On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:00:56 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

I FULLY recommend the IEC standards. You have to get into a kind of
'mindset' to really understand them but I had a couple of excellent
tutors and when you do, they make great sense and provide excellent
advice.

That's probably similar to the mindset you need to be ruled from Brussels.

MORON.

Meet a few people who sit on IEC committees before babbling that claptrap.

Our very own John Woodgate is/was one of them. Sure, they don't always get it
100% right but by God they get it mostly right.
---
"Gott mit uns"?

Your point is ?

UL is ****. Stuff it.

---
Bend over.

Do you even know _what_ UL is?

I most certainly do.

---
Easy enough to say, but let's have a little more detail...

That is, what's their raison d'être and why do you think they're ****?
---

They are wising up now and adopting IEC thinking.

---
You don't mean IEC, you mean European and, particularly, British.

UL predates the IEC by about 10 years, and the IEC's original meeting
was held in the US, so UL's thinking is probably embodied in the IEC,
particularly with respect to product safety, which is what UL is all
about.

The clue is in "Underwriters", which refers to the people who
guarantee to pay claims on insurance policies they've issued, and UL
was founded with the purpose of minimizing their risk.

Something like your ship-building board certifying a vessel as being
seaworthy before Lloyd's would insure it.

JF