational way to make a frame superbly well, to ensure the optimum
ride characteristics, to maintain the quality of the steel, and to
its service life too..."

those are the flower-y words i used to write the story and i
believe that after seeing all types of joints and techniques,
lugs are "better" and more respectful of the steel tubes they hold.