hausdok

Uh, Uh, The foil does not work at all without the enemas. OT - OF!!! M.

Shhh, Don't you know the government has black ops teams wiring these brain reading monitors into the net in every home in the U.S.? If you don't want them reading your thoughts, make sure you are sleeping with aluminum foil on your head and get a barium enema twice a month. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Yep, went to Whidbey Island today. I like it over there. Maybe I'll go down to the naval air station and see if they'll hire an old retired grunt. OT - OF!!! M.

Man! Why didn't I think of that? (Danged sneaky competitors - always trying to get me to tuck my head up my butt and make wacko recommendations, so word gets around I'm deranged. Hah! Fooled 'em. I've been deranged for years! I even think like Zippy!) OT - OF!!! M.

Man, This bjloden guy is smart. He must work for NASA or something.[] OT - OF!!! M.

Hi, That was me making that post. I was doing some testing under a test name and didn't realize that I'd not reassumed my regular (ugh) identity. (You guys keep busting my chops and I'm going to replace my icon with my ring-face profile photo again.) George, The tank is full and actively in use. The water company guys were there at the time of the inspection doing maintenance on the tank and grounds, so we asked. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Well, Since we are inspectors, the logical recommendation is #2. If it behaved that way during an inspection, I wouldn't even attempt to figure it out, because it could be a number of things and eat up too much time. I'd just write it up and refer it to the pro for analysis and correction. It does sound like burnt contacts in a relay though. Where are you George? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Yeah, We've had the disclosure here too. The majority of questions are usually answered, I don't know, and it's pretty damned difficult sometimes to prove that they are lying. Make all inspectors pass a uniform test, pass a uniform checkride (peer review) and you're there. Even the real estate folks won't argue with that one. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Yeah, Here, neutrals are mostly bare all the way to the meter, since they went to triplex service drops. Most of the time, they are insulated from the meter to the main disconnect. Sometimes not. Electricity has never been my strong suit, but I've always intuitively figured the bare neutral was allowed since the ground and neutral are bonded at the panel anyway. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi Dennis, A little moderating here. This thread is about licensing requirements. Lets try to keep the discussion of realtor relationships and pricing out of it. Jimmy, That's exactly the same argument that I've been hearing for years from long-established inspectors out here. I doubt that they were involved in the formation of ASHI in those early years. Experience and a written test, such as all of the present laws and ASHI requires for membership, doesn't verify at the time a law passes that the guy, who's been inspecting for the past ten years and took the NHIE when it was the ASHI test 9 years ago, has been doing competent inspections all of those years. It only proves that he can pass a test of basic knowledge. I think passage of a test such as the NHIE should be a prerequisite to a peer review and that a peer review of the inspector's on-site performance, method of presentation and a minimum number of written reports ensures that he or she is at least competent and isn't just good at taking tests. Much has been made of EBPHI's NHIE as being 'psychometrically' valid. Well, I suppose it is, but anytime you have tests where there are mulitiple choice and true/false answers there is a possibility someone who is good at taking tests will slip through the cracks. Every soldier, airman, sailer and marine in our armed forces must take a psychometrically valid test, that is appropriate to his or her grade level, pass it, and also undergo a performance review. In addition, there is continuous ongoing supervisory evaluation, quarterly counseling and annual evaluation reports, to ensure that the serviceman or woman not only knows the basic skills of his or her MOS, but is continually maintaining and even improving his/her skillsets. When a serviceman or woman fails to pass their MOS test, they are given extra training in their weak areas and have a set time period in which to be reevaluated or face reclassification into another MOS or expulsion from the military. It ain't pretty, it ain't easy, but it is consistent across the board in every skill at every grade level and is ensures a baseline level of competence and culls those who are incompetent from the ranks. I remember when the MOS tests and annual EER process first came out back around 1978. Older, "experienced" servicemen at that time were indignant that they had to submit to it and many petrified that they'd be forced into early retirement. Some of them had good reason to be petrified because they were incompetent and their subordinates were carrying them. People talk today about how well trained our military is. Well it isn't a joke. It's true. They are well trained and the system in place assures that time and complacency doesn't erode their skills. That's what a good peer review process can do for the integrity of this profession. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! P.S. Psst, I'll let just you in on a secret, Jimmy. When I took the psychometrically valid ASVAB entrance battery in New Haven those many years ago, I had no idea what many of the answers were. Being somewhat 'spiritual' in those days with hair below my shoulders and sandals on my feet, I decided to let my chi guide my answers. So, when I hit a question that I was unsure of or where I was clueless (and there were a lot), I just started at the choices until I thought that I could feel the energy from a particular answer coming through, and that was the answer that I chose. I still have the scores from that battery of tests. They are extremely high (even the math!)and would be even today. In fact, the recruiter just about fell over because I'd gotten a GT score of 153 when 160 is as high as the system grades. Well, you guys have read my stuff time and again. All of you know that I'm nowhere near that smart, or I'd have figured out how to punctuate by now. For the rest of my entire career, that 153 opened up doors for me that I otherwise wouldn't have been able to go through. However, once on the other side of that door, it was only the peer review process that assured that as I progressed in those endeavors I was competent and entitled to be there. A few times, despite that GT score, the peer review process shoved me back out the door, as it should have. That's why I have absolute faith that such a process would be very good for for the credibility of this profession.

Ultimately, it's up to what the rules are under the local code, but no, the only other areas that can be powered by these two circuits are the dining room and pantry and no lighting may be on them. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Folks, I'm a bungalow nut. So much of a bungalow nut, that a few years ago while doing a one-year non-compete with my former franchiser, I worked on nothing but bungalows, trying to save these homes from the ill-conceived remuddling intentions of their owners, and called my company Bungalow Rescue. This post is about a real bungalow that needs to be rescued. I've been bogarting this information for some time, while contemplating whether to pick up and move clear across the country to start all over again, in order to save this house. At this time, it just isn't practical, so I thought I'd post this information here and make others aware of it. The Dietz-Malcolm house is in Statesville, NC, a little college town about 40 minutes drive north of Charlotte. It is a classic 1916 arts and crafts bungalow that must be moved, in order to avoid demolition. The house is being sold by Preservation North Carolina. The price of the house is $15,000. This does not include house moving costs, the cost to purchase a suitable lot, the cost of installing systems and a foundation or any of the associated repairs this house is going to need. However, it is still a hell of a price for a pristine example of a true 1916 bungalow. Preservation North Carolina has found an ideal lot nearby that can be purchased separately and the home will be covered by protective covenants and a rehabilitation agreement to ensure that any renovations to the house don't result in a remuddling. Most home inspectors are folks that have backed into this business from the construction trades. I'm sure there is one or more home inspectors within a reasonable driving distance of Statesville that might have always dreamed of owning a second home in a nice quiet little town or running a bed and breakfast someplace when they're too old to do crawlspaces anymore. For those of you whom the shoe fits, this is a large project, but could ultimately be extremely satisfying if not rewarding. Check it out. If you're in this region and can't swing it, but know of someone who can appreciate the simple beauty of this home and has the energy and motivation to see a project of this magnitude through, pass this along. Preservation North Carolina The Dietz-Malcolm House Download Attachment: dietz_malcolm_house_exterio.jpg 12.08 KB Download Attachment: DietzMalcolm2.jpg 17.06 KB ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi All, The last time that any of you boarded an airplane to fly to another part of the world, the chief pilot sitting in that cockpit was a person who'd had to spend thousands of hours learning his or her craft, had to pass through a series of ever more difficult tests and who had to submit to an extensive peer review of his or her work, before being certified as competent to move you safely around the country. The licensing laws being written all emphasize some sort of experience and testing requirement, involving a set number of inspections and a written test of some sort, but they do not require anyone to submit to a peer review of their performance, before issuing a license to the allegedly competent inspector. We expect a pilot, a doctor, a dentist, an architect, an engineer and other so-called professionals - hell, even hairdressers - to not only be able to pass a written test, but be able to prove to those more experienced than themselves that they are competent enough to be granted a license. Why is it so hard for us to recognize that the only way anyone will ever be able to guarantee competency is through performance peer review by individuals who've proven that they are the most knowledgeable in their profession. When I floated this idea last year (Or was it the year before?), I got some flak from some 'experienced' inspectors, because they said they would never submit to having someone else determine their competency. Why? They felt that nobody could be trusted to do an objective evaluation of others in the profession and that there was no uniform standard by which to judge. Well, if I were to believe that wasn't possible, I guess I never would have gotten onto the last plane I rode on and I sure as hell wouldn't have let any doctor or dentist treat me. So, whenever this idea is floated, there are those who say it would be fair only if one were to allow the old hands to take a written test only and all of those new to the business would have to be tested and submit to peer review. I believe that the resistance was fueled by a fear, on the part of the experienced inspectors participating in those conversations, that any system like that could cost the inspector being evaluated his or her livelihood. Well, pilots and doctors and other professionals have different levels of competencies and for each they must be tested. They have minimum levels of continuing education they must complete and some must submit to periodic re-testing to ensure that they've been maintaining their skills. So why not home inspectors? Gerry's first two points - to mandate passage of a hard written test and to have a minimum number of inspections performed - are missing only the peer review to ensure that an inspector is competent. The E & O? That's another topic altogether that I think is separate from competency and should be (and has been) discussed in another thread, but personally, I don't know why anyone would want to make mandatory E & O part of a licensing initiative, without first ensuring that the persons being ensured can meet a minimum level of competency through peer review. What happens if an experienced pilot fails to pass his or her check ride? Well, the pilot is critiqued by the examining pilot and shown what areas he or she was weak in and has a set time period within which to retrain and retake the check ride in order to maintain his/her certification. In order to place a peer review process into place within an existing profession, something similar would need to be done. Experienced inspectors who failed a peer review could still work, but would be critiqued in the areas they were weak in and then given a set time period within which to bring their performance up to minimum standards or face suspension or revocation of their license. Such a system not only motivates everyone to aggressively pursue continuing education, it provides a document trail that backs up the licensing authority to show that an inspector was incompetent, in the event they must revoke an individual's license, thus taking away his or her livelihood. Again, no licensing or certification procedure will ever be truly valid, until people recognize that those doing the work must be forced to prove they can do it competently, regardless of time in the business, professional association affiliations or number of inspections performed. Using such a systematic approach ensures that at least the inspector is competent. It won't guarantee the inspector won't minimize issues for the sake of garnering future referrals, but it does provide the public protection and affords them a means to ensure who the agent recommends is competent. How do you develop a uniform way of evaluating the inspectors performance? You don't need to, it's already been done. Visit the Canadian Association of Home Inspectors site and view The CAHPI Initiative and then look over their HPI(Home and Property Inspectors) Occupational Standards, which could be used for a uniform evaluation baseline for peer review of on-site performance of a home inspector. Every facet of what we do has already been analyzed and broken down into competencies and sub-tasks. Using this system, the same way a pilot's competencies are broken down into sub-tasks and analyzed, inspectors' on-site performance can be evaluated. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Dan, I think this is a damned good topic to talk about. However, before you start getting responses I want to remind everyone that this is a webzine, not the cyber equivalent of the WWF, and that I've had enough bullshit on this forum over the past few weeks to last me a lifetime. Anyone responding to Dan's thread had better keep their responses civil and stick to the issues. The first time I see any chest thumping, veiled comments about supposed conspiracies or hidden agendas or just plain rudeness, the offender's post will be gone without so much as a PM to warn him or her. That also goes for subsequent posts from anyone who forgets that this is my webzine, that I'm the editor who decides what is acceptable content here and then might feel an overwhelming compulsion to lecture me about censorship and freedom of speech. Recess is over folks and I'm taking the playground back. Keep is civil, keep it relevant, or take your contentious baggage someplace else. Mike

Hi All, Yesterday I inspected a very clean little condo involved in an estate sale in a 1978 building and my SureTest caught a good one for me. The electrical system checked out great until I got to the last bedroom where the first outlet displayed FG for false ground. At first, I thought it was an anomaly caused by the quirky way that my old SureTest sometimes needs to be 'reset' by clicking the GFCI button a couple of times between outlets. However, after I clicked the GFCI button several times it still read FG. I decided to take a look behind the plate to see if a bootleg ground jumper had been added. I took the receptacle cover off and shined my light inside. Nope, no jumper. Backstabbed outlets and everything appeared normal. I put the cover back on and moved around the rest of the room, testing the remainder of the outlets. I found that the next outlet over had an open ground and then nearly every other outlet in the room, except one, also showed a false ground. This gave me pause to consider the fact that the home had been occupied by an elderly woman since it was brand new and nothing about it suggested tampering by a do-it-yourselfer. Whatever this was, it must be original, and the ungrounded outlet also seemed out of place. On a hunch, I pulled the cover off the outlet with the open ground and looked inside. There was the problem. Someone had punched a hole through the side of the plastic box and pulled a piece of NM into it. It was connected to the back of the receptacle and the equipment grounding conductor on that cable had been snipped off. Better yet, the equipment grounding conductor at the receptacle had also been cut and one of the neutral wires was connected to the other equipment grounding conductors joined together in the back of the box under a wire nut. So, apparently,the EGC's I was seeing in the back of that box were connected to those of the other FG outlets in that room, and the ST had picked up on this as a false ground, even though it didn't occur in any of the outlets reading FG. A look into the laundry alcove on the other side of the wall from the outlet found the cause. A wall lamp that had been installed inside the laundry closet. It looked original and probably was, but I'm betting it was installed by someone other than an electrician. Probably someone working for the builder, after the C.O. was issued. I'll bet the elderly new owner had complained about the lack of a light and he'd thrown one in for her. Since she's passed on, guess we'll never know, but chalk another one up for my old, yet trustworthy ST-1D. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Kewl! That's the same brand of system in the JLC article. Thanks for the info Dudes. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, That's an easy one. You need Tom Canavan 706-453-1620. I darned near signed on with this guy a few years ago. Check out his site at Historic Relocations Another place you might want to check out is the forum at BuildingMovers.com. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi All, Just read the little article in this month's JLC about installing a leach chamber septic system. Interesting concept. Did you say you'd installed one of these Chad? A couple of thoughts came to mind as I looked at that system. Wouldn't there be the likelihood that a contractor backing a truck into a yard with a load of lumber on it could end up caving in the top of these and his truck up to the axle? How about inspections. Do these things have any kind of observation cap that can be opened up to look inside and examine the condition of the bio-mat? Come on you septic experts. Tell me about these things. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike (From the great woodsy and wild northwest where on Puget Sound sewer systems are the norm waaaaaaaayyyyyyyy out in the boondocks in the Western corridor.)

Hi, Check with your State's Dept. of Agriculture or Dept. of Natural Resources, if you have one. Laundry detergents and bleach are contaminants and dumping within 100ft. of a fresh water source is sure to be frowned on whereever you are. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Done. This is kinda kewl. Wonder how the home inspection business is in Wisconsin? http://www.historicproperties.com/detai ... y=ncpra001 ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Okay, at Brian G's suggestion, I've established this category for those who want to talk about historic properties. Enjoy. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Pssst, Brian! No body else has been having this problem today, Bro! I'll look things over. Send me the photo and I'll see if I can figure it out. If I can't I know that pesky programmer, Mike B., has probably been sitting back chuckling at me trying to help you with this all day. I'll get him to do it. Danged programming guys anyway..... ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I have to admit, the thought of a 'zoid running around like a chicken with his/her head cut off after I set off a smoke candle in a furnace is kind of comical. OT - OF!!! M.

Okay, I think I know what you are doing. First off, don't do this in the quick reply box - do it by clicking on "reply to topic" and using the standard composition box. If you are doing that, are you trying to use the photo icon above the composition box when you compose your message and want to attach? IF so DON'T 'cuz it doesn't work. Are you trying to write a link to your photo using code, the way you create a hot link to a picture in the album section? If so, wipe that process out of your mind. Creating a friendly name for a hyperlink to a website is entirely different process unrelated to uploading a photo. All you want to do is: 1. go to the area directly below the message composition box and click on the "attach file" that is there with a paperclip beside it. 2. That will pop up a window. Click the 'browse' button and choose the drive, directory, and file where the picture is. 3. Make sure the file is a .jpg file and the file name has no spaces or symbols in it 4. Attach it. Then click 'submit' (or whatever the command is) and let the computer upload it. 5. Return to your message, finish it and submit the whole thing. Before you begin. Print these instructions. If none of this makes any sense to you. Go get your daughter and have her teach you how to do it. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! M.

Hi Brian, Open up the photo from its present location and then click on 'file' and then 'save as' and save it using a simple name without any symbols or spaces like, drumtrap.jpg. Then upload that photo with your post. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike