From the NYTimes: http://tinyurl.com/t20a

A parking garage collapsed, killing somebody.

Anybody who says government is too intrusive should face the
possibility that the concrete was watered down and the building
inspector paid off.

George M. Middius wrote:


From the NYTimes: http://tinyurl.com/t20a

A parking garage collapsed, killing somebody.

Anybody who says government is too intrusive should face the
possibility that the concrete was watered down and the building
inspector paid off.

It's hard to do that today. More likely they used recycled
steel or put less rebar in. Afterall, who's going to miss 25%
rebar or notice that it was substandard gauge and made from
recycled steel after the concrete is poured?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


From the NYTimes: http://tinyurl.com/t20a

A parking garage collapsed, killing somebody.

Anybody who says government is too intrusive should face the
possibility that the concrete was watered down and the building
inspector paid off.

Where is the evidence of that?

How about giving us a quick explanation of the most common reasons why
reinforced concrete buildings collapse during construction, Middius.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


From the NYTimes: http://tinyurl.com/t20a

A parking garage collapsed, killing somebody.

Anybody who says government is too intrusive should face the
possibility that the concrete was watered down and the building
inspector paid off.



I must have missed something.
Did someone here advocate that we
do away with building codes or condone bribery?

Of, cousre, there are lots of other reasons that could
have caused the collapse.

Though something similar to your charge did happen
on a road contract in Washington D.C. It had to do
with bribing the inspector to overlook incorrect temperatures
of a paving mix. The contractor was debarred, and there was
something in the Washingon Times (in the previous 2 weeks)
about isuues related to continuing the debarment.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...
George M. Middius wrote:


From the NYTimes: http://tinyurl.com/t20a

A parking garage collapsed, killing somebody.

Anybody who says government is too intrusive should face the
possibility that the concrete was watered down and the building
inspector paid off.

It's hard to do that today. More likely they used recycled
steel or put less rebar in. Afterall, who's going to miss 25%
rebar or notice that it was substandard gauge and made from
recycled steel after the concrete is poured?


We don't know if the cause is cheating by the contractor,
cheating by the supplier, improper construction
procedures, or bad specs and plans.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" wrote in message


From the NYTimes: http://tinyurl.com/t20a

A parking garage collapsed, killing somebody.

Anybody who says government is too intrusive should face the
possibility that the concrete was watered down and the building
inspector paid off.

Where is the evidence of that?

How about giving us a quick explanation of the most common reasons why
reinforced concrete buildings collapse during construction, Middius.


I think that would be building the next floor, before the concrete
in the previous floor has properly cured.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...

George M. Middius wrote:


From the NYTimes: http://tinyurl.com/t20a

A parking garage collapsed, killing somebody.

Anybody who says government is too intrusive should face the
possibility that the concrete was watered down and the building
inspector paid off.

It's hard to do that today. More likely they used recycled
steel or put less rebar in. Afterall, who's going to miss 25%
rebar or notice that it was substandard gauge and made from
recycled steel after the concrete is poured?



We don't know if the cause is cheating by the contractor,
cheating by the supplier, improper construction
procedures, or bad specs and plans.

True. OTOH, part of it is all these computer programs and
know-nothing graduates. They don't figure they need to over-engineer
anything bacause it all works on paper. In the old days, they would
build it to take 2-3 times the load and not have to worry.

But - as you can see - someone alontg the chain a well as the designers
and client were looking to keep costs down as far as possible. All it
too was one greedy or incompetant fool and you have a pile of rubble.

"Dogma4e" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:36:52 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" wrote in message


From the NYTimes: http://tinyurl.com/t20a

A parking garage collapsed, killing somebody.

Anybody who says government is too intrusive should face the
possibility that the concrete was watered down and the building
inspector paid off.

Where is the evidence of that?

How about giving us a quick explanation of the most common reasons why
reinforced concrete buildings collapse during construction, Middius.


I think that would be building the next floor, before the concrete
in the previous floor has properly cured.


Time will tell, but that is by far the most likely cause. Modern
design methods (Load and Resistance Factor Design and Allowable Stress
Design), require safety factors and redundancies that will keep a
system standing even if more than one of the support members fail.

They should strive to keep the design engineer involved through
completion of the structure to help prevent construction errors. When
building a bridge in the old Soviet Union, they would make the Chief
Engineer stand under the bridge once it was build, while they loaded
it up with dump trucks filled with gravel! Nothing will keep you
focused on your work like the knowledge that you will be crushed like
a bug if you screw up.

Yes, and about ten years ago, twenty dump trucks landed in a river, and
several people died.

Many interesting methods are used these days to build structures. For
example, in the lift-slab method, an entire floor is built at at ground
level, and jacked into position. A jack failure was the cause of the last
prefab disaster.

Here's a survey on lift-slab construction failures:
http://www.structuremag.org/archives...ift%20Slab.pdf

One example of human error:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/052700/T..._in_park.shtml

I think we'll find the cause was failure of a jack or temporary support, or
workman error, not bad concrete.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:36:52 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" wrote in message


From the NYTimes: http://tinyurl.com/t20a

A parking garage collapsed, killing somebody.

Anybody who says government is too intrusive should face the
possibility that the concrete was watered down and the building
inspector paid off.

Where is the evidence of that?

How about giving us a quick explanation of the most common reasons why
reinforced concrete buildings collapse during construction, Middius.


I think that would be building the next floor, before the concrete
in the previous floor has properly cured.


Time will tell, but that is by far the most likely cause. Modern
design methods (Load and Resistance Factor Design and Allowable Stress
Design), require safety factors and redundancies that will keep a
system standing even if more than one of the support members fail.

They should strive to keep the design engineer involved through
completion of the structure to help prevent construction errors. When
building a bridge in the old Soviet Union, they would make the Chief
Engineer stand under the bridge once it was build, while they loaded
it up with dump trucks filled with gravel! Nothing will keep you
focused on your work like the knowledge that you will be crushed like
a bug if you screw up.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" wrote in message


From the NYTimes: http://tinyurl.com/t20a

A parking garage collapsed, killing somebody.

Anybody who says government is too intrusive should face the
possibility that the concrete was watered down and the building
inspector paid off.

Where is the evidence of that?

How about giving us a quick explanation of the most common reasons
why reinforced concrete buildings collapse during construction,
Middius.

Interestingly enough I call for Middius and instead I get an intelligent
response:

I think that would be building the next floor, before the concrete
in the previous floor has properly cured.

Bingo!

George M. Middius wrote in message . ..
From the NYTimes: http://tinyurl.com/t20a

A parking garage collapsed, killing somebody.

Anybody who says government is too intrusive should face the
possibility that the concrete was watered down and the building
inspector paid off.


Government? It was union labor that built the freakin' thing.

Why don't you start there?

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

A parking garage collapsed, killing somebody.

Anybody who says government is too intrusive should face the
possibility that the concrete was watered down and the building
inspector paid off.

Where is the evidence of that?

The evidence of a possibility? I'll tell you one thing, Mr. **** --
until I saw your act myself, I wouldn't have thought a creature like
you would be allowed unsupervised access to a computer. More ****s in
heaven and earth, etc.


How about giving us a quick explanation of the most common reasons why
reinforced concrete buildings collapse during construction, Middius.

I suggest that engineering a faulty design would be most desirable if
anybody involved anticipated your presence in the building.

I think that would be building the next floor, before the concrete
in the previous floor has properly cured.

Did ****-for-Brains claim to be a structural engineer, too? ;-)

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

A parking garage collapsed, killing somebody.

Anybody who says government is too intrusive should face the
possibility that the concrete was watered down and the building
inspector paid off.

Where is the evidence of that?

The evidence of a possibility?

Right. A possibility needs to be more probable than wild, uninformed
speculation.

I'll tell you one thing, Mr. **** --
until I saw your act myself, I wouldn't have thought a creature like
you would be allowed unsupervised access to a computer. More ****s in
heaven and earth, etc.

The problems with your first wild speculation on this topic are so obvious
Middius, that your support team including sockpuppet Yustabe have already
roared into action and tried to cover up your earlier blunder. But here you
are, piling insult and blunder on top of your earlier blunder. Like Weil,
you should learn to quit while you are just this far behind.

How about giving us a quick explanation of the most common reasons
why reinforced concrete buildings collapse during construction,
Middius.

I suggest that engineering a faulty design would be most desirable if
anybody involved anticipated your presence in the building.

Wrong again. Collapses like this are regrettably frequent enough that
there's a pretty good record of their causes. The usual cause relates to
hasty construction procedures, not a faulty design.

I think that would be building the next floor, before the concrete
in the previous floor has properly cured.

Ironically Middius, you had a chance to read this correct statement before
you made your second blunder, above. This makes you not only
poorly-informed, but also incorrigible. But we knew that already, didn't we?

Did ****-for-Brains claim to be a structural engineer, too? ;-)

I was trained as an engineering generalist. However knowledge of the causes
of the collapse of reinforced concrete structures that are under
construction merely requires following current events. More careful
reading and less diarrhea-like writing seems to be a good course of action
for you to follow, Middius.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


From the NYTimes: http://tinyurl.com/t20a

A parking garage collapsed, killing somebody.

Anybody who says government is too intrusive should face the
possibility that the concrete was watered down and the building
inspector paid off.


And with small government nobody can sue the contractor? You are still a
moron, like all leftists.

With smaller government there would be a swifter court date and speedier
investigation of any crime that might be involved in this case.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


From the NYTimes: http://tinyurl.com/t20a

A parking garage collapsed, killing somebody.

Anybody who says government is too intrusive should face the
possibility that the concrete was watered down and the building
inspector paid off.



I must have missed something.
Did someone here advocate that we
do away with building codes or condone bribery?

Of, cousre, there are lots of other reasons that could
have caused the collapse.

Though something similar to your charge did happen
on a road contract in Washington D.C. It had to do
with bribing the inspector to overlook incorrect temperatures
of a paving mix. The contractor was debarred, and there was
something in the Washingon Times (in the previous 2 weeks)
about isuues related to continuing the debarment.


Private industry can inspect building for persons who contract to have them
built and then be sued if they collapse. There's no need for an expensive
government agency with overworked underpaid inspectors subject to bribes.
The whole reason for the government agency is to collect money and exert
authority that they don't need to have. If it's your building you take
responsibility for making sure it's built right.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...

I was trained as an engineering generalist.

This can mean one of two things.

Arny knows very little about everything, or he knows much about nothing.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I was trained as an engineering generalist.

This can mean one of two things.

Arny knows very little about everything, or he knows much about
nothing.

Wrong on both counts, Scotty.

Let's start out with this: How long do you think it has been since I
graduated from engineering school?

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

And with small government nobody can sue the contractor? You are still a
moron, like all leftists.

With smaller government there would be a swifter court date and speedier
investigation of any crime that might be involved in this case.



???
A smaller government would have a backlog of pending court cases
and a backlog of police investigations.
Of course we could always "contract out" judges.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...



Private industry can inspect building for persons who contract to have
them
built and then be sued if they collapse. There's no need for an expensive
government agency with overworked underpaid inspectors subject to bribes.
The whole reason for the government agency is to collect money and exert
authority that they don't need to have. If it's your building you take
responsibility for making sure it's built right.

Tell mw why private inspectors would be more resisitant
to bribes than public inspectors.

Where I work, we contract with engineering firms for inspectors. The
construction manager, an engineer, is also private, but under a different
arrangement, as a contract employee. The overall supervision is from a
government agency.

In my area (not engineering), I contract with consultants to do most of the
actual
work, and I manage the consultants and the projects (not engineeriing)

As to your assertion about bribery, it is just as likely a private inspecor
would take a bribe, as it is likely a public one would do the same.

As far as government projects, it is ultimatley the government's
responsibility to be sure thery are properly built.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

And with small government nobody can sue the contractor? You are still a
moron, like all leftists.

With smaller government there would be a swifter court date and speedier
investigation of any crime that might be involved in this case.




???
A smaller government would have a backlog of pending court cases
and a backlog of police investigations.
Of course we could always "contract out" judges.

(Stalone voice)
"I am the law!"

On 31/10/03 15:00, in article , "Robert
Morein" wrote:

One example of human error:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/052700/T..._in_park.shtml

I think we'll find the cause was failure of a jack or temporary support, or
workman error, not bad concrete.

If you're looking for a qualified engineering opinion, my son Bob wouldn't
be a good reference.


Sylvan Morein, DDS

:

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm

Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
By L. STUART DITZEN
Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.

They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.

"It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.

But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.

Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.


In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.


Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.

That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.

Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
state Superior Court.

The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
affairs was reasserted.

The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
litigation, that would have been the end of it.

But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
compensation.

"Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.


Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."

"I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
"We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.

His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
and electronic systems.

The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.


Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
through a university lawyer, declined to comment.

At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
related to estimation theory.

Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
industrial processes.

Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
problem Kalata had presented.

Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.

K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.

Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
became alienated from Kalata.

As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.

Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!


Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.


Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
about 100 of them.

Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
Pennsylvania courts.

Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been
chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on
anything.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.


"I had to seek closure," he said.

Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
bulletlike stream of water.


FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...



Private industry can inspect building for persons who contract to have
them
built and then be sued if they collapse. There's no need for an
expensive
government agency with overworked underpaid inspectors subject to
bribes.
The whole reason for the government agency is to collect money and exert
authority that they don't need to have. If it's your building you take
responsibility for making sure it's built right.

Tell mw why private inspectors would be more resisitant
to bribes than public inspectors.

Because he would be an employee being supervised by the people paying him,
who are more likely to keep a sharp eye on him. When you have a governemtn
agency involved people tend to think that all they need to be assured. If
you are having something built and it's your money on the line, you want to
make sure the people you pay are giving you your money's worth.
It's not "fool" proof, I grat you. Turning it over to government is less
perfect. Private Inspectors would have more to lose.

Where I work, we contract with engineering firms for inspectors. The
construction manager, an engineer, is also private, but under a different
arrangement, as a contract employee. The overall supervision is from a
government agency.

And you have to wait for their schedule and sometiimes follow rules that are
overkill.

In my area (not engineering), I contract with consultants to do most of
the
actual
work, and I manage the consultants and the projects (not engineeriing)

As to your assertion about bribery, it is just as likely a private
inspecor
would take a bribe, as it is likely a public one would do the same.

I doubt it since they would be paid better the government agents.

As far as government projects, it is ultimatley the government's
responsibility to be sure thery are properly built.

Civil service jobs being the most highly qualified and tightly controlled?
No cost overruns?



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

And with small government nobody can sue the contractor? You are still
a
moron, like all leftists.

With smaller government there would be a swifter court date and speedier
investigation of any crime that might be involved in this case.



???
A smaller government would have a backlog of pending court cases
and a backlog of police investigations.
Of course we could always "contract out" judges.



You're misunderstanding me. By smaller I mean less agencies. More police,
more courts, more judges.

If you only have 3 things to spend money on instead of 3000 you get more.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...



Tell mw why private inspectors would be more resisitant
to bribes than public inspectors.

Because he would be an employee being supervised by the people paying him,
who are more likely to keep a sharp eye on him.

Gimme a break!!
If private industry were so ethical and responsible as that, we wouldn't
need inspectors at all. Thje workers doing the job are also employees being
supervised by the people paying them.

When you have a governemtn
agency involved people tend to think that all they need to be assured. If
you are having something built and it's your money on the line, you want
to
make sure the people you pay are giving you your money's worth.
It's not "fool" proof, I grat you. Turning it over to government is less
perfect. Private Inspectors would have more to lose.


Corrupt public employee inspectors have lost their jobs, their
retirements, and have gone to jail.

Where I work, we contract with engineering firms for inspectors. The
construction manager, an engineer, is also private, but under a
different
arrangement, as a contract employee. The overall supervision is from a
government agency.

And you have to wait for their schedule and sometiimes follow rules that
are
overkill.


Not at all!

In my area (not engineering), I contract with consultants to do most of
the
actual
work, and I manage the consultants and the projects (not engineeriing)

As to your assertion about bribery, it is just as likely a private
inspecor
would take a bribe, as it is likely a public one would do the same.

I doubt it since they would be paid better the government agents.

As far as government projects, it is ultimatley the government's
responsibility to be sure thery are properly built.

Civil service jobs being the most highly qualified and tightly controlled?
No cost overruns?


We have extremely well qualified engineers in our organization. However,
they
really are mmore project managers than nuts and bolt design engineers.
We actually leave that to our priovate consultanats, and rely on their
seals on the plans. We tend to find a number of mistakes when we got to
construction. We don't do technical reviews, because we are not allocated
enough staff.


Cost overruns are actually a political problem. I prepare estimates for my
functions,
after I turn them in, they are lowered, to make them more palatable to the
public.
Then, whe the project moves forward, and costs come in near my original
estimate,
we have an overrun. Also, public projects are susceptible to mission creep,
politcos and
directors lke to addon features as we build it. Then there are always the
unforeseen
problems, such as unexpected soil conditions, or a previously unknown
underground water flow. we do test pits, but only every several hundred feet
or so.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

And with small government nobody can sue the contractor? You are
still
a
moron, like all leftists.

With smaller government there would be a swifter court date and
speedier
investigation of any crime that might be involved in this case.



???
A smaller government would have a backlog of pending court cases
and a backlog of police investigations.
Of course we could always "contract out" judges.



You're misunderstanding me. By smaller I mean less agencies. More
police,
more courts, more judges.

If you only have 3 things to spend money on instead of 3000 you get more.



I would tend to agree with you, then. Not that the court and police funtions
would work better, but that government should tend to fewer functions.

Police, fire, schools, roads, regulating development, parks/recreation,
storm water management, and courts have to be done by local public agencies.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...



Tell mw why private inspectors would be more resisitant
to bribes than public inspectors.

Because he would be an employee being supervised by the people paying
him,
who are more likely to keep a sharp eye on him.

Gimme a break!!
If private industry were so ethical and responsible as that, we wouldn't
need inspectors at all.

I didn't say we shouldn't have inspectors, I just said tey shouldn't be
government inspectors. Nor shold they be a requirement, the only
requirement is that the owner is responsible for damages.

Thje workers doing the job are also employees being
supervised by the people paying them.

When you have a governemtn
agency involved people tend to think that all they need to be assured.
If
you are having something built and it's your money on the line, you want
to
make sure the people you pay are giving you your money's worth.
It's not "fool" proof, I grat you. Turning it over to government is
less
perfect. Private Inspectors would have more to lose.


Corrupt public employee inspectors have lost their jobs, their
retirements, and have gone to jail.


But ehy have also retired with Swiss Bank accounts taking money for
inspection never done or for inspection that weren't up to code, especially
if the code is overkill.

Where I work, we contract with engineering firms for inspectors. The
construction manager, an engineer, is also private, but under a
different
arrangement, as a contract employee. The overall supervision is from a
government agency.

And you have to wait for their schedule and sometiimes follow rules that
are
overkill.


Not at all!

In my area (not engineering), I contract with consultants to do most
of
the
actual
work, and I manage the consultants and the projects (not engineeriing)

As to your assertion about bribery, it is just as likely a private
inspecor
would take a bribe, as it is likely a public one would do the same.

I doubt it since they would be paid better the government agents.

As far as government projects, it is ultimatley the government's
responsibility to be sure thery are properly built.

Civil service jobs being the most highly qualified and tightly
controlled?
No cost overruns?


We have extremely well qualified engineers in our organization. However,
they
really are mmore project managers than nuts and bolt design engineers.
We actually leave that to our priovate consultanats, and rely on their
seals on the plans. We tend to find a number of mistakes when we got to
construction. We don't do technical reviews, because we are not allocated
enough staff.


Cost overruns are actually a political problem. I prepare estimates for my
functions,
after I turn them in, they are lowered, to make them more palatable to the
public.
Then, whe the project moves forward, and costs come in near my original
estimate,
we have an overrun. Also, public projects are susceptible to mission
creep,
politcos and
directors lke to addon features as we build it. Then there are always the
unforeseen
problems, such as unexpected soil conditions, or a previously unknown
underground water flow. we do test pits, but only every several hundred
feet
or so.


The point still remains that governments require inspections to get money
and to have power, safety is really not their primary concern.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

Gimme a break!!
If private industry were so ethical and responsible as that, we wouldn't
need inspectors at all.

I didn't say we shouldn't have inspectors, I just said tey shouldn't be
government inspectors. Nor shold they be a requirement, the only
requirement is that the owner is responsible for damages.


You still,ahve not explained why a private inspector is less
susceptible to bribes.



Corrupt public employee inspectors have lost their jobs, their
retirements, and have gone to jail.


But ehy have also retired with Swiss Bank accounts taking money for
inspection never done or for inspection that weren't up to code,
especially
if the code is overkill.


In the cases I have heard about, they were getting pitifully
small amounts, like $20 per incident.
No one is retiring on Swiss bank accounts for passing through
a bad load of gravel.




The point still remains that governments require inspections to get money
and to have power, safety is really not their primary concern.

That is completely untrue.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

Gimme a break!!
If private industry were so ethical and responsible as that, we
wouldn't
need inspectors at all.

I didn't say we shouldn't have inspectors, I just said tey shouldn't be
government inspectors. Nor shold they be a requirement, the only
requirement is that the owner is responsible for damages.


You still,ahve not explained why a private inspector is less
susceptible to bribes.

What would be the incentive? Without the government forcing you to get
inspections the inspections you got would be because you want to know if a
building is being built properly. If they OK something that later falls
down there would be lawsuits.



Corrupt public employee inspectors have lost their jobs, their
retirements, and have gone to jail.


But ehy have also retired with Swiss Bank accounts taking money for
inspection never done or for inspection that weren't up to code,
especially
if the code is overkill.


In the cases I have heard about, they were getting pitifully
small amounts, like $20 per incident.
No one is retiring on Swiss bank accounts for passing through
a bad load of gravel.




The point still remains that governments require inspections to get
money
and to have power, safety is really not their primary concern.

That is completely untrue.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


You still,ahve not explained why a private inspector is less
susceptible to bribes.

What would be the incentive? Without the government forcing you to get
inspections the inspections you got would be because you want to know if a
building is being built properly. If they OK something that later falls
down there would be lawsuits.


Good one!
You would rather see lots of people die and have their heirs file lawsuits,
than save lives by preventing the problem.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


You still,ahve not explained why a private inspector is less
susceptible to bribes.

What would be the incentive? Without the government forcing you to get
inspections the inspections you got would be because you want to know if
a
building is being built properly. If they OK something that later falls
down there would be lawsuits.


Good one!
You would rather see lots of people die and have their heirs file
lawsuits,
than save lives by preventing the problem.


No, I would rather see people take responsability for their own lives and
projects. If you want you buildings done well make sure you get the best
people. It is your responsability to make sure you get what you pay for
beccause if it's not right it will cause you enormous grief.

This is a strong motivator.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:06:01 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

No, I would rather see people take responsability for their own lives and
projects. If you want you buildings done well make sure you get the best
people. It is your responsability to make sure you get what you pay for
beccause if it's not right it will cause you enormous grief.

Because of the government. The same one that you virtually want to
eliminate. Of course, you are a pretty good argument for getting the
government out of the education business, unless you can show us that
you were privately educated. If that's the case, your parents should
sue for their moeny back.

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message


Good one!
You would rather see lots of people die and have their heirs file
lawsuits,
than save lives by preventing the problem.


No, I would rather see people take responsability for their own lives and
projects. If you want you buildings done well make sure you get the best
people. It is your responsability to make sure you get what you pay for
beccause if it's not right it will cause you enormous grief.

This is a strong motivator.

Of course, it is fairly common that the developer woould sell the property
soon after construction is completed. Therefore, it is in his best financial
interest to have it built as cheaply as possible, and have all knowledge of
any defects kept hidden from his buyer. That maximizes profit.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:06:01 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

No, I would rather see people take responsability for their own lives and
projects. If you want you buildings done well make sure you get the best
people. It is your responsability to make sure you get what you pay for
beccause if it's not right it will cause you enormous grief.

Because of the government. The same one that you virtually want to
eliminate. Of course, you are a pretty good argument for getting the
government out of the education business, unless you can show us that
you were privately educated. If that's the case, your parents should
sue for their moeny back.

Evidently, he was educated privately at the Ayn Rand Institute.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:06:01 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

No, I would rather see people take responsability for their own lives and
projects. If you want you buildings done well make sure you get the best
people. It is your responsability to make sure you get what you pay for
beccause if it's not right it will cause you enormous grief.

Because of the government. The same one that you virtually want to
eliminate.

I want to eliminate things that are not their business. I want government
to protect the rights of its citizens, that is its only logical function.

Of course, you are a pretty good argument for getting the
government out of the education business, unless you can show us that
you were privately educated.

I could say the same about all the brainwashed leftists.


If that's the case, your parents should
sue for their moeny back.

We've never had any "moeny."

You lose.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:06:01 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

No, I would rather see people take responsability for their own lives
and
projects. If you want you buildings done well make sure you get the
best
people. It is your responsability to make sure you get what you pay
for
beccause if it's not right it will cause you enormous grief.

Because of the government. The same one that you virtually want to
eliminate. Of course, you are a pretty good argument for getting the
government out of the education business, unless you can show us that
you were privately educated. If that's the case, your parents should
sue for their moeny back.

Evidently, he was educated privately at the Ayn Rand Institute.


No, but one could do far worse.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message


Good one!
You would rather see lots of people die and have their heirs file
lawsuits,
than save lives by preventing the problem.


No, I would rather see people take responsability for their own lives
and
projects. If you want you buildings done well make sure you get the
best
people. It is your responsability to make sure you get what you pay for
beccause if it's not right it will cause you enormous grief.

This is a strong motivator.

Of course, it is fairly common that the developer woould sell the property
soon after construction is completed. Therefore, it is in his best
financial
interest to have it built as cheaply as possible,

Not really.

and have all knowledge of
any defects kept hidden from his buyer. That maximizes profit.

Which is precisely why a buyer wold want to hire an inspector to make sure
the buyer isn't getting ****ed.


A rational developer would build something that won't come back to bite him
in court. You seem to think I want to eliminate laws about fraud and
anything that might be pro-consumer.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message


Good one!
You would rather see lots of people die and have their heirs file
lawsuits,
than save lives by preventing the problem.


No, I would rather see people take responsability for their own lives
and
projects. If you want you buildings done well make sure you get the
best
people. It is your responsability to make sure you get what you pay
for
beccause if it's not right it will cause you enormous grief.

This is a strong motivator.

Of course, it is fairly common that the developer woould sell the
property
soon after construction is completed. Therefore, it is in his best
financial
interest to have it built as cheaply as possible,

Not really.

and have all knowledge of
any defects kept hidden from his buyer. That maximizes profit.

Which is precisely why a buyer wold want to hire an inspector to make sure
the buyer isn't getting ****ed.


A rational developer would build something that won't come back to bite
him
in court. You seem to think I want to eliminate laws about fraud and
anything that might be pro-consumer.

You have an innate Polyanna-like faith in the ethics of businesses.
This is not consistent with known history. You cn't rely on ethical
business parctices to be conducted in an anarchistic legal climate,
with the only limits for behavior being the ferar of civil lawsuits.

Individuals running businesses really don't care about the risk of
future tort actions. By the time that happens, they are long gone
forom the firm, hooked up with another company, or retired
ona golden parachute. Ethics, as taught in our nations business
schools, concentrates on maximizing shor term profits for the
sahreholders, and keeping the price of the stock high. Spending
extra money (thus lowering profits) on unnefcessary protection
(anything more than the minimum required by law) is actually
viewed as an unethical practice, because it steals profits, thus
higher stock prices, from the shareholders.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message


Good one!
You would rather see lots of people die and have their heirs file
lawsuits,
than save lives by preventing the problem.


No, I would rather see people take responsability for their own
lives
and
projects. If you want you buildings done well make sure you get the
best
people. It is your responsability to make sure you get what you pay
for
beccause if it's not right it will cause you enormous grief.

This is a strong motivator.

Of course, it is fairly common that the developer woould sell the
property
soon after construction is completed. Therefore, it is in his best
financial
interest to have it built as cheaply as possible,

Not really.

and have all knowledge of
any defects kept hidden from his buyer. That maximizes profit.

Which is precisely why a buyer wold want to hire an inspector to make
sure
the buyer isn't getting ****ed.


A rational developer would build something that won't come back to bite
him
in court. You seem to think I want to eliminate laws about fraud and
anything that might be pro-consumer.

You have an innate Polyanna-like faith in the ethics of businesses.

I think most people in business are honest and it's only a minority that are
crooked. I also think that when confronted with the choice of being hauled
into court and facing heavy fines or jail time people tend to act in ways
that prevent that from happening.


This is not consistent with known history. You cn't rely on ethical
business parctices to be conducted in an anarchistic legal climate,

I'm not calling for an anarchistic legal climate. I don't understand why
you keep thinking this. If anything there would be a less anarchistic
legal climate because we would have more judges and law enforcement due to
the fact that they would not be wasting time and resources chasing
prostitutes, druggies, lap dancers, or any of the host of victimless crimes
they now have to concern themselves with.

with the only limits for behavior being the ferar of civil lawsuits.

You can't sell to someone who isn't going to buy without an honest appraisal
of the merchandise.

Individuals running businesses really don't care about the risk of
future tort actions.

I think you are wrong.

By the time that happens, they are long gone
forom the firm, hooked up with another company, or retired
ona golden parachute. Ethics, as taught in our nations business
schools, concentrates on maximizing shor term profits for the
sahreholders, and keeping the price of the stock high.

All well and good, however you still need customers. If your prodcut or
service isn't good nobody will buy it. Just ask Greg.

Spending
extra money (thus lowering profits) on unnefcessary protection
(anything more than the minimum required by law) is actually
viewed as an unethical practice, because it steals profits, thus
higher stock prices, from the shareholders.

Building a better product that you can actually sell increases profits.
Have a crappy one gets you nothing.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message


Good one!
You would rather see lots of people die and have their heirs
file
lawsuits,
than save lives by preventing the problem.


No, I would rather see people take responsability for their own
lives
and
projects. If you want you buildings done well make sure you get
the
best
people. It is your responsability to make sure you get what you
pay
for
beccause if it's not right it will cause you enormous grief.

This is a strong motivator.

Of course, it is fairly common that the developer woould sell the
property
soon after construction is completed. Therefore, it is in his best
financial
interest to have it built as cheaply as possible,

Not really.

and have all knowledge of
any defects kept hidden from his buyer. That maximizes profit.

Which is precisely why a buyer wold want to hire an inspector to make
sure
the buyer isn't getting ****ed.


A rational developer would build something that won't come back to
bite
him
in court. You seem to think I want to eliminate laws about fraud and
anything that might be pro-consumer.

You have an innate Polyanna-like faith in the ethics of businesses.

I think most people in business are honest and it's only a minority that
are
crooked. I also think that when confronted with the choice of being
hauled
into court and facing heavy fines or jail time people tend to act in ways
that prevent that from happening.


This is not consistent with known history. You cn't rely on ethical
business parctices to be conducted in an anarchistic legal climate,

I'm not calling for an anarchistic legal climate. I don't understand why
you keep thinking this. If anything there would be a less anarchistic
legal climate because we would have more judges and law enforcement due to
the fact that they would not be wasting time and resources chasing
prostitutes, druggies, lap dancers, or any of the host of victimless
crimes
they now have to concern themselves with.

with the only limits for behavior being the ferar of civil lawsuits.

You can't sell to someone who isn't going to buy without an honest
appraisal
of the merchandise.

Individuals running businesses really don't care about the risk of
future tort actions.

I think you are wrong.

By the time that happens, they are long gone
forom the firm, hooked up with another company, or retired
ona golden parachute. Ethics, as taught in our nations business
schools, concentrates on maximizing shor term profits for the
sahreholders, and keeping the price of the stock high.

All well and good, however you still need customers. If your prodcut or
service isn't good nobody will buy it. Just ask Greg.

Spending
extra money (thus lowering profits) on unnefcessary protection
(anything more than the minimum required by law) is actually
viewed as an unethical practice, because it steals profits, thus
higher stock prices, from the shareholders.

Building a better product that you can actually sell increases profits.
Have a crappy one gets you nothing.


All I need is one word to answer your post:,
BOSE!!!!!!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 15:35:51 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:06:01 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

No, I would rather see people take responsability for their own lives and
projects. If you want you buildings done well make sure you get the best
people. It is your responsability to make sure you get what you pay for
beccause if it's not right it will cause you enormous grief.

Because of the government. The same one that you virtually want to
eliminate.

I want to eliminate things that are not their business.

According to you, of course.

I want government to protect the rights of its citizens, that is its only logical function.

Enforcing building codes is about as far from "protecting the rights
of its citizens" as, say ensuring that people have affordable health
care, for instance.

Of course, you are a pretty good argument for getting the
government out of the education business, unless you can show us that
you were privately educated.

I could say the same about all the brainwashed leftists.


If that's the case, your parents should
sue for their moeny back.

We've never had any "moeny."

You are now your parents?

You lose.

Au contraire, mon ami, looks like *you* lose.

Again.