# Why?



## flyboy

trentonmakes said:


> I was swapping outlets for this hot little chic and came across this little gem.
> I know about re-identifying wires, but why use the red off 14/3 as a ground and white for your switch leg???
> She told me it was for the pool light, so I just wired the new receptacle the same.
> I dunno whats going on outside at the deckbox or panel but thought this was odd, especially seeing the ground wire coiled up in the box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texting and Driving


You said receptacle. I’m assuming yiou meant switch?

Anyway, you should spend some time opening things up to see how the pool is wired.


----------



## lighterup

Bro...that looks like a 3 way switch to me.


----------



## trentonmakes

lighterup said:


> Bro...that looks like a 3 way switch to me.


Me too!
Then i looked closer...the red is landed on the ground screw. Lol

Texting and Driving


----------



## trentonmakes

flyboy said:


> You said receptacle. I’m assuming yiou meant switch?
> 
> Anyway, you should spend some time opening things up to see how the pool is wired.


I did...thier kids got me a little bit wonky while I was there. It is indeed a single pole switch[emoji106]
Shes got alot of small things for me to do, so i plan on doing just that at some point.

She asks for R&R light then asks to swap all switches and receptacles...lol

Finished up on them today and now want another light and bring an outlet up behind tv...

Texting and Driving


----------



## lighterup

Trenton 's not lookin at receptacles & switches ...too busy 
watchin that rear end :vs_OMG:


----------



## RePhase277

Obviously wanted the ground to be insulated. A white wire can never be marked as a ground but it can be used in a switch loop. A red wire can be marked green in isolated receptacles. Someone just doing his thang...


----------



## trentonmakes

lighterup said:


> Trenton 's not lookin at receptacles & switches ...too busy
> watchin that rear end :vs_OMG:


[emoji13][emoji13][emoji13][emoji13]
[emoji106]
You got that right!

Shocked myself twice!

Texting and Driving


----------



## chicken steve

Back when iso ground receptacles were in vouge , we saw a lotta 3 wires with red conductors green taped 

~CS~


----------



## trentonmakes

RePhase277 said:


> Obviously wanted the ground to be insulated. A white wire can never be marked as a ground but it can be used in a switch loop. A red wire can be marked green in isolated receptacles. Someone just doing his thang...


Damn, i didnt even think of that!
We use thn for pools, im going to look this up tonight in the book. It may be a code thing.
Then again you cant or likely wont run romex underground to a pool, there probaly a junction box in basement so i dont get why it needs to be insulated?

Texting and Driving


----------



## cabletie

I agree that the original installer did it because he needed an insulated ground. The minimum size is #12. 

Back when it was installed there was an exception for using Romex inside the house for the pool motor. The exception was not for feeders or lighting, so this was probably a violation. 

The 2017 code looks like it was revamped. Now it mentions all wiring methods of chapter 3 unless it's in a corrosive environment. I just did my code update class a few weeks ago. I don't think they talked about the changes in swimming pools. Looking at it now though, it looks like a major change.


----------



## eddy current

I seem to remember a new code (CEC) that prohibited using the red for insulated ground. They wanted you to use the expensive wire that came with a green and a bare wire.

Wondering if the NEC did the same?


----------



## HackWork

Every time I fling around that bare ground while adding a circuit to a panel and have it touch something and arc blast me in the face, I always wish for insulated EGCs in romex.


----------



## sbrn33

Where is the pic of the "hot little chick"?


----------



## Chris1971

HackWork said:


> Every time I fling around that bare ground while adding a circuit to a panel and have it touch something and arc blast me in the face, I always wish for insulated EGCs in romex.


That would be nice.


----------



## Signal1

Yep, used to be pretty common to re-mark the red to have an insulated ground when required

My 2017 NEC is at work but I have 2014 here, 680.23 (F)(2) wants an insulated ground un-spliced minimum #12 to a pool fixture.
Cabletie is probably right.


----------



## RePhase277

Signal1 said:


> Yep, used to be pretty common to re-mark the red to have an insulated ground when required
> 
> My 2017 NEC is at work but I have 2014 here, 680.23 (F)(2) wants an insulated ground un-spliced minimum #12 to a pool fixture.
> Cabletie is probably right.


Oh yeah? Is he?!?


----------



## HackWork

RePhase277 said:


> Oh yeah? Is he?!?


He stole your thunder.


----------



## telsa

trentonmakes said:


> I was swapping receptacles and switches for this hot little chic and came across this little gem.
> I know about re-identifying wires, but why use the red off 14/3 as a ground and white for your switch leg???
> She told me it was for the pool light, so I just wired the new switch the same.
> I dunno whats going on outside at the deckbox or panel but thought this was odd, especially seeing the ground wire coiled up in the box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texting and Driving


OP:

Why ask why ?


----------



## trentonmakes

telsa said:


> OP:
> 
> Why ask why ?


Because there was the ground buried in the box. I still doubt that romex goes out to the pool, so why bother re-identifying the wires when likely theres a junction box in basement with thnn going out to the deckbox.
I just thought it was odd when i saw it.

I'll be back there again so I plan on checking this theory and see what going on.

Texting and Driving


----------



## HackWork

trentonmakes said:


> Because there was the ground buried in the box. I still doubt that romex goes out to the pool, so why bother re-identifying the wires when likely theres a junction box in basement with thnn going out to the deckbox.
> I just thought it was odd when i saw it.
> 
> I'll be back there again so I plan on checking this theory and see what going on.
> 
> Texting and Driving


It has to be insulated the whole way.


----------



## trentonmakes

HackWork said:


> It has to be insulated the whole way.


Well, I did not know that then[emoji13]

Texting and Driving


----------



## circuitman1

ok , where's the pics of this hot chick that get's you shocked?:whistling2::whistling2::whistling2:


----------



## trentonmakes

circuitman1 said:


> ok , where's the pics of this hot chick that get's you shocked?:whistling2::whistling2::whistling2:


Found this on facebook
Ill try to snap a creeper pic next time Im there[emoji13]
She is on the left









Texting and Driving


----------



## Signal1

RePhase277 said:


> Oh yeah? Is he?!?


I think so.

And I was talking about this part.......



cabletie said:


> I agree that the original installer did it because he needed an insulated ground. The minimum size is #12.
> 
> Back when it was installed there was an exception for using Romex inside the house for the pool motor. The exception was not for feeders or lighting, so *this was probably a violation. *
> 
> The 2017 code looks like it was revamped. Now it mentions all wiring methods of chapter 3 unless it's in a corrosive environment. I just did my code update class a few weeks ago. I don't think they talked about the changes in swimming pools. Looking at it now though, it looks like a major change.


Please try not to be a c**t , thanks.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

trentonmakes said:


> Found this on facebook
> Ill try to snap a creeper pic next time Im there[emoji13]
> She is on the left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texting and Driving


They look small, I'd need to have them both.


----------



## HackWork

signal1 said:


> i think so.
> 
> And i was talking about this part.......
> 
> 
> 
> Please try not to be a c**t , thanks.


----------



## HackWork

trentonmakes said:


> Found this on facebook
> Ill try to snap a creeper pic next time Im there[emoji13]
> She is on the left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texting and Driving


She's nothing special, but I would still pay you $25 if you send me her panties ($50 if worn).






ETA: By her, not you.


----------



## RePhase277

Signal1 said:


> I think so.
> 
> And I was talking about this part.......
> 
> 
> 
> Please try not to be a c**t , thanks.


Oh, is that what I'm being? Am I?!?


----------



## lighterup

RePhase277 said:


> Oh, is that what I'm being? Am I?!?


I'll come to your defense. I didn't see you even showing a hint
of that. I think someone forgot to take their "Happy Pill".


----------



## RePhase277

lighterup said:


> I'll come to your defense. I didn't see you even showing a hint
> of that. I think someone forgot to take their "Happy Pill".


You're sexy:brows:


----------



## Signal1

lighterup said:


> I'll come to your defense. I didn't see you even showing a hint
> of that. I think someone forgot to take their "Happy Pill".


He was being mean to me because I agreed with another poster.

And I was very nice about it, I said please and thank you.


----------



## HackWork

Signal1 said:


> He was being mean to me because I agreed with another poster.
> 
> And I was very nice about it, I said please and thank you.


You did use good manners.


----------



## Dark Knight

trentonmakes said:


> circuitman1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok , where's the pics of this hot chick that get's you shocked?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Found this on facebook
> Ill try to snap a creeper pic next time Im there[emoji13]
> She is on the left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texting and Driving
Click to expand...

I hate to be a kill joy because I like staring at hot little chics while I'm at work as much as the next guy, but I'm pretty sure you just broke a bunch of privacy laws by posting that pic. You should probably take it down. And if you didn't (break any laws), you definitely will if you take a creeper shot and post it here.


----------



## HackWork

Dark Knight said:


> I hate to be a kill joy because I like staring at hot little chics while I'm at work as much as the next guy, but I'm pretty sure you just broke a bunch of privacy laws by posting that pic. You should probably take it down. And if you didn't (break any laws), you definitely will if you take a creeper shot and post it here.


It was posted on Facebook.


----------



## trentonmakes

MechanicalDVR said:


> They look small, I'd need to have them both.


Almost non existent but upon me walking in, the nips perked up and were poking through the shirt![emoji13]
Tiny thin lil thing but she looks wild.

Texting and Driving


----------



## trentonmakes

HackWork said:


> She's nothing special, but I would still pay you $25 if you send me her panties ($50 if worn).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: By her, not you.


They demand a higher cost if I wore them! Lol

Texting and Driving


----------



## trentonmakes

Dark Knight said:


> I hate to be a kill joy because I like staring at hot little chics while I'm at work as much as the next guy, but I'm pretty sure you just broke a bunch of privacy laws by posting that pic. You should probably take it down. And if you didn't (break any laws), you definitely will if you take a creeper shot and post it here.


Stop stepping on my d!ck!

[emoji14]

Texting and Driving


----------



## RePhase277

Dark Knight said:


> I hate to be a kill joy because I like staring at hot little chics while I'm at work as much as the next guy, but I'm pretty sure you just broke a bunch of privacy laws by posting that pic. You should probably take it down. And if you didn't (break any laws), you definitely will if you take a creeper shot and post it here.


Dark Knight... white knight... whatever.


----------



## Dark Knight

Just saying is all. She is entitled to her privacy. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Especially down in the land of the free...

It's on Facebook? I'd love to see you try to win that argument in court.


----------



## HackWork

Dark Knight said:


> Just saying is all. She is entitled to her privacy.


 No, she is not entitled to any privacy in this instance. She posted the picture online for all to see.




> That's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Especially down in the land of the free...


 Nope, the only lawsuit that might work is a copyright suit if he was making money off of the image. And Facebook might have to be the one suing since they most likely claim ownership of everything posted on their service.



> It's on Facebook? I'd love to see you try to win that argument in court.


I think you are talking out of your ass, and invite you to show a case in which someone lost -something- in court for merely posting a picture of someone that they found on Facebook, with no other issues attached.


----------



## lighterup

Signal1 said:


> He was being mean to me because I agreed with another poster.
> 
> And I was very nice about it, I said please and thank you.


I may be a tad naive at times , but a Bostonian being polite?
Pleeeeaaaseeee.:no:


----------



## lighterup

Dark Knight said:


> Just saying is all. She is entitled to her privacy. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Especially down in the land of the free...
> 
> It's on Facebook? I'd love to see you try to win that argument in court.


Ahem...bahulllsh*t!..excuse me ..sniffle-sniffle


----------



## Dark Knight

HackWork said:


> Dark Knight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just saying is all. She is entitled to her privacy.
> 
> 
> 
> No, she is not entitled to any privacy in this instance. She posted the picture online for all to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Especially down in the land of the free...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, the only lawsuit that might work is a copyright suit if he was making money off of the image. And Facebook might have to be the one suing since they most likely claim ownership of everything posted on their service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's on Facebook? I'd love to see you try to win that argument in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are talking out of your ass, and invite you to show a case in which someone lost -something- in court for merely posting a picture of someone that they found on Facebook, with no other issues attached.
Click to expand...

Just like you're talking out of your ass about FB having to be the one to sue? Of course I don't have evidence. Like I said in the original post, I'm 'pretty sure' he broke some laws. So talking out of my ass? Sure. Call it better safe than sorry based on the issues surrounding peoples privacy. Call it professionalism. Call it whatever you want. But you're right, no one ever gets sued for stupid sh*t down there. And besides, your commander in chief would approve so it's all good.


----------



## trentonmakes

FWIW her profile was not set to private so anyone can see those pics with a simple search of her name.

Now, on the creeper pics....
Legal? Illegal?
We all know its inappropiate but if I can i really would like to share the cameltoe

Texting and Driving


----------



## MechanicalDVR

trentonmakes said:


> Almost non existent but upon me walking in, the nips perked up and were poking through the shirt!
> Tiny thin lil thing but she looks wild.
> 
> Texting and Driving


:thumbup:

Yeah they both look like they would be wild...........just add alcohol!:whistling2:


----------



## MechanicalDVR

trentonmakes said:


> FWIW her profile was not set to private so anyone can see those pics with a simple search of her name.
> 
> Now, on the creeper pics....
> Legal? Illegal?
> We all know its inappropiate but if I can i really would like to share the cameltoe
> 
> Texting and Driving


FB profile pics are all public, period the end.

If there is no face in a pic post away as I do on FBook all the time and I post some good pics.


----------



## trentonmakes

MechanicalDVR said:


> FB profile pics are all public, period the end.
> 
> If there is no face in a pic post away as I do on FBook all the time and I post some good pics.


So waist down is fine then

Texting and Driving


----------



## telsa

Facebook is for attention seekers.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

trentonmakes said:


> So waist down is fine then
> 
> Texting and Driving


Or nose down.


----------



## HackWork

Dark Knight said:


> Just like you're talking out of your ass about FB having to be the one to sue?


 Did you see where I said "might have to be..."? Do you understand simple English?



> Of course I don't have evidence.


 If it ever happened you could easily find it.



> Like I said in the original post, I'm 'pretty sure' he broke some laws.


 And you were dead wrong. There are no laws.



> So talking out of my ass?


 Yes. 



> And besides, your commander in chief would approve so it's all good.


 Cute, another anti-Trump troll who has nothing to do but worry about another country.

I think it's time for you to swallow that drain cleaner that you keep on your nightstand for when you build up the courage.


----------



## RePhase277

trentonmakes said:


> So waist down is fine then
> 
> Texting and Driving


Face down.. ass up.


----------



## lighterup

Dark Knight said:


> Just like you're talking out of your ass about FB having to be the one to sue? Of course I don't have evidence. Like I said in the original post, I'm 'pretty sure' he broke some laws. So talking out of my ass? Sure. Call it better safe than sorry based on the issues surrounding peoples privacy. Call it professionalism. Call it whatever you want. But you're right, no one ever gets sued for stupid sh*t down there. And besides, your commander in chief would approve so it's all good.


Quite the opposite. Law suits were getting so effing trivial in the 90's
we had to pass Tort Reform.

I take it you have a problem with us _down here_.
I am amazed at this phenomena:no:


----------



## Dark Knight

HackWork said:


> Dark Knight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you're talking out of your ass about FB having to be the one to sue?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see where I said "might have to be..."? Do you understand simple English?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I don't have evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it ever happened you could easily find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said in the original post, I'm 'pretty sure' he broke some laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you were dead wrong. There are no laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So talking out of my ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And besides, your commander in chief would approve so it's all good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute, another anti-Trump troll who has nothing to do but worry about another country.
> 
> I think it's time for you to swallow that drain cleaner that you keep on your nightstand for when you build up the courage.
Click to expand...

Lol. You mad bro?


----------



## HackWork

Dark Knight said:


> Lol. You mad bro?


Yes.


----------



## Dark Knight

lighterup said:


> Dark Knight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like you're talking out of your ass about FB having to be the one to sue? Of course I don't have evidence. Like I said in the original post, I'm 'pretty sure' he broke some laws. So talking out of my ass? Sure. Call it better safe than sorry based on the issues surrounding peoples privacy. Call it professionalism. Call it whatever you want. But you're right, no one ever gets sued for stupid sh*t down there. And besides, your commander in chief would approve so it's all good.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite. Law suits were getting so effing trivial in the 90's
> we had to pass Tort Reform.
> 
> I take it you have a problem with us _down here_.
> I am amazed at this phenomena
Click to expand...

No, I definitely do not have a problem with you guys. I quite enjoy visiting. Not sure what I said that would insinuate that.


----------



## lighterup

I like Canada....but let's face it ...the song "Sky Rockets in Flight" is not on Casey 
Kasem's American Top 40 anymore, so stop playing it every other hour ....kayyy?
Oh and that goes for PA radio DJ's as well.

And while we are on the subject of current events and modernism...once 
something goes on Facebook it's in the "cloud"...the expectation of "privacy"
has gone down the stinky hole in that porcelain thing _we down here _
call a toilet.


----------



## Dark Knight

lighterup said:


> I like Canada....but let's face it ...the song "Sky Rockets in Flight" is not on Casey
> Kasem's American Top 40 anymore, so stop playing it every other hour ....kayyy?
> Oh and that goes for PA radio DJ's as well.
> 
> And while we are on the subject of current events and modernism...once
> something goes on Facebook it's in the "cloud"...the expectation of "privacy"
> has gone down the stinky hole in that porcelain thing _we down here _
> call a toilet.


You say that but that doesn't make it true. I would argue that it's in the cloud, look at it all you want. But that doesn't give you the right to download it, never mind re-posting it on another website. 

There's a ton of music on YouTube, just sitting there in the cloud. Are you allowed to download it? Share it?


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Dark Knight said:


> You say that but that doesn't make it true. I would argue that it's in the cloud, look at it all you want. But that doesn't give you the right to download it, never mind re-posting it on another website.
> 
> There's a ton of music on YouTube, just sitting there in the cloud. Are you allowed to download it? Share it?


Wow dude you are really like over anal about this.

It isn't rocket surgery or brain science.

What do you think it means on Facebook when the privacy setting is "public"?

When one posts a picture online in a public forum it is shareable to all public sources.

If a pic can be found via google it's up for grabs.


----------



## HackWork

MechanicalDVR said:


> Wow dude you are really like over anal about this.
> 
> It isn't rocket surgery or brain science.
> 
> What do you think it means on Facebook when the privacy setting is "public"?
> 
> When one posts a picture online in a public forum it is shareable to all public sources.
> 
> If a pic can be found via google it's up for grabs.


Google is a good example. Google is a website and it puts EVERY picture on the internet on its website for people to view, no different than someone posting it on this website.


----------



## Dark Knight

MechanicalDVR said:


> Dark Knight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that but that doesn't make it true. I would argue that it's in the cloud, look at it all you want. But that doesn't give you the right to download it, never mind re-posting it on another website.
> 
> There's a ton of music on YouTube, just sitting there in the cloud. Are you allowed to download it? Share it?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow dude you are really like over anal about this.
> 
> It isn't rocket surgery or brain science.
> 
> What do you think it means on Facebook when the privacy setting is "public"?
> 
> When one posts a picture online in a public forum it is shareable to all public sources.
> 
> If a pic can be found via google it's up for grabs.
Click to expand...

I'm not over anal about it. I simply posted my view that I thought it was illegal and a bunch of you got all defensive and jumped down my throat. Which is usually a sign of guilt, I might add. Now I'm simply arguing my point. 

One time I searched google for naked pictures of Jennifer Lawrence and a few other idiots who took naked selfies. I found some. Was it legal to download those pics and share them? 

I'm open to being wrong, I just haven't heard any good arguments for that. 'They're on FB' is not a definitive argument. They're still her intellectual property, even if the world can see them. Just like music.


----------



## Dark Knight

HackWork said:


> MechanicalDVR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow dude you are really like over anal about this.
> 
> It isn't rocket surgery or brain science.
> 
> What do you think it means on Facebook when the privacy setting is "public"?
> 
> When one posts a picture online in a public forum it is shareable to all public sources.
> 
> If a pic can be found via google it's up for grabs.
> 
> 
> 
> Google is a good example. Google is a website and it puts EVERY picture on the internet on its website for people to view, no different than someone posting it on this website.
Click to expand...

Google doesn't put pictures on its website. It helps you find what you're looking.


----------



## RePhase277

Dark Knight said:


> You say that but that doesn't make it true. I would argue that it's in the cloud, look at it all you want. But that doesn't give you the right to download it, never mind re-posting it on another website.


I get what you're saying, but simultaneously the onus is on her to not put pictures of herself on the internet. This really is a non-issue. She isn't in any danger. She will never even know that pic is here. No one is hunting her down because of this. This is a problem that doesn't exist.



> There's a ton of music on YouTube, just sitting there in the cloud. Are you allowed to download it? Share it?


Meh. I don't generally let some arbitrary rules made up by someone else get in my way. I don't know how old you are, but back in the day I kept a tape in the cassette deck on record but paused. When the radio played a song I liked, I unpaused it and recorded the song. The same with movies. I found a tape of Terminator in the attic a few weeks ago, recorded from HBO, if I recall correctly.

I'm a goddamn rebel terrorist. That's just how I roll.


----------



## Dark Knight

RePhase277 said:


> Dark Knight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that but that doesn't make it true. I would argue that it's in the cloud, look at it all you want. But that doesn't give you the right to download it, never mind re-posting it on another website.
> 
> 
> 
> I get what you're saying, but simultaneously the onus is on her to not put pictures of herself on the internet. This really is a non-issue. She isn't in any danger. She will never even know that pic is here. No one is hunting her down because of this. This is a problem that doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a ton of music on YouTube, just sitting there in the cloud. Are you allowed to download it? Share it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meh. I don't generally let some arbitrary rules made up by someone else get in my way. I don't know how old you are, but back in the day I kept a tape in the cassette deck on record but paused. When the radio played a song I liked, I unpaused it and recorded the song. The same with movies. I found a tape of Terminator in the attic a few weeks ago, recorded from HBO, if I recall correctly.
> 
> I'm a goddamn rebel terrorist. That's just how I roll.
Click to expand...

Yes, basically a non issue. I mostly just like to argue. 

I did that stuff too. And just because you can take music (and pics) off the Internet, doesn't make it legal. Is anything ever going to happen? Unlikely. But one day, the hammer might fall. Just ask Napster how it worked out for him.


----------



## HackWork

Dark Knight said:


> Google doesn't put pictures on its website. It helps you find what you're looking.


Again you are showing yourself to be an idiot.

Every picture on the searchable internet is on Google's website. Go to the image search and see.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

Dark Knight said:


> I'm not over anal about it. I simply posted my view that I thought it was illegal and a bunch of you got all defensive and jumped down my throat. Which is usually a sign of guilt, I might add. Now I'm simply arguing my point.
> 
> One time I searched google for naked pictures of Jennifer Lawrence and a few other idiots who took naked selfies. I found some. Was it legal to download those pics and share them?
> 
> I'm open to being wrong, I just haven't heard any good arguments for that. 'They're on FB' is not a definitive argument. They're still her intellectual property, even if the world can see them. Just like music.


YES you are being over anal about it. Was that not clear enough?

"Arguing your point"? I'm Sicilian and Scottish I'd argue with a rock if I thought I had a good point, you don't have a good point. 

Guilt? Guilty of what?

Once again, if it's on Google it's perfectly legit to share. 

There is no difference in someone seeing what you shared and finding it themselves on Google.

On Facebook they aren't her property once she posted them "public".

Music is copyrighted or under similar legal protections.


----------



## Dark Knight

MechanicalDVR said:


> Dark Knight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not over anal about it. I simply posted my view that I thought it was illegal and a bunch of you got all defensive and jumped down my throat. Which is usually a sign of guilt, I might add. Now I'm simply arguing my point.
> 
> One time I searched google for naked pictures of Jennifer Lawrence and a few other idiots who took naked selfies. I found some. Was it legal to download those pics and share them?
> 
> I'm open to being wrong, I just haven't heard any good arguments for that. 'They're on FB' is not a definitive argument. They're still her intellectual property, even if the world can see them. Just like music.
> 
> 
> 
> YES you are being over anal about it. Was that not clear enough?
> 
> "Arguing your point"? I'm Sicilian and Scottish I'd argue with a rock if I thought I had a good point, you don't have a good point.
> 
> Guilt? Guilty of what?
> 
> Once again, if it's on Google it's perfectly legit to share.
> 
> There is no difference in someone seeing what you shared and finding it themselves on Google.
> 
> On Facebook they aren't her property once she posted them "public".
> 
> Music is copyrighted or under similar legal protections.
Click to expand...

Guilty of being wrong.

Once again, ITS NOT ON GOOGLE. I don't think you understand the internet.


----------



## lighterup

Elizabeth ...I'm comin to join you...ahh..ahh...I'm hearing Gregorian chants 
now...there's a bright light....ahhhh..angels....wha?..FACEBOOK...I'm outta here!


----------



## cabletie

I don't know about the legality of it, but it was just wrong to post pictures of a client on a forum and talk about her nipples. Not to mention she's wearing a wedding ring. No need for creeper photos, the first one already did that for me! 

Maybe I'm alone, but that's the first time I've seen it, here or or any fourm before this one.

What's next? Drawing c#%k pictures in the porta-John.


----------



## RePhase277

cabletie said:


> I don't know about the legality of it, but it was just wrong to post pictures of a client on a forum and talk about her nipples. Not to mention she's wearing a wedding ring. No need for creeper photos, the first one already did that for me!
> 
> Maybe I'm alone, but that's the first time I've seen it, here or or any fourm before this one.
> 
> What's next? Drawing c#%k pictures in the porta-John.



Nah, that's for Mexicans. I just figured the next logical step would be to kidnap, rape, and kill her. Not necessarily in that order.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

I think the old adage of 'pics or it didn't happen' got the best of the guy.

I may have posted a pic but it wouldn't have had faces in it as Facebook friends can attest to on my behalf.


----------



## trentonmakes

RePhase277 said:


> Nah, that's for Mexicans. I just figured the next logical step would be to kidnap, rape, and kill her. Not necessarily in that order.


I ran out of chloroform, can you spare any?

Texting and Driving


----------



## trentonmakes

cabletie said:


> I don't know about the legality of it, but it was just wrong to post pictures of a client on a forum and talk about her nipples. Not to mention she's wearing a wedding ring. No need for creeper photos, the first one already did that for me!
> 
> Maybe I'm alone, but that's the first time I've seen it, here or or any fourm before this one.
> 
> What's next? Drawing c#%k pictures in the porta-John.


I cant be the only one who glanced at the teenage daughter hopping around the house in skimpy clothing, am I?
Thats wrong as well, and you better not let the parents catch you!
Teenage i mean 17-20 something...

Maybe it was in poor taste, but i just wanted to share what I thought was a little eye candy.



Texting and Driving


----------



## sbrn33

Dark Knight said:


> One time I searched google for naked pictures of Jennifer Lawrence and a few other idiots who took naked selfies. I found some. Was it legal to download those pics and share them?
> .


Jennifer Lawrence nude is actually a pretty good image search, and yes you can download all you want.


----------



## RePhase277

trentonmakes said:


> I cant be the only one who glanced at the teenage daughter hopping around the house in skimpy clothing, am I?
> Thats wrong as well, and you better not let the parents catch you!
> Teenage i mean 17-20 something...
> 
> Maybe it was in poor taste, but i just wanted to share what I thought was a little eye candy.
> 
> 
> 
> Texting and Driving


Only people with absolutely no skin in the game, and a their own fists stuck waaaaaayyyyy up their asses, care at all about the pic being posted. This ranks right up there with manspreading as a problem.


----------



## Signal1

cabletie said:


> I don't know about the legality of it, but it was just wrong to post pictures of a client on a forum and talk about her nipples. Not to mention she's wearing a wedding ring. No need for creeper photos, the first one already did that for me!
> 
> Maybe I'm alone, but that's the first time I've seen it, here or or any fourm before this one.
> 
> What's next? Drawing c#%k pictures in the porta-John.


I think Cabletie is probably right here.


----------



## TGGT

Dark Knight said:


> Yes, basically a non issue. I mostly just like to argue.
> 
> I did that stuff too. And just because you can take music (and pics) off the Internet, doesn't make it legal. Is anything ever going to happen? Unlikely. But one day, the hammer might fall. Just ask Napster how it worked out for him.


It's legal. You're wrong. If you want privacy you can't post stuff on the internet. It's really that simple. Taking a photo of her in her home without permission and then distributing them would probably would violate privacy laws.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## MechanicalDVR

TGGT said:


> It's legal. You're wrong. If you want privacy you can't post stuff on the internet. It's really that simple. *Taking a photo of her in her home without permission and then distributing them would probably would violate privacy laws.*
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


That actually varies state to state.

There was a case in the news not too long ago about a guy in Long Island that put cameras in a neighbors apt to video her and when caught he had violated no laws they had on the books in NY.


----------



## RePhase277

trentonmakes said:


> I ran out of chloroform, can you spare any?
> 
> Texting and Driving


Chloroform is not easy to get or make. Don't you have a short piece of EMT?


----------



## TGGT

MechanicalDVR said:


> That actually varies state to state.
> 
> There was a case in the news not too long ago about a guy in Long Island that put cameras in a neighbors apt to video her and when caught he had violated no laws they had on the books in NY.


Then I think the justice affiliated with that perversion should vary from state to state as well...


----------



## MechanicalDVR

TGGT said:


> Then I think the justice affiliated with that perversion should vary from state to state as well...


I was just very shocked to hear they had no laws against it.


----------



## splatz

cabletie said:


> I don't know about the legality of it, but it was just wrong to post pictures of a client on a forum and talk about her nipples. Not to mention she's wearing a wedding ring. No need for creeper photos, the first one already did that for me!
> 
> Maybe I'm alone, but that's the first time I've seen it, here or or any fourm before this one.
> 
> What's next? Drawing c#%k pictures in the porta-John.





Signal1 said:


> I think Cabletie is probably right here.


Look I get it, cute girl, harmless pic, and I don't think the OP is some kind of dangerous pervert or anything like that. But. 

I don't know if it's legal, but I can tell you for sure this would be a firing offense with a lot of companies I deal with. There's just zero tolerance for making women uncomfortable in their home. 

Do you think if the customer found out about this, this would do great things for your Yelp reviews? 

It's unlikely they'll ever find out, but not impossible if someone does a google image search on that picture, electriciantalk has pretty good google rank. 

Would you want someone re-posting pics of your wife or sister like this?


----------



## trentonmakes

splatz said:


> Look I get it, cute girl, harmless pic, and I don't think the OP is some kind of dangerous pervert or anything like that. But.
> 
> I don't know if it's legal, but I can tell you for sure this would be a firing offense with a lot of companies I deal with. There's just zero tolerance for making women uncomfortable in their home.
> 
> Do you think if the customer found out about this, this would do great things for your Yelp reviews?
> 
> It's unlikely they'll ever find out, but not impossible if someone does a google image search on that picture, electriciantalk has pretty good google rank.
> 
> Would you want someone re-posting pics of your wife or sister like this?


1st thank you
2... Just to clarify, this was not a company job, on company time or anything to do with the company at all.

Its too late to edit so I cannot take the pic down.

I didnt know you could google search a photo???

Texting and Driving


----------



## HackWork

Both Google and a website called Tineye will allow you to search by picture.

Next time you want to post hot customers, do it in the private business forum that search engines can't index.


----------



## Signal1

HackWork said:


> Both Google and a website called Tineye will allow you to search by picture.
> 
> Next time you want to post hot customers, do it in the private business forum that search engines can't index.


Bing has "search by image" too, just like Google. 

Just copy/paste the URL and it scours the web for that pic. 

Google/Bing>>Images>>click the little camera icon in the search bar.


----------



## HackWork

Signal1 said:


> Bing has "search by image" too, just like Google.
> 
> Just copy/paste the URL and it scours the web for that pic.
> 
> Google/Bing>>Images>>click the little camera icon in the search bar.


Dam son.


----------

