In article ,
says...

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...

I quoted the NEC only because Igor asked for a specific
provision of the NEC that supported my assertion that using
his "panel" as he originally suggested would be a
violation.

Sorry - did not see that.

No wonder you felt like you were guessing at what I meant.



I don't know how to help if your objection is that an
individual post may be ambiguous after earlier posts have
been snipped in follow-ups, and when taken out of the
context of the entire thread.


Nope - that's not my objection Ned. I had missed at least some of the
replies in this thread. I read all that I saw, but obviously not all of
them made it to me from my ISP. There seems to be only a couple or a few
replies that I did not receive for some reason, so viewed in the context of
what appeared to have been a complete discussion, your later comments did
not make sense. At least now they do and I understand what you are trying
to say. Thanks for hanging in there on this one.


I should have realized earlier something was amiss; my
earliest post showed up on one machine here, but not the
other. I was afraid you were going to insist that each post
stand on its own as if it were a formal research paper g.
Glad we were able to avoid a shouting match.

Ned Simmons