Three results turned up this time, I left out the state which probably was the problem the first time around. how does three contributions between 2004 until 2005 have anything to do with the last 10 years you speak of? and what has been done since 2005?
Michael writes
Nothing other than more personal donations by me in early 2008 because I got the association-neutral changes that I sought. Representative Accavitti even spoke at our chapter meeting http://www.nachi.org/semichiganchapter.htm
The reason I didn’t do anything or donate any of my personal money in Michigan prior to 2004 is because there was no proposed home inspection legislation in Michigan prior to 2004. I was talking in general about legislation in all states this past decade.
Does that mean you will be here July 23rd to meet with rep Accavitti as you did with Paul Mooney?
“Association bias”…
That is another comical position. Some people actually think that a bill that does not name and association…or names all associations, equally…lacks “association bias” and, as such, is a good bill.
This is incredibly moronic and absurd.
For one thing…the first thing that ASHI presidents pushing a bill in a state will do is disguise themselves as a “coalition”, pretending to be representing ALL home inspectors regardless of association.
All recent home inspection legislation…from the lunacy of the “say nothing…just give the state your money” Florida bill to the “$10,000 warranty” Kansas bill lacks “association bias” by definition…but was backed by only one home inspection association in each state (NAHI in Florida, ASHI in Kansas) and both bills do much harm and little good for the inspector and the industry.
But…neither bill says “ASHI” in it…and, hey…Wanna learn how to inspect a crawlspace in your pajamas? If so, we have the CEUs for you!!!
No, Mark…there is no help to be found by the national associations. It has to be local…or nothing.
Jim writes:
Jim, I’m simply not going to let you get away with this again. They are ALL FREE. This does not come close to being false. Here is the statement I made in response to your accusation…
Gromicko writes in post #8, the first reply to the Jim’s accusation:
All three of these courses are free… nothing misleading… nothing coming close to false. Here is the link in my post #8 http://www.nachi.org/tn3roofeleclogapproval2008.htm Note the last line in my post where I say…
All 3 are free and always have been free and always will be free. Where is my statement false?
You left out the pay-per-view course that has been approved and the pay-per-view courses that are presently being considered for approval. I included them. Including these courses, according to you, makes my “accusation” false. I do not agree.
Nick, please respond to my question
Jim, will you retract this new allegation you’ve leveled against me regarding my statement that the 3 free courses are free, is misleading and close to false.
Which of the 3 isn’t free?
Show me where I disputed that the 3 free courses are not free.
Hello…Hellooooooo
Jim, in my post #8 I didn’t say that NACHI.TV’s pay per view courses were free. I said that we got state approval for 3 more course, that all 3 were free and I also provided a link to the approval of the 3 free courses. Read my post #8 again:
Gromicko write in post #8:
Jim accuses my statement of being misleading and close to false in post #40.
What part is misleading or close to false? All 3 courses are free. I’m simply not going to let you get away with taking a portion of one post and combining it with a portion of another. Tell us all what is misleading or close to false about the statement?
The three free courses are free.
The three free courses…and other free courses offered to and approved by other states…are also free.
All free courses are free.
What I stated is that NACHI Tv is soliciting state license boards to approve its pay-per-view courses as well. One has been approved and others remain pending at various stages.
Accordingly, NACHI Tv is profiting from state home inspection licensing laws. Is it likely to find NACHI working as diligently as possible at both ends of the issue…both fighting against these laws, and soliciting academic participation?
I think not.
Jim writes:
I didn’t say that you disputed that the the 3 free courses are free, I said that you said, and I quote, that the statement is misleading and close to false. What statement is misleading and close to false? You made the statement, not me, tell us why you think my statement is misleading and close to false.
Jim, are you going to tell us what statement I made is misleading and close to false and why or not. If not, let me know so I can head off to the gym knowing that you are unable to support your contention again.
Here Jim, I’ll make it simple for you. I’ll make you a little online form.
–This is Nick’s statement that is misleading and close to false (quoted word for word)…
–This is the post # where you can find Nick’s misleading and close to false statement… POST#______
–This is why Nick’s statement is misleading and close to false…
Jim, fill out above form while I’m at the gym
Here it is.
Your convenient omission (or temporary lack of memory) regarding the pay-per-view course already approved in Tennessee and those that are still pending approval … makes it appear that I was referring to your “free” courses when I was not.
Your statements are misleading and are close to false in the sense that you omit the pay-per-view courses and make it appear that NACHI Tv is providing exclusively…as you call it…“free education”.
Now, enjoy the gym. I have to finish my report. It’s getting late.
Jim writes in response to my plea that he tell us all what statement of mine was misleading and close to false:
Hm. For a minute I thought you were right looking at your accurate quote of mine… but then I checked… HEY! You left something off the end. Here is my actual full statement that you say is misleading and close to false:
The fact that some course cost something does not detract from the fact that many others are totally free.
Simple logic.
I ask all, if your local grocer is giving away oranges for free and you tell someone that the grocer is giving away oranges for free, is your statement misleading or close to false if the grocer also sells apples?
Of course it isn’t misleading or close to false.
Again, no argument.
But one who solicits pay-per-view along with free education does not simply provide “free education”. That is all I said…not that it is wrong to charge.
But profiting from home inspection laws makes you an unlikely active opponent of them. Would you not agree?
Well I take that as agreeing that I didn’t make a misleading statement. Thanks, and thanks for getting us back on topic. Yes, I agree that one who profits from home inspection laws is an unlikely active opponent. But rather than psycho analyze me… perhaps judge a man by his works:
- I announced the Michigan meeting on this message board.
- I wrote every word of this opposition page: http://www.nachi.org/milicensing2008.htm Post #1.
- I found and posted MicHAHI’s oppostion page: http://www.nachi.org/documents/michahivotesno2008.pdf Post #7.
- I met with Representative Accavitti 4 times since 2004.
*]I donated my personal money to lobby for changes to make the Bill InterNACHI friendly http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/…ntrib_anls.cgi