[equalizer]

[quote=Hobie]Natural gas baby! LPG Patio heaters or BBQ are always running out of tank at the wrong times. Even with spare tanks it is a pain to constantly refill them.

Gas infrared is sweet as you can tuck them within patio covers.

As to the cost, well it’s your party… if mama gets cold then you are outside by yourself, a beer, and the dog. ;)[/quote]
What brand/type have you seen for natural gas?

[equalizer]

Don’t forget about drain safety. I’m sure there are many older pools that haven’t been retrofitted.

“Owning Up to a Boy’s Death
Rare but Grisly Swimming Pool Accident Spurs Unusual Prosecution of Executive”

“The prosecution spotlighted a rare but gruesome accident called entrapment, in which powerful suction from a pool’s drain traps a swimmer underwater. The case also could pave the way for similar prosecutions.

After the six-year-old, Zachary Cohn, was fatally trapped underwater in 2007 with his arm caught in the pool’s drain, Connecticut prosecutors charged Mr. Lionetti, president of Shoreline Pools, of Stamford, with manslaughter.

The prosecutors claimed that the company had failed to install a device that would have shut off the pump when an object got in the way.

Mr. Lionetti last month pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, criminally negligent homicide, in what many safety advocates hope is a turning point in decades of efforts to force pool makers to address entrapment more aggressively. The plea, which averted a possible 10-year prison sentence, imposes a three-year term of probation and requires Mr. Lionetti to perform 500 hours of community service, much of which he will fulfill with janitorial services at a local Boys & Girls Club.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704681904576317032558409082.html?KEYWORDS=lionetti

[equalizer]

Don’t forget about drain safety. I’m sure there are many older pools that haven’t been retrofitted.

“Owning Up to a Boy’s Death
Rare but Grisly Swimming Pool Accident Spurs Unusual Prosecution of Executive”

“The prosecution spotlighted a rare but gruesome accident called entrapment, in which powerful suction from a pool’s drain traps a swimmer underwater. The case also could pave the way for similar prosecutions.

After the six-year-old, Zachary Cohn, was fatally trapped underwater in 2007 with his arm caught in the pool’s drain, Connecticut prosecutors charged Mr. Lionetti, president of Shoreline Pools, of Stamford, with manslaughter.

The prosecutors claimed that the company had failed to install a device that would have shut off the pump when an object got in the way.

Mr. Lionetti last month pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, criminally negligent homicide, in what many safety advocates hope is a turning point in decades of efforts to force pool makers to address entrapment more aggressively. The plea, which averted a possible 10-year prison sentence, imposes a three-year term of probation and requires Mr. Lionetti to perform 500 hours of community service, much of which he will fulfill with janitorial services at a local Boys & Girls Club.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704681904576317032558409082.html?KEYWORDS=lionetti

[equalizer]

Don’t forget about drain safety. I’m sure there are many older pools that haven’t been retrofitted.

“Owning Up to a Boy’s Death
Rare but Grisly Swimming Pool Accident Spurs Unusual Prosecution of Executive”

“The prosecution spotlighted a rare but gruesome accident called entrapment, in which powerful suction from a pool’s drain traps a swimmer underwater. The case also could pave the way for similar prosecutions.

After the six-year-old, Zachary Cohn, was fatally trapped underwater in 2007 with his arm caught in the pool’s drain, Connecticut prosecutors charged Mr. Lionetti, president of Shoreline Pools, of Stamford, with manslaughter.

The prosecutors claimed that the company had failed to install a device that would have shut off the pump when an object got in the way.

Mr. Lionetti last month pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, criminally negligent homicide, in what many safety advocates hope is a turning point in decades of efforts to force pool makers to address entrapment more aggressively. The plea, which averted a possible 10-year prison sentence, imposes a three-year term of probation and requires Mr. Lionetti to perform 500 hours of community service, much of which he will fulfill with janitorial services at a local Boys & Girls Club.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704681904576317032558409082.html?KEYWORDS=lionetti

[equalizer]

Don’t forget about drain safety. I’m sure there are many older pools that haven’t been retrofitted.

“Owning Up to a Boy’s Death
Rare but Grisly Swimming Pool Accident Spurs Unusual Prosecution of Executive”

“The prosecution spotlighted a rare but gruesome accident called entrapment, in which powerful suction from a pool’s drain traps a swimmer underwater. The case also could pave the way for similar prosecutions.

After the six-year-old, Zachary Cohn, was fatally trapped underwater in 2007 with his arm caught in the pool’s drain, Connecticut prosecutors charged Mr. Lionetti, president of Shoreline Pools, of Stamford, with manslaughter.

The prosecutors claimed that the company had failed to install a device that would have shut off the pump when an object got in the way.

Mr. Lionetti last month pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, criminally negligent homicide, in what many safety advocates hope is a turning point in decades of efforts to force pool makers to address entrapment more aggressively. The plea, which averted a possible 10-year prison sentence, imposes a three-year term of probation and requires Mr. Lionetti to perform 500 hours of community service, much of which he will fulfill with janitorial services at a local Boys & Girls Club.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704681904576317032558409082.html?KEYWORDS=lionetti

[equalizer]

Don’t forget about drain safety. I’m sure there are many older pools that haven’t been retrofitted.

“Owning Up to a Boy’s Death
Rare but Grisly Swimming Pool Accident Spurs Unusual Prosecution of Executive”

“The prosecution spotlighted a rare but gruesome accident called entrapment, in which powerful suction from a pool’s drain traps a swimmer underwater. The case also could pave the way for similar prosecutions.

After the six-year-old, Zachary Cohn, was fatally trapped underwater in 2007 with his arm caught in the pool’s drain, Connecticut prosecutors charged Mr. Lionetti, president of Shoreline Pools, of Stamford, with manslaughter.

The prosecutors claimed that the company had failed to install a device that would have shut off the pump when an object got in the way.

Mr. Lionetti last month pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, criminally negligent homicide, in what many safety advocates hope is a turning point in decades of efforts to force pool makers to address entrapment more aggressively. The plea, which averted a possible 10-year prison sentence, imposes a three-year term of probation and requires Mr. Lionetti to perform 500 hours of community service, much of which he will fulfill with janitorial services at a local Boys & Girls Club.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704681904576317032558409082.html?KEYWORDS=lionetti

[equalizer]

[quote=urbanrealtor]California law typically lets a buyer back out but not a seller.
That being said, I don’t think most buyers will take you into court and force the sale.
It would be easier to try to shut it down and offer money to make it right with all parties.

But seriously, you have no real rights on this issue.[/quote]
Happended to us twice as buyers.

One time, the sellers changed mind but told our realtor crazy stuff about daughter and depression and asked if we were going to sue. He offered no consolation, but we just ran far away. Had it been a great place, maybe would have thought about it, but bad vibes can’t be shaken.

Another time, I panicked as buyer and paid $500 as consolation and that kept my name off the “do not accept this guys offer” list on MLS.

[equalizer]

[quote=urbanrealtor]California law typically lets a buyer back out but not a seller.
That being said, I don’t think most buyers will take you into court and force the sale.
It would be easier to try to shut it down and offer money to make it right with all parties.

But seriously, you have no real rights on this issue.[/quote]
Happended to us twice as buyers.

One time, the sellers changed mind but told our realtor crazy stuff about daughter and depression and asked if we were going to sue. He offered no consolation, but we just ran far away. Had it been a great place, maybe would have thought about it, but bad vibes can’t be shaken.

Another time, I panicked as buyer and paid $500 as consolation and that kept my name off the “do not accept this guys offer” list on MLS.

[equalizer]

[quote=urbanrealtor]California law typically lets a buyer back out but not a seller.
That being said, I don’t think most buyers will take you into court and force the sale.
It would be easier to try to shut it down and offer money to make it right with all parties.

But seriously, you have no real rights on this issue.[/quote]
Happended to us twice as buyers.

One time, the sellers changed mind but told our realtor crazy stuff about daughter and depression and asked if we were going to sue. He offered no consolation, but we just ran far away. Had it been a great place, maybe would have thought about it, but bad vibes can’t be shaken.

Another time, I panicked as buyer and paid $500 as consolation and that kept my name off the “do not accept this guys offer” list on MLS.

[equalizer]

[quote=urbanrealtor]California law typically lets a buyer back out but not a seller.
That being said, I don’t think most buyers will take you into court and force the sale.
It would be easier to try to shut it down and offer money to make it right with all parties.

But seriously, you have no real rights on this issue.[/quote]
Happended to us twice as buyers.

One time, the sellers changed mind but told our realtor crazy stuff about daughter and depression and asked if we were going to sue. He offered no consolation, but we just ran far away. Had it been a great place, maybe would have thought about it, but bad vibes can’t be shaken.

Another time, I panicked as buyer and paid $500 as consolation and that kept my name off the “do not accept this guys offer” list on MLS.

[equalizer]

[quote=urbanrealtor]California law typically lets a buyer back out but not a seller.
That being said, I don’t think most buyers will take you into court and force the sale.
It would be easier to try to shut it down and offer money to make it right with all parties.

But seriously, you have no real rights on this issue.[/quote]
Happended to us twice as buyers.

One time, the sellers changed mind but told our realtor crazy stuff about daughter and depression and asked if we were going to sue. He offered no consolation, but we just ran far away. Had it been a great place, maybe would have thought about it, but bad vibes can’t be shaken.

Another time, I panicked as buyer and paid $500 as consolation and that kept my name off the “do not accept this guys offer” list on MLS.

[equalizer]

Appears CFA Institute does believe in ethics, just can’t get anyone in charge to suport them.

“Of Credit Rating Agencies and Charlie Sheen”

“Step two was to put CRAs on notice that if they do rate securitized products, they too will be held accountable for fraud and negligence in issuing sham ratings associated with the marketing and sale of the securities. That got their attention. Even though the ABS market was as lucrative as any in history for the CRA industry, the prospect of such firms being held liable to investors for bogus ratings was like a splash of ice water. Rather than accept liability, they refused to allow their ratings to be a part of registration statements for new ABS securities — knowing that without the required ratings, issuance of new registered securities would stop dead. Quite a card to have in your hand in a time of economic stress, when securitization offers much-needed financing capacity to the economy.

Backed into a corner, the SEC chose to keep the new ABS market viable, offering assurances that it would not enforce the requirement for a rating to be part of registration statements, as detailed in a recent article by New York Times writer Gretchen Morgenson. So for now, the issuance and related credit ratings of these securities is to be encouraged, not impaired by higher liability — just like flimsy ratings still being offered on sovereign debt, all in the name of financial stability and recovery. Could the cure be worse than the disease? In the immortal words of actor Charlie Sheen, I can hear the CRAs now: “Duh, winning!”

http://blogs.cfainstitute.org/of-credit-rating-agencies-and-charlie-sheen#more

[equalizer]

Appears CFA Institute does believe in ethics, just can’t get anyone in charge to suport them.

“Of Credit Rating Agencies and Charlie Sheen”

“Step two was to put CRAs on notice that if they do rate securitized products, they too will be held accountable for fraud and negligence in issuing sham ratings associated with the marketing and sale of the securities. That got their attention. Even though the ABS market was as lucrative as any in history for the CRA industry, the prospect of such firms being held liable to investors for bogus ratings was like a splash of ice water. Rather than accept liability, they refused to allow their ratings to be a part of registration statements for new ABS securities — knowing that without the required ratings, issuance of new registered securities would stop dead. Quite a card to have in your hand in a time of economic stress, when securitization offers much-needed financing capacity to the economy.

Backed into a corner, the SEC chose to keep the new ABS market viable, offering assurances that it would not enforce the requirement for a rating to be part of registration statements, as detailed in a recent article by New York Times writer Gretchen Morgenson. So for now, the issuance and related credit ratings of these securities is to be encouraged, not impaired by higher liability — just like flimsy ratings still being offered on sovereign debt, all in the name of financial stability and recovery. Could the cure be worse than the disease? In the immortal words of actor Charlie Sheen, I can hear the CRAs now: “Duh, winning!”

http://blogs.cfainstitute.org/of-credit-rating-agencies-and-charlie-sheen#more

[equalizer]

Appears CFA Institute does believe in ethics, just can’t get anyone in charge to suport them.

“Of Credit Rating Agencies and Charlie Sheen”

“Step two was to put CRAs on notice that if they do rate securitized products, they too will be held accountable for fraud and negligence in issuing sham ratings associated with the marketing and sale of the securities. That got their attention. Even though the ABS market was as lucrative as any in history for the CRA industry, the prospect of such firms being held liable to investors for bogus ratings was like a splash of ice water. Rather than accept liability, they refused to allow their ratings to be a part of registration statements for new ABS securities — knowing that without the required ratings, issuance of new registered securities would stop dead. Quite a card to have in your hand in a time of economic stress, when securitization offers much-needed financing capacity to the economy.

Backed into a corner, the SEC chose to keep the new ABS market viable, offering assurances that it would not enforce the requirement for a rating to be part of registration statements, as detailed in a recent article by New York Times writer Gretchen Morgenson. So for now, the issuance and related credit ratings of these securities is to be encouraged, not impaired by higher liability — just like flimsy ratings still being offered on sovereign debt, all in the name of financial stability and recovery. Could the cure be worse than the disease? In the immortal words of actor Charlie Sheen, I can hear the CRAs now: “Duh, winning!”

http://blogs.cfainstitute.org/of-credit-rating-agencies-and-charlie-sheen#more

[equalizer]

Appears CFA Institute does believe in ethics, just can’t get anyone in charge to suport them.

“Of Credit Rating Agencies and Charlie Sheen”

“Step two was to put CRAs on notice that if they do rate securitized products, they too will be held accountable for fraud and negligence in issuing sham ratings associated with the marketing and sale of the securities. That got their attention. Even though the ABS market was as lucrative as any in history for the CRA industry, the prospect of such firms being held liable to investors for bogus ratings was like a splash of ice water. Rather than accept liability, they refused to allow their ratings to be a part of registration statements for new ABS securities — knowing that without the required ratings, issuance of new registered securities would stop dead. Quite a card to have in your hand in a time of economic stress, when securitization offers much-needed financing capacity to the economy.

Backed into a corner, the SEC chose to keep the new ABS market viable, offering assurances that it would not enforce the requirement for a rating to be part of registration statements, as detailed in a recent article by New York Times writer Gretchen Morgenson. So for now, the issuance and related credit ratings of these securities is to be encouraged, not impaired by higher liability — just like flimsy ratings still being offered on sovereign debt, all in the name of financial stability and recovery. Could the cure be worse than the disease? In the immortal words of actor Charlie Sheen, I can hear the CRAs now: “Duh, winning!”

http://blogs.cfainstitute.org/of-credit-rating-agencies-and-charlie-sheen#more

[Author]

Posts