100 Raceway.

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
You don't speak for me and I doubt you speak for most of the others.
Click to expand...
I speak for everyone, including you.

You know that you feel exactly how I explained it, but you are being your typical childish self that would rather harass me than just agree.
 
ActionDave said:
You don't speak for me. I don't feel at all the same.
Click to expand...
So you look at his profile and see his stats score that he predominantly displays. You then look at all these threads he has made finding the easiest and most mundane changes.

You take those two things and add them together and come up with the opinion that he is truly "suggesting changes that contribute to safety"?

Ok :lol:
 
HackElectric said:
No, that's not the reason at all. The reason for the comments is because people see right thru you. No one here believes that you are "suggesting changes that contribute to safety". It's very clear that you are just looking for stats to put in your profile.


Click to expand...

iwire said:
You don't speak for me and I doubt you speak for most of the others.
Click to expand...

He doesn't speak for me either.
 
HackElectric said:
No matter how adamantly you say it, no matter how much you dislike it, the fact is that I do.
Click to expand...
Nope.
No matter if I:
Agree with you.
Partially agree.
Or disagree

I will state my own opinion - You don't state it for me.

You saying you do doesn't change that.

ice
 
I'm also fully capable of stating my own opinions; however the self-confessed goal of fmtjfw is:
fmtjfw said:
I'm trying to set a record for ACCEPTED proposals. Accepted proposals would indicate merit. For 2014, I was beaten out in accepted proposals by the Union guy who did all the 1000V proposals.
n
Besides it keeps me out of the bingo halls.
Click to expand...
I.e., he is not particularly interested in actually improving the NEC unless it's by accident. He appears to have DLS (Dan Leaf syndrome) but he will never touch Dan Leaf's acceptance record nor his legitimate contributions to the Code.

After the above Post I stopped commenting on the merits of fmtjfw's PIs. Having been a Principal on four NFPA Technical Committees, including two CMPs, and witnessed the activities of several other TC's, I can say Acceptance of a PI does NOT necessarily indicate merit; it often indicates a CMP was too tired to reject a trivial PI. This is especially true for the marathon 5-day committee meetings. Of course, the problem down the line is AHJ's that haven't actually studied the change's development believe there was a significant change in the document's content, but can't quite figure out what it is - so they make something up.

One positive comment: I appreciate fmtjfw has basically followed this Forum's Rules which is why I haven't tried to shut him down.
 
Last edited:
LOL!! I have been making fun of the code proposal competition going on over here at this forum for a number of years at another forum. And then this... And they called me crazy over there.......................... crazy like a fox. :cool:
 
macmikeman said:
LOL!! I have been making fun of the code proposal competition going on over here at this forum for a number of years at another forum. And then this... And they called me crazy over there.......................... crazy like a fox. :cool:
Click to expand...

Yeah this site is really nuts, it should be more down to earth like your favorite site infowars.

See anymore of those prisoner trains lately? :D
 
fmtjfw said:
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.
Click to expand...

You, like anyone else, are free to post anything that is within the forum rules. Having said that is your sole purpose to get in the most proposals for the 2017 NEC as some have accused?
 
infinity said:
You, like anyone else, are free to post anything that is within the forum rules. Having said that is your sole purpose to get in the most proposals for the 2017 NEC as some have accused?
Click to expand...

Nope. My goal is to improve the NEC. If someone submits a proposal that accomplishes the same thing as my proposal and theirs is accepted and mine rejected, so what, the object has been accomplished. A fair amount of what I submit could be done internally at NFPA if there were a good technical editor who was empowered to fix things. It's a balance between the CMP's powers and the editorial process.

I believe that a clearer, enforceable Code is to everybody's benefit. I am disturbed, for instance when I see "Code lawyering" that attempts to avoid installing an AFCI breaker by invoking a rule about adding outlets to section about replacing a receptacle. I understand that thread pointed out an inconsistency between different parts of the Code.

I am a nit-picking sort of person. I am retired and have a fair amount of time on my hands. I've read through the 2014 Code several times now and marked things I question. In this "final" pass through the Code I'm seen many marked things that are well enough as they are.

If I were looking to simply amass a large number of submissions, I could automate submission generation and generate literally thousands just on "unenforceable words". That would be silly.

I received some razzing from my friends in IAEI for the number of submissions to 2014. But at the end of it Tim McClintock said, you know you had a lot of good submissions accepted. That made me feel good. After my proposals rattle around in this forum for a while, I'm planning to send them through the IAEI endorsement process.

I am somewhat amazed an the amount of animus I've seen in replies to my posting to this forum (Proposals/Comments for the next NEC cycle).

I've chosen not to get into "flame wars" about them.

I have replied when people had substantive suggestions or I've had questions about their suggestions.
 
fmtjfw said:
Nope. My goal is to improve the NEC.
Click to expand...
I really haven't seen any of your proposals that I think actually improve the code for the typical user. Sure there are technical issues with the wording, but I haven't seen any, so far, that makes any real difference, at least to me, in the understanding of the code rule in question.

I know that if I was on a CMP, I would just mark all of your proposals as reject without even looking at them. Yes, I am aware that the rules for committee members would not permit me to do that, but I know that I would.

... A fair amount of what I submit could be done internally at NFPA if there were a good technical editor who was empowered to fix things. It's a balance between the CMP's powers and the editorial process. ...
Click to expand...
Do the rules for writing a consensus standard permit that type of editing by the NFPA itself? Sometimes what appears, as first look, to be a simple editorial change, actually changes the meaning of the code section.
 
One good thing has come out of the process... you taught me a new word, "animus".
Unfortunately, since I haven't used it in 7 decades, I will probably forget it.

Truthfully, I have read a number of your changes and for the most part have simply yawned. I fear that there sheer volume with will cause the CMPs to have a similar
reaction. Hopefully they are more willing than I to search thru the coal for the diamonds.
 
augie47 said:
One good thing has come out of the process... you taught me a new word, "animus".
Unfortunately, since I haven't used it in 7 decades, I will probably forget it.

Truthfully, I have read a number of your changes and for the most part have simply yawned. I fear that there sheer volume with will cause the CMPs to have a similar
reaction. Hopefully they are more willing than I to search thru the coal for the diamonds.
Click to expand...
Which brings us to our second new word of the day, ennui.
 
wow! another one !
as if the technical stuff here does not already make me feel illiterate
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top