Timber frame garage.

So because I have not argued with anybody who has said something like "substantial means X% by weight/volume/surface area/cost", and because I don't know of any official guidance on the matter and because I have never been in a position where I needed to find out what it might mean, I'm a coward because I won't just make a figure up and say I think that's what it means?

Please ask Admin to change your user name to Richard Head - it would be far more appropriate than your current one.

SPINELESS COWARD
 
Sponsored Links
You are barking mad.

Can you provide one intelligent, rational reason why me not wanting to come up with a complete guess about something I don't know makes me a spineless coward?
 
We can all read thanks, your answer just isnt anything to do with the question, or particularly helpfull.
On the contrary, they are extremely helpful to the sizable number of people here who seem to think that "constructed substantially of non-combustible material" means the same as "constructed of substantially non-combustible material". Because it does not.



The rest of us are just telling him what he can do and meet the regs, which is what he is asking.
A number of people are telling him what to do on the mistaken belief that "constructed substantially of non-combustible material" means the same as "constructed of substantially non-combustible material". But it does not.



You should keep the condensending insults in general discussion where they belong.
Have a word with noseall about that, will you please?
 
You should keep the condensending insults in general discussion where they belong.
Have a word with noseall about that, will you please?
Did you think that by pointing out that you are a spineless coward was in some way meant to be condescending? It wasn't meant to be nor did I wish to express it as an insult.

I happened to like your analogies about explaining the whole fire resistant content thing and it made sense. But the constant repetition is tiring.

Whilst you have relentlessly wittered on about the wording of the rule we have pointed out that it is misleading.
 
Sponsored Links
Did you think that by pointing out that you are a spineless coward
You are barking mad.

Can you provide one intelligent, rational reason why me not wanting to come up with a complete guess about something I don't know makes me a spineless coward?


I happened to like your analogies about explaining the whole fire resistant content thing and it made sense. But the constant repetition is tiring.
But sadly necessary to deal with the people who constantly fail to get it.


Whilst you have relentlessly wittered on about the wording of the rule we have pointed out that it is misleading.
Only for the hard-of-thinking.
 
Whilst you have relentlessly wittered on about the wording of the rule we have pointed out that it is misleading.
Only for the hard-of-thinking.

Are YOU "hard-of thinking"?

Let's see if you have a spine...

DO YOU THINK THAT BY BUILDING A ROOF ENTIRELY OUT OF WOOD THEN FIT A THIN 1/2 HOUR FIRE RESISTANT SHEET TO IT, THAT THIS FIRE RESISTANT ITEM CONSTITUTES AS A "SUBSTANTIAL" PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION?
 
ban-all-sheds";p="3121663 said:
A number of people are telling him what to do on the mistaken belief that "constructed substantially of non-combustible material" means the same as "constructed of substantially non-combustible material". But it does not.


And nobody really cares because its nothing but intellectual word masturbation, irrelivent to the question, it does not help to say what someone can actually do, you are trying to tell someone *indirectly* they cant build out of timber frame, when technical guidance very clearly says you can.

Its like arguing you cant drive a car because you don't know the specific standards regulating fuel injectors, no one here needs to know the specific interpretation of "substantially constructed of", because existing documents (already named) provide details and specifications to meet it (the ones you say you know nothing about).

Have a word with noseall about that, will you please?

Why would I have a word with noseall, he's just trolling, you are being rude and condesending?

I think you should stick to GD.
 
And nobody really cares because its nothing but intellectual word ****, irrelivent to the question,
NO IT IS NOT.

"Constructed substantially of non-combustible material". That means that the building has to be substantially constructed (in other words a significant amount of the building has be made out of) non-combustible material. Not partially-combustible, not almost non-combustible, not pretty much non-combustible, not substantially non-combustible, the materials have to be non-combustible.

That is what the regulation says.

"Constructed of substantially non-combustible material" does not mean the same.

The only people who don't care are the careless.


it does not help to say what someone can actually do, you are trying to tell someone *indirectly* they cant build out of timber frame, when technical guidance very clearly says you can.
No I'm not. Not once have I said that.


Its like arguing you cant drive a car because you don't know the specific standards regulating fuel injectors,
Durrr.... no. It's like arguing that you can't design and build a car which complies with applicable legislation if you don't know the specific standards regulating fuel injectors. The OP was not asking if he could open the door, go inside, and use a timber framed building on the boundary, he was asking how to design and build it.


no one here needs to know the specific interpretation of "substantially constructed of", because existing documents (already named) provide details and specifications to meet it (the ones you say you know nothing about).
That's a tad disingenuous.

Firstly, we had 4 pages of this topic before you posted this:

NHBC technical guidance, approved documents, various RIBA publications and technical booklets from a few other organisations will show you details of this situation of timber frame clad both sides with fire resisting materials, 100% of the surface area is then non combustible, you achieve 1/2 hour or whatever is required fire resistance, the timber is only 15% of the internal "surface" area.

and secondly that hardly qualifies as "existing documents (already named)" - you should have identified actual documents.


Why would I have a word with noseall, he's just trolling, you are being rude and condesending?
This topic is full of people who are either too incompetent to understand, or too lazy, careless, slapdash, or uninterested to care, that "a substantial number of people go on holiday to Spain" does not mean that "people take holidays which are substantially in Spain".

I'm sorry if you regard me pointing out that reality, and criticising people for their lackadaisical attitude as rude and condescending, but it is the reality.
 
The only people who don't care are the careless.

Nobody cares to define the exact meaning of a statement, or argue over it, not because they are sloppy or lazy (well some may be), but because the work has already been done for them in various documents.

No I'm not. Not once have I said that.

I said you have done it indirectly, anyone posts that you can build it from timber frame, and you reply "Can you, does it comply, and argue on for about 10 pages about reading english".

Any layman reading your posts may get a clear impression you disagree with it being built from timber frame.

I'm sorry if you regard me pointing out that reality, and criticising people for their lackadaisical attitude as rude and condescending, but it is the reality.

No, its just your opinion that they are being lazy/stupid.
 
Nobody cares to define the exact meaning of a statement, or argue over it, not because they are sloppy or lazy (well some may be), but because the work has already been done for them in various documents.
It's more than defining the exact meaning - people have been moving the words around and thinking that they still mean the same, or not caring that they don't.

The mistake they have been making has nothing to do with timber frame buildings, and nothing to do with the Building Regulations, it's a mistake or it's laziness and carelessness with basic English comprehension, and it is wrong.

People should care, they must care about things like that.


I said you have done it indirectly,
But you are wrong. Only people who are careless about reading what I write would think that.


anyone posts that you can build it from timber frame, and you reply "Can you, does it comply,
Why shouldn't I ask people who have asserted something without any reference to any specific official or authoritative guidance, and who might themselves be unable or unwilling to read "constructed substantially of non-combustible material" properly, to justify their claim? Asking them that question is not indirectly telling other readers that they are wrong, it is directly asking them to justify their claim.


and argue on for about 10 pages about reading english".
I have shown, with example after example after example that what appears to be a subtle change in word order can make a very large change to the meaning.

If someone says "you can comply with a requirement that a building be constructed substantially of non-combustible material by building it out of ABC, because ABC is a substantially non-combustible material" there is a chance that they are wrong, because the Building Regulations do not say "A detached single storey building ... which is constructed of substantially non-combustible material" they say "A detached single storey building ... which is constructed substantially of non-combustible material", and that is not the same.

It is essential for people to get that right if their subsequent assertions are to have credibility.


Any layman reading your posts may get a clear impression you disagree with it being built from timber frame.
I haven't done that anywhere. What I have done is to disagree with people saying it can be made with ABC because they think that the requirement is that it be constructed of substantially non-combustible material.

Only the incompetent or the lazy or the careless would fail to see that.


No, its just your opinion that they are being lazy/stupid.
So what are they then?

What are these people who do not care that "Only buses and taxis may use bus lanes" does not mean the same as "Buses and taxis may only use bus lanes"?
 
To the OP (if he is still reading):

If you are concerned about the Building Control aspects, why not go online and see what guidance your local authority gives on what they consider to be exempt? They are responsible for enforcing the building regulations.

Here are two examples found at random, where the guidance clearly differs from place to place (and even the word order is differently understood):

http://www.shepway.gov.uk/content/view/201318/4405/

"Examples of non combustible materials:
Walls: Brick and block masonry construction / timber frame clad in non combustible board"

but:

http://www.haringey.gov.uk/note06_-_exempt_buildings.pdf

"Examples of what constitutes substantially non-combustible materials:

WALLS – brickwork / blockwork / concrete panels / steel frame clad in non-combustible cement based boarding"

One can argue the niceties of the English language, but at the end of the day it's the local authority's guidance that its officers will (probably) follow.

Cheers
Richard
 
people have been moving the words around and thinking that they still mean the same, or not caring that they don't.

No, that's how the argument has moved.. Or rather, that's the sideline you've derailed it to. We get the point you're making over the word juggling and we're capable of understanding the different meanings attributable to a varied placement of the word "substantially" but as I often find with your posts, you're making a big fuss over an irrelevant side line to gloss over the fact that you don't know the answers to far more pertinent questions, despite setting out as though you were an authority on the matter


People should care, they must care about things like that.
We've been over this before. If nature were intolerant of errors, you would never have been born. However regrettable any particular person may or may not find such a concept, it's undeniable that nature does not replicate DNA with the accuracy to which you nitpick the navel fluff of posts made here..
Your strive for accurate communication is not efficient, and while theoretically admirable, doesn't have a practical application


Why shouldn't I ask people who have asserted something without any reference to any specific official or authoritative guidance
Ah.. Asking questions again. BAS's universal get-out-of-jail-free card. Make a statement, please; less of these questions, lest we find ourselves in a similar situation to where you previously relaxed your high moral standard in order to condone breaking the law if the subject matter was theft of intellectual property..


Asking them that question is not indirectly telling other readers that they are wrong, it is directly asking them to justify their claim.
It adds nothing to the discourse, the raison-d'etre of diynot, if all youre going to do in response to a guy who happens along and says "can I build a timber shed on my boundary?" is to ask "can you?"

And at what point was it decided that internet forums had to answer with the legal standard of expected outcomes, rather than the de facto standard? If FMT wants to tell someone to get on with it because nothing serious will come of it, and you want to write chapter and verse about nothing at all, it doesn't mean that only one of you is right,..


which is constructed of substantially non-combustible material
which is constructed substantially of non-combustible material
..and that is not the same.

I get it. We get it. You get cross about it because it fails your demands for accurate english.. We can proceed with the transcription error because we don't care, or can correct it on the fly. Change the record

What are these people who do not care that "Only buses and taxis may use bus lanes" does not mean the same as "Buses and taxis may only use bus lanes"?

Dogs must be carried on the escalators.. Yes yes, in most normal, well adjusted people the sense of humour is derived from how well they grasp the irony of the difference between a situation taken at face value and a situation that occurs in real life. That's the crux of the whole thing; you're particularly humourless because you demand that everything operate in face value mode and are intolerant of the notion that normal people operate in real life mode, laughing or not caring when disparity occurs
 
No, that's how the argument has moved.. Or rather, that's the sideline you've derailed it to.
It hasn't moved at all, and in terms of my posts here it is not a sideline.

The requirement is that the building be constructed substantially of non-combustible material, not just the wall on the boundary, so 1 wall out of 4 plus roof does not qualify.
So because its within 2m of the boundary, it's need to be built from substantially non-combustible material.
No - you have got that wrong.

The building needs to be substantially constructed from non-combustible material. i.e. a substantial amount of the building has to be non-combustible.

That is not the same as the building being made of stuff which is substantially non-combustible. The material has to be non-combustible, not substantially non-combustible.

Right from the start I have been objecting to the incompetent and the lazy and the careless way people are shuffling the words in a Statutory Instrument to make the provision say something different.


We get the point you're making over the word juggling and we're capable of understanding the different meanings attributable to a varied placement of the word "substantially" but as I often find with your posts, you're making a big fuss over an irrelevant side line
It is far from irrelevant when people use an incorrect version and then provide a means to comply with what is a non-existent requirement of their own invention.


to gloss over the fact that you don't know the answers to far more pertinent questions, despite setting out as though you were an authority on the matter
FGS what on earth is wrong with you?

How many times in this topic have I flatly refused to say what I think the requirement for "substantially constructed from non-combustible material" actually means, citing the fact that I do not have the necessary expertise? You think that's me trying to gloss over the fact?

Shall I now quote every single post I have made in this topic, to make it easy for you to find the one(s) where I set out as if I was an authority on the matter? I mean, I wouldn't want you to be able to claim that it was too hard for you to look back over 6 pages as a way to try and gloss over the fact that your charge is idiotic.


We've been over this before. If nature were intolerant of errors, you would never have been born. However regrettable any particular person may or may not find such a concept, it's undeniable that nature does not replicate DNA with the accuracy to which you nitpick the navel fluff of posts made here.
So if you are not prepared to allow me to try and stop errors here, are you equally opposed to all the medical research into genetic causes, and DNA-modifying cures for diseases and disorders?


Your strive for accurate communication is not efficient, and while theoretically admirable, doesn't have a practical application
Actually it does.

It's practical application is that people understand, and comply with, legislation as written, not as projected into their minds through the distorting lens of inaccuracy.


Ah.. Asking questions again. BAS's universal get-out-of-jail-free card.
I asked that question of Aron because he criticised me for seeking clarification/confirmation from people who had given advice in circumstances where I felt they were not understanding the regulation or were not providing any evidence that their advice was anything more than pure invention on their part.

It seemed, and still seems, perfectly reasonable to me that when he criticised me for asking questions I should ask him why I should not ask questions, on the grounds that he must have had a reason for his complaint.


Make a statement, please; less of these questions
OK.

anyone posts that you can build it from timber frame, and you reply "Can you, does it comply,
Of course. Not only do I have the right, I have the moral obligation to ask people who have asserted something without any reference to any specific official or authoritative guidance, and who might themselves be unable or unwilling to read "constructed substantially of non-combustible material" properly, to justify their claim. Asking them that question is not indirectly telling other readers that they are wrong, it is directly asking them to justify their claim.


Better? (Am I allowed to ask that question?) Am I allowed to ask you to clarify in what way it is better?


It adds nothing to the discourse, the raison-d'etre of diynot, if all youre going to do in response to a guy who happens along and says "can I build a timber shed on my boundary?" is to ask "can you?"
I happen to believe that the raison d'etre of DIYnot is the giving of useful and accurate advice. I not only have the right, I have the moral duty to question people who give advice along the lines of "If you do ABC it will comply with XYZ" when XYZ is a false requirement brought into life via their inability or unwillingness to read what the requirement actually is.


And at what point was it decided that internet forums had to answer with the legal standard of expected outcomes, rather than the de facto standard?
Surely that isn't you asking a question, is it? I thought you disapproved of people asking questions rather than making statements.

I don't really understand it, so I can't answer it. I hope that statement is clear enough for me to avoid an accusation from you that I am somehow trying to gloss over the fact that I don't really understand it.


If FMT wants to tell someone to get on with it because nothing serious will come of it, and you want to write chapter and verse about nothing at all, it doesn't mean that only one of you is right,..
Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

It is, with no greyness whatsoever, utterly wrong for people to advise breaking the law here.


I get it. We get it.
But not everybody does, or did.

I did not keep on making the same point, and using analogy after analogy, because of some kind of spasmodic behaviour, I did it because people kept cropping up showing that they did not get it.


You get cross about it because it fails your demands for accurate english..
I am not cross about the regulation, and I do not believe it is inaccurate.


We can proceed with the transcription error because we don't care, or can correct it on the fly. Change the record
You don't care if people make errors which result in a significant change away from a legal requirement to something which is not a requirement, and could, if accepted by the recipient of the advice, leave him having committed a criminal act?

That's shameful.


Dogs must be carried on the escalators..
Yes, and "Bear left outside station".


Yes yes, in most normal, well adjusted people the sense of humour is derived from how well they grasp the irony of the difference between a situation taken at face value and a situation that occurs in real life.
The face value is what the Building Regulations actually say.

If you think that real life is that people should distort what they say, and that that should be a laughing matter then you should not be here.


That's the crux of the whole thing; you're particularly humourless
Actually I am not - speak to anybody who knows me and they will assure you otherwise.


because you demand that everything operate in face value mode and are intolerant of the notion that normal people operate in real life mode, laughing or not caring when disparity occurs
I don't wish it on you that you should ever find yourself in court charged with a criminal offence, but if you are then I fervently hope that you will attempt to reword the law(s) you're accused of breaking so that you can claim you were actually in obedience, and then try laughing and saying that you don't care about the disparity when you're told that you are wrong.

The "disparity" you speak of did not just "occur", it happened because people were either too incompetent, or too lazy, or too careless to read properly. And that's no laughing matter - it is very wrong.
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

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

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top