On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 20:23:58 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article t, HorneTD wrote:


That is why the appeals process will presume that the authors of the
code intended it to make sense. It is a basic principle of law that the
writers of the rule in question did not mean to require what cannot be
done nor to forbid what must be done. Since you must apply solder to
the conductors in order to fuse it to the metal the code cannot be
construed to make that impossible. The code language is only intended
to prevent the use of solder as a means of mechanical attachment of a
conductor to a terminal or for the mechanical stability of a splice. A
mechanical splice is "mechanically and electrically secure" without
solder but it will not remain that way if you do not solder it.

That's absurd. If it won't remain that way without solder, it isn't
"mechanically secure without solder".

Best stop making sense before you actually effect someone.