# an inspector in fail for a permit granted in nov 2013



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

gglav2 said:


> I had a inspector fail me for a permit granted in 2013 and i had told him it was granted in 2013 he said well its 2014 i didnt say but i should of said why dont you look a mass amendment rule 7 it say it right there and im sure it's in NEC too.well i dont fell comfort signing.he also said i just need 3 arc fault and your all set. The 2014 code is more then its every live space you need arc fault in 2014 and more that not much but more.happen in taxachusett. This was a differet inspector from the rough.


Why would you argue about something that is to make the system safer?


----------



## gglav2 (Feb 1, 2013)

*The job was bided for 2011*

there over $400 in material and almost a day of labor the GC will not pay homeowner maybe if they want do it


----------



## gglav2 (Feb 1, 2013)

*and job over a HR away*

and job over a HR away


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

RIVETER said:


> Why would you argue about something that is to make the system safer?



Some projects take years from permitting to completion. How would you handle a change that would require you to spend _6 digits_ to correct because it wasn't required back when you got the permit but is now required?

Most places, the date of the permit issue determines the code edition used for inspections.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Some projects take years from permitting to completion. How would you handle a change that would require you to spend _6 digits_ to correct because it wasn't required back when you got the permit but is now required?
> 
> Most places, the date of the permit issue determines the code edition used for inspections.


I am in that situation now and am told that I am required to satisfy the code cycle in which my permit was taken. If I had a job that would take years to complete and did not bid that possibility into it, I would not be in business for very long.


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

gglav2 said:


> I had a inspector fail me for a permit granted in 2013 and i had told him it was granted in 2013 he said well its 2014 i didnt say but i should of said why dont you look a mass amendment rule 7 it say it right there and im sure it's in NEC too.well i dont fell comfort signing.he also said i just need 3 arc fault and your all set. The 2014 code is more then that its every live space you need arc fault in 2014 and more other code that not much but more.happen in taxachusett. This was a differet inspector from the rough.


The permit is from 2013, however----The 2014 NEC took effect in January 2014. anything you did on the job after 20131231-2359 EST comes under the 2014 NEC with the mass amendments, I can see the inspector cutting some slack in the first 2 or 3 months of the cycle but we are 9 months in now, if you choose to fight him and he takes you to the board you will be subject to their opinion and not necessarily the facts---You may be right, but you really do not want to go before the board of electricians examiners, because they want the latest code enforced, spent $400 and let it go it is not worth a trip downtown.


----------



## gglav2 (Feb 1, 2013)

*nspector always have this gray area if you dont know them.*

if somhow something ever happens the they pull up the permit and see the granted date and 2013 yeah thats 2011 code cycle the house was up to code at the time. y do inspector always have this gray area if you dont know them.


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

gglav2 said:


> if somhow something ever happens the they pull up the permit and see the granted date and 2013 yeah thats 2011 code cycle the house was up to code at the time. y do inspector always have this gray area if you dont know them.


True that, these changes are costly, but these guys in the gov are living in a dreamworld and cannot understand costs....:no:


----------



## gglav2 (Feb 1, 2013)

any one know where it is in nec, its more then $200 dude yeah if i can add the 3 arc faults and be set but its a diffent inspector again that what he said needed to be done that isn't 2014 code adding 3 arc faults for this house atleast what bout dishwasher gfi too and more


----------



## gglav2 (Feb 1, 2013)

there's no gray area in mass rule 7 im doing what it means


----------



## gglav2 (Feb 1, 2013)

also the house job was thru family too


----------



## zen (Jun 15, 2009)

Surely the price of wire changed from the original bid till the time you actually purchased it for this job..things like this have to be considered when bidding and contract s

Sent from my SPH-D710BST using electriciantalk.com mobile app


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

gglav2 said:


> any one know where it is in nec, its more then $200 dude yeah if i can add the 3 arc faults and be set but its a diffent inspector again that what he said needed to be done that isn't 2014 code adding 3 arc faults for this house atleast what bout dishwasher gfi too and more


On the dish washer, install a 4" sq Box with a blank GFCI in a raised cover, and use an AFCI breaker.

Read 210.12-----All of it

I really do not think that rule 7 will help you now, because we are 9 months into the cycle, you have had plenty of time to get up to speed on the 2014 NEC.

Give the client a price to comply with the code and give them a good discount so they might pay for the extra.
****************************************************
210.12 Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Arc-fault circuit-interrupter protection shall be provided as required in 210.12(A) (B), and (C). The arc-fault circuit interrupter shall be installed in a readily accessible location.


(A) Dwelling Units. All 120-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets or devices installed in dwelling unit kitchens, family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation rooms, closets, hallways, laundry areas, or similar rooms or areas shall be protected by any of the means described in 210.12(A)(1) through (6):
(1) 
A listed combination-type arc-fault circuit interrupter, installed to provide protection of the entire branch circuit
(2) 
A listed branch/feeder-type AFCI installed at the origin of the branch-circuit in combination with a listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter installed at the first outlet box on the branch circuit. The first outlet box in the branch circuit shall be marked to indicate that it is the first outlet of the circuit.
(3) 
A listed supplemental arc protection circuit breaker installed at the origin of the branch circuit in combination with a listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter installed at the first outlet box on the branch circuit where all of the following conditions are met:
a. 
The branch-circuit wiring shall be continuous from the branch-circuit overcurrent device to the outlet branch-circuit arc-fault circuit interrupter.
b. 
The maximum length of the branch-circuit wiring from the branch-circuit overcurrent device to the first outlet shall not exceed 15.2 m (50 ft) for a 14 AWG conductor or 21.3 m (70 ft) for a 12 AWG conductor.
c. 
The first outlet box in the branch circuit shall be marked to indicate that it is the first outlet of the circuit.
(4) 
A listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter installed at the first outlet on the branch circuit in combination with a listed branch-circuit overcurrent protective device where all of the following conditions are met:
a. 
The branch-circuit wiring shall be continuous from the branch-circuit overcurrent device to the outlet branch-circuit arc-fault circuit interrupter.
b. 
The maximum length of the branch-circuit wiring from the branch-circuit overcurrent device to the first outlet shall not exceed 15.2 m (50 ft) for a 14 AWG conductor or 21.3 m (70 ft) for a 12 AWG conductor.
c. 
The first outlet box in the branch circuit shall be marked to indicate that it is the first outlet of the circuit.
d. 
The combination of the branch-circuit overcurrent device and outlet branch-circuit AFCI shall be identified as meeting the requirements for a system combination–type AFCI and shall be listed as such.
(5) 
If RMC, IMC, EMT, Type MC, or steel-armored Type AC cables meeting the requirements of 250.118, metal wireways, metal auxiliary gutters, and metal outlet and junction boxes are installed for the portion of the branch circuit between the branch-circuit overcurrent device and the first outlet, it shall be permitted to install a listed outlet branch-circuit type AFCI at the first outlet to provide protection for the remaining portion of the branch circuit.
(6) 
Where a listed metal or nonmetallic conduit or tubing or Type MC cable is encased in not less than 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete for the portion of the branch circuit between the branch-circuit overcurrent device and the first outlet, it shall be permitted to install a listed outlet branch-circuit type AFCI at the first outlet to provide protection for the remaining portion of the branch circuit.
•
Exception:  Where an individual branch circuit to a fire alarm system installed in accordance with 760.41(B) or 760.121(B) is installed in RMC, IMC, EMT, or steel-sheathed cable, Type AC or Type MC, meeting the requirements of 250.118, with metal outlet and junction boxes, AFCI protection shall be permitted to be omitted.
Informational Note No. 1:  For information on combination-type and branch/feeder-type arc-fault circuit interrupters, see UL 1699-2011, Standard for Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupters. For information on outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit interupters, see UL Subject 1699A, Outline of Investigation for Outlet Branch Circuit Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupters. For information on system combination AFCIs, see UL Subject 1699C, Outline of Investigation for System Combination Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupters.
Informational Note No. 2:  See 29.6.3(5) of NFPA 72-2013, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, for information related to secondary power-supply requirements for smoke alarms installed in dwelling units.
Informational Note No. 3:  See 760.41(B) and 760.121(B) for power-supply requirements for fire alarm systems.
(B) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications — Dwelling Units. In any of the areas specified in 210.12(A), where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or extended, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the following:
(1) 
A listed combination-type AFCI located at the origin of the branch circuit
(2) 
A listed outlet branch-circuit type AFCI located at the first receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit
Exception:  AFCI protection shall not be required where the extension of the existing conductors is not more than 1.8 m (6 ft) and does not include any additional outlets or devices.
(C) Dormitory Units. All 120-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dormitory unit bedrooms, living rooms, hallways, closets, and similar rooms shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter meeting the requirements of 210.12(A)(1) through (6) as appropriate.


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

gglav2 said:


> also the house job was thru family too



I hope you charged them full price...


If they can afford to build a house they can afford to pay you full price.


----------



## bobelectric (Feb 24, 2007)

One more time. It's "Proof-read twice. Post once."


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

zen said:


> Surely the price of wire changed from the original bid till the time you actually purchased it for this job..things like this have to be considered when bidding and contract s
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D710BST using electriciantalk.com mobile app


What does the cost of materials have to do with Code enforcement? 

Sent from MyOuthouse using ToiletPaper.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> I am in that situation now and am told that I am required to satisfy the code cycle in which my permit was taken. If I had a job that would take years to complete and did not bid that possibility into it, I would not be in business for very long.


This has nothing to do with the op's statement. If the permit was taken out before the adoption of the 2014 code then he is only obligated to do what the 2011 NEC requires regardless of whether or not the 2014 is safer. I bet if the code were more lenient the inspector wouldn't allow it.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Sounds like a line something like this should be added into your proposal.

_This price is based on the codes and laws enforced on the date of execution of the proposal. Customer agrees that cost to meet any changes in codes or laws will be invoiced as extra work in addition to the base proposal.​_


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

I'd say rule 7 is pretty clear, permits issued after Dec 31 of 13 are under the 14 NEC permits issued before aren't . 

Inspector is what is commonly called a dumbass. :laughing:


----------



## EBFD6 (Aug 17, 2008)

Black Dog said:


> The permit is from 2013, however----The 2014 NEC took effect in January 2014. anything you did on the job after 20131231-2359 EST comes under the 2014 NEC with the mass amendments


No, it doesn't. The entire job is held to the code edition in effect on the date the permit application was submitted. It does not matter when the work was actually done. If the permit application date is 2013 then the 2011 code is what is enforced. 

Harry, it surprises me that someone who has been an ec in the state of MA as long as you have doesn't understand one of the most basic rules of electrical contracting in this state.


----------



## Bugz11B (May 12, 2013)

In Florida the NEC edition to be used is stamped right on the print. We will be adapting the 2011 code this year (so they say) and all our jobs that are in for permitting right now will fall on 2008 code even if it doesn't start until we're on 2011 and wont matter if we finish the jobs during the 2014 code, stamped edition is all that matters... Seems all states would have this logic.


----------



## gglav2 (Feb 1, 2013)

im with Jlarson and dennis there's no gray area here its very clear


----------



## gglav2 (Feb 1, 2013)

EBFD6 

yeah you haven;t had a problem this code cycle or even others in ma also alot of people saying yeah but its 9 months now so what rule 7 is clear and the job bided for 2011 cycle not 2014 but differents


----------



## gglav2 (Feb 1, 2013)

black dog i just use combos the other thing he said is just add three arc faults there then that just the mico.,kitchen 1 &@2 that 3 right there isn't DW just GFI, also you know guys doing it that way using branch feeder arc or others arc i cant see what its cheaper it seam alot more specially with more labor


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

gglav2 said:


> I had a inspector fail me for a permit granted in 2013 and i had told him it was granted in 2013 he said well its 2014 i didnt say but i should of said why dont you look a mass amendment rule 7 it say it right there and im sure it's in NEC too.well i dont fell comfort signing.he also said i just need 3 arc fault and your all set. The 2014 code is more then its every live space you need arc fault in 2014 and more that not much but more.happen in taxachusett. This was a differet inspector from the rough.


Is this chicken steve? Because I didn't understand a thing.


----------



## Al Lamke (Sep 15, 2010)

Check your state LAW. most states have to "adopt" the new code by passing a law thru their legislation. Here in Hawaii we are still on the 2008 Code!


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

Al Lamke said:


> Check your state LAW. most states have to "adopt" the new code by passing a law thru their legislation. Here in Hawaii we are still on the 2008 Code!


Yup, thats how it works here in NY. We are on the 2008 code and have adopted the 2014 code effective January 2015. I don't remember ever skipping a a code cycle, but we skipped the 2011 code entirety!


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

EBFD6 said:


> No, it doesn't. The entire job is held to the code edition in effect on the date the permit application was submitted. It does not matter when the work was actually done. If the permit application date is 2013 then the 2011 code is what is enforced.
> 
> Harry, it surprises me that someone who has been an ec in the state of MA as long as you have *doesn't understand one of the most basic rules of electrical contracting in this state.*


I understand the rules just fine and use them to my advantage.

It should not be a surprise that I started a Job in 2013 and knew that it would not be rough inspected until mid January 2014 and finish inspected until mid February 2014.

So in my proposal I wrote out "This electrical work will performed to the 2014 NEC requirements" and won the bid and did the job as if the 2014 was in effect, the cost difference was included in the price.

Instead of crying about how much the NEC rules suck, I use the NEC as an advantage to sell the job at a higher price.

I thank all the guys who cry about how bad the code requirements are while attempting to sell this work, it makes them look unprofessional:laughing:


----------



## EBFD6 (Aug 17, 2008)

Black Dog said:


> I understand the rules just fine and use them to my advantage.
> 
> It should not be a surprise that I started a Job in 2013 and knew that it would not be rough inspected until mid January 2014 and finish inspected until mid February 2014.
> 
> ...


That's fine if that is your personal policy, but it is not what the law states and that is the topic of this thread. 

If the job starts December 31, 2013, then it falls under the 2011 NEC. The entire job. It does not matter that the 2014 NEC took effect 0n January 1, 2014, it will still fall under the 2011 NEC. When the work is physically done does not matter, only when the permit application was filed.

If you are doing small residential jobs it might not matter, and your method might be fine. Doing larger commercial jobs, it could be a huge deal.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

EBFD6 said:


> Harry, it surprises me that someone who has been an ec in the state of MA as long as you have doesn't understand one of the most basic rules of electrical contracting in this state.


You should know by know that Harry just makes it up as he goes along.


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

EBFD6 said:


> That's fine if that is your personal policy, but it is not what the law states and that is the topic of this thread.
> 
> If the job starts December 31, 2013, then it falls under the 2011 NEC. The entire job. It does not matter that the 2014 NEC took effect 0n January 1, 2014, it will still fall under the 2011 NEC. When the work is physically done does not matter, only when the permit application was filed.
> 
> If you are doing small residential jobs it might not matter, and your method might be fine. Doing larger commercial jobs, it could be a huge deal.


I agree with you on Rule 7 and it should be enforced 100%, however we are subjected to the opinion of the electrical inspector and being 9 months into the 2014 NEC cycle is really pushing the button and opens the door for a hard ass inspector to fail you, right in front of the client no doubt, the OP may win if he takes the inspector to the board, but it will cost him more to fight the inspector than to fix the issue.

Fighting with the electrical inspector will cause delays in getting the final building inspection which will likely piss off the client, this will also open the door for the client to post on the internet that the OP "***** Electric fails inspections" once stuff like that is posted, it never goes away.


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

:sleep1:


MTW said:


> You should know by know that Harry just makes it up as he goes along.


:sleep1:


----------



## EBFD6 (Aug 17, 2008)

Black Dog said:


> I agree with you on Rule 7 and it should be enforced 100%, however we are subjected to the opinion of the electrical inspector and being 9 months into the 2014 NEC


I will say it again. 

No, we are not subject to the opinion of the inspector. It doesn't matter that we are 9 months into the 2014 code cycle. If the job was started under the 2011 code cycle then the entire job from start to finish falls under the 2011 code. You could start a job on December 31, 2013 and that job could be ongoing until December 31, 2018 and the entire job would still fall under the 2011 code cycle. 

It doesn't matter when the work was done, just when the job started. The opinion of the inspector means nothing here, it is in the law in black and white. No room for interpretation.


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

EBFD6 said:


> I will say it again.
> 
> No, we are not subject to the opinion of the inspector. It doesn't matter that we are 9 months into the 2014 code cycle. If the job was started under the 2011 code cycle then the entire job from start to finish falls under the 2011 code. You could start a job on December 31, 2013 and that job could be ongoing until December 31, 2018 and the entire job would still fall under the 2011 code cycle.
> 
> It doesn't matter when the work was done, just when the job started. The opinion of the inspector means nothing here, it is in the law in black and white. No room for interpretation.


I agree with you, but out in the real world it's not all cut and dry.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Black Dog said:


> I understand the rules just fine and use them to my advantage.
> 
> It should not be a surprise that I started a Job in 2013 and knew that it would not be rough inspected until mid January 2014 and finish inspected until mid February 2014.
> 
> ...


This is all fine and well for the vast majority of electrical work. But again , there are jobs that take years to complete.

So how would you write your contract for "Work done to 2014 NEC" when the projected completion date is something like 2018? How would you handle a change in the 2017 that would, if enforced before you finish, cost you $1,000,000 or more to comply with?


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

480sparky said:


> This is all fine and well for the vast majority of electrical work. But again , there are jobs that take years to complete.
> 
> So how would you write your contract for "Work done to 2014 NEC" when the projected completion date is something like 2018? How would you handle a change in the 2017 that would, if enforced before you finish, cost you $1,000,000 or more to comply with?


Not possible because the 2017 NEC is not available yet :laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Black Dog said:


> Not possible because the 2017 NEC is not available yet :laughing:


So how would you write your contact?


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

480sparky said:


> So how would you write your contact?


"Work done to 2014 NEC"


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Black Dog said:


> "Work done to 2014 NEC"


And you'd probably get stuck paying for the changes.


----------



## gglav2 (Feb 1, 2013)

the contract was wrritten for 2011 code cycle and bided for 2011 code if it was the sign off date i would have know that and i would have bided for 2014 code if i bided for 2014 code anyways cause i new the final was going to be in 2014 i wouldn't of got the job someone would of been able to do it cheaper thats the other reason it was bided for 2011 the GC said he wont pay plus ive only been in business 6 years i have 3 kids and a girlfriend to take care off im scraping by as it is now. ill let everyone know this week if i get signed off or i have to make the changes the GC should be paying correct even if he said hes not its in the contract 2011 code cycle


----------



## Bugz11B (May 12, 2013)

gglav2 said:


> the contract was wrritten for 2011 code cycle and bided for 2011 code if it was the sign off date i would have know that and i would have bided for 2014 code if i bided for 2014 code anyways cause i new the final was going to be in 2014 i wouldn't of got the job someone would of been able to do it cheaper thats the other reason it was bided for 2011 the GC said he wont pay plus ive only been in business 6 years i have 3 kids and a girlfriend to take care off im scraping by as it is now. ill let everyone know this week if i get signed off or i have to make the changes the GC should be paying correct even if he said hes not its in the contract 2011 code cycle


If contract states 2011 and job started on 2011 and inspector wont let it slide then I would say you have a "forced extra" which somebody will have to pay for, and in my opinion you are not that somebody.


----------



## EBFD6 (Aug 17, 2008)

gglav2 said:


> The contract was written for the 2011 code cycle and bid for the 2011 code. If it was the sign off date I would have known that and I would have bid for the 2014 code. If i bid for 2014 code anyways cause I knew the final was going to be in 2014, I wouldn't Have gotten the job. Someone would have been able to do it cheaper. That's the other reason it was bid for 2011. The GC said he wont pay, plus I've only been in business 6 years, I have 3 kids and a girlfriend to take care of and I'm scraping by as it is now. I'll let everyone know this week if i get signed off or if I have to make the changes. The GC should be paying to correct even if he said he's not, it's in the contract to wire to the 2011 code cycle.


Dude, I hate to be a spelling nazi douche, but your posts are completely unreadable. Please take a little extra time to use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation while composing your posts so that the rest of us can read and understand what you are trying to say. Nobody here is an English major, but your last post was so incomprehensible that I actually had to edit your quote and insert the proper spelling, punctuation, and grammar so I could understand what you were trying to say.

To answer your question, if it's in your contract that the job will be done to the 2011 NEC, and that's the code that was in effect when you pulled the permit, then that is all you are required to do. The inspector can't force you to wire to the 2014 code and the GC shouldn't expect you to go above and beyond the 2011 requirements for free.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

gglav2 said:


> if somhow something ever happens the they pull up the permit and see the granted date and 2013 yeah thats 2011 code cycle the house was up to code at the time. y do inspector always have this gray area if you dont know them.


Can I make a suggestion? Use capital letters, proper punctuation and whole words. Some of us old timers don't do the 1 & 2 letter text tap crap!


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

gglav2 said:


> the contract was wrritten for 2011 code cycle and bided for 2011 code if it was the sign off date i would have know that and i would have bided for 2014 code if i bided for 2014 code anyways cause i new the final was going to be in 2014 i wouldn't of got the job someone would of been able to do it cheaper thats the other reason it was bided for 2011 the GC said he wont pay plus ive only been in business 6 years i have 3 kids and a girlfriend to take care off im scraping by as it is now. ill let everyone know this week if i get signed off or i have to make the changes the GC should be paying correct even if he said hes not its in the contract 2011 code cycle



Damn.... I hope the NEC never ends up getting written like this.


----------



## theJcK (Aug 7, 2013)

maybe a call to the inspection office and speaking with the head inspector would go quite a ways with this issue?.. around here the date the permit is issued determines the code cycle.


----------



## gglav2 (Feb 1, 2013)

thats what i plan on doing 7 am tomorrow morning i hope everything goes well he said it passed for 2011 cycle this job is an hour away so its not my normal area


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

9 out of 10 doctors agree.... Your keyboard needs replaced. The shift keys and punctuation keys are all broken.


----------



## gglav2 (Feb 1, 2013)

*A different inspector signed it off*

A different inspector signed me off today. It cost me alot of time cuz i had to go up there over a hr away one way and calling back and forth i tried to find out why he wouldnt sign off the new inspector said not getting into it i said ok. but im happy with the end result.  
:thumbsup:


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

gglav2 said:


> A different inspector signed me off today. It cost me a lot of time because I had to go up there over a hour away one way and calling back and forth I tried to find out why he wouldn't sign off the new inspector said not getting into it, I said OK. but I'm happy with the end result.
> :thumbsup:


Just a little editing:thumbsup:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Black Dog said:


> True that, these changes are costly, *but these guys in the gov* are living in a dreamworld and cannot understand costs....:no:


Interesting, I thought you said that the government had nothing to do with the process. You can't even keep track of your own lies. :whistling2:


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

MTW said:


> Interesting, I thought you said that the government had nothing to do with the process. You can't even keep track of your own lies. :whistling2:


Do you have brain damage?:blink:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Black Dog said:


> Do you have brain damage?:blink:


I think you might because you can't keep your stories and lies straight.


----------

