XPost: misc.consumers, misc.consumers.house   
   From: vze8f3tq@verizon.net   
      
   On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 12:06:20 -0500, someone wrote:   
      
   >  Same thing happened a few years ago to another house around   
   >here.  The landlord tried to clean it and lease it.   
   >Fortunately, the building inspector was a responsible type.   
   >The house is now history.  It must be removed all the way down   
   >to and including its foundation - for obvious human health   
   >reasons.   
   >   
   >  And so the next question: how honest is your government?   
   >Drive by in a few months.  If anyone is living there, your   
   >government is corrupt.   
   >   
   Huh?  1st part made sense.  2nd part doesn't.  "Corrupt"????  So if   
   the owner of the property goes ahead and rents it anyways, without   
   benefit of a permit, how is the GOVERNMENT "corrupt"?  Incompetent?   
   Unobservant?  You'd have to PROVE that the owner was in fact issued a   
   permit he didn't deserve, in exchange for a bribe, to show that a   
   particular person in the government is "corrupt".   
      
   And that is a long way and several steps beyond claiming that the mere   
   fact that someone is using the house means the "government" is   
   corrupt.   
      
   I also would like some demonstration as to why it is "obvious" that   
   the house has to come down to the foundation.  Spills happen and get   
   cleaned up with regularity without houses having to come down to the   
   foundation.  Presumably no oil spilled upstairs, so why take down the   
   whole house.   
      
   -v.   
      
      
   Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)