Hi Guys

I'm thinking of building a site using simple static html. The site I'm planning will end up having about 2000 pages of content. And I'm not completely mad - I promise!

The site will make use of css and SSI's. The SSI's will ensure that any site-wide changes to navigation, etc are easily made. I will also use a logical and well-thought-out directory structure for the site. For example, http://www.mydomain.com/topic/sub-to...ique-page.html. This will make locating and updating pages, etc easier than it otherwise would be.

I see the following advantages to my proposed method:
Greater SEO potential (Content can be positioned at the top of each page rather than being buried 2000 lines down in a series of nested tables - which is what I've had when I used joomla in the past);
No security threats (Unlike the latest and greatest open source cms, static html sites are unable to be targetted by time-wasting script-kiddies);
There is virtually no learning curve associated with implementing this method (Unlike many cms' which tend to be somewhat convoluted)

I realise that there are disadvantages to my proposed method. These include:
Takes longer to update - site maintenance (ie ensuring links working, etc) takes longer;
Limited user interaction.

However, dreamweaver 8 has tools which make creating and uploading new pages to an existing site quite simple and speedy. As I mentioned previously, I have used joomla in the past and found the results disappointing. Besides, everytime I look at one of those cms-driven sites with a panel of questions / voting / forum (whatever they're called) I can't help but think that these are lame and somewhat forced examples of user interaction that no user in their right mind appreciates (and even less, wants to interact with)!

I know most people will immediately say, use "wordpress" or "joomla" or "drupal", but am I correct in assuming that if two 1000 page sites went head-to-head, one using static html and the other using a cms, wouldn't the static html site (all other things being equal - i.e. incoming links, quality of content etc) win hands down?

And, if as everyone says, content is king, and given that writing good quality copy takes far more time and effort than uploading that copy to a server (whether using static html or a cms) doesn't it make sense to want to make the absolute most of this content by having it positioned and presented optimally to gain the attention of search engines?

I'd love to hear from anyone who is still using static html pages for their site and also, I'd love to hear from anyone who feels I've completely lost the plot and have missed out on some important lessons about building websites along the way which, unless I learn them right now, might turn my life into more of a living hell than it currently is...