Re: Far Side Chat -- Fire Alarm Code Issue

["Frank Olson" <feolson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

<securitymission@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1114623656.638416.235180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Frank, you and I know that in retrofit situations, the AHJ hardly ever
> gets a phone call. So, you will always find tradesmen who will install
> stuff to suit themselves all the while ignoring code.  What I published
> is not new and the issue of dealing in two venues, one code compliant
> and the other not, is not new as well.

Check.  What you stated however was completely code compliant.  Robert
disagreed and he's been proven wrong...  *again*.  I'm concerned with
providing the very best the industry has to offer to my customers and I
don't believe in compromising one thing just to get an order.  If any of my
people did this, they'd be hustled out the door so fast the rubber on the
soles of their shoes would melt from the friction.


>
> When the AHJ sees nothing wrong with it, it's a go. When the AHJ says
> no, it's no.  The world of code has two distinctly different venues as
> well.  One is what's in the book and the other one is what's in the
> field.  Some of us go entirely by the book for everything we do, some
> of us don't even own a code book and know nothing about what's in one,
> and the other of us try to go by the book when it's practical while
> doing what seems right for the client. I see no absolute black and
> white associated with this issue.

That's interesting.  I live in a world of absolutes.  I don't compromise
life safety.  There is no "cheap solution" or "fix".  Period.  What I took
exception to was Robert's assertion that you were wrong in that what you
suggested was a code violation.  It's not.  Robert's frequently accused me
of not knowing "US Code" (or any code for that matter) and that I don't
install for a living.  I've proven him wrong on the one, and drat!  We're
out of apple pies!  :-)


>
> I respect your position, for where you now stand I stood at one time.
> Believe me, I'm a dealer through and through, and what I write should
> show that.  I guess I can't please everyone, although I sure try to.
> It's a difficult business I am in, but someone has to do it. :-)

It's not that difficult I should think.  Nice office.  Nice computer.
Probably a nice secretary too.  When do I start??  :-))


>
> Wait until you read my June story before you pass final judgement on
> where I stand.

I'm glad you've decided to "clarify" the matter somewhat either way.  That's
what I call being a "professional".


> Frankly (no pun intended), if you want to know my
> personal opinion on this issue, if I were in business again, I would
> not use this method of connection.  NOT because of code, but because of
> the possible legal issues.  My story goes into this area as well to a
> small degree.  Believe me, I present both sides of the arguement and I
> believe I presented them fairly.

I couldn't give a "tinkers damn" over the "legalities".  I do right by my
customers and sleep very well at night to boot.


>
> Unfortunately, I wrote it before Robert Bass ever raised the question,
> so I did not quote anyone who has discussed this issue in the news
> group.  Perhaps we can all work together on a story of some kind in the
> future though.  Would you and others who frequent this news group be
> willing to do that?

Having written several articles for other journals as well as hosted a
couple of radio talk shows that discussed security issues, I certainly
wouldn't mind one bit.


>
> Thanks for being concerned about this industry enough to voice your
> opposition to what I wrote.  I thank Robert Bass as well.  It's always
> good to have the other take on things.  Believe me, I don't take any of
> this personal, or I certainly try not to.

I'm still trying to get over the "frankly" pun...  Grrr!!!