Reworded RCD Poll

[JohnW2]

"Gratuitous" or not, they are unnecessary and achieve nothing. Once two people with differing opinions have expressed those differing opinions, nothing is to be gained by either of them repeating those opinions - even once, let alone many times. If you believe that endlessly repeating your opinions will change the opinions of others, you are sadly mistaken.

So why do you only criticise me for doing it?

I think you flatter yourself. What exactly is there about my words which you correctly quote above which refer to any particular individual - be it you or anyone else? As you quoted, I was talking about "two people with differing opinions" - whose repetitions of their opinions are "unnecessary and achieve nothing", no matter who they are.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

Your personal opinion about this matter has been noted (many times).

So when you wrote that you intended it to be directed equally to everybody here who has expressed their personal opinion many times?

 

[JohnW2]

So when you wrote that you intended it to be directed equally to everybody here who has expressed their personal opinion many times?

I could just as easily have directed the comment at others who have expressed their personal opinions many times, but they tend not to write in a style which provokes me to so to do.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Interestingly ....

.... please note: Reposting the same statement yet again which sets out your opinion of why it is so is not the same thing as citing evidence in support of your opinion.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

One cannot assume that the view of law as to what constitutes "making reasonable provision for safety" necessarily has to not change because the (not referred to) requirements of BS7671 have changed.

Agreed - one cannot (should not) "assume" either way around ... but so what?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

No, it is not - you and JW2 are not the only ones consumed and blinded by petty, pathetic, and unbelievably childish urges.

FFS

 

[PBC_1966]

"Mr. Sheds, I'd like you to inspect and test the electrical installation in my house and tell me if, in your opinion, it is reasonably safe."

You find sockets in the living rooms, bedrooms, etc. which are not RCD protected, ditto for buried cables, in fact a standard sort of installation on a TN-S or TN-C-S system of a few years ago. Nothing else is in any way questionable.

What will your verdict be?

My opinion is that it is not reasonably safe.

Finally, a straight answer.

What if all the sockets in the house were protected at 100mA? In your opinion, would that be reasonably safe? Or would you not consider it reasonably safe unless each and every socket (with possible special exceptions) had 30mA protection?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

PBC - I feel I should make it clear to you, that even if you carry on asking me "Well what about X?" and "What if Y?" questions from now until the heat death of the universe, the following will not change:

1. It is a well established, widely encountered principle that when things change, and what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is no longer considered OK to be newly done today, what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is not required to be updated or removed and replaced today, it just has to be no longer newly done. The fact that yesterday it was OK to do A, and the fact that existing instances of A having been done are not regarded as so unacceptable that they have to be replaced, does not mean that it is still OK to do A. You may well be adding to something is entirely based on A, and your addition may well be very small compared to what is already there, but that does not mean that it is still OK to do A.
   
   
2. The criteria for deciding if something may be left in service, and for deciding it it may be newly created are different. There is a difference between assessing what is already installed and installing something new.
   
   
3. Whilst compliance with BS 7671 is not formally required, that is the British Standard which relates to electrical installations, and to deliberately refuse to implement a requirement of it which is intimately related to personal safety but instead to do something which the standard no longer regards as safe enough to be continued to be done is not reasonable.

Given these I wonder what the relevance of your scenario and questions are to the issue of whether 30mA RCD protection should be provided for new sockets.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So when you wrote that you intended it to be directed equally to everybody here who has expressed their personal opinion many times?

I could just as easily have directed the comment at others who have expressed their personal opinions many times, but they tend not to write in a style which provokes me to so to do.

Would I be safe to assume that you would attempt to use that same justification to deny any bias were I to ask you why you have frequently thanked and liked posts from PBC and JohnD in which they have expressed their personal opinions many times?

 

[JohnW2]

I could just as easily have directed the comment at others who have expressed their personal opinions many times, but they tend not to write in a style which provokes me to so to do.

Would I be safe to assume that you would attempt to use that same justification to deny any bias were I to ask you why you have frequently thanked and liked posts from PBC and JohnD in which they have expressed their personal opinions many times?

You may have a different view of the meaning of "bias" than I do. I give my Thanks/Likes to posts expressing views/opinions with which I agree, not because of the identity of the author - do you call that bias?

As for the 'provocative style' which may make me more inclined to respond to things that you write, but not the others, how about, for starters (and I'm sure some would use descriptions other than just 'provocative') ...

... but I know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he is an irresponsible, immoral, dangerous and shameful presence here.

... if people barely able to read, like you, and disposed to ignoring anything they do manage to read, like you, were allowed to write laws....

No, it is not - you and JW2 are not the only ones consumed and blinded by petty, pathetic, and unbelievably childish urges.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You may have a different view of the meaning of "bias" than I do. I give my Thanks/Likes to posts expressing views/opinions with which I agree, not because of the identity of the author - do you call that bias?

No - I don't call that bias - I know full well that you agree with PBC and JohnD, and not with me.

What is bias is that you think it OK to criticise me for repeatedly making the same point at the same time as thanking/liking others when they do the same.

As for the 'provocative style' which may make me more inclined to respond to things that you write, but not the others, how about, for starters (and I'm sure some would use descriptions other than just 'provocative') ...

... but I know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he is an irresponsible, immoral, dangerous and shameful presence here.

PBC is telling people it is OK to break the law. He is telling them that it is OK to not bother to make reasonable provision for safety. I am outraged by that - it offends my sense of morality. It does not accord with my sense of responsibility. I stand by what I wrote.

... if people barely able to read, like you, and disposed to ignoring anything they do manage to read, like you, were allowed to write laws....

JohnD either does not read what I write, or if he does he ignores it. He has certainly twice ignored this question:

Are you unfamiliar with the well established, widely encountered principle that when things change, and what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is no longer considered OK to be newly done today, what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is not required to be updated or removed and replaced today. It just has to be no longer newly done?​

No, it is not - you and JW2 are not the only ones consumed and blinded by petty, pathetic, and unbelievably childish urges.

So is it a considered and mature decision on your part to thank people for repeatedly saying things you agree with, but to criticise me, not for what I say, but for the fact that I say it as often as your chums say what they do?

 

[JohnD]

IMO it is very reasonable to criticise someone for repeatedly using abusive, offensive and insulting language.

Clearly you disagree.

 

[JohnD]

Are you unfamiliar with the well established, widely encountered principle that when things change, and what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is no longer considered OK to be newly done today, what was considered OK to be newly done yesterday is not required to be updated or removed and replaced today. It just has to be no longer newly done?

There is a defect in your thinking. You have often complained (falsely) that people do not accept change.

If we strip down your argument:

"Change occurs, therefore all (new) sockets must be protected by an RCD, therefore anybody who does not agree that all new sockets must be protected by an RCD must be a person who denies change"

it is quite clear that the logic is false.

Repeating your opinions numerous times does not make them more convincing

Equally, if the statement went:

"Electrical installations must be reasonably safe, therefore all (new) sockets must be protected by an RCD"

It is also false.

If the statement went "A guideline which is not legally binding recommends that new sockets should be protected by an RCD, therefore any socket which is not protected by an RCD is not reasonably safe."

It is also false.

If the statement went:
"I am the supreme arbiter of what is OK and what is not OK, therefore anybody who disagrees with my interpretation of a deliberately vague statement must be wilfully wrong"

It is clearly nonsense.


Repeating your opinions numerous times does not make them more convincing

Squealing your objections in big fonts and bright colours does not make them more convincing.

Abusing and insulting people who do not share your opinions does not make them more convincing.

Repeating your opinions numerous times does not make them more convincing.

 

[ajstoneservices]

I love the colourful language used on this forum.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

IMO it is very reasonable to criticise someone for repeatedly using abusive, offensive and insulting language.

Clearly you disagree.

So is it only reasonable to criticise if they do it repeatedly? What is the threshold?