|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 | ||||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts 
|
Tom, I did read the article, sorry I don't reread it with every post I make.
The point still stands, right and wrong don't suddenly change when you change location, any more than red becomes green.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
A more accurate heading for this thread would have been "Jailed for Contempt of Court", or "Jailed for Violating Cease and Desist Order."
The warped logic being used here would also apply to the following scenario: A man drops a gum wrapper on the ground and is cited for littering. He challenges this in court contending that the wind must have blown the wrapper out of the trash can. In court he repeatedly calls the judge a facist pig and is jailed for contempt. This makes the news. A poster reports this on the Café under the heading "Man jailed for littering." |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-08-06 14:22, Tom Cutts wrote: You said that his old shingles would "erode" under the new roof. You claim to have building code experience. Do you know ANYTHING about asphalt shingles? I live in a climate similar to Minnesota's. Our code allows us to shingle asphalt over asphalt. In fact, I did that very thing last fall. Where in the world do you get your idea that double shingling asphalt is going to cause damage to the neighbour's house? It is certainly possible that the building code violation is not mentioned in the article, which could change the discussion somewhat. From the evidence before us, there is no reason to believe that double shingling is of itself a safety concern for anyone. I did, however, find this pamphlet from Bloomington MN which says Quote:
According to the 2006 International Residential Code the state of Minnesota has been classified a moderate exposure for hail damage. As such, the code dictates that no overlay of asphalt shingles is allowed. All re-roofing projects will require the existing roof system be removed. So at least we have reference to the building code violation. Snooping around, it appears to be a consumer protection move, rather than a safety of the neighbourhood code. Quote:
Probably because we normally expect punishment to be in some way commensurate to the offense. If Mr. Estey's punishment is greater than the maximum allowable for DWI with no other considerations--as it is--one should expect that his offense is greater. I do not believe that it is, given the evidence I have seen. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts
|
Quote: Wow, no wonder you don't understand the world.
On 2011-08-06 15:07, gdw wrote: |
|||||||||
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts
|
John, you have proven to me that you see very well, or look very intently. At least not in this case so from what you've seen just about anything might be possible.
The code is clearly mentioned I the article. I guess you haven't actually read it. I've seen eroded asphalt shingles. I've walked on roofs with 'em. They don't last "forever". There you go again comparing apples and oranges. Your DWI comparison is bogus. It has no merit. The guy went to jail for ignoring a cease order. The guy went to jail for ignoring a cease order. The guy went to jail for ignoring a cease order. The guy went to jail for ignoring a cease order. The guy went to jail for ignoring a cease order. Is this getting through to you? The guy went to jail for ignoring a cease order. The guy went to jail for ignoring a cease order. The guy went to jail for ignoring a cease order. |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Instead of trying to "win" spend a minute and try to understand, Tom.
Nobody--not even Glenn--has at any point denied that he was fined and jailed for ignoring the court order AND for violating the building code. The question raised throughout is whether it was just. gdw (I think) was questioning the code itself. The original article questions the code, and questions the punishment. I have questioned the punishment. You are simply blowing smoke, Tom. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7016 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-08-06 13:06, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: he never has, why would he start now? |
|||||||||
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-08-06 16:22, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: :thumbsup:
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-08-06 20:00, magicfish wrote: Lol, really? Care to back that up?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-08-06 15:22, mastermindreader wrote: Your comparison is so far off the mark. He was given an order to cease shingling over his shingles. He continued shingling. He was jailed. What you are saying is even more like what I said before, claiming that a man jailed after committing murder was not jailed for killing, but for violating an order not to kill.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
No, Glenn. It is your logic that is totally off the mark. Your murder analogy didn't make sense the first time you posted it and it makes no more sense now.
The man was not jailed for shingling his roof. |
|||||||||
|
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2011-08-06 20:45, mastermindreader wrote: No, he was jailed for violating an order to not shingle his roof, by shingling his roof . . .
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts
|
Quote: oh I'm not trying to win. Other have pointed out that is a hopeless cause against the misleading, inaccurate gossip spreaders. I'm just try to keep the scales level, give the truth a fair chance at being heard over the propaganda bullhorn.
On 2011-08-06 16:22, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: So John, please try to understand when you or anyone posts the inaccurate claim that this guy was JAILED for shingling his roof, someone may step forward to correct you, as several here have. You cling to "questioning the code" and just punishment, but you are woefully misled and/or misleading in such claims. The guy went to jail for ignoring a cease order. Arguing the code about why he went to jail is like dancing about architecture, as they say. |
|||||||||
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts
|
Quote: Sorry Glenn, you are still wrong, or is that you are more wrong. That might be it. Listen you more wrong, he wasn't jailed for shingling.
On 2011-08-06 20:56, gdw wrote: The guy went to jail for ignoring a cease order. If one were to adopt your more wrong ideas the accurate, the ACCURATE comparison would be you claiming a murderer wasn't jailed for murder, but rather discharging a firearm in city limits. So there is the accurate analogy using your illogic, and is still more wrong thinking. The guy went to jail for ignoring a cease order. |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
John, you're entirely too rational for this world.
Going back to your point, for those of us who agree that the sentencing comparison is out of whack, that doesn't in and of itself tell us that the Mad Roofer's sentence is inappropriate; the disparity could be the result of a far-too-lenient framework for sentencing first offense drunk drivers.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Bill Hallahan Inner circle New Hampshire 3226 Posts
|
I was curious, so I did some research. Unfortunately, the building code documents that I read didn't make the reason for all of the rules clear.
However, I think I know why shingles on shingles isn't allowed. I found a site that stated that only four roofing nails will hold properly installed shingles if the winds are below 110 miles per hour (mph), but if over 110 mph, 6 nails must be used. With shingles on shingles, the nails can't go in as deeply, so perhaps the shingles would blow off in high winds. There's a famous picture of a piece of straw that punctured right through a telephone pole during a hurricane. Flat shingles would be similar to razor blades if they his something at the right angle at high speed. That is just conjecture, but it's currently my best guess as to the reason for that code. I'll keep looking.
Humans make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to create boredom. Quite astonishing.
- The character of ‘Death’ in the movie "Hogswatch" |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Sounds like a logical possibility, Bill.
But to put the argument yet another way - The man was improperly shingling his roof in violation of the building code. (If he was shingling in accordance with the code there would have been no problem.) He was told he couldn't continue. He continued to do so anyway, still in violation of the code. The court issued a cease and desist order. He ignored it and continued to shingle. He was jailed for violation of the order. Had he wished to shingle legally, all he had to do was comply with the code. If he didn't agree with the code, he could have asked for a hearing after receiving the cease and desist order. He chose not to and proceeded to openly defy the court. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Jailed for shingling over his roof. » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 | ||||||||||
Posted: Aug 6, 2011 07:07 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|