Inspection terms

[Jack Feldmann]

Since I'm always tweaking my reports, I've been thinking about the terms I use, and wonder what others are using.
I'm talking about things like:

Serviceable, A-OK, Hunky Dorrie, Good to go, etc for when things are in good shape and working like they are intended.

Attention, Needs Repair, NDG, POS, etc when something is messed up.

Get an Engineer, Get a pest guy, get a ???professional, when something is outside our scope.

How about when someone else needs to look at something when we can't really tell if something is wrong or not. Like the chimney crown that is not accessible.

How about routine/deferred maintenance items?
How are you telling your clients that the 80 year old house would benefit from having GFCI's, or grounded outlets, etc?

[Scott Patterson]

Since I'm always tweaking my reports, I've been thinking about the terms I use, and wonder what others are using.
I'm talking about things like:

Serviceable, A-OK, Hunky Dorrie, Good to go, etc for when things are in good shape and working like they are intended.

Attention, Needs Repair, NDG, POS, etc when something is messed up.

Get an Engineer, Get a pest guy, get a ???professional, when something is outside our scope.

How about when someone else needs to look at something when we can't really tell if something is wrong or not. Like the chimney crown that is not accessible.

How about routine/deferred maintenance items?
How are you telling your clients that the 80 year old house would benefit from having GFCI's, or grounded outlets, etc?

I use "Serviceable" if it is working and I want to convey that it is.

If it is not working I use "Repair or Replace" or "Have a qualified ______ make the needed corrections or repairs." or " Have the _____ replaced by a qualified _____."

If I can't tell or see an item; I simply report that I could not access the _____ . Sometimes I might add this; "In order for the _____ to be properly inspected you will need to contact a qualified ____ due to the special equipment that is need."

I don't get into deferred maintenance or required maintenance in my report, but I will talk with the client about it while I'm at the inspection and I'm going over what I discovered.

As for adding GFCI and the like: "For increased safety I recommend that GFCI protection should be installed in the appropriate locations (name areas if you want). When this home was built GFCI protection may not have been required or available."

[Roger Hankey]

I recommend use of the term "inspected" when a component is inspected and no adverse conditions were found. I carefully define both underlined terms and many other terms used in my report and include a glossary of terms with the report. I believe it is critical that inspectors use carefully defined terms to reduce the potential for misunderstanding and litigation.

For more information on this topic, consider becoming a subscriber to Prospex at Home Inspector Consulting Home Inspection Articles Home Inspection Training (http://www.Prospex.us).

[Jack Feldmann]

Roger, I agree with you. I'm a big fan of Kevin too.
However, I was asking what terms others use for telling their client that further action is needed on some of the things INSPECTED.

[Roger Hankey]

My recommendations are similar to Scott's. "Have corrected by a qualified __________.

[Erby Crofutt]

Here's what I use:
==================================
COMMENT KEY & DEFINITIONS:
The following definitions of comment descriptions apply to this inspection report. Any recommendations by the inspector to repair or replace or fix is a recommendation that you have a qualified contractor in the appropriate field: determine all needed repairs and best repair methods; to estimate costs; and to perform any work deemed necessary.

NOTE: All definitions listed below refer to the property or item listed in this report as inspected at the time of inspection.

Acceptable (A) = I visually observed the item, component or unit and if no other comments were made then it appeared to be functioning as intended allowing for normal wear and tear.

Not Inspected/Present (NIP) = I did not inspect this item, component or unit and make no representations of whether or not it was functioning as intended and will state a reason for not inspecting, or this item, component or unit is not in this home or building.

Maintenance (Mnt) = Item noted is usually considered a routine maintenance item that must be accomplished occasionally to ensure proper performance of the item.

Marginal (M) = Item is not fully functional and requires repair or servicing by a qualified contractor in the appropriate field as noted above.

Defective (D) = Item needs immediate repair or replacement by a qualified contractor in the appropriate field as noted above. It is unable to perform its intended function or is an immediate safety hazard.
================================================== =

In the report itself, it's just "it's broke, fix it."


I'm with Scott on the I can't get to it or see it stuff.



-

[Roger Hankey]

Acceptable (A) = I visually observed the item, component or unit and if no other comments were made then it appeared to be functioning as intended allowing for normal wear and tear.

My concern with your definition of Acceptable is that it can be interpreted that you have made a conclusion regarding function. Some would even interpret this statement as a forecast of ongoing performance.

I prefer terms and definitions that limit the statement to what was OBSERVED, ie, INSPECTED = "No adverse conditions were found." This limits the remark to the time of the inspection, and to the act of inspecting. No conclusion is stated.

[David Edenburn]

I tend to use grades (saves time typing): A= perfect/brand new, B= Not perfect, not new but still works (cracks in the driveway), C= Safety hazard, get it fixed ASAP, D= Serious hazard or illegal, don't move in until it's fixed. Most things are a B or C, I save the D for things like a stairway with no handrail, no smoke detectors or copper water pipe substituted for bus fuses. I explain the system when I meet the client and at the beginning of the report.
David Edenburn

[neal lewis]

Acceptable (A) = I visually observed the item, component or unit and if no other comments were made then it appeared to be functioning as intended allowing for normal wear and tear.

My concern with your definition of Acceptable is that it can be interpreted that you have made a conclusion regarding function. Roger, it seems to me that one of the purposes of the inspection is to come to a conclusion about what you're inspecting. If it's working properly during the inspection, just state that. I can't see how a rationally thinking person would interpret this as a forecast of ongoing performance, unless you're stating some type of life expectancy.

If a buyer me asks about the condition of a system, I think they want more of a definitive answer other than, "I don't see any problems with it".

I've been using Acceptable and drawing conclusions about this stuff for a very long time and it's never created a problem for me. As a matter of fact, the first company I worked for in '86 was using Excellent at the time.

[Tom Rees]

At the section of report I write; A qualified contractor should evaluate and repair/replace all components associated with the defect as necessary. At end of report I have a header which states; Anywhere in this report where the inspector has recommended repairs or replacement of any kind it is recommended that the client get three estimates before moving forward with the sales transaction.

[John Dirks Jr]

I don't use a rating system. I inspect everything and list all information that is required by SOP.

In addition to that, I write narratives about all the problems I find. I omit rating or talking about things that are found to be without problems.

Although quite long sometimes, the report itself is the summary. Just directly what they need to know and nothing more.

I've never had a complaint.

[Roger Hankey]

Roger, it seems to me that one of the purposes of the inspection is to come to a conclusion about what you're inspecting. If it's working properly during the inspection, just state that. I can't see how a rationally thinking person would interpret this as a forecast of ongoing performance, unless you're stating some type of life expectancy.

If a buyer me asks about the condition of a system, I think they want more of a definitive answer other than, "I don't see any problems with it".

I've been using Acceptable and drawing conclusions about this stuff for a very long time and it's never created a problem for me. As a matter of fact, the first company I worked for in '86 was using Excellent at the time.

Many people did not see "any problems with" the I-35W bridge before it collapsed. However, a FEW people DID express concerns about buckling plates on the bridge, but their concerns were not converted into remedies.

Other than "near end of service life" reporting, clients really don't need nor should expect a home inspection to deliver information beyond whether or not adverse conditions were found. Maintenance information is nice, but extraneous. Clients are seeking to make a purchase decision. I want to report what I saw and what I heard. I hope clients make conclusions and decisions, but if they don't that is their priviledge. Conclusions and opinions are for analysts. Reporters list what they saw and heard. I report building conditions.

My experience has included encountering many persons who were not thinking rationally. Often, some of my explanations of what an inspector does and does not do gets them to begin to approach the inspection from a rational perspective. I admit this does not work with all people.

I don't always give people what they "want". When I show clients some adverse condition caused by incorrect installation, they often ask, "Why was that done wrong?", and my response is "I don't do why." Why involves understanding the motives of those involved. I try to understand buildings, not the owners. Why doesn't really matter, I simply recommend the condition be corrected. The replacement I-35W bridge has been completed for more than a year, but the lawsuits over the collapse of the old bridge have only just begun.

Keeping things simple is not easy, but in the long run, I believe simple statements about whether or not adverse conditions were found, and recommendations to correct those conditions is the most and best I can do for my clients. It really helps me to stay focused on the primary purpose of the inspection and avoid statements not based on direct observations.

"Working properly" is a loaded phrase that I would not want to use UNLESS it were carefully defined as "no adverse conditions found". The term "inspected" can be used with the same definition without connoting the conclusion inherent in "working properly".

I'm sure people with years of experience using other terms and phrases are unlikely to change. That is their perogative. I write this in hopes that newer inspectors may consider their options and some may adopt the simpler more limited direct observation approach to inspection report writing. Those who want more content on this matter, including a good glossary of inspection terms, can subscribe to Prospex, Home Inspector Consulting Home Inspection Articles Home Inspection Training (http://www.prospex.us), and/or read some of the interesting material on report writing and inspection techniques from Dan Friedman at InspectAPedia.com Building & Environmental Problem Diagnostic & Repair Encyclopedia (http://www.inspect-ny.com).

[Bruce Ramsey]

State requirements say we must Inspect or Describe. So I list each and every component in the SOP along with the word Inspected. For those items that must be described, I describe based on the state SOPs requirements.

I have taken the approach it is either Good or Bad. No inbetweeen. If it is funtioning, then it is Inspected. If it is defective in any manner, then is listed as Repair Item or Further Investigate. No ratings.

No subsequent observation. If I have questions about it now, then get a professional tradesman to Further Investigate now to determine why it is questionable.

[A.D. Miller]

In Texas the SOP provides for four categories:

(1) Inspected

(2) Not Inspected

(3) Not Present

(4) Deficient

If not deficient, my comment on any given item is "appears to be in satisfactory condition".

If deficient, my comment on any given item describes the deficiency and then refers the client to the appropriate specialist for further evaluation and repair or replacement as necessary.

Again, in Texas, we are required to inform the client that the installation is "deficient" if the electrical system is not compliant with the 2008 NEC as regards GFCIs, AFCIs, etc.

I provide a maintenance addendum with each report.

[Roger Hankey]

In Texas the SOP provides for four categories:

(1) Inspected

(2) Not Inspected

(3) Not Present

(4) Deficient

If not deficient, my comment on any given item is "appears to be in satisfactory condition".

If deficient, my comment on any given item describes the deficiency and then refers the client to the appropriate specialist for further evaluation and repair or replacement as necessary.

Again, in Texas, we are required to inform the client that the installation is "deficient" if the electrical system is not compliant with the 2008 NEC as regards GFCIs, AFCIs, etc.

I provide a maintenance addendum with each report.

I understand TX HI's are regulated, but why not define "inspected" as Examined within the SOP and scope of work, and no adverse conditions (define) were found? This would allow you to get rid of the "appears to be in satisfactory condition", which as I've stated above is in my humble opinion, a poorly worded phrase, open to mischief from the lawyers.

[A.D. Miller]

I understand TX HI's are regulated, but why not define "inspected" as Examined within the SOP and scope of work, and no adverse conditions (define) were found? This would allow you to get rid of the "appears to be in satisfactory condition", which as I've stated above is in my humble opinion, a poorly worded phrase, open to mischief from the lawyers.

RH: Since the SOPs of any state are drafted by agency attorneys, I suggest you address your concerns to the reisdent geniuses at the Texas Real Estate Commission. I, on the other hand, am in agreement with you.

[Ted Menelly]

I understand TX HI's are regulated, but why not define "inspected" as Examined within the SOP and scope of work, and no adverse conditions (define) were found? This would allow you to get rid of the "appears to be in satisfactory condition", which as I've stated above is in my humble opinion, a poorly worded phrase, open to mischief from the lawyers.


There lies the problem.

"define inspected"

Not possible (even though it is somewhat in the trec standards) with out writing a book. Things will just getting deeper and deeper the more finite one tries to get with the definition of "inspected. The detail would be too great and cumbersome. The mere fact that you inspected something will stand for reason that it was inspected under the guidelines with out adding more to the guidelines.

What you are asking for is more complex regulations on something that is already too regulated. It cannot go on for ever. regulate the regulations only to regulate those further regulations.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with "appears to be in satisfactory condition". You "inspected" the particular system and found there to be no major concerns (all speculative) or maybe you did find some concerns worth noting.....You "inspected" it.

I have heard from many folks around the country stating that their state "does not allow" the term "appears". It appears that you are fishing for something you may not want to find. After all...what is you total time spent in a home to conduct an inspection on every system in the home..........Not nearly enough.

Most contracts state such matters and that is why you only charge what you charge. If they want to have a particular tradesman in to go ever every single item in a home it could cost thousands. So what are you telling them. Stuff that back down the Lawyers throats and see what comes back out. So what are you telling them as well as any Standards? You are a generalist and do a reasonably thorough inspection in the time alloted with out bringing countless others to the inspection with you.

Like I said. It "appears"

A mechanic inspects a break system that has some serious stopping/slowing issues (we know, technically, breaks are meant to slow a vehicle, not grind it to a stop). He repairs what he finds wrong with the system but does not replace every single component. When he gets back from the test drive with the newly repaired system and is asked "Well, did that fix the problem"?
His answer. It appears so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! After all, it "appears" to have fixed the problem for the moment but of course he did not replace every single component to the system. Put the breaks on, no pulse, no grinding, no screeching, no pull, brings the car to a safe stop.

"appears to be in satisfactory condition" The parts not replaced "appear" to be in satisfactory condition

Now he is going to warranty the repair. Not the entire system.

That's my blurb on "Appears"

[Roger Hankey]

FYI
There is a very significant difference between the word brakes and the word breaks.

I am agreeing to disagree with your arguments.

Best wishes.

[Ted Menelly]

FYI
There is a very significant difference between the word brakes and the word breaks.

I am agreeing to disagree with your arguments.

Best wishes.


Another spell freak

Oh well. I guess we are not all perfect. It's funny. Usually (like myself) most on here are as guilty of multitasking and misspelling all the time but find it necessary to correct others. I appreciate it though :rolleyes:

Being on here is an occasional past time and usually while taking care of the days finish up, not a profession. And that was thrown in before Aaron comes back with the spelling or wrong word spiel.

Anyway...Yes everyone has the ability to agree or disagree with anything they want. No matter how you look at it. Home inspection is getting way to deep. There are those that wish to eventually get to the point of Congressional hearings on Home Inspection just for the joy of doing so. They love the bureaucratic bull and believe everyone in the US needs to be protected against every possible scenario they encounter in life and to never be responsible for themselves and blame everyone else for everything because of their inability to handle life as it comes by them. Then there are those that want to put themselves in the upper end of the white collar field while they are crawling around in damp nasty crawls and 150 degree attics and almost sliding off of 10/12 plus roofs and think so highly of themselves that they do not even realize that what comes out their back end still stinks.

Anyway I appreciate all input and constructive critisism and very much enjoy all posts on here.

I still think "appears" as it stands is just fine. Like I said the entire design behind a home inspection is the opinion of the inspector as to whether something "appears" to be in good order and what degree or good or bad order it is.

It's 20 years old but it appears to be in pretty good order. You may want to start putting your dollars away as being 20 years old that HVAC system is closer to its way out than in. (of course that is all said with a knowing smile).

[Roger Hankey]

Another spell freak

There are those that wish to eventually get to the point of Congressional hearings on Home Inspection just for the joy of doing so. They love the bureaucratic bull and believe everyone in the US needs to be protected against every possible scenario they encounter in life and to never be responsible for themselves and blame everyone else for everything because of their inability to handle life as it comes by them. Then there are those that want to put themselves in the upper end of the white collar field while they are crawling around in damp nasty crawls and 150 degree attics and almost sliding off of 10/12 plus roofs and think so highly of themselves that they do not even realize that what comes out their back end still stinks.



Who is a freak? Who does the above remark refer to?

Please limit your remarks to the topic at hand without personal attacks, no matter who they refer to.

[Ted Menelly]

Who is a freak? Who does the above remark refer to?

Please limit your remarks to the topic at hand without personal attacks, no matter who they refer to.

Personal attacks. What personal attacks. Spell freak? Is that what you are referring to. You chose to take a term I used that was incorrect more than commenting on anything I said *about the subject at hand* Your not one of them that takes everything personally are you. Lifes to short my friend. This is a home inspection board. Not an English composition and grammar and spelling class. Most pop in to see what is being commented on in between there other multiple daily tasks. Brakes/breaks, who cares. Its not an Inspection Report but like I said I appreciate you calling it out.

There goes that control thing!

Limit my remarks to the topic at hand? Oh...alrighty then...Only if you say so.

I guess you did not understand the topic at hand. It had to do with inspection terms (not proper word choice or spelling). My comments were all about inspection terms and what things are being turned into in the home inspection field.


I think I'll choose what I believe the subject at hand to be and allow you to choose what you believe the subject at hand is.

[Jack Feldmann]

According to the ASHI SOP: INSPECT: To examine readily accessible systems and components of a building in accordance with these Standards of Practice, using normal operating controls and opening readily openable access panels.

All of the terms used in this definition are also included in the glossary.

I include a glossary of terms in my reports, and suggest others do the same.

[Michael Chambers]

When I have looked at something, and there is nothing significant to comment on, then I mark it "Reviewed".

I've recently drawn friendly criticism from another inspector for using terms like "one or more" and "recommend further review by a qualified contractor". These are defensive terms that we are taught, or have learned, to use in order to keep from painting ourselves into a legal corner. What are everyone's thoughts on the use of this defensive type of language???

[A.D. Miller]

What are everyone's thoughts on the use of this defensive type of language?

MC: Instead of thinking about writing defensively, try thinking about it as writing clearly. In an inspection report the inspector is responsible for conveying many things to many potential readers. In a perfect world you would merely be communicating with your client. In reality you are writing for a much larger audience; a partial list resembles:

(1) Your client and anyone he provides a copy to
(2) The seller (in the resale arena) and anyone he provides a copy to
(3) Agents and their brokers and anyone they provide copies to
(4) Repair contractors and anyone they provide copies to
(5) Insurance companies and anyone they provide copies to
(6) Builder and his subcontractors and anyone they provide copies to
(7) Grand juries, juries and anyone they provide copies to
(8) Lynch mobs:D

You do the math.

So then, simply stating in as objective a fashion as is humanly possible (which is not at all according to recent research - all observations are, by nature, subjectively translated and reported) what you observe during a visual inspection of a house, is not sufficient to the task of properly informing the preceding horde of potential readers.

The task begins to look a bit more complicated in this light. To insure that everyone is on the same page, you must first delineate in excruciating detail what you will be observing, how you will be observing it, and how you will be reporting your observations. This necessarily includes describing what you will not be observing and why not.

If you are doing your observations based upon the SOP of this or that organization, this must also be mentioned. If you are exceeding this SOP, where and how you are exceeding it would be helpful information.

As yours is merely a visual inspection, precluding you from performing any intrusive or destructive forensic investigations, this must be noted, and you then must defer and refer to others who are in the business of making these sorts of investigations. How is this defensive?

One of the biggest problems that I see in other HI reports - and I have read hundreds of them - is that, in their reports, they feel somehow compelled to take on the responsibility that rightly belongs to those who publicly hold themselves out as specialists in whatever field. This usually amounts to a suicide mission, begging the question: was this written by an inspector or a masochist?:D

[Darren Miller]

Ted,

He's my take on the word APPEARS

Real Estate Blog - Did I Appear to do a good inspection? (http://activerain.com/blogsview/1416060/did-i-appear-to-do-a-good-inspection-)

[Michael Chambers]

A.D.M: All good points, and I'm pretty much in agreement with all of it. While some may call it defensive, CYA language, others consider it as an acknowledgment of the limitations under which we work. If you've found a bad outlet, but can't get to all of them because of furniture, etc., you have to report it as "one or more" outlets being bad. If you find water dripping into a basement, that appears to be coming from the 1st floor interior wall between two bathrooms, then you have to "recommend further evaluation by a qualified plumbing contractor".

Where we have to be careful to not look like idiots, or to get ourselves into trouble, is to pay attention to the context and circumstances in which we are using which language. Don't say "The furnace was in good condition, but the exterior A/C unit appeared to be missing.", when your findings were "The furnace appeared to function as expected, but the exterior A/C unit was missing.". Another example would be saying "The lock was broken on one or more front door.", when your finding was "The lock was broken on the front door.".

[Ted Menelly]

Ted,

He's my take on the word APPEARS

Real Estate Blog - Did I Appear to do a good inspection? (http://activerain.com/blogsview/1416060/did-i-appear-to-do-a-good-inspection-)

Now that is funny

It *Appears* he was a little excessive with the term appears

That is not quite what I was talking about. An occassional appears is fine but for every item in the home is hilarious. Most items in a home are going to have far more said about them even if they are in good condition/working order/what ever term you may wish to use.

My example like all my posts when trying to make a point are strectch and grossly exagerated to make that point.

There is nothing wrong with almost any term as long as it is used in the right frame of what is going on.

It *appears* you did not see that :)

[A.D. Miller]

Ted,

He's my take on the word APPEARS

Real Estate Blog - Did I Appear to do a good inspection? (http://activerain.com/blogsview/1416060/did-i-appear-to-do-a-good-inspection-)

DM: It appears that the article in question was penned by someone not quite as familiar with the English language as he fancies himself to be.

When conducting visual inspections, your observations are necessarily based solely upon appearances. You may have an overwhelming desire (read: death wish) to state that this or that is categorically and unmistakably in this condition or that, but do not have all of the facts necessary to support these sorts of statements.

If you have not subjected any given system's or material's current situation and condition to the whole gamut of possible tests, you cannot, with any degree of accuracy, make such wide-sweeping statements such as: the air conditioner is not functioning, or the foundation has failed, et al.

If you are not a specialist or an expert in any given discipline, you are not qualified to give your pontifical blessing to any system. You are, however, qualified to state in what condition any system appeared to be at the time when you observed it. Nothing more.

"As home inspectors, we should be obligated to tell our clients specifically what an item is; is it installed correctly or isn’t it." Only the part of it you can see may be "correct". And I say "may be" because you, like most people, do not know everything there is to know about any given material or system. You can only speak with any authority to the condition in which you observed something, i.e. how it appeared to you.

Let's take a closer look at your ultimate statement, "Did my client hand me a check at the end of the inspection or did he/she APPEAR to hand me a check?"

How did you conclude that you were handed a check? Because it looked like a check? Because, in the context of your interfacing with this client, the passing of a check between you at that given moment seemed to be appropriate?

You will not really know if your client actually handed you a bona fide check until you hammer it at his bank and receive good funds in exchange for it.

In all fairness, you may be omniscient and therefore capable of stating with impunity that this or that is in this or that condition. But, with feet of clay, it appears not.:D

[neal lewis]

If you have not subjected any given system's or material's current situation and condition to the whole gamut of possible tests, you cannot, with any degree of accuracy, make such wide-sweeping statements such as: THE AIR CONDITIONING IS NOT FUNCTIONING.
D The way I see it is this: The only reason to use the phrase Appears To Be is if you intend to hide behind it.
When someone calls up an inspector to complain that something isn't working properly, they can reply " I never said it was working OK, I just said it appears to be working OK. And besides, read the statement that says every system should be further evaluated..." Thank You and goodbye.

For God's sake, if an A/C system is not doing the job, just friggin say it.

[A.D. Miller]

The way I see it is this: The only reason to use the phrase Appears To Be is if you intend to hide behind it.


NL Good choice of words, "the way I see it", which means the way it "appears to you". What exactly are you hiding from?


When someone calls up an inspector to complain that something isn't working properly

NL This is when I refer them to my report where it says that the system did not appear to be functioning as intended, and ask them if they have already contacted that system specialist that I referred them to in the same paragraph.


if an A/C system is not doing the job, just friggin say it.

NL: And just what do you mean by "doing the job"?:D

[Michael Chambers]

The bold is mine.

...................." I never said it was working OK, I just said it appears to be working OK." ..................

For God's sake, if an A/C system is not doing the job, just friggin say it.

NL: Which one is it in your example? What do you say if the A/C is working OK? Then, if you've reported that there is nothing wrong with the A/C, what do you say when the client calls the next week and tells you that the A/C isn't working?

[Jerry Peck]

The way I see it is this: The only reason to use the phrase Appears To Be is if you intend to hide behind it.
When someone calls up an inspector to complain that something isn't working properly, they can reply " I never said it was working OK, I just said it appears to be working OK. And besides, read the statement that says every system should be further evaluated..." Thank You and goodbye.

For God's sake, if an A/C system is not doing the job, just friggin say it.


The bold is mine.


NL: Which one is it in your example? What do you say if the A/C is working OK? Then, if you've reported that there is nothing wrong with the A/C, what do you say when the client calls the next week and tells you that the A/C isn't working?

Michael,

You are taking that as Neal saying he said that, however, Neal was referring to inspectors who write "appears" at everything and then follows with "every system should be further evaluated".

That said, you do bring up a valid point: What to say when some system "appears" to be okay?

On the RARE OCCASIONS where I did not find anything to write up, I used the term "Conditionally Functional - Visible Portion", a term which I defined in my report.

On all other occasions I used the phrase "See comment(s) above and at Summary - Visible Portion;" which directed the reader to the line item listing above and to the same line item listing in the Summary ... and the Summary contained ALL of the comments on ALL of the systems, which means that *I* did not pick and choose which ones *I* thought were important, *I* left that to my clients.

The problem I see is that many home inspectors are hesitant to write up too many things, thinking that it will kill the deal. I believe home inspectors should write up everything they see, educate their client, and let their client make their own decisions on whether to run, walk, or hand in there. Granted, I have been known to help direct my clients in one direction if needed "Don't lean against that wall too much, it might fall down."

[A.D. Miller]

"Conditionally Functional - Visible Portion",

JP: That could be a useful phrase.


a term which I defined in my report.

JP: Can you elobarate here?


... and the Summary contained ALL of the comments on ALL of the systems

JP If I understand this, you are saying that your summary contained all "possible" comments on all sections, or what?


The problem I see is that many home inspectors are hesitant to write up too many things, thinking that it will kill the deal.

JP: Agreed.


I believe home inspectors should write up everything they say

JP: I might hesitate at that one . . .:D



, educate their client, and let their client make their own decisions on whether to run, walk, or hand in there.


JP Agreed.

[Jerry Peck]

I believe home inspectors should write up everything they say,


JP: I might hesitate at that one . . .:D

Oops ... I meant "I believe home inspectors should write up everything they SEE," going back and editing that to make it that way. :o

[Jerry Peck]

On the RARE OCCASIONS where I did not find anything to write up, I used the term "Conditionally Functional - Visible Portion", a term which I defined in my report.


JP: Can you elobarate here?

STATUS RATINGS
- CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE:
- - An item, system or component which was inspected and was determined to be functioning reasonably well. However, random failures do occur without warning, even with maintenance. As no prediction of future life or reliability of systems can be made, this inspection is only reporting on the conditions observed at the TIME OF THE INSPECTION and provides no warranty or guaranty.
- - These items may contain code violations and inherently unsafe conditions not visible to the inspector. This also includes those items which appear to be in conditionally acceptable condition on the visible surface, however the interior structural, electrical or mechanical components were not visible and are not addressed in this inspection or report. This inspection does not delve into those items or components which were not visible and/or not accessible, nor do we remove any components or portions of the systems to provide access (i.e. we do not cut holes in walls, cabinets or enclosures, we do not remove nailed in place covers, nor do we remove screwed in place covers unless the covers are primary access covers intended to be removed easily and which are not sealed in place and can easily be removed, nor does the inspector disassemble equipment).
- - Additional information may be obtained at the time of the inspection by attending the inspection.

[Michael Chambers]

You are taking that as Neal saying he said that, however, Neal was referring to inspectors who write "appears" at everything and then follows with "every system should be further evaluated".I was aware of that. What I was questioning was his following his protestations about inspectors using wishy-washy defensive language when an A/C system was OK with a declaration that they should be assertive when the A/C system had a problem. He lost the point of his otherwise good argument with an apples and oranges followup. At least IMHO.


On the RARE OCCASIONS where I did not find anything to write up, I used the term "Conditionally Functional - Visible Portion", a term which I defined in my report.In those instances, I just use the term "Reviewed".


The problem I see is that many home inspectors are hesitant to write up too many things, thinking that it will kill the deal. I believe home inspectors should write up everything they see, educate their client, and let their client make their own decisions on whether to run, walk, or hand in there. Granted, I have been known to help direct my clients in one direction if needed "Don't lean against that wall too much, it might fall down."Agree wholeheartedly! You've got to call 'em as you see 'em. I've adopted the explanation that I read from someone on another thread in this forum, "The inspector doesn't kill the deal. The house just commits suicide, and a good inspector just takes notes."

[Jerry Peck]

On the RARE OCCASIONS where I did not find anything to write up, I used the term "Conditionally Functional - Visible Portion", a term which I defined in my report.


In those instances, I just use the term "Reviewed".

To me, if I were your client, I would look at "Reviewed" and wonder WTH you thought about it AFTER you REVIEWED it.

If something came up with it later, your "Reviewed" would not stand a chance as meaning anything meaningful in your behalf before a judge.

"Reviewed" simply means you looked at it, not that you made any determination one way or the other, and, to me, may imply that you found some dreadfully bad with it but did not want to offend the real estate agent by stating such. And with "Reviewed" you would have nothing to back you up when you tried to protest that it meant it was "OK".

I have "Reviewed" the above posts in this thread ... What does that tell you about what I think about them? :confused:

Absolutely NOTHING! :eek:

[Michael Chambers]

To me, if I were your client, I would look at "Reviewed" and wonder WTH you thought about it AFTER you REVIEWED it.

If something came up with it later, your "Reviewed" would not stand a chance as meaning anything meaningful in your behalf before a judge.

"Reviewed" simply means you looked at it, not that you made any determination one way or the other, and, to me, may imply that you found some dreadfully bad with it but did not want to offend the real estate agent by stating such. And with "Reviewed" you would have nothing to back you up when you tried to protest that it meant it was "OK".

I have "Reviewed" the above posts in this thread ... What does that tell you about what I think about them? :confused:

Absolutely NOTHING! :eek:My mistake, I should have provided the full explanation of "Reviewed" in the context of my reports. From the "Report Explanations" section on the first page of my reports, "Reviewed: All component(s) in this category appeared to be functioning normally at the time of the inspection. The component(s) may show typical wear and tear."

The point I was trying to make was that I save words and report length by just using the term "Reviewed" wherever it is needed throughout my reports, and not the full explanation of what it means at every instance throughout the report. The explanation is given once at the beginning, and that should suffice. I think you would agree with that.

[Jerry Peck]

The explanation is given once at the beginning, and that should suffice. I think you would agree with that.


That's what I did with my Conditionally Acceptable - define it in depth and then just use the term.

However, I still say that you should use a different term, a term which actually says something to the reader, and "Reviewed" does not say anything other than 'Yeppers, I done looked at that.' I think you need to change your term to something like: (see bold below for term and why)
"Functioning Normally: All component(s) in this category appeared to be functioning normally at the time of the inspection. The component(s) may show typical wear and tear."

But, to me, even "Functioning Normally" does not say enough. Which is why I chose "Conditionally Acceptable" - it tells everyone who reads the report that there are "conditions" which apply to it be "acceptable" and if there is any doubt, read what the "conditions" are.

"Reviewed"? Even "Functioning Normally"? Neither tells the reader that there are "conditions" to the use of that term.

[Eric Russell]

Man, you guys are really doing an exhaustive job on this thread. "Leave no stone unturned..." As several have said, if, as is the default case with Homegauge Software, your choices are "Inspected," "Not Inspected," "Not Present," and "Repair," and you have defined what each of these means in your report, and when there is a check under "Repair" you add a picture and comment on what is deficient and what needs to be done, then you've probably got your bases covered. It's (and I'm not sure if that gets the apostrophe or not) the same old debate about where the HI industry is headed and do we want to go there with it. The more in-depth we get with our reports, the more we are laying our hindquarters out there for the courts of the land to quarter. Once you do it in one report, you better be doing it for all of them. (i.e., Thermal imaging - do you even mention to the client that you own a camera, or do you simply use it to perform CYA work in the crawls and basement walls?) I mean, if you own a TIC and you didn't use it on one client's house but the other paid for it and you did, and the guy who didn't pay you for it discovers a problem your TIC would have found, are you liable for that repair? IMHO, the KISS principle still applies, and, since we are all only HIs and not structural engineers or licensed electricians and plumbers, there's no need to get into the technical aspect of the deficiency. Simply report it, and recommend a person with expertise look at it, and leave it at that. Do you call out every problem? Should you? Are you a deal killer? Can you sleep at night knowing you stretched the truth? Would you want an HI to tell you about everything? I would, and I try my best to do just that.

[A.D. Miller]

ER: Your tag line "Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father, except by Him. John 14:6" could - should be interpreted as advertisement. The Hann charges for advertisements. Have you paid up?

[Ted Menelly]

Man, you guys are really doing an exhaustive job on this thread. "Leave no stone unturned..." As several have said, if, as is the default case with Homegauge Software, your choices are "Inspected," "Not Inspected," "Not Present," and "Repair," and you have defined what each of these means in your report, and when there is a check under "Repair" you add a picture and comment on what is deficient and what needs to be done, then you've probably got your bases covered. It's (and I'm not sure if that gets the apostrophe or not) the same old debate about where the HI industry is headed and do we want to go there with it. The more in-depth we get with our reports, the more we are laying our hindquarters out there for the courts of the land to quarter. Once you do it in one report, you better be doing it for all of them. (i.e., Thermal imaging - do you even mention to the client that you own a camera, or do you simply use it to perform CYA work in the crawls and basement walls?) I mean, if you own a TIC and you didn't use it on one client's house but the other paid for it and you did, and the guy who didn't pay you for it discovers a problem your TIC would have found, are you liable for that repair? IMHO, the KISS principle still applies, and, since we are all only HIs and not structural engineers or licensed electricians and plumbers, there's no need to get into the technical aspect of the deficiency. Simply report it, and recommend a person with expertise look at it, and leave it at that. Do you call out every problem? Should you? Are you a deal killer? Can you sleep at night knowing you stretched the truth? Would you want an HI to tell you about everything? I would, and I try my best to do just that.

Speaking of no stone unturned, it is no AN HI. It is "Would you want a HI to tell you about everything? Oh yes. It is IT'S in your PARTICULAR instance.

That is from someone that hardly uses spell check (on here) and also does the to, two and too thing as well as due and dew and do thing or even the brake and break thing. I won't mention that almost all, well, maybe everyone, also does the same things half the time.

Just giving you a hard time :p Wonderful day today!

As far as "Are you a deal killer?" That sounds like some of the advertisement to Realtors around here from several home inspectors. "Is your Home Inspector a deal killer? We promise you we will never kill a deal!"

[Rick Cantrell]

"ER: Your tag line "Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father, except by Him. John 14:6" could - should be interpreted as advertisement. The Hann charges for advertisements. Have you paid up?"

""www.texasinspector.com (http://www.texasinspector.com) "

The Hann charges for advertisements. Have you paid up?:)

[A.D. Miller]

"ER: Your tag line "Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father, except by Him. John 14:6" could - should be interpreted as advertisement. The Hann charges for advertisements. Have you paid up?"

""www.texasinspector.com (http://www.texasinspector.com) "

The Hann charges for advertisements. Have you paid up?:)

RC: Ouch!:eek:

[Ted Menelly]

RC: Ouch!:eek:


Big ouch

I have untold links back to my website from here. I never counted them but it is a lot. It is a blogging factor that is about as relevant as any link back that you can get from any site. The amount of threads and posts and thousands of members and tens of thousands of viewers rank this site back to your site at the top or close to it.

This is about better than most of those article sites that you can post articles to for links back to your site.

[Jerry Peck]

ER: Your tag line "Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father, except by Him. John 14:6" could - should be interpreted as advertisement. The Hann charges for advertisements. Have you paid up?

Aaron,

I guess he is saying that Juan, Julio, and Jorge are liars and do not lead to the truth. :D

You can rest assured that he is not a good christian as being a good christian he would accept others beliefs and not judge them based on his own beliefs, and his tag line shows he does not. One more bites the dust. :rolleyes:

[Jerry McCarthy]

Hey, years ago three bank robbers entered a bank in Berkeley, California.
They passed a note to the teller which stated, “Act normal and give us all your money.”
Unfortunately the teller was a recent sociology graduate of the University of California.
The teller read the note, scribbled a reply and handed the note back to the robbers.
The note said, “Define normal?”

OK, “normal” is not a good descriptive word for an inspection report. Never liked “serviceable” either. I went with “satisfactory” as to a system or component’s condition and don’t object to “performing as the manufacturer intended,” but found it too wordy. To this day I have never found a better word than “satisfactory” as to the current condition of something inspected. I also highly dislike “appears” and find far too many inspectors recommending “further evaluation of qualified people, etc.”

I blame the home inspection franchises for enlarging ordinary inspection reports into novelettes and why anybody wants to peruse a 50 page report is beyond me?
Reporting the current condition of visually accessible systems and components of an averaged sized home shouldn’t take more than 10 pages. Then you add the fluff about how qualified the inspector is, disclaimers (it’s not my fault) and home owner maintenance stuff along with the inspection report’s glossary of terms and… well you get my drift.

[Jim Luttrall]

Aaron,

I guess he is saying that Juan, Julio, and Jorge are liars and do not lead to the truth. :D

You can rest assured that he is not a good christian as being a good christian he would accept others beliefs and not judge them based on his own beliefs, and his tag line shows he does not. One more bites the dust. :rolleyes:

Jerry, how is it that you always seem to know more about what makes a "good Christian" than Christians? By the way as you may or may not realize the quote was taken directly out of a book not unlike the quotes on many other IN patrons. Why must Christians leave their opinions at the door here but you and others feel so free to attach and disparage others while voicing your opinions/religion?

[Jack Feldmann]

Maybe those without tag lines under their name should cast the first stones?

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry, how is it that you always seem to know more about what makes a "good Christian" than Christians? By the way as you may or may not realize the quote was taken directly out of a book not unlike the quotes on many other IN patrons. Why must Christians leave their opinions at the door here but you and others feel so free to attach and disparage others while voicing your opinions/religion?

Because this is not a religious site and we - MOST OF US - have long agreed and stated that to keep things civil over such a diverse subject the best action is to not bring this topics up.

You, or someone else, will likely respond about politics, and yes, as can be seen on many threads, bringing up politics creates friction between parties, but there are basically two political parties prevalent here while there are numerous religious "parties" around, which could easily degrade this site into discussing religious ideas, and there are those who would adamantly insist that all others are wrong.

Someone raises the religious flag and I shoot it down. Like it or not, that is also MY option, just like it is for those who chose to raise that religious flag. I believe it is in the best interest of this site if we all keep our religion to ourselves. I've met way to many hypocrites who called themselves "christians" and professed being same but did not act the part. If one acts the part, that should be enough. No need to tell everyone, otherwise acting the part is not really what one wants, one wants to profess their belief, not perform to their belief. A good religious person will perform to their belief, one who professes their belief does not accept the fact that others do not want to hear it, and a "good christian" would recognize that other have a right to not want to hear it and respect that.

It certainly creates the most harmony when that is done. :cool:

It simply works out best that way.

You did ask.

[Ted Menelly]

Hey, years ago three bank robbers entered a bank in Berkeley, California.
They passed a note to the teller which stated, “Act normal and give us all your money.”
Unfortunately the teller was a recent sociology graduate of the University of California.
The teller read the note, scribbled a reply and handed the note back to the robbers.
The note said, “Define normal?”

OK, “normal” is not a good descriptive word for an inspection report. Never liked “serviceable” either. I went with “satisfactory” as to a system or component’s condition and don’t object to “performing as the manufacturer intended,” but found it too wordy. To this day I have never found a better word than “satisfactory” as to the current condition of something inspected. I also highly dislike “appears” and find far too many inspectors recommending “further evaluation of qualified people, etc.”

I blame the home inspection franchises for enlarging ordinary inspection reports into novelettes and why anybody wants to peruse a 50 page report is beyond me?
Reporting the current condition of visually accessible systems and components of an averaged sized home shouldn’t take more than 10 pages. Then you add the fluff about how qualified the inspector is, disclaimers (it’s not my fault) and home owner maintenance stuff along with the inspection report’s glossary of terms and… well you get my drift.

Very satisfactory collective statements :) Actually satisfactory is kind of hard for me to use. Satisfactory to ?????? who opinion of satisfactory. What is satisfactory to one may be completely unsatisfactory to some one else. Satisfactory HVAC could mean to you that it blows cold air and hot air when called for and not rotting and falling apart but it is an antique that has the efficiency of a Model T and cost them 400 a month for a electric to keep their home at 79 on a mild month in summer with a 1200 sf home.

I don't know if you want to be in my arena of thought but I cannot agree more . I will add that my reports are generally in the 15 page range and maybe up to 25 pages but that is just because I want clarity with my pictures so they can see what I see. I usually have the pictures twice the size of what I normally see in reports and may add a few more such as overall pics of the roof covering so no one can say that I just took one or two from the eves. I do not add disclaimers other than the absolute minor disclaimers. I add no protective clauses like ""Of course, you understand, I cannot see thru walls and floors and such" I do not mention that there are no visible leaks but do mention when there are. If I notice multiple traps that are loose and need tightening I mention to give them a slight twist from time to time but if there was only one I will just give it a twist myself. etc etc etc etc

On occasion when I advertise thru email I always express that there is no fluff, no hype and no bul in my report. I get a large part of my referral base due to the fact that I do not add all that fluff and they can get directly to the concerns with out me having to separate the concerns and put them into a summary. I highlight the concerns in red and that is greatly appreciated as well.

All that being said, I lose referring Realtors on a fairly regular basis once they refer me to a few slug homes in a row. They are always extremely happy until then but then stop using me because " I killed a few deals". They never realize that the home and their skills of negotiating between the seller and their buyer after the inspection need some serious work. As soon as they have to work for a deal because of the homes concerns they blame anyone on everything except their negotiating skills.

Enough of that. It is turning into a fifty page response to your post.

[Rick Cantrell]

"Because this is not a religious site and we - MOST OF US - have long agreed and stated that to keep things civil over such a diverse subject the best action is to not bring this topics up."

I agree with that, execpt for "MOST OF US"
Most on this forum have not made thier opinon known.



You, or someone else, will likely respond about politics, and yes, as can be seen on many threads, bringing up politics creates friction between parties, but there are basically two political parties prevalent here while there are numerous religious "parties" around, which could easily degrade this site into discussing religious ideas, and there are those who would adamantly insist that all others are wrong.

I believe it is in the best interest of this site if we all keep our religion to ourselves.

It certainly creates the most harmony when that is done. :cool:

It simply works out best that way.

I agree

I guess he is saying that Juan, Julio, and Jorge are liars and do not lead to the truth.
Maybe he has not read as much about Juan, Julio, and Jorge as you have.

[Jerry Peck]

I guess he is saying that Juan, Julio, and Jorge are liars and do not lead to the truth.
Maybe he has not read as much about Juan, Julio, and Jorge as you have.


Could be ... I did live in South Florida for 20 years. :)

[Jerry Peck]

WC Jerry,


OK, “normal” is not a good descriptive word for an inspection report. Never liked “serviceable” either. I went with “satisfactory” as to a system or component’s condition and don’t object to “performing as the manufacturer intended,” but found it too wordy.


"and don’t object to “performing as the manufacturer intended,” but found it too wordy"

That is the direct opposite of what I would use that phrase for, and why I would not use it for representing that something was 'okay'.

I would use NOT “performing as the manufacturer intended,” as a basis for writing it up.

In fact, not only NOT performing as intended, but not being used as intended, not installed as intended, etc.

There are so few installations (probably none, not even in their test labs) which are actually installed as the manufacturer intended, let alone operating as they intended, that to use that as a means of saying it was okay would mean one would never get to say anything was okay. :)

Though, that might not be a bad idea in and of itself. :cool:

Why didn't I think of that for my reports?

Oh, wait, I did. :D

[Jerry McCarthy]

Ted

When an inspector performs his/her inspection they are in essence providing their personal opinion on everything they can visually access.

Webster: Adj. 1. satisfactory - giving satisfaction; "satisfactory living conditions"; "his grades were satisfactory"
acceptable - worthy of acceptance or satisfactory; "acceptable levels of radiation"; "performances varied from acceptable to excellent"
adequate, equal - having the requisite qualities or resources to meet a task; "she had adequate training"; "her training was adequate"; "she was adequate to the job"; "he was equal to the task"

Hoping to sway your opinion of the word "satisfactory."

[Jerry McCarthy]

EC Jerry

I'm confused! You are agreeing/ disagreeing with "performing as intended, bla, bla, bla?
I'm a proponent of "less said, best mended" and have always believed in the simple direct approach. Or as they say today, "it is what it is."
Now if I only knew who "they" is? :D

[Jerry Peck]

I'm confused! You are agreeing/ disagreeing with "performing as intended, bla, bla, bla?


WC Jerry,

Agreeing ... but from the opposite point of use.

Instead of using it as a statement representing that something is
performing as intended", which gets one into real tricky ground when trying to defend that statement, I am saying that I used that phrase as in "NOT performing as intended" as any little thing which was "not as intended" was defensible proof that it was ... well ... was "not as intended".

An extreme example of "not as intended" could be something as simple the nameplate, which was "intended" to be permanent, and when no longer legible it was not as "intended".

It would be very easy to show something "was not as intended" but extremely difficult to prove something "was as intended" in every sense of the way relating to applicable codes and the manufacturer's own installation instructions.

Which gets to back to using "satisfactory", which is an arbitrary term and which I could see coming back to haunt an inspector unless they defined that term very specifically in their reports and then referenced their definition as "satisfactory" has different meanings to everyone reading it.

It could be used as "Satisfactory1" where note "1" on the bottom of the page referred the reader back to the definition included herewith in the report in the term definition section.

Now that really would get a bit complicated. :D


Now if I only knew who "they" is? :D

"Not us." :D

[Eric Russell]

Aaron,

I guess he is saying that Juan, Julio, and Jorge are liars and do not lead to the truth. :D

You can rest assured that he is not a good christian as being a good christian he would accept others beliefs and not judge them based on his own beliefs, and his tag line shows he does not. One more bites the dust. :rolleyes:

I don't know who was the first to bring up my "tag line," but it is not an advertisement, it is a simple truth, taken from a book...just like most of your all's tag lines. I mean come on, you all are home inspectors...you expect me to believe that you all came up with that stuff on your own. Just so happens that the book mine came out of is the all-time best seller in history.

Sorry for you if you don't like it.

My friend, you're totally wrong with your quote of tolerance...I am commanded to love you and everyone else, but that doesn't mean accepting the beliefs of everyone. As a Christian, I accept the fact that most everyone has religious beliefs, but I don't have to accept your beliefs. A good Christian is commanded in another verse of the Bible to go into all the world and make disciples...how can a "good Christian" make disciples while accepting others beliefs? Tis you, my friend who brought it up. If you're offended, maybe we can talk about it elsewhere.

We were simply talking about terminology and stuff, and I want to get back to that, but I also want everyone to know that I did not draw first blood on this one! When confronted, I don't cower...I'll tell you the truth with all the love in my heart. you don't have to listen, but if you read the tag line, then you know what you have to do.

Now, back to our great thread!!!:)

[Gunnar Alquist]

I blame the home inspection franchises for enlarging ordinary inspection reports into novelettes and why anybody wants to peruse a 50 page report is beyond me?
Reporting the current condition of visually accessible systems and components of an averaged sized home shouldn’t take more than 10 pages. Then you add the fluff about how qualified the inspector is, disclaimers (it’s not my fault) and home owner maintenance stuff along with the inspection report’s glossary of terms and… well you get my drift.

Jerry Mc,

You would hate my reports. :cool: Lots of pics, many pages.

[Jim Luttrall]

Eric, while I must agree with Jerry on one point, this is not a religious site, I whole heartedly disagree with his premise that in order to be a participant in this site that a person must check his beliefs at the door.
I for one do not find it offensive or disruptive to the "harmony" for anyone to include a favorite saying in their signature line.
There are a few bigoted bullies that frequent this board that try their best to either run off or force anyone of faith into silence.
I am not offended by your posting, Eric and refuse to bow to the PC police.
This is my last posting on the subject, so take your best shots boys.
Matt. 7:6

[Eric Russell]

Oh yeah, and most everybody on this board has their firm name and a website link on each of their posts! Now, that is advertising, which I really don't understand, because if i needed a HI, then I'm hiring...you guessed it....Me! LOL!

Really, I just wanted to say to all of you...i'm not trying to be offensive. That's been on my posts since I became a member. I just don't post that much...really too busy to spend alot of time here...no offense. :)

[A.D. Miller]

I guess he is saying that Juan, Julio, and Jorge are liars and do not lead to the truth.

JP: :D


One more bites the dust.

JP: :eek:

[Jerry McCarthy]

“Satisfactory” vs. “Serviceable.”
I’ve used both and like “Satisfactory” better. I really don’t think this is vital, just my personal choice. As far as offering an opinion isn’t that what a home inspector is paid for?

Same as a doctor who gives their patient a physical, I’d much rather hear the doc say; “Jerry, I’ve completed my exam and you’re currently in satisfaction condition, rather than, “Jerry, I’ve completed my exam and you appear to be in serviceable condition.”

When I hear “Serviceable” I think of stud service, but I’ve always had a weird mind.

Gunnar, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t hate your inspection reports because the only thing I really don’t like is bigotry and folks with a holier than thou attitude who are oh so quick to share their religious beliefs.

Done with this thread, next case?


PS: For those that include photos of defects in their reports, please be very careful that the only defect shown in your photo is the one you called out.

[A.D. Miller]

Done with this thread, next case?


JM: Amen.

[Rick Cantrell]

Jerry
For your reading enjoyment.


“You can rest assured that he is not a good christian”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry)
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animosity) toward those of differing devotion.

“Someone raises the religious flag and I shoot it down. Like it or not, that is also MY option”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution)
Religious persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs of affiliations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion).


“Someone raises the religious flag and I shoot it down. Like it or not, that is also MY option”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_intolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_intolerance)
Religious intolerance is intolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerance) against another's religious beliefs or practices.The mere statement on the part of a religion that its own beliefs and practices are correct and any contrary beliefs incorrect does not in itself constitute intolerance

“I've met way to many hypocrites who called themselves "christians"”
You can rest assured that he is not a good christian”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice)
Prejudice a preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment made without ascertaining the facts of a case. The word prejudice is most commonly used to refer to a preconceived judgment toward a group of people or a single person because of race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)), social class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class), gender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender), ethnicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity), age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageing), disability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability), political beliefs , religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion), line of work or other personal characteristics. It also means a priori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori) beliefs (without knowledge of the facts) and includes "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence.

“You can rest assured that he is not a good Christian”
So we are supposed to accept that based on your belief of what a “Good Christian” is or should be. I don’t think so. You are an authority on many subjects, but on this topic you have not shown (at least to me) that you are now, or have ever been an authority.
You were the first, make that THE ONLY person that resorted to personal insults and name calling. I call it Slander and religious persecution.

[Ted Menelly]

“Satisfactory” vs. “Serviceable.”
I’ve used both and like “Satisfactory” better. I really don’t think this is vital, just my personal choice. As far as offering an opinion isn’t that what a home inspector is paid for?

Same as a doctor who gives their patient a physical, I’d much rather hear the doc say; “Jerry, I’ve completed my exam and you’re currently in satisfaction condition, rather than, “Jerry, I’ve completed my exam and you appear to be in serviceable condition.”

When I hear “Serviceable” I think of stud service, but I’ve always had a weird mind.

Gunnar, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t hate your inspection reports because the only thing I really don’t like is bigotry and folks with a holier than thou attitude who are oh so quick to share their religious beliefs.

Done with this thread, next case?


PS: For those that include photos of defects in their reports, please be very careful that the only defect shown in your photo is the one you called out.

Is there really a place to sign up for that :D

[Jerry McCarthy]

Well Ted, perhaps you would enjoy becoming an A.I.D.A. member?
A fine organization, but one must meet very high standards to be accepted. :D

And your point Rick? :confused:

[Jerry Peck]

“Satisfactory” vs. “Serviceable.”
I’ve used both and like “Satisfactory” better.


I agree on what you said as far as which is "better", I disagree on using either of those terms and both have their problems ... in my opinion. :)

[Rick Cantrell]

WC Jerry
The point is, if all he said was;
"You, or someone else, will likely respond about politics, and yes, as can be seen on many threads, bringing up politics creates friction between parties, but there are basically two political parties prevalent here while there are numerous religious "parties" around, which could easily degrade this site into discussing religious ideas, and there are those who would adamantly insist that all others are wrong.
I believe it is in the best interest of this site if we all keep our religion to ourselves.
It certainly creates the most harmony when that is done. :cool:
It simply works out best that way."

then I have no objection, and don't think anyone else would .
But then he goes on. At that time he goes past being obnoxious, beyond prejudice and bigotry, all the way to Religious persecution.
(you know; Hitler, the Taliban, the Romans...)

The talk about all the Christian hypocrites.
I don't think he even understands what a Hypocrite is.
And, like only Christians are hypocrites.

You don't like religious discussion on here.
I don't like Anti-Religious discussion.
I especially don't like rude and obnoxious remarks.

EC Jerry
Not trying to insult you
Look at what you say, (think how you feel)
then look at the meaning of the terms;
Bigot, Prejudice, Religious persecution, intolerance.
You are, what you hate the most in Christians.

Is there someone here that thinks I'm wrong?

[Jerry Peck]

The talk about all the Christian hypocrites.
I don't think he even understands what a Hypocrite is.
And, like only Christians are hypocrites.

There are other hypocrites too, but many christians are hypocrites and refuse to look themselves in the mirror and see it.


You don't like religious discussion on here.
I don't like Anti-Religious discussion.
I especially don't like rude and obnoxious remarks.

Then may I suggest no posting religious stuff here, otherwise rude and obnoxious is what you might get, as I, along with other, feel that posting religious stuff on a non-religious board is in and of itself rude and obnoxious.

Your choice to keep this discussion going, as you just did.


EC Jerry
Not trying to insult you
Look at what you say, (think how you feel)
then look at the meaning of the terms;
Bigot, Prejudice, Religious persecution, intolerance.
You are, what you hate the most in Christians.

Not quite correct.

I tolerate most things, but what I do not tolerate are those who profess to be tolerant (such as christians) and yet they are not tolerant of the feelings of others, thinking that only their way is the right way and making sure all others know it.

Unlike your posts have revealed about you, Scott P. is, I have no doubt, a very religious person, and he shows it by understanding that there is no need to say it to others. Instead, he shows it to others in his actions. Too bad so many others do not follow that example.

[Rick Cantrell]

There are other hypocrites too, but many christians are hypocrites and refuse to look themselves in the mirror and see it.

I can agree with that
But I think the meaning of Hypocrite is different that what you think it is.

Then may I suggest no posting religious stuff here,
I've said the same thing before

otherwise rude and obnoxious is what you might get,
I don't agree that you should be rude and obnoxious

as I, along with other, feel that posting religious stuff on a non-religious board is in and of itself rude
I have said the same thing in an earlier post

Your choice to keep this discussion going, as you just did.



Not quite correct.

I tolerate most things, but what I do not tolerate are those who profess to be tolerant (such as christians) and yet they are not tolerant of the feelings of others, thinking that only their way is the right way and making sure all others know it.
Christian is a proper noun, and should be capitalized, such is your hate.

Scott P. is, I have no doubt, a very religious person, and he shows it by understanding that there is no need to say it to others. Instead, he shows it to others in his actions.
I agree with that

Too bad so many others do not follow that example.
Thats a fair statement

You see, we agree on some things


Thanks for responding

[Rick Cantrell]

Jerry
You said "Unlike your posts have revealed about you..."
and I didn't address that.
I could be and should be a better person than I am.
I'm doing the best I know how, well mostly.

All kidding aside, and no fooling
You can help me become a better person, that is, if you want to
Say a prayer for me.
You don't even have to say it, just think it.

Thanks

[Jerry Peck]

otherwise rude and obnoxious is what you might get,
I don't agree that you should be rude and obnoxious

I'm not saying that I or anyone should be either, only pointing out that what one does not think is rude and obnoxious to them can be to others, so before one goes about saying another is rude and obnoxious they need to consider what is being responded to in kind.


Christian is a proper noun, and should be capitalized, such is your hate.

Quite incorrect (as to my feelings). I have no problem saying that Scott P. is most likely a very good Christian, it is in reference to others I use the lower case term as they are not what they would like us to think they are, and thus I do not want to apply that incorrect term to them.

You really should widen your thinking when considering subjects such as this.

There are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of religions available to anyone who choses to believe in their chosen fashion. Least one religion think their is better and correct and that all others should believe the same way - those are the ones who really have no idea about anything.

Many believe that only their religion is the one and only "right" religion, whereas I believe that every religion will attain what they believe in, which (by default) makes all religions who think they are the "ONE right religion" as being wrong. Think about it and ponder that a while and you will agree that if all are right, then all are wrong. :)


Say a prayer for me.

You would disagree with what I was saying and to where it was directed, so no thanks. When you wake up in the morning after pondering the above ponderables, you will be grateful I did not. Too heavy of a meaning in there. :cool:

[Rick Cantrell]

I'm not saying that I or anyone should be either

You have been very cordial and civil with me. all I ask is to extend that same courtesy to others.

You would disagree with what I was saying and to where it was directed, so no thanks. When you wake up in the morning after pondering the above ponderables, you will be grateful I did not. Too heavy of a meaning in there. :cool:
Fair enough.

[A.D. Miller]

Here's my take on the subject. Why can't all of the pious on this forum open and operate their own forum for such discussions. Suggestions could look like:

Ascensionnews.net

Higherroad.org

Holierthanthou.biz

Whatwouldjesusinspect.com

Rapturedinspectors.mobi

Certifiedproselytizers.tv

Intelligentdesign.info

Some of these may not be available, I didn't check. I'm not that interested. Just thought I would get the ball rolling in that direction so we could get on with the business at hand . . . freedom from your religion.

[Jim Luttrall]

Here's my take on the subject. Why can't all of the pious on this forum open and operate their own forum for such discussions. Suggestions could look like:

Ascensionnews.net

Higherroad.org

Holierthanthou.biz

Whatwouldjesusinspect.com

Rapturedinspectors.mobi

Certifiedproselytizers.tv

Intelligentdesign.info

Some of these may not be available, I didn't check. I'm not that interested. Just thought I would get the ball rolling in that direction so we could get on with the business at hand . . . freedom from your religion.
Or for Jerry and AD maybe:
www.AtheistHomeInspector.org
www.BigotsUnitedAgainstChristians.org
www.DontMentionGod.com
www.MyRightsAreMoreImportantThanYours.org

I hope none of these are actually in use but may be since there are all kinds of kooks out there already.

[A.D. Miller]

Or for Jerry and AD maybe:
www.AtheistHomeInspector.org (http://www.AtheistHomeInspector.org)
www.BigotsUnitedAgainstChristians.org (http://www.BigotsUnitedAgainstChristians.org)
www.DontMentionGod.com (http://www.DontMentionGod.com)
www.MyRightsAreMoreImportantThanYours.org (http://www.MyRightsAreMoreImportantThanYours.org)

I hope none of these are actually in use but may be since there are all kinds of kooks out there already.

JL: Though I cannot speak for JP or JM, what I can tell you is this:

(1) I am not an atheist. I am post-theistic.

(2) I am not a bigot. I don't hate the religious. I simply feel sympathy for them, much as I would for anyone espousing world views so removed from reality.

(3) I am not against christians per se. But I am vehemently opposed to their incessant proselytizing, especially in unrelated venues. It is cloying, annoying, counter-productive, and frankly disgusting. And this applies to all religions. Oops, I forgot. Yours is the one that requires proselytizing, right? Nice marketing program by Rome, et al.

(4) Your rights (and almost certainly your ability to comprehend) end where my philosophy begins.

[Eric Russell]

Good Grief Guys!!!

To think all of this started from...not a "religious posting", but a simple little "tag line" at the bottom of my posting window...ot unlike the rest of you have.

Again, I just want to clarify something...I never posted anything "religious" on here. I, just like the rest of you...have used the bottom of the window to insert something that I read or heard that I like.

I've never said anything about how ridiculous or abstract they were. It's just when the name of Jesus is mentioned...no matter what venue it is in...seems to make people keenly aware of their mortality and their failure to measure up. I'm not saying this is the case here, but you all sure are making a great case for it.

If I had put an excerpt from the Kuran on there, you probably would have let that be. If I had said something satanic, you all would probably have said..."what a weirdo!" and been done with it.

But, it's (again, not sure about the apostrophe):D only when faced with the only religious leader to die for His followers and then rise from the dead, that you get all uncomfortable.

Here's what I do...I don't even look at your taglines. I read the post and go on.

Remember, none of this was my fault. Someone chose to comment on it, and it was at that precise moment in time that our thread turned from inspection terms to a religious discussion. No because of a few lines from the Bible. They've always been on there. If you're not tolerant, don't expect others to be, either.

[A.D. Miller]

"The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence."
-- Abu Ala Al-Ma'arri

[Eric Russell]

(3) I am not against christians per se. But I am vehemently opposed to their incessant proselytizing, especially in unrelated venues. It is cloying, annoying, counter-productive, and frankly disgusting. And this applies to all religions. Oops, I forgot. Yours is the one that requires proselytizing, right? Nice marketing program by Rome, et al.

This is obvious from your location...intransigence.

You need a history lesson on the Catholic Church if you're referring to them by "Rome."

Also, you can't be "post-theistic" unless your god is dead, in which case why would you worship him/her/it? "Post" means subsequent to, or after, which would imply that once your god existed, but does not now. If your god was my God, then you would know that He is eternal, therefore, cannot die. So I have to ask...what do you worship?

[Eric Russell]

"The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence."


-- Abu Ala Al-Ma'arri


And don't forget about that third class...those who would actually quote something from someone named Abu Ala Al-Ma'arri. :D

[A.D. Miller]

ER: You are completely out of your depth discussing philosphy, or probably much of anything of value, with me. I know more about your religion than you do and think less of its constitutents than you possibly can.

Take this off line. This is not the place for this discussion. Send me an email. :D

[A.D. Miller]

And don't forget about that third class...those who would actually quote something from someone named Abu Ala Al-Ma'arri. :D

ER: Now the bigot comes out - typical christian duplicity.

[Eric Russell]

ER: Now the bigot comes out - typical christian duplicity.

So, its okay for you to insult my intelligence, but when I say something to insult you, then its bigotry and I'm labeled as deliberately deceptive???

How is my saying that duplicity? Have I intentionally deceived you in any way in my posts? I've been as truthful with you as I can be.

No need to take it somewhere else...you know the truth, what you do with it is up to you.

This is my final post on this topic...let's get back to the original thread.

[Rick Cantrell]

Hi Eric
I see nothing wrong with you tag line
Aaron said something about it being advertisement
I showed where even he had advertisement
He saw the irony of it and said Ouch
End
Until someone then made more of it

My objection was to the comments that followed.

"It's just when the name of Jesus is mentioned...no matter what venue it is in...seems to make people keenly aware of their mortality and their failure to measure up."

I agree with your statement, however the latter portion is somewhat judgemental, and to some, offensive.

"...only when faced with the only religious leader to die for His followers and then rise from the dead, that you get all uncomfortable"
Now your into preaching (proselytizing).
This is what Aaron and Jerry object to the most.
(AM &JP sorry if I misstate your objections)
This is not the place to express your religious views.
Although I'm not offended by what you say, some are.

"Remember, none of this was my fault."
I agree with you on that.

[Charles Guinn]

Alright already!! What does any of this have to do with home inspections?? It's a rhetorical question, so don't answer unless it's about home inspections:cool: