On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:09:08 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:29:37 -0500, Steve Turner
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:06:24 -0500, Steve Turner
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:14:42 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

krw wrote:
Absolutely. My parents did it that way (twice), putting bare essential
utilities in the shop and actually *living* in it for a while during
periods of transition between when the old house was sold and the new
one ready to take up residence. By the time the second house was
finished it was completely paid for.
If you think busybody neighbors get up in arms over a shed that's a
little too big, try taking up residence in one. Not going to happen,
these days.
The neighborhoods that would take exception to that wouldn't allow the
size I'd build, in the first place.
Most *cities* will take exception to it.

We're talking 16x20, minimum.
Size isn't the issue.
Maybe you've never lived there, but I'm talking about "out in the
country", not in the city (and I presume Mike is thinking along those
same lines). I would never *want* to build a house with a decent size
shop (and *I'm* talking 28x40, minimum; preferably twice that big)
anywhere near the city...
What are you talking about? We were talking about living in an out
building while building a house.
Who's "we"? The conversation was between Mike and me.

Is that why you were responding to my post?

I'm sorry it was
a bit unclear to you (and that you felt it necessary to chide me), but
he and I have been frequenting some of the same groups for *years*, so
*we* both knew what we were talking about. I'll try to be clearer next
time...

Then answer his posts next time, hopefully with something more clearly
organized.


Hey buddy, here's a newsgroup for you...

rec.tool.douchebags

Wow, such intelligence. Who wudda thought!