A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: Hey Jim M. - One Question
Posted by:
Jim Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: February 19, 2007 02:58PM
Pat:
You are correct the entire statement justifying the committee’s actions reads just as you quoted. “The proposed language is redundant. All NFPA documents are ‘intended be used in accord with the intent of the NFPA.’”
You are also correct that the sentence I suggested be added to the document is, “It is intended this document be used with the intent of the National Fire Protection Association.”
Now you say, “When I voted affirmatively to reject your proposal, along with that Committee Statement, my intention was to let you down easy, without actually saying that your proposal simply didn’t make any sense.” So what this is saying is that what I was suggesting to appear in the document was redundant. That means it is already in the document. So what is being said is what I am saying des not make sense yet it is already in the document so there is no reason to put it in twice. Yea, that makes sense.
I do not mine others reading this and determining if I made sense or not with my proposal. I will say that the duplication of explanations is something that is done throughout the document. I also understand that there is a good chance personal preferences come to play when deciding on recommendations for the document. Considering the number of persons on the committee that have expressed this document is the standard of care for fire investigation, I would not expect acceptance of something that has an opposite point of view. What was accepted showed it was not a personality issue between me and the committee members but a difference of ideas. Presently they are in the position to control what is in the document.
Please do not mislead people with your comments as to my opinions. Mine are clearly stated here and other places. When you said, “Also,where in the world did you or anyone ever get the idea that Pat Kennedy, or the committee, or the NFPA ever hold that 921 was mandatory,” this does not clearly portray my opinion on the subject and you know it. It can not be much clearer that I believe that the National Fire Protection Association never has suggested this document was mandatory. Maybe you and some of the persons on the committee disagree with my definition of the “standard of care” but I believe that if something is considered the standard of care then it is mandatory. Would you be willing to agree that a person is negligent if the do not follow the accepted standard of care? If so, does it not mean that is 921 is the standard of care it is mandatory it be followed or the person can be held negligent? As I said, we may just have a difference in understanding the terminology and are both correct based on our beliefs.
Would you be willing to agree with the following statement? If all NFPA documents are intended be used in accord with the intent of the NFPA, it is the obvious conclusion that by making NFPA 921 a Guide instead of a Standard it was the NFPA’s intent this be a non-mandatory document and it should be only used as that type of document.