MyFloridaCode.com

Tue May 26 06:05:34 EDT 2009

I don't think sheetmetal is a fire barier?

-----Original Message-----
From: codetalk-request at myfloridacode.com
To: codetalk at myfloridacode.com
Sent: Mon, 25 May 2009 12:41 pm
Subject: CodeTalk Digest, Vol 45, Issue 14

Send CodeTalk mailing list submissions to
    codetalk at myfloridacode.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    codetalk-request at myfloridacode.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
    codetalk-owner at myfloridacode.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CodeTalk digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Questionable call by Building official (WR290 at aol.com)
   2. Re: Questionable call by Building official (WR290 at aol.com)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 12:38:45 EDT
From: WR290 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] Questionable call by Building
    official
To: dalemarcialee at sprintmail.com, gyantorn at scgov.net,
    pathoag at cfl.rr.com, jcoughlin at englehomes.com, FineR at gtlaw.com,
    noleball at hotmail.com,   codetalk at myfloridacode.com
Message-ID: <bea.3de02de0.374c2395 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Dale

Missed you last weekend. Hope all is well.

Relating to your post. The plain language R309.2 does not mention fire  
protection, only separation, to the ceiling of a garage unless there is a  
habitable area above.  Although we do know that 1/2 GWB is 20 minute.  That is 
why the interpretation from BOAF states No. 

See below 

>From BOAF Informal Interpretation

Question:

Is it the intent of R309.1 and R309.2 to be applied to attic accesses  in 
garages with relation to a fire rating?
Answer:
No. The requirement is  for separation as stipulated, not a fire rated 
assembly. The attic access  closure
would need to be equivalent to 1/2 inch gyp board, or in the case  where 
there is a habitable area above the
ceiling, 5/8 inch Type X gyp board  (where the ceiling is used to provide 
the separation).
Commentary:
Section  309.1 addresses openings between the garage and the residence. 
Section 309.2  establish
es the
separation requirement between the garage and the attic. 1/2  inch gypsum 
is allowed.

In a message dated 5/25/2009 11:02:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
dalemarcialee at sprintmail.com writes:

I'm  unclear as to the installation of the ladder. Is it a fixed ladder 
through the  scuttle hole creating a penetration of the ceiling assembly? 
R309.2 requires  ceiling protection of 1/2 " gdw on the ceiling and if its a 
floor/ceiling  assembly,( with habitable space above) it must be 5/8 type "X'. 
If the ladder  and scuttle create a penetration through the ceiling envelope, 
it must be  protected in some manner.
Most pull-down attic ladders are not fire-rated  but a layer of sheet-metal 
or drywall applied to the bottom side is usually  accepted.

Dale Lee,CBO
Bay Harbor Islands 

-----Original  Message-----
>From: WR290 at aol.com
>Sent: May 23, 2009 3:26  PM
>To: gyantorn at scgov.net, pathoag at cfl.rr.com,  jcoughlin at englehomes.com, 
FineR at gtlaw.com, noleball at hotmail.com,  codetalk at myfloridacode.com
>Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk]  Questionable call by Building official
>
> 
>I think he said  he discussed it with the BO because he might want to be 
one 
> in the  future, 
> 
>Tom
> 
> 
>a message dated  5/23/2009 3:23:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
>gyantorn at scgov.net  writes:
>
>This  issue is getting out of hand. Discuss with  the BO and inspector. 
You 
>may be  suprised. 
>
>-----  Original Message -----
>From:   codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com   
><codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com>
>To:  WR290 at aol.com  <WR290 at aol.com>; jcoughlin at englehomes.com   
><jcoughlin at englehomes.com>; FineR at gtlaw.com  <FineR at gtlaw.com>;  
noleball at hotmail.com  
><noleball at hotmail.com>; codetalk at myfloridacode.com   
<codetalk at myfloridacode.com>
>Sent: Sat May 23 15:15:06   2009
>Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] Questionable call by  Building  official
>
>Your backing down does nothing but to  propagate the problem  state wide.
>
>-----Original  Message-----
>From:   codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com
>[mailto:codetalk-bounc
es at myfloridacode.com]   On Behalf Of WR290 at aol.com
>Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 2:32  PM
>To:  jcoughlin at englehomes.com; FineR at gtlaw.com;   noleball at hotmail.com;
>codetalk at myfloridacode.com
>Subject: Re:  [Florida  Code Talk] Questionable call by Building  official
>
>
>I absolutely  understand.   
>
>This is purely a business decision.  If he want  to  take this official  
on. 
>He will not get a CO, His bank will  keep  charging for extensions of his  
>loan. Assuming he has  a loan. And  probably 2 years down the road he might
>get  
>this issue done. What I see  is FR paint and a GFCI > The  total cost is  
>less
>
>than 100.00.   
>
>I have been down this road and it is not pretty. Not to  mention that  
this  
>person is a contractor. I assume he will  want to continue to  work with 
this
>
>building department.  
>
>
>Tom
>
>
>In a  message dated  5/23/2009 2:21:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,    
>jcoughlin at englehomes.com writes:
>
>The  problem with  rolling  over when you are right and the inspector 
won't 
>listen  is  sort of  like a dog humping your leg. If you let the dog hump  
>you,
>
>he  always  will and you will be his  biatch.
>
>Go to the BO first, then  get BIA  involved.  This will work 95% of the 
time.
>
>Rolling over is  NOT  an   Option.
>
>________________________________
>
>From:   WR290 at aol.com  
>To: Jay Coughlin; FineR at gtlaw.com ;   noleball at hotmail.com ;  
>codetalk at myfloridacode.com 
>Sent:  Sat May  23 14:16:18 2009
>Subject: Re:  [Florida Code Talk]  Questionable call  by Building official 

>
>
>Charles:
>
>I was not going to  chime  in on this.This is a  common happening. You can 
>do 
>one of  two  things. Take a recorder with you and  tell him you are  
>recording 
>his  comments, send his comments along with  a  complaint to DBPR. Or you 
>can  
>just make the  repairs and go one with life. I  would absolutly  recommend 

>the second option. 
>
>Tom Ricci CBO
>BT   Builders  Inc
>
>In a message dated 5/21/2009 8:44:12 A.M.  Eastern Daylight   Time, 
>jcoughlin at englehom
es.com  writes:
>
>This is typical of   some rouge inspectors.  Call the CBO and it goes away
>if not  in book,  can be  resolved in one day normally.
>
>-----Original   Message-----
>From:    codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com
>[mailto:codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com]   On Behalf Of  FineR at gtlaw.com
>Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009  7:55   PM
>To: noleball at hotmail.com;   codetalk at myfloridacode.com
>Subject:  Re: [Florida Code Talk]   Questionable call by Building  official
>
>(This is not  intended to be legal advice) 
>
>If it were  me, and my  county had a board of rules and appeals, I  would
>file an   appeal.  In my experience, the filing of  an appeal is enough   
to
>lead to a discussion that frequently  resolves the matter  without  the
>hearing being  necessary.  And if it  doesn't get resolved,  you have a set
>date by which the matter  will be resolved.    If  your county  does not
>have  such a board, you can use the binding   interpretation process in  
Fla
>Stat 553.775 which is very  fast.  
>
>Good  luck
>
>Robert
>
>Robert S. Fine,  Esq.,   AIA
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>Tax   Advice Disclosure: To ensure  compliance with requirements
>imposed  by  the IRS under  Circular 230, we inform you that any  U.S.
>federal tax  advice  contained in this communication  (including  any
>attachments),  unless otherwise specifically  stated, was not  intended or
>written to be used, and cannot be  used, for the purpose of  (1)  avoiding
>penalties under the  Internal Revenue Code or (2)   promoting, marketing  
or
>recommending to another party any  matters  addressed  herein.
>
>The  information contained in this  transmission  may contain
>privileged and confidential information.  It is intended only  for the  use
>of the person(s) named  above. If you are not the  intended  recipient, you
>are  hereby notified that any review,   dissemination, distribution  or
>duplication of this  communication is  strictly  prohibited. If you are not
>the  intende
d recipient, please   contact the sender by reply email and
>destroy all copies of the  original  message. To reply to our  email
>administrator  directly, please send an  email    to
>mailto:postmaster at gtlaw.com.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>
>
>From:    codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com
><codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com>
>To:    codetalk at myfloridacode.com <codetalk at myfloridacode.com>
>Sent: Wed  May  20 19:35:05 2009
>Subject: [Florida Code Talk]   Questionable call by  Building official
>
>
>
>I  am trying to obtain a C.O. for a   residence we have completed and  the
>building official has  taken some  liberties with his  judgement.  I
>usually try  to do what is asked  of me by  the building officials as I
>will  likely be one one day but   this one is taking it a bit far.
>
>
>
>We have  installed an   attic ladder (aluminum ladder) in the garage  and
>the  inspector  refuses to issue a C.O. until the attic  ladder and hatch
>is painted with  fire resistant paint.   Further, he insists that  we
>install GFCI  receptacles in the  dining room (not kitchen)  which is not
>required by  the  N.E.C. or the Florida Building  Code.  I took the book  
to
>him  and asked for him to show  it to me and he said that  it is not in  
the
>Code but it is in  "his code" and it is  what he wants to  see.  He insists
>that the house will not  pass until the hatch is  painted with fire
>retardant paint and the  recepatcles in the dining room  (not kitchen)   
are
>changed.
>
>
>
>To make matters worse,  he  is the electrical inpector  for the
>jurisdiction and is  not licensed  to do any other  inspections.  Does
>anyone  have any suggestions  on this  one?  Soem of you are  building
>officials on here and  may  be able to help me  out.
>
>
>
>Charles   Walker
>
>CW  Building Contractor, inc
>
>CBC  1250992    CCC 1325996 CFC 1427782    
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Windows   Live(tm): Keep your life in   sync.
>http://windowslive.
com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009
>--------------   next part --------------
>An HTML  attachment was   scrubbed...
>URL:
>http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20090520/781efbc
>2/attachment.html   
>_______________________________________________
>CodeTalk   mailing  list
>CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>Unsubscribe or  change your options   at:
>http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
>
>-----   Original Message   -----
>
>_______________________________________________
>CodeTalk    mailing list
>CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>Unsubscribe or change  your  options   at:
>http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
>
>_______________________________________________
>CodeTalk   mailing list
>CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>Unsubscribe or change  your  options   at:
>http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Recession-proof    vacation ideas. Find free things to do in the U.S.    
><http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=eml
c
>ntustra
>v00000002>    
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment  was   scrubbed...
>URL:    
>http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20090523/e45fd835/a
t
>tachment.html    
>_______________________________________________
>CodeTalk  mailing   list
>CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>Unsubscribe  or change your options    at:
>http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
>
>
>
>
>**************Recession-proof   vacation ideas.  Find free things to do in 
>the U.S.   
>(http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=eml
c
>ntustrav00000002)
>--------------   next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was   scrubbed...
>URL:
>http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20090523/608c0d2d/a
t
>tachment.html   
>_______________________________________________
>CodeTalk  mailing  list
>CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>Unsubscribe or  change your options   at:
>http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/
listinfo/codetalk
>
>_______________________________________________
>CodeTalk   mailing list
>CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>Unsubscribe or change  your  options   at:
>http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
>
>
>
>
>**************Recession-proof  vacation ideas.  Find free things to do in 
>the U.S.  
>(http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=eml
cntustrav00000002)
>--------------  next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:  
http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20090523/3c67ce41/attachment.html  

>_______________________________________________
>CodeTalk  mailing list
>CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>Unsubscribe or change  your options  at:
>http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk

**************We found the real ?Hotel California? and the ?Seinfeld? 
diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. 
(http://www.whereitsat.com/?ncid=emlwenew00000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20090525/cb308d6d/attachment.html 

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 12:40:27 EDT
From: WR290 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] Questionable call by Building
    official
To: WR290 at aol.com, dalemarcialee at sprintmail.com, gyantorn at scgov.net,
    pathoag at cfl.rr.com, jcoughlin at englehomes.com, FineR at gtlaw.com,
    noleball at hotmail.com, codetalk at myfloridacode.com
Message-ID: <cdc.4bdb0b26.374c23fb at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

In a message dated 5/25/2009 12:38:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, WR290  
writes:

Hi Dale

Missed you last weekend. Hope all is well.

Relating to your post. The plain language R309.2 does not mention fire  
protection, only separation, to the ceiling of a garage unless there is a  
habitable area above.  Although we do know that 1/2 GWB is 20  minute. That is 
why the interpretation from BOAF states No. 

See below 

>From BOAF Informal Interpretatio
n

Question:

Is it the intent of R309.1 and R309.2 to be applied to attic accesses  in 
garages with relation to a fire rating?
Answer:
No. The requirement  is for separation as stipulated, not a fire rated 
assembly. The attic access  closure would need to be equivalent to 1/2 inch gyp 
board, or in the case  where there is a habitable area above the ceiling, 
5/8 inch Type X gyp board  (where the ceiling is used to provide the 
separation). 

Commentary:
Section 309.1 addresses openings between the garage  and the residence. 
Section 309.2 establishes the separation requirement  between the garage and 
the attic. 1/2 inch gypsum is  allowed.

Tom Ricci
BT Builders Inc

In a message dated 5/25/2009 11:02:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
dalemarcialee at sprintmail.com writes:

I'm  unclear as to the installation of the ladder. Is it a fixed ladder 
through  the scuttle hole creating a penetration of the ceiling assembly? 
R309.2  requires ceiling protection of 1/2 " gdw on the ceiling and if its a  
floor/ceiling assembly,( with habitable space above) it must be 5/8 type  "X'. 
If the ladder and scuttle create a penetration through the ceiling  
envelope, it must be protected in some manner.
Most pull-down attic  ladders are not fire-rated but a layer of sheet-metal 
or drywall applied to  the bottom side is usually accepted.

Dale Lee,CBO
Bay Harbor  Islands 

-----Original Message-----
>From:  WR290 at aol.com
>Sent: May 23, 2009 3:26 PM
>To:  gyantorn at scgov.net, pathoag at cfl.rr.com, jcoughlin at englehomes.com,  
FineR at gtlaw.com, noleball at hotmail.com,  codetalk at myfloridacode.com
>Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk]  Questionable call by Building official
>
> 
>I think he  said he discussed it with the BO because he might want to be 
one 
> in  the future, 
> 
>Tom
> 
> 
>a message dated  5/23/2009 3:23:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,   
>gyantorn at scgov.net writes:
>
>This  issue is  getting out of hand. Discuss with the BO and inspector. 
You 
>may  be  surprised. 
>
>----- Original Message  -----
>From:  co
detalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com   
><codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com>
>To:  WR290 at aol.com  <WR290 at aol.com>; jcoughlin at englehomes.com   
><jcoughlin at englehomes.com>; FineR at gtlaw.com  <FineR at gtlaw.com>;  
noleball at hotmail.com  
><noleball at hotmail.com>; codetalk at myfloridacode.com   
<codetalk at myfloridacode.com>
>Sent: Sat May 23 15:15:06   2009
>Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] Questionable call by  Building  official
>
>Your backing down does nothing but to  propagate the problem  state wide.
>
>-----Original  Message-----
>From:   codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com
>[mailto:codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com]   On Behalf Of WR290 at aol.com
>Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 2:32  PM
>To:  jcoughlin at englehomes.com; FineR at gtlaw.com;   noleball at hotmail.com;
>codetalk at myfloridacode.com
>Subject: Re:  [Florida  Code Talk] Questionable call by Building  official
>
>
>I absolutely  understand.   
>
>This is purely a business decision.  If he want   to take this official  
on. 
>He will not get a CO, His bank will  keep  charging for extensions of his  
>loan. Assuming he  has a loan. And  probably 2 years down the road he might
>get  
>this issue done. What I see  is FR paint and a GFCI > The  total cost is  
>less
>
>than 100.00.   
>
>I have been down this road and it is not pretty. Not to  mention that  
this  
>person is a contractor. I assume he  will want to continue to  work with 
this
>
>building  department. 
>
>
>Tom
>
>
>In a   message dated 5/23/2009 2:21:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,    
>jcoughlin at englehomes.com writes:
>
>The  problem  with rolling  over when you are right and the inspector 
won't  
>listen is  sort of  like a dog humping your leg. If you  let the dog hump 
>you,
>
>he  always  will and  you will be his biatch.
>
>Go to the BO first, then  get  BIA  involved. This will work 95% of the 
time.
>
>Rolling  over is  NOT an   Option.
>
>________________________________
>
>From:   WR290 at aol.com  
>To: Jay Coughlin; FineR at gtlaw.com ;   noleball at hotmail.com ;  
>codetalk at myfloridacode.com  
>Sent: 
Sat May  23 14:16:18 2009
>Subject: Re:   [Florida Code Talk] Questionable call  by Building official 

>
>
>Charles:
>
>I was not going to   chime in on this.This is a  common happening. You can 
>do  
>one of two  things. Take a recorder with you and  tell him  you are 
>recording 
>his  comments, send his comments  along with a  complaint to DBPR. Or you 
>can  
>just  make the repairs and go one with life. I  would absolutly   
recommend 
>the second option. 
>
>Tom Ricci  CBO
>BT  Builders  Inc
>
>In a message dated  5/21/2009 8:44:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight   Time,  
>jcoughlin at englehomes.com writes:
>
>This is typical  of   some rouge inspectors. Call the CBO and it goes  away
>if not  in book,  can be resolved in one day  normally.
>
>-----Original   Message-----
>From:    codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com
>[mailto:codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com]   On Behalf Of  FineR at gtlaw.com
>Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009  7:55   PM
>To: noleball at hotmail.com;   codetalk at myfloridacode.com
>Subject:  Re: [Florida Code  Talk]  Questionable call by Building   
official
>
>(This is not intended to be legal advice)  
>
>If it were  me, and my county had a board of rules and  appeals, I  would
>file an  appeal.  In my experience,  the filing of  an appeal is enough  to
>lead to a discussion  that frequently  resolves the matter without  the
>hearing  being  necessary.  And if it doesn't get resolved,  you have  a 
set
>date by which the matter will be resolved.     If  your county  does not
>have such a board, you can use  the binding   interpretation process in Fla
>Stat 553.775  which is very  fast.  
>
>Good  luck
>
>Robert
>
>Robert S. Fine,  Esq.,   AIA
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>Tax   Advice Disclosure: To ensure  compliance with  requirements
>imposed by  the IRS under  Circular 230, we  inform you that any U.S.
>federal tax  advice  contained in  this communication (including  any
>attachments),  unless  otherwise specifically stated, was not  intended or
>
written to  be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of  (1)   avoiding
>penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2)    promoting, marketing or
>recommending to another party any   matters  addressed herein.
>
>The  information  contained in this transmission  may contain
>privileged and  confidential information. It is intended only  for the   
use
>of the person(s) named above. If you are not the   intended  recipient, you
>are hereby notified that any  review,   dissemination, distribution or
>duplication of  this  communication is  strictly prohibited. If you are  
not
>the  intended recipient, please  contact the sender by  reply email and
>destroy all copies of the original  message. To  reply to our  email
>administrator directly, please send an   email    to
>mailto:postmaster at gtlaw.com.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>
>
>From:    codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com
><codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com>
>To:    codetalk at myfloridacode.com <codetalk at myfloridacode.com>
>Sent:  Wed May  20 19:35:05 2009
>Subject: [Florida Code Talk]   Questionable call by  Building  official
>
>
>
>I am trying to obtain a C.O. for  a   residence we have completed and the
>building official  has  taken some  liberties with his judgement.   I
>usually try  to do what is asked  of me by the building  officials as I
>will  likely be one one day but  this one is  taking it a bit far.
>
>
>
>We have installed  an   attic ladder (aluminum ladder) in the garage  and
>the  inspector  refuses to issue a C.O. until the attic  ladder and hatch
>is painted with  fire resistant paint.   Further, he insists that  we
>install GFCI  receptacles in  the dining room (not kitchen)  which is not
>required by   the N.E.C. or the Florida Building  Code.  I took the book  
to
>him  and asked for him to show  it to me and he said  that it is not in  
the
>Code but it is in  "his code" and it  is what he wants to  see.  He insists
>that the house will  not pass until the hatch is  painted with
 fire
>retardant paint  and the recepatcles in the dining room  (not kitchen)   
are
>changed.
>
>
>
>To make matters worse,  he  is the electrical inpector  for the
>jurisdiction and is  not licensed  to do any other  inspections.   Does
>anyone have any suggestions  on this  one?  Some  of you are building
>officials on here and  may  be able to  help me out.
>
>
>
>Charles   Walker
>
>CW  Building Contractor, inc
>
>CBC  1250992    CCC 1325996 CFC 1427782    
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Windows   Live(tm): Keep your life in   sync.
>http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009
>--------------   next part --------------
>An HTML  attachment was   scrubbed...
>URL:
>http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20090520/781efbc
>2/attachment.html   
>_______________________________________________
>CodeTalk   mailing  list
>CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>Unsubscribe or  change your options   at:
>http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
>
>-----   Original Message   -----
>
>_______________________________________________
>CodeTalk    mailing list
>CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>Unsubscribe or change  your  options   at:
>http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
>
>_______________________________________________
>CodeTalk   mailing list
>CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>Unsubscribe or change  your  options   at:
>http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Recession-proof    vacation ideas. Find free things to do in the U.S.    
><http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=eml
c
>ntustra
>v00000002>    
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment  was   scrubbed...
>URL:    
>http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20090523/e45fd835/a
t
>tachment.html    
>_______________________________________________
>CodeTalk  mailing    list
>CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>Unsubscribe or change your  options    at:
>http:/
/myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
>
>
>
>
>**************Recession-proof   vacation ideas.  Find free things to do in 
>the U.S.   
>(http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=eml
c
>ntustrav00000002)
>--------------   next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was   scrubbed...
>URL:
>http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20090523/608c0d2d/a
t
>tachment.html   
>_______________________________________________
>CodeTalk  mailing  list
>CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>Unsubscribe or  change your options   at:
>http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
>
>_______________________________________________
>CodeTalk   mailing list
>CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>Unsubscribe or change  your  options   at:
>http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
>
>
>
>
>**************Recession-proof  vacation ideas.  Find free things to do in 
>the U.S.  
>(http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=eml
cntustrav00000002)
>--------------  next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was  scrubbed...
>URL:  
http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20090523/3c67ce41/attachment.html  

>_______________________________________________
>CodeTalk  mailing list
>CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>Unsubscribe or change  your options  at:
>http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk

____________________________________
We found the real 'Hotel California' and

**************We found the real ?Hotel California? and the ?Seinfeld? 
diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. 
(http://www.whereitsat.com/?ncid=emlwenew00000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20090525/07c046b5/attachment.html 

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
CodeTalk mailing list
CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk

End of CodeTalk Digest, Vol 45, Issue 14

****************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20090526/78df03c2/attachment.html 