On 26/06/2015 10:51 AM, Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:40:25 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Bruce" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:20:03 +1000, Jeßus
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Well, that's you. I'm not into drinking or chocolate
>>>>
>>>> I just can't eat seafood. The smell of it is so bad to me that I
>>>> can't get past it.
>>>>
>>>> We just don't eat like that. Rarely an appetizer and never dessert
>>>>
>>>> One would think I would like it but I just for the most part do not
>>>> like that cut of meat
>>>>
>>>> I have made foil packets with cube steak that husband and daughter
>>>> liked but I found boring because the only seasonings were salt, pepper
>>>> and onion
>>>>
>>>> I hate getting a huge plate of food
>>>>
>>>> I just wouldn't eat any other fries. Now the fries are not good.
>>>>
>>>> Oh. I don't really care for either but I'm not a big chip eater
>>>>
>>>> I don't like most Chinese food to begin with so I know I would not
>>>> like the leftovers.
>>>>
>>>> I just do not like the seasonings.
>>>>
>>>> I have never liked most pizza and never hot pizza.
>>>> I would also never go to a restaurant for pizza."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the best one of all:
>>>>
>>>> "Teaching kids is a necessary thing. Not a fun one. Working for a
>>>> charity is not necessary but also not necessarily a fun thing. None
>>>> of my friends make music and I don't find making music to be fun.
>>>> Helping people is not fun either and may or may not be necessary.
>>>> Growing plants is not fun. I have no idea what upcycling furniture is
>>>> but I doubt that it would be fun and none of those other things are
>>>> either. Not in my book anyway. If that's your idea of fun, I do feel
>>>> sorry for you"
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> At least 12 dislikes in two days. More than I could manage in several
>>>> lifetimes. This is way beyond reasonable or normal. No, I couldn't
>>>> care less if you object to this post.
>>>
>>> Do you have someone in your household who you can talk to about your
>>> obsession? I think it's becoming rather urgent.
>>>
>>
>> He has obviously got a problem. And may I point out that I don't really
>> like him!
>
> It's a good thing he lives on the other side of the world. Otherwise
> he'd be going through your garbage bin and hiding under your bed soon.
>
He's threatened to beat me up if only he knew where I lived! Maybe he
would do the same to Julie for, I must say, his obsession with her seems
far more deep seated than his is with me.

--

Xeno

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 8:03:14 AM UTC-4, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:13:16 PM UTC-4, Je�us wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
> >
> > You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>
> She might be upside-down on the mortgage. Lots of people still are.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
> ---
>
> Nope. But we did refinance and signed papers not to sell for 5 years. But
> the bigger issue is that the house is not up to code and probably never will
> be. The price we paid was based on getting some work done to get it up to
> code. Unfortunately, the guy who said he could do this for $2,000 was
> somehow connected to the real estate agent and when he came back, he fled
> quickly, telling me that he would contact my husband, which he never did.
> He would also not return our calls and when I pointed this out to the real
> estate agent, she just said she was sorry He muttered something about how
> he thought he could do it but then his partner said it would be at least
> $10,000 and even at that it still might not be up to code. Something about
> how if I fire started, the house would burn down if this wasn't fixed.
> Oddly enough, a fire did start in that very area (the garage) but I happened
> to be walking through there as it happened, due to a ballast burning in a
> light fixture. That has since been fixed but the initial problem has not
> been and probably never will be. I expect due to all the screw ups in this
> house that to get it to code it would need to be rewired plus the additional
> $10,000 plus.

And the Saga just goes on and on and on.............

I feel another limerick coming on.

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 12:21:59 AM UTC-4, Julie Bove wrote:

> Isn't that lovely. You go right ahead and pump people full of carcinogens.
> We don't eat BBQ here.

Nah... just drink oceans of soda.

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 8:03:14 AM UTC-4, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:13:16 PM UTC-4, Je�us wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
> >
> > You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>
> She might be upside-down on the mortgage. Lots of people still are.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
> ---
>
> Nope. But we did refinance and signed papers not to sell for 5 years. But
> the bigger issue is that the house is not up to code and probably never will
> be.

I don't know what it's like in your jurisdiction, but existing houses
don't have to be code-compliant in order to sell in Michigan. Any
new work is expected to be up to code, but stuff that was done in
1948 (in the case of my house) is grandfathered.

If it's indeed the law in Washington state that houses must
be brought up to code before sale, it must be a terrific
windfall for the building trades.

Cindy Hamilton

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 07:51:56 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 8:03:14 AM UTC-4, Julie Bove wrote:
>> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:13:16 PM UTC-4, Je?us wrote:
>> > On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
>> >
>> > You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>>
>> She might be upside-down on the mortgage. Lots of people still are.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Nope. But we did refinance and signed papers not to sell for 5 years. But
>> the bigger issue is that the house is not up to code and probably never will
>> be.
>
>I don't know what it's like in your jurisdiction, but existing houses
>don't have to be code-compliant in order to sell in Michigan. Any
>new work is expected to be up to code, but stuff that was done in
>1948 (in the case of my house) is grandfathered.
>
>If it's indeed the law in Washington state that houses must
>be brought up to code before sale, it must be a terrific
>windfall for the building trades.

If houses had to be up to code before sale where I live, all of the
beautiful century homes would end up vacant and abandoned.

Doris

On 2015-06-30 12:19 PM, Janet B wrote:

>> I object to the insertion of the word saga in place of the word
>> trolling. I call a dictionary foul.
>>
>> Just sayin'. ;-)
>
> Well, according to Wiki:
> "Saga can also be a work of fantasy fiction."
> I declare no foul

With the subject of the thread it is more like "historical fiction". It
is set in a time and place and there is a plot that is incidental to the
time period and actual events but is mainly fiction.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:13:16 PM UTC-4, Je�us wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
>>
>> You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>
>She might be upside-down on the mortgage. Lots of people still are.

May not be any mortgage, lots of people ready to retire own their
homes free and clear but in this market would have to take so large a
loss they couldn't buy a comparable home elsewhere.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 05:03:00 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
>On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:13:16 PM UTC-4, Je�us wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
>>
>> You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>
>She might be upside-down on the mortgage. Lots of people still are.
>
>Cindy Hamilton
>
>---
>
>Nope. But we did refinance and signed papers not to sell for 5 years. But
>the bigger issue is that the house is not up to code and probably never will
>be. The price we paid was based on getting some work done to get it up to
>code. Unfortunately, the guy who said he could do this for $2,000 was
>somehow connected to the real estate agent and when he came back, he fled
>quickly, telling me that he would contact my husband, which he never did.
>He would also not return our calls and when I pointed this out to the real
>estate agent, she just said she was sorry He muttered something about how
>he thought he could do it but then his partner said it would be at least
>$10,000 and even at that it still might not be up to code. Something about
>how if I fire started, the house would burn down if this wasn't fixed.
>Oddly enough, a fire did start in that very area (the garage) but I happened
>to be walking through there as it happened, due to a ballast burning in a
>light fixture. That has since been fixed but the initial problem has not
>been and probably never will be. I expect due to all the screw ups in this
>house that to get it to code it would need to be rewired plus the additional
>$10,000 plus.

A strange story... anywhere I've lived a house couldn't be sold unless
it meets local code or the town clerk wouldn't approve/record the
sale. Also no bank would give a mortgage for a house that doesn't
meet local code, nor could it obtain homeowners insurance and no bank
would lend without it being insured. People contract to purchase
trashed foreclosures all the time but there'd be no closing without
all the repairs made and the house meets code, and those are inspected
even more critically, same for a GI mortgage. Bove, your story smells
like rotten fish If you can't sell it's because you don't own that
house, you're obviously renting, no if, and, or buts about it, your
fercocktah story says tenant. In fact every complaint you've made
about that house reeks TENANT!

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:06:44 -0400, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 05:03:00 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

snip
>>---
>>
>>Nope. But we did refinance and signed papers not to sell for 5 years. But
>>the bigger issue is that the house is not up to code and probably never will
>>be. The price we paid was based on getting some work done to get it up to
>>code. Unfortunately, the guy who said he could do this for $2,000 was
>>somehow connected to the real estate agent and when he came back, he fled
>>quickly, telling me that he would contact my husband, which he never did.
>>He would also not return our calls and when I pointed this out to the real
>>estate agent, she just said she was sorry He muttered something about how
>>he thought he could do it but then his partner said it would be at least
>>$10,000 and even at that it still might not be up to code. Something about
>>how if I fire started, the house would burn down if this wasn't fixed.
>>Oddly enough, a fire did start in that very area (the garage) but I happened
>>to be walking through there as it happened, due to a ballast burning in a
>>light fixture. That has since been fixed but the initial problem has not
>>been and probably never will be. I expect due to all the screw ups in this
>>house that to get it to code it would need to be rewired plus the additional
>>$10,000 plus.
>
>A strange story... anywhere I've lived a house couldn't be sold unless
>it meets local code or the town clerk wouldn't approve/record the
>sale. Also no bank would give a mortgage for a house that doesn't
>meet local code, nor could it obtain homeowners insurance and no bank
>would lend without it being insured. People contract to purchase
>trashed foreclosures all the time but there'd be no closing without
>all the repairs made and the house meets code, and those are inspected
>even more critically, same for a GI mortgage.
snip
Sheldon, All of what you said applies here as well.
Janet US

On 6/29/2015 7:13 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
>
> You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>
Interesting how she thinks it would be so easy for me to sell my "free"
house yet she can't sell hers. At least my house isn't a crappy house
that isn't up to code. Strange that they even qualified for a mortgage
considering it's right out of Mother Goose:

"There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile,
He found a crooked sixpence against a crooked stile;
He bought a crooked cat which caught a crooked mouse,
And they all lived together in a little crooked house."

Jill

On 6/30/2015 8:28 AM, Kalmia wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 12:21:59 AM UTC-4, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> Isn't that lovely. You go right ahead and pump people full of carcinogens.
>> We don't eat BBQ here.
>
> Nah... just drink oceans of soda.
>
LOL But it's *diet* soda!

Jill

On 6/30/2015 7:57 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Nellie" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 9:21:59 PM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
>> "Nellie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 12:26:46 AM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> And FOAD to you!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Aw, Julie, I won't be able to F*&@ off and die today. I have too many
>> > necessary things to do to get ready
>> > for our annual Fourth of July bbq. I've mentioned it here before,
>> but > it
>> > is one of four biggees that we have here and I love to cook lots of
>> > crowd
>> > pleasers. Everyone has a good time and they keep coming back, I
>> think > that
>> > speaks volumes.
>> >
>> > So many lazy, juvenile people will be here to have some fun and
>> laughs > and
>> > to enjoy each others' company (and not a Lego in sight) : )
>>
>> Isn't that lovely. You go right ahead and pump people full of
>> carcinogens.
>> We don't eat BBQ here.
>
>
>
> Of course you don't. We all know that carcinogens and BBQs are not the
> issue here, LOL. "Pump people
> full of carcinogens,"says she whose family is constantly sick. To the
> point that you lay in sacks of (cheap) rice for those occasions. I
> can't remember when the last time any of us were sick, at least five
> years, probably more. But that's not the point is it?
>
> Anyhow, it has been fun parrying with you. Have a good week!
>
> Nellie
>
> ---
>
> I lay in sacks of cheap rice? Hardly. I did say that when someone was
> sick as in stomach issues, I will make them cheap rice. Probably none
> of you have food intolerances either.
>
> Once again, Nellie, you are just trying to prove that you are superior.

When it comes to food I think Nellie is this so-called "superior". I
doubt she lives on rice and beans even if she isn't feeling well. I'd
be willing to bet she handles raw chicken and makes actual chicken broth
or stock from the real deal rather than opening a carton or a can.

Nellie probably doesn't have constant issues with buying bread or
produce that doesn't mold or rot or is somehow otherwise funky. It's
true: most "superior" people don't have those issues.

Jill

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:13:16 PM UTC-4, Je�us wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
>>
>> You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>
>She might be upside-down on the mortgage. Lots of people still are.

Oh well, they don't own the house in that case.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:33:04 -0400, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:13:16 PM UTC-4, Je�us wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
>>>
>>> You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>>
>>She might be upside-down on the mortgage. Lots of people still are.
>
>May not be any mortgage, lots of people ready to retire own their
>homes free and clear but in this market would have to take so large a
>loss they couldn't buy a comparable home elsewhere.

But wouldn't homes 'elsewhere' be equally or similarly devalued in
that situation?

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:21:48 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"Nellie" > wrote in message
...
>> On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 12:26:46 AM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
>>> ---
>>>
>>> And FOAD to you!
>>
>> Aw, Julie, I won't be able to F*&@ off and die today. I have too many
>> necessary things to do to get ready
>> for our annual Fourth of July bbq. I've mentioned it here before, but it
>> is one of four biggees that we have here and I love to cook lots of crowd
>> pleasers. Everyone has a good time and they keep coming back, I think that
>> speaks volumes.
>>
>> So many lazy, juvenile people will be here to have some fun and laughs and
>> to enjoy each others' company (and not a Lego in sight) : )
>
>Isn't that lovely. You go right ahead and pump people full of carcinogens.
>We don't eat BBQ here.

10 cans of diet soda per day.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:09:04 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 6/29/2015 7:13 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
>>
>> You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>>
>Interesting how she thinks it would be so easy for me to sell my "free"
>house yet she can't sell hers. At least my house isn't a crappy house
>that isn't up to code. Strange that they even qualified for a mortgage
>considering it's right out of Mother Goose:
>
>"There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile,
>He found a crooked sixpence against a crooked stile;
>He bought a crooked cat which caught a crooked mouse,
>And they all lived together in a little crooked house."

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-06-30 12:19 PM, Janet B wrote:
>
>>> I object to the insertion of the word saga in place of the word
>>> trolling. I call a dictionary foul.
>>>
>>> Just sayin'. ;-)
>>
>> Well, according to Wiki:
>> "Saga can also be a work of fantasy fiction."
>> I declare no foul
>
> With the subject of the thread it is more like "historical fiction". It is
> set in a time and place and there is a plot that is incidental to the time
> period and actual events but is mainly fiction.

There's no fiction.
>

"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 8:03:14 AM UTC-4, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:13:16 PM UTC-4, Je�us wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
> >
> > You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>
> She might be upside-down on the mortgage. Lots of people still are.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
> ---
>
> Nope. But we did refinance and signed papers not to sell for 5 years. But
> the bigger issue is that the house is not up to code and probably never
> will
> be.

I don't know what it's like in your jurisdiction, but existing houses
don't have to be code-compliant in order to sell in Michigan. Any
new work is expected to be up to code, but stuff that was done in
1948 (in the case of my house) is grandfathered.

If it's indeed the law in Washington state that houses must
be brought up to code before sale, it must be a terrific
windfall for the building trades.

Cindy Hamilton

---

I don't think it's the law but nobody would buy a house that is not up to
code. We only bought it because there was little else in our price range
and we thought that for another $2,000 it could be up to code. What we
probably should have done was sue the contractor but my husband would not do
that. Then again there is no way of knowing if we would have won or if he
would have paid us if we did. Likely not.

"Janet B" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:06:44 -0400, Brooklyn1
> > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 05:03:00 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:
>
> snip
>>>---
>>>
>>>Nope. But we did refinance and signed papers not to sell for 5 years.
>>>But
>>>the bigger issue is that the house is not up to code and probably never
>>>will
>>>be. The price we paid was based on getting some work done to get it up
>>>to
>>>code. Unfortunately, the guy who said he could do this for $2,000 was
>>>somehow connected to the real estate agent and when he came back, he fled
>>>quickly, telling me that he would contact my husband, which he never did.
>>>He would also not return our calls and when I pointed this out to the
>>>real
>>>estate agent, she just said she was sorry He muttered something about
>>>how
>>>he thought he could do it but then his partner said it would be at least
>>>$10,000 and even at that it still might not be up to code. Something
>>>about
>>>how if I fire started, the house would burn down if this wasn't fixed.
>>>Oddly enough, a fire did start in that very area (the garage) but I
>>>happened
>>>to be walking through there as it happened, due to a ballast burning in a
>>>light fixture. That has since been fixed but the initial problem has not
>>>been and probably never will be. I expect due to all the screw ups in
>>>this
>>>house that to get it to code it would need to be rewired plus the
>>>additional
>>>$10,000 plus.
>>
>>A strange story... anywhere I've lived a house couldn't be sold unless
>>it meets local code or the town clerk wouldn't approve/record the
>>sale. Also no bank would give a mortgage for a house that doesn't
>>meet local code, nor could it obtain homeowners insurance and no bank
>>would lend without it being insured. People contract to purchase
>>trashed foreclosures all the time but there'd be no closing without
>>all the repairs made and the house meets code, and those are inspected
>>even more critically, same for a GI mortgage.
> snip
> Sheldon, All of what you said applies here as well.
> Janet US

Ours is financed through Navy Federal and it's a VA mortgage. Despite it
not being up to code, it did pass inspection.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/30/2015 8:28 AM, Kalmia wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 12:21:59 AM UTC-4, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't that lovely. You go right ahead and pump people full of
>>> carcinogens.
>>> We don't eat BBQ here.
>>
>> Nah... just drink oceans of soda.
>>
> LOL But it's *diet* soda!

And not a known carcinogen like BBQ is.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/29/2015 7:13 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
>>
>> You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>>
> Interesting how she thinks it would be so easy for me to sell my "free"
> house yet she can't sell hers. At least my house isn't a crappy house
> that isn't up to code. Strange that they even qualified for a mortgage
> considering it's right out of Mother Goose:
>
> "There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile,
> He found a crooked sixpence against a crooked stile;
> He bought a crooked cat which caught a crooked mouse,
> And they all lived together in a little crooked house."

Please quit lying. You never heard me say that it would be easy for you or
anyone else to sell their house.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/30/2015 7:57 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> "Nellie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 9:21:59 PM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
>>> "Nellie" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 12:26:46 AM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> ---
>>> >>
>>> >> And FOAD to you!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Aw, Julie, I won't be able to F*&@ off and die today. I have too many
>>> > necessary things to do to get ready
>>> > for our annual Fourth of July bbq. I've mentioned it here before,
>>> but > it
>>> > is one of four biggees that we have here and I love to cook lots of
>>> > crowd
>>> > pleasers. Everyone has a good time and they keep coming back, I
>>> think > that
>>> > speaks volumes.
>>> >
>>> > So many lazy, juvenile people will be here to have some fun and
>>> laughs > and
>>> > to enjoy each others' company (and not a Lego in sight) : )
>>>
>>> Isn't that lovely. You go right ahead and pump people full of
>>> carcinogens.
>>> We don't eat BBQ here.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course you don't. We all know that carcinogens and BBQs are not the
>> issue here, LOL. "Pump people
>> full of carcinogens,"says she whose family is constantly sick. To the
>> point that you lay in sacks of (cheap) rice for those occasions. I
>> can't remember when the last time any of us were sick, at least five
>> years, probably more. But that's not the point is it?
>>
>> Anyhow, it has been fun parrying with you. Have a good week!
>>
>> Nellie
>>
>> ---
>>
>> I lay in sacks of cheap rice? Hardly. I did say that when someone was
>> sick as in stomach issues, I will make them cheap rice. Probably none
>> of you have food intolerances either.
>>
>> Once again, Nellie, you are just trying to prove that you are superior.
>
> When it comes to food I think Nellie is this so-called "superior". I
> doubt she lives on rice and beans even if she isn't feeling well. I'd be
> willing to bet she handles raw chicken and makes actual chicken broth or
> stock from the real deal rather than opening a carton or a can.
>
> Nellie probably doesn't have constant issues with buying bread or produce
> that doesn't mold or rot or is somehow otherwise funky. It's true: most
> "superior" people don't have those issues.

Nellie also puts green bean casserole outside. Once I heard that, I don't
care to hear anything else of what Nellie does with food. That was
disgusting enough. She likely eats the mold and doesn't care.

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
>>On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:13:16 PM UTC-4, Je�us wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
>>>
>>> You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>>
>>She might be upside-down on the mortgage. Lots of people still are.
>
> Oh well, they don't own the house in that case.

Why would you say that? Upside down simply means that the house is worth
less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be upside down.

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:33:04 -0400, Brooklyn1
> > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:13:16 PM UTC-4, Je�us wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
>>>>
>>>> You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>>>
>>>She might be upside-down on the mortgage. Lots of people still are.
>>
>>May not be any mortgage, lots of people ready to retire own their
>>homes free and clear but in this market would have to take so large a
>>loss they couldn't buy a comparable home elsewhere.
>
> But wouldn't homes 'elsewhere' be equally or similarly devalued in
> that situation?

Whatever is going on with homes elsewhere wouldn't apply in terms of value.

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:42:07 +1000, Jeßus >
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:21:48 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Nellie" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 12:26:46 AM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> And FOAD to you!
>>>>
>>>> Aw, Julie, I won't be able to F*&@ off and die today. I have too many
>>>> necessary things to do to get ready
>>>> for our annual Fourth of July bbq. I've mentioned it here before, but
>>>> it
>>>> is one of four biggees that we have here and I love to cook lots of
>>>> crowd
>>>> pleasers. Everyone has a good time and they keep coming back, I think
>>>> that
>>>> speaks volumes.
>>>>
>>>> So many lazy, juvenile people will be here to have some fun and laughs
>>>> and
>>>> to enjoy each others' company (and not a Lego in sight) : )
>>>
>>>Isn't that lovely. You go right ahead and pump people full of
>>>carcinogens.
>>>We don't eat BBQ here.
>>
>>10 cans of diet soda per day.
>
> Historically speaking, what's the trend? Does the number go up or
> down? And have you also investigated whether the brand of diet soda
> has changed over time? Interesting stuff.

At home I almost always drink diet Coke with Lime. If we are out, I will
have a plain diet Coke. Never Pepsi or anything sweetened with Splenda.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:22:33 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:13:16 PM UTC-4, Je�us wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
>>>>
>>>> You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>>>
>>>She might be upside-down on the mortgage. Lots of people still are.
>>
>> Oh well, they don't own the house in that case.
>
>Why would you say that?

Because it is under finance, and because you said you can't sell it
even if you wanted to due to the terms of the finance. I know many
people love the illusion of having ownership whilst also having a
mortgage, but by most criteria it isn't the case in real life.

>Upside down simply means that the house is worth
>less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be upside down.

But presumably allowed to still sell it?

On 2015-06-30 2:21 PM, Bruce wrote:

>
> Isn't it characteristic for a troll that they know they're trolling?
> Jebus probably honestly thinks he's doing a good thing by warning the
> world for Julie.

Maybe he isn't doing it well enough because there are still people here
to are replying to her occasionally as if she were sane and keep finding
themselves in her maze of reasons for rejecting advice.

On 2015-06-30 5:38 PM, wrote:

> But wouldn't homes 'elsewhere' be equally or similarly devalued in
> that situation?


My cousin in in the real estate business in the Georgian Bay area of
Ontario. There is a boom in the local market and lots of big luxury
homes being built in what used to be mostly cottages and and ski
chalets. Most of his clients are newly retired couples who sold their
city homes, but larger, nicer homes up there and still ended up with
cash in their pockets.

"Julie Bove" > wrote:
> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:13:16 PM UTC-4, Je�us wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
>>>>
>>>> You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>>>
>>> She might be upside-down on the mortgage. Lots of people still are.
>>
>> Oh well, they don't own the house in that case.
>
> Why would you say that? Upside down simply means that the house is worth
> less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be upside down.

That is completely incorrect. Being "upside down" only refers to owing
more than you can sell it for. If you own it outright, the term does not
apply.
--
jinx the minx

On 2015-06-30 7:30 PM, jinx the minx wrote:
> "Julie Bove" > wrote:

>> Why would you say that? Upside down simply means that the house is worth
>> less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be upside down.
>
> That is completely incorrect. Being "upside down" only refers to owing
> more than you can sell it for. If you own it outright, the term does not
> apply.
>


Add that to the list of things she doesn't know about and refuses to
look up before further insisting that she is right. "Upside down" means
there is negative equity, the property is less than the outstanding
balance on the loan. If the mortgage is paid off and the deed is free
and clear, it may well be less than the original price, but there is no
debt on it so there is no "upside down".

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:58:01 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2015-06-30 2:21 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>> Isn't it characteristic for a troll that they know they're trolling?
>> Jebus probably honestly thinks he's doing a good thing by warning the
>> world for Julie.
>
>Maybe he isn't doing it well enough because there are still people here
>to are replying to her occasionally as if she were sane and keep finding
>themselves in her maze of reasons for rejecting advice.

I reply to Julie because it's entertaining and I get further
bemusement on what Julie will come up with next. Not for any of the
child-like reasoning the 'bruce' troll seems limited to.

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:22:33 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:13:16 PM UTC-4, Je�us wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
>>>>
>>>>She might be upside-down on the mortgage. Lots of people still are.
>>>
>>> Oh well, they don't own the house in that case.
>>
>>Why would you say that?
>
> Because it is under finance, and because you said you can't sell it
> even if you wanted to due to the terms of the finance. I know many
> people love the illusion of having ownership whilst also having a
> mortgage, but by most criteria it isn't the case in real life.
>
>>Upside down simply means that the house is worth
>>less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be upside down.
>
> But presumably allowed to still sell it?

Allowed to yes. But not everyone is in the position to lose a lot of money
nor do they want to.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-06-30 7:30 PM, jinx the minx wrote:
>> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>
>>> Why would you say that? Upside down simply means that the house is
>>> worth
>>> less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be upside
>>> down.
>>
>> That is completely incorrect. Being "upside down" only refers to owing
>> more than you can sell it for. If you own it outright, the term does not
>> apply.
>>
>
>
> Add that to the list of things she doesn't know about and refuses to look
> up before further insisting that she is right. "Upside down" means there
> is negative equity, the property is less than the outstanding balance on
> the loan. If the mortgage is paid off and the deed is free and clear, it
> may well be less than the original price, but there is no debt on it so
> there is no "upside down".

I am pretty sure that it also means that it is worth less than what was
paid.

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:21:48 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Nellie" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 12:26:46 AM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> And FOAD to you!
>>>
>>> Aw, Julie, I won't be able to F*&@ off and die today. I have too many
>>> necessary things to do to get ready
>>> for our annual Fourth of July bbq. I've mentioned it here before, but
>>> it
>>> is one of four biggees that we have here and I love to cook lots of
>>> crowd
>>> pleasers. Everyone has a good time and they keep coming back, I think
>>> that
>>> speaks volumes.
>>>
>>> So many lazy, juvenile people will be here to have some fun and laughs
>>> and
>>> to enjoy each others' company (and not a Lego in sight) : )
>>
>>Isn't that lovely. You go right ahead and pump people full of
>>carcinogens.
>>We don't eat BBQ here.
>
> 10 cans of diet soda per day.

And it's not a carcinogen!

On 6/30/2015 8:58 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Dave Smith" > wrote

>> On 2015-06-30 7:30 PM, jinx the minx wrote:
>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>>
>>>> Why would you say that? Upside down simply means that the house is
>>>> worth
>>>> less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be upside
>>>> down.
>>>
>>> That is completely incorrect. Being "upside down" only refers to owing
>>> more than you can sell it for. If you own it outright, the term does
>>> not
>>> apply.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Add that to the list of things she doesn't know about and refuses to
>> look up before further insisting that she is right. "Upside down"
>> means there is negative equity, the property is less than the
>> outstanding balance on the loan.

> I am pretty sure that it also means that it is worth less than what was
> paid.

Absolutely incorrect.

nancy

On 6/30/2015 5:38 PM, wrote:

>>
>> May not be any mortgage, lots of people ready to retire own their
>> homes free and clear but in this market would have to take so large a
>> loss they couldn't buy a comparable home elsewhere.
>
> But wouldn't homes 'elsewhere' be equally or similarly devalued in
> that situation?
>

Not necessarily, but it is a matter of degree. Take a 30% hit on your
$800,000 home in Cambridge MA and you will still have a pile left over
when you move to Arkansas.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:37:30 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 6/30/2015 5:38 PM, wrote:
>
>>>
>>> May not be any mortgage, lots of people ready to retire own their
>>> homes free and clear but in this market would have to take so large a
>>> loss they couldn't buy a comparable home elsewhere.
>>
>> But wouldn't homes 'elsewhere' be equally or similarly devalued in
>> that situation?
>>
>
>Not necessarily, but it is a matter of degree. Take a 30% hit on your
>$800,000 home in Cambridge MA and you will still have a pile left over
>when you move to Arkansas.

I believe he meant within the same community.
Janet US

On 6/30/2015 6:14 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>


>>> A strange story... anywhere I've lived a house couldn't be sold unless
>>> it meets local code or the town clerk wouldn't approve/record the
>>> sale. Also no bank would give a mortgage for a house that doesn't
>>> meet local code, nor could it obtain homeowners insurance and no bank
>>> would lend without it being insured. People contract to purchase
>>> trashed foreclosures all the time but there'd be no closing without
>>> all the repairs made and the house meets code, and those are inspected
>>> even more critically, same for a GI mortgage.
>> snip
>> Sheldon, All of what you said applies here as well.
>> Janet US
>
> Ours is financed through Navy Federal and it's a VA mortgage. Despite
> it not being up to code, it did pass inspection.

Depends on what code you are talking about. Most houses must meet the
code in effect at the time it was built. If the code was changed last
week you won't see homeowners rushing to upgrade because they don't have
to.

Simple example is toilets. New houses and new installations have to be
1.6 gpf or less, but your old house with 5 gpf is still OK.

On 2015-06-30 21:23, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 6/30/2015 8:58 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> "Dave Smith" > wrote
>
>>> On 2015-06-30 7:30 PM, jinx the minx wrote:
>>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Why would you say that? Upside down simply means that the house is
>>>>> worth
>>>>> less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be upside
>>>>> down.
>>>>
>>>> That is completely incorrect. Being "upside down" only refers to owing
>>>> more than you can sell it for. If you own it outright, the term does
>>>> not
>>>> apply.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Add that to the list of things she doesn't know about and refuses to
>>> look up before further insisting that she is right. "Upside down"
>>> means there is negative equity, the property is less than the
>>> outstanding balance on the loan.
>
>> I am pretty sure that it also means that it is worth less than what was
>> paid.
>
> Absolutely incorrect.
>

And absolutely incredible stupid of her to say she is pretty sure about
what if means without bothering to do a little research. In Boveworld,
her thinking something makes it true for her.

On 6/30/2015 6:22 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>


> Why would you say that? Upside down simply means that the house is
> worth less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be
> upside down.

Not exactly. By your definition every car owner would be upside down
(save a few collector cars) It means you owe more than what it is
worth. Car owners that finance with little down payment are upside
down. For housing it was rare up to a few years ago as the market was
steadily rising.