On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:33:53 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"Wes Groleau" wrote in message



stuff snipped



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

meant.



What he said and what he meant are both incorrect.





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?



It's not a tiny issue when you tell someone to go looking
for ground connections to water pipes and that if they find
them, "It;s no longer code"





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.



It's not nuances, numb nuts. If you have a metal water service pipe,
then it *must* be one of the grounding electrodes. The electrical
panel must be bonded to the metal water pipes in a house. So, per
YOUR advice, the guy goes looking, sees that, and according to you,
"It's no longer code". That isn't an exception, a nuance. It's that
you simply don;t know WTF you're talking about.

You knowledge base comes from watching a Verizon imbecile who
told you that he doesn't want to bring the phone service in
where the electrical service is. Instead, he chose to bring it
in elsewhere and run a long ground wire back to the system ground.
That is not the prefered and recommended way of doing it. And
more remarkable, from that, you concluded that it's "no longer code
to have ground connections to water pipes". Try reading the NEC.



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.

No **** Sherlock. Yet YOU sent him out to do that. To figure out what
a ground connection to water pipe is, without even knowing what it looks
like, what it does, what code is, etc. And you told him
that if he finds any, "They are no longer code", which is BS.



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."


What on earth are you talking about? It's perfectly permissible
to use water pipes as part of the ground system today in new work. In fact,
in many cases, it's required. It's also required to bond the panel
to the metal water pipes. So, he sees a clamp, a wire running
from his water pipes to the panel, and per your admonition, "It's
no longer code." The NEC says you're wrong.






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.

You ignore it at the point that it's clear that I'm right
and you don't know what you're talking about.




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.


It's not argumentive quagmire when you have the NEC on your side.
It only appears that way to you, because you're wrong and don't know
WTF you're talking about.