Isolating Bathroom Electric Shower Supply.

[333rocky333]

Mine was a Reasonable answer for the time of the post.
It was a link.
I did not have time to get it legally analized.
I am sure the op could decide what was relevant from it.

This was a diy question and you are just confusing the issue.

As you yourself said start a new post , or at least explain the logic behind your statements.

maybe we need a post
"Fings discussion page" where we may all get the answers , and the diy people can choose to ignore

 

[FingRinal]

Rocky,

please accept that my post was not a criticism of your post.

However, anyone who chooses to believe and follow the drivel found by following the link does need to have their head tested.

 

[333rocky333]

Gunnther

As a newcomer
Have you found any of this post helpfull relating to your question
I took you to the link as it was created with the help of B-A-S

Sorry bas got to say this
Imo
He is a trusted long established member , who has helped many people like yourselves.
Some may not like the way he says things, but reading between the lines, he appears to know his stuff.

From what I read he may not have the practical skills of a professional electrician.
And to me he seems proud to admit he is not a qualified electrician

But on matters like this he is usually on the ball.
And as for electrical regs he reads and explains them better than most,

Fing rinal
When will you show me the posts where you helped and solved a diy problem

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The advice I would like to see given to DIYers is not a rambling, mish mash of poorly worded, meaningless legal mumbo jumbo spouted by someone outside of the legal profession.

I don't believe that the Wiki article is rambling, a mish mash, poorly worded, meaningless or legal mumbo-jumbo.

But since you do, I'm sure it won't be hard for you to identify what in your eyes are the most egregious examples of such, and to suggest ways in which those phrases/sentences/paragraphs could be improved?

Or of course, as it's a Wiki you could just edit it.

After all, your objections to the current version must surely be rooted in a good enough understanding for you to be able to see where there are clear errors or misinterpretations?

What else could be your reason for dismissing it so comprehensively?

As you have your dictionary out - would you care to expand on your defintion by considering a Statutory document which makes an explicit reference to a 'Non Statutory' document and how that may or may not change the explicit reference in the non statutory document in terms of it being considered statutory or non statutory?

It doesn't change it at all. For example, where the Building Regulations say that you're exempt from having to do sound insulation testing if you use one or more design details approved by Robust Details Limited, that does not mean that the publications of Robust Details Limited suddenly become law.

 

[FingRinal]

Do a search Rocky...it's a free function.

As for BAS's overall input. When he is subject to scrutiny, he is soon found out to be lacking in knowledge and then he turns nasty, insulting and libelous.

BAS would like to prove the law to people - perhaps to make him sound clever. An example of his approach would be to (mis)quote chapter and verse of say the various road traffic laws in order to convince people that it is illegal to be knocked down on a Zebra crossing. He would dismiss the Green Cross Code as being non-statutory and therefore meaningless.

My approach would be to leave the legality of a particular situation to the proper legal experts and instead endorse and encourage people (DIYers) to adopt a pragmatic approach to (for example) road safety - the Green Cross Code. As such, I wouldn't spout legal drivel (and it is drivel) at the expense of better and more meaningful advice and information that better serves to protect people and advise them accordingly.

 

[FingRinal]

Oh..egregious BAS. Live in Royston Vasey do you??? Pass my regards to Pauline.

 

[FingRinal]

It doesn't change it at all. For example, where the Building Regulations say that you're exempt from having to do sound insulation testing if you use one or more design details approved by Robust Details Limited, that does not mean that the publications of Robust Details Limited suddenly become law.

What if the Building Regs said that you must use only the design details as specified in Robust Details Limited document ABC001, adopted as British Standard 9876, (Chapter 1)?

 

[TheStatMan]

Fing rinal
When will you show me the posts where you helped and solved a diy problem

Do a search Rocky...it's a free function.

I have done a search.

FingRinal has made 56 helpful posts since joining DIYnot.

That means that 78% of his posts are not helpful

 

[FingRinal]

As a Stat Man, you should know that for stats to be in any way meaningful, you first to need to establish definitions of values and criteria.

Therefore, using your own values I deduce that your stats are 100% meaningless

An alternative way of presenting your stats would be that 56 people had the ability to understand my posts and 78% were a bit too dim to understand them. I wouldn't say this of course, but one could, if one decided to interpret them that way.

 

[SeanT]

Don't forget of course that 77.45% of statistics are made up, some, erm, 23.6% of these on the spot

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, anyone who chooses to believe and follow the drivel found by following the link does need to have their head tested.

Since you seem very keen on criticising people who in your eyes are not competent to make the posts that they have, I look forward to you proving that you are competent to criticise the Wiki article as drivel by showing where it is wrong and re-writing those parts to correct it.

As for BAS's overall input. When he is subject to scrutiny, he is soon found out to be lacking in knowledge and then he turns nasty, insulting and libelous.

Do you have any examples of where I have done that?

If you do, can you explain in what way those examples prove that the Wiki is wrong?

You should be able to explain it, as you seem so certain of the link and it's not a case of you pursuing some personal vendetta against me.

BAS would like to prove the law to people - perhaps to make him sound clever. An example of his approach would be to (mis)quote chapter and verse of say the various road traffic laws in order to convince people that it is illegal to be knocked down on a Zebra crossing. He would dismiss the Green Cross Code as being non-statutory and therefore meaningless.

Well I haven't quoted or mis-quoted any road traffic laws, nor can I think why I would. As for the Green Cross Code (or any other codes of practice etc) I don't see how "non-statutory" is synonymous with "meaningless".

My approach would be to leave the legality of a particular situation to the proper legal experts and instead endorse and encourage people (DIYers) to adopt a pragmatic approach to (for example) road safety - the Green Cross Code.

OK.

But since this is a DIY electrical forum, and not a DIY road use forum, is there any chance you could answer the question about the advice you'd like to see given to DIYers in the context of electrical DIY, not road use DIY?

As such, I wouldn't spout legal drivel (and it is drivel) at the expense of better and more meaningful advice and information that better serves to protect people and advise them accordingly.

I should hope not.

 

[FingRinal]

However, anyone who chooses to believe and follow the drivel found by following the link does need to have their head tested.

Since you seem very keen on criticising people who in your eyes are not competent to make the posts that they have, I look forward to you proving that you are competent to criticise the Wiki article as drivel by showing where it is wrong and re-writing those parts to correct it.

I wouldn't waste my time.

As for BAS's overall input. When he is subject to scrutiny, he is soon found out to be lacking in knowledge and then he turns nasty, insulting and libelous.

Do you have any examples of where I have done that?

Crikey...is there enough space on the server?

If you do, can you explain in what way those examples prove that the Wiki is wrong?

You should be able to explain it, as you seem so certain of the link and it's not a case of you pursuing some personal vendetta against me.

BAS would like to prove the law to people - perhaps to make him sound clever. An example of his approach would be to (mis)quote chapter and verse of say the various road traffic laws in order to convince people that it is illegal to be knocked down on a Zebra crossing. He would dismiss the Green Cross Code as being non-statutory and therefore meaningless.

Well I haven't quoted or mis-quoted any road traffic laws, nor can I think why I would. As for the Green Cross Code (or any other codes of practice etc) I don't see how "non-statutory" is synonymous with "meaningless".

I'm sorry you don't understand the words 'An example'. Perhaps your dictionary isn't as comprehensive as it should be, or you still haven't got to grips with it yet.

My approach would be to leave the legality of a particular situation to the proper legal experts and instead endorse and encourage people (DIYers) to adopt a pragmatic approach to (for example) road safety - the Green Cross Code.

OK.

But since this is a DIY electrical forum, and not a DIY road use forum, is there any chance you could answer the question about the advice you'd like to see given to DIYers in the context of electrical DIY, not road use DIY?

I already have. I'm sorry that you've forgotten it already.

As such, I wouldn't spout legal drivel (and it is drivel) at the expense of better and more meaningful advice and information that better serves to protect people and advise them accordingly.

I should hope not.

So why do you do it all the time?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, anyone who chooses to believe and follow the drivel found by following the link does need to have their head tested.

Since you seem very keen on criticising people who in your eyes are not competent to make the posts that they have, I look forward to you proving that you are competent to criticise the Wiki article as drivel by showing where it is wrong and re-writing those parts to correct it.

I wouldn't waste my time.

How strange that you should dismiss a Wiki article as drivel, complain that it does not provide anything like the right sort of advice that DIYers need, and yet regard it as a waste of your time to help out.

Are you sure you've got the right sort of attitude to be posting on a DIY advice forum? It's starting to look as though all you want to do is to moan and complain but not actually help.

Crikey...is there enough space on the server?

Oh I think they can spare the space for you to provide some links.

When you do, can you explain in what way those examples prove that the Wiki is wrong?

You should be able to explain it, as you seem so certain of the link and it's not a case of you pursuing some personal vendetta against me.

I'm sorry you don't understand the words 'An example'. Perhaps your dictionary isn't as comprehensive as it should be, or you still haven't got to grips with it yet.

My dictionary is fine, and I have got to grips with it, at least, I have to the parts which define "example" and "analogy".

You see, unless you can find an example (i.e. one specimen) of a post where I've said any of that stuff about people being knocked over, then it isn't an example - it's a fiction of yours.

But be that as it may I do not equate "non-statutory" with "meaningless", do I?

My approach would be to leave the legality of a particular situation to the proper legal experts and instead endorse and encourage people (DIYers) to adopt a pragmatic approach to (for example) road safety - the Green Cross Code.

OK.

But since this is a DIY electrical forum, and not a DIY road use forum, is there any chance you could answer the question about the advice you'd like to see given to DIYers in the context of electrical DIY, not road use DIY?

I already have. I'm sorry that you've forgotten it already.

My apologies - I must have missed it. I can see above where you said what your approach would be, but I've forgotten where you actually said what your advice would be. Could you remind me? It won't take you long, surely?

As such, I wouldn't spout legal drivel (and it is drivel) at the expense of better and more meaningful advice and information that better serves to protect people and advise them accordingly.

I should hope not.

So why do you do it all the time?

So let me see if I've got this straight.

• Gunnther asked a question about removing an old shower circuit.
• As part of helping him, Rocky pointed him at a Wiki article.
• You complained about the Wiki article, using terms such as drivel, mumbo-jumbo, gobbledegook, rambling, a mish-mash, poorly worded, meaningless, and claimed that it contains factual errors.
• I asked you if you could be more specific, and without any provocation you then escalated this into a personal attack on me. Again.
• I asked you if you would help to correct the errors in the Wiki, and you refused, saying you wouldn't waste your time.

Can you please tell us how much longer we are all going to have to put up with your behaviour?

 

[FingRinal]

Can you please tell us how much longer we are all going to have to put up with your behaviour?

All things being equal, about as long as we are all going to have to put up with your behaviour.

By the way, I didn't say the whole article was drivel, just the bits you wrote

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Then go and change what I wrote, if you feel so strongly that you are right.

You wouldn't want people to draw the conclusion that all your complaints are bogus, and just written for personal reasons, would you? Show us all that you are right and I am wrong by replacing my drivel with something more accurate and useful.