any hydro peeps here?

Page 4 of 5  
wrote:

Apparently his goal is not discourse. <shrug>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Back the truck up there slick, when ya play their game as you just did fido and the lawn BS, you are not an innocent! So don't play that crap with me.
Your "research" is a bit rudimentary and again old news, Just tell me why your OMRI still lists greensand as good to go and water purifiers still use it?
The " Schnepfe, May and Naeser (1964) reported that glauconite serves as a scavenger matrix for nuclear waste products such as cesium and strontium" was cute, but I doubt you know what any of that means. That was just part of the cut and paste fluffy piece you used. No relevance!
You want discourse? curious why you haven't spoken up before? especially with the school yard antics of billy and the tribe? Plausible denial?
Regardless, twice I have said Ironite was sold years before billy was squawking about it in 08, more of his BS research methodology, and when he was going off on another person. All the while your group was silent. Funny that! Even the lawsuit was dismissed but he didn't know that in Sep 08 when he was wailing on that woman trying to make everyone believe his story.
Now we come to your chance bit on the EPA site on days of old, did you care to verify the date of this info, much less the relevancy to Ironite as it is produced today?
I bet not.
Yet, still not the issue, you and yours "research" and methodology are highly suspect. So do not pretend you are "acting your age".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'm done here.
--

===========================
_
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

and the world is a better place for it!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

2006 http://www.envirolaw.org/consumers.html ELF vs. IRONITE PRODUCTS COMPANY (fertilizer) . . . ELF brought Ironite to court, and Ironite -- after initially filing frivolous claims that its "free speech rights" were violated if it had to warn about toxic metals
-- agreed to reformulate its products to get rid of the heavy metals altogether, and to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to the effort to clean up California's waters.
Woof, woof, gunny;O)
--
When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What is with all this barking billy, are you a son of a bitch?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, and we've been through all this.
November 22, 1999 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-57744297.html SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Nov. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- A recent report by two environmental advocacy groups and misunderstandings about basic mineralogy are being used to create scare tactics over fertilizer. Ironite Products Company, producer of Ironite, a natural soil supplement and fertilizer not manufactured from any toxic waste product but rather from naturally occurring rock containing minerals, has commissioned several scientific studies to evaluate potential health risks associated with its product. The conclusion of all studies: Ironite is not toxic to humans, pets or . . .
Uh-huh. They say it is safe.
http://www.altshulerberzon.com/case/victories Environmental Law Foundation v. Ironite Products Co. Obtained a consent judgment banning the continued sale in California of a fertilizer manufactured from hazardous waste that contained excessive levels of arsenic and lead.
2006 http://www.envirolaw.org/consumers.html ELF vs. IRONITE PRODUCTS COMPANY (fertilizer) California law regulates the levels of heavy metals (such as lead and cadmium) allowed in fertilizers, and requires high levels be disclosed on the packages. The Ironite Company could not meet California's standards, because its fertilizer was being manufactured from mine tailings at a potential Superfund site. Nonetheless, it steadfastly refused to disclose the high levels of toxic metals on labels its packages to warn customers, as the law required. ELF brought Ironite to court, and Ironite -- after initially filing frivolous claims that its "free speech rights" were violated if it had to warn about toxic metals -- agreed to reformulate its products to get rid of the heavy metals altogether, and to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to the effort to clean up California's waters.
http://www.envirolaw.org/cases/poisonbg.html#information Information About Ironite The Environmental Law Foundation lawsuit alleges that the lead and arsenic contents in Ironite exceed the maximum concentration limits (i.e., non-nutritive standards) set by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), 3 C.C.R. 2302(a).
Ironites Contents of Heavy Metals Compared to CDFA Limits HeavyMetals CompanyData(parts per million) CDFA Limit(ppm) Exceeds Arsenic 4380 ppm 189.65 ppm Yes, 23 times Lead 2910 ppm 1927 ppm Yes, 1.5 times ------- As you say, gunny, there was no determination in the case, because it was settled out of court, but as you can see above, it wasn't a matter of the company agreeing to put "do not eat on the bag". Makes for good fiction, though.
So, you're contending that nothing should have been said about Ironite? I missed it's sale and reformulation by 2 years, but once informed, I ceased my complaints about the product. If that is a rant, so be it.
How does one come to sell toxic waste as fertilizer?
------ If we had less regulation, there would be fewer of these frivolous lawsuits - say the Washington lobbyists. ------ 2006 http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/lrpcd/wm/projects/135367.htm
http://www.progardenbiz.com/wp/ironite-produces-green-healthy-lawns / Ten years ago, we started conducting plant studies to determine why Ironite was causing truly amazing root growth and healthy, green lawns said Heinz Brungs, Ironite president and chief executive officer. Today, I am pleased to report the scope of rigorous testing this product has undergone to prove it is safe to use and safe to the environment.
--
When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You are a slow learner. Kinda like your fellow birthers.
I have no need to search the archives for that little Ironite faux pas of yours, billy but perhaps you should to refresh your memory. There in its that critical thinking part I keep insisting on when you start flapping that big mouth of yours, fluffy. You were talking about product ingredients that hadn't been in the product for years and insistence on lawsuits that never happen, denigrating the user to hell, all because of your misinformation and prejudicial ideas. Never checking your facts.
Your profile shows a distinct pattern...faulty analogy, then fringe talk, false allegations, followed by ad hominem attacks, waffling, then more weasel words.... that is all ya got, fluffy and it doesn't work well for ya!
Just another in your long line of tainted "facts" and distorted truths you keep trying to get out there. If you have no fact, dazzle em with BS and persistence, huh billy!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm sure that is all very interesting, and I asked you not to wander off the subject. Musing on my psychological, or my political profile, has nothing to do with the question. You didn't like my characterization of Ironite, so please correct me.
What is Ironite? What was Ironite?
If you can't even answer a simple question, you're wasting my time.
Com'on, speak, boy, speak.
--
When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pathetic billy, truely pathetic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Cave canem! ;-)
Charlie
"If you stop every time a dog barks, your road will never end." - Saudi Arabian Proverb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is this all from the new version of your little red book, charlie?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just gardening, gunny, just gardening, if you please. Now, please tell us about "Ironite" ;O)
--
When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(snip) I realized that much of

(snip)
LOL. What a gem!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nothing son, not a damn thing and unless you are a MM patient in one of the 14 states allowing MM and EATING it, your post doesn't have a damn thing to do with Rec.Gardens.Edible either. Nor does your inclusion of this thread in alt.quit.smoking.support. So while it may not be PC to stereotype folks, son, is it sooooo apropos here or, as my close-minded nemesis says, "your a wanker". Which is it? Just don't pretend like your some injured party, Ok?
You have posed this subject here twice now AND you have been told at least once where you might get your questions answered. Don't care the reason why your so tenacious, I am not going to entertain your vague questions on potentially illegal topics based on abbreviated BS. Usually your type question is couched under the pretense of " I want to grow """tomatoes"" hydroponically" or at the very least, pretend like you are a MM patient. Personally, I don't believe you cannot find information leads on your subjects, nor that you don't have at least some capacity to separate most fact from fiction.
Read experts in the field such as Dr. Howard M. Resh's book on Hydroponic Food Production, there are plenty of others such as Dr. Lynnette Morgan.... find old copies of Growers Edge Mag or the new one Urban Garden (which seems to vaguely target your interest group). Then, after you READ up on the subject and you still have specific questions on the subject of Hydroponics.... I will try to answer those questions. BTW read it sober ok? If you don't like reading, well..... just type in 420 and trust in the Internet, but you knew that right?
As a side note: you might like to know this: Hot off the wire this AM: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/10/eye_opener_oct_19_2009.html
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@stopspam.com says...

You still at it?
Ah well, back to the killfile wit ye.
plonk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

ohhhh that really hurts my feelings
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Being a scientist

See below for criticism of the Food Standards Agency, UK (who is responsible for the above cites), which was accepted by them. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rpd_Pusztai for pro GMO - anti-organic sentiments on the part of the British government. For more information see: Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating by Jeffrey M. Smith (Amazon.com product link shortened) p/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid55374687&sr=1-1 , pages 5 - 44

As are the the cites used to refute your position.

Once again, it's funny that you should hold me to a higher standard than yourself, since the sites that you gave me are (1) a private lab that does extensive work for the "biotech" industry, and (2) the UK's Food Standards Agency which has already accepted criticism that it is, or appears, to be bias against organic produce and in favor of GMOs. http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/deanreviewfinalreport.pdf See: Recommendation 20 - It is clear that many stakeholders believe the Agency has already made policy decisions on these issues and is not open to further debate. The Agency should address the perceptions of these stakeholders who have now formed views of the Agency founded on their belief that the basis upon which the Agencys policy decisions were made was flawed.
Specifically, see 1.7 1.7.1 While it is not within the remit of this Review to consider matters relating to the internal structures or organisation of the Agency, it must be noted that the role of the Advisory Committees in the devolved countries was not always clear, both to those serving on the Committee and to other stakeholder groups. Some questioned whether each of the Advisory Committees functions in the same way and has the same level of effectiveness and influence on Agency decisions. While most stakeholders welcomed the Agency having a presence in the devolved countries, there were some (mainly from the food industry) who were concerned this structure adds a level to the decision-making process and delays actions. Specific issues raised Early references to organic food, and to GM food, were highlighted (unprompted by the Reviewers) by a number across the stakeholder groups. It is clear that these two issues are still heavily influencing stakeholders perceptions of the Agency. In respect of both issues, the perception of the vast majority was that the Agency had deviated from its normal stance of making statements based solely on scientific evidence, to giving the impression of speaking against organic food and for GM food. This view was expressed not only by stakeholders representing organic and GM interest groups, but by those who would be regarded as supporters and natural allies of the Agency.
So, here again, is more information than you gave me.
Omnivores Dilemma p. 179
The organic label is a marketing tool," Secretary Glickman said. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is 'organic' a value judgment about nutrition or quality." Some intriguing recent research suggests otherwise. A study by University of CaliforniaDavis researchers published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry in 2003 described an experiment in which identical varieties of corn, strawberries, and blackberries grown in neighboring plots using different methods (including organically and conventionally) were compared for levels of vitamins and polyphenols. Polyphenols are a group of secondary metabolites manufactured by plants that we've recently learned play an important role in human health and nutrition. Many are potent antioxidants; some play a role in preventing or fighting cancer; others exhibit antimicrobial properties. The Davis researchers found that organic and otherwise sustainably grown fruits and vegetables contained significantly higher levels of both ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and a wide range of polyphenols. The recent discovery of these secondary metabolites in plants has ought our understanding of the biological and chemical complexity of foods to a deeper level of refinement; history suggests we haven't gotten anywhere near the bottom of this question, either. The first level was reached early in the nineteenth century with the identification of the macronutrientsprotein, carbohydrate, and fat. Having isolated these compounds, chemists thought they'd unlocked the key to human nutrition. Yet some people (such as sailors) living on diets rich in macronutrients nevertheless got sick. The mystery was solved when scientists discovered the major vitaminsa second key to human nutrition. Now it's the polyphenols in plants that we're learning play a critical role in keeping us healthy. (And which might explain why diets heavy in processed food fortified with vitamins still aren't as nutritious as fresh foods.) You wonder what else is going on in these plants, what other undiscovered qualities in them we've evolved to depend on. In many ways the mysteries of nutrition at the eating end of the food chain closely mirror the mysteries of fertility at the growing end: The two realms are like wildernesses that we keep convincing ourselves our chemistry has mapped, at least until the next level of complexity comes into view. Curiously, Justus von Liebig, the nineteenth-century German chemist with the spectacularly ironic surname, bears responsibility for science's overly reductive understanding of both ends of the food chain. It was Liebig, you'll recall, who thought he had found the chemical key to soil fertility with the discovery of NPK, and it was the same Liebig who thought he had found the key to human nutrition when identified the macronutrients in food. Liebig wasn't wrong on either count, yet in both instances he made the fatal mistake of thinking that what we knew about nourishing plants and people was all we need to know to keep them healthy. It's a mistake we'll probably keep repeating until we develop a deeper respect for the complexity of food soil and, perhaps, the links between the two. But back to the polyphenols, which may hint at the nature of that link. Why in the world should organically grown blackberries or corn contain significantly more of these compounds? The authors of Davis study haven't settled the question, but they offer two suggest theories. The reason plants produce these compounds in the first place is to defend themselves against pests and diseases; the more pressure from pathogens, the more polyphenols a plant will produce. These compounds, then, are the products of natural selection and, more specifically, the coevolutionary relationship between plants and the species that prey on them. Who would have guessed that humans evolved to profit from a diet of these plant pesticides? Or that we would invent an agriculture that then deprived us of them? The Davis authors hypothesize that plants being defended by man-made pesticides dont need to work as hard to make their own polyphenol pesticides. Coddled by us and our chemicals, the plants see no reason to invest their sources in mounting a strong defense. (Sort of like European nations during the cold war.) A second explanation (one that subsequent research seems to support) may be that the radically simplified soils in which chemically fertilized plants grow don't supply all the raw ingredients needed to synthesize these compounds, leaving the plants more vulnerable to attack, as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be. NPK might be sufficient for plant growth yet still might not give a plant everything it needs to manufacture ascorbic acid or lycopene or resveratrol in quantity. As it happens, many of the polyphenols (and especially a sublet called the flavonols) contribute to the characteristic taste of a fruit or vegetable. Qualities we can't yet identify, in soil may contribute qualities we've only just begun to identify in our foods and our bodies. ----- And, <https://sharepoint.agriculture.purdue.edu/ces/galaxy/Sessions/2-%20Wedne sday,%20September%2017,%202008/Concurrent%20Session%203/The%20Organic%20v s%20Conventional%20Debate%20-%20Can%20We%20Strike%20a%20Balance%20Between %20Passion%20and%20Science.pdf> and, http://www.agricultureinformation.com/forums/organic-farming/18027-organi c-vs-conventional-debate-continues.html and, http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/studies/report-31531.html
It is true in some cases that judgement can't be reached be cause some of the produce was purchase in markets and is of unknown provenance both geographically and biologically, but if you really care about the truth, you will notice that some of the studies we done of plants grown specifically for the studies.
As usual, we have moved far from where your rant originally began, when you cited the biotech support lab "Plant Research Technologies Inc." as the source of the supposed nutritional superiority of hydroponically grown produce.
Sorry, gunny, if you can't read, but that isn't my fault. Everything is here to substantiate my assertions, except for he part where chemfert fed plants grow faster (as it damages the soil ecosystem), leading to more tender foliage (which happens to be where the nitrates are stored), and that in turn attracts insect predators. Of course. if you are growing indoors, there are no insects, and less flavonoids.
Take another look at the paucity of information in the cite you gave http://hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/ from Plant Research Technologies Inc. and see that they give no information to support their report.
As for the reportage on Dr. Diane Barrett, (" At the 66th Annual meeting and Food Expo in Orlando FL, Dr. Diane Barrett, Food Science & Technology Dept, UC-Davis said she cannot conclusively say that organic fruit is healthier. Barrett said that in one study, there were signs that the total phenolic levels were higher in the organic product, And (sic) there were higher levels of vitamin C in frozen organic tomatoes. But neither the levels of lycopene, an antioxidant, nor some of the minerals were noticeably higher in the organic product. In another study there was no significant increase in vitamin C and lycopene levels between the organic and conventionally grown products."), you have to know that she is a scientist, and until she can confirm that she has covered every possible variable in the produce being analyzed, she can't make a summary judgement. However, if you have the eyes to see, and the wit to comprehend, you will see from the cites above, that organic is usually superior in nutrition, be they macro-nutrients, vitamins, or flavonoids. This is in addition to "organic" being lower in pesticides and friendlier to the environment. To be fair, one should also consider the the cultivars grown (shelf-live vs. nutrition) and the distribution system of field, to warehouse, to store, to consumer as opposed to from field to consumer, and their impacts on the nutritional value of the produce.
As usual, I await your pissing and moaning ;O) --
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

Let me understand this correctly.
1. You use this link dated in 2005 as some kind of proof the 2009 FSA commissioned study is flawed?

That is a better joke than most of the BS refutation the organic organizations tried to use. They are at least saying the Study used outdated studies (a lie) or that it neglects use of pesticides ( outside stated scope) and other plausible denial tricks.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rpd_Pusztai ....GM foods? Neither rpd Pusztai nor GMs were even mentioned in the thread nor any of the links to date . But still, that was some kinda wingnut article. Did you not read the disclaimer? I see now why Wiki is having problems with confirming its information. it's all a conspiracy!
3. As to your continuing use of abbreviated Amazon book reviews? billy I have told you before you need to tinyurl those cuz you lose those extraordinarily long links,but also you should buy the book and ACTUALLY READ them before you try to use them as some kind of authority. Again, another fringe writer with scare tales needing a paycheck. I note his bio (self written?) neglects his educational background, only that he is a writer and member of the Institute he formed. billy, we were not talking about GM foods but remember that tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, corn, etc. are all GM foods, far from their ancestral roots. Still all in all, Smith is one of your organic stakeholders, albeit another mediocre wordsmith with no science bona fides. How come you get to cry conspiracy so much and no one else gets too?
Not that I think you actually have any use for science nor facts, you seem to use your own a lot. But if you are looking for how the British FSA conducts its studies and past allegations, this link may help: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/900/900-i.pdf
Meantime, your claim that organic foods have more nutrients compared to conventionally grown foods has not been found true because there is little to no EQUAL comparison done so far. Dr. Barrett, UC-Davis ( again, the one in some of YOUR references) has said many times there is no conclusive proof that organic is superior. It would seem so easy to do, doesn't it, yet it hasn't been done and that is what the FSA report says. So all I see you have is cherry picked facts to make dubious claims, in short....... a good marketing ploy. Again, none of which affects Hydroponics which shoot big holes in your BS claims that inorganic salts kill.
You want to discuss best organic practices, thats fine, gardening tricks, thats fine. I would like to read them, but don't keep distorting the truth and then jumping around telling me more lies and claiming conspiarcy when you can't t refute facts.
I hope one day you actually find it truly was the evil food industries that caused your diabetes and then you can justify your stump speeches, but lets face facts, it is just you and your refusal to accept the fact you have a disease. Man up and deal with it, little billy rose, your conspiracy theory BS is well played out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, I'm saying that it looks as if the Food Standards Agency is bias (see below). Specifically, see 1.7 of the repot below.
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/deanreviewfinalreport.pdf

That isn't what http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/deanreviewfinalreport.pdf is sayin. Learn to read. It says that they are bias.

So there you have it, ladies and gents. <https://sharepoint.agriculture.purdue.edu/ces/galaxy/Sessions/2-%20Wedne sday,%20September%2017,%202008/Concurrent%20Session%203/The%20Organic%20v s%20Conventional%20Debate%20-%20Can%20We%20Strike%20a%20Balance%20Between %20Passion%20and%20Science.pdf> and, http://www.agricultureinformation.com/forums/organic-farming/18027-organi c-vs-conventional-debate-continues.html and, http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/studies/report-31531.html
vs.

See below for criticism of the Food Standards Agency, UK (who is responsible for the above cites), which was accepted by them. They didn'y deny the criticism. They accepted the criticism that they appeared pro-GMO.
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/deanreviewfinalreport.pdf Calls into question the objectivity of this group.
Early references to organic food, and to GM food, were highlighted (unprompted by the Reviewers) by a number across the stakeholder groups. It is clear that these two issues are still heavily influencing stakeholders perceptions of the Agency. In respect of both issues, the perception of the vast majority was that the Agency had deviated from its normal stance of making statements based solely on scientific evidence, to giving the impression of speaking against organic food and for GM food. This view was expressed not only by stakeholders representing organic and GM interest groups, but by those who would be regarded as supporters and natural allies of the Agency.
As further proof of U.K. government bias see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rpd_Pusztai for pro GMO - anti-organic sentiments on the part of the British government. For more information see: Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating by Jeffrey M. Smith (Amazon.com product link shortened) p/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid55374687&sr=1-1 , pages 5 - 44
British politicans are at least as sleasy as American politicians. They have been consistently pro-GMO.
Keep in mind that gunny spends most of his posts in personal attacks, which have no bearing on the topic at hand i.e., the nutritional value of hydroponic produce vs. organic produce.
You gave http://hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/ from Plant Research Technologies Inc. as a reference, but they have a conflict of interest, because they work for biotech firms. How would it look to a bio-tech company, if one of their suppliers praises traditional food? Yet, gunny avoids this issue by making personal attacks.
It is impossible to have a dialoge, if the other party doesn't respond to what you said.
So, since dialoge is out of the question, I'll leave it to the readers to make their own opinion.
I await your pissing and moaning, gunny, them I'm out of here.
Oh, no need to tell you to GFY, gunny. I think you've already done that very nicely ;O)
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why they
have no food, they call you a communist."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.