NM cable in unfinished basements

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I for one (probably not alone) love NM Cable when used properly. I also have quite a few public inputs fired away...none related to NM Cable but now you have me seeking global domination for the expanded use of NM Cable:)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 
MasterTheNEC said:
I also have quite a few public inputs fired away...
Click to expand...

I am going to continue my protest and refuse to call them public inputs. :D

It bothers me that the NFPA is so bloated they feel the need to spend time changing things like proposals to public inputs. It was as helpful as putting metric measurements first. :roll:
 
iwire said:
I am going to continue my protest and refuse to call them public inputs. :D

It bothers me that the NFPA is so bloated they feel the need to spend time changing things like proposals to public inputs. It was as helpful as putting metric measurements first. :roll:
Click to expand...
I agree...there was no need for the change. I expect that the NFPA would remove the English measurements before they would put them first.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I agree...there was no need for the change. I expect that the NFPA would remove the English measurements before they would put them first.
Click to expand...

WHAT...are you calling the NFPA Communists.....:slaphead: Nah..I know what you mean just feel slightly different about it. The change from ROP and ROC to PI and PC..(not politically correct if you thought that...;0) Anyway, this is a good time to post where to learn more about the new process and to be honest with you the online process was a delight (yes, I said delight)

http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-stand...-process/submitting-public-input-and-comments
 
To me there is a logical distinction between a proposal for a change to the NEC (e.g. Section XXX should be changed to read "....") and public input.
Public input could just as easily be a personal or collective attack on the sanity and competence of particular CMPs, and that is not what they are really asking for. :angel:
 
GoldDigger said:
To me there is a logical distinction between a proposal for a change to the NEC (e.g. Section XXX should be changed to read "....") and public input.
Public input could just as easily be a personal or collective attack on the sanity and competence of particular CMPs, and that is not what they are really asking for. :angel:
Click to expand...
There not?..:sick:
 
MasterTheNEC said:
WHAT...are you calling the NFPA Communists.....:slaphead: Nah..I know what you mean just feel slightly different about it. The change from ROP and ROC to PI and PC..(not politically correct if you thought that...;0) Anyway, this is a good time to post where to learn more about the new process and to be honest with you the online process was a delight (yes, I said delight)

http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-stand...-process/submitting-public-input-and-comments
Click to expand...

The process makes it much more difficult to see panel action and discussion. The ROP was much easier to understand what was going on.
I understand the need to go to an electronic submission and things like that, but there was no good reason to completely change the process and make it so much more difficult for the user to understand what is actually going on. The new process is much less transparent than the previous one that has worked very well for a long time.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The process makes it much more difficult to see panel action and discussion. The ROP was much easier to understand what was going on.
I understand the need to go to an electronic submission and things like that, but there was no good reason to completely change the process and make it so much more difficult for the user to understand what is actually going on. The new process is much less transparent than the previous one that has worked very well for a long time.
Click to expand...

OK Busted...I do agree that it will make the process harder to follow PAST the original submission. It also makes it harder for the CMP members to voice views. However, the system has already been used on other NFPA documents over the past year and every CMP member I speak with (on the other NFPA Documents) are pleased with it. Only time will tell but that Jennie is already out of its bottle...might as well embrace it fella.
 
iwire said:
I would say the new process favors the lobbeists over the trades people
Click to expand...

Is your name Jesse Ventura....working on some conspiracy theory here iwire...:p

Actually I cant comment on that directly as I just have to see how the process shakes out to form an opinion other than one of great optimism.
 
kwired said:
Guess who was likely behind this change
Click to expand...

Oh stop....its no conspiracy by the manufacturers to gain control of the system. Heck, the CMP is made up of very few manufactures to keep the system balanced. It has IAEI members, random municipal members, industry experts, consultants, manufacturers (and not all of them have an interest in products designed to prevent fires as an FYI).

In fact, I happen (and I guess on here I am alone in this thought) to believe the CMP's are well balanced and do a great job weeding through poorly worded submittals and such.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
In fact, I happen (and I guess on here I am alone in this thought) to believe the CMP's are well balanced and do a great job weeding through poorly worded submittals and such.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I am getting at. Poorly worded submittals will not go far, you need higher paid individuals to have the knowledge to know what will have a better chance of advancing in the process. You do effectively need to "sell" your submittal to those that review it. If you have a situation where there are two opposing opinions involved you can not accept both. The party that gives you more convincing information is who you end up going with.
 
kwired said:
Exactly what I am getting at. Poorly worded submittals will not go far, you need higher paid individuals to have the knowledge to know what will have a better chance of advancing in the process. You do effectively need to "sell" your submittal to those that review it. If you have a situation where there are two opposing opinions involved you can not accept both. The party that gives you more convincing information is who you end up going with.
Click to expand...

Ok, I will agree with some of that BUT where is that a problem. We send mass quantities of these individuals up to capital hill each voting year. Also you don't need to be high paid, I have gotten plenty of my submittals into the NEC without being "high paid".....trust me I'm not high paid, ask my wife.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Ok, I will agree with some of that BUT where is that a problem. We send mass quantities of these individuals up to capital hill each voting year. Also you don't need to be high paid, I have gotten plenty of my submittals into the NEC without being "high paid".....trust me I'm not high paid, ask my wife.
Click to expand...
Your wife is never going to think you are well paid - even if you were the highest paid person on record, that is one of those unwritten facts of life:happyyes:

I think we have conversation from two different threads sort of merging here. Of course neither one is really "on topic" either. At least the other thread is a AFCI topic titled thread. I just realized we kind of got that conversation somehow introduced to to this thread.
 
Ugh....I was kinda commenting on the "NFPA Corruption" theory by Don and iwire....lol...well those are my words not theirs (Technically). But yeah...we kinda Jacked The Thread a bit...Sorry Mods:slaphead:
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Oh stop....its no conspiracy by the manufacturers to gain control of the system. Heck, the CMP is made up of very few manufactures to keep the system balanced. It has IAEI members, random municipal members, industry experts, consultants, manufacturers (and not all of them have an interest in products designed to prevent fires as an FYI).

In fact, I happen (and I guess on here I am alone in this thought) to believe the CMP's are well balanced and do a great job weeding through poorly worded submittals and such.
Click to expand...
On many of the NEC CMPs, the number of members that represent manufacturers approaches 1/3 of the committee membership...the maximum permitted by the rules for any one group. No other group ever comes close to that limit.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Ugh....I was kinda commenting on the "NFPA Corruption" theory by Don and iwire....lol...well those are my words not theirs (Technically). But yeah...we kinda Jacked The Thread a bit...Sorry Mods:slaphead:
Click to expand...
I have never suggested that there is or has been corruption on the part of the CMPs, I have suggested that they may not always know what they are doing:)

As far as the new "public input" system, I really don't care if it makes it easier for the panel members or if they like it or not...I am not a panel member. I do care that it makes it more difficult for me to see and understand what they are doing with the changes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top