what is the "customary", or "typical" procedure a homeowner
would take when doing a project as a basement finishing, or
remodel of say a wooden deck, or perhaps adding a room ?

specifically, say Joe Public, calls up several contractors
for quotes. they all survey the job, and write up their bids.

question - what level of detail should those bids encompass?

for example, adding a new room - should their bids include
the specifics of the foundation ? (ie. preparation, use of
wire reinforced mesh, gauge of mesh, or maybe rebar - distance
between rebar, PSI rating of concrete, gravel depth, type of
vapor barrier, etc, etc). how about details regarding the
type of hardware used on the studs or ceiling joists ? should
it spec out specific brands (ie. Simpson, or whatever) ? and
details such as types/sizes of nails to use.

i've read plenty of horror stories of clueless contractors
(and equally clueless homeowners), both parties having no idea
of proper industry practices.

is it customary to allow a contractor to go ahead and just
take it on faith (or perhaps their reputation), that they will
conform to accepted industry standards (code inspections not
withstanding) ?

OR - is the level of detail that i'm harping on something an
architect for a project, would be the only person who would be
involved in that level of specification ?

how do you decide if an architect should get involved (on say
a basement refinish project, or room addition), vs. having the
contractor work of a set of rudimentary drawings ?

what do typical contracts spec out ? - for instance, if later
down the road, nails start corroding - is it my fault for not
spec'ing out specific quality nails ? that's why i want to know
what level of detail is customary on a contract. do i have to
spell every little thing out, or are there accepted norms in the
building industry that competent contractors adhere to ?

mr jones wrote:
what is the "customary", or "typical" procedure a homeowner
would take when doing a project as a basement finishing, or
remodel of say a wooden deck, or perhaps adding a room ?

specifically, say Joe Public, calls up several contractors
for quotes. they all survey the job, and write up their bids.

question - what level of detail should those bids encompass?

for example, adding a new room - should their bids include
the specifics of the foundation ? (ie. preparation, use of
wire reinforced mesh, gauge of mesh, or maybe rebar - distance
between rebar, PSI rating of concrete, gravel depth, type of
vapor barrier, etc, etc). how about details regarding the
type of hardware used on the studs or ceiling joists ? should
it spec out specific brands (ie. Simpson, or whatever) ? and
details such as types/sizes of nails to use.

i've read plenty of horror stories of clueless contractors
(and equally clueless homeowners), both parties having no idea
of proper industry practices.

is it customary to allow a contractor to go ahead and just
take it on faith (or perhaps their reputation), that they will
conform to accepted industry standards (code inspections not
withstanding) ?

OR - is the level of detail that i'm harping on something an
architect for a project, would be the only person who would be
involved in that level of specification ?

how do you decide if an architect should get involved (on say
a basement refinish project, or room addition), vs. having the
contractor work of a set of rudimentary drawings ?

what do typical contracts spec out ? - for instance, if later
down the road, nails start corroding - is it my fault for not
spec'ing out specific quality nails ? that's why i want to know
what level of detail is customary on a contract. do i have to
spell every little thing out, or are there accepted norms in the
building industry that competent contractors adhere to ?















Hi,
Then you have to write down what you want to be done in details and
show it to the contractor when he shows up for estimate. If he tries
to change things make sure it's for the better not the other way around.
Most of them try to be cheap and easy.
I haven't had done any renovation on my house but had 5 houses custom
built in my life time so far. After everything is discussed make double
sure you and contractor both are on same page. If mistake occurs during
project the sooner you catch, the better it'll be. My house always had
finished basement on same spec, as upstairs.

"mr jones" wrote in message
. ..


what is the "customary", or "typical" procedure a homeowner
would take when doing a project as a basement finishing, or
remodel of say a wooden deck, or perhaps adding a room ?

specifically, say Joe Public, calls up several contractors
for quotes. they all survey the job, and write up their bids.

question - what level of detail should those bids encompass?

for example, adding a new room - should their bids include
the specifics of the foundation ? (ie. preparation, use of
wire reinforced mesh, gauge of mesh, or maybe rebar - distance
between rebar, PSI rating of concrete, gravel depth, type of
vapor barrier, etc, etc). how about details regarding the
type of hardware used on the studs or ceiling joists ? should
it spec out specific brands (ie. Simpson, or whatever) ? and
details such as types/sizes of nails to use.

i've read plenty of horror stories of clueless contractors
(and equally clueless homeowners), both parties having no idea
of proper industry practices.

is it customary to allow a contractor to go ahead and just
take it on faith (or perhaps their reputation), that they will
conform to accepted industry standards (code inspections not
withstanding) ?

OR - is the level of detail that i'm harping on something an
architect for a project, would be the only person who would be
involved in that level of specification ?

how do you decide if an architect should get involved (on say
a basement refinish project, or room addition), vs. having the
contractor work of a set of rudimentary drawings ?

what do typical contracts spec out ? - for instance, if later
down the road, nails start corroding - is it my fault for not
spec'ing out specific quality nails ? that's why i want to know
what level of detail is customary on a contract. do i have to
spell every little thing out, or are there accepted norms in the
building industry that competent contractors adhere to ?

There are generally local building codes that all contractors must adhere
to, but it's up to you and or your archetect, to spell out specific
details, methods and materials, you want and to be sure everyone bidding
is comparing apples to apples

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
news:KWk_j.164252$rd2.7108@pd7urf3no...
mr jones wrote:
what is the "customary", or "typical" procedure a homeowner
would take when doing a project as a basement finishing, or
remodel of say a wooden deck, or perhaps adding a room ?

specifically, say Joe Public, calls up several contractors
for quotes. they all survey the job, and write up their bids.

question - what level of detail should those bids encompass?

for example, adding a new room - should their bids include
the specifics of the foundation ? (ie. preparation, use of
wire reinforced mesh, gauge of mesh, or maybe rebar - distance
between rebar, PSI rating of concrete, gravel depth, type of
vapor barrier, etc, etc). how about details regarding the
type of hardware used on the studs or ceiling joists ? should
it spec out specific brands (ie. Simpson, or whatever) ? and
details such as types/sizes of nails to use.

i've read plenty of horror stories of clueless contractors
(and equally clueless homeowners), both parties having no idea
of proper industry practices.

is it customary to allow a contractor to go ahead and just
take it on faith (or perhaps their reputation), that they will
conform to accepted industry standards (code inspections not
withstanding) ?

OR - is the level of detail that i'm harping on something an
architect for a project, would be the only person who would be
involved in that level of specification ?

how do you decide if an architect should get involved (on say
a basement refinish project, or room addition), vs. having the
contractor work of a set of rudimentary drawings ?

what do typical contracts spec out ? - for instance, if later
down the road, nails start corroding - is it my fault for not
spec'ing out specific quality nails ? that's why i want to know
what level of detail is customary on a contract. do i have to
spell every little thing out, or are there accepted norms in the
building industry that competent contractors adhere to ?




Hi,
Then you have to write down what you want to be done in details and
show it to the contractor when he shows up for estimate. If he tries
to change things make sure it's for the better not the other way around.
Most of them try to be cheap and easy.
I haven't had done any renovation on my house but had 5 houses custom
built in my life time so far. After everything is discussed make double
sure you and contractor both are on same page. If mistake occurs during
project the sooner you catch, the better it'll be. My house always had
finished basement on same spec, as upstairs.



I agree with Tony. The more details that you supply, the better your
chances of getting what you want. It is important when soliciting bids that
each contractor is bidding on the same plans and specifications so that you
can compare apples to apples and know that you are getting a good price. If
you leave everything up to each individual contractor there is no telling
what you will wind up with. Spend a few weeks doing research and writing
down what you want. For a basement remodel you could get away with some
hand drawn floor plans. For an addition to a house you will probably need a
set of plans to submit to your town for approval. Also be sure to get
permits and inspections for the job and make sure that your contractors know
that. If someone balks about permits or says that you don't need them,
that's a red flag and you can cross them off your list. Don't be shy about
asking if the contractor is licensed and insured. Those are legitimate
questions. Also ask what kind of warranty the contractor gives. It should
be at least one year.

If you are absolutely clueless about what you want and materials to use,
tell that to each contractor and welcome their input. Then formulate your
final drawings and specifications.

Tony Hwang wrote:
mr jones wrote:
what is the "customary", or "typical" procedure a homeowner
would take when doing a project as a basement finishing, or
remodel of say a wooden deck, or perhaps adding a room ?

specifically, say Joe Public, calls up several contractors
for quotes. they all survey the job, and write up their bids.

question - what level of detail should those bids encompass?

for example, adding a new room - should their bids include
the specifics of the foundation ? (ie. preparation, use of
wire reinforced mesh, gauge of mesh, or maybe rebar - distance
between rebar, PSI rating of concrete, gravel depth, type of
vapor barrier, etc, etc). how about details regarding the
type of hardware used on the studs or ceiling joists ? should
it spec out specific brands (ie. Simpson, or whatever) ? and
details such as types/sizes of nails to use.

i've read plenty of horror stories of clueless contractors
(and equally clueless homeowners), both parties having no idea
of proper industry practices.

is it customary to allow a contractor to go ahead and just
take it on faith (or perhaps their reputation), that they will
conform to accepted industry standards (code inspections not
withstanding) ?

OR - is the level of detail that i'm harping on something an
architect for a project, would be the only person who would be
involved in that level of specification ?

how do you decide if an architect should get involved (on say
a basement refinish project, or room addition), vs. having the
contractor work of a set of rudimentary drawings ?

what do typical contracts spec out ? - for instance, if later
down the road, nails start corroding - is it my fault for not
spec'ing out specific quality nails ? that's why i want to know
what level of detail is customary on a contract. do i have to
spell every little thing out, or are there accepted norms in the
building industry that competent contractors adhere to ?

If you are clueless on home remodeling (no shame in that, if you didn't
grow up in the business like many of the people on this group), I
strongly recommend getting a professional designer involved, to create
buildable plans and a materials take-off sheet. Unless local codes
require it (like much of New England), it doesn't have to be an actual
architect with the expen$ive stamp for the plans. Ask friends,
neighbors, and coworkers who they used to design their remodels. Odds
are the same name will start popping up. Independent designers may have
a yellow pages listing, but the good ones usually don't advertise much,
since word of mouth gets them all the work they can handle. Many home
remodel companies say they offer design services, which is fine, but if
you want all the bidders to be bidding on the same work (and not apples
and oranges), it is best (IMHO), to have your own design in hand. A
licensed contractor (versus a place that sends out a salesman with shiny
brochures, but subs out the actual work) will know the local codes and
customary practices, and have a good working relationship with the
inspectors, or he won't be in business long. If a company has been
around 10-20 years, you are probably okay. Your call if you want to pay
the designer extra for site visits and any needed consultation once the
job is underway. The designer can give you names of local contractors
they have worked with before, and had good results with. Note that if
you are getting a loan to do these upgrades, bank will be happier if you
have an actual designer, as will your insurance company. Yes, this will
add anywhere from an extra few hundred, to a couple of thousand, to the
price of the project, depending on the complexity. But you will likely
end up with better results. Look at it as cheap insurance- if a hack
puts up something unsafe, or not to code, you could be looking at tens
of thousands if inspector says 'rip it out', or worse yet, the place
falls down in a storm and somebody gets hurt.

--
aem sends....

"mr jones" wrote in message
question - what level of detail should those bids encompass?

for example, adding a new room - should their bids include
the specifics of the foundation ? (ie. preparation, use of
wire reinforced mesh, gauge of mesh, or maybe rebar - distance
between rebar, PSI rating of concrete, gravel depth, type of
vapor barrier, etc, etc). how about details regarding the
type of hardware used on the studs or ceiling joists ? should
it spec out specific brands (ie. Simpson, or whatever) ? and
details such as types/sizes of nails to use.

All of that can come later. Many homeowners are shopping for price. Often,
they don't know if the job is going to be $500, $5000, or $50,000. Once
that range is determined you can talk to the preferred contractor(s) and get
more specific in materials and methods. You may get two or three or five
bids and find that you don't want to work with some so don't waste their
time or yours yet.

If you are talking a room additiona nd foundation, your best be may be to
have an architect draw up plant for hte bid and that takes out a lot of "I
think this is OK" stuff and maikes the inspections much easier.




is it customary to allow a contractor to go ahead and just
take it on faith (or perhaps their reputation), that they will
conform to accepted industry standards (code inspections not
withstanding) ?

Only if you truly know the contractor. I woudl with some, not with others.




how do you decide if an architect should get involved (on say
a basement refinish project, or room addition), vs. having the
contractor work of a set of rudimentary drawings ?

Permits and approvals go much better with plans from an architect. I'm
going through a $1million dollar project and the town essentially said "if
it is OK with the architect it is OK with us".

On 5/25/2008 5:17 PM Edwin Pawlowski spake thus:

"mr jones" wrote in message

how do you decide if an architect should get involved (on say
a basement refinish project, or room addition), vs. having the
contractor work of a set of rudimentary drawings ?

Permits and approvals go much better with plans from an architect. I'm
going through a $1million dollar project and the town essentially said "if
it is OK with the architect it is OK with us".

Not only do they "go better", but such plans are often *required*. I
know for a fact that they are here in Oakland, CA, based on recent
experience of an acquaintance remodeling his kitchen. The city required
an architect's drawings for the project.


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.

- Attributed to Winston Churchill

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 5/25/2008 5:17 PM Edwin Pawlowski spake thus:

"mr jones" wrote in message

how do you decide if an architect should get involved (on say
a basement refinish project, or room addition), vs. having the
contractor work of a set of rudimentary drawings ?

Permits and approvals go much better with plans from an architect. I'm
going through a $1million dollar project and the town essentially said
"if it is OK with the architect it is OK with us".

Not only do they "go better", but such plans are often *required*. I
know for a fact that they are here in Oakland, CA, based on recent
experience of an acquaintance remodeling his kitchen. The city required
an architect's drawings for the project.


That's BULL the only reason the city has to be involved is so they can
access the TAXES. You improve your property then the TAX MAN wants to
know.Improvements means more $$$$ for the city state and anyone else who
can get their grubby fingers on it. You don't need a permit to remodel a
kitchen or bath. If your building an addition or doing anything structural
then yes.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586

"evodawg" wrote in message

how do you decide if an architect should get involved (on say
a basement refinish project, or room addition), vs. having the
contractor work of a set of rudimentary drawings ?

Not only do they "go better", but such plans are often *required*. I
know for a fact that they are here in Oakland, CA, based on recent
experience of an acquaintance remodeling his kitchen. The city required
an architect's drawings for the project.


That's BULL the only reason the city has to be involved is so they can
access the TAXES. You improve your property then the TAX MAN wants to
know.Improvements means more $$$$ for the city state and anyone else who
can get their grubby fingers on it. You don't need a permit to remodel a
kitchen or bath. If your building an addition or doing anything structural
then yes.


The OP mentioned room addition. If it is visible from outside, you are
better off getting the permit.

mr jones wrote:
what is the "customary", or "typical" procedure a homeowner
would take when doing a project as a basement finishing, or
remodel of say a wooden deck, or perhaps adding a room ?

specifically, say Joe Public, calls up several contractors
for quotes. they all survey the job, and write up their bids.

question - what level of detail should those bids encompass?

for example, adding a new room - should their bids include
the specifics of the foundation ? (ie. preparation, use of
wire reinforced mesh, gauge of mesh, or maybe rebar - distance
between rebar, PSI rating of concrete, gravel depth, type of
vapor barrier, etc, etc). how about details regarding the
type of hardware used on the studs or ceiling joists ? should
it spec out specific brands (ie. Simpson, or whatever) ? and
details such as types/sizes of nails to use.

i've read plenty of horror stories of clueless contractors
(and equally clueless homeowners), both parties having no idea
of proper industry practices.

is it customary to allow a contractor to go ahead and just
take it on faith (or perhaps their reputation), that they will
conform to accepted industry standards (code inspections not
withstanding) ?

OR - is the level of detail that i'm harping on something an
architect for a project, would be the only person who would be
involved in that level of specification ?

how do you decide if an architect should get involved (on say
a basement refinish project, or room addition), vs. having the
contractor work of a set of rudimentary drawings ?

what do typical contracts spec out ? - for instance, if later
down the road, nails start corroding - is it my fault for not
spec'ing out specific quality nails ? that's why i want to know
what level of detail is customary on a contract. do i have to
spell every little thing out, or are there accepted norms in the
building industry that competent contractors adhere to ?

MJ:

If you want a thorough approach to the situation, your local library will
have more than one book which will give you very systematic ways of
addressing
the matter.

Be sure you check licensing and verify insurance. Look at any complaints
and then undertake
the arduous step of finding out how or if your local authority allows any
record of them to be
purged so they no longer appear as public information. If you consider your
investment
significant, going to the local courthouse and looking at the accessible
data for civil
cases filed may be informative. Call 6 recent, dated customer references.
Ask your contractor
who his suppliers are. Call those suppliers and then ask them who they
recommend for this type of job.
If they don't volunteer the name your man, later note that he has been
mentioned to you and ask
what they have to say. Talk with these material suppliers about the nature
of your task and ask
them what they would suggest.

Regards,

Edward Hennessey

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


"evodawg" wrote in message

how do you decide if an architect should get involved (on say
a basement refinish project, or room addition), vs. having the
contractor work of a set of rudimentary drawings ?

Not only do they "go better", but such plans are often *required*. I
know for a fact that they are here in Oakland, CA, based on recent
experience of an acquaintance remodeling his kitchen. The city required
an architect's drawings for the project.


That's BULL the only reason the city has to be involved is so they can
access the TAXES. You improve your property then the TAX MAN wants to
know.Improvements means more $$$$ for the city state and anyone else who
can get their grubby fingers on it. You don't need a permit to remodel a
kitchen or bath. If your building an addition or doing anything
structural then yes.


The OP mentioned room addition. If it is visible from outside, you are
better off getting the permit.

Oh Edwin, I was commenting on a followup not the original OP's question. And
yes I did clarify room additions and structural as needing a permit. For a
Kitchen or Bath remodel, forget it, its not needed unless you want to throw
more money to your city and state assessors office.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586

evodawg wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 5/25/2008 5:17 PM Edwin Pawlowski spake thus:

"mr jones" wrote in message

how do you decide if an architect should get involved (on say
a basement refinish project, or room addition), vs. having the
contractor work of a set of rudimentary drawings ?
Permits and approvals go much better with plans from an architect. I'm
going through a $1million dollar project and the town essentially said
"if it is OK with the architect it is OK with us".
Not only do they "go better", but such plans are often *required*. I
know for a fact that they are here in Oakland, CA, based on recent
experience of an acquaintance remodeling his kitchen. The city required
an architect's drawings for the project.


That's BULL the only reason the city has to be involved is so they can
access the TAXES. You improve your property then the TAX MAN wants to
know.Improvements means more $$$$ for the city state and anyone else who
can get their grubby fingers on it. You don't need a permit to remodel a
kitchen or bath. If your building an addition or doing anything structural
then yes.

That would mean that the four times I have had to pull apart an
electrical installation and test all of the installed conductors with a
megohm-meter were all just figments of my imagination. Wait no, I got
paid for those jobs and I doubt if anyone would pay me for imaginary
work. You see when a later inspection for a different project found the
work that was done without a permit the homeowner then had to have the
work examined by a master electrician who then had to partition for
acceptance of insulation resistance testing and termination examination
as acceptable in place of as installed testing of the electrical
installation. Fortunately for the homeowner the petition was accepted
by the board of permit appeals contingent on exposing two terminations
of the inspectors choosing to verify that the work appeared to have been
competently installed. The homeowner was real happy when the inspector
agreed to use an inspection scope that could access the installation
without removing the drywall.

Read your homeowners insurance policy very carefully and you will
discover that any work done on your home for which the local government
requires a permit that is done without a permit is uninsured as to it's
affects and consequences. If such work causes a loss that loss is
uninsured. It is a legal absurdity to attempt to insure against the
consequences of an unlawful act on the part of the beneficiary of the
insurance. No court will ever enforce an insurance contract that
results in the perpetrator of an unlawful act being paid for the
consequences of that act. Chances are you won't get caught but do you
want to bet your home on that.

So clear is the law on the power of local governments to conduct
building and fire code inspections that in the Supreme Court Case
"Camera vs the Municipal Court of the City & County of San Francisco"
the court held that the need to make code enforcement inspections was
sufficient probable cause for a warrant to issue. You can prate about
unfair taxes all you want. The law is whatever the supreme court says
it is. They are the last word.

Look out there's a UN black helicopter behind you.
--
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison

Steve wrote:

evodawg wrote in news:yJK_j.3110$u7.1521@trnddc07:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"evodawg" wrote in message
how do you decide if an architect should get involved (on say
a basement refinish project, or room addition), vs. having the
contractor work of a set of rudimentary drawings ?

Not only do they "go better", but such plans are often *required*.
I know for a fact that they are here in Oakland, CA, based on
recent experience of an acquaintance remodeling his kitchen. The
city required an architect's drawings for the project.

That's BULL the only reason the city has to be involved is so they
can access the TAXES. You improve your property then the TAX MAN
wants to know.Improvements means more $$$$ for the city state and
anyone else who can get their grubby fingers on it. You don't need
a permit to remodel a kitchen or bath. If your building an addition
or doing anything structural then yes.

The OP mentioned room addition. If it is visible from outside, you
are better off getting the permit.

Oh Edwin, I was commenting on a followup not the original OP's
question. And yes I did clarify room additions and structural as
needing a permit. For a Kitchen or Bath remodel, forget it, its not
needed unless you want to throw more money to your city and state
assessors office.

I agree that a large part of the reason for a permit is to make sure the
tax assessor can increase your bill. The _official_ reason is to ensure
that your work meets code. My city, Arlington, TX, requires a permit for
anything that isn't repair, including a new fence.

One thing to worry about is work requiring a license, like electrical
and plumbing. Some licensed professionals will require that you get a
building permit.

My church wanted to build risers for the video room, just to support
chairs and worktables. The city required that they submit a plan for
approval. I submitted the hand-drawn plan under my so-called
contractor's license. Of course, that falls under commercial work, so
the rules are stricter. (It's a "so-called" license, because Texas
doesn't actually license contractors. I have to pay a fee each year to
cities where I work to be able to submit a request for a building
permit. It's just a business tax. Homeowners can submit requests for
free.)

Isn't that just a Business License?


I've heard stories that some localities (maybe the Northeast or
California?) will make you remove any unpermitted work, apply for a
permit, then do it all over again. This is supposedly without regard to
whether the work meets code. It's simply punishment. Any truth to those
stories?

Probably true, if it was an addition or something structural. Never heard of
any stories where this was applied to a kitchen or bath remodel.


Aside:
I'm working for a client who added 800 square feet to his house, but
never took out a permit. I think he'll have a surprise when he tries to
sell it. The buyer's lender will notice that the inspector reported a
bigger house than what the tax assessor knows about. The lender will
then insist on all kinds of extra paperwork, and the insurance company
will want proof the work was to code before they'll issue a policy. The
tax assessor will notice all this and bill him for back taxes plus
penalties.

Again we are talking about an addition to an existing house. Permit is
required. If your remodeling a kitchen, bath or "basement" which California
has little of, then I would not bother getting a permit unless you have
little faith in your contractor. I've been remodeling baths and kitchen for
years and not pulled a permit once. I know code and follow it. I don't cut
corners and my main concern is the customer, including his/her safety.

Hanging cabinets installing tile or wood floors, sweating copper pipes,
hanging drywall and light electrical work, has very little to do with code
violations/enforcement, and has more to do with adding value to your home.
Code enforcement dept. wants to know and then passes this off to the Tax
Collector. I know many Inspectors in my city and they have told me what
they are sent out to inspect is ridiculous, but they would never admit this
in public. Also have been told and seen for myself, "most" homeowners
should never attempt work that includes electrical and plumbing.

General Engineering Contractor


--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586

evodawg wrote:

You don't need a permit to remodel a
kitchen or bath. If your building an addition or doing anything structural
then yes.

That sort of depends on your definition of "need". Some localities
require permits. If you want to be legal then you "need" a permit for
whatever is required in your particular location. If you're not
interested in complying with the law then what you say is true.

By the way "your" and "you're" have entirely different meanings.

--
Art

Art wrote:


By the way "your" and "you're" have entirely different meanings.

Thanks for pointing that out asshole! Now stick it up YOUR ass!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586