Concealed cables

[AndyPRK]

don't think so. If I told you that my shopping list for Tescos this morning 'includes' certain items, the list I gave you might just consist of the larger items, or those of specific interest to you, and not mention more minor items, or items that I knew would not interest you.

THat's an amusing one. Here are the important and interesting regulations.
I'm not going to list here all the other boring ones you won't bother with.

 

[JohnW2]

don't think so. If I told you that my shopping list for Tescos this morning 'includes' certain items, the list I gave you might just consist of the larger items, or those of specific interest to you, and not mention more minor items, or items that I knew would not interest you.

THat's an amusing one. Here are the important and interesting regulations. I'm not going to list here all the other boring ones you won't bother with.

You say that, but I'm sure that if one could be bothered to think/look carefully enough, there would be plenty of regs in BGB which are not covered (at all, or well) by any of the six categories mentioned in 110.1.2.

In any event, as I'm sure you understand, by comment was about the general semantics and, in particular, EFLI's shopping list analogy. If I were your wife, it would be perfectly reasonable for me to tell you that my shopping list for Tesco's today 'included' the shaving foam, after-shave and razor blades that were 'of interest to you', but to not mention all the food I was going to buy.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"XXXX includes YYYY" does not mean the same as "XXXX only includes YYYY".

True but they do not include "ZZZZ".

"ZZZZ" being regulations covering dead cables.

They may, or they may not.

The point I was making was that if an introductory section of a publication says "This publication includes AAAA" you cannot infer from that that it does not also contain BBBB, CCCC etc.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"XXXX includes YYYY" does not mean the same as "XXXX only includes YYYY".

True but they do not include "ZZZZ".

"ZZZZ" being regulations covering dead cables.

Ah - now that's the interesting thing.

NO - they do not contain regulations covering dead cables.

ALSO NO - the regulations covering concealed cables do not say either that they only apply to live ones or that they do not apply to dead ones.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not sure that one can necessarily take the statement to imply that every reg about cables automatically applies to dead cables, just because it doesn't explicitly say that it doesn't.

If there is no explicit qualification then equally you cannot infer that the regulations only apply to live ones.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If my shopping list includes 'A','B','C','D','E' & 'F' then that is all there is.

Not at all.

There is no way to infer that "includes A,B,C,D,E&F" necessarily equates to "only contains A,B,C,D,E&F".

I could quite correctly and not misleadingly say "my wine rack includes still red & white wine, champagne and cava" even though it also has some pink wine and a bottle of Asti Spumante....

It could not be said that because my list includes 'A' it may contain 'Z' when it does not especially if the shop does not sell 'Z'.

With no knowledge of your list it can only be said that it may also contain 'Z'.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In one sense, this discussion is totally silly, since it is quite obvious that there is no intention that regulations about concealed cables should apply to, say, a bit of unused crumbling VIR which has been sitting, unused, in a wall for decades.

Obvious, maybe.

A reasonable inference to draw, quite possibly.


But....

ATEOTD....

the regulations for concealed cables actually say neither that they do not apply to dead ones nor that they only apply to live ones.

 

[JohnW2]

the regulations for concealed cables actually say neither that they do not apply to dead ones nor that they only apply to live ones.

I don't think that anyone can argue with that, since it's true. Whilst you're at it, neither do they say that they do apply to dead cables, and they certainly don't say that they only apply to dead cables!

I think one probably has to assume (I know!) that they just thought it was 'obvious'/apparent that the regs only applied to live (or potentially live) cables, and either didn't bother to, or overlooked, saying that explicitly.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If I were your wife, it would be perfectly reasonable for me to tell you that my shopping list for Tesco's today 'included' the shaving foam, after-shave and razor blades that were 'of interest to you', but to not mention all the food I was going to buy.

"Of interest"?

IMO most men would rather go unshaven than hungry.