renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
Yesterday, a home inspector (known as "@CyFyHomeInspections") hit Yahoo with a "short" daring "tiktok electricians" to prove him wrong as he asserted that putting a light switch behind a door is a code violation.
This forum has a 5-page closed thread on the topic, from two years ago. Perhaps this post could be added to thart thread.
Today, CyFy has responded to my challenge, and cites an Arizona building code. Fair enough. Yet . . .
Cy also went off on a rant, calling Mike Holt the "king of the tiktok electricians." Let that be a lesson - insulting someone who disagrees with you, or who questions your sources, is both unprofessional and demeaning. This is a legitimate code discussion, not a ego measuring contest.
In the previous Mike Holt thread, Joe Tedesco (another legend in the industry) could only object to switches behind doors by s t r e t c h i n g a rather broad code section. As many pointed out, the NEC isn't a design guide or instruction manual.
That's a point missed by many on the closed thread. In a discussion, "bring the receipts." Anyone with any experience in construction has witnessed discussions over what is meant by various codes, specifications, and plans. (Who hasn't waited in vain for a response to an RFI?) The key is to be calm, professional, and produce your sources. And, in the real world, sometimes the wisdom lies in "go along to get along).
"I was taught" and "we've always done it this way" might be true, but those arguments are a long way from making something "code." Nor do "logic" and "common sense" suffice. There is no substitute for citing your sources. Those of us who HAVE looked into sources are also aware that the sources themselves have their limitations.
As for Mike Holt being "the king of tiktok," I wouldn't know. I've never seen the platform. I do know Mike actually wrote the NFPA's last "code changes" book, so I suspect he has some expertise.
ONE last point: Remember that the NEC isn't the final word. We are subject to countless other rules we must follow. It pays to know those rules. You also need to understand the "why" of a rule to apply it correctly.
This forum has a 5-page closed thread on the topic, from two years ago. Perhaps this post could be added to thart thread.
Today, CyFy has responded to my challenge, and cites an Arizona building code. Fair enough. Yet . . .
Cy also went off on a rant, calling Mike Holt the "king of the tiktok electricians." Let that be a lesson - insulting someone who disagrees with you, or who questions your sources, is both unprofessional and demeaning. This is a legitimate code discussion, not a ego measuring contest.
In the previous Mike Holt thread, Joe Tedesco (another legend in the industry) could only object to switches behind doors by s t r e t c h i n g a rather broad code section. As many pointed out, the NEC isn't a design guide or instruction manual.
That's a point missed by many on the closed thread. In a discussion, "bring the receipts." Anyone with any experience in construction has witnessed discussions over what is meant by various codes, specifications, and plans. (Who hasn't waited in vain for a response to an RFI?) The key is to be calm, professional, and produce your sources. And, in the real world, sometimes the wisdom lies in "go along to get along).
"I was taught" and "we've always done it this way" might be true, but those arguments are a long way from making something "code." Nor do "logic" and "common sense" suffice. There is no substitute for citing your sources. Those of us who HAVE looked into sources are also aware that the sources themselves have their limitations.
As for Mike Holt being "the king of tiktok," I wouldn't know. I've never seen the platform. I do know Mike actually wrote the NFPA's last "code changes" book, so I suspect he has some expertise.
ONE last point: Remember that the NEC isn't the final word. We are subject to countless other rules we must follow. It pays to know those rules. You also need to understand the "why" of a rule to apply it correctly.
