On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:18:07 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 07/06/2013 6:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> used by the chinless wonder type.
>> :)   Yeah, it does seem to be marketingspeak mor ethan anything.
>>
>>
> It always has been. It comes from the days when the nob's word was their
> bond. Even if they did not pay their accounts for years.
> Originally it meant fiancée. She was bespoke, or spoken for. IIRC

Word history is always interesting.  :)

> 
>>> >On a recent job in America it became common to hear Americans use it
>>> >albeit self-consciously.
>> Interesting, because I don't think I've ever heard it in the US or used
>> by Americans before.
> 
> No, you wouldn't. There were about a dozen of us Brits working on the
> project in NM. Gee! we were "cute" with our funny English accents.
> I through a wobblie in Walmart.
> 
> "I'm too old to be cute. Ma'am"

LOL

JIm

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 22:51:35 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> For me, fast typing tends to cause what I've started calling
>> "typelexia"
>> - I transpose letters because of my typing speed
> 
> I do that too, and I gave originally the same reason. Until I started to
> do the same thing on the white board while teaching.

I think I call that a "brain fart". :)

Have done that a few times myself.  Or get halfway through writing a word 
on the board, and then forget what I was writing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 22:49:35 +0200, andrel wrote:

> My impression is that it is more common with native speakers. Probably
> because they learn to speak English before they learn to write. For
> those of us for whom it is a second language it is the other way around.

That's an interesting observation - I hadn't thought about that.  It 
certainly does have a certain type of logic to it, though. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 22:45:26 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Andy has a couple of strong points, one of them is asking when he
> doesn't know (or bluntly stating what he thinks is wrong), even in those
> cases where others would be silent because they feel they should know
> better. A somewhat weak point is that that is because he is not able to
> spot those circumstances.
> All in all this is much to be preferred over those who try to maintain
> their image by never learning anything.

Absolutely - the problem is when one makes an assertion that is clearly 
(to those who know) false, but then to insist that the observation still 
must be correct, even in light of evidence to the contrary.

For example, the assertion that nobody could ever possibly earn enough 
money to own a house unless they were super rich.  Something that even 
Andy now knows through his own experience is a false statement.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> One might argue that most rules of grammar are completely artificial.  

I wouldn't agree with that argument.

Most rules of grammar describe the actual language, as it's used by people.
Of course many people use the language in different ways (often you just
have to go to the next city to hear slight differences), and an "official"
grammar is usually an agreement on one that's most understandable by
everybody and conforms best to the normal, natural use of the language.
If you say this is "artificial", then I'm not using the word in the same
meaning as you.

When I say "artificial" I mean a made-up rule (in this case a rule invented
by one person, even!) that does not correspond to actual usage of the
language, and doesn't actually address any problem with it. A rule that's
more prescriptive than descriptive.

Rules of grammar should be more descriptive in nature: They describe how
the language works. Prescriptive rules, especially those that do not
correspond well to the actual usage of the language, are more artificial.

One could try to alleviate this "rule" and say that it's more like just
a style guide. In other words, "in general you should not put prepositions
at the end of sentences if you don't have to, but you don't have to avoid
it at all costs either." However, that's not how many people see it. They
interpret it has a hard, prescriptive rule. "It's bad grammar to put
prepositions at the end of sentences!"

> "The apple was beside." - that's a sentence fragment that ends in a 
> preposition.  It's completely unclear what the apple was beside.

But the reason for it being unclear was not that it ends in the
preposition. It's because it lacks something.

You could move the preposition somewhere else in the sentence and it
wouldn't become any clearer. That the sentence happens to end in a
preposition is irrelevant. Therefore the rule (even if we interpret it
just as a style guide) doesn't apply at all.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:36:18 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> OK. Now explain "there" instead of "their"
> > 
> > Some people write "your" when they really mean "you're". This mistake is
> > kind of understandable.

> Not really.  If you know that "you're" is a contraction of "you are", 
> it's very easy to see when it's being misused:

> "I think your wrong."

> "I think *you are* wrong."

> The error is clear as day - you're making a contraction and not using the 
> punctuation that's necessary in a contraction.

I'm not sure if you understood what I said. I said that it's kind of
understandable that some people make this mistake (because they write
what they pronounce). I didn't say that it's hard to distinguish between
the two cases in a written sentence.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Thunderbird insists that everything must be spelt the American way,
>> which is really quite annoying...
>
> That happens when you leave it set to the default dictionary with an
> English installation.
>
> And if you go into the composition preferences, click the link that says
> "download additional dictionaries" and add the English/United Kingdom
> dictionary, it insists that you use British spellings.
>
> Funny, that. ;)

Yeah, you would think that would solve it...

Oh well, I guess I should just be thankful that I got spell-checking to 
work at all this time.

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2013 9:45 PM, andrel wrote:
> Andy has a couple of strong points,

More than a couple, I would say.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2013 11:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Word history is always interesting.:)

http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/

Is quite good as is my wife with her penchant for Victorian books.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 04:22:51 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> One might argue that most rules of grammar are completely artificial.
> 
> I wouldn't agree with that argument.

Why am I not surprised? ;)

> Most rules of grammar describe the actual language, as it's used by
> people.

And the way that the English language is used by people is that they 
don't generally end sentences with prepositions, because doing so often 
makes things unclear.

Here's the thing about rules that I was taught by a music theory 
teacher:  It's OK to break them, but you have to learn them first.

> Of course many people use the language in different ways (often you just
> have to go to the next city to hear slight differences), and an
> "official" grammar is usually an agreement on one that's most
> understandable by everybody and conforms best to the normal, natural use
> of the language.
> If you say this is "artificial", then I'm not using the word in the same
> meaning as you.
> 
> When I say "artificial" I mean a made-up rule (in this case a rule
> invented by one person, even!) that does not correspond to actual usage
> of the language, and doesn't actually address any problem with it. A
> rule that's more prescriptive than descriptive.

Citation, please, for this "invented by one person" statement.

>> "The apple was beside." - that's a sentence fragment that ends in a
>> preposition.  It's completely unclear what the apple was beside.
> 
> But the reason for it being unclear was not that it ends in the
> preposition. It's because it lacks something.

Yes, it lacks the object that is referenced.  Now you tell me how to 
construct that sentence with the missing object *without* putting the 
missing object ahead of the preposition.  Oh, and it has to make sense, 
too. ;)

> You could move the preposition somewhere else in the sentence and it
> wouldn't become any clearer. That the sentence happens to end in a
> preposition is irrelevant. Therefore the rule (even if we interpret it
> just as a style guide) doesn't apply at all.

Sure it does.  It's just not a hard and fast rule.  It's a rule of thumb, 
and usually includes the condition "unless rewriting the sentence so the 
preposition at the end makes the sentence more convoluted and less clear."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 10:13:08 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> Thunderbird insists that everything must be spelt the American way,
>>> which is really quite annoying...
>>
>> That happens when you leave it set to the default dictionary with an
>> English installation.
>>
>> And if you go into the composition preferences, click the link that
>> says "download additional dictionaries" and add the English/United
>> Kingdom dictionary, it insists that you use British spellings.
>>
>> Funny, that. ;)
> 
> Yeah, you would think that would solve it...

Well, it does here.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 11:45:58 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 07/06/2013 11:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Word history is always interesting.:)
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/
> 
> Is quite good as is my wife with her penchant for Victorian books.

I've used that one before, but I prefer the OED's presentation (and I get 
access to the online edition free through my local library system). :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2013 6:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I've used that one before, but I prefer the OED's presentation (and I get
> access to the online edition free through my local library system).:)

Oh! there's a thing. My wife is a member of the London Library so she 
has access to lots of these sorts of institutions. Well she would have 
if she weren't a Luddite. So I'll use her card. :-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8-6-2013 11:29, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/06/2013 9:45 PM, andrel wrote:
>> Andy has a couple of strong points,
>
> More than a couple, I would say.

sure he can dance too.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/06/2013 8:26 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 8-6-2013 11:29, Stephen wrote:
>> On 07/06/2013 9:45 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> Andy has a couple of strong points,
>>
>> More than a couple, I would say.
>
> sure he can dance too.
>
>

But can he whistle?

Over to you Andrew.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8-6-2013 0:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 22:51:35 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> For me, fast typing tends to cause what I've started calling
>>> "typelexia"
>>> - I transpose letters because of my typing speed
>>
>> I do that too, and I gave originally the same reason. Until I started to
>> do the same thing on the white board while teaching.
>
> I think I call that a "brain fart". :)
>
> Have done that a few times myself.  Or get halfway through writing a word
> on the board, and then forget what I was writing.

probably not the same, I know what I am writing all words make sense, 
just not writing the letters in the right order. I am not dyslectic. so 
I immediately see that I did it.




-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:51:30 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 8-6-2013 0:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 22:51:35 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>>> For me, fast typing tends to cause what I've started calling
>>>> "typelexia"
>>>> - I transpose letters because of my typing speed
>>>
>>> I do that too, and I gave originally the same reason. Until I started
>>> to do the same thing on the white board while teaching.
>>
>> I think I call that a "brain fart". :)
>>
>> Have done that a few times myself.  Or get halfway through writing a
>> word on the board, and then forget what I was writing.
> 
> probably not the same, I know what I am writing all words make sense,
> just not writing the letters in the right order. I am not dyslectic. so
> I immediately see that I did it.

Yeah, not quite the same thing, but similar. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> >>"The apple was beside." - that's a sentence fragment that ends in a
>>> >>preposition.  It's completely unclear what the apple was beside.
>> >
>> >But the reason for it being unclear was not that it ends in the
>> >preposition. It's because it lacks something.
> Yes, it lacks the object that is referenced.  Now you tell me how to
> construct that sentence with the missing object*without*  putting the
> missing object ahead of the preposition.  Oh, and it has to make sense,
> too.;)

Whether it ends in a preposition or not is irrelevant to whether the 
sentence makes sense. The reason "The apple was beside." doesn't make 
sense is not because it ends in a preposition, but because there is some 
part missing from it. I could easily have said "I moved the box that the 
apple was beside." and that would be fine.

Post a reply to this message

> Thunderbird insists that everything must be spelt the American way,
> which is really quite annoying...

You downloaded the wrong version then, there's English (US) and English 
(British) on the list.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7rings<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Today a CV landed on my boss' desk. While reading it, we came across the
> following phrase:
>
>    "...designing B-spoke software for there pacific needs."
>
> I don't even know where to start with this. How could someone get basic
> English words so badly wrong?
>
> Needless to say, we didn't bother interviewing this person.

 U gays make such a tissue with tings dat R of no importance dis days bedside

Post a reply to this message

On 10/06/2013 9:58 AM, nemesis wrote:
> Orchid Win7rings<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Today a CV landed on my boss' desk. While reading it, we came across the
>> following phrase:
>>
>>     "...designing B-spoke software for there pacific needs."
>>
>> I don't even know where to start with this. How could someone get basic
>> English words so badly wrong?
>>
>> Needless to say, we didn't bother interviewing this person.
>
>   U gays make such a tissue with tings dat R of no importance dis days bedside
>

No bad, init.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 10-6-2013 10:58, nemesis wrote:
> Orchid Win7rings<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>
>> Needless to say, we didn't bother interviewing this person.
>
>   U gays make such a tissue with tings dat R of no importance dis days bedside
>

Chill, man.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:34:27 +0100, scott wrote:

>>>> >>"The apple was beside." - that's a sentence fragment that ends in a
>>>> >>preposition.  It's completely unclear what the apple was beside.
>>> >
>>> >But the reason for it being unclear was not that it ends in the
>>> >preposition. It's because it lacks something.
>> Yes, it lacks the object that is referenced.  Now you tell me how to
>> construct that sentence with the missing object*without*  putting the
>> missing object ahead of the preposition.  Oh, and it has to make sense,
>> too.;)
> 
> Whether it ends in a preposition or not is irrelevant to whether the
> sentence makes sense. The reason "The apple was beside." doesn't make
> sense is not because it ends in a preposition, but because there is some
> part missing from it. I could easily have said "I moved the box that the
> apple was beside." and that would be fine.

Yes, that would be fine, because you've defined the object.  As I said, 
*generally* when you use a preposition, the object that is related is 
after the preposition, but not always.  Which is why it's a "rule of 
thumb" or a "guideline".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/06/2013 09:58 AM, nemesis wrote:
>   U gays make such a tissue with tings dat R of no importance dis days bedside

GAAAAH! >_< IT BURNS!!

Post a reply to this message

On 10/06/2013 7:54 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 10/06/2013 09:58 AM, nemesis wrote:
>>   U gays make such a tissue with tings dat R of no importance dis days
>> bedside
>
> GAAAAH! >_< IT BURNS!!

I have just realised something. What have you done with Invisible?
Have you eaten him or something?
;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:37:51 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 10/06/2013 7:54 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 10/06/2013 09:58 AM, nemesis wrote:
>>>   U gays make such a tissue with tings dat R of no importance dis days
>>> bedside
>>
>> GAAAAH! >_< IT BURNS!!
> 
> I have just realised something. What have you done with Invisible?
> Have you eaten him or something?
> ;-)

Guessing his current employer isn't as problematic about him posting from 
work (or he doesn't have time to) as his previous employer was.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10-6-2013 21:37, Stephen wrote:
> On 10/06/2013 7:54 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 10/06/2013 09:58 AM, nemesis wrote:
>>>   U gays make such a tissue with tings dat R of no importance dis days
>>> bedside
>>
>> GAAAAH! >_< IT BURNS!!
>
> I have just realised something. What have you done with Invisible?
> Have you eaten him or something?
> ;-)
>

Now you mention it, I also haven't seen him for a while.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 23:05:05 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Now you mention it, I also haven't seen him for a while.

<rimshot>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Whether it ends in a preposition or not is irrelevant to whether the
>> sentence makes sense. The reason "The apple was beside." doesn't make
>> sense is not because it ends in a preposition, but because there is some
>> part missing from it. I could easily have said "I moved the box that the
>> apple was beside." and that would be fine.
>
> Yes, that would be fine, because you've defined the object.

That sounds a much better "rule of thumb".

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-06-10 15:37, Stephen a écrit :
> On 10/06/2013 7:54 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 10/06/2013 09:58 AM, nemesis wrote:
>>>   U gays make such a tissue with tings dat R of no importance dis days
>>> bedside
>>
>> GAAAAH! >_< IT BURNS!!
>
> I have just realised something. What have you done with Invisible?
> Have you eaten him or something?
> ;-)
>

Sudden change of jobs...
Sudden change of place of residence...
Sudden rise in monetary income...

Sound incredibly fishy.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:59:59 +0100, scott wrote:

>>> Whether it ends in a preposition or not is irrelevant to whether the
>>> sentence makes sense. The reason "The apple was beside." doesn't make
>>> sense is not because it ends in a preposition, but because there is
>>> some part missing from it. I could easily have said "I moved the box
>>> that the apple was beside." and that would be fine.
>>
>> Yes, that would be fine, because you've defined the object.
> 
> That sounds a much better "rule of thumb".

It's what I've been saying all along.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Now you mention it, I also haven't seen him for a while.
>
> <rimshot>

Good work, people.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/06/2013 10:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Guessing his current employer isn't as problematic about him posting from
> work (or he doesn't have time to) as his previous employer was.

My employer's network is supposedly under constant surveillance. Plus, 
I'm usually far too busy to post anything...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:11:11 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 10/06/2013 10:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Guessing his current employer isn't as problematic about him posting
>> from work (or he doesn't have time to) as his previous employer was.
> 
> My employer's network is supposedly under constant surveillance. Plus,
> I'm usually far too busy to post anything...

That would explain the posting times. :)

How's the new house/flat?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12/06/2013 05:26 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> How's the new house/flat?

Oh yeah. I'd almost forgotten about that...

Well, every time I talk to my solicitors, they say they're waiting for 
the other side. And every time I talk to the estate agents, they promise 
me they'll call Monday and tell me what the **** is actually going on. 
I've emailed them, I've phoned them, I've physically walked into the 
branch... Basically, it seems to me that they've got their commission 
now, and they don't actually give a damn any more.

For weeks they've been telling me "Steve is dealing with it; I'll get 
him to call you on Monday". I have no definitive proof that "Steve" is 
an actual human being who actually exists. I've never seen him or heard 
from him. In fact, on my last visit, I got told "Steve doesn't work here 
any more; Dave is dealing with it now".

Seven times I've been promised a progress update, and zero times have 
they kept their promise. I'd threaten to file a complaint, but that 
won't hurt them. I'd threaten to cancel the transaction, but that won't 
hurt their business either. It seems to me that there's nothing I can do 
at this point which will actually harm them, hence they don't give a 
damn whether I'm happy or not. There's no profit in it, and there's no 
penalty for failure.

However, on Monday, after multiple calls and emails, somebody FINALLY 
gave me a reply. According to the nervous little Asian guy who is 
apparently supposed to be chasing this to completion, the other side's 
solicitors sent the guy some forms, he filled them in and mailed them 
back, and the solicitors never actually received them. So now they're 
mailing him another copy, so he can fill them in and mail them back 
again. And then maybe - just maybe - everybody will stop waiting around, 
and some actual progress will start to happen. But don't hold your 
breath. (Assuming this entire story is even real, and it's just made up 
nonsense to get me off their backs...)

Six to twelve weeks? Try a year and a half. I said at the beginning that 
this would take many months to complete, and so far I see no evidence to 
the contrary.

Post a reply to this message

> hurt their business either. It seems to me that there's nothing I can do
> at this point which will actually harm them, hence they don't give a
> damn whether I'm happy or not. There's no profit in it, and there's no
> penalty for failure.

I hope you're on a no-sale-no-fee contract with them? If so then they do 
have a lot to lose (ie their entire fee plus the costs of any 
surveys/documents they've already purchased on your behalf). At any 
point you could just walk away - it's in their interest to make sure you 
don't do that.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:52:22 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Six to twelve weeks? Try a year and a half. I said at the beginning that
> this would take many months to complete, and so far I see no evidence to
> the contrary.

Wow, that seems really unusual, but slow progress is arguably slow 
progress.  At least the delay is letting you save some cash up (I 
assume). :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12/06/2013 10:22 AM, scott wrote:
>> hurt their business either. It seems to me that there's nothing I can do
>> at this point which will actually harm them, hence they don't give a
>> damn whether I'm happy or not. There's no profit in it, and there's no
>> penalty for failure.
>
> I hope you're on a no-sale-no-fee contract with them? If so then they do
> have a lot to lose (ie their entire fee plus the costs of any
> surveys/documents they've already purchased on your behalf). At any
> point you could just walk away - it's in their interest to make sure you
> don't do that.

Basically, the estate agents get paid commission for recommending a 
mortgage to me, they get paid commission for recommending an insurance 
package to me, that get paid commission for recommending a conveyancer 
to me. They have already received all of this money - regardless of 
whether I ever get me house or not. As far as I can tell, there is 
literally no profit in it for them if the sale completes. Indeed, if the 
sale falls through, they can then sell the house to somebody else, and 
get another bunch of commission. So arguably it's *better* for them if 
the sale fails...

As far as my end goes, I've paid a small up-front fee. The rest isn't 
payable until I get the keys - if that ever occurs. So it doesn't matter 
so much; I'm just tired of waiting, that's all. More than that, I 
wouldn't mind waiting if the processing takes too long, but I object to 
waiting when nothing is actually happening because nobody gives a fig...

Post a reply to this message

>> Six to twelve weeks? Try a year and a half. I said at the beginning that
>> this would take many months to complete, and so far I see no evidence to
>> the contrary.
>
> Wow, that seems really unusual, but slow progress is arguably slow
> progress.

Nobody ever said that buying a house is a quick or easy process. Or cheap...

> At least the delay is letting you save some cash up (I
> assume). :)

Well, yeah, there is that...

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:47:12 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> Six to twelve weeks? Try a year and a half. I said at the beginning
>>> that this would take many months to complete, and so far I see no
>>> evidence to the contrary.
>>
>> Wow, that seems really unusual, but slow progress is arguably slow
>> progress.
> 
> Nobody ever said that buying a house is a quick or easy process. Or
> cheap...

That's certainly true.  Though right now in our neighborhood, the average 
sale time for a house is about 17 days (we're doing some work on our 
place to get ready to sell it).

>> At least the delay is letting you save some cash up (I assume). :)
> 
> Well, yeah, there is that...

:)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:45:50 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 12/06/2013 10:22 AM, scott wrote:
>>> hurt their business either. It seems to me that there's nothing I can
>>> do at this point which will actually harm them, hence they don't give
>>> a damn whether I'm happy or not. There's no profit in it, and there's
>>> no penalty for failure.
>>
>> I hope you're on a no-sale-no-fee contract with them? If so then they
>> do have a lot to lose (ie their entire fee plus the costs of any
>> surveys/documents they've already purchased on your behalf). At any
>> point you could just walk away - it's in their interest to make sure
>> you don't do that.
> 
> Basically, the estate agents get paid commission for recommending a
> mortgage to me, they get paid commission for recommending an insurance
> package to me, that get paid commission for recommending a conveyancer
> to me. They have already received all of this money - regardless of
> whether I ever get me house or not. As far as I can tell, there is
> literally no profit in it for them if the sale completes. Indeed, if the
> sale falls through, they can then sell the house to somebody else, and
> get another bunch of commission. So arguably it's *better* for them if
> the sale fails...
> 
> As far as my end goes, I've paid a small up-front fee. The rest isn't
> payable until I get the keys - if that ever occurs. So it doesn't matter
> so much; I'm just tired of waiting, that's all. More than that, I
> wouldn't mind waiting if the processing takes too long, but I object to
> waiting when nothing is actually happening because nobody gives a fig...

I don't know how it is in the UK, but here in the US, your agent is a 
legal representative for you, so they have an obligation to do what is in 
your best interests - and if they don't, then there are legal options 
available.

I had to look into that a few years ago when my mum's seller's agent (not 
her agent) started causing some problems with her move.  When I mentioned 
the words "complaint" and "state real estate license commission" (or 
whatever the governing body was), they stopped playing stupid games and 
got things moving again.  It was a kinda weird situation, because the 
outfit that built the place she moved into was buying her house so they 
could do some work on it and resell it, and someone's wires got crossed 
and different people promised different things *in writing*, and then 
someone put it all together and decided they couldn't give everything 
they'd promised.  It was a real mess, but they ended up holding to their 
word after I started making noises about talking to the licensing 
authority.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> I hope you're on a no-sale-no-fee contract with them? If so then they do
>> have a lot to lose (ie their entire fee plus the costs of any
>> surveys/documents they've already purchased on your behalf). At any
>> point you could just walk away - it's in their interest to make sure you
>> don't do that.
>
> Basically, the estate agents get paid commission

I assume you are talking of the seller's estate agent, in which case 
they are not working for you so it's not surprising they never get back 
to you - these guys are very far from charities. Even if you were 
selling a house and had employed an estate agent they shouldn't really 
be involved at this stage, their job is solely to find a buyer not 
complete the sale (if they fear losing the buyer they might help chase 
things up on behalf of the seller).

> They have already received all of this money - regardless of
> whether I ever get me house or not. As far as I can tell, there is
> literally no profit in it for them if the sale completes.

If it doesn't complete they will not get their fee from the seller 
(which is likely orders of magnitude bigger than any commission payments 
for recommendations to potential buyers) and will have to repeat the 
whole process of finding a buyer. They'd rather spend the time and 
effort doing this process on a different property and get another £x000 
than have to repeat it on your one.

> As far as my end goes, I've paid a small up-front fee.

To your solicitor? Yes that's normal - but what happens if the sale 
doesn't complete, do you get that back?

> so much; I'm just tired of waiting, that's all. More than that, I
> wouldn't mind waiting if the processing takes too long, but I object to
> waiting when nothing is actually happening because nobody gives a fig...

Your solicitor is the only one working for you, all your contact should 
be with them at this stage, they will in turn contact whoever is needed 
to complete the sale (the seller's solicitor, government agencies, 
banks, surveyors etc). They should be able to tell you exactly what is 
going on and chase things up for you - it's quite normal to be calling 
them even every day at this stage. Have you discussed a target date yet 
for completion? If not tell them you want to complete on a certain date 
(eg 1st July), they will inform that to the seller and see what reaction 
you get. It helps to be working towards a target date.

Post a reply to this message

>> Nobody ever said that buying a house is a quick or easy process. Or
>> cheap...
>
> That's certainly true.  Though right now in our neighborhood, the average
> sale time for a house is about 17 days (we're doing some work on our
> place to get ready to sell it).

Is that the time from when it is placed on the market to finding a 
buyer? The problem in the UK is that even once you find a buyer (which, 
as with anything, can range from hours to years depending on the price 
you are happy to accept) the process after that until you legally own 
the house can take forever.

A standard simple sale with no chain or anything complicated to look up 
or check about the house could probably be done in a minimum of 4-6 
weeks (probably even less if you don't need to borrow from the bank), 
that's about how long it took when I bought my first house. I was lucky 
because obviously I had no house to sell at the same time and the 
sellers already owned another place they were moving into.

However usually many other things complicate and slow down this process. 
Most people need to borrow money from a bank to fund the purchase, and 
banks will not give out the money until they are satisfied the house is 
not going to fall down, sink into the ground, get blown away, flooded, 
become radioactive or have a motorway built through it in the next 20 
years. Hence there is a mountain of paperwork that needs to be collected 
regarding the house before the bank will release the money and the deal 
can be closed. This often involves government agencies which are 
typically slow to respond.

Now bear in mind that often you need to sell a place to fund the 
purchase of your new place, the people selling the house you are about 
to buy are also trying to buy another house, so as you can imagine you 
can easily end up in a chain of 5 or 10 people who are all looking to 
sell and buy at the same time. Chances are there *will* be someone in 
the chain that messes things up because they are looking to buy an 18th 
century house in the middle of a field that is about to collapse, has no 
drainage and the previous owners have died and lost all the paperwork 
etc. Or often people simply change their mind about moving house and 
then someone in the chain needs to find a new buyer which can add weeks 
or months onto the process. Then other people simply give up because 
it's taking too long and find another property. People even will try and 
screw their buyers right near the end by saying "actually we want £10k 
more now for our house else we're pulling out". All sorts of s#!t goes on.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-06-13 03:55, scott a écrit :
>>> Nobody ever said that buying a house is a quick or easy process. Or
>>> cheap...
>>
>> That's certainly true.  Though right now in our neighborhood, the average
>> sale time for a house is about 17 days (we're doing some work on our
>> place to get ready to sell it).
>
> Is that the time from when it is placed on the market to finding a
> buyer? The problem in the UK is that even once you find a buyer (which,
> as with anything, can range from hours to years depending on the price
> you are happy to accept) the process after that until you legally own
> the house can take forever.
>
> A standard simple sale with no chain or anything complicated to look up
> or check about the house could probably be done in a minimum of 4-6
> weeks (probably even less if you don't need to borrow from the bank),
> that's about how long it took when I bought my first house. I was lucky
> because obviously I had no house to sell at the same time and the
> sellers already owned another place they were moving into.
>
> However usually many other things complicate and slow down this process.
> Most people need to borrow money from a bank to fund the purchase, and
> banks will not give out the money until they are satisfied the house is
> not going to fall down, sink into the ground, get blown away, flooded,
> become radioactive or have a motorway built through it in the next 20
> years. Hence there is a mountain of paperwork that needs to be collected
> regarding the house before the bank will release the money and the deal
> can be closed. This often involves government agencies which are
> typically slow to respond.
>

In my area, most seller agents will ask that the seller get all the 
paperwork for the land in order ahead of time, since they know it's a de 
facto requirement for the sale to take place (you can get the sale 
annuled if you realize afterwards that the city was about to dezone your 
land to make an interstate offramp on it).  Likewise, most buyer's agent 
will ask that their clients get "preapproved" by their bank for a 
certain amount, mostly so that they don't waste their time looking for 
houses only to see the prospective buyer get rejected by the bank at the 
last minute.

The only things that need to happen between the first handshake and the 
key exchange (sorry for sounding like an IETF RFC) are a building 
inspection (3-5 days), finalising the preapproved mortgage at the bank 
(2-3 days) and going in front of a notary to sign the legal papers.

Of course, if the land deed is ancient (or missing) and the notary has 
to dig through records in a lavatory in the city hall basement, at the 
bottom of a broken staircase, or the building inspector finds major 
issues with the house, or the bank thinks you should get rid of some of 
your exisiting liabilities before getting a new mortgage, or one of the 
parties has other conditions attached (ex: buyer needs to sell his 
exisisting property, seller's new house needs to be finished, etc...) 
this can take much longer.

> Now bear in mind that often you need to sell a place to fund the
> purchase of your new place, the people selling the house you are about
> to buy are also trying to buy another house, so as you can imagine you
> can easily end up in a chain of 5 or 10 people who are all looking to
> sell and buy at the same time. Chances are there *will* be someone in
> the chain that messes things up because they are looking to buy an 18th
> century house in the middle of a field that is about to collapse, has no
> drainage and the previous owners have died and lost all the paperwork
> etc. Or often people simply change their mind about moving house and
> then someone in the chain needs to find a new buyer which can add weeks
> or months onto the process. Then other people simply give up because
> it's taking too long and find another property. People even will try and
> screw their buyers right near the end by saying "actually we want £10k
> more now for our house else we're pulling out". All sorts of s#!t goes on.
>

Luckily, in my province, by default rent leases last for 12 months and 
go from July 1st to June 30th of the following year, unless otherwise 
specified, so July 1st is traditionnally "moving day"*.  Even if you are 
moving from a house that you own to another house that you buy, someone, 
somewhere in that chain is an old person moving into an appartment, or a 
young couple moving out of an appartment.  And it's a national holiday, 
so you know your brother-in-law won't be at work, so all you need to do 
is bribe him with beer and pizza.

*It was featured on a British tv series (on ITV, I think) on weird local 
customs from around the world.
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

> In my area, most seller agents will ask that the seller get all the
> paperwork for the land in order ahead of time, since they know it's a de
> facto requirement for the sale to take place (you can get the sale
> annuled if you realize afterwards that the city was about to dezone your
> land to make an interstate offramp on it).  Likewise, most buyer's agent
> will ask that their clients get "preapproved" by their bank for a
> certain amount, mostly so that they don't waste their time looking for
> houses only to see the prospective buyer get rejected by the bank at the
> last minute.

Here in the UK the pre-approval from the bank is about the only thing 
done before the initial handshake. Most people don't even have a 
solicitor sorted until after a price has been agreed.

> The only things that need to happen between the first handshake and the
> key exchange (sorry for sounding like an IETF RFC) are a building
> inspection (3-5 days), finalising the preapproved mortgage at the bank
> (2-3 days) and going in front of a notary to sign the legal papers.

Oh if only it were that easy here :-) In theory all that needs to happen 
in addition to what you mention is a series of searches on the property 
(drainage/flood, environment etc), a few documents regarding exactly 
what is and is not included in the sale and setting up insurance. In 
practise even modern houses often have problems, things like services 
being rerouted by house builders and not properly documented, 
building/electrical work having been recently done without the proper 
certificates etc.

> parties has other conditions attached (ex: buyer needs to sell his
> exisisting property, seller's new house needs to be finished, etc...)
> this can take much longer.

In the UK most people need to sell and buy at the same time (literally, 
normally noon on the day of the move). If you're selling without needing 
to buy another house then you are in a very good position and it's worth 
a few thousand on the asking price.

> Luckily, in my province, by default rent leases last for 12 months and
> go from July 1st to June 30th of the following year, unless otherwise
> specified, so July 1st is traditionnally "moving day"*.  Even if you are
> moving from a house that you own to another house that you buy, someone,
> somewhere in that chain is an old person moving into an appartment, or a
> young couple moving out of an appartment.

Ouch - I assume you have a massive rush to get ready for a move by July 
1st then, if you miss it for whatever technicality then bad luck, you 
have to wait 12 months :-) Being involved with house purchases (estate 
agents, solicitors, removal companies) must be quite a seasonal business 
there...

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:55:46 +0100, scott wrote:

>>> Nobody ever said that buying a house is a quick or easy process. Or
>>> cheap...
>>
>> That's certainly true.  Though right now in our neighborhood, the
>> average sale time for a house is about 17 days (we're doing some work
>> on our place to get ready to sell it).
> 
> Is that the time from when it is placed on the market to finding a
> buyer? 

That's from placed on market to sale closed, IIRC.  In the US, once you 
have an offer accepted, things tend to move pretty quickly in my 
experience.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Basically, the estate agents get paid commission
>
> I assume you are talking of the seller's estate agent

I was talking about my agent. They got paid all sorts of money for 
signing me up to things; I think the actual house sale is more or less 
moot from their point of view.

> Even if you were
> selling a house and had employed an estate agent they shouldn't really
> be involved at this stage, their job is solely to find a buyer not
> complete the sale

Well, they keep promising me that they're chasing the sale... And yet, 
there's little to no evidence of them actually doing anything.

>> As far as my end goes, I've paid a small up-front fee.
>
> To your solicitor? Yes that's normal - but what happens if the sale
> doesn't complete, do you get that back?

Apparently the small fee I've paid is non-refundable. I only have to pay 
the rest if I actually get the house.

> Your solicitor is the only one working for you, all your contact should
> be with them at this stage, they will in turn contact whoever is needed
> to complete the sale (the seller's solicitor, government agencies,
> banks, surveyors etc).

Every time I call them, I just get "We're waiting for the other side. We 
have no idea what's taking them so long." Only after I hassled my estate 
agent did it come to light that forms have gone missing in the mail. 
(Again, assuming you actually believe this story is true...)

> They should be able to tell you exactly what is
> going on and chase things up for you - it's quite normal to be calling
> them even every day at this stage.

I haven't got *time* to babysit them every tiny step of the way. I'm 
paying *them* to sort this stuff out! I'm supposed to be at work, working.

> Have you discussed a target date yet for completion?

Why bother? Clearly whatever date I come up with will be summarily 
ignored. Nobody has any interest in pushing this forwards; I am *the 
only* person who actually wants this transaction completed. The lawyers 
don't care; they get more money the longer it takes. The estate agents 
don't care; they already got their money. And the seller doesn't even 
have a place to go yet, so he doesn't care. I, on the other hand, am 
desperate to get away from my mother ASAP...

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:38:47 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> I haven't got *time* to babysit them every tiny step of the way. I'm
> paying *them* to sort this stuff out! I'm supposed to be at work,
> working.

Call them every couple of days and ask for an update, and ask them when 
they expect the next step to be taken.

If there's a governing body (and I'd be surprised if there wasn't), talk 
to them as well.  If you have incompetent representation, then that needs 
to be reported and you need a new agent.  Being a real estate agent is 
operating as a sort of lawyer (at least in the US) and they are legal 
representation for you, and if they're not putting your interests first, 
they're probably violating their oath.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> I was talking about my agent. They got paid all sorts of money for
> signing me up to things; I think the actual house sale is more or less
> moot from their point of view.

Really? They normally charge about 1% of the value of the property, I 
can't imagine their commission on selling you insurance, solicitor etc 
is anywhere near that. Given your house insurance is probably something 
like £150, their commission can surely only be £10 or something. Maybe a 
bit more for the solictor, but we're still probably talking way under £100.

> Every time I call them, I just get "We're waiting for the other side. We
> have no idea what's taking them so long."

"Please can you find out what's taking them so long. I'll call back in 
the morning."

> Only after I hassled my estate
> agent did it come to light that forms have gone missing in the mail.
> (Again, assuming you actually believe this story is true...)

I would treat anything you hear from an estate agent, especially when 
they're not even working for you, with a huge mountain of salt.

> I haven't got *time* to babysit them every tiny step of the way. I'm
> paying *them* to sort this stuff out! I'm supposed to be at work, working.

Find a better solicitor then - I assume you asked about and got 
recommendations for the one you are using ... oh wait hang on :-)

> And the seller doesn't even
> have a place to go yet,

In this situation it's completely normal to only allow the seller a few 
weeks to find somewhere before you retract your offer. Tell your 
solicitor they've got 3 weeks to have an offer accepted on something 
before you're done with this. Once your solicitor senses a risk of 
losing their fee they will work a little harder :-)

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-06-13 11:30, scott a écrit :
>> In my area, most seller agents will ask that the seller get all the
>> paperwork for the land in order ahead of time, since they know it's a de
>> facto requirement for the sale to take place (you can get the sale
>> annuled if you realize afterwards that the city was about to dezone your
>> land to make an interstate offramp on it).  Likewise, most buyer's agent
>> will ask that their clients get "preapproved" by their bank for a
>> certain amount, mostly so that they don't waste their time looking for
>> houses only to see the prospective buyer get rejected by the bank at the
>> last minute.
>
> Here in the UK the pre-approval from the bank is about the only thing
> done before the initial handshake. Most people don't even have a
> solicitor sorted until after a price has been agreed.
>
>> The only things that need to happen between the first handshake and the
>> key exchange (sorry for sounding like an IETF RFC) are a building
>> inspection (3-5 days), finalising the preapproved mortgage at the bank
>> (2-3 days) and going in front of a notary to sign the legal papers.
>
> Oh if only it were that easy here :-) In theory all that needs to happen
> in addition to what you mention is a series of searches on the property
> (drainage/flood, environment etc), a few documents regarding exactly
> what is and is not included in the sale and setting up insurance. In
> practise even modern houses often have problems, things like services
> being rerouted by house builders and not properly documented,
> building/electrical work having been recently done without the proper
> certificates etc.
>

Of course, if the building inspection goes south, it can take more than 
3-5 days.

Also, in most of my provinces the land was government-owned forests 
until the first half of the 20th century, so the paperwork is not that 
complicated, unlike in Britain where you might have to go literally 1000 
years back to find the right owners, and that is if the record haven't 
burned or flooded.

This being said, my sister recently bought a lot that was owned by my 
grandmother and the official documents said that the lot was bounded on 
the north-east corner by a big pine tree (gone), on the north-west 
corner by a "big" rock (which was probably removed 30-40 years ago when 
they widened the road), etc...  So she had lots of fun getting surveyors 
find the exact corners of her property.

>> parties has other conditions attached (ex: buyer needs to sell his
>> exisisting property, seller's new house needs to be finished, etc...)
>> this can take much longer.
>
> In the UK most people need to sell and buy at the same time (literally,
> normally noon on the day of the move). If you're selling without needing
> to buy another house then you are in a very good position and it's worth
> a few thousand on the asking price.
>
>> Luckily, in my province, by default rent leases last for 12 months and
>> go from July 1st to June 30th of the following year, unless otherwise
>> specified, so July 1st is traditionnally "moving day"*.  Even if you are
>> moving from a house that you own to another house that you buy, someone,
>> somewhere in that chain is an old person moving into an appartment, or a
>> young couple moving out of an appartment.
>
> Ouch - I assume you have a massive rush to get ready for a move by July
> 1st then, if you miss it for whatever technicality then bad luck, you
> have to wait 12 months :-) Being involved with house purchases (estate
> agents, solicitors, removal companies) must be quite a seasonal business
> there...
>

Actually, if you can pick another day, you should.  Movers are a lot 
cheaper.

You can also get leases that go for longer or shorter periods, but by 
default they last for 1 year.  And you do end up with nast scenarios of 
people stranded on the sidewalk with all their belongings because they 
had to leave their old place to let the new people in, but their new 
place is not ready yet, or the truck maver made it, etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_Day_%28Quebec%29

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message