Dear Cyndy,

There are some days when I look back at all my scurrying around
and find that I have accomplished little if anything at all. When
I look back on other days spent in a desultory manner on diverse
efforts, including day-dreaming, none of which seem to have come
to fruition, I conclude that something worthwhile has happened
after all.

Yesterday, in anticipating my cross-examination of Mr. Ciarmataro's
contention that my allegedly backwards installation of a "wye" in
the main sewer pipe increased the "resistance to flow", I spent some
hours trying to refresh my very limited understanding of fluid 
dynamics. I began by googling "laminar flow", then "Reynolds Number",
and "Hagen-Poiseuille equation" and found myself confronted with
a Navier-Stokes differential equation which I remembered struggling
vainly to understand many years ago. Meanwhile, as I have confided
to you, I've spent many months ruminating on a theory of knowledge
which in my circumstances is more accurately denominated a theory
of ignorance; but whatever, knowledge or ignorance, Ciamartaro's or
Meyer's, I will have something to ask questions about at the hearing.

Mr. Ciarmataro premises his proposed destruction of my plumbing that
in many instances it fails to comply with the following code provision:

_   4.Fittings and Connections Prohibited.
_   b.Obstruction to Flow.
_   
_   1. No fitting, connection, device, or method of
_   installation that obstructs or retards the flow
_   of water, wastes, sewage, or air in drainage or
_   venting systems where the obstruction results in
_   flow resistance that is greater than the normal
_   frictional resistance to flow shall be used unless
_   otherwise specifically indicated elsewhere
_   in 248 CMR 10.00.
_   
_   2. The enlargement of a three-inch closet bend or
_   stub to four inches shall not be considered an
_   obstruction under this provision provided that the
_   horizontal flow line or insert is continuous without
_   forming a ledge.