What I mentioned is something that directly relate
Post# of 56324
Posted On: 03/13/2015 6:30:15 PM
Re: SIObserver #50640
What I mentioned is something that directly related to the Inspection Report. I will quote it for the sake of cutting out confusion.
So, as I stated, possibly needing to see the pods to be up to snuff.
Further, I quote:
Now it's not a possible, it's a definite. The room will need to be looked at, with pods in place, to be up to snuff.
No, this does not include licensure. Which I did not claim. I did not claim that because I can read the report and I do not make erroneous claims. It stands, however, that these things ARE required for HC's requisites to be met. That is not the same thing as licensure, which I fully understand. If I wanted to try and make some dumb claim about the license I would have just said "THEY CAN'T BE LICENSED WITHOUT PODS ANYWAY!!! RA RA RA!!!" (No offense, All Caps Guy)
Now, my post was not about this. I am not sure why you picked that out to harp on and command me to cease about. It was tantamount to a tiny clarification of my statement. The meat of my post was denoting a logical fallacy of the antagonists we face, as well as asking if anyone had seen the rule under which grows cannot be shown. I think it is important for the reasons I stated in the first post about this. I was trying to make a worthwhile post.
If we are on the same page now, great! We can move on from this conversation if so, unless you have anything further to add to the discussion of course.
Quote:
As the applicant did not have the growing pods they intend to use for production purposes in place it was not possible for the inspection team to accurate access [Personal Insert: I assume they meant assess?] whether the scaled up version of the growing pods would meed the division 3 security requirements.
So, as I stated, possibly needing to see the pods to be up to snuff.
Further, I quote:
Quote:
The room that will be housing the growing pods did appear to meet the MMPR requirements, however once the room is modified to include the growing pods it would need to be reassessed.
Now it's not a possible, it's a definite. The room will need to be looked at, with pods in place, to be up to snuff.
No, this does not include licensure. Which I did not claim. I did not claim that because I can read the report and I do not make erroneous claims. It stands, however, that these things ARE required for HC's requisites to be met. That is not the same thing as licensure, which I fully understand. If I wanted to try and make some dumb claim about the license I would have just said "THEY CAN'T BE LICENSED WITHOUT PODS ANYWAY!!! RA RA RA!!!" (No offense, All Caps Guy)
Now, my post was not about this. I am not sure why you picked that out to harp on and command me to cease about. It was tantamount to a tiny clarification of my statement. The meat of my post was denoting a logical fallacy of the antagonists we face, as well as asking if anyone had seen the rule under which grows cannot be shown. I think it is important for the reasons I stated in the first post about this. I was trying to make a worthwhile post.
If we are on the same page now, great! We can move on from this conversation if so, unless you have anything further to add to the discussion of course.
(0)
(0)