On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 20:04:02 -0400, "Twayne"
wrote:

In ,
dpb typed:
Twayne wrote:
...

You are under a serious misconception. The NEC et al, is a
set of nationwide MINIMAL requirements based on the
criteria of many different organizations all pulled
together into NEC (NFPA, etc.). MINIMUM is the operative
word there. Many zoning areas management choose to
strengthen some parts of it as they see fit for the
demographics of any geographical area they serve. They use
the NEC as the basiis for their requirements and adjust it
as they require for their own specifc needs. The NEC
requirements can only be strengthened, never loosened, by
local jurisdiction.

The first part of that is sorta' true; the last sentence is
complete and utter hogwash. It appears you are the one
under a serious misconception. NEC has no standing other
than whatever whichever jurisdiction in charge choose to
give it. It is NOT law nor have any status such as that. As so, local
jurisdictions could choose to ignore it
entirely and do it all on there own or w/ some other basis
than NEC. That they don't is simply reflective that there's
no reason to reinvent the wheel in general not that there's any
inviolate mandate or law the requires it.

Wow, you guys may be pros, but you're missing a lot!

No, it is *you* who is missing a lot. Try reading.

The requirements of the
NEC cannot be ignored or loosened without case by case investigation and
approval, meaning good reason.

You're wrong (but I doubt you'll read my post any more than you read others).
The NEC has no special god-given authority. The NFPA is a *private*
non-profit company that publishes a standard that is useful for government
entities to reference in their laws. It is up to the governmental entity with
jurisdiction to include the NEC, subsets of the NEC, or other rules into *its*
laws. The laws do *not* have to include the entire NEC or any other rules.

Any loosening of the code that's possible is
included IN the NEC itself or its references. The only way to avoid NEC
adherance is to superced the entire context with another, stronger document
with adjustments in areas necessary. Somce California cites are a great
example of this.

Absolutely wrong. The cities can write whatever electrical codes they wish.
Usually they reference the NEC because it's easier and they don't have the
expertise of the NFPA. They are usually stricter that the NEC, but there is
no reason they can't be more lax. Often they reference older versions of the
NEC.

Rather than asssting in general, you choose to nit-pick and extoll the
exceptions to the rules, without regard to location or authority, and that
tells me that you are dangerous people to take advice from.

No, you're being told that you're *WRONG*, but you're too pig headed to read.

Just for grins, I took this e-mail to our local inspector's office where I
know the inspectors. We went to lunch together (we each paid our own way)
and this was the general concensus:
-- You sound like the type where intent of the requirements isn't your
strong point.
-- You are the type to cut corners, most likely.
-- Your atttudes are far from what's needed in having the client's benefit
in mind.
-- And your understanding of the NEC and how/when/where it's applied appears
to be seriously lacking IF you are in a role where they matter to the work
you do.
-- I did not know the NEC could be replaced, which they showed me in black
and white.
-- I came off as condescending and may have inspired your trollity. Yeah, I
learned a new word!

I'm sure you told them everything that was said here. Yeah, right.

As for the rest of your trollish BS and silliness, it's been deleted; not
needed for this response.

When you're wrong, you're *really* wrong.