|
Posted by Marc O'Brien - ACRTC on January 22, 2009, 7:09 am
> Marc O'Brien - ACRTC wrote:
> >> Marc O'Brien - ACRTC wrote:
> >>> Hello gents,
> >>> A few of you own TECH Method Books.
> >>> We have set up a dedicated discussion forum atwww.hvacrforums.comfor
> >>> those who have bought the books. Of course all the other forums have
> >>> free access to all.
> >>> There is a free copy of TMI up for grabs for the first person to
> >>> convincingly solve any two of the remaining puzzles on the forums
> >>> challenge section.
> >>>http://www.hvacrforums.com
> >> Isn't this called *SPAM*? Desist.
> > Something you might be worried about if this was not a discussion
> > forum thriving with great discussions of substance. If it were you
> > would be too busy discussing stuff.
> > I'm not attacking you, just thinking aloud here.
> Marc, even if you are sober, Spam is not really welcome here as you
> well know.
> > I would love to be able to rely on this place again for meaningful
> > discussions like I did back in the 90's if only a few things would
> > change though... like...
> You were slammed by Paul and many others for spamming then also. We gave
> you some Leeway as you were drunk most of the time and were in the
> middle of a divorce and losing your daughter. I am amazed that in that
> alcoholic haze that you got anything of value from this NG.
I don't recall being slammed by Paul, perhaps pull up the thread?
I recall messaging the fact that drop-in refrigerant manufacturers
recommend not clearing the site glass because their drop-ins have
greater capacity than the refrigerants they replace. Paul had some
issue with this, which I can't properly remember except that he made
the mistake of attacking me regarding the message.
This is just something that Paul should have apologised for and
nothing else. The issue had no bearing on me or the facts of the
message I presented.
You can read point 23 on the page linked to below for proof of the
origins of my message which Paul mistakenly attacked me personally on.
http://www.emersonclimate.com/contractor/support/faq/faq_CopelandTechnical.=
shtm
> > 1) People, including me, discuss whatever we want provided that for at
> > least 80% of the time we post on-topic substance.
> Sorry to inform you, But Democracy prevails here. Rule making is not
> your job.
Indeed, the place is a democracy, no one can dispute that and so it is
a pointless subject beyond the scope of my point, a red herring. It is
the abhorrence of the ethics and etiquette I'm speaking of.
> > 2) We all either ignore homeowners or we answer their questions in a
> > way that offends no one but especially gives other members something
> > to think about or for most of us to re-think about. Also, for
> > instance, don't tell the homeowner to get a qualified tech
> Thats what we do for a living and that is not your call. Steve usually
> makes that statement as do others. Most of us are contractors and dig up
> our own work. You usually work for others. If things are going so good
> for you..Purchase a web forum and run your own Kingdom, where you can
> make the rules at will.. Oh thats right//The Web has rules too. ;-/
> =A0 - instead
> > tell what might need checking, but, start off by saying something like
> > "Your tech will have to check the following... " This does not amount
> > to free advice
> This is a liability factor. Misunderstood directions can get someone
> hurt or dead, thus bring about a lawsuit. One internet lawsuit was just
> settled for $2.3 Mil.. It was for $40 Mil.
There's no liability in following precisely the suggestion I gave. No
liability whatsoever.
> =A0 - this in fact helps the homeowner better understand
> > the work his tech will have to do and the knowledge he will have to
> > have and so the homeowner would also better appreciate the efforts of
> > the tech and the tech the owner for showing an interest.
> Using such logic, that means you have to be as well versed as your
> cardiologist or brain surgeons. Our job is not to train howeownersw in
> our field. Its a stretch just training apprentices correctly. I have to
> carry a few $Million in insurance to cover just that. I have no
> intention of taking on any other liability that is unnecessary.
Don, everyone knows that there used to be some very good discussions
between us on the back of homeowner posts. Often the homeowner
benefited none at all but we did get to share some great ideas and
knowledge between ourselves.
> Marc, When sober and on track you can bring some decent HVAC debate to
> this forum. That is not to say Homeowners and others are to be targeted
> for Technical subjects. For that, I am sure you will be very welcome in
> their NG's.
Funny how I am so often told that my debates and contributions are
sorely missed. You appear to be the minority. It's possible that
amongst those who don't say either way there may be a majority who
agree with you. But whichever it is I am sure you will easily see that
the point again is irrelevant. This group is nothing like it used to
be and yet there are more people on the web than the 90's. This fact
has nothing to do with me so you should stop being distracted and look
elsewhere. If you are so sure that my points are also irrelevant then
look elsewhere even further.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>
> A few of you own TECH Method Books.
>
> We have set up a dedicated discussion forum at www.hvacrforums.com for
> those who have bought the books. Of course all the other forums have
> free access to all.
>
> There is a free copy of TMI up for grabs for the first person to
> convincingly solve any two of the remaining puzzles on the forums
> challenge section.
>
> http://www.hvacrforums.com