On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:22:25 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 10-29-2013, 16:05, bud-- wrote:

On 10/29/2013 11:58 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 10-29-2013, 09:30, bud-- wrote:

On 10/28/2013 9:24 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 10-28-2013, 23:01, bud-- wrote:



"No longer code" is "wrong".



Other posts made it clear he meant not required by code.

Don't crucify him for failure to edit extensively.

That would violate Usenet tradition.



"Not required by code" is "wrong".



You're probably write. So refute what he meant, not what he didn't.



Find me the original quote. Doesn't appear to be in-line back.



He posted (without the quote marks) "(not code)" which is very

ambiguous. Since then, even though he has more clearly explained what

he meant (which you say is wrong), numerous posts have killed the horse

about him allegedly saying prohibited.



In my universe, when someone says "XYZ is no longer code" it can
only mean that the code has been updated so that XYZ is no longer
allowed per code for new work. That is how it's been used here
in AHR in every case
that I can recall. At least by anyone who knows what they are
talking about. I guess it would be better if it was actually
stated as "XYZ is no longer code for new work".

But however you morph it, the statement that ground wires,
for example, from the panel to metal water service pipes,
house metal piping system is "no longer code" is just wrong.
Even if you want to try to claim he meant *required*, it's
still wrong.