"Wes Groleau" wrote in message

stuff snipped

I'm not the one anxious to "claim" things, but I READ what he said he
meant.

In my universe, we try to understand people before we correct them.

You're a man of integrity in both universes, Mr. Spock - er, I mean Mr.
Groleau. (-:

What I find most interesting is how this tiny side issue is so far removed
from the critical question: What should someone do if they are getting
shocked from plumbing fixtures?

Instead, three words that I added as a parenthetical aside have become a
target for Chet's relentless, withering criticism. Why? Because I didn't
somehow manage to enumerated all the changes, exceptions and nuances to
device grounding in the NEC in those three vague words. It's really just
remarkable.

If that's all he's got, I feel vindicated. Chet readily admits that the OP
didn't have the smarts to even understand the rather simple process of
mapping all wire connections to the water pipes. Yet in the next post he
goes down into the ground *beneath* the weeds talking about exceptions and
grandfathered sections of the code in a desperate attempt to prove me wrong
about *something.* What's that credit card ad say? "It's priceless."

I suppose ignoring the original problem to fight over some minor tangent is
a grand old Usenet tradition as well. )-:

Despite his contumacious tendencies, I would still value Chet's advice on
the first go-round of a "murder board" trying to analyze a problem and
uncover the essential facts. Sadly I would almost always have to exclude
him from the detailed problem solving phase because of his tendency to flog
a dead horse into pony pate. Once he gets a missile lock, true or false,
that's all that he sees from that point forward and the conversation rapidly
devolves to just being argumentative quagmire. It's really a shame to let
one's ire cancel out one's insight. It is comforting, though, to read that
other people understood what I was trying to say. .

--
Bobby G.