In article , "Twayne" wrote:
Mmm, I shold probably direct YOU to the reread and who said what. I did not
even come close to using the phrase "Edison Ciruit" until someone magically
inserted it into the thread.

True -- you described one, without knowing what it was called, and said that
double-pole breakers weren't supposed to be used "to provide two 110 vac
lines" (which is absolutely false).

Then, since I know such circuits fairly well,

!!!

In another post, you say you've never actually had your hands on a double-pole
breaker -- so how in the world do you know *anything* about an Edison
circuit??

[snip]
I don't anywhere in this thread recall EVER saying that YOU didn't tell
the OP to call a pro,

No, you said I was "too thick to understand the dangers of the OP's
situation". Since my *very first* post in the thread said "Call an electrician
NOW", it should be obvious -- even to you -- that I very clearly understand
"the dangers of the OP's situation".

the only logical thing for his apparent expertise
level. If I did, I apologize, because there WERE several posts telling him
to get a pro in. I think I hit Send too soon and had to add mine as a PS,
but I recommended the same thing.
It's often difficult to tell who is responding to whom unless the entire
thread is displayed onscreen, but you seem to have erred.

I don't have any trouble keeping track of who's responding to whom....

That's not to say I didn't respond to another part of your post that was in
error;

ROTFLMAO!

I'm the one who responded to *your* posts that were in error, not the other
way around.

I don't recall it and don't feel it worth looking up the whole
thread. I'd simply respond with the same answer again. When details don't
exist in a post, nothing useful can be gotten from it.

The details are there -- you just weren't paying attention.

It appears that my
attitude was that you lacked an understanding of something in the OP's post
and had stated it more than once, prompting my "if you're too thick"
comment.

And, as noted, it's glaringly obvious to anyone with an even rudimentary
ability to comprehend written English that I understand very clearly that the
OP's situation is quite dangerous.

You can live in the past if you wish, but I prefer to look forward.
If you have something specific you'd like to work out, I'll be OK with that
but otherwise I think our communicatiosn are pretty much at an end here.

Our communication will continue as long as you continue to dispense dangerous
and factually incorrect advice.

Twayne



In ,
Doug Miller typed:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:

Because you're too thick to understand
the dangers of the OP's situation is your problem, not mine.

Twayne, the more you post on this topic, the more you look like an
idiot. Read
the thread from the very beginning. *My* first post in the thread was
maybe
the third response the OP received -- and the first four words of
that post
are "Call an electrician NOW".

I understand the dangers of the OP's situation just fine -- what you
fail to
understand is that there is no reason at all to suppose that his
problems are
in any way related to an Edison circuit.

Edison ckts are
inherently dangerous to humans working on them

If you knew anything at all about the subject, you would know that's
not true.
Tell me this: if Edison circuits are "inherently dangerous", why are
they
permitted under both the NEC and the CEC?