What global warming?
 

"Grumpy" wrote in message
...
OK Mr. know it all I have no English education and my vocabulary is very
limited but I am not self righteous arrogant SOB as some other people I
have
come to know. As for you I thank on your complement it has been noted!



English...who gives a fuk?

Top posting is ANNOYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We've already got Joseph Smith; we don't need another.

Y don't you pukes go and start your own group and do whatever the floc you
want?

What global warming?
 

OK Mr. know it all I have no English education and my vocabulary is very
limited but I am not self righteous arrogant SOB as some other people I have
come to know. As for you I thank on your complement it has been noted!


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 8/2/2010 3:30 PM some entity named "Grumpy" top-posted:

Open site?
http://tony191.vox.com/library/post/...rilsfever.html

Oh, goody, a blog for the illiterate by the illiterate.

That yours?


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

What global warming?
 

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
" wrote:

While I did cosign for my son's car (six years ago, long since paid), we also
had the cash to pay the note in case something happened. The only law I laid
down was "if you can't make the payment *LET ME KNOW*". I wouldn't cosign
for
a house, but I would give them (married now) money or better, loan it to
them.
From personal experience, you probably don't want to loan it to them,
unless it is the whole thing. A loan, even from a family member, won't
count as part of the down, for instance. Depending on some other
factors, it might actually lower the credit score. They also require all
sorts of paperwork.
Heck I had to sign 6 pieces of paper just to give my kid money for
the down.

When you loan a relative money, kiss it goodbye. If it comes back, treat
it as manna from heaven. I've helped relatives- that is what money is
for- but I never really expected to get any of it back. Some paid, some
didn't. Youngest kid sister, when she brought up the subject after
getting her first real job, I told her she was off the hook, but when
the next generation needed college assistance, it was her turn. She
understood- older relatives helped me, I helped her, and so on and so on.

--
aem sends...

What global warming?
 

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 08:12:34 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

While I did cosign for my son's car (six years ago, long since paid), we also
had the cash to pay the note in case something happened. The only law I laid
down was "if you can't make the payment *LET ME KNOW*". I wouldn't cosign
for
a house, but I would give them (married now) money or better, loan it to
them.
From personal experience, you probably don't want to loan it to them,
unless it is the whole thing. A loan, even from a family member, won't
count as part of the down, for instance. Depending on some other
factors, it might actually lower the credit score. They also require all
sorts of paperwork.
Heck I had to sign 6 pieces of paper just to give my kid money for
the down.

They'll have a tough time tracing the money. I borrowed some from my mother
when we bought our first house. No one knew. It also showed up in two
accounts when they ran the checks. It was in process of floating between them
and the mortgage company counted it twice. ;-)

What global warming?
 

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:34:27 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
" wrote:

While I did cosign for my son's car (six years ago, long since paid), we also
had the cash to pay the note in case something happened. The only law I laid
down was "if you can't make the payment *LET ME KNOW*". I wouldn't cosign
for
a house, but I would give them (married now) money or better, loan it to
them.
From personal experience, you probably don't want to loan it to them,
unless it is the whole thing. A loan, even from a family member, won't
count as part of the down, for instance. Depending on some other
factors, it might actually lower the credit score. They also require all
sorts of paperwork.
Heck I had to sign 6 pieces of paper just to give my kid money for
the down.

When you loan a relative money, kiss it goodbye. If it comes back, treat
it as manna from heaven.

No problem. There is zero chance of it coming back if it's a gift. I
wouldn't be loaning money I needed, but I'm not one to favor free rides,
either.

I've helped relatives- that is what money is
for- but I never really expected to get any of it back. Some paid, some
didn't. Youngest kid sister, when she brought up the subject after
getting her first real job, I told her she was off the hook, but when
the next generation needed college assistance, it was her turn. She
understood- older relatives helped me, I helped her, and so on and so on.

What global warming?
 

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Aug 2, 7:42*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 07:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton





wrote:
On Jul 31, 1:26*pm, "
wrote:
On 31 Jul 2010 16:11:13 GMT, Han wrote:

"JimT" wrote in
tnet:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate and
it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced either way
yet.

That's right. *HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output seems to
me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer because another whack
and then another whack shouldn't make that much difference in the pain
you're already feeling in your thumb.

Restricting CO2 output simply is a move back to the stone age. *Taxing it is a
simply fueling Washington to do more harm.

Do you really think that there's nothing between "unlimited CO2
production"
and "the stone age"?

You aren't paying attention. *The watermellons don't care about CO2. *It's
about *taxes* and control.

Perhaps you ought to explore other possibilities
just
a little bit. *At the very least, you'd sound more sane.

CO2 is just a tool of the left (watermellons). *Wake up!

And you were just chiding someone else about name-calling.

You're illiterate too, I see. This group seems to collect the illiterate.

Well, I guess you're entitled to hypocrisy, just like
everybody else.

Hypocrisy is overrated, but in this case you're simply wrong.

What global warming?
 

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
" wrote:

How many new construction loans are federally guaranteed?

Looks like 5% or less of all mortgages through FHA which are federally
insured. The VA looks like it is the only Fed agency that actually
guarantees the loans.

--


but see

http://www.ginniemae.gov/about/about.asp?Section=About

What global warming?
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:11:21 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

How many new construction loans are federally guaranteed?

Looks like 5% or less of all mortgages through FHA which are federally
insured. The VA looks like it is the only Fed agency that actually
guarantees the loans.

AIM was going to hold out for green concessions on construction loans
(builders). I don't think this is an issue here, particularly for
McMansions.

What's a McMansion? A house bigger than mine? ;-)

I think it's generally defined as an excessively large house planted an a
very small lot out of proportion to the size of the house

So it could be bigger or smaller and still be a mcmansion

What global warming?
 

"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"Grumpy" wrote in message
...
OK Mr. know it all I have no English education and my vocabulary is very
limited but I am not self righteous arrogant SOB as some other people I
have
come to know. As for you I thank on your complement it has been noted!



English...who gives a fuk?

Top posting is ANNOYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We've already got "Joseph Broz Tito"; we don't need another.

Y don't you pukes go and start your own group and do whatever the floc you
want?

What global warming?
 

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
" wrote:

While I did cosign for my son's car (six years ago, long since paid), we
also
had the cash to pay the note in case something happened. The only law I
laid
down was "if you can't make the payment *LET ME KNOW*". I wouldn't
cosign for
a house, but I would give them (married now) money or better, loan it to
them.
From personal experience, you probably don't want to loan it to them,
unless it is the whole thing. A loan, even from a family member, won't
count as part of the down, for instance. Depending on some other factors,
it might actually lower the credit score. They also require all sorts of
paperwork. Heck I had to sign 6 pieces of paper just to give my kid money
for the down.

When you loan a relative money, kiss it goodbye. If it comes back, treat
it as manna from heaven. I've helped relatives- that is what money is for-
but I never really expected to get any of it back. Some paid, some didn't.
Youngest kid sister, when she brought up the subject after getting her
first real job, I told her she was off the hook, but when the next
generation needed college assistance, it was her turn. She understood-
older relatives helped me, I helped her, and so on and so on.

--


I've lent to relatives
value of the asset in question.
In my case it was a combo savings and checking, in his checking.

i'm unaware that he has cds but he may have
but yea I will never see it back

What global warming?
 

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:27:47 -0400, "Ala" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:11:21 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

How many new construction loans are federally guaranteed?

Looks like 5% or less of all mortgages through FHA which are federally
insured. The VA looks like it is the only Fed agency that actually
guarantees the loans.

AIM was going to hold out for green concessions on construction loans
(builders). I don't think this is an issue here, particularly for
McMansions.

What's a McMansion? A house bigger than mine? ;-)

I think it's generally defined as an excessively large house planted an a
very small lot out of proportion to the size of the house

Not much of a definition.

So it could be bigger or smaller and still be a mcmansion

So a 1200 ft^2 town house is a McMansion? A 600 ft^2 condo?

What global warming?
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:27:47 -0400, "Ala" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:11:21 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

How many new construction loans are federally guaranteed?

Looks like 5% or less of all mortgages through FHA which are federally
insured. The VA looks like it is the only Fed agency that actually
guarantees the loans.

AIM was going to hold out for green concessions on construction loans
(builders). I don't think this is an issue here, particularly for
McMansions.

What's a McMansion? A house bigger than mine? ;-)

I think it's generally defined as an excessively large house planted an a
very small lot out of proportion to the size of the house

Not much of a definition.

So it could be bigger or smaller and still be a mcmansion

So a 1200 ft^2 town house is a McMansion? A 600 ft^2 condo?

Hey I asked my a relative who is an architect and that's the definition.

Mansions after all, generally are large and have a lot of acreage. So how
would they be different from McMansions?

Condo - I think - would qualify if it were one of those townhouse ones but
not if it were more like a duplex or row home or apartment like. It's got
to give the impression of not belonging on the bitty bit of acreage.

This is from Wikipedia - , obliteration of part of the yard is important


"The term is generally used to denote a multi-story house of no clear
architectural style, with a larger footprint than an older median home and
either located in a newer, larger subdivision or replacing an existing,
smaller structure in an older neighborhood.[citation needed]

Typically it will have a floor area over 3,000 square feet (280 m2),
ceilings 9-10 feet high, a two-story portico, a front door hall with a
chandelier hanging from 16-20 feet, two or more garages, several bedrooms
and bathrooms, and lavish interiors. The house often covers a larger portion
of the lot than the construction it replaces, resulting in the obliteration
of the garden. McMansions may also be built in homogeneous communities by a
single developer"

What global warming?
 

"Ala" wrote in message
...

McMansions may also be built in homogeneous communities by a single
developer"

I'd say that's my #1 definition. Cookie cutter style. And very often, the
build quality is atrocious. I know one family in such a development. They
were thrilled with their new beast of a home until stuff like gutters & door
moldings began falling off in year #1.

But based on what I've seen around here, there's a second definition: A
monster of a house is built on what used to be a corn field. Absolutely zero
thought went into whether the house fits the landscape. It's not rocket
science. The surrounding terrain is brown or white in winter, depending on
whether there's snow cover. It becomes 100 shades of green, then some
becomes beige in summer, and it becomes an entire pallet of colors in
autumn. So you don't put turquoise siding on the friggin' house. It's not
the tropics. But someone's rich uncle died and the homeowner finally found a
way to move out of the trailer park.

What global warming?
 

In article ,
"Ala" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
" wrote:

How many new construction loans are federally guaranteed?

Looks like 5% or less of all mortgages through FHA which are federally
insured. The VA looks like it is the only Fed agency that actually
guarantees the loans.

--


but see

http://www.ginniemae.gov/about/about.asp?Section=About

GinnieMae guarantees the mortgage-backed securitites, in other words
the instruments that come about when mortgages are glommed together and
resold. They don't have anything (directly) to do with mortgages
themselves.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

What global warming?
 

In article ,
" wrote:



I think it's generally defined as an excessively large house planted an a
very small lot out of proportion to the size of the house

Not much of a definition.

For the most part I think that the definition is "100 sq feet more
than I have."



--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

What global warming?
 

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Ala" wrote in message
...

McMansions may also be built in homogeneous communities by a single
developer"

I'd say that's my #1 definition. Cookie cutter style. And very often, the
build quality is atrocious. I know one family in such a development. They
were thrilled with their new beast of a home until stuff like gutters & door
moldings began falling off in year #1.
Levitown on steroids? "ANd they're all made out of ticky tacky and
they all look just the same."

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

What global warming?
 

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
" wrote:



I think it's generally defined as an excessively large house planted an
a
very small lot out of proportion to the size of the house

Not much of a definition.

For the most part I think that the definition is "100 sq feet more
than I have."




I don't think that's necessarily true. I think most people know ugly when
they see it, even though they can't verbalize it.

What global warming?
 

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
" wrote:



I think it's generally defined as an excessively large house planted an
a
very small lot out of proportion to the size of the house

Not much of a definition.

For the most part I think that the definition is "100 sq feet more
than I have."




I don't think that's necessarily true. I think most people know ugly when
they see it, even though they can't verbalize it.

But ugly is not remotely dependent on size. Some of the real mansions
(as in castle-like for instance) can be more aggressively hideous than
any McMansion.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

What global warming?
 

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:21:41 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:



I think it's generally defined as an excessively large house planted an a
very small lot out of proportion to the size of the house

Not much of a definition.

For the most part I think that the definition is "100 sq feet more
than I have."

That's kinda where I was going here. IOW, common jealousy.

What global warming?
 

"Ala" wrote in
:


"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
" wrote:

While I did cosign for my son's car (six years ago, long since
paid), we also
had the cash to pay the note in case something happened. The only
law I laid
down was "if you can't make the payment *LET ME KNOW*". I wouldn't
cosign for
a house, but I would give them (married now) money or better, loan
it to them.
From personal experience, you probably don't want to loan it to
them,
unless it is the whole thing. A loan, even from a family member,
won't count as part of the down, for instance. Depending on some
other factors, it might actually lower the credit score. They also
require all sorts of paperwork. Heck I had to sign 6 pieces of paper
just to give my kid money for the down.

When you loan a relative money, kiss it goodbye. If it comes back,
treat it as manna from heaven. I've helped relatives- that is what
money is for- but I never really expected to get any of it back. Some
paid, some didn't. Youngest kid sister, when she brought up the
subject after getting her first real job, I told her she was off the
hook, but when the next generation needed college assistance, it was
her turn. She understood- older relatives helped me, I helped her,
and so on and so on.

--


I've lent to relatives
value of the asset in question.
In my case it was a combo savings and checking, in his checking.

i'm unaware that he has cds but he may have
but yea I will never see it back



I lent my youngest sister $600 to help her buy a car,she paid back $250
after a long time,then forgot about the rest. She and her BF just bought a
house.

Me,if I borrow money,I pay it back ASAP,nobody has to chase me down for it.

People these days don't have any honor.

I don't loan money anymore,period.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

What global warming?
 

"Ala" wrote in
m:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:11:21 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

How many new construction loans are federally guaranteed?

Looks like 5% or less of all mortgages through FHA which are
federally
insured. The VA looks like it is the only Fed agency that actually
guarantees the loans.

AIM was going to hold out for green concessions on construction loans
(builders). I don't think this is an issue here, particularly for
McMansions.

What's a McMansion? A house bigger than mine? ;-)

I think it's generally defined as an excessively large house planted
an a very small lot out of proportion to the size of the house

So it could be bigger or smaller and still be a mcmansion


Or a house way out of proportion to the neighboring houses.
Got that here in Orlando/Winter Park,from some of the Magic players.
Sometimes they buy two adjacent lots,level the houses and build one big
mansion.
the rest of the neighborhood homes are a fraction of the size and cost.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

What global warming?
 

What global warming?
 

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:09:21 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:21:41 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


I think it's generally defined as an excessively large house planted an a
very small lot out of proportion to the size of the house
Not much of a definition.
For the most part I think that the definition is "100 sq feet more
than I have."

That's kinda where I was going here. IOW, common jealousy.

I can't really drive nails in the wikipedia definition, but my take is
those silly houses with all the fake gables and dormers,

Check (fake dormers). Real ones too.

and the 12-12
roofs over an unusable attic

15:12 pitch. Check. (though the space of the garage is usable). There really
isn't enough space over the second floor or cathedral great room.

with 2 feet of insulation covering the joists,

I thought you were all for energy efficiency?

often built without basements (here in basement country), and

Slab. Check. (not basement country, though)

the big show-off entry halls.

DOn't know if it's show-off. It's big, but really part of the great room,
with half-open stairway to second floor.

Often called Drywall McMansions because
the interiors are surprisingly feature-free, with none of the built-ins
or features you would expect a high-end custom to have, like bookshelves
or an ornate staircase.

Well, I didn't pay for "high-end" custom, though there is a ton of granite in
the house.

Sometimes the kitchen is fancy, but made with
stock cabinets,

Stock cabinets. Check. (not even decent ones)

and the only high-end touch is granite countertops or
something.

Check. Lots of them. Four countertops in the kitchen (one a two-level 'L').
Granite book case tops in the great room, 3-1/2 baths with granite tops.

In short, all the money is in stuff the neighbors will see,
not stuff that matters.

Don't know if the neighbors will "see". Most are a bit fancier than ours.
That wasn't why I bought, though. That's what is.

Very energy-wasting designs for the most part,
and cost a fortune to heat and cool.

Not so much.

A quick check is ornate stone or
brick on the front, but the other three walls are vinyl siding. The
chimney often has vinyl siding as well.

Brick/stone below. Hardie above (don't know if that counts as "vinyl".

And as another poster noted,
even on a 300k house (expensive around here in flyover country), the fit
and finish, not to mention the lack of straight walls and 90-degree
corners, is often down in cookie-cutter tract house category.

300K, Check. (though not exactly in flyover country).

Whew! You were describing our house there for a minute. ;-)

What global warming?
 

On 8/3/2010 7:00 AM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 8/2/2010 9:32 PM, HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Do you really think that there's nothing between "unlimited CO2
production"
and "the stone age"?

You aren't paying attention. The watermellons don't care about CO2.
It's about *taxes* and control.

Perhaps you ought to explore other possibilities
just
a little bit. At the very least, you'd sound more sane.

CO2 is just a tool of the left (watermellons). Wake up!

My granny used to say: "You don't have to be colored to like
watermelon!"

Well, the watermelon is native to Africa.


RACIST!



PLANTIST!

TDD

What global warming?
 

On Aug 3, 8:11*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton





wrote:
On Aug 2, 7:42*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 07:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton

wrote:
On Jul 31, 1:26*pm, "
wrote:
On 31 Jul 2010 16:11:13 GMT, Han wrote:

"JimT" wrote in
tnet:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate and
it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced either way
yet.

That's right. *HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output seems to
me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer because another whack
and then another whack shouldn't make that much difference in the pain
you're already feeling in your thumb.

Restricting CO2 output simply is a move back to the stone age. *Taxing it is a
simply fueling Washington to do more harm.

Do you really think that there's nothing between "unlimited CO2
production"
and "the stone age"?

You aren't paying attention. *The watermellons don't care about CO2. *It's
about *taxes* and control.

Perhaps you ought to explore other possibilities
just
a little bit. *At the very least, you'd sound more sane.

CO2 is just a tool of the left (watermellons). *Wake up!

And you were just chiding someone else about name-calling.



You're illiterate too, I see. *This group seems to collect the illiterate.

No, I am not. Usenet is an informal medium, and I write as I speak.

Well, I guess you're entitled to hypocrisy, just like
everybody else.

Hypocrisy is overrated, but in this case you're simply wrong.

Wrong about you dissing someone for name-calling? I think not.
Do you recognize these words?

That is about the limit of your intelligence; name calling.
You prove it
every day here.

You, sir, are a hypocrite.

Cindy Hamilton

What global warming?
 

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:51:43 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Ala" wrote in message
...

McMansions may also be built in homogeneous communities by a single
developer"

I'd say that's my #1 definition. Cookie cutter style. And very often, the
build quality is atrocious. I know one family in such a development. They
were thrilled with their new beast of a home until stuff like gutters & door
moldings began falling off in year #1.

Ah, so if every house is a different style or if it's in a small development
then it's not a McMansion. Seems the definitions are getting stranger by the
minute.

But based on what I've seen around here, there's a second definition: A
monster of a house is built on what used to be a corn field. Absolutely zero
thought went into whether the house fits the landscape. It's not rocket
science. The surrounding terrain is brown or white in winter, depending on
whether there's snow cover. It becomes 100 shades of green, then some
becomes beige in summer, and it becomes an entire pallet of colors in
autumn. So you don't put turquoise siding on the friggin' house. It's not
the tropics. But someone's rich uncle died and the homeowner finally found a
way to move out of the trailer park.

So the WWII vintage purple house is a McMansion. Got it.

What global warming?
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:51:43 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Ala" wrote in message
...

McMansions may also be built in homogeneous communities by a single
developer"

I'd say that's my #1 definition. Cookie cutter style. And very often, the
build quality is atrocious. I know one family in such a development. They
were thrilled with their new beast of a home until stuff like gutters &
door
moldings began falling off in year #1.

Ah, so if every house is a different style or if it's in a small
development
then it's not a McMansion. Seems the definitions are getting stranger by
the
minute.


Feigning lack of understanding is lame. Stop doing it.



But based on what I've seen around here, there's a second definition: A
monster of a house is built on what used to be a corn field. Absolutely
zero
thought went into whether the house fits the landscape. It's not rocket
science. The surrounding terrain is brown or white in winter, depending on
whether there's snow cover. It becomes 100 shades of green, then some
becomes beige in summer, and it becomes an entire pallet of colors in
autumn. So you don't put turquoise siding on the friggin' house. It's not
the tropics. But someone's rich uncle died and the homeowner finally found
a
way to move out of the trailer park.

So the WWII vintage purple house is a McMansion. Got it.

Feigning lack of understanding is lame. Stop doing it.

What global warming?
 

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:11:47 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Aug 3, 8:11*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton





wrote:
On Aug 2, 7:42*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 07:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton

wrote:
On Jul 31, 1:26*pm, "
wrote:
On 31 Jul 2010 16:11:13 GMT, Han wrote:

"JimT" wrote in
tnet:

I have little doubt something is happening to our overall climate and
it's getting hotter. Is it man made? I'm not 100% convinced either way
yet.

That's right. *HOWEVER, not restricting industrialized CO2 output seems to
me like continuing to whack your thumb with a hammer because another whack
and then another whack shouldn't make that much difference in the pain
you're already feeling in your thumb.

Restricting CO2 output simply is a move back to the stone age. *Taxing it is a
simply fueling Washington to do more harm.

Do you really think that there's nothing between "unlimited CO2
production"
and "the stone age"?

You aren't paying attention. *The watermellons don't care about CO2. *It's
about *taxes* and control.

Perhaps you ought to explore other possibilities
just
a little bit. *At the very least, you'd sound more sane.

CO2 is just a tool of the left (watermellons). *Wake up!

And you were just chiding someone else about name-calling.



You're illiterate too, I see. *This group seems to collect the illiterate.

No, I am not. Usenet is an informal medium, and I write as I speak.

*Obviously* you are.

Well, I guess you're entitled to hypocrisy, just like
everybody else.

Hypocrisy is overrated, but in this case you're simply wrong.

Wrong about you dissing someone for name-calling? I think not.
Do you recognize these words?

Wrong.

That is about the limit of your intelligence; name calling.
You prove it
every day here.

You, sir, are a hypocrite.

You're not only illiterate but stupid, as well. ...or perhaps stupid says it
all. Try thinking this through a little more.

What global warming?
 

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 18:34:46 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:51:43 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Ala" wrote in message
...

McMansions may also be built in homogeneous communities by a single
developer"

I'd say that's my #1 definition. Cookie cutter style. And very often, the
build quality is atrocious. I know one family in such a development. They
were thrilled with their new beast of a home until stuff like gutters &
door
moldings began falling off in year #1.

Ah, so if every house is a different style or if it's in a small
development
then it's not a McMansion. Seems the definitions are getting stranger by
the
minute.


Feigning lack of understanding is lame. Stop doing it.

Why don't you do something useful? You could answer the question. You'd have
to be able to read and think, so perhaps not.

But based on what I've seen around here, there's a second definition: A
monster of a house is built on what used to be a corn field. Absolutely
zero
thought went into whether the house fits the landscape. It's not rocket
science. The surrounding terrain is brown or white in winter, depending on
whether there's snow cover. It becomes 100 shades of green, then some
becomes beige in summer, and it becomes an entire pallet of colors in
autumn. So you don't put turquoise siding on the friggin' house. It's not
the tropics. But someone's rich uncle died and the homeowner finally found
a
way to move out of the trailer park.

So the WWII vintage purple house is a McMansion. Got it.

Feigning lack of understanding is lame. Stop doing it.

Why don't you do something useful? You could answer the question. You'd have
to be able to read and think, so perhaps not.

What global warming?
 

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...


I can't really drive nails in the wikipedia definition, but my take is
those silly houses with all the fake gables and dormers, and the 12-12
roofs over an unusable attic with 2 feet of insulation covering the
joists, often built without basements (here in basement country), and the
big show-off entry halls. Often called Drywall McMansions because the
interiors are surprisingly feature-free, with none of the built-ins or
features you would expect a high-end custom to have, like bookshelves or
an ornate staircase. Sometimes the kitchen is fancy, but made with stock
cabinets, and the only high-end touch is granite countertops or something.
In short, all the money is in stuff the neighbors will see, not stuff that
matters. Very energy-wasting designs for the most part, and cost a fortune
to heat and cool. A quick check is ornate stone or brick on the front, but
the other three walls are vinyl siding. The chimney often has vinyl siding
as well. And as another poster noted, even on a 300k house (expensive
around here in flyover country), the fit and finish, not to mention the
lack of straight walls and 90-degree corners, is often down in
cookie-cutter tract house category.

--

My Mac turning point is the paste in cornice/frieze

What global warming?
 

wrote in message
...

300K, Check. (though not exactly in flyover country).

Whew! You were describing our house there for a minute. ;-)

I don't have one. Anymore

What global warming?
 

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ala" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
" wrote:

How many new construction loans are federally guaranteed?

Looks like 5% or less of all mortgages through FHA which are federally
insured. The VA looks like it is the only Fed agency that actually
guarantees the loans.

--


but see

http://www.ginniemae.gov/about/about.asp?Section=About

GinnieMae guarantees the mortgage-backed securitites, in other words
the instruments that come about when mortgages are glommed together and
resold. They don't have anything (directly) to do with mortgages
themselves.


Yes and no. They have the power to change underwriting principles on
individual loans, based on what they are willing to insure on the pool.
Usually, the underwriter selects the mortgages that will be included and the
insuror often has the right to refuse individual loans. So insurers like
gnma have he power to influence what the loan originator is willing to risk
lending on

What global warming?
 

In article ,
"Ala" wrote:

Yes and no. They have the power to change underwriting principles on
individual loans, based on what they are willing to insure on the pool.
Usually, the underwriter selects the mortgages that will be included and the
insuror often has the right to refuse individual loans. So insurers like
gnma have he power to influence what the loan originator is willing to risk
lending on

But IIRC, they are by law pretty much able to influence lending
standards and not building standards (with the obvious exception of
requiring they meet building codes in place in the jurisdiction).

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist