Posted by harry k on January 24, 2009, 8:30 pm
wrote:
> >3. Tucked tail in and ran when I posted a cite showing they were
> >wrong.
> I thought that we were just exchanging friendly banter. Now I discover that
> I was wasting time on a complete asshole.
> Silly me.
> Vaughn
You are the one that started it by the tone of your post. I repeat
that you became a butt head when I asked for a cite.
Harry K
Posted by clare on January 23, 2009, 1:18 pm
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:59:07 -0800 (PST), harry k
>On Jan 22, 4:10 pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >I have heard that th"face cord" is a pile of wood that is 4 foot by 8 foot,
>> >without specifying the depth. Thus a 4x8 sheet of 1/4 plywood qualifies.
>> >> Someone might have typed at some time in some message
>> >> on some date:
>>
>> >>> Actually, it is in the Oxford Dictionary. 128 cubic feet, it says,
>> >>> *usually*. Usually? Not on Sundays, maybe. Who would use a "usually"
>> >>> unit?
>>
>> >> Two years ago I bought a "cord" of wood. The problem
>> >> with a cord is that the wood must be stacked. Stacking
>> >> is not only inexact, but labor intensive, so some wood
>> >> sellers opt for a larger volume of piled wood. The cord
>> >> I got two years ago was delivered in a 4'x6'x8' dump
>> >> body; the center of the pile extending even higher than
>> >> the 4' sides. I didn't have any more desire to stack it
>> >> than did the vendor, but I can guarantee that if I had,
>> >> it would have been a generous cord indeed. Sometimes
>> >> "usually" units are simply more convenient for the seller,
>> >> and more valuable to the buyer.
>>
>> >>> I've heard the expression "face cord" in the States. I gather it
>> >>> involves the area of one side of a stack of wood, not knowing how thick
>> >>> it is.
>>
>> >> A face cord of 24" lengths is stacked. It's a half
>> >> cord. A face cord of 16" lengths is likewise stacked,
>> >> and is 1/3 cord.
>>
>> >>> The whole thing is daft.
>>
>> >> Yes, completely daft to anyone who doesn't buy or
>> >> sell firewood... but certainly no more daft than using
>> >> a BBS to post to Usenet in the 21st century.
>>
>> A face cord is 4X8X16" (stove length) and is 1/3 of a bush cord -
>> which is 4X4X8 feet. and is defined by Canadian Weights and Measures.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>I seriously doubt that there is a _legal_ definition of a face cord.
>Could you post a cite?
>Harry K
By the way, I said a CORD is defined by Canadian weights and measures
-
Posted by harry k on January 23, 2009, 4:21 pm
On Jan 23, 5:18am, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:59:07 -0800 (PST), harry k
> >On Jan 22, 4:10pm, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> >I have heard that th"face cord" is a pile of wood that is 4 foot by 8 foot,
> >> >without specifying the depth. Thus a 4x8 sheet of 1/4 plywood qualifies.
> >> >> Someone might have typed at some time in some message
> >> >> on some date:
> >> >>> Actually, it is in the Oxford Dictionary. 128 cubic feet, it says,
> >> >>> *usually*. Usually? Not on Sundays, maybe. Who would use a "usually"
> >> >>> unit?
> >> >> Two years ago I bought a "cord" of wood. The problem
> >> >> with a cord is that the wood must be stacked. Stacking
> >> >> is not only inexact, but labor intensive, so some wood
> >> >> sellers opt for a larger volume of piled wood. The cord
> >> >> I got two years ago was delivered in a 4'x6'x8' dump
> >> >> body; the center of the pile extending even higher than
> >> >> the 4' sides. I didn't have any more desire to stack it
> >> >> than did the vendor, but I can guarantee that if I had,
> >> >> it would have been a generous cord indeed. Sometimes
> >> >> "usually" units are simply more convenient for the seller,
> >> >> and more valuable to the buyer.
> >> >>> I've heard the expression "face cord" in the States. I gather it
> >> >>> involves the area of one side of a stack of wood, not knowing how thick
> >> >>> it is.
> >> >> A face cord of 24" lengths is stacked. It's a half
> >> >> cord. A face cord of 16" lengths is likewise stacked,
> >> >> and is 1/3 cord.
> >> >>> The whole thing is daft.
> >> >> Yes, completely daft to anyone who doesn't buy or
> >> >> sell firewood... but certainly no more daft than using
> >> >> a BBS to post to Usenet in the 21st century.
> >> A face cord is 4X8X16" (stove length) and is 1/3 of a bush cord -
> >> which is 4X4X8 feet. and is defined by Canadian Weights and Measures.
> >> - Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >I seriously doubt that there is a _legal_ definition of a face cord.
> >Could you post a cite?
> >Harry K
> By the way, I said a CORD is defined by Canadian weights and measures
> -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Since you were answering a post saying there was not a legal
defiinition of a face cord why would you claim "in canada there is?"
Lacking any redefining the reference is taken to be to the original
text/post. Yes you tossed in a definition of "stove cord" which is
also not a legal definition in Canada.
Harry K
Posted by harry k on January 23, 2009, 5:01 am
wrote:
> Someone might have typed at some time in some message
> on some date:
> > Actually, it is in the Oxford Dictionary. 128 cubic feet, it says,
> > *usually*. Usually? Not on Sundays, maybe. Who would use a "usually"
> > unit?
> Two years ago I bought a "cord" of wood. The problem
> with a cord is that the wood must be stacked. Stacking
> is not only inexact, but labor intensive, so some wood
> sellers opt for a larger volume of piled wood. The cord
> I got two years ago was delivered in a 4'x6'x8' dump
> body; the center of the pile extending even higher than
> the 4' sides. I didn't have any more desire to stack it
> than did the vendor, but I can guarantee that if I had,
> it would have been a generous cord indeed. Sometimes
> "usually" units are simply more convenient for the seller,
> and more valuable to the buyer.
> > I've heard the expression "face cord" in the States. I gather it
> > involves the area of one side of a stack of wood, not knowing how thick
> > it is.
> A face cord of 24" lengths is stacked. It's a half
> cord. A face cord of 16" lengths is likewise stacked,
> and is 1/3 cord.
> > The whole thing is daft.
> Yes, completely daft to anyone who doesn't buy or
> sell firewood... but certainly no more daft than using
> a BBS to post to Usenet in the 21st century.
There is no requirement for the dealer to stack the wood. The only
requirement is that it be 128 cu ft _after_ it is stacked "tightly"
and that can be done by either the customer or the dealer. Basicallyi
it is up to the customer to begin the complaint process.
Harry K
Posted by Steve Ackman on January 24, 2009, 4:32 pm
on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:01:35 -0800 (PST), harry k,
turnkey4099@hotmail.com wrote:
> wrote:
>> Someone might have typed at some time in some message
>> on some date:
>>
>> > Actually, it is in the Oxford Dictionary. 128 cubic feet, it says,
>> > *usually*. Usually? Not on Sundays, maybe. Who would use a "usually"
>> > unit?
>>
>> Two years ago I bought a "cord" of wood. The problem
>> with a cord is that the wood must be stacked. Stacking
>> is not only inexact, but labor intensive, so some wood
>> sellers opt for a larger volume of piled wood. The cord
>> I got two years ago was delivered in a 4'x6'x8' dump
>> body; the center of the pile extending even higher than
>> the 4' sides. I didn't have any more desire to stack it
>> than did the vendor, but I can guarantee that if I had,
>> it would have been a generous cord indeed. Sometimes
>> "usually" units are simply more convenient for the seller,
>> and more valuable to the buyer.
>>
>> > I've heard the expression "face cord" in the States. I gather it
>> > involves the area of one side of a stack of wood, not knowing how thick
>> > it is.
>>
>> A face cord of 24" lengths is stacked. It's a half
>> cord. A face cord of 16" lengths is likewise stacked,
>> and is 1/3 cord.
>>
>> > The whole thing is daft.
>>
>> Yes, completely daft to anyone who doesn't buy or
>> sell firewood... but certainly no more daft than using
>> a BBS to post to Usenet in the 21st century.
> There is no requirement for the dealer to stack the wood.
I never said there was.
> The only requirement is that it be 128 cu ft _after_ it is stacked
> "tightly" and that can be done by either the customer or the dealer.
This agrees perfectly with what I said.
> Basicallyi it is up to the customer to begin the complaint process.
There's no complaint.
--
☯☯
XML site map
> >wrong.
> I thought that we were just exchanging friendly banter. Now I discover that
> I was wasting time on a complete asshole.
> Silly me.
> Vaughn