Thread: This is fine....

Realtor handed me the phone of her electrician who insisted that this was fine.... Burning plastic smell, melted insulation plate and all..
idiots

Similar Threads:

• Fine Homebuilding
• Fine Art Photography
• another fine Philadelphia chimney top
• another fine tpr pipe
• Fine specimen

A good response for idiots like that is to ask the electrician (then the agent) for their license number and their insurance company and policy number, then Stat that you will be sending of photo of the condition to their state licensing board and their insurance company ...

... my guess is that by the time you have finished asking for the information and explaining why you asked for it ...

... one of the two will cut you off and tell you that 'just for you, and just this one time, they will make sure that is replaced ASAP' ...

Well, it was working fine before you got there....

Dom.

It looks like that breaker does not fit properly. It protrudes past the surface of the adjacent breakers. Wrong breaker for the panel?

Ya I should have. Just when you think you've seen it all in this business, you realize you haven't.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

A good response for idiots like that is to ask the electrician (then the agent) for their license number and their insurance company and policy number, then Stat that you will be sending of photo of the condition to their state licensing board and their insurance company ...

... my guess is that by the time you have finished asking for the information and explaining why you asked for it ...

... one of the two will cut you off and tell you that 'just for you, and just this one time, they will make sure that is replaced ASAP' ...

Marc, Too Bad, So Sad individuals have to act that way when lives are at stake. >400 F is a high temperature.
Jerry made a great recommendation, but again why create a confrontation?

I suspect you were not talking to a qualified electrician nor in the presents of a professional real estate agent.

That 125 amp breaker, likely for the HVAC, might not be a recommended brand for that panel.
Reference the panel legend to see where breakers of that amperage are required on the bus.
Looks like mixed breakers in the panel as well.
>400 F is a high temperature.
Good work!

Bloody mindlessness putting money ahead of lives. Correcting electric panel defects is inexpensive. That agent needs to be reeducated or removed from the industry.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Jerry made a great recommendation, but again why create a confrontation?

It doesn't create confrontation ... it responds to silly and idiotic confrontation from others.

You can either sit there and argue with them until you are blue in the face and pass out for lack of oxygen, walk way and let them think they are right, or respond in a way which shuts them down and brings them back to reality. I found that the last way works the best.

I once had a real estate agent tell me that her inspector does not take as long to do inspections as I do, my response was that I know an agent who does not take as long as her to sell a house (she had just bragged about selling the house in two weeks from listing it ... the agent on my previous inspection had sold that house two days after it was listed). Sometimes you just have to 'shut them up'.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

It doesn't create confrontation ... it responds to silly and idiotic confrontation from others.

Why respond to silly and ideological confrontations from a REA and SOMEONE on a phone whom you do not know nor have the ability to challenge THEIR authority and vet their license?
Remember it takes 2 to argue.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

1: You can either sit there and argue with them until you are blue in the face and pass out for lack of oxygen,
2: walk way and let them think they are right, or respond in a way which shuts them down and brings them back to reality. I found that the last way works the best.

They will always think they are right escalating the emotions with YOUR CLIENTS IN TOW.
The report and recommendation is proof.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I once had a real estate agent tell me that her inspector does not take as long to do inspections as I do, my response was that I know an agent who does not take as long as her to sell a house (she had just bragged about selling the house in two weeks from listing it ... the agent on my previous inspection had sold that house two days after it was listed). Sometimes you just have to 'shut them up'.

That was your one experience of many I predict.
I have had the same and worse.

On a separate occasion, during a technical exhaustive I had been intimidated enough to warrant criminal charges from myself that turned on me defending my actions and the client lying.
Why? I suspect intimidation and civic avoidance...
I passed the litmus test.
Facts outweigh hearsay and skewed hypothesis when measured by the proper authority.

The inquiry and charges are still pending I believe.
Be happy when it is all over but I doubt the individual believes he/she is wrong and will ever admit it.
State the facts to your client and move on.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Why respond to silly and ideological confrontations from a REA and SOMEONE on a phone whom you do not know nor have the ability to challenge THEIR authority and vet their license?
Remember it takes 2 to argue.

A: There was no CHALLENGE to their license, simply a REQUEST for their license NUMBER.

B: There is no argument - just a simple STATEMENT - which stopped them from arguing because they could either: imply that they were not licensed; provide their license numbers.

They will always think they are right escalating the emotions with YOUR CLIENTS IN TOW.

Never worked that way for me or my clients, not sure why you have had those experiences (I AM presuming that you are talking based on personal experience).

The report and recommendation is proof.

The report is not proof - the documentation submitted in the report is the evidence.

Recommendations are not proof either.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

A: There was no CHALLENGE to their license, simply a REQUEST for their license NUMBER.

Post #2.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

A good response for idiots like that is to ask the electrician (then the agent) for their license number and their insurance company and policy number, then Stat that you will be sending of photo of the condition to their state licensing board and their insurance company ...

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Never worked that way for me or my clients, not sure why you have had those experiences (I AM presuming that you are talking based on personal experience).

Yes.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

The report is not proof - the documentation submitted in the report is the evidence.

The report is a document and proof and used as proof in a court of law along with the PIA and any recommendations therein.
Here is just one of the many legal cases; Salgado vs Toth heard by the honorable Mr. Justice Burnyeat.
I rest my case:-)

Years ago I used to get mad and loud in these types of situations. Nowadays I stay polite, tell them to please put their claims of everything is ok in writing on their company letterhead including their license number. They can do the same as I am required to do.
Haven't gotten a legitimate letter ever.
Actually had one recently where I recommended the buyer hire a Plumber to camera the sewer line because of what I saw, too much heaving to be normal. Plumber showed up, Sellers agent wouldn't let him camera the line, Seller stated they would have their guy do it.
About 2 weeks later I received a copy of a letter from a guy claiming the sewer couldn't be camera checked due to its vintage construction style, as far as he knew the sewer line was fine with no known issues, and that any sewer line problems would likely be a Municipal issue. I don't have to tell anyone here how much nonsense that all is.
The icing on the cake ... as far as the letter, only his name, no company name, nothing stating he is a Plumber, carpenter, grave digger whatever and of course no license number for anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

A good response for idiots like that is to ask the electrician (then the agent) for their license number and their insurance company and policy number, then Stat that you will be sending of photo of the condition to their state licensing board and their insurance company ...

... my guess is that by the time you have finished asking for the information and explaining why you asked for it ...

... one of the two will cut you off and tell you that 'just for you, and just this one time, they will make sure that is replaced ASAP' ...

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Post #2.

That is not a CHALLENGE to their license, that is a REQUEST for their license number.

Followed by a statement that one will send the photo to their insurance company and their licensing board.

Those are statements, not challenges - I did not in any way question them being licensed, simply asked for their license number (which, if you were reading what I wrote, is actually an acknowledgement that they ARE licensed ... stupid ... incompetent ... don't know/don't care what they are doing ... yeah, maybe those things.

The report is a document and proof and used as proof in a court of law along with the PIA and any recommendations therein.
Here is just one of the many legal cases; Salgado vs Toth heard by the honorable Mr. Justice Burnyeat.

I must have missed it in there: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...09BCSC1515.htm please point out where the word "proof" is in there ... the term "evidence" is in there, many times, including that the report and photos are "in evidence" and that 'evidence of', and others.

Robert, you really need to not make things up which are not said, and refer to things which are actually said = unless you show me where that case states that THE REPORT was PROOF of anything (other than the actions of the inspector, and I didn't even see that in there).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

That is not a CHALLENGE to their license, that is a REQUEST for their license number.

Followed by a statement that one will send the photo to their insurance company and their licensing board.

Those are statements, not challenges - I did not in any way question them being licensed, simply asked for their license number (which, if you were reading what I wrote, is actually an acknowledgement that they ARE licensed ... stupid ... incompetent ... don't know/don't care what they are doing ... yeah, maybe those things.



I must have missed it in there: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...09BCSC1515.htm please point out where the word "proof" is in there ... the term "evidence" is in there, many times, including that the report and photos are "in evidence" and that 'evidence of', and others.

Robert, you really need to not make things up which are not said, and refer to things which are actually said = unless you show me where that case states that THE REPORT was PROOF of anything (other than the actions of the inspector, and I didn't even see that in there).

I am not making things up. You are partly avoiding what was implied as well as admitting I am correct to a degree, although some may agree, as myself and I suspect others, while others not.
You are implying "one," be it you or another person, but nevertheless someone will send the photo to their insurance company and their licensing board.
Now that is confrontational.

Jerry, for one it is a useless endeavor and as I see it creating a mountain or of an ant hill.
You are questioning a person unseen, as well as the individual that handed you a phone stating the party at the other end is a qualified electrician.
I find it irrational.
I walk away shaking my head and continue working most times.
Now do not get me wrong, I have done the same but learned to move on when I can.


And thanks, Jerry. I will try my best not to make stuff up.

From the case in Question. Yes Toth was asked question but the report was also used as evidence.
It was not a case of he said she said.
The facts revolved around what was written and said during the inspection, and I suspect what was said over the phone before and after the inspection and reporting process completed.



[QUOTE=ROBERT YOUNG;267170]
WRITTEN REPORT
[18]The written report prepared by Mr. Toth started with a “THE BIG PICTURE/SUMMARY” page. The form of report was prepared by Mr. Toth after consulting with a lawyer and after incorporating the recommended contract form of the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors of B.C. (“CAHPI (BC)”). The “Big Picture/Summary” page set out eight separate areas of the inspection, rating each of the eight sections as average, above average or below average, as well as setting out “major points of concern”, setting out “significant qualities”, and setting out whether “major/minor repairs” were “recommended”.
[19]The rating for “STRUCTURE” was half-way between “average” and “below”, and all of the words “Major/Minor Repairs Recommended” were underlined. The ELECTRIC, PLUMBING, KITCHEN and EXTERIOR are all rated as “Average”. The “HEATING/VENTILATION/AC” and the “INTERIOR” were rated as between average and above average. The “UNDER HOUSE SPACE” was also rated as between above average and average. Minor repairs were recommended for the “ELECTRIC” and “minor repairs and maintenance” were “Recommended” for the PLUMBING and ELECTRIC components. Maintenance was recommended for the HEATING/VENTILATION/AC COMPONENT. The “SIGNIFICANT QUALITIES” were noted as being “200 A service”, “Newer furnace”, and “Well maintained clean interior”. The “MAJOR POINTS OF CONCERN” for the “STRUCTURE” were described as follows: “To fix-up structural deficiencies”. The comments under the headings “MAJOR POINTS OF CONCERN” and “SIGNIFICANT QUALITIES” were handwritten onto the report form. The next part of the written report dealt with each of the eight components and comprised two pages for each of the eight components.
[20]On the first page for the component “STRUCTURE”, the following was noted:
SETTLEMENT NOTED: □ Slight Moderate Ongoing?
SOIL EROSION NOTED: □ No Yes South SW
[21]The only marks or words that were not on the printed form were the question mark after the word “ongoing” and the words “South SW” after the word “Yes”. There was a check mark beside the printed words: “CHECK WITH PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING/PEST CONTROL CONTRACTOR OR _________ FOR COMPLETE INFORMATION”.
[22]The printed heading on the next page dealing with STRUCTURE, was: “SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES”. On this page, there were number of printed “Descriptions”. There was a column where a tick mark could be placed to indicate that a particular description applied, a second column to write in the “Location” where the description applied, and two columns to allow tick marks to be added to indicate whether “Repair” or “Upgrade” or both were suggested. The following printed descriptions had tick marks beside them, with the Location, Repair and/or Upgrade columns as noted:
(a)Unstable soil conditions/erosions (location being “S, SW”, and “repairs” and “upgrade” ticked);
(b)Solitary foundation movements (location being “S side, deck, SW (?), and “repairs” ticked;
(c)Floor sag (location being SW living rm (bsmt) settled to South”, but without “repair” or “upgrade” ticked); and
(d)Wood deck unstable, lateral support missing (with both “repair” and “upgrade” ticked).
[23]In addition to those descriptions that were printed on the form, the following additional comments were handwritten in by Mr. Toth:
(a)“Wood decks 6x6 posts have no bracing in any directions, new braces must be added. N side framing (posts and beam) moved, doesn’t support the deck any more. Raise the top of beam to support joists.”
(b)“SW deck structure solitary foundations have major settlements, post base soil connection structure has no proper connection to house. To lift-up, and reinforce foundation & posts. ”
(c)“Two West side timber rafters near foundations are decayed, water damaged. ”
(d)“SE corner of garage conc. structure cracked. ”
For each of (a), (b) and (c), the “repair” column was ticked but the “upgrade” column was not.
[24]The other seven areas of inspection contained somewhat unimportant notations on the two printed pages for each of the seven separate areas of the inspection:
(a)“UNDER HOUSE SPACE” – “mouse droppings in furnace rm.” (with the “SIGNIFICANT UNDER HOUSE DEFICIENCIES” being noted as “Occasional seepage possible, to drain backyard!” and “Property grading pooling water against house – N. side (backyard)”, with both noting a suggested “Upgrade”);
(b)“ELECTRICAL” with the “SIGNIFICANT ELECTRICAL DEFICIENCIES” notations “Wires / boxes uncovered / loose – Furnace rm, Exterior E” and “Tree branches / vines interfering with cable”, with both noted as requiring “Repair”;
(c)“PLUMBING” – a number of repairs were recommended, but nothing of a particularly significant nature;
(d)“HEATING/VENTILATION/AIR CONDITIONING” (with the only “SIGNIFICANT H/V/AC DEFICIENCIES” being “Fireplace damper warped, not closing – Family rm”);
(e)“KITCHEN” had two matters noted: “Refrigerator handle loose” and “Countertops have swollen joints”;
(f)“INTERIOR” was a notation “Mouse droppings in furnace room”. There were a number of “SIGNIFICANT INTERIOR DEFICIENCIES” noted but none that bear on the questions between the parties involving this litigation;
(g)“EXTERIOR”, the “SIGNIFICANT EXTERIOR DEFICIENCIES” were noted as: “Retaining wall has no weep holes, add new, drill drains in conc. wall along stair”, “Finished grading high, lowering 6” below siding required – NE, E”, “Yard has no proper drainage pooling rain water – N patio area”, “Debris to remove from E side”, and “50% of garage roof, 100% of N overhang roof, 90% of walkway roof, ponding water, new drainage recommended at low points”. Upgrades were recommended for all those “deficiencies”.
[25]After the first significant rainfall, the Plaintiffs noted leakage from the roof above the area that had been established as a family room. As a result, repairs were made to the roof. The Plaintiffs had discussions with a contractor who provided them with estimates of what it would cost to undertake the repairs of the areas in the report of Mr. Toth that required attention. The Plaintiffs also had William E. Clayton undertake an inspection of the Property.

Hope that helps.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Hope that helps.

????

Nothing in there is "proof" of anything. Nothing in there is "evidence" of anything.

Photos are taken to show "the facts" at the time of the photos.

Reports are written to provide one's "opinion" of those "facts".

The photos and the report become part of the "evidence" and include the inspectors "opinion" (the report) of the shown "facts" (the photos).

The trier of fact (the judge or jury) hears the facts placed into evidence and decides which facts are to be believed and relied on for the trier's decision (court's finding).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

????

Nothing in there is "proof" of anything. Nothing in there is "evidence" of anything.

Photos are taken to show "the facts" at the time of the photos.

Reports are written to provide one's "opinion" of those "facts".

The photos and the report become part of the "evidence" and include the inspectors "opinion" (the report) of the shown "facts" (the photos).

The trier of fact (the judge or jury) hears the facts placed into evidence and decides which facts are to be believed and relied on for the trier's decision (court's finding).

Yes, I concur to a point..., The burden of proof "includes two distinct concepts."
1: The Burden of Persuasion.
2: The Burden of Going Forward.

Now, confirmation of a fact by evidence.
In a court trial proof is what the trier of the fact ( in this case by a judge without a jury) needs to become satisfied the evidence shows by "a preponderance of the evidence."

Toth's opinion was poor. The facts state that plainly.

Jerry, an opinion is saying "someone is making stuff up."
You are misinformed about the process would be a reasonable/professional reply to questionable comments related to a subject.

As I have always expressed, I do not know everything and am quite willing to learn if/when everyone exhibits professional conduct.
Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpens iron, as one person sharpens another.
Best regards as always.

I had an agent kick me out of a house last Thursday for taking 4 hours with 1 left to go. 2500 sq Contractor owned house..

Originally Posted by Marc M

I had an agent kick me out of a house last Thursday for taking 4 hours with 1 left to go. 2500 sq Contractor owned house..

Did you ask if they sold the house within the average time between listing and sale for that area?

Robert,

Apparently you don't understand what an "opinion" is.

Or what evidence is.

Or proof.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Did you ask if they sold the house within the average time between listing and sale for that area?

Robert,

Apparently you don't understand what an "opinion" is.

Or what evidence is.

Or proof.

Opinion; a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. but enough to cast suspicion in a court of law.
If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit.
My opinion is you tried to bury the last opinion.

Fact; by the use of evidence.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Opinion; a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. but enough to cast suspicion in a court of law.
If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit.
My opinion is you tried to bury the last opinion.

Fact; by the use of evidence.

The glove was "evidence", but was not "proof" that he did, or did not, do the deed.

opinion

• 1a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matterb : approval, esteem
  
• 2a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledgeb : a generally held view
  
• 3a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expertb : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

My opinion is you tried to bury the last opinion.

You need to clean your glasses, and if you do not wear glasses, you may need to start ... just my "opinion".

Originally Posted by Marc M

I had an agent kick me out of a house last Thursday for taking 4 hours with 1 left to go. 2500 sq Contractor owned house..

In my neck of the woods clients are allowed requesting "as long as it takes" and that means even having a Licensed GC in tow. One that note, many but not all REA, or RE Bokers in my neck of the woods, tell you they have another appointment scheduled in 2 hours upon arrival.
My reply is feel free to leave. I am insured and I can call you once I have completed the survey.

Why do they book so many appoints when they know full well a home inspection may take time?

Marc, was the time taken used to create evidence gathering facts, something that has really occurred or is actually the case, while tracing components and systems back to the source because I have done 3500 SQ FT in 3,5 hours recently. Many conclusions were present but required documentation and even some dismantling to produce images, but all homes differ.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

I have done 3500 SQ FT in 3,5 hours recently.

I did the same at one time.

Then I started looking at more things and looking more in depth into them.

My average time on a 3,500 sq ft house the last 4 years I was in business was 2 days on site and 1-2 days for the report.

Trying to compare square feet to time is like trying to answer the question "is the glass half full or is the glass half empty" ... it is an interesting thought process which has nothing to do with reality.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I did the same at one time.

Then I started looking at more things and looking more in depth into them.

My average time on a 3,500 sq ft house the last 4 years I was in business was 2 days on site and 1-2 days for the report.

Trying to compare square feet to time is like trying to answer the question "is the glass half full or is the glass half empty" ... it is an interesting thought process which has nothing to do with reality.

To answer the the glass holding water analogy, to myself as well as other I suspect, the glass is a vessel containing water.
If the water volume held any significant meaning, the measurement would be significant, but I saw no number indication volume.

To a person requiring water to divert dehydration, the water becomes a life saving blessing no matter the vessel or container. As long as it does not pollute or contaminate the water.
I hope that helps.

jerry, I concur. All things are not the same alought certain others would like you to believe that all inspections are the same, as well as the time it takes, trying to skew the preponderance of the evidence.

While some may agree, while other not, time spent and the type of report offered, let's take technical exhaustive, can take longer both one site and to report, but I also presume any costs will reflect to meet the time and information delivered.
That would be realistically speaking of course unless you take it as an opinion.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I did the same at one time.

Then I started looking at more things and looking more in depth into them.

That's why I am here more often than, there, talking to astute colleagues such as yourself, Bob Harper, John C. Hasson, Scott Paterson, John K, and the many, many others that contribute to InspectionNews whereby helping the success of others.

I am humbly grateful, truly.
Thank you all!

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

To answer the the glass holding water analogy, to myself as well as other I suspect, the glass is a vessel containing water.
If the water volume held any significant meaning, the measurement would be significant, but I saw no number indication volume.

To a person requiring water to divert dehydration, the water becomes a life saving blessing no matter the vessel or container. As long as it does not pollute or contaminate the water.
I hope that helps.

Robert, that reply (not an answer) is one of the communication issues going on here - *I* stated that was a "question" ... *you* stated "To answer ... " then went on with your 'around the mulberry bush' dance without giving an answer to the question.

Saying that your "reply" is an "answer" when it is nothing more than distraction for NOT answering the question is, well, is like other replies of yours - off target.

jerry, I concur. All things are not the same alought certain others would like you to believe that all inspections are the same, as well as the time it takes, trying to skew the preponderance of the evidence.

Making at specific point of pointing out tthat he preponderance of evidence shows Marc and I are correct.

While some may agree, while other not, time spent and the type of report offered, let's take technical exhaustive, can take longer both one site and to report, but I also presume any costs will reflect to meet the time and information delivered.
That would be realistically speaking of course unless you take it as an opinion.

I did not do "technically exhaustive" inspections, I suspect that Marc does not do "technically exhaustive" inspections either.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Making at specific point of pointing out that the preponderance of evidence shows Marc and I are correct.

I never said or inferred either of you were incorrect, or at least I do not think I did, and if so it was unintentional. Happy everything is clear now.

I think the distraction is from the water in a glass analogy.
You can see the amount of water through a glass or how much in it from looking at the top down.
While some may equate anything partially filled others are satisfied knowing something is there.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

I think the distraction is from the water in a glass analogy.
You can see the amount of water through a glass or how much in it from looking at the top down.
While some may equate anything partially filled others are satisfied knowing something is there.

Trying to get an answer from you is like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree ...

... is the glass half full or half empty?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Trying to get an answer from you is like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree ...

... is the glass half full or half empty?

Robert,

Here is a hint: It's the type of answer as to the question of how long it should take to inspect a 3,500 sf house (or any size house).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Is the glass half full or half empty?

Answer: Neither. The glass is twice the size that it needs to be.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

Answer: Neither. The glass is twice the size that it needs to be.

That's an engineer's point of view, but does not answer the half full / half empty question.

It could also be that the liquid in it is only half as much as the glass will hold, but that does not answer the question either.

And, if the glass is plastic, is it even a valid question?

I have a lot more possible responses, most of which do not answer the question, but address the discussion of the question.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Trying to get an answer from you is like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree ...

... is the glass half full or half empty?

Ha ha ha.
Jerry, You're the best!

As to your observation, seeing it is the start to your post, freeze the Jello or nail the entire package with a fastener of your choice. Yes a nail will do as long as it penetrates the Jello and Wood deep enough to hold it for a prescribed time. Ha ha ha...

As to your question, "is the glass half full or half empty?"
The liquid represents half the volume that vessel will hold.
Best I can do seeing there is no relevance or point of the water.

Jerry, it is not my intention to frustrate you or any other members here.
Please excuse me if you feel I am doing so purposely. I enjoy the mental stimulus.

You helped me with a very troubling client.
Thank you.
He insists his facts, what he remembers, are my reporting errors.
First he did not have a report.
I sent one ASAP.
Then he says the PIA is notwithstanding.
Then says the report is in discovery stages and he has no attorney.
If you only knew how many times he has contradicted himself.

Now, again, he threatens me with litigation over his facts.
I explained, as you so eloquently did, the evidence is tried.
If he wishes to pursue this through the courts I can not stop him and will defend myself vigorously as will my attorney, Joe Ferry with evidence.

God bless you and your family.
I dearly enjoy the civility and professionalism here.
Thank you all.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Robert,

Here is a hint: It's the type of answer as to the question of how long it should take to inspect a 3,500 sf house (or any size house).

Sorry, I missed this post.
I guess it must have been because I was laughing so hard when I read this post "trying to get an answer from you is like trying to nail Jello to a tree."

Jerry, let me say this, please do not try to steer answers when there maybe, and most likely are. many answers.

As to your steered question, some may agree while others not whether the glass is half full or empty. It's up to the individual. I suspect is the response you were hoping for.

Jerry, optimistic individuals may say, its half full, while a pessimistic individual say, it is half empty. Greedy say, I want more.

There is one right answer though. Gunner knows this as well as you.
The water represents half the volume that vessel will hold.
Remember, you can not compress water so that glass will not hold more liquid water than it was intended to by the manufacturer.
I am a realist and yes think outside the box.

[QUOTE=ROBERT YOUNG;267247I am a realist and yes think outside the box. [/QUOTE]

Robert,

The glass is FULL.

Think about it.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Robert,

The glass is FULL.

Think about it.

I feel into that one on my own.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Robert,

The glass is FULL.

Think about it.

Not so fast... show me the glass.
Glass has mechanical properties. In you own defence you are asking is the glass half full or empty. Seeing you are implying there is a glass and I must take your word for it, show me the glass and a RD sheet on the mechanical properties and another on the mineral makeup.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Robert,

The glass is FULL.

Think about it.

I thought you thought it through and figured it out ... guess you didn't.

Even an empty glass is full ...

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I thought you thought it through and figured it out ... guess you didn't.

Even an empty glass is full ...

I feel the need to revisit the original intent of the question.
I reopen a debate if you agree.
Set ground rules, please.
Establish the purpose for the glass.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

I feel the need to revisit the original intent of the question.
I reopen a debate if you agree.
Set ground rules, please.
Establish the purpose for the glass.

The purpose of the glass does not matter.

The ground rule was the question - is the glass half full or half empty.

Fact 1: A glass is made empty when it comes off the production line (empty of liquids).

Fact 2: A glass is made full when it comes off the production line (air fills the glass).

Fact 3: Regardless of what is in a glass, the glass is still always full (an glass empty of liquid is full of air, a glass half full of liquid is half full of air, a glass full of liquid is still full).

Fact 4: Any glass of a given size can be: 'larger than necessary'; 'smaller than necessary'; 'just the right size' - those are judgments based on the viewers point of view.

Fact 5: Any glass which is made of plastic is not a glass, it is a plastic.