I agree with your logic here but if you keep splitting hairs with proposals like this you will probably lessen the chance of getting real needed changes accepted. If your goal is to be the guy with the most proposals submitted then have at it. IMO more meaningful proposals that have a better chance of being adopted into the code and are a better use of your time. Last cycle I submitted my five best proposals and four got accepted, sometimes quality is better than quantity, just me 2 cents.
NOT DIRECTED AT infinity!
1) I have a very thick skin.
2) I would appreciate meaningful feedback.
3) Telling me I'm stupid is ok, but repeating it won't help.
4) The pattern of what was accepted and not accepted for 2014 baffled me.
5) The
NEC has a Style Manual, in many cases they violate it in the
NEC text. Why have it if you ignore it?
6) If you find my submissions misguided or hopeless, you can always ignore them.
7) If one or more moderators indicates to me that I am abusing this forum, I'll quit posting and miss whatever meaningful criticism available from members.
I've had 30+ years of reading and writing technical specifications. I've had 10+ years of interpreting and writing zoning law.
I'm trying to make the language in the
NEC more precise and parallel, as well as suggesting changes that contribute to safety. The "niggling" nature of the comments so far is mostly (I think) partially attributable to the fact that "definitions" are, by their nature "niggling". Time will tell.
Thank for you interest and meaningful comments.
