Text 11694, 199 rader
Skriven 2009-06-01 21:08:56 av Dan Ceppa (1:138/666.0)
     Kommentar till en text av Ross Cassell
Ärende: Unfathomable
====================
-> On 01 Jun 09  14:16:02, Ross Cassell got back to Dan Ceppa 
-> Re: Unfathomable

 RC>> I am not talking about someone running a factory..
 
 DC> Neither am I am.  There are still limits as to how you can use a
 DC> residential dwelling when it comes to running a business out of it.

 RC> So if you worked from home, your furniture being your computer desk, a
 RC> writing desk and a chair, how would you be breaking the laws if your
 RC> comings and goings only entail you running the same errands you do
 RC> now? (Grocery store, going out to eat, seeing a movie, visiting
 RC> friends??) 

Ross, get real.  I'm talkimg about excess truck deliveries, noise, 
visits and the like.  

 DC> LOL!  You are all over on this!  Most places now a days have laws
 DC> against painting a car in thr open.

 RC> Painting a car is not the only aspect of fixing ones car or restoring
 RC> one. 

And, having your car torn apart is one of those things.  That is illegal '
in most residential areas.  It can be so even in the driveway.  

 RC> I am not the one running out in left field with this extreme, you are
 RC> and with a radical example. I presented a simple example and I did not
 RC> include the word urethane, you introduced that. 

It's called "an example", Ross.  Even the more standard acrylic paints 
carry high levels of VOCs which are illegal to emit into the atmosphere.  
And, try and find an enamel car paint.  That has been off the market \for
probably 20 yrs now. 


 RC>> I was correct, you havent the remotest clue as to what
 RC>> telecommuting is..
 
 DC> Has it occurred to you that I wasn't talking about simply making
 DC> phone calls?

 RC> Telecommuting isnt just about being on the phone or making phone
 RC> calls, it is as generic as Xerox or Aspirin. A good bit of
 RC> telecommuting involves using the computer over an internet connection,
 RC> among other things. 
 RC> However I was the one whom was talking about telecommuting.

So what?  I gave you examples as to why certain business operations 
would be illegal to run out of home. It's as simple.  The fact is 
that not all home business are legal.  


 DC>   My scenario is an instance that does involve disruption
 DC> of a residential neighborhood in a very noticeable fashion.  Just
 DC> because ypur situation is not intrusive doesn't mean that all home
 DC> businesses are of that type.

 RC> Home Businesses are very legal, you are just wanting to take
 RC> everything to the severe extreme. 

Wrong again. Ross.  I gave you plenty of examples to demonstrate that not 
all all home business are legal, which is the point.  

 RC> Ever hear the term SOHO..

 RC> Its a term used to define (S)mall (O)ffice (H)ome (O)ffice.

Your under the very mistaken impression that you happen to knowledge 
unavailable to others.  

 RC>> One whom telecommutes, isnt operating a business out of their
 RC>> home, they work for someone else and the employer pays them for
 RC>> their services by having the employee work from home..
 
 DC> Actually, they are.  They are using their house as office space that
 DC> would otherwise have to be in some commercial building.

 RC> LOL, not illegal.

Where did I state that was illegal? I simply stated that what they 
are doing is substituting their home for office space that would 
normally . I simply stated that in working out of their home, they 
are running a busines, albeit not their own.  

 RC> By your logic, our schools shouldnt send children home with homework
 RC> because their parents homes arent schools. I guess all those that are
 RC> home schooling their kids are breaking the law, the home is not a
 RC> school, not zoned for it. 

You really off of the deep end.  

 RC> Are things really that anal up there in Kirkland?

When I wipe my butt, I find you clinging on.  Does that count?

Now, I suggest we both stop thes asides that you like ti throw out.  I 
have no problems with retorting them.  But, they clog the Echo with 
unnecessary chaff.  

 RC> I find that hard to believe, being so close to Redmond, I am sure
 RC> Microsoft has several employees that telecommute, but maybe not in
 RC> Kirkland? 

Has it occured to you that Mickey Soft has nearly the same reputation 
there as anywhere else in the country?  

 RC>> I have several customers do that and some of them even had the
 RC>> employer provide computers and pick up or offset the telephone
 RC>> and internet access bills.
 
 DC> So what?

 RC> Ah ran out of arguments did ya?
 
I already provided more than enough exceptions to demonstrate that not 
all home businesses are legal.  

You want another one?  Prostitution is not legal.  

 RC>> Depending on the business and the employees job responsibilities,
 RC>> most only have to show up in the employers office once a week for
 RC>> staff
 
 DC> So what?

 RC> Ah ran out of arguments did ya?

Not in the least.  You refuse to accept the fact that even one exception 
makes the case that not all home businesses are legal. 
 

 RC> No you took a example I provided and radically modified it to fit your
 RC> strawman. 

The straw man is all yours. One example of a illegal home business 
destroyed your argument.  

 RC>> But you didnt understand telecommuting..
 
 DC> LOL!  I gave you a situation where running a business out of your home
 DC>  would be detrimental to a residential.  I never said that only
 DC> running a business by phone would always be in that category.

 RC> Telecommuting is not just the telephone.
 
Ross, give it a rest.  I've got no need to run the gamut of each and 
every variation just to suit your nitpicking.  

 RC>> How does that get them into your life if you are not the
 RC>> polluter?
 
 DC> Do you have any idea as to what comes out of those coal fired
 DC> electrical genration plants?  The chemicals are in par to the toxic
 DC> materials produced when shooting urethane paints.

 RC> If we could get the liberal whiny ass tree huggers to pipe down, maybe
 RC> we could build more nuke plants and windmill farms. 

That will still not solve the problem of "cheap coal" among other 
toxic wastes from other industries that are dumped into the air 
and streams.  

 RC>> cite, do you advocate turning the SEC and EPA into jack booted
 RC>> thugs and outfitting them with black helicopters? <G>
 
 DC> Yeah, very funny.  If you find children dying from mercury poisoning
 DC> a humorous topic.

 RC> Not at all, but you didnt mention children in your message, see how
 RC> dishonest you are? 

Who the hell do you think are most susceptible to mercury poisoning?  That 
very fact is what has often been in the news when mercury poisoning is 
mentioned.  Why on earth do you think that pregmant women are told not 
to eat tuna and other predator fish?  

 RC>> Did I tell you that the County withdrew the demands for the
 RC>> permit?
 
 DC> Nope.

 RC> Now you know..

 RC> http://tinyurl.com/lh9n77


Did you bother to notice that it all stemmed from parking and traffic 
concerns and they are working with the owner to alleviate the ongoing 
problem?  That apparently doesn't count, does it.  The owner didn't 
win.  He's still liable to clear up that issue.  

As stated right from the very begining, the dispute never was one of 
religion as claimed in the article.  It was all about public safety 
over the excessive traffic and clogged parking area.  


--- OMX/Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
 * Origin: Soundly on the Fault Line (1:138/666.0)