text:
(1) Under the provisions of chapter 9.73 RCW, the "incoming phone calls" exception in RCW 9.73.090(1)(a) does permit a police agency to record those incoming calls which are not of an "emergency" nature.
(2) Assuming the foregoing, however, care must be taken in applying the "incoming phone calls" exception in RCW 9.73.090(1)(a) where the call is received by a police agent who has deliberately induced a criminal suspect, not yet arrested or formally charged, to make an incoming call to the police agency; there, wherever the spirit or the letter of the statute dictates taped mutual consent or judicial authorization prior to recording a telephone conversation with a criminal suspect, the "incoming calls" exception could well be held inapplicable even if single party consent is present.
(3) The several statutory exceptions to the Privacy Act set forth in RCW 9.73.030(2), RCW 9.73.090(1)(a), RCW 9.73.090(1)(b) and RCW 9.73.090(2) do not overlap each other in such a way as to render any such exception(s) totally duplicative of another and therefore unnecessary and superfluous.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
October 10, 1980
Honorable Russ JuckettProsecuting AttorneySnohomish County3000 Rockefeller AvenueEverett, Washington 98201ATTN: Stephen Henley Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Cite as: AGO 1980 No. 20
Dear Sir:
By letter previously acknowledged, you requested the opinion of this office on three questions which we paraphrase as follows:
[[Orig. Op. Page 2]]
(1) Under the provisions of chapter 9.73 RCW, does the "incoming phone calls" exception in RCW 9.73.090(1)(a) permit a police agency to record those incoming calls which are not of an "emergency" nature?
(2) Does the "incoming phone calls" exception in RCW 9.73.090(1)(a) allow recording by a police agent who has deliberately induced a criminal suspect, not yet arrested or formally charged, to make an incoming call to the police agency?
(3) Do any of the several exceptions to the Privacy Act set forth in RCW 9.73.030(2), RCW 9.73.090(1)(a), RCW 9.73.090(1)(b) and RCW 9.73.090(2) overlap each other in such a way as to render any such exception(s) totally duplicative of another and therefore unnecessary and superfluous?
We answer your first question in the affirmative, your second question as set forth in our analysis and your third question in the negative.
Both the federal and state statutes in this area, which we will discuss in detail below, restrict electronic interception of certain categories of private conversations. Both statutory schemes also provide as means of enforcement (1) civil relief for eavesdropping victims, (2) criminal sanctions against violators and (3) a statutory exclusionary rule. However, all of the Washington cases and most of the cases decided under the federal statute have involved only the respective exclusionary rules. Similarly, our analysis herein will be generally restricted to the exclusionary rule aspects of the statutes and not the direct civil or criminal sanctions for violations.
The pertinent portions of chapter 9.73 RCW must be viewed in light of certain partially preemptive federal statutes relating to "Wire Interceptions and Interception of Oral Communications" which are included in Title III of [[Orig. Op. Page 3]] the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520. Under the federal law a state may promulgate legislation authorizing certain state court judges to issue wiretap orders to be utilized in the enforcement of state criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2). However, the federal act is not self-executing insofar as state law enforcement officials are concerned. Therefore, to obtain a valid wiretap warrant from a state court, there must be a state wiretap statute in effect, Halpin v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County, 6 Cal.3d 885, 101 Cal.Rptr. 375, 495 P.2d 1295 (1972), cert. den. sub. nom., California v. Halpin, 409 U.S. 982, 34 L.Ed.2d 246, 93 S.Ct. 318 (1972).
Also under the federal legislative scheme state statutes may contain standards more stringent than the requirements of federal law thus, inter alia, excluding from state courts evidence that would be admissible in federal court. But a state may not adopt standards that are less restrictive than those set forth in the federal law. Accord,Peoples v. Jones, 30 Cal.App.3d 852, 106 Cal.Rptr. 749 (1973) app. dism. sub. nom. California v. Jones, 414 U.S. 804, 38 L.Ed.2d 40, 94 S.Ct. 163 (1973). Any evidence obtained under a less restrictive state statute would be inadmissible in state court. See, 18 U.S.C. § 2515.
Your questions do not relate to the practice of "bugging" which involves a lack of consent by all parties to the conversation and for which both statutory schemes require a prior court order. Therefore, we will not discuss in detail the federal restriction1/ upon state legislation2/ in that area. Instead, your questions involve what is commonly known as single‑party consent "monitoring" of conversations.
For law enforcement the significant Title III monitoring exceptions are broad and general. They appear in 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(c) and (d) as follows:
"(c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter [18 USCS §§ 2510 et seq.] for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where [[Orig. Op. Page 4]] such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.
"(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter [18 USCS §§ 2510 et seq.] for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act."
Washington's statutory scheme, on the other hand, is a more restrictive and cautious approach to the authorization of both "bugging" and "monitoring." Throughout our analysis we will, nonetheless, keep the federal law and its monitoring exceptions in mind when discussing Washington's single‑party consent exceptions to interception. Except where specifically noted, however, the reader can assume that the current Washington statute is within the limits permitted by Title III, supra, and its exceptions.
Since your questions call for construction3/ of our state law (chapter 9.73 RCW) several basic principles of statutory construction will serve as our initial guide. First, the principle purpose in statutory construction is to determine [[Orig. Op. Page 5]] and give effect to legislative intent. Janovich v. Herron, 91 Wn.2d 767, 592 P.2d 1096 (1979). Second, the primary source for determining that intent is, of course, in the language of the statute. In Re Estate of Lyons, 83 Wn.2d 105, 515 P.2d 1293 (1973). And third, the original act in question and all amendments thereto should be read as one law passed at the same time, taking into account the sequential development of the statutory scheme. Amburn v. Daly, 81 Wn.2d 241, 501 P.2d 178 (1972). Thus, in light of these fundamental principles the task of answering your questions calls initially for a careful analysis of the current language of the relevent [relevant] portions of the Washington law as well as a review of the initial 1967 enactment, the 1970 amendments thereto, the court decision ofState v. Wanrow, 88 Wn.2d 221, 559 P.2d 548 (1977) and the significant 1977 amendments to the statute which were promulgated in response toWanrow within a few months after it was announced by the Court.
Current Provisions:
The basic purpose4/ of chapter 9.735/ is to protect private6/ electronic communications and other private conversations‑-electronic or otherwise‑-from interception7/ or [[Orig. Op. Page 6]] recording without mutual consent8/ of all participants. Thus, RCW 9.73.030(1)(a) and (b) provide as follows:
"(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:
"(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
"(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation."
[[Orig. Op. Page 7]]
To enforce this privacy protection, the statute then provides in RCW 9.73.050 for its own exclusionary rule for both civil and criminal proceedings.9/ In addition, it provides for both a civil damages remedy (RCW 9.73.060) and a criminal penalty (RCW 9.73.080) for unauthorized interception or recording of such a "communication or conversation."10/
There are also, however, several statutory exceptions to this scheme which allow for either interception or recording, or both, of certain categories of communications or conversations even where there is a lack of mutual consent of all of the participants. Your questions concern the meaning and interrelationship of certain of these exceptions which relate to law enforcement activities. We will next set forth, in their order of appearance, each of these exceptions.
Exigent Circumstances Calls and Conversations:
First to be noted is RCW 9.73.030(2) which provides as follows:
[[Orig. Op. Page 8]]
"(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, crime, or other disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation."
Continuing Extreme Danger Situations‑-Prosecutor-Obtained Ex Parte Judicial Wiretap Orders:
RCW 9.73.040 then provides in relevant part as follows:
"(1) An ex parte order for the interception of any communication or conversation listed in RCW 9.73.030 may be issued by any superior court judge in the state upon verified application of either the state attorney general or any county prosecuting attorney setting forth fully facts and circumstances upon which the application is based and stating that:
"(a) There are reasonable grounds to believe that national security is endangered, that a human life is in danger, that arson is about to be committed, or that a riot is about to be committed, and
"(b) There are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the protection of national security, the preservation of human life, or the prevention of arson or a riot, and
"(c) There are no other means readily available for obtaining such information.
". . ."11/
[[Orig. Op. Page 9]]
Incoming Calls to Police and Fire Stations:
Next, RCW 9.73.090(1)(a)12/ reads in part as follows:
"(1) The provisions of RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080 shall not apply to police and fire personnel in the following instances:
"(a) Recording incoming telephone calls to police and fire stations;"
Arrestee Interrogations:
This same statute, in RCW 9.73.090(1)(b), then further states that:
"(a) . . .
"(b) Video and/or sound recordings may be made of arrested persons by police officers responsible for making arrests or holding persons in custody before their first appearance in court. Such video and/or sound recordings shall conform strictly to the following:
"(i) The arrested person shall be informed that such recording is being made and the statement so informing him shall be included in the recording;
[[Orig. Op. Page 10]]
"(ii) The recording shall commence with an indication of the time of the beginning thereof and terminate with an indication of the time thereof;
"(iii) At the commencement of the recording the arrested person shall be fully informed of his constitutional rights, and such statements informing him shall be included in the recording;
"(iv) The recordings shall only be used for valid police or court activities."
Continuing Felony Investigations‑-Police‑Obtained Ex Parte Judicial Authorization to Record With Single‑Party Consent:
Finally, RCW 9.73.090(2) provides in relevant part as follows:
"(2) It shall not be unlawful for a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of the officer's official duties to intercept, record, or disclose an oral communication or conversation where the officer is a party to the communication or conversation or one of the parties to the communication or conversation has given prior consent to the interception, recording, or disclosure: PROVIDED, That prior to the interception, transmission, or recording the officer shall obtain written or telephonic authorization from a judge or magistrate, who shall approve the interception, recording, or disclosure of communications or conversations with a nonconsenting party for a reasonable and specified period of time, if there is probable cause to believe that the nonconsenting party has committed, is engaged in, or is about to commit a felony: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That if such authorization is given by telephone the authorization and officer's statement justifying such authorization must be electronically recorded by the judge or magistrate on a recording device in the custody of the [[Orig. Op. Page 11]] judge or magistrate at the time transmitted and the recording shall be retained in the court records and reduced to writing as soon as possible thereafter.
". . ."13/
Historical Development of Chapter 9.73:
We next turn to the sequential, historical development of those law enforcement exceptions in chapter 9.73 RCW which are pertinent to your inquiries.
(a)The 1967 Enactment:
The basic privacy protection of RCW 9.73.030(1), supra, was first enacted by § 1, chapter 93, Laws of 1967 which read in relevant part as follows:
"Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, record or divulge any:
"(1) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
"(2) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
". . ."
[[Orig. Op. Page 12]]
The only exception under this 1967 act was that provided in RCW 9.73.040 which we labelled above as "Continuing Extreme Danger Situations‑-Prosecutor-Obtained Ex Parte Judicial Wiretap Orders." See, § 2 of chapter 93,supra. It presently reads in all relevant respects as currently codified in RCW 9.73.040, set forthsupra at page 8. As earlier noted, however, your inquiry does not call for interpretation of this initial exception.
(b)The 1970 Amendments:
Two new categorical exceptions to the privacy rule of chapter 9.73 RCW were added by § 1, chapter 48, Laws of 1970, 1st Ex. Sess. First, subsection (2) of that section read as follows:
"(2) Video and/or sound recordings may be made of arrested persons by police officers responsible for making arrests or holding persons in custody before their first appearance in court. Such video and/or sound recordings shall conform strictly to the following:
"(a) the arrested person shall be informed that such recording is being made and the statement so informing him shall be included in the recording,
"(b) the recording shall commence with an indication of the time of the beginning thereof and terminate with an indication of the time thereof,
"(c) at the commencement of the recording the arrested person shall be fully informed of his constitutional rights, and such statements informing him shall be included in the recording,
"(d) the recordings shall only be used for valid police or court activities."
This exception was first codified as RCW 9.73.090(2), was then recodified in unamended form as RCW 9.73.090(1)(b) under 1977 amendments (§ 3, chapter 363, Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess.) and currently stands as the exception we have set forth and labelled "Arrestee Interrogations," supra, at page 9.
[[Orig. Op. Page 13]]
The other categorical exception added by the 1970 enactment was contained in subsection (1) of § 1, chapter 48, supra, and read as follows:
"The provisions of RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080 shall not apply to police and fire personnel in the following instances:
"(1) Recording incoming telephone calls to police and fire stationsfor the purpose and only for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of reception of emergency calls.
". . ." (Emphasis supplied)
It was this 1970 amendment which was involved in the celebrated case ofState v. Wanrow,supra. In the first installment of that case, both Division III, Court of Appeals and then our State Supreme Court rendered similar limiting interpretations of the underscored language of the provision. See, 14 Wn.App. 115, 538 P.2d 849 (1975) and 88 Wn.2d 221, 559 P.2d 548 (1977). Factually, Ms. Wanrow had shot and killed a man in purported defense of herself, her adult female friend and the friend's juvenile daughter. Thereupon, the friend called the police on an emergency "crime check" number‑-which the police made available for citizens to alert them as to observed crimes‑-and told police about the incident. Ms. Wanrow then got on the line and gave her own account of the incident in which she admitted her participation in the shooting. The conversations were recorded without the knowledge or consent of the callers.
At the ensuing trial, the recording was admitted over Defendant Wanrow's objections and she was convicted. But, on her subsequent appeal to Division III and again on the prosecutor's appeal to our State Supreme Court, she won a reversal. There (i.e., in the Supreme Court), writing for a five‑judge majority, Justice Utter focused on the above underscored limiting language of RCW 9.73.090(1) and opined on that basis that the only use to which such emergency recordings could be put was to "verify accuracy" of such elements of the conversation as street numbers, names of complainants, etc. Therefore, the recording could not be used as evidence.14/
[[Orig. Op. Page 14]]
(c)The 1977 Amendatory Act:
Thereafter, the 1977 legislature responded directly and immediately to this interpretation of the statute.15/ We will here set forth this set of amendments in bill drafting form for ease of understanding‑-as contained in chapter 363, Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess. in relevant part as follows:
". . .
"(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, crime, or other disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.16/
"Sec. 3. Section 1, chapter 48, Laws of 1970 ex. sess. and RCW 9.73.090 are each amended to read as follows:
[[Orig. Op. Page 15]]
"(((1)))(a) Recording incoming telephone calls to police and fire stations ((for the purpose and only for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of reception of emergency calls));"17/
In addition, a further exception added onto the statute by the 1977 legislature is the exception which we have above labelled "Continuing Felony Investigations‑-Police‑Obtained Ex Parte Judicial Authorization to Record with Single‑Party Consent," supra, at p. 10. RCW 9.73.090(2), as added by § 3, chapter 363, Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess., authorizes, upon judicial authorization to a police officer conducting a felony investigation, the interception, recording and disclosure of private wire or other communications or conversations involving the suspect and a consenting party.
Questions Presented:
With all of the foregoing statutory provisions and sequential development thereof in mind, we now turn to your questions.
Question (1):
Repeated for ease of reference, this question asks:
Under the provisions of chapter 9.73 RCW, does the "incoming phone calls" exception in RCW 9.73.090(1)(a) permit a police agency to record those incoming calls which are not of an "emergency" nature?
[[Orig. Op. Page 16]]
We answer in the affirmative. Specifically, it is our opinion that in contrast to the predecessor statute upon whichState v. Wanrow, supra, was based‑-and except as qualified in our response to question (2) below‑-the current version of RCW 9.73.090(1)(a) places no limitation upon the type of incoming call to a police or fire station which may be recorded and does not in any way limit its use, including its ultimate admission as evidence against a caller. Clearly, the above‑outlined statutory history shows that the 1970 language which limited the use of such recordings to the "purpose of verifying the accuracy of information" (seeWanrow, supra) was intentionally excised from the statute in 1977.
However, while we indicated at the outset that our generally more restrictive state statute satisfies federal (Title III) standards, we must note here that at least single‑party consent appears to be minimally required in order for a law enforcement recording under RCW 9.73.090(1)(a), as thus amended, to withstand scrutiny. Thus, inUnited States v. Harpel, 493 F.2d 346 (10th Cir. 1974) the Court found a criminal violation of the federal law where a police officer used an extension phone and a tape machine to make an unconsenting tape recording of a call between a fellow officer and a federal drug investigator. This would apparently mean that even if a call is incoming to a police station, the interception and recording of that call without at least one participant's consent would violate federal law.
Practically speaking, for Washington law enforcement agencies what this means is that a single‑party consent requirement must be read into RCW 9.73.090(1)(a),supra, and that agencies should inform all employees and other recipients on incoming, recorded lines that recordings are being made and that no non-consent recordings shall occur.
With these qualifications in mind, however, we believe that the mere passive practice of making a recording of all non-induced calls and non-elicited statements18/ which come into the stationhouse phones is permissible under the state statute and that these recordings can be used in any subsequent criminal or civil trial, so long as there is single‑party consent to the recording pursuant to federal statute.
[[Orig. Op. Page 17]]
Question (2):
Your second question assumes the foregoing affirmative answer to question (1) and asks generally about the situation where a police officer deliberately "induces" or "elicits" from an as yet unarrested, uncharged19/ criminal suspect a call to the stationhouse‑-so that police can capture the suspect's voice or statements on tape.
This question leaves open a fairly wide range of variation in factual situations where "deliberateness," "inducement," or "elicitation"20/ by the police might be an issue. We will not here attempt to hypothesize all possible factual variations. Rather we will pose a single hypothetical case which we believe illustrates that the spirit of chapter 9.73 RCW may require prior judicial authorization or mutual consent for recording of certain types of incoming calls in circumstances raising the "deliberate inducement" issue.
One clear example of "deliberate inducement" would be where a police agency would arrange for an "undercover" phone at the stationhouse for such activities as narcotics, gambling or stolen property investigations. Undercover investigators might receive calls at such phones as if the phones were those in a private residence or business. Technically, these would [[Orig. Op. Page 18]] be "incoming telephone calls to (a) police . . . station . . ." and would therefore qualify the for above‑noted exception, reading RCW 9.73.090(1)(a), supra, on its face. However, such recordings might instead fall squarely within the more restrictively covered category of calls excepted only under that which we have labelled as the "Continuing Felony Investigations‑-Police‑Obtained Ex Parte Judicial Authorization to Record with Single‑Party Consent" exception set forth in RCW 9.73.090(2),supra, at page 10. We believe the spirit of the legislation would dictate, as a prerequisite to recording of such a phone conversation, either (1) prior authorization per the terms of that statutory subsection or (2) taped announcement of mutual consent under RCW 9.73.030(3),supra.21/
[[Orig. Op. Page 19]]
We do not suggest that every tape of a "deliberately induced" incoming phone call is proscribed by the statute, however. For instance because of the special purpose of the "Exigent Circumstances" exception of RCW 9.73.030(2),supra, we believe that the legislative spirit favors the admissibility of recordings of all calls covered by that subsection even if deliberately induced (cf.,State v. Forrester, supra). The basic problem area, rather, appears to be the interrelationship of the authorization of RCW 9.73.090(1)(a) and the restrictions contained in RCW 9.73.090(2) as illustrated by the immediately preceding hypothetical.
In conclusion, nonetheless‑-without attempting to posit the several hypothetical variations possible‑-we would respond to your second question with the following general rule: That wherever the spirit or letter of the statute dictates taped mutual consent (RCW 9.73.030(3)) or judicial authorization (RCW 9.73.090(2)) prior to recording a telephone conversation with a criminal suspect, the "incoming calls" exception could well be held inapplicable even if single‑party consent is present.
Question (3):
Your third question, repeated here for ease of reference, asks:
Do any of the several exceptions to the Privacy Act set forth in RCW 9.73.030(2), RCW 9.73.090(1)(a), RCW 9.73.090(1)(b) and RCW 9.73.090(2) overlap each other in such a way as to render any such exception(s) totally duplicative of another and therefore unnecessary and superfluous?
In analyzing this question, we take note of another fundamental rule of statutory construction which is pertinent here. It tells us that effect must be given, if possible, to every word, clause and sentence of a statute so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant. Snow's Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Morgan, 80 Wn.2d 283, 494 P.2d 216 (1972). This basic tenet of statutory construction creates a negative presumption against duplicativeness of the various exceptions to chapter 9.73 RCW.
In addition, we believe that the clear meaning of the statutory language involved supports the non-duplication presumption here. We will demonstrate this by way of descriptions [[Orig. Op. Page 20]] of general, categorical fact patterns which fall exclusively within only one of the several single‑party consent exceptions‑-looking, initially, to the three separate exceptions in RCW 9.73.030(2),supra, at page 9.
First, assume that a volunteer fireman or a policeman‑-or any other individual‑-receives a call at his home or is contacted in person at his doorstep or on a street corner and, accordingly, may not record the call or report under the incoming-calls-to-the‑stationhouse exception in RCW 9.73.090(1)(a). He may nonetheless record the conversation under RCW 9.73.030(2) if it is "of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, crime or other disaster, . . ."
Similarly, if someone receives a wire communication or engages in a conversation, by phone or otherwise, which conveys "threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm or other unlawful requests or demands . . ." he may record that conversation even though he is not talking on a police or fire stationhouse incoming phone line at the time. Only RCW 9.73.030(2)(b),supra, authorizes an extrajudicial single‑party consent recording of such a threat-conveying phone call or other such conversation where received as other than an incoming phone call to a police or fire stationhouse.
Similar analysis applies equally to the single‑party consent recording of wire communications or other private conversations which occur "anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour . . ." Although not received as incoming phone calls to a stationhouse phone, such calls or conversations may be recorded but only because this recording is authorized by special exception in RCW 9.73.030(2)(c).
The foregoing thus illustrates that the "incoming phone calls" exception of RCW 9.73.090(1)(a) does not render superfluous the exceptions in RCW 9.73.030(2). Conversely, for incoming phone calls not covered by the overlapping "Exigent Circumstances Calls and Conversations" exceptions of RCW 9.73.030(2)(a), (b) and (c), the only basis for arguing the lawfulness of the recording will be RCW 9.73.090(1)(a). Thus, for instance, a non-emergency phone call to a police department could be recorded only because RCW 9.73.090(1)(a) allows it.
Next, as previously noted, RCW 9.73.090(1)(b) is intended to cover the special set of circumstances where a person, under interrogation, has already been arrested or is being held in custody. In that case the heightened statutory protections of that provision including, in effect, mutual consent to the recordings and more, will apply even though it might be argued [[Orig. Op. Page 21]] that one of the other exceptions would otherwise appear to authorize a less restrictive recording process.22/
Finally, RCW 9.73.090(2), supra, at page 10, covers the special categorical situation in which police, in the course of a felony investigation, have reason to record their own or an informer's wire communication or other conversation with a non-consenting suspect of their investigation. In such a situation, the police must comply with the judicial authorization and other requirements of RCW 9.73.090(2), even though it might appear superficially that one or more of the other exceptions might justify a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rigorous requirements of RCW 9.73.090(2).
It is clear, then, that each of the several single‑party consent exceptions in chapter 9.73 RCW, while overlapping each other in certain respects, covers distinct and separate territories, the non-overlapping portions of which are relatively well-defined. It is our opinion therefore that none of the statutory exceptions is unnecessary or duplicative of the other but that each serves a distinct legislative purpose.
We trust that the foregoing will be of some assistance to you.
Very truly yours,SLADE GORTONAttorney General
JOHN R. WASBERGAssistant Attorney General
2/See RCW 9.73.040.
3/There would appear to be no constitutional issue raised by your questions. While "private" telephone calls are protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution (seeKatz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)), there is little doubt the Washington statutory scheme, set forth and described in detail below, is valid. Even as modified by the 1977 amendments reducing the barriers to law enforcement interception and recording, it seems well within Fourth Amendment limitations which allow for single‑party consent interception and recording. SeeU.S. v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 28 L.Ed.2d 453, 91 S.Ct. 1122 (1971). See alsoCasenote "Admissibility of Recorded Conversation," 11 Gonzaga Law Review, 792, 793, fn. 6 (1976).
4/See State v. Wanrow, 88 Wn.2d 221, 233, 559 P.2d 548 (1977);cf.,State v. Kichinko, 26 Wn.App. 304 (Div. I, 1980).
5/The modern electronic-era protections of RCW 9.73.030-9.73.140 here under scrutiny were grafted onto a law which was conceived in simpler times (1909) and which originally protected only against "Divulging telegram(s)," RCW 9.73.010, and "Opening sealed letter(s)." See RCW 9.73.020.
6/Because state interception authorization must be at least as restrictive as the federal law, the term "private," undefined by chapter 9.73 RCW, must generally include at least the ambit of the federally-undefined concept of "expectation of privacy" found to be the minimal protective reach of the federal law by courts interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq. Chapter 9.73 RCW's term "private" has, however, received a broad interpretation from our appellate courts. See,State v. Wanrow, supra, 88 Wn.2d at 233, and see State v. Grant, 9 Wn.App. 260, 511 P.2d 1013 (Div. I, 1973). And seeState v. Bonilla, 23 Wn.App. 869 (Div. II, 1979) andState v. Forrester, 21 Wn.App. 855 (Div. III, 1979).
7/Again, because of the preemptory federal interception law, the protective ambit of the term "interception," undefined by chapter 9.73 RCW, must generally extend to at least the elements of the federal definition; i.e., "the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of electronic, mechanical, or other device." 18 U.S.C. § 2510(4).
8/The term "consent," which is undefined under the federal law, is partially defined by RCW 9.73.030(3) as follows:
"(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded."
Note that exclusively with respect to the exception we have labelled "Arrestee Interrogation,"infra, at page 9, even where mutual consent has been obtained via this statutorily prescribed announcement or by some other means, the additional taping prerequisites of RCW 9.73.090(2) must be met. See,State v. Cunningham, 93 Wn.2d 823 (1980). In all other taping situations, however, such mutual consent will apparently place the recording outside the law's prohibitions. See, fn. 21,infra, at page 18.
9/There are ten published Washington appellate court opinions interpreting the post-1967 provisions of chapter 9.73 RCW, all of which have dealt with the question of admissibility of recorded statements of either a suspect or a law enforcement officer in a criminal trial.
There is no reference to the preemptive federal legislation in any of those ten published Washington appellate decisions to date. Because of the fact patterns involved in those cases, and also because the Washington scheme is generally more restrictive than the federal scheme, this possible oversight has most probably not been prejudicial to either the state or the defendant.
Litigation involving the federal statutes has been more intense than under our state statute. In its twelve years of existence, chapter 119 of Title 18 U.S.C. has generated enough cases to fill over 150 pages of annotations.
10/The phrase "communication or conversation" is used throughout chapter 9.73 RCW apparently as a shorthand reference to the more detailed description of RCW 9.73.030(1)(a) and (b) set forth, supra, at page 6.
11/This exception is not addressed by your inquiry. It is the only state statutory exception authorizing "bugging" (as opposed to "monitoring") without at least a single‑party consent to the interception or recording. Numerous qualifying restrictions on the application for and procedures to be followed under this exception are set forth at RCW 9.73.040(2) ‑ (7). Unlike the other exceptions in the state statute, even the authorized interceptions allowed by this exception cannot generally be used in subsequent criminal prosecutions. The only exception providing for admissibility of the product of these authorized wiretaps is where the crime involved is one which jeopardizes national security.
12/The exception cited in your first two questions.
13/Detailed and complex restrictions regarding this final exception to the basic privacy protection of the statute are found in RCW 9.73.120-9.73.140. For a recent interpretation of certain aspects of this particular exception, seeState v. Kichinko, 26 Wn.App. 304 (Div. I, 1980)
14/In so ruling, the majority found some support for its interpretation in reported floor discussion of the narrowness of the then proposed qualified exception when the 1970 amendatory bill was originally before the legislature. Senate Journal, 41st Legislature (1970), at p. 205. SeeState v. Wanrow,supra, at pp. 232, 233. The dissent's position in part, on the other hand, was that the limitation of the statute was to control only what the police and fire agencies might attempt to record‑-not what was done with recordings after they were lawfully on tape.
15/See discussion in State v. Bonilla,supra, 23 Wn.App. at 874 and State v. Forrester, supra, 21 Wn.App. at 862, taking note of causal connection between theWanrow decision announcement and 1977 amendments to chapter 9.73 RCW.
16/This exception for "Exigent Circumstances Calls and Conversations," codified now as RCW 9.73.030(2), is set forth in current form supra at page 8.
17/This exception is the one we have labelled "Incoming Calls to Police and Fire Stations" set forth supra in current form at page 9.
18/See discussion of this inducement or elicitation issue in our response to question (2), infra.
19/After being arrested or charged, a suspect under interrogation would clearly be covered by the special taped warnings requirements of RCW 9.73.090(1)(b). State v. Cunningham, 93 Wn.2d 823 (1980).
20/As was noted previously, this statute's protections are an expansion of privacy protections beyond those provided by the Fourth Amendment. While neither the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination nor the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at all critical stages in criminal proceedings is involved at this pre‑arrest stage, perhaps some of the cases involving questions of deliberateness of police conduct in inducing or eliciting statements in violation of the rights established under these respective constitutional amendments may be helpful in determining whether there has been a deliberate inducement violative of the spirit of chapter 9.73 RCW. See,e.g., Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 12 L.Ed.2d 246, 84 S.Ct. 1199 (1964);Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 51 L.Ed.2d 424, 97 S.Ct. 1232 (1977);Rhode Island v. Innis, 48 Law Week 4506 (1980).
21/Last July, in State v. Cunningham, 93 Wn.2d 823, ___P.2d___(1980) (see footnotes 8, 19) our Supreme Court ruled that for "Arrestee Interrogations," RCW 9.73.090(1)(b), even taped mutual consent (RCW 9.73.030(3)) will not qualify a tape for admission if the former subsection's additionally required taped warnings have not been administered. The Court declared in this respect:
"The foregoing statutory provisions, when adhered to strictly, will establish within the recording itself that a defendant's consent was given only after being informed the statement would be recorded; that the consent and resultant statement were given only after being fully informed of one's constitutional rights, including the exact information imparted; and that the statement was not obtained by means of oppressively long interrogation or interrogation that occurred at unreasonable times or in unreasonable sequences. In short, while RCW 9.73.030 authorizes the use of a recorded statement obtained after the prior consent of all persons engaged therein, RCW 9.73.090(2) controls the nature and means of obtaining that consent. The two statutory provisions are interrelated parts of a single statutory scheme." 93 Wn.2d at 829, 830.
The Court's exclusion of a mutual consent recording in Cunningham is, we believe, narrowly restricted to the "Arrestee Interrogation" context. In any other context mutual consent obtained in the manner partially described in RCW 9.73.090(3), will make the tape admissible in evidence irrespective of the apparent applicability or non-applicability of any other statutory exception.
22/See State v. Cunningham discussed supra at footnote 21.


text:
Devendra Banhart Rolls Out Thunder Canyon
Devendra Banhart's fifth album, "Smokey Rolls Down Thunder Canyon", is set to be released by XL Records on September 24, and Uncut has heard it!
The 16-track album, produced by Banhart and long-time collaborator Noah Georgeson, sees him depart from the acid-folk style and experiment with gospel, reggae, South American balladry and even Jackson 5-style soul-pop.
The album was recorded at a secluded house in Topanga Canyon, Los Angeles, and details Banhart's break-up with Bianca Casady of CocoRosie. Besides regular collaborators like Andy Cabic (Vetiver), Otto Hauser (Espers) and Pete Newsom (Joanna's brother), "Smokey Rolls" also features some pretty special guests.
Actor Gael Garcia Bernal duets on "Cristobal", and the Black Crowes' Chris Robinson adds charango (a South American mandolin) to "Samba Vexillographica". Amongst the supporting singers, Banhart's muse, British folk legend Vashti Bunyan, contributes to "My Dearest Friend", while lost lady of the canyons Linda Perhacs comes out of a 37-year retirement to guest on the outstanding "Freely".
For a full preview of "Smokey Rolls Down Thunder Canyon", visit Uncut's

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Top All Time Conspiracy Theories
20 Unforgettable Vintage Photos of Real Circus Freaks & Sideshow Acts
Top 10 "Useless" Organs
Top 5 Fastest Planes Ever Built
Do Not Miss Out On These Adorable Pictures Of Cats Clicking Selfies
13 Photos That Shouldn't Have Been Taken
Insane Russian Flip Gone Completely Wrong
36 Hottest Personal Trainer Pictures That Will Blow You Away
Ancient Corpses That Defied Nature and Refused to Rot
Watch Till The End To Get Really Amazed
The Hairiest Girl in the World
22 Maniacs Who Took It Too Far
16 People Fortunately Saved from Their Horrible Tattoos
Top 25 Dumbest, Most Overrated Car Accessories
The Largest Ship On the Planet Will Amaze You
43 of The Most Magnificent Photobombs Ever Captured
This Performance Will Shock You
Little Girl Born With 'No Blood' Defies All Odds
46 Perfectly Timed Photos You'll Have to Look Twice to Understand.
Make Sure To Watch This Incredible Audition Performance
The Hilarious Impending Doom Is Right Before You! Check Out And Have Fun!
This Photographer Should Have Put the Camera Down in These 13 Pictures
The Worst Parents of 2014
Timing Is Everything: Hilarious Accidental Photos
Tiffany Shlain wants us all to unplug our gadgets every now and again
24 Unforgettable After-Death Photos from the Victorian Era
30 Really Good Examples of Why Japan is So Weird
Some Ugly Truths About Modern Dating
10 Of The Most Fascinating Snake Facts
How to Get Gum Off Shoes


text:
CASPER, Wyo. — Interior Secretary Ken Salazar apparently vastly overstated the economic benefits of coal lease sales announced earlier this week.
On Tuesday Salazar announced lease sales of 758 million tons of Powder River Basin coal and said the sales would add between $13.4 billion and $21.3 billion to government coffers over the life of the leases — numbers repeated by media outlets worldwide.
The likely total is far lower, or the amount you get if you move the decimal point over one spot to the left.
"That was off by a factor of 10," said Marion Loomis, executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association.
Loomis said he also accepted the Salazar numbers at face value until they struck him as wildly inaccurate.
He said the proceeds from 758 million tons of coal would more likely produce approximately $2 billion, nearly half of which flows to state coffers.
Simple math illustrates the error: Salazar's numbers would mean the government would get $17 to $28 per ton of the newly available coal. But that number is considerably higher than the current spot sale price for a ton of coal.
A ton of 8,800 British thermal unit coal from the Powder River Basin sells for $13.65, according to the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration, and government gains are only a fraction of that total.
The calculated total includes bonus bids and royalty payments over the life of the leases as well as severance taxes, ad valorum taxes and Abandoned Mine Lands, or money collected through a federal program to reduce or eliminate the pollution and safety problems of old and abandoned mines.
Loomis said $2 billion is still a lot of money, but Salazar and the news reports about his announcement apparently included a decimal-shift of an error.
"It's a shame, because the number's still huge," Loomis said. "Two billion dollars of revenue, a billion that comes to Wyoming from bonus bids and royalties, that's huge."
The government take from the mining of the new coal wasn't the only thing wrong in Salazar's announcement. On Thursday the Interior Department tweaked the announcement's media release on its website to adjust the percentage of money that goes to Wyoming from 48 to 49 percent.
An Interior Department representative referred the Star-Tribune to a Bureau of Land Management spokesman, who didn't respond to several calls Thursday. A spokeswoman for the Wyoming BLM office said the office was looking into the numbers.
The Bureau of Land Management, an agency under the Interior Department, manages federal coal leases.


text:
Morgan Wicker is a homeschooling mother of four with a background in piano and cello performance. She has played with the New Philharmonic Orchestra of Irving and the University of Texas Orchestra. She has directed choirs in Portugal and the Czech Republic. She serves as Stake Music Chair of the Carrollton Texas Stake.
Orchestral Director:
John E. Hairel holds a Bachelor's degree in Music Education from Utah State University, a Master's degree in Music Conducting from Texas Tech University and a Doctorate of Musical Arts from the University of Kentucky. His experiences include teaching public school at both the middle school and high school levels as well as teaching numerous classes as a teaching assistant while attending Texas Tech University and the University of Kentucky. John currently resides in Carrollton, TX with his wife Wendy and their four children. He enjoys attending his children's fine arts and sporting events.
Vocal Coach:
Linda Traue is a private vocal instructor with 43 years of experience. She has studied at four universities and worked as a church musician in many congregations. She joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 2013 and serves as the Ward Music Chair of Dallas 6th Ward.
Previous Vocal Soloists:
Margeaux Brode is a freshman at Hebron High School where she is a soprano in the Varsity Mixed A Cappella Choir and sings alto for the Youth Chorus of Collin County. Margeaux has been under the vocal direction of Linda Traue since 2009.
Jessica Gourley is a junior at iSchool High Flower Mound. She teaches piano and has sung in school and church choirs since fifth grade. An All-Region and All-District voice, she studies privately with Linda Traue. She serves as Choir Director of the Lewisville 2nd Ward.
Kaylee Hairel is a sophomore at Hebron High School where she sings in the Varsity Mixed A Cappella Choir. This year she received first chair at Pre-Area auditions and placed third in the Texas All-State Mixed Choir. She studies privately with Robin Montgomery.
Sydney Hairel is in eighth grade at Creek Valley Middle School where she sings in the Varsity Girls' Choir. She has sung with Honors and All-Region choirs since fifth grade and has competed as both a soloist and an ensemble member.
Sonrisa Palmer Lopez received a Bachelor of Arts in Music from Brigham Young University. She has written a number of original compositions as well as arrangements of sacred music which she has performed as a soloist and choral conductor. She continues to perform as a soloist in church, the community, at special events and in vocal ensembles. She also sings with the DMCO Grand Chorus. As a light lyric soprano, Sonrisa specializes in classical, sacred and musical theatre vocal repertoire and enjoys inspiring others through her songwriting. Sonrisa resides in Coppell, Texas, with her daughter Natalie.
Megan Rich is a senior at Coppell High School where she sings in the A Cappella and Madrigal Choirs. She is a two-year member of the Texas All-State Choir. In 2013 she sang with the Youth Choral Academy as part of the Oregon Bach Festival.
Seth Robinson is a junior at Coppell High School where he sings in the A Cappella Choir. He has competed at the state level as both a soloist and an ensemble member. He is under the direction of Carol Mulvey.
Courtney Seale is a freshman at Hebron High School where she sings in the Varsity Mixed A Cappella Choir. Courtney has participated in All-Region Choir for two years.


text:
Friday, March 23, 2012
The Pill and Medical Necessity
The fact that the medical world uses the pill as a catch-all drug of choice for girls and women has always disturbed me. Are you a 12-year old girl with an irregular period? Take the pill. Bad PMS? The pill. Endometriosis? Here's the pill. Unable to conceive? Try the pill. Don't want to conceive? Definitely the pill. In spite of the fact that the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified the Pill as a Group 1 carcinogen (along with the likes of asbestos, arsenic, formaldehyde, and plutonium), oral contraception is the go-to drug for anything remotely related to the female reproductive system.
This is the kind of "basic health care" that the Obama administration wants to force on American employers.
Someone please tell me why the US medical community is not willing to put forth the effort to offer a safer alternative to girls and women? Someone please tell me why a woman who is suffering from irregularities in her menstrual cycle must be treated by a drug that harms her fertility and increases her risk of cancer? This sounds to me like a medical system that is uncreative, unconcerned, and uninterested in the well-being of the individual woman.
I came across an article yesterday written by a woman who has suffered for years from severely painful endometriosis and also has suffered under a medical system that has nothing to offer her but contraception. I've excerpted part of the the article below but please read the entirety here. It's excellent.
From Contraception isn't healthcare, it isn't even helpful: I would know by Jacqueline Harvey
"Unlike Sandra Fluke, I know all too well about the medical "need" for contraception. But I assert that the medical need is not for contraception, but for real medical treatments. Instead, women are reduced to settling for the side affects of a drug that was not designed to treat and medical ailments, but intended to allow people to have sex without pregnancy, something that is intended to profit men as much as women, since the last time I checked, it takes a man for a woman to become pregnant. The fact that men have treatments for legitimate disorders that affect men but women are forced to endure our medical problems or accept scraps rather than solutions reeks of sexism. It baffles me that it is self-proclaimed feminists who are indignant about not getting free contraception who somehow fail to see that women with real health problems are woefully neglected..."
"I will state the obvious: Contraception is about contraception, not my medical affliction. We've established that contraception is insufficient in addressing medical problems anyway and rather causes more medical problems: but even if the pill did appropriately treat my medical condition, most women want contraception for contraception. If I were forced to use it for medical treatment, I would also be forced to use it as contraception against my will because that is what it does. As someone who hopped from doctor to doctor in college with no insurance and a limited income, I assure you that oral contraception is really easy to get. Real medical care? Not so much.
The controversy is not about medical treatment for women like me. It is about who pays for contraception for women like Sandra Fluke. Even those groups that oppose contraception will pay for contraceptives if there is an established medical reason. So again, those "poor women" like me who would, unlike me, accept contraception as a treatment, are covered. And while I insist that it is an injustice that real treatments for female ailments for women like myself don't exist (forcing me to find my own solutions at my own expense) I never complained about having to pay for my own healthcare."
This battle that these so-called feminists are waging supposedly on my behalf is exploiting my disease so they can have free birth control. These are healthy women who want a pill to make their bodies unhealthy (and infertile) at their whim. Meanwhile, women like me with legitimate health problems who want to protect our fertility are left without acceptable options. This "poor woman" found and paid for her own treatments in spite of those who feign to care about her and are using her for selfish gain. I took care of myself. Since getting birth control is infinitely easier than what I endured, is it too much to expect these women to take care of themselves* as well?
*If the answer is no, maybe I should dig up my old medical bills and see if Sandra Fluke and her ilk will reimburse me for them, since she cares so much about women like me."
Read the rest of this article at LifeSiteNews
4 comments:
Just a note to say that without the pill my sister-in-law would have never reached adolescence. Her body simply does not produce estrogen naturally. Without estrogen, she is infertile. Even with estrogen, she is infertile. In fact, to possibly get pregnant, she would have to take extra hormones. So there are some cases where it does not act as contraception, and is medically necessary. I know her situation is rare and I would not expect many people to know about it. Perhaps there is some alternative to providing her body with estrogen, but none that I am aware of yet. I think her case is one of the few cases where the use of the pill as a medical treatment is ethical, but because her case is so rare, it is not discussed in the medical or political sphere.
ReplyDeleteHi Maria-
Thanks for sharing the information about your sister and I'm sorry to hear that she has had such a suffering road. I did not say that taking the pill for medical necessity is unethical. I think there are probably many women who take it ethically simply because no alternative is available for their conditions. My point is that the medical community does not appear to be actively seeking alternatives that are healthier, don't cause infertility in fertile women, and are more specifically designed for women's needs. That one-size-fits-all approach is not good for women and is, unfortunately, being spun and used by those who support the HSS mandate.
God bless you and your family!Hi Melody,
I think you are right about that. The medical system here is very utilitarian and does not explore other options enough. I would not be surprised if there were actually other, healthier options for my sister-in-law out there. Contraception certainly has a pretty strong hold on the medical system, especially with all the money it generates...


text:
New intake among PPS appointments
By Tony Grew - 10th September 2010
Several new Tory MPs have got their foot on the first ring of government after being appointed parliamentary private secretaries.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) will work for cabinet office minister Francis Maude; Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) is PPS to Lord Strathclyde, leader of the Lords; Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) will work for Welsh secretary Cheryl Gillan and Jessica Lee (Erewash) is PPS to attorney general Dominic Grieve.
A PPS is unpaid but counted as part of the government's 'payroll' vote and will be expected to vote with the government at all times or resign their post.
To be appointed as a PPS is seen as a sign an MP is rated by the party. They act as as the 'eyes and ears' of the minister in the House of Commons.
One eye-cathing appointment is Daniel Kawczynski.
The outspoken MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, first elected in 2005, is a strong proponent of first past the post.
However, he backed the government in Monday's vote on the AV referendum bill's second reading.
He will work for James Paice and Richard Benyon, ministers at Defra.
The other appointments announced by Downing St today are:
Oliver Letwin, minister of state, cabinet office - David Burrowes
David Willetts, minister of state, universities and science - Nicky Morgan
David Lidington, minister for Europe - Adam Holloway
Nick Herbert, minister of state, home office and ministry of justice - Mary Macleod
Mark Hoban, financial secretary to the Treasury - Alok Sharma
A House of Commons library briefing paper has listed the general functions of a PPS:
"They sit behind the dispatch box, running messages between the officials' box and their ministers.
"They also serve as important channels of communication between ministers and backbenchers, keeping a weather eye on moods within the parliamentary party and reporting likely reaction to proposed measures.
"They may also serve as an important means of communication with the party and bodies outside the House, providing a political – as opposed to an official departmental – line of access to ministers.
"They help ministers with a variety of tasks, including farming out friendly parliamentary questions.
"They may also be included at the discretion of the secretary of state in the regular meetings of the ministerial team (ministers, senior officials, special advisers) and may be used by the minister as an additional sounding board for proposals."


text:
found a new home!
Plenty of my friends are looking
for one too. Find a pet to adopt.
Find a pet to adopt |
My name is The Flash!
Facts about The Flash
- Breed: Domestic Shorthair
- Color: Black & White Or Tuxedo
- Age: Kitten
- Sex: Male
- Hair: Short
The Flash's Info...
I am good with cats.
Flash is a georgeous little boy who wears a balanced tuxedo with all his pretty white fur that contrasts with his vivid black. All age-appropriate vet services will be included in his adoption.
Other Pets at Nature's Gift Kitten Rescue
Why Adoption is a Great Option
The Flash, a Columbus Domestic Shorthair kitten was adopted! Here's how you can benefit by looking at adoption as an option to buying a Domestic Shorthair for sale in Columbus, or seeking a Domestic Shorthair kitten from a breeder in Columbus.
- Rescues and shelter volunteers in Columbus already know the personality and tendencies of their pets. This means they can match you with the right pet. That will makes it much easier transition to owning a pet for yourself and your new pet.
- On average adoption fees are much less than you'd pay a Columbus breeder, or pet store. Plus most often rescue pets have already been to the veterinarian for a check-up, had a round of vaccinations, and are spayed or neutered. That is a lot of savings!
- You will become a hero, and give a needy dog or cat a loving home. In fact, there are even Domestic Shorthair breeders who help with Domestic Shorthair rescue. One puppy or kitten adopted in Columbus paves the way for another one to be saved.


text:
LiveFit Gym – Tarah Henderson – Personal Trainier
Tarah Henderson found her interest in exercise science while studying Sports Medicine at Pepperdine University. She then decided to pursue personal training with the National Academy of Sports Medicine in order to help others become more aware of their bodies and how to make them work more efficiently. She truly believes that nutritious eating combined with positive physical activity are the main components for overall wellness and health. Dedicated to her focus on a healthy lifestyle,
Tarah will work with you to individually create a program that progresses with your abilities to meet and hopefully surpass your personal fitness goals.
301 Fell Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 525-4364
675 Valencia Street
@18th Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 641-4200
Filmed by Brian Castellani
People & Blogs


text:
And thou shall speak unto the children of Israel
When he was come down from the mount, and gave the instructions about the making and using of this oil:
saying, this shall be an holy anointing oil unto me throughout your
Abarbinel, and other Jewish writers, conclude from hence, that this same oil, which was made by Moses, lasted throughout the generations to the times of Josiah, when it was hid with other things; but this, notion is justly exploded by Aben Ezra; it is not probable, that so small a quantity that was now made, which is supposed by some to be no more than a gallon and a half of wine measure, should suffice so long: it does not seem to be more than what was sufficient for present use; for the anointing of so many persons, and things as were anointed, and much less to be sufficient for the anointing of priests and kings in after times, until that period. This cannot be supposed without a miraculous interposition, to which the Talmudists
F26 Massachet Cerithot, fol. 5. 2. & Horayot, fol. 11. 2.


text:
The premier sales and installation HVAC contractor. We believe in prompt, professional, high quality service and performance & extremely competitive pricing. Call us for a free estimate.
30 Melissa Drive
West Yarmouth, MA 02673
- DOJ Smart Search verified
- License verified
- Email verified
- Thumbtack reviewed
- Facebook verified
- LinkedIn verified


text:
Mon, May 27, 13 at 11:05
It's kind of late, but does anyone have dormant mulberry scionwood you'd be willing to send for an SASE? I found a white mulberry weed and would like to top it with something having a track record, whether a named variety like IE or just something you've found to be especially good, preferably in the Northeast. As an alternative to the SASE route, if you don't mind waiting to receive your half of the trade, I can send you fig/pawpaw cuttings or ornamental bulbs, rhizomes, seeds, etc in the fall. Thanks. |
Follow-Up Postings:
bruce, I have one short fat White Ivory,a little thicker than a pencil,with a couple buds and a skinny Wellington,if those will work. Brady |
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Fruit & Orchards Forum
Information about Posting
- You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
- Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
- We have a strict no-advertising policy!
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.
Learn more about in-text links on this page here


text:
When people tell me they hate vegetables I don't believe them, and I work hard to change their opinion. I had a guy walk up to the deli counter at work last week, and tell me that he wanted anything but vegetarian food. I guess he had a bad experience maybe, or just thought that vegetables were bland. At any rate, I told him that I was a vegetarian and that we happened to have lots of good vegetarian food. He ended up walking away with 2 vegan and one vegetarian salad...it was nice to know I could have some sort of a good influence on someone.
Makes 12
1 cups sprouted buckwheat groats, dehydrated until dry
1 cup walnuts, soaked and dehydrated until dry
1 3/4 cups dried shredded unsweetened coconut
1/4 tsp sea salt
1 1/2 inch chunk fresh ginger
2 tsp ground cinnamon
1/2 tsp ground cardamom
1 tsp pure vanilla extract
18 medjool dates, pitted
2 cups cubed raw organic squash
16 dates
2 Tbsp maple syrup
1/4 cup filtered water
1 Tbsp coconut butter
a pinch sea salt
1 tsp cinnamon
10 medjool dates, pitted
1 Tbsp almond butter
2 Tbsp agave nectar or honey
1/4 tsp sea salt
1 Tbsp coconut oil
1 tsp pure vanilla extract
1/4 cup filtered water
36 raw pecan halves
To make the dough, combine coconut and pecans in the food processor and process until finely ground. Add the sea salt, ginger, spices, vanilla, and dates and process until well blended and starting to hold together. Place the squash in the food processor and process with other ingredients until it is all pretty smooth. Place the mixture on a piece of parchment paper, and spread out into a large rectangle, 1/2 inch thick. Set aside while you make filling.
To make the filling, combine all ingredients in the food processor and process until smooth. Remove from the food processor and spread out over the dough, leaving 1 inch at the bottom. Using the parchment to help, roll up, jell roll style from the top down. Cut into 12 rounds. Place rounds, cut side up onto a teflex lined dehydrator sheet, and dehydrate for 6 hours or until dried, but not hard. Remove from the dehydrator.
To make the caramel, combine all ingredients in the food processor and process until smooth, add a little more water if mixture is too thick (by the Tbspful). Press the caramel mixture through a fine meshed sieve to get rid of any date pieces for a smoother caramel (or skip this step if you don't care).
Drizzle the caramel each over the rolls, and top each roll with 3 pecans. Enjoy!


text:
NEWTON's HOME PAGE
Privacy Policy
Infinity - Infinity =
Name: Steve S. Status: student Age: N/A Location: N/A Country: N/A Date: 5/4/2004
My son, Spencer, wanted to know the answer to the question "INFINITY MINUS INFINITY=????"
The short answer is --Anything you wish. The mathematical concept of infinity needs to be defined carefully in order to stay out of all sorts of dilemmas, contradictions, and confusion. First, it has slightly different definitions depending upon the area of math it is being used -- some examples:
Numbers like square root of 2, or pi are irrational which means that they cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers. That is fairly easy to prove. It means that when the expression for, say pi, is written pi=3.14159..... the sequence of digits is infinite. There is no pattern. However, pi - pi = 0. One can also show that 2*pi is infinite in the same sense. But, 2*pi - pi = pi (not zero).
When used in the context of "infinite series" it means that there is a formula adding and infinite number of numbers together according to a formula, or set of directions. For example: SUM[n = 1 to infinity] 1/n means 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + ... + 1/1000 + 1/1001 +...+ and so on. If you add up any finite number of terms in this series you get a number. So: 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 = 6/6 + 3/6 + 2/6 = 11/6. And this is a finite answer. However, the INFINITE SUM is infinite, that is it just keeps getting larger and larger. In contrast if you perform the SUM[n = 0 to infinity] (1/2)^n the first few terms of the series look like (1/2)^0 + (1/2)^1 + (1/2)^2 + (1/2)^3 + ... = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 = 8/8 + 4/8 + 2/8 + 1/8 = 15/8 = 1.875.
However, one can prove that as more and more terms are included in the sum the SUM ----> 2 (exactly).
In the first example you see that the term "infinite" refers to the "answer" you get by doing the SUM, but in the second example it refers, not to the "answer", but to the number of terms included in the sum.
It also turns out that some collections containing an infinite number of numbers ARE LARGER than some other collections containing an infinite number of numbers!!
The bottom line is that the concept of "infinity" is one that needs to be carefully handled in mathematics.
Vince Calder
Steve S.,
There is no single answer to this, as infinity is not a number in the strictest sense. Infinity is a "limit". It is something you can get closer and closer to, but you never quite reach it. What matters is how fast you approach the first infinity (call it infinity01) versus how fast you approach the second infinity (call it infinity02). If you approach both at exactly the same speed, always the same distance from each, then infinity01-infinity02=0. If you are always a little closer to infinity01, then infinity01-infinity02 is a positive number. If you move toward infinity01 twice as fast as how you approach infinity02, then infinity01-infinity02=infinity. The behavior of limits is not quite the same as the behavior of numbers.
Dr. Ken Mellendorf
Physics Instructor
Illinois Central College
Click here to return to the Mathematics Archives
NEWTON is an electronic community for Science, Math, and Computer Science K-12 Educators, sponsored and operated by
Argonne National Laboratory
Educational Programs
, Andrew Skipor, Ph.D., Head of Educational Programs.
For assistance with NEWTON contact a
System Operator (firstname.lastname@example.com)
, or at Argonne's
Educational Programs
Educational Programs
Building 360
9700 S. Cass Ave.
Argonne, Illinois
Update: June 2012


text:
Chinatown/Convention Center
The Source
Washington, DC, 20565, United States
Owned by celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck, the Source is an acclaimed pan-Asian restaurant located inside the Newseum. The restaurant is divided into two sections: a formal upstairs dining room and a casual downstairs lounge inspired by traditional Japanese izakayas (after-work drinking establishments). Connected by a marble staircase, the dining areas are designed in a modern minimalist style with floor-to-ceiling windows and a two-story wine wall holding more than 2,000 bottles. The lounge menu includes fresh sushi and Sichuan chicken dumplings, while the main dining room menu features signature dishes like the crisp suckling pig with black plum purée.
Insider Tip:
If you want to try the popular chocolate soufflé, make sure to order it with your entrée, as it takes about 30 minutes to bake.
Open / Closes- Accessible by Public Transportation
- Bar Dining
- Brunch
- Dinner
- Dress Code
- Full Bar
- Good for Groups
- Handicapped Accessible
- Lunch
- Notable Chef
- Notable Wine List
- Private Dining/Party Space
- Private Room Available
- Patio/Outdoor Seating
- Parking Available
- Prix Fixe
- Sommelier
- Sunday - Closed
- Tasting Menu
Cuisine Type:: Asian: Southeast


text:
- Hotel Details
- Member Reviews
- Photos
Crowne Plaza London / Kensington Hotel
3 Stars100 Cromwell Road London England SW7 4ER
Crowne Plaza London / Kensington Hotel is located in the heart of London, in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The hotel has easy access to all the major attractions such as High Street Kensington, Natural History Museum, London Eye, Albert Hall and Harrods.
This property boasts comfortable as well as elegantly designed accommodation units, all of which include the most up-to-date facilities. Attentive room service is also available for your convenience.
Dinner Gardens Restaurant is a contemporary and stylish outlet offering modern European cuisine. It also has an Al Fresco Dining offering guests the unique opportunity to enjoy the beautiful gardens and serene atmosphere. The lounge bar overlooks the private garden and has an informal atmosphere where guests can relax along with a fine drink after a long tiring day.
This property provides a professional meeting service giving the conference organisers an ability to plan and organize their conference with ease and confidence. During leisure, you can re energise your body at the Jacuzzi or unwind at the sauna.
Hotel Facilities
- Baby Sitting Service
- Conference Facilities
- Laundry Facilities
- Reception
- Safe Deposit Box
- Bar / Lounge
- Internet Access - High Speed
- Lobby
- Restaurant
- Sauna
- Business Centre
- Jacuzzi / Whirlpool
- Parking Facilities
- Room Service
Room Facilities
- Air Conditioning
- Hairdryer
- Mini Bar
- Voicemail
- Cable / Satellite TV
- Internet Access
- Tea and Coffee Making Facilities
- Ensuite / Private Bathroom
- Iron / Ironing Board
- Telephone
Other Recommended Hotels
Mandeville Hotel London | 4.5 Stars |
London Marriott Hotel Maida Vale | 4 Stars |
Marriott London Regents Park | 4 Stars |
Montcalm Hotel London | 5 Stars |
Enterprise Hotel London | 3.5 Stars |
Sanctuary House Hotel London | 3.5 Stars |
London Lodge Hotel | 3.5 Stars |
Avni Kensington Hotel London | 3.5 Stars |
Best Western Phoenix Hotel London | 3 Stars |
Find similar hotels as Crowne Plaza London / Kensington Hotel in London
3 Star Hotels in London |
London Family Friendly Hotels |
London Hotels with Internet Access |
London Hotels with Parking |
London Hotels with Restaurant / Café |
London Hotels with Conference Room |


text:
Delphi links
IP info
Daily Archives: 2008-01-08
John Cleese and Kaupþing
Everyone knows John Cleese (keyword: "Monty Python"), but you might not know Kaupþing. It's a bank, and by chance the bank I have my account with here in Iceland. Now, don't get me started on the topic of banks, but … Continue reading
Posted in /dev/null, Island/Iceland/Ísland
Comments Off


text:
New Century Version (NCV) | New International Version (NIV) |
1 People of Israel, listen to the Lord's message. The Lord has this against you who live in the land: "The people are not true, not loyal to God, nor do those who live in the land even know him. | 1 Hear the word of the LORD, you Israelites, because the LORD has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: "There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land. |
Scripture taken from the New Century Version. Copyright © 1987, 1988, 1991 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. (New Century Version Online Bible) | Scripture quoted by permission. Quotations designated (NIV) are from THE HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica. All rights reserved worldwide. (New International Version Bible Online) |


text:
When Opoka Christopher Amanjur, twenty-four, joined the Juba Post, a biweekly newspaper in South Sudan, as an editor, he went through each page of the newspaper, circling and underlining the text with a red pen. "Syntax errors, poor designing,and no story structure," he recalled. "There were just so many mistakes." The publisher, Charles Rehan Surur, told him, "You don't need to tell me what's wrong. Come and change the paper."
The first edition of the Juba Post was published four years ago in 2005, on the same day that the longest running conflict in Africa ended. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed by the Khartoum Government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement SPLM, ended a twenty-two-year-long civil war between North Sudan and South Sudan that had taken almost two million lives. For the Christian South, long politically and economically marginalized by the Arab power brokers in the North, the CPA brought a measure of autonomy, the waiver of Sharia law, and a greater share of the oil revenue.
Conditions in the region are improving at a snail's pace. The war that displaced four million people also ravaged the South's landscape. All of the estimated twenty kilometers of tarred road in the region are in Juba, the capital city. And while military commanders have transitioned from the bush to more comfortable hotels and houses, most people still remain in the wilderness, entrenched in tribal rivalries, without roads, electricity, or water. Only a handful of businessmen with generators are able to work after sunset.
As the South takes baby steps towards recovery, journalists are setting higher standards of work. Amanjur, who studied journalism at Kampala University in Uganda (where he fled in 1992 to escape the war), has launched a training program through the Juba Post to teach basic reporting skills, free of charge. "The young lads were so excited that they would mix opinion with news in their stories," he said. "The editorial board never checked this." The program now includes reporting and writing skills, ethical reporting, news communication skills, sociology, and macroeconomics.
The Juba Post's office is tucked between a messy settlement of conical huts and the dusty army barracks. Fortified by a few laptops and noisy table fans, the newspaper runs on the energy of its young staffers, most of whom, like Amanjur, spent their childhood in exile in Uganda and Kenya.
One trainee at the paper, Philip Atem Bier, twenty-three, studied public administration in Kampala. Bier is a good writer, but he still struggles with journalistic pieces. "Turning information from the field into a story is very difficult," he said.
Despite the training program's progress, money and logistics still pose daily problems. Reporters like Bier are paid by the story; only the editors are on contract. Very often, payments are delayed. "If you are not a pro-government paper, then you don't get government advertisements," said Surur, who has to depend on endorsements from NGOs and private companies. "We don't have a car," he added.
Electricity is also a modern luxury. The Post has been lucky; it currently shares the same power line as General Paulino Matiep, the second-in-command of the South's army. Not too long ago, the paper spent a quarter of its sales on gas for the generator.
The Post faces bigger, more systemic problems, though. Media freedom in the South is controlled by the officials in North Sudan. All outlets are registered with the National Press Council in Khartoum, which also supervises a mandatory exam for reporters. (Many poorly trained applicants of the South fail the exam.) News and views supporting the International Criminal Court are squashed. (The ICC has issued an arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.)
Additionally, inspectors are assigned to keep a check on troublesome "independent" papers. Alfred Taban, the editor of the Khartoum Monitor, a national daily, dutifully leaves his office at around five in the evening and allows the inspectors to do their job. "They edit the paper for the next day," he said, almost apathetically.
Like many southerners, Taban is waiting for North Sudan and South Sudan to split. With the international spotlight largely focused on Darfur, the north-south deal that ended the civil war and created the semi-autonomous southern authority has taken something of a backseat. But it will come to a head in 2011, when southerners will hold a referendum to decide whether to remain a part of Sudan, or to secede.
While the National Unity Government of Sudan, formed after the peace agreement, is comprised of both Northern and Southern leaders, it is President Bashir's Islamist National Congress Party (NCP), and not the SPLM, represented by former rebels, that makes and enforces the country's rules.


text:
Meal deals
Sponsored listings |
Sponsored listings |
Name | Area | Cuisine | |||
Street food promotion
at The Fountain
Sample street food from South East Asia, the Southern Hemisphere and the Middle East. Dhs110 (one soft drink or one glass of grape), half price (children aged seven to 12), free (children aged six and under) |
Oud Metha | Contemporary European International | |||
White truffle month
at Andiamo!
For the whole of January, the Italian restaurant will serve dishes prepared with fresh white Alba truffle, such a beef carpaccio, pizza and freshly made tagliolini pasta. Dishes from Dhs160 (including 5g of white truffle shavings). Additional truffle from Dhs20 per gram |
Oud Metha | Italian Mediterranean | |||
Saturday Brunch
at TOMO
An unlimited buffet selection of Japanese delicacies and signature dishes from the restaurant's menu. Dhs200 per person (including tea and dessert). Dhs70 (children under seven) |
Oud Metha | Japanese |
Advertisement |
Meal deal search
Refine by
Cuisine Type
- American(3)
- Arabic(4)
- Argentinian(1)
- Asian(5)
- Australian(2)
- Bar Food (9)
- Brazilian(1)
- British(4)
- Cafés(10)
- Chinese(5)
- Contemporary European(5)
- French(9)
- Fusion(2)
- Indian(5)
- International (33)
- Italian(11)
- Japanese (7)
- Latin American(2)
- Lebanese(1)
- Mediterranean(6)
- Middle Eastern(4)
- Pizza (3)
- Portuguese(1)
- Seafood (5)
- South American (2)
- South East Asian(4)
- Spanish(2)
- Steakhouses(10)
- Sushi (2)
- Tapas(1)
- Thai(3)
- Turkish(2)
- Vegetarian(3)
Most viewed articles
- Twenty meals for less than Dhs50
- Chef Corrado Pani in Dubai
- 30 best foodie deals in Dubai this week
- 5 birthday dining discounts in Dubai
- 10 reasons to love the Dubai Food Festival
Our favourite features
Best afternoon tea in Dubai Cake, sandwiches, tea and lashings of cream at Dubai afternoon teas
Best sushi in Dubai Oishii! Kiree! Sugoi! and welcome to the most enticing sushi in Dubai
Best beach clubs in Dubai Treat yourself to a day of sunbathing and waiter service at the beach
Dubai's best outdoor bars 25 top places to spend a night under the stars
Best pizzas in Dubai From dial up to dine in we've eaten the best pizzas in Dubai
Dubai's best dim sum Recommended spots to sample this quintessential Chinese dining pastime
Dubai's best buffets Loosen the belt and pile up your plate at these all-you-can eat packages
86 Friday brunches to try Time for brunch? We run through the options - in price order
56 lunch-break buys Start your style revolution from the comfort of your desktop with these ...


text:
Results 1 to 2 of 2
We have a central RHEL5 linux server (and can set up a dedicated one if necessary). In addition we have several satellite locations which have one or two Windows boxes.
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- 06-17-2007 #1
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1
Remote Backup of MS Boxes to Linux
We need to be able to automatically backup data from the MS boxes to the Linux box over the internet on a regular (daily) basis. Ideally, these would be differential backups with versioning if possible. Also, we'd like the transfers to be encrypted.
Any ideas of what software would be best to use in this scenario?
- 06-18-2007 #2
I believe rsync should be able to get your backups and do incremental
just do a google search, here is a sample search with lots of good results


text: Competition was fierce at last weekend's Best In The Desert (BITD) Blue Water Desert Challenge, with 17 Class 1400 Trick Trucks battling for season points and the overall win at the two-day event. Steve Olliges and co-driver Jason Bateman were 13th off the line on Saturday in the No. 28 BFGoodrich / MasterCraft Safety Trick Truck. Despite heavy dust resulting from triple digit temperatures and no wind, Olliges was able to pass enough competitors to move up to fourth place on in Saturday's standings. "I backed off when the dash lit up like a Christmas tree, but our Dougan Racing Engine never let us down after running in the red hour after hour," Olliges shared.


text:
Department of Mathematics
Math 32300: Advanced Calculus I
Supervisor: Pat HooperSequences, properties of continuous functions, derivatives and differentials, functions defined by series, integrability and integrals, convergence of function sequences. Prereq.: Grade of C or higher in MATH 30800 or departmental permission. 4 HR./WK.; 4 CR.
- math323clo.pdf : CLO for Math 323
- Fall 2014: Section GH, Pignataro, MoWe 6:00PM-7:40PM in NAC 6/328
- Fall 2014: Section PR, Bak, MoWe 11:00AM-12:40PM in NAC 7/219


text:
My last dw was a Kenmore Ultrawash...cost $689 installed. Each year it would stop cleaning and I'd have to take it apart and clear the area by the chopper...see you tube videos...a real in in the neck. Well, now, fter 6 years it does not seem to fill...you get a little water but nothing near the heating element fill level...not to mention nothing makes it to the spray bars. I tried to clean the area near the chopper too...twice. It sounds like its running but it does not appear to be filling properly...I am guessing its not worth fixing unless someone out there has a suggestion. If not, what can I get for $500 that will last longer than 6 years is be fairly quiet. I do not want to pay more...I tried that years ago when Maytag was King and got burned. There is a Bosch model for $550 and their is a perception that Bosch is of higher quality...but I just read numerous reviews of folks disliking the Bosch.... The kids at Sears really did not even know his product line...told me $279 Kenmore was the same as a $469 Kenmore. To be honest nothing looks as well made as the model I have now and it only lasted 6 years! Ideas please? Ideally it will be available in Bisque, I do not need a stainless interior, should be on the quiet side, maybe have folding tines... |
Follow-Up Postings:
The water valve may be bad or clogged with mineral deposits/debris, a common occurrence. Not a difficult repair and cheaper than a new dishwasher ... for sure if you can DIY. |
This post was edited by dadoes on Sun, Feb 16, 14 at 20:18
- Posted by debrak2008 (My Page) on Sun, Feb 16, 14 at 20:51
We have the Bosch (2nd from the bottom) thats available from Lowes. Lowes priced matched a discount from Sears and we got it for less than $500. We love it. |
You won't find bisque appliances anymore. Or almond. I always shop at independent appliance stores where the salespeople do know the differences between dishwashers. Researching on each company's website can provide answers on comparisons between models. |
- Posted by weedmeister (My Page) on Mon, Feb 17, 14 at 21:11
The inlet valve usually has a screen. It can get blocked with mineral deposits from the hot water. Just remove it and clean with a brush. |
- Posted by andrelaplume2 (My Page) on Tue, Feb 18, 14 at 16:59
Do you know your Bosch model? It is loud...our kitchen opens to the family room...Do you recall if it came in Bisque...there are not as many but they still have them out there. How long have you had it? |
I have a Whirlpool Gold that I love - cleans really well, and very quiet. There are a few versions of it - I'll bet you could find it on sale for close to $500. I've had mine for 3 or 4 years. I don't think it comes in anything other than black, white, or SS. |
There are certainly appliances made in bisque still, but not from Bosch. You'll need to go with an American manufacturer for that. GE, the Whirlpool brands, and Frigidaire are your choices. I have had a great experience with my GE, but it is a higher-end model so that may not apply to the ones in your price range. I scored a deal because I was buying a bunch of other appliances at the same time, and the mom-and-pop appliance store I shop at felt bad for me having just gone through 3 different dishwashers in 2 years. I wouldn't pay too much attention to online reviews: all the brands have bad reviews, even Miele which is considered to be the best in dishwashers. With all that said, you seem to be pretty insistent on a new dishwasher. I would listen to dadoes and weedmeister. The issue is probably something really simple that would not be worth junking your dishwasher for and buying a newer one of lesser quality. |
- Posted by andrelaplume2 (My Page) on Wed, Feb 19, 14 at 21:04
the private dealer sort of said the same thing...its probably just the inlet valve and I should not worry about a new one for now...he said if I need one he sells a GE for $439, also Kitchen Aid but he said I would be paying more for a name in that range.... |
- Posted by andrelaplume2 (My Page) on Wed, Feb 19, 14 at 21:04
the private dealer sort of said the same thing...its probably just the inlet valve and I should not worry about a new one for now...he said if I need one he sells a GE for $439, also Kitchen Aid but he said I would be paying more for a name in that range.... |
to make fixing it worthwhile, you'd have to be able to diy. the last time i had an appliance repair tech come out it was over $100 just for him to show up. then fixing is extra. with a 6 year old appliance, i can't think spending $150-$250 would make sense. fyi i hate my whirlpool which is the maker of kenmore i believe. it doesn't clean well at not 2 years old and smelled like it was burning the other day. apparently whirlpool,ka, and kenmore are having dishwasher set on fire due to control board malfunctions. i would say stay away from all 3 of them! |
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Appliances Forum
Information about Posting
- You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
- Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
- We have a strict no-advertising policy!
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.
Learn more about in-text links on this page here