17th stuff, 3rd time lucky

[FingRinal]

BAS,

if you expect me to plough through all that, you're mistaken.

If you would like to summarise a point of view, for example, we can take it from there.

Another thing, don't blame others for your mistakes. You've admitted making at least one, you've said you would apologise if you made one, yet so far you haven't apologised.

 

[davelx]

BAS,

if you expect me to plough through all that, you're mistaken.

If you would like to summarise a point of view, for example, we can take it from there.

Another thing, don't blame others for your mistakes. You've admitted making at least one, you've said you would apologise if you made one, yet so far you haven't apologised.

Perhaps you could just answer his final question?

Consider a circuit with no faults, fully in compliance with the requirements of the 16th, but not in compliance with the 17th because it does not have RCD protection.

(references to quoted section & quotes omitted)

So to clear this up once and for all, can you please tell us in which of the following two scenarios you would leave the circuit without an RCD, and thus leave it non-compliant with the 17th, and in which you would add an RCD and thus leave it compliant with the 17th:

1) replacing an existing luminaire

2) adding a luminaire.

 

[GaryMo]

Replacing a luminaire on a like-for-like basis then no RCD.

Adding a luminaire to an existing 16th ED compliant circuit can give two possible answers:

Additional luminaire in the same room so only cable installed is under floor boards or in the loft then no RCD.

Additional luminaire in the same (or different) room which requires a separate switch drop that will be fed via a cable concealed less than 50mm from the surface containing no earthed metallic protection but run in safe zones then the work you've installed will require an RCD.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I guess you spent hours doing all that.

It may come as no surprise to you that I won't be reading it.

I have just noticed that the post was twice as long as it should have been. I always hit CTRL-A CTRL-C before clicking submit in case something goes wrong and I lose the post - looks like this time I accidentally pasted the text again at the end. Sorry.

Anyway - I've now edited it to remove the duplication, which will make it easier for you to follow.

I think you should be congratulated on one thing. I think you should be in the Guiness Book of Records for the longest unbroken run of trolling.

Oh look - another false accusation - you just can't help yourself, can you..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS,

if you expect me to plough through all that, you're mistaken.

If you would like to summarise a point of view, for example, we can take it from there.

You only have to read the parts highlighted in dark red. All the rest is only there to stop you falsely accusing me of reverting to my "usual desperate trick of cutting a word from here, another from there and pasting them to make it look like a complete answer."

Another thing, don't blame others for your mistakes. You've admitted making at least one, you've said you would apologise if you made one, yet so far you haven't apologised.

I take it you can show where I've admitted making a mistake which called for an apology and yet not apologised?

If by clarifying your position you can show that I was wrong, then as I said I'll apologise.

BAS says that you should be able install a new 'split load' consumer unit (let's call it a '16th')- RCD protection for sockets, none for lights (without cpc remember).

Where?

Will you do the same for me?

 

[FingRinal]

I take it you can show where I've admitted making a mistake which called for an apology and yet not apologised?

I can

I have said I have made a mistake

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I take it you can show where I've admitted making a mistake which called for an apology and yet not apologised?

I can

I have said I have made a mistake

I'm afraid you'll have to look for another example, as what you are quoting there actually contains a mistake made by me when I copied some text and accidentally dropped a crucial word.

The sentence in full, which you only partially quoted, reads:

I have said I have made a mistake, either because you've not been clear enough for me to understand you, or I've not paid close enough attention, then I will of course admit my error, and apologise.

Read the whole thing and you'll see that it doesn't make grammatical sense, and that's because of the missed word.

You can see the missed word in the earlier post of mine from which I copied the text - I've highlighted it here with font size and red:

If I have made a mistake, either because you've not been clear enough for me to understand you, or I've not paid close enough attention, then I will of course admit my error, and apologise.

So when we look at the post you are quoting as an admission of a mistake, and insert the accidentally missed word, it takes on a whole new meaning, and the grammatical error is resolved:

I have said if I have made a mistake, either because you've not been clear enough for me to understand you, or I've not paid close enough attention, then I will of course admit my error, and apologise.

So what you quoted wasn't, I'm afraid, an admission of a mistake.

However, if the mistake you're pointing at was the accidental miss of a word in a copy & paste operation then yes - I admit that I made the mistake of missing out the word "if", and I apologise for that.

So it's back to you now. Not only have I said I'll apologise for a mistake I have done so.

Did you read all that? If you did, perhaps you could do me a favour and summarise a salient point or two? I'd be most grateful.

(whisper: I think it will be locked to save BAS's blushes - keep it under your hat though)

FR - I have shown where you and eric wrote the words which led me to make the statement about you were both saying.

Will you do the same for me?

I have given you the opportunity to clarify exactly what you meant, and to state unambiguously what your position is.

Will you do the same for me?

I have said that if I have made a mistake, either because you've not been clear enough for me to understand you, or I've not paid close enough attention, then I will of course admit my error, and apologise.

Will you do the same for me?

BAS says that you should be able install a new 'split load' consumer unit (let's call it a '16th')- RCD protection for sockets, none for lights (without cpc remember).

Where?

 

[GaryMo]

Come on guys, why not do this over private messages?
Practically every thread you two meet in is ruined due to childish bickering.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It is, and although it sounds a bit "please Sir he started it" it always is - he seems to think that he can make any allegation he likes, not have to justify it, and that I'll sit quietly by and let him get away unchallenged.

He accuses me of lying and misdirection, of trolling, of being a racist, of being a stalker, and will never produce a shred of evidence. He claims I've said things I haven't, and unlike me he doesn't show why he thinks I have or recognise that he might have misinterpreted and that an apology might be in order - simple questions, easily answered, to show where I've said it are ignored or responded to with rolling-eye smileys.

I start each topic prepared to engage with him in a reasonable fashion based only on what he writes in the topic, but he drags up stuff from other topics or even other websites.

Quite why he behaves so outrageously, and why he thinks he should be allowed to I have no idea.

 

[Sparkin]

BAS, I've read a few of these threads with interest. Unfortunately, it seems that he/she is just trying to get a 'rise' out of you. I understand it can be frustrating but if I were you I wouldn't waste any further energy trying to justify your stance on this one. Just my 2p, for what it's worth.

 

[FingRinal]

I'm afraid you'll have to look for another example, as what you are quoting there actually contains a mistake made by me when I copied some text and accidentally dropped a crucial word.

...so anyway, you made a mistake

The sentence in full, which you only partially quoted, reads:I have said I have made a mistake, either because you've not been clear enough for me to understand you, or I've not paid close enough attention, then I will of course admit my error, and apologise.

Ah...so now you're saying that your mistakes are actually my mistakes...and you still haven't apologised like you said you would. So now we can add a double crossing nature to your tendency to lie lie lie...

Read the whole thing and you'll see that it doesn't make grammatical sense, and that's because of the missed word.

It's not my fault or anyone else's that you write gibberish.

You can see the missed word in the earlier post of mine from which I copied the text

Actually, I took the first part to be correct and the second part to be either incorrect or your usual tactic of trying to weazle out things.

So BAS, I think you need a rest. Your posts are either riddled with lies, errors, mistakes or all three.

A poor workman blames his tools and having seen photos of your work, I can only pity your tools for the amount of blame they must get.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

...so anyway, you made a mistake

I admit that I made the mistake of missing out the word "if",

Ah...so now you're saying that your mistakes are actually my mistakes...

Not at all - maybe I couldn't understand you because of my own shortcomings - who can say? It might be more obvious were you to provide the clarification which I and davelx have asked you for.

and you still haven't apologised like you said you would.

I admit that I made the mistake of missing out the word "if", and I apologise for that.

So now we can add a double crossing nature to your tendency to lie lie lie...

Now that your accusation that I didn't apologise like I said I would has been shown to be completely false, can we expect an apology from you for making a completely false accusation?

It's not my fault or anyone else's that you write gibberish.

To my knowledge nobody has said it is.

But I think "gibberish" is a bit extreme.

Actually, I took the first part to be correct and the second part to be either incorrect or your usual tactic of trying to weazle out things.

The first part (with the "if") was correct, the second, without, was incorrect.

So BAS, I think you need a rest. Your posts are either riddled with lies, errors, mistakes or all three.

"Riddled with"?

That's untrue, but then I think every single person on this site is well used to you making untrue statements.

A poor workman blames his tools and having seen photos of your work, I can only pity your tools for the amount of blame they must get.

Oh look - another instance of you introducing something utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand as if somehow it will invalidate the things I've said that are relevant.

You do realise, don't you, that you will never, ever, get away with that sort of thing?

I have shown where you and eric wrote the words which led me to make the statement about you were both saying.

Will you do the same for me?

I have given you the opportunity to clarify exactly what you meant, and to state unambiguously what your position is.

Will you do the same for me?

I have said that if I have made a mistake, either because you've not been clear enough for me to understand you, or I've not paid close enough attention, then I will of course admit my error, and apologise.

Will you do the same for me?

BAS says that you should be able install a new 'split load' consumer unit (let's call it a '16th')- RCD protection for sockets, none for lights (without cpc remember).

Where?

 

[FingRinal]

But I think "gibberish" is a bit extreme.

You can think what you like but gibberish is defined as 'Unintelligible or nonsensical talk or writing.' What you wrote made no sense at all, so by definition it was gibberish.

That's untrue, but then I think every single person on this site is well used to you making untrue statements.

And everyone is used to you making improper comments, jumping down peoples throats, being pedantic, writing gibberish, being a pain nda general insenstive pain who writes gibberish (oh, I've already said that)

Oh look - another instance of you introducing something utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand as if somehow it will invalidate the things I've said that are relevant.

No, it's another case of you deliberately lying again. I well remember seeing posts of your work, noting the obvious Code 2 defects which you passed off in your usual way - 'who cares, it conforms to BAS7671'.

I have shown where you and eric wrote the words which led me to make the statement about you were both saying.

I gave up believing you a long time ago, having wised up to your sly politcal tricks of misdirection, passive statements and spin.

BAS says that you should be able install a new 'split load' consumer unit (let's call it a '16th')- RCD protection for sockets, none for lights (without cpc remember).

Where?

A perfect example of your misdirection and spin.

Anyway, it's going to take someone to end this farce. So I'm ending my part in it now. Bye bye thread (no need to post cheers, I'll take them as read )

(Cue last desperate over the top last word from BAS!!!)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But I think "gibberish" is a bit extreme.

You can think what you like but gibberish is defined as 'Unintelligible or nonsensical talk or writing.' What you wrote made no sense at all, so by definition it was gibberish.

If it was unintelligible, why did you quote it and claim that it said something of significance?

That's untrue, but then I think every single person on this site is well used to you making untrue statements.

And everyone is used to you making improper comments,

Can you show me where I've made improper comments in this topic?

Oh look - another instance of you introducing something utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand as if somehow it will invalidate the things I've said that are relevant.

No, it's another case of you deliberately lying again. I well remember seeing posts of your work, noting the obvious Code 2 defects which you passed off in your usual way - 'who cares, it conforms to BAS7671'.

Can you explain how it's a lie for me to observe that comments on the quality of my work are irrelevant to a discussion on what the 17th requires in terms of updating existing circuits?

I have shown where you and eric wrote the words which led me to make the statement about you were both saying.

I gave up believing you a long time ago, having wised up to your sly politcal tricks of misdirection, passive statements and spin.

So in other words when you disagree with what I claim you've said you call me a liar, refuse to look at why I said it, refuse to clarify it, refuse to prove I'm wrong, and at the same time state that I have said something, and when I disagree you refuse to extend the same courtesy of explaining why you think I have.

What is the point of you being a member here if you will not behave reasonably?

BAS says that you should be able install a new 'split load' consumer unit (let's call it a '16th')- RCD protection for sockets, none for lights (without cpc remember).

Where?

A perfect example of your misdirection and spin.

It's a simple question.

You claim that I said that you should be able install a new 'split load' consumer unit (let's call it a '16th')- RCD protection for sockets, none for lights (without cpc remember).

Even if you refuse to tell me where I said that, can you explain how simply asking you where I said it is misdirection and spin?

Anyway, it's going to take someone to end this farce. So I'm ending my part in it now. Bye bye thread (no need to post cheers, I'll take them as read )

Good riddance - I don't suppose a single person will miss you, and if you would like to take cheers and a standing ovation as read I suggest you announce that you're leaving the forum for good, as I think we are all utterly sick of your disruptive behaviour.

 

[holmslaw]

..