Jay Hanig wrote:
On 8/3/2010 6:42 AM, wrote:
I have nothing to hide and I'm complaining. So there you go, not
it's not just those complaining who have something to hide. Big
brother is watching. I personally DO NOT want my property shown
online. Can I stop them? NO.....

Now every criminal can look over our property...
We dont have any privacy anymore.


Looking at what Google shows of my home, it's nothing more than what
anybody driving by could see from the road. The overhead view from
the satellite doesn't show where I've hidden the diamonds and gold
bullion. I think this is a lot of to do over nothing.



$75,000 ain't nothing.

On Aug 2, 5:06*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 12:55:00 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:





On Aug 2, 3:44*pm, keith wrote:
On Aug 2, 2:20*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Aug 2, 1:51*pm, keith wrote:

On Aug 2, 10:57*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Aug 2, 11:41*am, wrote:

On Aug 2, 11:15*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

"[RIVERHEAD, N.Y.] A town on New York's Long Island is using Google Earth to
find backyard pools that don't have the proper permits. The town of
Riverhead has used the satellite image service to find about 250 pools whose
owners never filled out the required paperwork.

Funny how the only people complaining are the ones that have something
to hide.

I for one think this is a great thing. I jumped through the hoops to
get my pool permit. I rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. If that
sumbitch next door put in his pool illegally, it serves him right to
get caught and fined.

The only thing I question is whether it's an effective revenue
generator for the city. $75,000 in fines, but how much did it cost the
city to find the offenders, do all the paperwork, and collect those
fines? Probably a lot more than $75,000.

I gotta wonder, how many of these fees and fines are profit generators
for the city? Probably not many. Most probably don't even pay for
themselves.

"The only thing I question is whether it's an effective revenue
generator for the city."

Sometimes you gotta spend a little to make a lot.

Maybe (and I'm just speculating) if it cost say, $150K to make
generate that first $75K, which includes fines, then they may gotten
the word out that they will come looking for you, regardless of the
cost.

Perhaps fewer people will go the non-permit route, and eventually
they'll recoup the extra cost and start making money on the permits.
Lots of money in Riverhead, NY.

None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
codes.

No comments on your choice of words, but *clean* water "ruining"
groundwater? *Get real!

Preventing those problems might be enough of a reason to lose money
going after the non-permitted pools - assuming of course that they
also force the owners to fix code-conflicting problems.

Nonsense. *Such rules do make it easier for the city to collect taxes,
though. *When all governments are scraping the barrel looking for a
dime, why do you suppose they're doing it this year?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"No comments on your choice of words, but *clean* water "ruining"
groundwater? *Get real!

Oh, like that wasn't a comment. *Nice try.

You do have a reading problem, don't you. *I said I wouldn't comment
on the choice of words. *The idea that pool water is going to
contaminate groundwater is *dumb*, however.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's OK, as long as you completely missed the point, we're good.

Show me the post where I used the words "contaminate groundwater".

Not only can't you read, and remember the subject of threads, but you don't
even understand what *you* have written!

Let me refresh your memory. *You said:

* "None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
* that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
* whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
* way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
* codes."

Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the aquifer" (ground
water). *

Nevermind, don't bother. We're done.

No, but your brain is well done. *Well beyond toast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ummm...you _do_ know that pools contain chemicals to keep it sanitary?

Harry K

On Aug 2, 8:06*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 12:55:00 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:





On Aug 2, 3:44*pm, keith wrote:
On Aug 2, 2:20*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Aug 2, 1:51*pm, keith wrote:

On Aug 2, 10:57*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Aug 2, 11:41*am, wrote:

On Aug 2, 11:15*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

"[RIVERHEAD, N.Y.] A town on New York's Long Island is using Google Earth to
find backyard pools that don't have the proper permits. The town of
Riverhead has used the satellite image service to find about 250 pools whose
owners never filled out the required paperwork.

Funny how the only people complaining are the ones that have something
to hide.

I for one think this is a great thing. I jumped through the hoops to
get my pool permit. I rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. If that
sumbitch next door put in his pool illegally, it serves him right to
get caught and fined.

The only thing I question is whether it's an effective revenue
generator for the city. $75,000 in fines, but how much did it cost the
city to find the offenders, do all the paperwork, and collect those
fines? Probably a lot more than $75,000.

I gotta wonder, how many of these fees and fines are profit generators
for the city? Probably not many. Most probably don't even pay for
themselves.

"The only thing I question is whether it's an effective revenue
generator for the city."

Sometimes you gotta spend a little to make a lot.

Maybe (and I'm just speculating) if it cost say, $150K to make
generate that first $75K, which includes fines, then they may gotten
the word out that they will come looking for you, regardless of the
cost.

Perhaps fewer people will go the non-permit route, and eventually
they'll recoup the extra cost and start making money on the permits.
Lots of money in Riverhead, NY.

None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
codes.

No comments on your choice of words, but *clean* water "ruining"
groundwater? *Get real!

Preventing those problems might be enough of a reason to lose money
going after the non-permitted pools - assuming of course that they
also force the owners to fix code-conflicting problems.

Nonsense. *Such rules do make it easier for the city to collect taxes,
though. *When all governments are scraping the barrel looking for a
dime, why do you suppose they're doing it this year?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"No comments on your choice of words, but *clean* water "ruining"
groundwater? *Get real!

Oh, like that wasn't a comment. *Nice try.

You do have a reading problem, don't you. *I said I wouldn't comment
on the choice of words. *The idea that pool water is going to
contaminate groundwater is *dumb*, however.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's OK, as long as you completely missed the point, we're good.

Show me the post where I used the words "contaminate groundwater".

Not only can't you read, and remember the subject of threads, but you don't
even understand what *you* have written!

Let me refresh your memory. *You said:

* "None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
* that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
* whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
* way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
* codes."

Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the aquifer" (ground
water). *

Nevermind, don't bother. We're done.

No, but your brain is well done. *Well beyond toast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Look up the definition of "aquifer" and get back to me. I'll be right
here.

After you've done that, you might see my point, but probably not.

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:

There is privacy, and there is evasion of rules & regulations. If
you (knowingly or not) evade the "law", the consequences are yours.
Find an island in the South Pacific and generate your own country.

There is also (at least in the US) a well-developed case law line
that says there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. Thus
(as anillustration) if the paparazzi can stand on the sidewalk and take
picture of you sunbathing, that is legal. However, they can't put a
a ladder on the same sidewalk and take pictures over your 10 foot high
stone fence.
Same basic principal here. If anyone in an airplane can see as
they go overhead, there should be no expectation of privacy. (This is
also why celebs lobby the FAA to make areas around their weddings,
etc., no fly zones.)

Yes. The privacy I was referring to is the protection against
paparazzi, and being able to do what I want on my own property. Then there
is rules and regulations.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

"[RIVERHEAD, N.Y.] A town on New York's Long Island is using Google Earth
to find backyard pools that don't have the proper permits. The town of
Riverhead has used the satellite image service to find about 250 pools
whose owners never filled out the required paperwork.

"Riverhead's chief building inspector Leroy Barnes Jr. said the
unpermitted pools were a safety concern. (So far about $75,000 in fees has
been collected.)"

It's for the children.

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/loca...s-20100801-apx


Get ready for new housing codes, and massive inspections, proly costing the
avg homeowner TENS of thousands of dollars, if not more, in fines as well as
the cost of the work itself. Will be a boon for contracting, dats f'sure --
who will be "fee'd" to death, as well.

It's for your safety.

And when we roll over and acquiesce to DAT, we might as well just grab the
nearest fallen tree branch, and **** ourselves in the ass with THAT.
Surgery will proly be cheaper and less painful than the Municipal Home
Invasion.
--
EA

On Aug 3, 12:45*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Harry K





wrote:
* "None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
* that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
* whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
* way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
* codes."

Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the aquifer" (ground
water). *

Nevermind, don't bother. We're done.

No, but your brain is well done. *Well beyond toast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ummm...you _do_ know that pools contain chemicals to keep it sanitary?

Harry K

If the chemicals in your pool are properly balanced, it should be
about the same as "city water". (2.5 - 3 PPM Chlorine and a pH a tad
over 7) Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap
water on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

re; "Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap water
on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?"

Since I started this arc, I'll answer that question: No.

Now I'll ask one: Do you know the difference between "the aquifer" and
"groundwater"?

dgk wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:15:57 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:


"[RIVERHEAD, N.Y.] A town on New York's Long Island is using Google
Earth to find backyard pools that don't have the proper permits. The
town of Riverhead has used the satellite image service to find about
250 pools whose owners never filled out the required paperwork.

"Riverhead's chief building inspector Leroy Barnes Jr. said the
unpermitted pools were a safety concern. (So far about $75,000 in
fees has been collected.)"

It's for the children.

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/loca...s-20100801-apx


I read a long time ago that towns were using planes to spot
unpermitted pools, this is clearly a cheaper way to do it. I just was
looking out a commerical airliner last week and could spot pools from
two miles up easily.

Check this article on the spread of civilian unmanned aerial vehicles.
http://volokh.com/2010/08/02/search-...civilian-uses/

Existential Angst wrote:

Get ready for new housing codes, and massive inspections, proly
costing the avg homeowner TENS of thousands of dollars, if not more,
in fines as well as the cost of the work itself. Will be a boon for
contracting, dats f'sure -- who will be "fee'd" to death, as well.

It's for your safety.

And when we roll over and acquiesce to DAT, we might as well just
grab the nearest fallen tree branch, and **** ourselves in the ass
with THAT. Surgery will proly be cheaper and less painful than the
Municipal Home Invasion.

Gotta look on the bright side. There'll be construction jobs-aplenty for the
illegal aliens.

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Aug 2, 5:06*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 12:55:00 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:





On Aug 2, 3:44*pm, keith wrote:
On Aug 2, 2:20*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Aug 2, 1:51*pm, keith wrote:

On Aug 2, 10:57*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Aug 2, 11:41*am, wrote:

On Aug 2, 11:15*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

"[RIVERHEAD, N.Y.] A town on New York's Long Island is using Google Earth to
find backyard pools that don't have the proper permits. The town of
Riverhead has used the satellite image service to find about 250 pools whose
owners never filled out the required paperwork.

Funny how the only people complaining are the ones that have something
to hide.

I for one think this is a great thing. I jumped through the hoops to
get my pool permit. I rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. If that
sumbitch next door put in his pool illegally, it serves him right to
get caught and fined.

The only thing I question is whether it's an effective revenue
generator for the city. $75,000 in fines, but how much did it cost the
city to find the offenders, do all the paperwork, and collect those
fines? Probably a lot more than $75,000.

I gotta wonder, how many of these fees and fines are profit generators
for the city? Probably not many. Most probably don't even pay for
themselves.

"The only thing I question is whether it's an effective revenue
generator for the city."

Sometimes you gotta spend a little to make a lot.

Maybe (and I'm just speculating) if it cost say, $150K to make
generate that first $75K, which includes fines, then they may gotten
the word out that they will come looking for you, regardless of the
cost.

Perhaps fewer people will go the non-permit route, and eventually
they'll recoup the extra cost and start making money on the permits.
Lots of money in Riverhead, NY.

None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
codes.

No comments on your choice of words, but *clean* water "ruining"
groundwater? *Get real!

Preventing those problems might be enough of a reason to lose money
going after the non-permitted pools - assuming of course that they
also force the owners to fix code-conflicting problems.

Nonsense. *Such rules do make it easier for the city to collect taxes,
though. *When all governments are scraping the barrel looking for a
dime, why do you suppose they're doing it this year?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"No comments on your choice of words, but *clean* water "ruining"
groundwater? *Get real!

Oh, like that wasn't a comment. *Nice try.

You do have a reading problem, don't you. *I said I wouldn't comment
on the choice of words. *The idea that pool water is going to
contaminate groundwater is *dumb*, however.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's OK, as long as you completely missed the point, we're good.

Show me the post where I used the words "contaminate groundwater".

Not only can't you read, and remember the subject of threads, but you don't
even understand what *you* have written!

Let me refresh your memory. *You said:

* "None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
* that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
* whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
* way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
* codes."

Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the aquifer" (ground
water). *

Nevermind, don't bother. We're done.

No, but your brain is well done. *Well beyond toast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ummm...you _do_ know that pools contain chemicals to keep it sanitary?

GMAFB!

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:56:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Aug 3, 12:45*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Harry K





wrote:
* "None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
* that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
* whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
* way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
* codes."

Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the aquifer" (ground
water). *

Nevermind, don't bother. We're done.

No, but your brain is well done. *Well beyond toast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ummm...you _do_ know that pools contain chemicals to keep it sanitary?

Harry K

If the chemicals in your pool are properly balanced, it should be
about the same as "city water". (2.5 - 3 PPM Chlorine and a pH a tad
over 7) Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap
water on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

re; "Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap water
on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?"

Since I started this arc, I'll answer that question: No.

Now I'll ask one: Do you know the difference between "the aquifer" and
"groundwater"?

Since it's clear you can't read, write, or think, I'll just ask you straight
up. What the **** are you yammering on about? How is a pool going to "ruin an
aquifer"? I was giving you a benefit of the doubt with "ground water".

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:53:40 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Aug 2, 8:06*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 12:55:00 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:





On Aug 2, 3:44*pm, keith wrote:
On Aug 2, 2:20*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Aug 2, 1:51*pm, keith wrote:

On Aug 2, 10:57*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Aug 2, 11:41*am, wrote:

On Aug 2, 11:15*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

"[RIVERHEAD, N.Y.] A town on New York's Long Island is using Google Earth to
find backyard pools that don't have the proper permits. The town of
Riverhead has used the satellite image service to find about 250 pools whose
owners never filled out the required paperwork.

Funny how the only people complaining are the ones that have something
to hide.

I for one think this is a great thing. I jumped through the hoops to
get my pool permit. I rendered unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. If that
sumbitch next door put in his pool illegally, it serves him right to
get caught and fined.

The only thing I question is whether it's an effective revenue
generator for the city. $75,000 in fines, but how much did it cost the
city to find the offenders, do all the paperwork, and collect those
fines? Probably a lot more than $75,000.

I gotta wonder, how many of these fees and fines are profit generators
for the city? Probably not many. Most probably don't even pay for
themselves.

"The only thing I question is whether it's an effective revenue
generator for the city."

Sometimes you gotta spend a little to make a lot.

Maybe (and I'm just speculating) if it cost say, $150K to make
generate that first $75K, which includes fines, then they may gotten
the word out that they will come looking for you, regardless of the
cost.

Perhaps fewer people will go the non-permit route, and eventually
they'll recoup the extra cost and start making money on the permits.
Lots of money in Riverhead, NY.

None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
codes.

No comments on your choice of words, but *clean* water "ruining"
groundwater? *Get real!

Preventing those problems might be enough of a reason to lose money
going after the non-permitted pools - assuming of course that they
also force the owners to fix code-conflicting problems.

Nonsense. *Such rules do make it easier for the city to collect taxes,
though. *When all governments are scraping the barrel looking for a
dime, why do you suppose they're doing it this year?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"No comments on your choice of words, but *clean* water "ruining"
groundwater? *Get real!

Oh, like that wasn't a comment. *Nice try.

You do have a reading problem, don't you. *I said I wouldn't comment
on the choice of words. *The idea that pool water is going to
contaminate groundwater is *dumb*, however.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's OK, as long as you completely missed the point, we're good.

Show me the post where I used the words "contaminate groundwater".

Not only can't you read, and remember the subject of threads, but you don't
even understand what *you* have written!

Let me refresh your memory. *You said:

* "None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
* that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
* whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
* way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
* codes."

Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the aquifer" (ground
water). *

Nevermind, don't bother. We're done.

No, but your brain is well done. *Well beyond toast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Look up the definition of "aquifer" and get back to me. I'll be right
here.

You can posture all you want, but you clearly are illiterate.

After you've done that, you might see my point, but probably not.

More posturing.

Why don't you just admit it. You fired off your mouth without engaging your
(puny) brain.

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 05:42:07 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 08:41:34 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:


Funny how the only people complaining are the ones that have something
to hide.

I have nothing to hide and I'm complaining. So there you go, not it's
not just those complaining who have something to hide. Big brother is
watching. I personally DO NOT want my property shown online. Can I
stop them? NO.....

Now every criminal can look over our property...
We dont have any privacy anymore.

You never did. Google is doing nothing illegal or immoral.

Doing roadmaps was fine, but showing the actual buildings and land is
bull****. I'm waiting for a class action lawsuit to take place
because I'll join immediately.

So you too can lose your ass?

In article ,
" wrote:

O
You never did. Google is doing nothing illegal or immoral.
And I don't think it is fattening, so Google is entirely in the clear!

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

On Aug 3, 8:17*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:56:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:



On Aug 3, 12:45*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:
* "None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
* that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
* whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
* way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
* codes."

Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the aquifer" (ground
water). *

Nevermind, don't bother. We're done.

No, but your brain is well done. *Well beyond toast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ummm...you _do_ know that pools contain chemicals to keep it sanitary?

Harry K

If the chemicals in your pool are properly balanced, it should be
about the same as "city water". (2.5 - 3 PPM Chlorine and a pH a tad
over 7) Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap
water on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

re; "Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap water
on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?"

Since I started this arc, I'll answer that question: No.

Now I'll ask one: Do you know the difference between "the aquifer" and
"groundwater"?

Since it's clear you can't read, write, or think, I'll just ask you straight
up. What the **** are you yammering on about? *How is a pool going to "ruin an
aquifer"? *I was giving you a benefit of the doubt with "ground water". *

I don't need you to give me the "benefit of the doubt" - especially by
putting words in my mouth and then telling me I can't read my own
posts. How does someone become so arrogant that they can read a single
word, assume the person meant something other than what they wrote and
then berate them based on that incorrect assumption?

I specifically said in an earlier post "show me where I used the words
"contaminated groundwater"? I never wrote, meant or even implied
ground water. I never used the word "contaminated". I never mentioned
chemicals. You made an incorrect assumption and took off from there,
accusing me of not knowing what I wrote or meant.

You were wrong from the start and now you're in so deep you can't
climb out of the hole you dug for yourself.

Here are the words *you* used while trying to show us all just how
smart you a

"Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the
aquifer" (ground water)."

Now it's my turn to assume that *you* didn't know the difference
between "the aquifer" and "ground water". A person who knew the
difference certainly wouldn't use them both in a sentence as if they
meant the same thing, would they? Wouldn't they be considered
illiterate if they did? I can only assume that you didn't know the
difference until I suggested that you look it up. Hmmm...this "making
assumptions" thing is kind of fun. I can see why you do it.

Consider the possibility - however slim - that digging the hole for
the pool disturbs "an underground bed or layer of permeable rock,
sediment, or soil that yields water" (the definition of an aquifer,
not the definition of ground water) or the collapsing of the pool
bottom and the ensuing rush of water that washes away "an underground
bed or layer of permeable rock, sediment, or soil that yields
water" (the definition of an aquifer, not the definition of ground
water).

I really don't care if you think that is possible or not - but feel
free to tell me that it isn't - *after* you admit that you were flat
out wrong in assuming that I meant the pool could ruin the ground
water. Being told that I am wrong about something I actually meant is
very different than being told that I am wrong about something you
*assumed* I meant.

I never meant "ground water", regardless of how many times you try to
convince yourself that I did, and regardless of how much vulgar
language or how many insults you put in a post. If you think you have
some kind of power to read a post and decipher the *real* meaning of
the words someone used, you are sadly mistaken. How about next time
*asking* them what they meant before making an ass out of yourself?

You may now "posture", backpedal and toss a few choice insults my way,
because we can all be sure that you're not going to apologize for
being wrong in assuming you knew what I meant.

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:59:25 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Aug 3, 8:17*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:56:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:



On Aug 3, 12:45*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:
* "None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
* that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
* whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
* way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
* codes."

Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the aquifer" (ground
water). *

Nevermind, don't bother. We're done.

No, but your brain is well done. *Well beyond toast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ummm...you _do_ know that pools contain chemicals to keep it sanitary?

Harry K

If the chemicals in your pool are properly balanced, it should be
about the same as "city water". (2.5 - 3 PPM Chlorine and a pH a tad
over 7) Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap
water on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

re; "Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap water
on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?"

Since I started this arc, I'll answer that question: No.

Now I'll ask one: Do you know the difference between "the aquifer" and
"groundwater"?

Since it's clear you can't read, write, or think, I'll just ask you straight
up. What the **** are you yammering on about? *How is a pool going to "ruin an
aquifer"? *I was giving you a benefit of the doubt with "ground water". *

I don't need you to give me the "benefit of the doubt" - especially by
putting words in my mouth and then telling me I can't read my own
posts. How does someone become so arrogant that they can read a single
word, assume the person meant something other than what they wrote and
then berate them based on that incorrect assumption?

More posturing. You refuse to explain your *stupid* comments because, well,
you know they're stupid.

I specifically said in an earlier post "show me where I used the words
"contaminated groundwater"? I never wrote, meant or even implied
ground water. I never used the word "contaminated". I never mentioned
chemicals. You made an incorrect assumption and took off from there,
accusing me of not knowing what I wrote or meant.

Ditz, you said you didn't know what words to use. I gave you some more
choices. You never explained further, only yammer on about, well who knows
what?


You were wrong from the start and now you're in so deep you can't
climb out of the hole you dug for yourself.

I'm not the one who's neck deep in his "aquifer", dummy.

Here are the words *you* used while trying to show us all just how
smart you a

"Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the
aquifer" (ground water)."

Now it's my turn to assume that *you* didn't know the difference
between "the aquifer" and "ground water". A person who knew the
difference certainly wouldn't use them both in a sentence as if they
meant the same thing, would they? Wouldn't they be considered
illiterate if they did? I can only assume that you didn't know the
difference until I suggested that you look it up. Hmmm...this "making
assumptions" thing is kind of fun. I can see why you do it.

You snipped the part where *you* said you didn't know what words to use. BTW
ground water = aquifer.

Consider the possibility - however slim - that digging the hole for
the pool disturbs "an underground bed or layer of permeable rock,
sediment, or soil that yields water" (the definition of an aquifer,
not the definition of ground water) or the collapsing of the pool
bottom and the ensuing rush of water that washes away "an underground
bed or layer of permeable rock, sediment, or soil that yields
water" (the definition of an aquifer, not the definition of ground
water).

....and if pigs could fly, perhaps you'd be useful.

I really don't care if you think that is possible or not - but feel
free to tell me that it isn't - *after* you admit that you were flat
out wrong in assuming that I meant the pool could ruin the ground
water. Being told that I am wrong about something I actually meant is
very different than being told that I am wrong about something you
*assumed* I meant.

Of course you don't care. You're happy being the dumbest stump in the group.

I never meant "ground water", regardless of how many times you try to
convince yourself that I did, and regardless of how much vulgar
language or how many insults you put in a post. If you think you have
some kind of power to read a post and decipher the *real* meaning of
the words someone used, you are sadly mistaken. How about next time
*asking* them what they meant before making an ass out of yourself?

Ah, don't cry. Really, it's ok being the dumbest stump in the forest. Someone
has to be.

You may now "posture", backpedal and toss a few choice insults my way,
because we can all be sure that you're not going to apologize for
being wrong in assuming you knew what I meant.

More posturing. No content.

On Aug 3, 11:23*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:59:25 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:



On Aug 3, 8:17*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:56:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Aug 3, 12:45*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:
* "None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
* that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
* whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
* way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
* codes."

Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the aquifer" (ground
water). *

Nevermind, don't bother. We're done.

No, but your brain is well done. *Well beyond toast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ummm...you _do_ know that pools contain chemicals to keep it sanitary?

Harry K

If the chemicals in your pool are properly balanced, it should be
about the same as "city water". (2.5 - 3 PPM Chlorine and a pH a tad
over 7) Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap
water on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

re; "Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap water
on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?"

Since I started this arc, I'll answer that question: No.

Now I'll ask one: Do you know the difference between "the aquifer" and
"groundwater"?

Since it's clear you can't read, write, or think, I'll just ask you straight
up. What the **** are you yammering on about? *How is a pool going to "ruin an
aquifer"? *I was giving you a benefit of the doubt with "ground water". *

I don't need you to give me the "benefit of the doubt" - especially by
putting words in my mouth and then telling me I can't read my own
posts. How does someone become so arrogant that they can read a single
word, assume the person meant something other than what they wrote and
then berate them based on that incorrect assumption?

More posturing. *You refuse to explain your *stupid* comments because, well,
you know they're stupid.

I specifically said in an earlier post "show me where I used the words
"contaminated groundwater"? I never wrote, meant or even implied
ground water. I never used the word "contaminated". I never mentioned
chemicals. You made an incorrect assumption and took off from there,
accusing me of not knowing what I wrote or meant.

Ditz, you said you didn't know what words to use. *I gave you some more
choices. *You never explained further, only yammer on about, well who knows
what? *

You were wrong from the start and now you're in so deep you can't
climb out of the hole you dug for yourself.

I'm not the one who's neck deep in his "aquifer", dummy.

Here are the words *you* used while trying to show us all just how
smart you a

"Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the
aquifer" (ground water)."
Now it's my turn to assume that *you* didn't know the difference
between "the aquifer" and "ground water". A person who knew the
difference certainly wouldn't use them both in a sentence as if they
meant the same thing, would they? Wouldn't they be considered
illiterate if they did? I can only assume that you didn't know the
difference until I suggested that you look it up. Hmmm...this "making
assumptions" thing is kind of fun. I can see why you do it.

You snipped the part where *you* said you didn't know what words to use. *BTW
ground water = aquifer.

Consider the possibility - however slim - that digging the hole for
the pool disturbs "an underground bed or layer of permeable rock,
sediment, or soil that yields water" (the definition of an aquifer,
not the definition of ground water) or the collapsing of the pool
bottom and the ensuing rush of water that washes away "an underground
bed or layer of permeable rock, sediment, or soil that yields
water" (the definition of an aquifer, not the definition of ground
water).

...and if pigs could fly, perhaps you'd be useful.

I really don't care if you think that is possible or not - but feel
free to tell me that it isn't - *after* you admit that you were flat
out wrong in assuming that I meant the pool could ruin the ground
water. Being told that I am wrong about something I actually meant is
very different than being told that I am wrong about something you
*assumed* I meant.

Of course you don't care. *You're happy being the dumbest stump in the group.

I never meant "ground water", regardless of how many times you try to
convince yourself that I did, and regardless of how much vulgar
language or how many insults you put in a post. If you think you have
some kind of power to read a post and decipher the *real* meaning of
the words someone used, you are sadly mistaken. How about next time
*asking* them what they meant before making an ass out of yourself?

Ah, don't cry. *Really, it's ok being the dumbest stump in the forest. Someone
has to be.

You may now "posture", backpedal and toss a few choice insults my way,
because we can all be sure that you're not going to apologize for
being wrong in assuming you knew what I meant.

More posturing. *No content.

Pretty weak response.

"BTW ground water = aquifer."

http://tinyurl.com/define-aquifer

or

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&d...Q&ved=0CBIQkAE

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:45:24 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Aug 3, 11:23*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:59:25 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:



On Aug 3, 8:17*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:56:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Aug 3, 12:45*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:
* "None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
* that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
* whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
* way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
* codes."

Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the aquifer" (ground
water). *

Nevermind, don't bother. We're done.

No, but your brain is well done. *Well beyond toast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ummm...you _do_ know that pools contain chemicals to keep it sanitary?

Harry K

If the chemicals in your pool are properly balanced, it should be
about the same as "city water". (2.5 - 3 PPM Chlorine and a pH a tad
over 7) Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap
water on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

re; "Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap water
on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?"

Since I started this arc, I'll answer that question: No.

Now I'll ask one: Do you know the difference between "the aquifer" and
"groundwater"?

Since it's clear you can't read, write, or think, I'll just ask you straight
up. What the **** are you yammering on about? *How is a pool going to "ruin an
aquifer"? *I was giving you a benefit of the doubt with "ground water". *

I don't need you to give me the "benefit of the doubt" - especially by
putting words in my mouth and then telling me I can't read my own
posts. How does someone become so arrogant that they can read a single
word, assume the person meant something other than what they wrote and
then berate them based on that incorrect assumption?

More posturing. *You refuse to explain your *stupid* comments because, well,
you know they're stupid.

I specifically said in an earlier post "show me where I used the words
"contaminated groundwater"? I never wrote, meant or even implied
ground water. I never used the word "contaminated". I never mentioned
chemicals. You made an incorrect assumption and took off from there,
accusing me of not knowing what I wrote or meant.

Ditz, you said you didn't know what words to use. *I gave you some more
choices. *You never explained further, only yammer on about, well who knows
what? *

You were wrong from the start and now you're in so deep you can't
climb out of the hole you dug for yourself.

I'm not the one who's neck deep in his "aquifer", dummy.

Here are the words *you* used while trying to show us all just how
smart you a

"Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the
aquifer" (ground water)."
Now it's my turn to assume that *you* didn't know the difference
between "the aquifer" and "ground water". A person who knew the
difference certainly wouldn't use them both in a sentence as if they
meant the same thing, would they? Wouldn't they be considered
illiterate if they did? I can only assume that you didn't know the
difference until I suggested that you look it up. Hmmm...this "making
assumptions" thing is kind of fun. I can see why you do it.

You snipped the part where *you* said you didn't know what words to use. *BTW
ground water = aquifer.

Consider the possibility - however slim - that digging the hole for
the pool disturbs "an underground bed or layer of permeable rock,
sediment, or soil that yields water" (the definition of an aquifer,
not the definition of ground water) or the collapsing of the pool
bottom and the ensuing rush of water that washes away "an underground
bed or layer of permeable rock, sediment, or soil that yields
water" (the definition of an aquifer, not the definition of ground
water).

...and if pigs could fly, perhaps you'd be useful.

I really don't care if you think that is possible or not - but feel
free to tell me that it isn't - *after* you admit that you were flat
out wrong in assuming that I meant the pool could ruin the ground
water. Being told that I am wrong about something I actually meant is
very different than being told that I am wrong about something you
*assumed* I meant.

Of course you don't care. *You're happy being the dumbest stump in the group.

I never meant "ground water", regardless of how many times you try to
convince yourself that I did, and regardless of how much vulgar
language or how many insults you put in a post. If you think you have
some kind of power to read a post and decipher the *real* meaning of
the words someone used, you are sadly mistaken. How about next time
*asking* them what they meant before making an ass out of yourself?

Ah, don't cry. *Really, it's ok being the dumbest stump in the forest. Someone
has to be.

You may now "posture", backpedal and toss a few choice insults my way,
because we can all be sure that you're not going to apologize for
being wrong in assuming you knew what I meant.

More posturing. *No content.

Pretty weak response.

More posturing.

"BTW ground water = aquifer."

http://tinyurl.com/define-aquifer

or

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&d...Q&ved=0CBIQkAE

Only you would have to look up three syllable words.

On Aug 4, 12:32*am, "
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:45:24 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:



On Aug 3, 11:23*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:59:25 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Aug 3, 8:17*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:56:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Aug 3, 12:45*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:
* "None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
* that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
* whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
* way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
* codes."

Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the aquifer" (ground
water). *

Nevermind, don't bother. We're done.

No, but your brain is well done. *Well beyond toast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ummm...you _do_ know that pools contain chemicals to keep it sanitary?

Harry K

If the chemicals in your pool are properly balanced, it should be
about the same as "city water". (2.5 - 3 PPM Chlorine and a pH a tad
over 7) Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap
water on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

re; "Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap water
on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?"

Since I started this arc, I'll answer that question: No.

Now I'll ask one: Do you know the difference between "the aquifer" and
"groundwater"?

Since it's clear you can't read, write, or think, I'll just ask you straight
up. What the **** are you yammering on about? *How is a pool going to "ruin an
aquifer"? *I was giving you a benefit of the doubt with "ground water". *

I don't need you to give me the "benefit of the doubt" - especially by
putting words in my mouth and then telling me I can't read my own
posts. How does someone become so arrogant that they can read a single
word, assume the person meant something other than what they wrote and
then berate them based on that incorrect assumption?

More posturing. *You refuse to explain your *stupid* comments because, well,
you know they're stupid.

I specifically said in an earlier post "show me where I used the words
"contaminated groundwater"? I never wrote, meant or even implied
ground water. I never used the word "contaminated". I never mentioned
chemicals. You made an incorrect assumption and took off from there,
accusing me of not knowing what I wrote or meant.

Ditz, you said you didn't know what words to use. *I gave you some more
choices. *You never explained further, only yammer on about, well who knows
what? *

You were wrong from the start and now you're in so deep you can't
climb out of the hole you dug for yourself.

I'm not the one who's neck deep in his "aquifer", dummy.

Here are the words *you* used while trying to show us all just how
smart you a

"Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the
aquifer" (ground water)."
Now it's my turn to assume that *you* didn't know the difference
between "the aquifer" and "ground water". A person who knew the
difference certainly wouldn't use them both in a sentence as if they
meant the same thing, would they? Wouldn't they be considered
illiterate if they did? I can only assume that you didn't know the
difference until I suggested that you look it up. Hmmm...this "making
assumptions" thing is kind of fun. I can see why you do it.

You snipped the part where *you* said you didn't know what words to use. *BTW
ground water = aquifer.

Consider the possibility - however slim - that digging the hole for
the pool disturbs "an underground bed or layer of permeable rock,
sediment, or soil that yields water" (the definition of an aquifer,
not the definition of ground water) or the collapsing of the pool
bottom and the ensuing rush of water that washes away "an underground
bed or layer of permeable rock, sediment, or soil that yields
water" (the definition of an aquifer, not the definition of ground
water).

...and if pigs could fly, perhaps you'd be useful.

I really don't care if you think that is possible or not - but feel
free to tell me that it isn't - *after* you admit that you were flat
out wrong in assuming that I meant the pool could ruin the ground
water. Being told that I am wrong about something I actually meant is
very different than being told that I am wrong about something you
*assumed* I meant.

Of course you don't care. *You're happy being the dumbest stump in the group.

I never meant "ground water", regardless of how many times you try to
convince yourself that I did, and regardless of how much vulgar
language or how many insults you put in a post. If you think you have
some kind of power to read a post and decipher the *real* meaning of
the words someone used, you are sadly mistaken. How about next time
*asking* them what they meant before making an ass out of yourself?

Ah, don't cry. *Really, it's ok being the dumbest stump in the forest. Someone
has to be.

You may now "posture", backpedal and toss a few choice insults my way,
because we can all be sure that you're not going to apologize for
being wrong in assuming you knew what I meant.

More posturing. *No content.

Pretty weak response.

More posturing.

"BTW ground water = aquifer."

http://tinyurl.com/define-aquifer

or

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&d...ifer&sa=X&ei=G...

Only you would have to look up three syllable words.

Now you are really stretching. It's like you're not even trying
anymore.

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 21:54:12 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Aug 4, 12:32*am, "
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:45:24 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:



On Aug 3, 11:23*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:59:25 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Aug 3, 8:17*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:56:06 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Aug 3, 12:45*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:
* "None of this even considers the long term impact of "illegal pools"
* that lower property values when they collapse or ruin the aquifer (or
* whatever, no comments on the choice of words please) or in some other
* way cause problems when they get installed in conflict with local
* codes."

Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the aquifer" (ground
water). *

Nevermind, don't bother. We're done.

No, but your brain is well done. *Well beyond toast.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ummm...you _do_ know that pools contain chemicals to keep it sanitary?

Harry K

If the chemicals in your pool are properly balanced, it should be
about the same as "city water". (2.5 - 3 PPM Chlorine and a pH a tad
over 7) Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap
water on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

re; "Are you saying those people who pump 6,000 gallons of tap water
on their lawn once or twice a week are ruining the aquifer?"

Since I started this arc, I'll answer that question: No.

Now I'll ask one: Do you know the difference between "the aquifer" and
"groundwater"?

Since it's clear you can't read, write, or think, I'll just ask you straight
up. What the **** are you yammering on about? *How is a pool going to "ruin an
aquifer"? *I was giving you a benefit of the doubt with "ground water". *

I don't need you to give me the "benefit of the doubt" - especially by
putting words in my mouth and then telling me I can't read my own
posts. How does someone become so arrogant that they can read a single
word, assume the person meant something other than what they wrote and
then berate them based on that incorrect assumption?

More posturing. *You refuse to explain your *stupid* comments because, well,
you know they're stupid.

I specifically said in an earlier post "show me where I used the words
"contaminated groundwater"? I never wrote, meant or even implied
ground water. I never used the word "contaminated". I never mentioned
chemicals. You made an incorrect assumption and took off from there,
accusing me of not knowing what I wrote or meant.

Ditz, you said you didn't know what words to use. *I gave you some more
choices. *You never explained further, only yammer on about, well who knows
what? *

You were wrong from the start and now you're in so deep you can't
climb out of the hole you dug for yourself.

I'm not the one who's neck deep in his "aquifer", dummy.

Here are the words *you* used while trying to show us all just how
smart you a

"Now, you tell me how a swimming pool is going to "ruin the
aquifer" (ground water)."
Now it's my turn to assume that *you* didn't know the difference
between "the aquifer" and "ground water". A person who knew the
difference certainly wouldn't use them both in a sentence as if they
meant the same thing, would they? Wouldn't they be considered
illiterate if they did? I can only assume that you didn't know the
difference until I suggested that you look it up. Hmmm...this "making
assumptions" thing is kind of fun. I can see why you do it.

You snipped the part where *you* said you didn't know what words to use. *BTW
ground water = aquifer.

Consider the possibility - however slim - that digging the hole for
the pool disturbs "an underground bed or layer of permeable rock,
sediment, or soil that yields water" (the definition of an aquifer,
not the definition of ground water) or the collapsing of the pool
bottom and the ensuing rush of water that washes away "an underground
bed or layer of permeable rock, sediment, or soil that yields
water" (the definition of an aquifer, not the definition of ground
water).

...and if pigs could fly, perhaps you'd be useful.

I really don't care if you think that is possible or not - but feel
free to tell me that it isn't - *after* you admit that you were flat
out wrong in assuming that I meant the pool could ruin the ground
water. Being told that I am wrong about something I actually meant is
very different than being told that I am wrong about something you
*assumed* I meant.

Of course you don't care. *You're happy being the dumbest stump in the group.

I never meant "ground water", regardless of how many times you try to
convince yourself that I did, and regardless of how much vulgar
language or how many insults you put in a post. If you think you have
some kind of power to read a post and decipher the *real* meaning of
the words someone used, you are sadly mistaken. How about next time
*asking* them what they meant before making an ass out of yourself?

Ah, don't cry. *Really, it's ok being the dumbest stump in the forest. Someone
has to be.

You may now "posture", backpedal and toss a few choice insults my way,
because we can all be sure that you're not going to apologize for
being wrong in assuming you knew what I meant.

More posturing. *No content.

Pretty weak response.

More posturing.

"BTW ground water = aquifer."

http://tinyurl.com/define-aquifer

or

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&d...ifer&sa=X&ei=G...

Only you would have to look up three syllable words.

Now you are really stretching. It's like you're not even trying
anymore.

Not stretching at all. I don't need to try very hard when arguing with
someone with a single-digit IQ.