I'd agree with that last point, although I can see merit in the counter-argument that such use is so widespread that it is de-facto reasonable, and can't be regarded as poor workmanship.
But it's another example of "not the same" - the OP has, through negligence, used a cable which he clearly should not have done. There is no way that such negligence can be regarded as good workmanship.
But it's another example of "not the same" - the OP has, through negligence, used a cable which he clearly should not have done. There is no way that such negligence can be regarded as good workmanship.