Reworded RCD Poll

[JohnD]

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

That is another foolish, but presumably deliberate, non sequitur.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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:

We'll come to your nonsense in a minute, but first can we stick to the question I asked, as you are still not answering it.

Are you, or are you not, familiar with the situation where a regulation changes, and makes what was OK to be done yesterday not OK to be done today, and yet at the same time what already exists having been done before today is allowed to continue to exist?

"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.

The problem here is that I have not said what you have put in quotations. But if a change occurs and introduces a requirement for all new sockets to be RCD protected, what is illogical about saying that someone who says that all new sockets do not have to be RCD protected is denying that the change has occurred?

Repeating your opinions numerous times does not make them more convincing

So you keep repeating.

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.

The following is not a gratuitous repetition, it is a rebuttal of, and therefore entirely prompted by, what you wrote:

There is a 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.

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.

The following is not a gratuitous repetition, it is a rebuttal of, and therefore entirely prompted by, what you wrote:

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.

Repeating your opinions numerous times does not make them more convincing

So you keep repeating.

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

I'm at a loss to know what else to do to draw people's attention to things which they have clearly not read, or not read properly.

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

Is that why you have called me foolish and deceitful, and defective in thinking?

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

So you keep repeating.

 

[PBC_1966]

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.

I'm merely trying to establish what your personal opinions are regarding the relative safety of sockets with varying levels of RCD protection, based purely upon your electrical knowledge and leaving aside what you believe the law may or may not demand by way of "reasonable provision," etc.

So you believe a socket with no RCD protection is not reasonably safe, and you believe that one with 30mA is. So how about 100mA, or for that matter 300mA? At what level do you consider the socket to (regardless of when it was installed) to be reasonably safe? (If you have different views for interior vs. exterior, or general-use vs. dedicated under a counter for some appliance, let's hear them.)

 

[JohnD]

...if a change occurs and introduces a requirement for all new sockets to be RCD protected, what is illogical about saying that someone who says that all new sockets do not have to be RCD protected is denying that the change has occurred?

I'm glad you asked that.

"if a change occurs and introduces a requirement for all new sockets to be RCD protected"


Hypothetically, if I was living in a country where such a law was enacted, then people would have an obligation to comply with the law, just as, in my country, people have obligations not to rob banks and not to park on yellow lines. A person who said that sockets did not have to be RCD protected need not be denying that the law had been enacted. He might, for example, be an anarchist.

However, if I was living in a country where such a law had not been enacted, the person denying it would be perfectly correct.

Is that a hypothetical question, or are you in a country where, by law, all new sockets must be RCD protected? Where is this country, and when was the law enacted?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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

That is another foolish, but presumably deliberate, non sequitur.

Not at all.

Earlier on, when you criticised me for writing abuse, and after you had called me foolish, and deceitful, I asked you if it would be OK if I called people foolish and deceitful or if that would be abuse. You indicated at the time, and have now reiterated, that it is the frequency of "abuse" which matters.

So it seems reasonable to ask you to confirm that, and to ask you what the threshold is. You seem to think it's OK to make accusations of "foolishness" multiple times.


And now I'm sitting here wondering how long it will be, after you started a meta-argument about how I write and format my posts, before someone decides to try and blame me for taking the thread off-topic.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm merely trying to establish what your personal opinions are regarding the relative safety of sockets with varying levels of RCD protection, based purely upon your electrical knowledge and leaving aside what you believe the law may or may not demand by way of "reasonable provision," etc.

"Merely"?

So you believe a socket with no RCD protection is not reasonably safe, and you believe that one with 30mA is. So how about 100mA, or for that matter 300mA? At what level do you consider the socket to (regardless of when it was installed) to be reasonably safe? (If you have different views for interior vs. exterior, or general-use vs. dedicated under a counter for some appliance, let's hear them.)

Since you want to discuss this as something unconnected to what the law considers reasonably safe I suggest that you do not do it in a thread where the topic is what the law considers reasonably safe.

 

[JohnD]

you had called me foolish, and deceitful

Be so kind as to show me the post you are thinking of.

 

[JohnD]

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

That is another foolish, but presumably deliberate, non sequitur.

Not at all

An example of a foolish non sequitur

John: BAS has murdered thirty women, he should be imprisoned for life

BAS: So if I'd only murdered 29 people, or if some of them had been men, that would be OK?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

...if a change occurs and introduces a requirement for all new sockets to be RCD protected, what is illogical about saying that someone who says that all new sockets do not have to be RCD protected is denying that the change has occurred?

I'm glad you asked that.

"if a change occurs and introduces a requirement for all new sockets to be RCD protected"

Has something gone wrong with my browser, or have you just used italic, bold, and a larger size in order to stress, or draw attention to, a particular word?

Hypothetically, if I was living in a country where such a law was introduced, then people would have an obligation to comply with the law. A person who said that sockets did not have to be RCD protected need not be denying that the law had been introduced.

Would he not? What would he be doing then?

Is that a hypothetical question, or are you in a country where, by law, all new sockets must be RCD protected? Where is this country?

No, yes, and here.

1. The law requires reasonable provision for safety etc.
   
   
2. 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.

 

[JohnD]

Is that a hypothetical question, or are you in a country where, by law, all new sockets must be RCD protected? Where is this country?

No, yes, and here.

1. The law requires reasonable provision for safety etc.
   
   
2. 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.

A curious but unconvincing reply.
I ask if you are in a country where there is a law saying all new sockets must be RCD protected, and you reply saying that you are in a country where there are some guidelines that are not formally required.

So the truth is not "No, Yes, here" but "Yes, No, Not here." Your answer is 100% untrue.

I now see the nub of your problem.

You have convinced yourself that a law exists when, in fact, it does not.

(You have also ascribed beliefs to a document. Documents do not have beliefs.)

 

[PBC_1966]

Since you want to discuss this as something unconnected to what the law considers reasonably safe I suggest that you do not do it in a thread where the topic is what the law considers reasonably safe.

Actually, the topic of this thread as it started out 14 pages ago is "Reworded RCD Poll - When a diyer wants to add a socket should we 'go on and on' (to the same OP) about RCD Protection?"

Establishing what your personal opinions are on the matter would, I feel, probably go a long way in helping many of us understand why you seek to put the interpretations that you do on what starts out as a very vague legal requirement to "make reasonable provision for safety." As such, that's certainly very relevant to your clearly established pattern of "going on and on" about RCD protection to anyone who wants to add a socket or two.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

you had called me foolish, and deceitful

Be so kind as to show me the post you are thinking of.

"So I suppose that there are at least 3 people here who really believe that by not installing an RCD because they can't be rsed, or because there isn't one there already, or because it costs money, that that is "reasonably safe""

That is very foolish. You have invented your own reasons.

Your "because" is false.

You assert that the millions of homes and businesses that have a socket that is unprotected by an RCD are not "reasonably safe." That is foolish.

Do you disagree with what he actually said, or just with what you deceitfully pretend he said?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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

That is another foolish, but presumably deliberate, non sequitur.

Not at all

An example of a foolish non sequitur

John: BAS has murdered thirty women, he should be imprisoned for life

BAS: So if I'd only murdered 29 people, or if some of them had been men, that would be OK?

Earlier on, when you criticised me for writing abuse, and after you had called me foolish, and deceitful, I asked you if it would be OK if I called people foolish and deceitful or if that would be abuse. You indicated at the time, and have now reiterated, that it is the frequency of "abuse" which matters.

So it seems reasonable to ask you to confirm that, and to ask you what the threshold is.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

A curious but unconvincing reply.

And you think I have a defect in my thinking?

Good lord.

I ask if you are in a country where there is a law saying all new sockets must be RCD protected, and you reply saying that you are in a country where there are some guidelines that are not formally required.

So the truth is not "No, Yes, here" but "Yes, No, Not here." Your answer is 100% untrue.

No, it is 100% correct.

I now see the nub of your problem.

You have convinced yourself that a law exists when, in fact, it does not.

I now see the nub of your problem.

You have convinced yourself that reasonable does not mean reasonable.

 

[JohnD]

Super.

You can see no difference between "That act you did was a foolish act" and "You are a foolish person?"

Would you be insulted if told "Moral. Decent. Upright. Honest. Principled. I realise that none of those words mean anything to you?"

Are you surprised that by repeated insults and abuse you wear away the tolerance of people you abuse?

BTW it was certainly deceitful of you, in the example you quote, to pretend that he had said something that he had not said. Are you proud of that 4th-form debating trick?