ozofprev

You really like that Angie's List don't ya Kurt. You should. The really cool thing about Angie's is that it is driven by clients. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. Angie's has just started in Buffalo. I look forward to reaping the deserved rewards as you have. The other nice thing about capitalism uninterrupted by RE greed is that the sorry-assed HIs fail. Angie's is the correct way to 'do' capitalism. Ok Kurt, the faith is coming back. Do you know a good way to encourage clients to use Angie's? Oh yee of little faith........ Get yer butts on Angies List; "the list" is proof that there is still intelligent life in the universe.

Yes, Rick, this is probably the best forum around. Just pick an organization that doesn't make you feel dirty. Tremendous energy goes into debating which organization is easiest/cheapest/best/worst and so on. A question like yours sparks that gas. Sad thing, really. Energy spent on those debates means little remains for discussion of meaningful qualification of HIs. It's bizarre that a state makes it a requirement to join 'a professional organization' but has no substantial educational or experiential requirement. It's the same here in NY. The real experts in this field know what has happened, what is happening, and what needs to happen but won't. Mike knows. He has had this discussion many times. Defensive emotions get worked up, but each thread fades into the past. No action is taken. No bar is raised.

Hmmm, then the teflon tape might be ok.[:-dunce]

Love the title. Could be a long list.

Ya gotta love it... (But I give them the benefit of the doubt - vacation, found answer elsewhere & forgot about 'us', etc.)

Sometimes, the Hammurabi code makes sense (BTW, his grammar, not mine).id="maroon"> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it kill a slave of the owner, then he shall pay slave for slave to the owner of the house. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it ruin goods, he shall make compensation for all that has been ruined, and inasmuch as he did not construct properly this house which he built and it fell, he shall re-erect the house from his own means. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If a builder build a house for some one, even though he has not yet completed it; if then the walls seem toppling, the builder must make the walls solid from his own means. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Les, Could it be a mid-efficiency furnace? Those had the HTPV recall - http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml98/98072.html I don't find anything else.

What Jim said, of course, except I wish pain were a foreign material. I believe the intent of the reg is to maintain safety and integrity of all components. Green paint on a hot conductor is bad, for example. Cleansers & other chemicals may degrade the insulation or conductor. I would not call out, say, the shiny lubricant used to pull a tight bundle. Heaven forbid an elderly person get out a rag and try to clean it up! The section that you quoted goes on to give examples of foreign materials ". . . such as pain, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive residues." I suppose that smoke contamination could be considered to be a corrosive residue, depending on what's in it, but I'd think it'd be a pretty far-fetched call. I just don't see smoke residue being in the same class as the examples given in that code section. Unless I saw that the panel had mechanical damage from the fire, I think I'd say nothing. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Thanks Michael, But the links above were truncated due to the parens. So go here and choose Dropped Header Design Guide near the bottom: http://www.i-joist.org/policies.asp

What sort of electrical device? What's being reversed? As Scott said, "Picture?"

Mike, I appreciate that, but I'm not giving up on ASHI. One of its ex-presidents told me to join and speak up. I respect him and so many others in ASHI that I believe its worth a fight. Besides, it's the only legit game in town (save, TIJ of course). I do love the ACI title, but I'd hate to see its logo.[:-censore

Mike, I just might cry. For the last six months, I have felt so alone. Only recently have I found company. And it's respectable company - that's cool. Scott, you are with the good guys. You are the one The Reporter said to write to six months ago with membership questions/suggestions. And your response? "I don't know how long you have been involved in ASHI, but changes to the bylaws are akin to making amendments to the US Constitution." (I save my emails) You say a third party will have to raise the bar, but I fail to see how that would change anything within ASHI, although it would obviate ASHI as standard-bearer. Is that the goal? Building Science degrees don't account for a single inspection? How many people are feeding the CON (Coffers Of Nick) because their path to becoming a qualified HI is different than the 'do it' 250 times method? I don't need to 'do it' 250 times (although, I did need 50). And I assure you that I will still be learning things after I 'do it' 25,000 times. Why am I on a rant? At the end of this month - I might cry again - I'm going to be a ... oooh, a bastard! I will not be a member of Nick's club, and I cannot claim to be a member of ASHI. The reason isn't because I'm not as qualified as many of its members. It's because I took another path. So, Scott, do you refer to legislation by states? If so, so far, their track record shows that they're only willing to pass weak legislation and give most folks who're in the profession a 'by'. That hasn't made anything better. Well, I don't want to open a huge organization bashing debate here, but pardon an independent from jumping in here and saying that I think that's a pretty flimsy rationalization for doing nothing. Why would raising the bar kill an organization? One can name dozens of fields where raising the bar hasn't done that. Let's take higher education providers for example. Yale, Harvard, MIT or Princeton haven't made entry any easier, yet they still garner enough folks who want to be able to say that they are an alumni of one of them to stay in business. Do they provide the absolute best education in the business? Well, if you ask them, they say that they do, although you can probably find guys who become just as educated in plenty of 4-year state run universities. Still, if you ask the average person on the street to name the top ten colleges or universities in the country, these will be named, nes pas? So, why do they survive? The answer is that if you set a bar that everyone acknowledges is the highest, you can charge more for it. Not everyone will want to pay for it - there'll be plenty who're happy to go to the 4-year state-run school - but there will always be those that want to be considered the best of the best and those folks are willing to pay to get there. So, if loss of dues is the issue with raising the bar, raise it anyway and raise the rates. If the org is truly the cream of the crop, those who care that it is will pay the additional rates, those that don't want to,...well, they'd be dead weight anyway, would constantly strive lower the bar and you'd be better off without them. Mr. Chalfen once told me that the original intent of the 'founders' was to set the bar extremely high and, for a few years, it was. Then, folks got elected into office who found motivations for lowing the bar and they gradually began eliminating some of those requirements - one of them being peer review. If they had stuck to their original principles and had kept peer review, it would be the standard today and I bet internet-based organizations, or other organizations with weak entry requirements and also with no peer review testing, would never have been able to gain any traction in their present models. In fact, I think if they'd stuck to their guns that anyone arguing against a high bar and peer review wouldn't even be listened to today. Doing away with peer review, way back then, was a self-inflicted wound. It's only recently began to have it's affect. But that's my opinion and I've only been around about 10-1/2 years, so what do I know? So far, I've spent 4 years in each of the two oldest national organizations and found them to be very similar in their approaches to everything. Since going independent again, I can't say that there's been a lot of difference in my life. By similar in approach, I mean that I think that the only two words to describe their approaches to everything are slow and ponderous. Bigger isn't necessarily better, unless you've designed a system that's designed to think, plan, act and react very quickly, in order to stay up with, or ahead of, the rest of the pack. That's why Nick's privately-owned "association" is beating the membership number pants off of the others. I certainly wouldn't consider his model to be top shelf, but I think a word that can describe it is nimble. ASHI was conceived in a time when there were no other models and no competition. NAHI was an offshoot of ASHI - actually a sort of rogue ASHI committee that decided to go off and do their own thing. Still, both were conceived before the internet and the information age found their way into everyone's living room. Those kinds of models worked back then - they don't work well now. Now, despite the fact that other organizations have been sprouting up like dandelions on a nice lawn, these old style associations still don't seem to have adapted well to the 'modern' world and are stuck on that old saw, "We were the first, so we are the best." To some, it's beginning to sound hollow. ASHI has always claimed to hold the high road and talks about quality of their inspectors. OK, why not walk the walk? Bar entry to anyone that hasn't completed 250 inspections. That's been the standard for "membership" privileges for so long anyway, so why not eliminate that demeaning 'candidate' title and only accept those with experience? If members feel a need to gratify themselves with some sort of ranking within the organization, in order to feel like their status is somehow more exalted than the newer members, why not establish a Certified ASHI Master Inspector level that's got requirements similar to, but more rigid, than those found at http://www.certifiedmasterinspector.org, and then allow all members all benefits, logo uses, etc? Why not re-establish a rigid peer review process and put every member through it, without grandfathering? If ASHI did that, it could reclaim the high ground. You'd cull a lot of dead weight. Plus, with a smaller organization, you'd need less 'civilian' staff and would be able reduce payroll costs, which I'm sure have to be a substantial chunk of the annual budget. After that, revamp the entire decision making process, so that ASHI stops moving like a lethargic sloth, can make decisions more quickly, take action quicker and can keep a 21st century pace with the other players out there, instead of lolling around wringing its hands and wondering why others are gaining ground. Just wondering out loud here. Sorry for the thread drift. [:I] OT - OF!!! M.

Hmmm, you might be right, Scott... But I'm really curious... what might this non-HI associated, non-membership, third party be??? A University? No, that can't be right. What did you have in mind? Ooooooh, the frustration... deep breath...hold it...out slowly...all better. Ahh. Not in our lifetime, Mike, you're right.

Thanks for the link to Mel. His personal webpage is mentioned in that article - I tried it, but it's not there. Hmmm... I can see your dream happening only after the profession gains consistency & respect. Not in our lifetime... Oh well, Mel made a difference without it, so I guess we can too.

Howdy Mike, No, I don't believe the problem is just with ASHI, but ASHI is the only one I care about; it is the one I most expect to see raise the bar by recognizing education. (Outcome looks grim, however.) I went to the PROBE site. Melvin's reports look outstanding - just like mine[:-magnify. Is PROBE just in MA or does "network" extend further. Looks like a very professional guy, this Melvin. Not in our lifetime, huh? Boy, no matter how dark it gets, you just keep pulling down the shades.[^] Par-um-pum-pum-pum... [:-graduat should count for somethin'.

Wow, I thought this thread ended a week ago. Looks like Corners got things going again - cool! I'm glad to see everyone already went through the rinse cycle and came out clean. Hey Corners, you and I share certain viewpoints. I have been making the ASHI types gag by my persistent talk about bringing education into the mix. I do not like the fact that a hair-stylist and I both have the same starting line. I have an ABET (isn't it something else now?) degree and a degree in Building Science. I never did the PE thing because there was already plenty of money to be made (computers) without the EIT/PE hassles. Hats off to you, though! I've been in the HI biz for over a year now, and I have found that my practical building experience, and even my Habitat work has contributed more to my quality as a HI than all of the abstract field theory, diff.eq's, and even physics. I totally agree with your alternate paths to qualification of HI's. Given the relevant education, I absolutely believe I absorb the technical information/science associated with HI work more quickly than someone without that education. I could definitely use you in my corner within ASHI. BTW, I should add that the lessons I have learned from the likes of Kurt have also meant more to my HI work than diff. eq's. Best of luck to us all!

Not to worry, Mark! With the 2.76 million you will make, you can hire me.[:-slaphap

Thanks Mike, It's one of yours, and I like it too. I found that the beer foam was 'occupied' so I chose this. I want dibbs! Anubis (aka Lenpw by the Egyptians)

Around Buffalo, I see them all the time. We have a flood plain up here so that some homes can't have the HW in the basement. They are placed on the first floor with a pan. Also, all of the Habitat homes get them!

Wow! That was certainly kind. Your terms are correct, sir, and I also got my BS in Comp. Sci., but I'm the student in this forum. I hope to have your success, Kurt. I've only recently "met" Gary (Ounce of Prevention) on the 'net. Folks, we got us a real live gentleman w/the admirable educational experience of having his Bachelor's of Science Degree in Building Science from Auburn's School of Architecture. (Gary, if I'm wrong w/the correct terminology, correct me.) I, for one, am mightily respectful (and envious) of his accomplishments. I look forward to his input into this resource.

My favorite is also Strunk & White. It is not pedantic (boring) like so many. For example,the following is from chapter 5: And would you write "The worst tennis player around here is I" or "The worst tennis player around here is me"? The first is good grammar, the second is good judgment — although the me might not do in all contexts. No single book claims to do it all. In fact, the only way to really learn is to really do. My library also includes: The Little Brown Handbook (Little & Brown) On Writing Well (William Zinsser) Yes, Walter recommends the "Chicago Manual of Style" (not nearly as entertaining as Strunk & White in my opinion) and James Kilpatrick's "The Writer's Art." I've never read that book, but I used to read the newspaper columns that the book comprises. Kilpatrick's good. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Whew, same here. I followed whisperer until that last line. If someone tells me they are allowed to sign for my client, I say, "Sorry, but client must sign." I do have a place on my contract where the client places names of people I am authorized to share the final report with. This comes in handy for situations with the spouse, adult children, client's realtor/lawyer, etc. If they ain't on that list, they don't see it. I've had no complaints.

Hausdok, I assume that's the picture you found next to the definition? Brandon, I follow your logic. I too feel that sites like this offer a learning experience and self-evaluation not available outside a cage (and I wonder if the book is for real too.) I almost quit these forum things because of the rude crapola, until I realized the crapola just leads to (eventually) a stronger backbone for my professional acumen (like that?) in the field. Once you get to know 'the guys', they are (99% of the time) pretty cool. One thing I have really had to get used to is thread drift. I haven't even mentioned rat poo. "It's not what you don't know that gets you! It's what you know, that ain't so." P.S. This is a very polite forum as forums go!

Agreed, but that is why I said it depends. A homeowner may not like the fact that the sequence does not continue through the corner, while another may never have noticed the original problem to begin with. I write down everything I see and let the client decide 'how anal'. ...I'd just swap the 2nd & 3rd balusters from the left. It wouldn't take long. - Jim Katen, Oregon

Depending on 'anality', it isn't a trivial fix (but not so tough either). It appears that the sequencing went from the ends toward the center, and then didn't mesh. The stairs are pretty much fixed with the 'odd' baluster in the center, so the railing along the landing should be reworked to continue the sequence. But the builder wouldn't learn anything if it didn't hurt a little, right??? Gary