Apparently I'm not allowed to find out here.
Either that, or a stupid typo which cannot be edited after noticing it too late.
The 'cock fighting', if that's what you want to call it, was being practised primarily by a non-electrician - and it was certainly he who caused the thread to be locked.So what did I miss? what was removed due to bitchy electricians cock fighting over words?
Not really a question.Or was there a genuine question about how British standards are worded?
By doing what?The 'cock fighting', if that's what you want to call it, was being practised primarily by a non-electrician - and it was certainly he who caused the thread to be locked.
Stll there - (click here) . Perhaps unusually, most of its content was more-or-less 'on topic', since it was a thread specifically about one particular regulation in BS7671.As I do not know what the original thread you are referring to is all about, as it has probably gone ...
It wasn't really a slanging match, in as much as it was pretty one-sided - the majority of the 'argumentative' stuff consisted of (in some cases very lengthy) posts from one person.I just assume that it developed into your normal slanging match, bitching against each other. Like y'all normally do
Indeed - although, in the meantime, those who wish (or have) to comply with BS7671 have to decide how to interpret regulations which contain the word in question. The reality is, needless to say, that in most cases it is glaringly obvious what was intended, even if they did not stick to the conventions they are meant to comply with! The sentence which more-or-less started that part of the discussion was (my emboldening):Re the use of the wording, then perhaps this is something that you need to take up with BSI themselves, citing examples.
no-one in their right mind would think that the intended meaning was ...
"Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes are allowed to hinder evacuation and firefighting activities."
AFAICT it is fairly obvious in all cases.I think there may have been confusion. No-one is denying that BS7671 uses the word 'may' in both senses, and that, in most cases, it is fairly obvious which meaning is intended.
And that's what I'd like to know. That's what I had asked in the other topic before it was unaccountably locked.However, that appears to go against the convention applicable to such documents which, presumably for the avoidance of any possible uncertainty, is to only use the word with the specific meaning defined for such documents.
That was discussed in the other topic and there's probably no point in re-hashing it - permission automatically creates possibility, possibility does not automatically create permission and it is blindingly obvious when that is the case, such as cables hanging down may be a hazard, faulty electric heating systems may cause fires, etc.If one takes the view that what the document "actually says" is in the context of that convention, then, as EFLI said at the start of the discussion about the word, some of the things that BS7671 'actually says' are nonsensical.
The concern about allowing such a document to use the word in it's 'might' sense (as well as its 'giving permission' sense) is surely that it then becomes impossible to ever be certain that a 'may' statement is actually 'giving permission' - which I imagine why the word is not meant to be used with that meaning in such a document.
But I genuinely would like to know what rules govern the wording of British Standards, and whether they are mandatory or advisory.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local