Proposed rule change take 2

[Mr Ed]

I recently proposed a rule change making it explicit that breaking tools and not replacing them can result in a ban. People pointed out that the wording was flawed (it was). The new proposed rule with amended wording is:

7. Equipment should be treated with care and respect. If you break any equipment through misuse or improper use then you are expected to pay for a replacement. Failure to do so may result in being banned.


-Ed

[Tim Reynolds]

I think this proposal is going to do nothing but ensure that no one will
ever report breaking a tool again. We're a hackspace, not a professional
workshop for hire - and I've always liked the "accidents happen"
attitude to things getting broken.

I think the current grievance procedure and rules cover people being
wilfully ignorant and destructive well enough.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "London Hackspace" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Adrian Godwin]

I agree with Tim. I would like to see better respect for tools but I don't think increasing the punishment is going to work - the honourable people already own up and offer to pay, it's the ones who don't care - and are often unknown - that are the problem.

I think we'd be better off trying to improve education, e.g. with  a mandatory workshop skills induction. Of course, it needs to apply to existing members too - I'd suggest that anyone who believe themselves to be too expert to undertake one should be on the teaching team.

[Billy]

If anyone considers themselves to be an expert, then they should be able to sail through the inductions anyway, so they shouldn't object to our efforts to improve the lifespan of the tools in the workshop.

It's no different to the inductions we do before tool use right now.

[Mr Ed]

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:09:52 UTC+1, Tim Reynolds wrote:

I think this proposal is going to do nothing but ensure that no one will
ever report breaking a tool again. We're a hackspace, not a professional
workshop for hire - and I've always liked the "accidents happen"
attitude to things getting broken.

OK, how much "accidental" tool smashing should be allowed before someone really does get banned then?

We're a hackspace, not a free-for-all, and I don't think the non professional nature should be an excuse for behaviour that simply wouldn't fly in much of civilized society.

-Ed


 

[Tim Reynolds]

Why is accidental in quotes? Do accidents not happen? Do you believe
that anyone who has a tool break while they're using it is guilty and
should be given a bill and a threat of a ban?

Correct, we are a hackspace not a free-for-all but you seem to be
equating the two. Please calm down and stop comparing screwdrivers going
missing and chisels being blunted to the breakdown of civilised society.

The hackspace is a community workshop. There is very much a have-a-go
ethos surrounding the place that I think this change would do a lot to
destroy. People do not join the hackspace because they're already
experts in everything. I understand that there is a group who work
primarily in the basement who already are, but they are not the
majority.

If this rule was already in effect, would it have resulted in any of the
currently broken tools being replaced or people being banned? Are we in
a situation where someone is known to have willfuly broken something and
given no apology, explanation or reparation?

>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [1].

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "London Hackspace" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://groups.google.com/d/optout

[deanforbes]

"have ago" does or may mean different things to different people 

For me it does not mean - destroy - but try build and to do that does not mean break a tool or as many as you can. 

Polite people would sharpen a tool after use out of respect in most environments.

Nothing is safe....an example is a vice that was broken and some said ahh well it is wear and tear .... I hold my head in my hands.

You don't need to be an expert not to break a tool - most stuff is trashed in my opinion because there is no or selective accountability

Speak to the Traffic Police or a Legal person and there is no such thing as an accident - its the same in a workshop # just negligence

[Martin (Crypt)]

Could we not slightly modify Rule 1 instead.  I think it could read:

1. Don't use tools unless you're sure you know how to do so safely and without causing  damage to tools or equipment. If you see someone working in an unsafe way, or in a way that could cause damage to property or persons, it's your duty to stop them and let them know.

This could clarify an existing rule, and avoid adding an extra one.  Breaking rules is already punishable under the grievance procedure, we can then leave this to case by case judgement as to weather someone should be asked to pay.

[Mr Ed]

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 16:00:19 UTC+1, Tim Reynolds wrote:

Why is accidental in quotes? Do accidents not happen?

Depends on what you mean by accidents. Carelessness makes accidents much more likely to the point where calling them accidents is a real stretch.
 

Do you believe that anyone who has a tool break while they're using it is guilty and should be given a bill and a threat of a ban?

I don't really understand how you got that interpretation from the phrase "If you break any equipment through misuse or improper use".

 

Correct, we are a hackspace not a free-for-all but you seem to be equating the two.

I said "We're a hackspace not a free-for all". Emphasis newly added.
 

Please calm down and stop comparing screwdrivers going missing and chisels being blunted to the breakdown of civilised society.

If you're going to engage in a discussion, please do so in good faith. If you wish to dismiss the idea that this is important then come out and say you don't believe that it is important. Slyly trying to dismiss it with phrases like "calm down" adds nothing useful on either side.

 

 

The hackspace is a community workshop. There is very much a have-a-go
ethos surrounding the place that I think this change would do a lot to
destroy. People do not join the hackspace because they're already
experts in everything.

I don't understand the attitude that one has to be an expert with tools to avoid trashing them. That's simply not the case.

I understand that there is a group who work
primarily in the basement who already are, but they are not the
majority.

I'm not sure if you're assigning me to that group, but while it's flattering, it's not accurate. I would count myself as very much novice level on most of the metalworking kit in that I can do basic machining and welding unsupervised without damaging the equipment or myself and I can get simple shapes made given sufficient time. I'm a very long way from being an expert.

 

If this rule was already in effect, would it have resulted in any of the
currently broken tools being replaced or people being banned?

I would hope so.
 

Are we in
a situation where someone is known to have willfuly broken something and
given no apology, explanation or reparation?

Yes.

-Ed

 

[Adrian Godwin]

I don't think the majority of abusers know the difference. There may be some who know better and perhaps they're exactly the ones who refuse to take responsibility - but I think our overall tool attrition is because people think 'how hard can it be ?' and assume they're fine.

[deanforbes]

@Ed # what |I am referring to is the countless times I,ve heard "it broke by accident" 

@Adrian # spend some time in the workshop and tell me you still think that. (The majority of stuff fails due to a CBA attitude IMHO and other responsible regulars in the workshop) , the response should be to speak to them, however the majority of people in the workshop won't do this due to the all most standard adversarial response regardless of the nature of the approach. 

I'm not sure there is a solution 

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:02:42 UTC+1, Mr Ed wrote:

[tim_n]

I agree with Tim on this.  It needs a thick layer of common sense and the grievance procedure followed.

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:09:52 UTC+1, Tim Reynolds wrote:

[Simon Howes]

I think we're better off just getting better quality cameras and video logging in the workshop, so we can find the culprits of breakages, and when someone is using a tool dangerously we can bring this up and clearly demonstrate what was dangerous about it, rather than it being heresay.

[Mr Ed]

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 10:02:50 UTC+1, tim_n wrote:

I agree with Tim on this.  It needs a thick layer of common sense and the grievance procedure followed.

If that worked, then there would be no need for rules at all. Rules are to put in place for when such things fail. They also send a strong message of intent as well. Currently the tool churn is sufficiently high that clearly the existing procedure is inadequate. In addition there seems to be a myth that good tools will "just break by accident" when used by novices. The other point of the rule is to dispel that myth and make people actually take real responsibility for their actions.

The point of this rule is to get rid of the kind of person who smashes up £1500 worth of router table for example, which is why the rule specifies "misuse" and "may" be banned in order to give discretion to its application.


-Ed

 

[Russ Garrett]

Relying on CCTV is not the answer. It's exceedingly tedious work to
review hours or days worth of CCTV footage, which is a job which
frequently falls on trustees.

On 11 May 2016 at 10:12, 'Simon Howes' via London Hackspace

Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[tim_n]

Writing in rules for rules sake doesn't help anyone.  You end up with a massive rule book which no one reads.  It's bureaucracy for bureaucracy sake.  If it makes you feel better, write in the rule.

What'd be better is doing what AbbeyKat mentioned, it's more practical than relying on a rule that's essentially unenforceable unless someone happens to be about and doesn't feel intimidated to report it.

Solve those problems and people will report it because they know there's taped evidence they did it anyway, not because a rule they never bothered to read anyway.

[Russ Garrett]

I am not strongly against adding this rule, but I am concerned it's
just going to end up with people not reporting breakages, which will
defeat the point.

Tool breakages don't really cost the hackspace much money - I don't
have exact numbers but I believe it's less than 1% of our overall
expenditure. This is less than we spend on consumables.

I don't want tools to keep breaking either, but I get the impression
that this proposed rule is intended to be punitive. I think it should
be worded more positively. Suggestion:

"7. Equipment should be treated with care and respect. If a tool is
damaged while you're using it, you must tell the maintainer. If you
damage a tool due to misuse, the trustees may ask you to contribute
money towards its replacement or repair."

This also makes it a rule violation not to report tool breakages. The
threat of banning is not necessary, as membership is automatically
terminated if a member fails to pay money owed (art 7(c)).

Russ

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[Mr Ed]

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 12:16:11 UTC+1, tim_n wrote:

 

What'd be better is doing what AbbeyKat mentioned, it's more practical than relying on a rule that's essentially unenforceable unless someone happens to be about and doesn't feel intimidated to report it.

Solve those problems and people will report it because they know there's taped evidence they did it anyway, not because a rule they never bothered to read anyway.

You're ignoring that there are people who are known definitively to have broken tools, there's no dispute over the evidence and they're still here.

-Ed


 

[Mr Ed]

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 12:43:45 UTC+1, Russ Garrett wrote:

I am not strongly against adding this rule, but I am concerned it's
just going to end up with people not reporting breakages, which will
defeat the point.

Tool breakages don't really cost the hackspace much money - I don't
have exact numbers but I believe it's less than 1% of our overall
expenditure. This is less than we spend on consumables.

I don't want tools to keep breaking either, but I get the impression
that this proposed rule is intended to be punitive. I think it should
be worded more positively. Suggestion:

"7. Equipment should be treated with care and respect. If a tool is
damaged while you're using it, you must tell the maintainer. If you
damage a tool due to misuse, the trustees may ask you to contribute
money towards its replacement or repair."

This also makes it a rule violation not to report tool breakages. The
threat of banning is not necessary, as membership is automatically
terminated if a member fails to pay money owed (art 7(c)).

That's an interesting suggestion! I think that may well be an improvement over what I wrote.


-Ed

 

[David Murphy]

I agree that Russ's wording is much better.

I would suggest "maintainer or the mailing list" since either would be fine.

[tim_n]

+1 to russ.

[space...@gmail.com]

I believe that there used to be a rule that people could be banned for being bad for the hackspace.
I do not appear to be able to find it as I have looked in the obvious places, and searched for it.
Is it still the case?
If so then anybody breaking expensive equipment due to negligence or ignorance would fall under this rule and the trustees could already take action against them, including a ban.
There would not in this case be a need for this new rule.

The gentleman proposing this rule has said that they know of someone this rule would apply to, and it appears, though I may be wrong, that this rule is being pushed hard by this person in order to get rid of somebody that they do not like.
Rules made to persecute people you don't like have a habit of hurting people you never expected them to be used on, including yourself.
I think that removing this person by other means would be preferable to an extra rule.

I have a very twisted view of how society should be run.
I believe in engaging people who do not fit in, and educating them and teaching them to educate themselves.
In my very strange mind, I believe that making members of any society higher skilled and better informed benefits everybody else in that society.
And that preventing bad things from being done, is preferable to punishing people for doing them after the fact.

There are some people with an attitude that is not conducive to learning, and these people could be removed from society, or better still, prevented from entering it, by some vetting on who you allow to join in the first place.
In my OPINION these people are in a tiny minority.

I hope any rule changes are put to a vote by the full membership and not by the consensus of people who choose to speak anonymously on one thread on a publicly contactable mailing list, as was sadly done on the 'no cars in the hackspace' rule.

Be excellent
Keith.

[Russ Garrett]

On 11 May 2016 at 19:08, <space...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that there used to be a rule that people could be banned for being
> bad for the hackspace.

There's never been such a rule. Although there's been some talk about
it, I think it would be too broad and it would be open to
interpretation.

> The gentleman proposing this rule has said that they know of someone this
> rule would apply to, and it appears, though I may be wrong, that this rule
> is being pushed hard by this person in order to get rid of somebody that
> they do not like.

It is worth noting that the trustees do not apply rules retroactively.
I believe this is in reaction to recent events, but I also believe
it's a sensible rule to have.

> I hope any rule changes are put to a vote by the full membership and not by
> the consensus of people who choose to speak anonymously on one thread on a
> publicly contactable mailing list, as was sadly done on the 'no cars in the
> hackspace' rule.

The rules are set by the trustees, in consultation with this mailing
list. The trustees won't add rules without broad agreement both
amongst ourselves and on this list. The membership can directly modify
the rules in general meetings.

Cheers,

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[space...@gmail.com]

Thank you for your carefully considered reply Russ.

I am not against the rule as stated by you, but I do prefer less rules in favor of people controlling themselves.

Many times I have chosen not to work until I am certain how a piece of equipment is operated.

Sadly,
If something I cannot afford at the space is broken when I am using it then I will not be able to tell anyone in future.
I have reported damage to the 3d printer in the past, and the maintainer assumed misuse where there was none.
When given the opportunity to explain, it was accepted that it was a defective part.
This was an example where the physical evidence could be explained by either scenario.
The difference between a weak component that has failed from fatigue and a good component that has failed from the machine being crashed is very difficult to determine.
I consider myself a responsible person, but I need to protect myself first. So I would expect very few people to say when a tool becomes damaged/defective if this rule is passed.

[Mr Ed]

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 19:08:24 UTC+1, space...@gmail.com wrote:

The gentleman proposing this rule has said that they know of someone this rule would apply to, and it appears, though I may be wrong, that this rule is being pushed hard by this person in order to get rid of somebody that they do not like.

You are mistaken. I expect rules don't apply retroactively. I'm pushing this rule because I think if people smash up expensive things, don't pay and then stay at the space then it is extremely bad for the community. That is something I don't want to see in future.

Rules made to persecute people you don't like have a habit of hurting people you never expected them to be used on, including yourself.

The rule is meant to remove people with behaviour which is detrimental to the space. You can refer to that as persecution if you like, but you should be aware that you may well be applying pre-existing biases without due consideration of all aspects.

 

I think that removing this person by other means would be preferable to an extra rule.

The fact that the person remains indicates there is a failure of the rules which is independent of this person.

I believe in engaging people who do not fit in, and educating them and teaching them to educate themselves.
In my very strange mind, I believe that making members of any society higher skilled and better informed benefits everybody else in that society.

This isn't about engaging people who don't fit in, and educating people. Neither of those I have any problem with, it is about removing people who are detrimental the space.

 

And that preventing bad things from being done, is preferable to punishing people for doing them after the fact.

There are some people with an attitude that is not conducive to learning, and these people could be removed from society, or better still, prevented from entering it, by some vetting on who you allow to join in the first place.
In my OPINION these people are in a tiny minority.

It seems we are in agreement in this regard then.
 

I hope any rule changes are put to a vote by the full membership and not by the consensus of people who choose to speak anonymously on one thread on a publicly contactable mailing list, as was sadly done on the 'no cars in the hackspace' rule.

How is that sad? How does anonymity (or what little of it there is in my case) add to or detract from any arguments I have put forward?

> I consider myself a responsible person, but I need to protect myself first. So I would expect very few people to say when a tool becomes damaged/defective if this rule is passed.

I don't get it. So what happened is you reported a breakage, the worst was assumed, you explained what happened and everything was OK. And the fact that the process worked almost exactly as I hope it will you use as an argument against this? This is also exactly the same process which is used very successfully by the laser cutter maintainers. It's a heavily used, fragile tool, yet it has a high uptime because the maintainers are very much not shy about enforcing entirely reasonable rules. Why do you think these should not be applied to all other kit?

Finally, you might wish to consider whether or not you think it's worth reporting any future breakages that happen while you're using the 3D printer (when it comes back online) and whether failure to do so might be viewed dimly by the 3D printer maintainers. I should probably mention at this point that I'm one of them.


-Ed

 

Be excellent
Keith.

[space...@gmail.com]

This is a direct reply to the long message sent to me by "Mr Ed" but it will hopefully be interesting for you to read also.You may skip the first paragraph though.

Dear Ed Rosten.
Than you for reminding me exactly who you are.
It gives me a different perspective on these threads.
You like to put words in other peoples mouths and you have an overly negative view of the world and I have not seen anything positive come from you on this mailing list.
I consider you a Troll.

Others please see this thread for the first time that I had the pleasure of conversing with this individual.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/lulzbot/london-hack-space/NeWdIQjyAzw/6fApad2uIAAJ

I'm happy that I was correct when I said that I may be wrong.

I am not aware of anyone ever 'smashing up' a piece of expensive equipment.

As far as removing people from the space, I watched one of the maintainers destroy the Stratasys in cremer street by abusing it by passing cheap filament through it resulting in it not functioning for the last two years.

The previous maintainer of one of the lathes stripped it and left it for dead, which resulted in that eventually being disposed of. Somebody who I met took the electronics and motor home and tested it themselves. It worked perfectly with a standard set of brushes. Then they put it back in the hackspace and left it alone as they were not a maintainer and were not allowed to repair it. Although some people claim that the motor was defective as it showed as every coil of the motor having a connection to each other, someone who I met said that this was likely set up for the speed sensing motor controller which did not use any external sensors, and that the fault was likely just a defective plug or other such wiring that caused the main hackspace circuit breaker to trip.

Whichever maintainer pulled the hotend from the lulzbot and left it to rot for 4 months instead of replacing a cheap off the shelf part.

The people who have disabled the shower are maintainers for lots of hackspace equipment.

So when I talk about rules like this affecting people they are not intended for:
Consider that if it were retrospective, then at least five maintainers given your original suggestion would have been banned. And that is just those that I am aware of and can think of off the top of my head.

I am aware of my own bias, therefore I am able to speak without bias.

The fact that the person remains may suggest that there is a failure of the rules, but it may also suggest that rules are not being appropriately applied.

You say that it is about removing people who are detrimental to the space, but in neither of your 'new rule' threads have I seen any examples of this even being a problem.
Could you please give us some examples Ed.

When I speak out against anonymity, it is because people talk on this mailing list without even being members. However when I pointed out your full name in the post I have referenced above it was with the hope that you would conduct yourself in a more reasonable, conservative, and polite manner. I think your attitude does seem to have improved, but you still find it hard to recognise other peoples points of view when they are not your own, and still seem to have a poor impression of other Hackspace members.

Ed, and EVERYBODY, when I want to address someone who is acting in an unexcellent way, I refer to them as Ladies, Gentlemen, or if I am very displeased then I use words like, Individual. Just as we used to say unexcellent instead of swearing and being derogatory.
It helps you to meter yourself so that you are treating others with respect, and can be respected yourself. It also puts the idea into your mind that rather than being a ducking punt (self censored) somebody may be a gentleman or lady. And this helps you to be more understanding when dealing with them.
It is something you only really hear from some old school members like chris (hipster), and would be excellent if people could try to make this part of hackspace culture part of their own culture.

Dealing with the 3d printing incident went very unexcellently.
Unfortunately the maintainer thought they could be rude and shout at me so we had a screaming argument in front of several other hackspace members.
Followed by me cornering them outside and insisting they listen to what I had to say.
After a very difficult conversation it was accepted that I knew a lot about 3d printers, but I suspect few people in my place would have been successful.
In that case the maintainer did listen to reason, but most maintainers tend to assume stupidity rather than intelligence, and abuse rather than normal use.
Which considering how often equipment is down for silly reasons, I can understand.

As far as I am aware, all expensive/delicate equipment requires training and the maintainers have the right to ban members from their use. This rule only really applies to cheap tools.
As Russ has already pointed out, tool breakage is less than 1% of the Hackspace expenditure.
So exactly what problem are you trying to solve here Ed?

If your opinion of somebody who challenges why equipment is not functional for months on end for a nothing part which takes about 30 minutes to fit, is shared by the other maintainers.

Then I expect that the 3D printer maintainers will have EXACTLY the same dim view as I have of SOME of them.

I apologise for the length of this reply, but there were many points to respond to.
I have however not re posted everybodies, or anybody elses post, which saves a huge amount of space and makes threads more readable. Please consider doing the same, as It is standard etiquette on most mailing boards.
This applies to everybody.

[Paddy Duncan]

' The fact that the person remains indicates there is a failure of the rules which is independent of this person.'

 

In Trustee mode, nope.

What happened was that the Trustees made a reasonable decision based on the testimony and advice of the tool owners, maintainers, and witnesses, rather that submit to the demands of one angry member who was none of the above. Even if the currently proposed rule change were in force, we would (IMO) probably make the same decision again.

Paddy

--

[Billy]

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 1:15:46 PM UTC+1, David wrote:

I agree that Russ's wording is much better.

I would suggest "maintainer or the mailing list" since either would be fine.

"maintainer AND the mailing list"  might be a better option, as it would reduce the opportunity for playing Chinese Whispers, and hence, reduce uninformed gossip leading to drama.

 

[Billy]

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 7:08:24 PM UTC+1, space...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

Rules made to persecute people you don't like have a habit of hurting people you never expected them to be used on, including yourself.
I think that removing this person by other means would be preferable to an extra rule.

When proposing "Unlimited Arbritary Powers" aimed at "someone you don't like", you should always consider what would happen when someone that hates you, and specifically "YOU", gets into power and is then able to use those "Unlimited Arbritary Powers" against you.

This is why there needs to be careful limits on how laws can be made, and enforced, in larger society.

We need the same approach to rules here in our subset.
 

I have a very twisted view of how society should be run.
I believe in engaging people who do not fit in, and educating them and teaching them to educate themselves.
In my very strange mind, I believe that making members of any society higher skilled and better informed benefits everybody else in that society.
And that preventing bad things from being done, is preferable to punishing people for doing them after the fact.

This! Definitely This!

Never assume malice first. Stupidity, like entropy, is limitless and ubiquitous.

There are always limits to what any individual can be skilled and competent at.

Everyone can be completely brilliant and knowledgable about one field, and, completely incompetent and stupid in another.

This is inevitable, due to the complexity of the universe and the limited time/attention-span that we have. One lifetime is not enough... :))

 

[Mark Steward]

On 12 May 2016 03:07, <space...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
...

> I apologise for the length of this reply, but there were many points to respond to.
> I have however not re posted everybodies, or anybody elses post, which saves a huge amount of space and makes threads more readable. Please consider doing the same, as It is standard etiquette on most mailing boards.
> This applies to everybody.
>

As a/the mailing list moderator, please don't. A lot of people, me included, follow the list in email clients without a hierarchy of posts and replies. It's pretty hard to work out the context for replies on a mobile device if the original email has been stripped out.

Thanks,
Mark

[Billy]

There has been a large amount of mailing list drama that has spun directly from mis-communications caused by this issue.
 

[Mr Ed]

On Thursday, 12 May 2016 08:51:22 UTC+1, PaddyD wrote:

' The fact that the person remains indicates there is a failure of the rules which is independent of this person.'

 

In Trustee mode, nope.

What happened was that the Trustees made a reasonable decision based on the testimony and advice of the tool owners, maintainers, and witnesses, rather that submit to the demands of one angry member who was none of the above.

Given the context of the message you sent, it sounds like you're insinuating that I've made demands. I haven't, so please don't.

Advocacy of a position, even strong advocacy, such as a rule change in the case of this thread is not the same as making demands.

-Ed


 

[Jasper Wallace]

On Wed, 11 May 2016, space...@gmail.com wrote:

> This is a direct reply to the long message sent to me by "Mr Ed" but it will hopefully be interesting for you to read also.You may skip the first
> paragraph though.

[snip]

> The people who have disabled the shower are maintainers for lots of hackspace equipment.

The hot water heater for the shower and the green bathroom wasn't working
when we moved in.

Please take a moment to look at it (It's high up in the cleaning supplies
cupboard, you'll need a torch and maybe a ladder) to realise why disabling
it and draining the tank was a sensible thing to do, then be glad that we
managed to avoid the consequences of it completly failing!

--
[http://pointless.net/] [0x416333590FC0E569]