40-60% Ignore PA HI Law, per BBB

[Michael Larson]

Jim, your ad hominem is worse than Wills

It adds nothing to the discussion.

BTW-I consider the providing Home Inspections in another state without a license highly questionable.

It is unethical at least.

In this case the intent of the law is being circumvented period. I would not associate with such a person if I were a "used house salesmen"

Would you?

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

What a dope.

You cannot win the argument on the facts...so you must re-word my argument to fit your loosely assembled facts.

Your assertion in number 1 is false. It is either a blatant lie, or you are just as pathetically stupid as most people think. I never said it.

Your assertion in number 2 is false, Dufus. What I said is that the COE is not violated because Will Decker says the law has been broken. The COE is violated when the state...by some authority...says the law is broken. Since I do not have an Illinois license and the Illinois Licensing Board has no jurisdcition over me, they would have to pass on their complaint to the Illinois prosecutor and (if he felt he had sufficient evidence and a clearly interpretted law) he could prosecute me...in a court. But the COE is not violated because Will Decker says the law has been violated.

You still have not proved that number 3 is wrong. Your saying it is, is not enough.

Rather than go back and forth with you, could you please state your assertions, and their proofs, clearly and plainly.

I will not continue to try and punch cotton candy. You change your assertions all the time.

One time, just state your assertion, clearly and plainly, and provide your proof.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Rather than go back and forth with you, could you please state your assertions, and their proofs, clearly and plainly.

I will not continue to try and punch cotton candy. You change your assertions all the time.

One time, just state your assertion, clearly and plainly, and provide your proof.

I already have. Others understand them. You seem to be the one having the difficulty.

Go back and read the thread...or have someone read it to you.

Hope this help.

[William J. Decker]

Mike;

Maybe you could state, clearly and plainly, Jim's assertions.

He keeps changing the subject so much.

[Michael Larson]

40-60% Ignore PA HI... 8/14/08 5:53 PM love mom

Say hi to your mom. Tsk. Tsk Jim.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Mike;

Maybe you could state, clearly and plainly, Jim's assertions.

He keeps changing the subject so much.

Not IMHO

Reread the thread if you need to.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Jim, your ad hominem is worse than Wills

It adds nothing to the discussion.

BTW-I consider the providing Home Inspections in another state without a license highly questionable.

It is unethical at least.

In this case the intent of the law is being circumvented period. I would not associate with such a person if I were a "used house salesmen"

Would you?

First, Mike, I do not share Will's awe for his own opinions and thoughts....and am not hesitant to let him know.

One of his means of arguing his usually errant points is to take an opposing statement and reword it....incorrectly....but restated in such a way that his errant thoughts become applicable. I call him on it. Others don't.

There is nothing "unethical" about performing quality home inspections for consumers who need, appreciate and benefit by them, IMO. When a law is specific and prevents certain actions...those actions should not be performed. Where a law is vague and is open to interpretation...a businessman has the right to perform his business within his interpretation of a law until he is proven to be in violation of it. To this point, as hard as the guru of Illinois statutes has tried....he has yet to prove that this interpretation is considered by Illinois to be a violation of its law. We only know that Will does not like it and....well....who really gives a *****?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mlarson

40-60% Ignore PA HI... 8/14/08 5:53 PM love mom

Say hi to your mom. Tsk. Tsk Jim.

That's not from me.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jbushart

There is nothing "unethical" about performing quality home inspections for consumers who need, appreciate and benefit by them, IMO. When a law is specific and prevents certain actions...those actions should not be performed. Where a law is vague and is open to interpretation...a businessman has the right to perform his business within his interpretation of a law until he is proven to be in violation of it. To this point, as hard as the guru of Illinois statutes has tried....he has yet to prove that this interpretation is considered by Illinois to be a violation of its law. We only know that Will does not like it and....well....who really gives a *****?

I agree Will has not proved his case IMO

But subverting the intent of the law is unethical in MY opinion as I stated.

Perhaps your ethics are somewhat different.

The agents who use these guys certainly have poor ethics.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mlarson

I agree Will has not proved his case IMO

But subverting the intent of the law is unethical in MY opinion as I stated.

Perhaps your ethics are somewhat different.

The agents who use these guys certainly have poor ethics.

That is where we will have to agree to disagree.

It the intent is what makes something "unethical"...as you put it.... then a law that is pushed with the intent to (a) eliminate competition and/or (b) provide financial advantage to vendors of training and tests, or otherwise exploit the home inspector who is already in business would be "unethical".

More power to the ethical inspector who finds the means to conduct his business in spite of the unethical attempts to interfere with him.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jbushart

That's not from me.

My apologies.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

One of his means of arguing his usually errant points is to take an opposing statement and reword it....incorrectly....but restated in such a way that his errant thoughts become applicable. I call him on it. Others don't.

So, as I have asked (at least three times before), please state your assertion, clearly and plainly, and include any objective evidence you may have.

There is nothing "unethical" about performing quality home inspections for consumers who need, appreciate and benefit by them, IMO.

But, if you have done so, in violation of a state law, it is, at least, "un-ethical". What is your opinion?

When a law is specific and prevents certain actions...those actions should not be performed.

See here: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...License+Act%2E

and here: http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/...0sections.html

and, if it isn't clear, and you are a serious businessman, hire a lawyer to explain it to you. DO NOT TRY to interpret it for yourself. Just being prudent. (Besides, is your lawyer messes up and "interprets" it wrong and you get sued, you can hold him liable. They are REQUIRED to have E&O insurance. Hope this helps.)

Where a law is vague and is open to interpretation...

By who. Do you really think, Jim, that you are compitent to "interpret" the law? I am certainly not. That's why I have a lawyer.

a businessman has the right to perform his business within his interpretation of a law until he is proven to be in violation of it.

But, if he "interprets" it, with no knowledge of law and no lawyer to help him, he is a fool. Is he not?

To this point, as hard as the guru of Illinois statutes has tried....he has yet to prove that this interpretation is considered by Illinois to be a violation of its law. We only know that Will does not like it and....well....who really gives a *****?

Straw man arguement, Jim. I have made no interpretation. I don't even know what your assertion is.

And, I again ask you to:

1) Post, clearly and plainly, your assertion (which you have not), and
2) Post your objective proofs (which you have not), and
3) Post your answers to my proofs.

We are all waiting, Jim.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wdecker

We are all waiting, Jim.

Speak for yourself, Will, and read the thread. I have been consistent and clear. It is all there.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

That is where we will have to agree to disagree.

It the intent is what makes something "unethical"...as you put it.... then a law that is pushed with the intent to (a) eliminate competition and/or (b) provide financial advantage to vendors of training and tests, or otherwise exploit the home inspector who is already in business would be "unethical".

There is an implied, but not clearly stated, assertion in this statement.

Do you post it with the intent of further obviscating the issue?

Is there an implied connection to me, personally?

If so, either clearly state them (with proof) or abandon it. We already are waiting for you to clearly state your position (with evidence).

More power to the ethical inspector who finds the means to conduct his business in spite of the unethical attempts to interfere with him.

So, to teach is, somehow, unethical?

Please state your assertion, clearly and without innuendo.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Speak for yourself, Will, and read the thread. I have been consistent and clear. It is all there.

I will leave this question to be answered by others on this thread.

I, for one, and as the subject of your stalking, am very confused.

If you want to claim that you "won" because you confused me, go right ahead.

But, if you want to have an honest debate, and exchange of ideas, then you will have no problem with clearly stating your assertion.

I tried to restate them, after reading your prior posts (on this thread and others) but you complained. I was just giving you a chance to clarity and prove your assertion.

If you don't want to, cool.