On 17/04/2018 11:38, John Rumm wrote:
On 17/04/2018 03:58, Bill Wright wrote:
"A live wire is a wire with current flowing through it. Because neutral
doesn't have any current in it, but line does, you could say that line
is live. This explains why that you can be shocked from touching just
the line. You can't be by touching just the neutral or ground. Line to
neutral is the most deadliest if it travels across you. Line to ground
will tingle a lot, but it won't necessarily kill you because the current
draw isn't nearly as much as line to neutral."

from: http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_line_wir...lled_live_wire

Well its wrong on so many levels... the daft comment about line to earth
being less deadly than line to neutral is perhaps the stand out bit of
"dumbness"!



Unless you read it in the context of US (and possibly French and other
continental?) systems, where neutral isn't.

But yes, the problem of allowing idiots to crowdsource.

On a more philosophical point, I think it is fair to say that most of
"our" generation treats all traditional "advertising" as damned lies.

What I'd be interested to know is to what extent the snowflake
generation apply the same skepticism to anything on-line. A lot of
people seem to be quick to cry "Photoshop", but I worry whether the
percentage is high enough.

I guess you are never going to stop more suggestible individuals from
getting drawn into the self-reinforcing stuff, be it islamic
radicalisation or something on the opposite wing. Which poses *really*
interesting and difficult questions of internet regulation.

Anyway, I'm calling for cynics and skeptics to unite under the 1660
motto of the Royal Society, "Nullius in verba"!

(For those without the benefit of a classical education, "Take nobody's
word for it").