Ah, that "reasonably" word again ... but yes, I think that wording rings a bell!"Could reasonably be expected" IIRC
Kind Regards, John
Ah, that "reasonably" word again ... but yes, I think that wording rings a bell!"Could reasonably be expected" IIRC
Define "rejects" and "going on and on".When a diyer wants to add a socket should we "go on and on" (to the same OP) about RCD Protection?
- Yes. If OP 'rejects' advice re required RCD protection, we should keep "going on and on" about it.
- No. Just make the OP aware of the requirement for RCD protection, but don't keep repeating it
Ah, on reflection, I think that I now realise why it won't let me turn the 'publicly viewable' facility back on - it wouldn't be fair to allow that to be done after some people had, or may have, voted in the belief that their vote was secret (and, obviously, without their having seen such a 'warning' message). Although, after a day or two, no-one has expressed a desire that such should not be done, I therefore suspect that the mods would refuse to (or be unable to) turn it back on, even if I asked them to.Fair enough, although I'm pretty sure I saw a notice come up when voting which specifically said something along the lines of "Your vote will be publicly viewable."
I think the meaning of the latter is self-evident, particularly after one has read the alternative, 'No' response.Define "rejects" and "going on and on".When a diyer wants to add a socket should we "go on and on" (to the same OP) about RCD Protection?
Yes. If OP 'rejects' advice re required RCD protection, we should keep "going on and on" about it.
No. Just make the OP aware of the requirement for RCD protection, but don't keep repeating it
Only if you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between gratuitously repeating the same advice and entering into a discussion in which you challenge things that the OP says to try to justify his position.I think the meaning of the latter is self-evident, particularly after one has read the alternative, 'No' response.
Is that anything like gratuitously repeating the same opinion, without citing anything to support it, in the hope that if you say it enough times people will actually believe it to be fact?gratuitously repeating the same advice.
The latter is, IMO, only a reasonable approach if the OP is a willing participant in such a 'discussion'. If the OP does not wish to 'discuss' but is repeatedly 'challenged' to justify his position, then I think that moves things into essentially the former of your two scenarios. Attempting to intimidate or bully people into responding to repeated 'challenges' is, IMO, even worse.Only if you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between gratuitously repeating the same advice and entering into a discussion in which you challenge things that the OP says to try to justify his position.I think the meaning of the latter is self-evident, particularly after one has read the alternative, 'No' response.
Ah, that's it, thank you!"Could reasonably be expected" IIRC
Perhaps, but I would think most of us understand what's being suggested by the term in this context. For example:I think the meaning of the latter is self-evident, particularly after one has read the alternative, 'No' response.
I agree that "rejects" is far less than ideal, but it was a consequence of the character limit.
Indeed - as I went on to say ...Perhaps, but I would think most of us understand what's being suggested by the term in this context. For example: ...
... However, I think that everyone understands what is meant. I cannot believe that even the most enthusiastic of "go-on-and-on-ers" would "go on and on" about RCD protection after an OP had indicated that they were taking the advice given and were going to provide RCD protection!
Like the way you repeat the same assertion that it is lawful to not make reasonable provision for safety etc, in the hope that if you say it enough times people will actually believe it to be fact?Is that anything like gratuitously repeating the same opinion, without citing anything to support it, in the hope that if you say it enough times people will actually believe it to be fact?
Indeed - I think that (nearly!) all of us can understand a person thinking like that. However, that doesn't alter my view that we need to ensure that the person is aware of that 'requirement', even if (s)he is not going to comply with it.I can well understand that a person who has 40 sockets in his house, none of them RCD protected, might think it absurd to use an RCD protected socket when he fits the 41st.
Quite so - that's the point ... and it's not going to work, anyway, particularly if the haranguing is done in a "bull in a china shop" fashion by someone who hasn't even heard of "interpersonal skills"!How much time is it worth to anyone, haranguing him to change his mind?
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local