Thread: AFCI question

Master bedroom. The entry to the bathroom does not have a door. You can see in the picture where it starts by the tile on the floor. There are two closets, one on each side. Are these closets considered part of the bathroom or part of the bedroom. There is no AFCI protection here.

Similar Threads:

• Smoke detector --AFCI?
• Smoke Detectors on AFCI Bedroom Circuit
• Proposed AFCI requirements-- discussion
• AFCI and GFCI Question
• AFCI in conversion to condo

In NC it has to have a closet to be considered a bedroom. So I would think if they are selling it as a bedroom the closets are in the bedroom.

I always wrote those up for lacking AFCI protection as the closets are part of the bedroom. At least common sense-wise, the codes do not define either precisely enough to address that with code, besides, as far as HI goes (is this new construction?) I always tried to keep it with current safety standards, which means the 2008 NEC (even though not enforced or adopted in Florida) as those are "the current national standard" and the 2008 NEC states:

(underlining is mine)
- 210.12 Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection.
- - (A) Definition: Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupter (AFCI). A device intended to provide protection from the effects of arc faults by recognizing characteristics unique to arcing and by functioning to de-energize the circuit when an arc fault is detected.
- - (B) Dwelling Units. All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation rooms, closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter, combination-type, installed to provide protection of the branch circuit.
- - - FPN No. 1: For information on types of arc-fault circuit interrupters, see UL 1699-1999, Standard for Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupters.
- - - FPN No. 2: See 11.6.3(5) of NFPA 72®-2007, National Fire Alarm Code®, for information related to secondary power supply requirements for smoke alarms installed in dwelling units.
- - - FPN No. 3: See 760.41(B) and 760.121(B) for power-supply requirements for fire alarm systems.
- - - Exception No. 1: Where RMC, IMC, EMT or steel armored cable, Type AC, meeting the requirements of 250.118 using metal outlet and junction boxes is installed for the portion of the branch circuit between the branch-circuit overcurrent device and the first outlet, it shall be permitted to install a combination AFCI at the first outlet to provide protection for the remaining portion of the branch circuit.
- - - Exception No. 2: Where a branch circuit to a fire alarm system installed in accordance with 760.41(B) and 760.121(B) is installed in RMC, IMC, EMT, or steel armored cable, Type AC, meeting the requirements of 250.118, with metal outlet and junction boxes, AFCI protection shall be permitted to be omitted.

That clarifies their intent.

Jerrry,

House is 2007.

Question. If there was a door there, would it then be part of the bathroom and not need AFCI.

Originally Posted by william siegel

Jerrry,

House is 2007.

Question. If there was a door there, would it then be part of the bathroom and not need AFCI.

Bill,

Yes, if there was a door there, then the confines of the bathroom are now delineated at the door, in which case those would not need to be AFCI by the 2005 NEC, however, by the 2008 NEC, those would still be "closets" and would still require AFCI protection.

Now, to look at the bedroom/bathroom from another point of view - With no door, is the bedroom part of the bathroom and do those receptacles in the bedroom need to meet the requirements for receptacles in a bathroom? Just food for thought.

Without a door it seems obvious you have a continuous area, i.e. Bedroom Suite. This would include the vanity & basin we see.

This appears to be an area accessible from within the home only through and a part of the bedroom (including the apparent master bathroom and dressing area).

2005 NEC is definitive.

Similar rulings can be found for example the "whirl pool which is on the "bedroom side" of the bathroom area in a master bedroom suite. For example, the area required both Arc Fault protection as well as Class A GFCI. Early Combo breakers did not have Class A GFCI it was GFE. The workaround was Arc fault OCPD and local GFCI (dead front or combo devices).

The suite would also not be allowed a gas-fired clothes drier or an open flame gas-fired appliance (DV specifically listed excepted). (Not on-topic in this case but helpful on point when applying the codes for this area to ask yourself that question).

I would make mention of the absence of arc fault protection for any electrical area in the entirety of this bedroom suite (including the basin and/or bathroom area) including any switch loops which the item being switched is outside of the suite (such as deck lighting or a 3-way switch for a light in the dressing/basin area, etc.).

Anything not covered by GFCI needs to be protected by arc fault. The sink basin area is part of the bath even with out a door.

Again, the new standards are bedrooms living rooms, closet etc, etc, must be protected by arc fault. A sink or just a toilet or just a shower or just a tub or garage or exterior or basement or any combination is considered a wet area and needs GFCI protection all else needs arc fault protection.

Again door or no door the sink area is wet. The closet is part of the bedroom to be considered a bedroom. It needs arc fault.

Why are people trying to apply a code that has a date after the construction date? This house was built in 07 according to the OP.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Why are people trying to apply a code that has a date after the construction date? This house was built in 07 according to the OP.

Because of the lack of the thing that is not so common called "Common Sense".

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I always wrote those up for lacking AFCI protection as the closets are part of the bedroom. At least common sense-wise, the codes do not define either precisely enough to address that with code, besides, as far as HI goes (is this new construction?) I always tried to keep it with current safety standards, which means the 2008 NEC (even though not enforced or adopted in Florida) as those are "the current national standard" and the 2008 NEC states:

How do you consider a closet as part of the sleeping area? Again you are inserting your personal opinion where none is required.

Have you forgotten that the code is not retroactive? Yes, you could state that todays standards are different, but that does not mean that you can enforce a later code not in effect at a earlier date. Receptacle replacement is the only exception to this that I can think of.

As laid out in the picture, the closets are neither bath nor bedroom ... they're off the hallway. Not that it matters; I see no requirement that receptacles in any sort of closet be protected in any special manner. Or, for that matter, that the lights be protected in any special manner.

Applying today's codes to yesterday's work has been discussed. As a matter of law, it's simply not allowed. If someone wishes to assert that something could be done in a better way, that ought to be clearly expressed as an opinion, without any suggestion that there is anything 'wrong' present.

Granted, the 2008 NEC does require AFCI's on closet outlets ... while the GFCI requirements are for bathrooms, and make no mention of bath closets.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

How do you consider a closet as part of the sleeping area? Again you are inserting your personal opinion where none is required.

That was answered above by Vern. And by virtue that we have been through the discussion of "what makes a bedroom a bedroom" many times and I did not want to side track this into that REPEAT discussion.

Originally Posted by Rollie Meyers

Because of the lack of the thing that is not so common called "Common Sense".

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Have you forgotten that the code is not retroactive?

I expected nothing less in those types of "intelligent questions" from you too. And was expecting the same from Watson too.

Yes, you could state that todays standards are different, but that does not mean that you can enforce a later code not in effect at a earlier date. Receptacle replacement is the only exception to this that I can think of.

Rollie, Jim, least you forget (and I guess you have), so I will REPEAT it here (it has been repeated here on this board many times, but some people just refuse to read what they read - happens all the time):

Home inspectors cannot enforce anything.

Got that this time?

If so, repeat it three times out loud, then write it 100 times on the board in front of the entire class: "Home inspectors cannot enforce anything."

Okay, now back to the beginning, if you guys are done writing it on the board, otherwise you will just have to catch up on your own ...

For those who actually read what I posted, they do not need me repeating it here, however, for those who are trying to drag this to the lower level, I will do so once ... ONCE ... more.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

At least common sense-wise, the codes do not define either precisely enough to address that with code,

That clarifies their intent.

Is it a bedroom? Is it a bathroom? I like the term Watson used, "Master suite", however, it has no place in the code as it is an unenforceable term.

I think Ted has the right idea.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

Anything not covered by GFCI needs to be protected by arc fault. The sink basin area is part of the bath even with out a door.

Again door or no door the sink area is wet. The closet is part of the bedroom to be considered a bedroom. It needs arc fault.

With no defining door, ... what is it? Is it a bedroom/bathroom? That is the closest defining term, but is not in the code, however, (here we go again Rollie and Jim - are you through writing on the board yet?) home inspectors need to use common sense as codes are "minimums" and do not, cannot, address each and every case, nor can the definitions in the code, so, addressing it as a bedroom/bathroom puts everything which is not GFCI protected on AFCI protection.

Makes sense.

Enforceable by code? Who knows? I can tell you that NONE of the posters above knows (myself included, but I doubt that the other three have the wherewithal to admit that about themselves).

Bill,

For the record, I would go with what Ted said, makes sense and is a 'safe' bet for the occupants, your clients.

As the original Poster kinda asked "what if" as far as what if folks answered the what if in their opinion.

What we have here in Texas whether it be old or just built we have to make note of Arc fault or no arc fault so I guess in our sense we have to figure what is what. A bedroom cannot be designated a bedroom with out a closet so for that matter the closet would be part of the bedroom and the sink area would still be a wet area requiring GFCI.

Again it was more of a what if as I saw it.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

I would make mention of the absence of arc fault protection for any electrical area in the entirety of this bedroom suite (including the basin and/or bathroom area) including any switch loops which the item being switched is outside of the suite (such as deck lighting or a 3-way switch for a light in the dressing/basin area, etc.).

Since the equipment is outside the bedroom there is no need for the AFCI protection unless it was in one of the other areas mentioned in 210.12 (B).

A switch loop does not meet the defintion of an outlet and would not require AFCI protection.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Yes, if there was a door there, then the confines of the bathroom are now delineated at the door, in which case those would not need to be AFCI by the 2005 NEC, however, by the 2008 NEC, those would still be "closets" and would still require AFCI protection.

Why would a door to the bathroom delinate the area any differently than a door to the closet would remove it from the bedroom? Prior versions did not say bedrooms and bedroom closets. Again you are reading your opinion into something that was not written.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Why would a door to the bathroom delinate the area any differently than a door to the closet would remove it from the bedroom?

Because a bathroom door delineate THE BATHROOM area from the BEDROOM area, and both have specific specified requirements.

Prior versions did not say bedrooms and bedroom closets. Again you are reading your opinion into something that was not written.

Correct, the previous editions left that unspecified and up to the AHJ as to what was included in a "bedroom", and all that I have worked with and talked with *included* "the bedroom closet" as "part of the bedroom".

The 2008 simply "clarified" those decisions as being the correct decisions by specifically including "closets" in the new wording.

Thus, in addition to expanding the scope of AFCI protection, the 2008 NEC also "clarified" various "unspecified" issues which existed previously.

The easiest and next best "clarification" would be to state that *ALL* dwelling unit circuits 'shall be AFCI protected except circuits which are GFCI protected' ... not which have GFCI receptacle outlets on them, but "circuits" as that is what is being protected by AFCI, "circuits" which are not GFCI protected.

Then, soon enough, some manufacturer will develop a combination GFCI/AFCI and even GFCI circuits can be required to have AFCI protection.

Bedroom suite is a code term, just not specific to the NEC. But, if you look into the hierarcy of codes referenced (oooh the sections before 100) and peruse further you would know.

Bedrooms with sinks are common. Sinks are not critical to the NEC definition of a bathroom. A sink in a bedroom does not mean it is a bathroom. Without another qualifying fixture in the same area the presence of a lavatory sink itself and alone nor the change in floor covering does not define the area as bathroom area.

2005 NEC was very specific and broad regarding arc fault protection for bedrooms.

Hydromassage bathtubs are frequently delineated in the bedroom suite not in the code defined bathroom.

The CMPs have a multitude of commentary on the subject of the AFCI and what is and is not a bedroom for the three prior code cycles that encorporated AFCI prior to the 2008 edition of the NEC.

What defines a suite versus a room is covered from a variety of codes.

The contra argument regarding suites and bathroom or toilet room areas of same with regards to dedicated circuits and GFCI protections as well as the area of a bedroom not a bathroom which hosts a hydromassage tub or a bath tub and which exclusions regarding lighting has also been addressed by three different CMPs over the years.

A certain person's ability to devine "the truth" from the black and white written word without benefit of the discussion and rulings from the CMP that authored the language of the edition is worthless. When a certain person declares something isn't the case he feels justified and self-vindicated because no matter what is presented he will argue it doesn't exist, demand we ignore the language, begin a Clinton-esque discussion "on what the meaning of 'is' is", or begin personal attacks and stupendous off-topic diatribes.

The difference between gleaning what the codes say on a subject versus devining what the Bible is supposed to mean is that the authors of the codes are living and the commentary is docummented. Like our laws, when the courts seek further guidance as to the intended meaning they look to the record on the construction of the language, the debate, etc.

Dressing areas, closets, area laundry, and private bath and toilet facilities even coffee/snack bars with refridgerators encorporated into a bathroom suite are not new or novel occurances, neither are loft-type open living spaces with out walls or few walls or doors.

Our respective authorities having jurisdiction have adopted different layers of model codes or self-authored codes with ammendments.

Your best answer is from your local authority having jurisdiction, for a comprehensive and complete list of what the codes/editions are in effect and the historical adoptions.

One can state an observed fact - the dressing area closet lighting in the bedroom suite does not appear to have AFCI protection.

It is unfortunate that UL recently went through a complete revamp of their on-line site and site-map. There were some great articles from staff who sat on the CMPs that were fantastic, and directly on point. Sadly they no longer remain accessible.

(underlining and red text is my highlighting)

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Bedrooms with sinks are common. Sinks are not critical to the NEC definition of a bathroom.

Say what?

Have you ever read the definition of a "bathroom" in the NEC?

In case you have not, and it sounds that way, here it is:

Bathroom. An area including a basin with one or more of the following: a toilet, a tub, or a shower.

A "bathroom" *IS ONLY* a "bathroom" when a sink "basin" is present with one or more of the other items.

The SINK (basin) IS THE ONLY common critical condition in the NEC definition of a bathroom.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I expected nothing less in those types of "intelligent questions" from you too. And was expecting the same from Watson too.

You started your Ad hominem long before I ever participated on this string.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

For those who actually read what I posted, they do not need me repeating it here, however, for those who are trying to drag this to the lower level, I will do so once ... ONCE ... more.

Obviously not one to practice what he preaches.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Is it a bedroom? Is it a bathroom? I like the term Watson used, "Master suite", however, it has no place in the code as it is an unenforceable term.

No where did I use the QUOTED term. I used the term "Bedroom Suite" and the term "Bedroom". I also used the term "Bathroom". I used the phrase "master bathroom", I used the phrase "master bedroom suite".

Nowhere did I use a term "Master suite".

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

You started your Ad hominem long before I ever participated on this string.

After you showed what you do. Besides, you are implying something which is not being done.

You are the one which is frequently asked to answer the contentions and instead do otherwise. As you do when you let your intellect fall aside and appeal to prejudices and feelings.

I have defended you in some PMs, saying that I see glimpses of brilliance, if only you would get off your high horse and come down and talk with us and walk with us. I know you can be an asset here, just not where it now sets.

Obviously not one to practice what he preaches.

No, you are not.

No where did I use the QUOTED term. I used the term "Bedroom Suite" and the term "Bedroom". I also used the term "Bathroom". I used the phrase "master bathroom", I used the phrase "master bedroom suite".

Nowhere did I use a term "Master suite".

Is that an acknowledgment that, in the NEC, a "bathroom" has only one common critical element/condition - a basin (sink) ?

Or is that supposed to be a diversionary tactic to avoid that issue?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

After you showed what you do. Besides, you are implying something which is not being done.

You are the one which is frequently asked to answer the contentions and instead do otherwise. As you do when you let your intellect fall aside and appeal to prejudices and feelings.

I have defended you in some PMs, saying that I see glimpses of brilliance, if only you would get off your high horse and come down and talk with us and walk with us. I know you can be an asset here, just not where it now sets.



No, you are not.



Is that an acknowledgment that, in the NEC, a "bathroom" has only one common critical element/condition - a basin (sink) ?

Or is that supposed to be a diversionary tactic to avoid that issue?

You mentioned me before I ever contributed to this string. You cannot rewrite history now. Your justifications and explanations don't hold water.

You are full of diversionary tactics such as misquoting and putting words together and attributing them to others, in this case you misquoted me. Untruthful attributions and fabricated quotes. You are doing it. Stop it.

The presence of a lavitory in and by itself in a continuous compartment bedroom in no way defines a bathroom.

The original poster has not provided information regarding a toilet, a shower, or a bathtub in his original post nor in his photograph.

A clothes closet is defined regarding luminaires(fixtures) in the 2005 NEC.
It is not in general definitions, it can be found specific to the lighting issue/question. That definition may be found at 410.8(A). The definition of a clothes closet does not require a door.

Lots of terms aren't defined in the NEC they don't have to be.

You may find the definitions of Guest Room and Guest Suite inspiring. Or 2005's Lighting Outlet.

Seems almost silly some of the definitions having to be added to Article 100. Mostly due to nonsense Clintonesque debates such as what IS is.

The NEC is NOT the only code which pertains to the Original Poster's inquiry.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

A sink in a bedroom does not mean it is a bathroom. Without another qualifying fixture in the same area the presence of a lavatory sink itself and alone nor the change in floor covering does not define the area as bathroom area.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

(underlining and red text is my highlighting)


Say what?

Have you ever read the definition of a "bathroom" in the NEC?

In case you have not, and it sounds that way, here it is:

Bathroom. An area including a basin with one or more of the following: a toilet, a tub, or a shower.

A "bathroom" *IS ONLY* a "bathroom" when a sink "basin" is present with one or more of the other items.


The SINK (basin) IS THE ONLY common critical condition in the NEC definition of a bathroom.

If you slowed down enough to read what HG posted you would see that he said a basin by itself does not make a bathroom. He never said that you could have a bathroom without the sink.

Slow down and follow the discussion instead of thinking that everyone else is always wrong.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

You mentioned me before I ever contributed to this string. You cannot rewrite history now. Your justifications and explanations don't hold water.

Jeez, Watson, you need to go back an re-read what you are harping on, re-read your posts, and re-read my posts ...

I'm not re-writing history, I'm only pointing out the history YOU wrote.

You are full of diversionary tactics such as misquoting and putting words together and attributing them to others, in this case you misquoted me. Untruthful attributions and fabricated quotes. You are doing it. Stop it.

My, my, are we touchy today. I'm not mis-quoting you, you are mis-quoting me and yourself.

Go back and re-read those posts.

You know, for someone who keeps saying "Stop it.", you sure do NOT stop it, you keep going, and going, and going.

I guess you are trying to push it to the limit and get Brian to give us ANOTHER note and send us to the principals office?

Either you can dish it out and you take it in return, or, quite simply, do as YOU SAY and ... what it is you say ... oh, right ... "Stop it."

It is very distracting for all the members of this board for these discussions to continue to take up so many posts, so, maybe, (or maybe not) ... maybe you will do as you say and "Stop it."?

{quote]The presence of a lavitory in and by itself in a continuous compartment bedroom in no way defines a bathroom.[/quote]

Watson, you really do need to learn to read what is written. The presence of the basin (sink) - there you go mis-quoting me again, *I* did not say "lavitory", besides, if I did, I would have spelled it correctly ... lavatory ... - ... no one said the presence of a basin (sink) in the contiguous room defined it as a bathroom, only that a basin (sink) *IS* required by the NEC as part of the NEC bathroom definition.

You said it was not. Like when you said the pool light required GFCI protection, and it did not. Not then, and not now, have you, or will you likely, admit you were wrong. But the simple matter is that you were then and are now ... wrong.

The original poster has not provided information regarding a toilet, a shower, or a bathtub in his original post nor in his photograph.

You may find the definitions of Guest Room and Guest Suite inspiring.

No, I do find them INTERESTING.

Did you know (apparently not) that "Guest Suite" is only mentioned in one place in the NEC? Tis true. "Guest Suite" *is only found in the definitions*, there is no reference to it.

Did you know (apparently not) that "Guest Room" is only mentioned in two places in the NEC? Tis true. "Guest Room" is only found in the definitions and here (which is not applicable to dwelling units, so I have no idea why you are trying to pull that up, unless you are trying to back-up something you said wrong and trying to make it appear as being right):
- 210.70 Lighting Outlets Required.
- - (B) Guest Rooms or Guest Suites. In hotels, motels, or similar occupancies, guest rooms or guest suites shall have at least one wall switch–controlled lighting outlet installed in every habitable room and bathroom.
- - - (there are two exceptions to those requirements, however, being as the section does not apply to the room(s) under discussion there is no need to post them here)

Seems almost silly some of the definitions having to be added to Article 100. Mostly due to nonsense Clintonesque debates such as what IS is.

Ha-ha, now your true self is showing , now it is apparent and obvious why you are the way you are. You must be a 'W' man, although, I must admit (in a positive manner) that at least you seem to be able to write.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

If you slowed down enough to read what HG posted you would see that he said a basin by itself does not make a bathroom. He never said that you could have a bathroom without the sink.

Jim,

Go back an re-read what Watson wrote. That is not what he said. Now YOU are mis-quoting him, trying to help him out of his hole.

Actually, you can't go back and re-read it because he edited it and changed it.

However, and being as I quoted him in my post, his original statement is here forever.

(this is what Watson said)

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Bedrooms with sinks are common. Sinks are not critical to the NEC definition of a bathroom.

I find it incredulous that someone who is supposedly so much on "doing things right" that they would go back and "correct" their post to make it seem as though they never said what they said, then try to lead us all to believe that, hey, he never said that.

Shocking I tell you.

(underlining and red text is my highlighting)

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Bedrooms with sinks are common. Sinks are not critical to the NEC definition of a bathroom.

This is what I said in response:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

(underlining and red text is my highlighting)

Say what?

Have you ever read the definition of a "bathroom" in the NEC?

In case you have not, and it sounds that way, here it is:

Bathroom. An area including a basin with one or more of the following: a toilet, a tub, or a shower.

A "bathroom" *IS ONLY* a "bathroom" when a sink "basin" is present with one or more of the other items.

The SINK (basin) IS THE ONLY common critical condition in the NEC definition of a bathroom.

Jim, did you realize you were backing up someone who changed what they said, to make it look right, when it was not? I am hoping it is because you were just fooled and did not know what was really said.

I guess I'll throw my dog in the fight too.

HI are under different regulations than code inspectors.

Code inspectors inspect and make decisions on whatever code was adopted at the time of construction.

HI's write up (give their opinion) on items that are not in compliance with todays standards. They are not under the same rules and regulations as code inspectors.

As far as the original post. It is all in the interpretation of whomever is looking at a certain situation as to what is or is not a bathroom, bedroom, door, no door or what constitutes separation or what constitutes what. It's all in each individuals opinion (interpreatation). I see it one way....you (you being another individual) see it another. In each of our minds we are the one's that determine what is what. I can read the code and read into it that it says blah blah. You can read the same code and determine it says halb halb halb. It's all in the interpretation.

Some times the code is in black and white then at other times there are a lot of grey areas.

Originally Posted by william siegel

Master bedroom. The entry to the bathroom does not have a door. You can see in the picture where it starts by the tile on the floor. There are two closets, one on each side. Are these closets considered part of the bathroom or part of the bedroom. There is no AFCI protection here.

Back to the original question:

My personal opinion is that the closets do not need AFCI protection. Frankly, I would not have even called it out or thought about it. This is just my opine, and as an inspector you need to make your own mind up.

As for homes built under different code versions? All I can say is that you do not grandfather safety.

Just think about the entire home having to be on AFCI protected circuits, it is not that far away! Will I mention this in my reports? I have not decided, but if I do it will be in the body of the report and I will not make an issue of it on every single home. Heck my area is still under the 2003 IRC, and they have plans on adopting 2006 next year.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Jeez, Watson, you need to go back an re-read what you are harping on, re-read your posts, and re-read my posts ...

I'm not re-writing history, I'm only pointing out the history YOU wrote.



My, my, are we touchy today. I'm not mis-quoting you, you are mis-quoting me and yourself.

Go back and re-read those posts.

You know, for someone who keeps saying "Stop it.", you sure do NOT stop it, you keep going, and going, and going.

I guess you are trying to push it to the limit and get Brian to give us ANOTHER note and send us to the principals office?

Either you can dish it out and you take it in return, or, quite simply, do as YOU SAY and ... what it is you say ... oh, right ... "Stop it."

It is very distracting for all the members of this board for these discussions to continue to take up so many posts, so, maybe, (or maybe not) ... maybe you will do as you say and "Stop it."?

{quote]The presence of a lavitory in and by itself in a continuous compartment bedroom in no way defines a bathroom.[/quote}

Watson, you really do need to learn to read what is written. The presence of the basin (sink) - there you go mis-quoting me again, *I* did not say "lavitory", besides, if I did, I would have spelled it correctly ... lavatory ... - ... no one said the presence of a basin (sink) in the contiguous room defined it as a bathroom, only that a basin (sink) *IS* required by the NEC as part of the NEC bathroom definition.

You said it was not. Like when you said the pool light required GFCI protection, and it did not. Not then, and not now, have you, or will you likely, admit you were wrong. But the simple matter is that you were then and are now ... wrong.

The original poster has not provided information regarding a toilet, a shower, or a bathtub in his original post nor in his photograph.



No, I do find them INTERESTING.

Did you know (apparently not) that "Guest Suite" is only mentioned in one place in the NEC? Tis true. "Guest Suite" *is only found in the definitions*, there is no reference to it.

Did you know (apparently not) that "Guest Room" is only mentioned in two places in the NEC? Tis true. "Guest Room" is only found in the definitions and here (which is not applicable to dwelling units, so I have no idea why you are trying to pull that up, unless you are trying to back-up something you said wrong and trying to make it appear as being right):
- 210.70 Lighting Outlets Required.
- - (B) Guest Rooms or Guest Suites. In hotels, motels, or similar occupancies, guest rooms or guest suites shall have at least one wall switch–controlled lighting outlet installed in every habitable room and bathroom.
- - - (there are two exceptions to those requirements, however, being as the section does not apply to the room(s) under discussion there is no need to post them here)



Ha-ha, now your true self is showing , now it is apparent and obvious why you are the way you are. You must be a 'W' man, although, I must admit (in a positive manner) that at least you seem to be able to write.

Jerry Peck, (And all who wish to follow along):

Take a look at the quoted temper tantrum you had above.

Pay special attention to those areas I have highlighted in Red. Note what has been bolded and underlined.

You don't bother to read what you cut and paste.

First you state the term Guest Suite appears nowhere but Article 100, then you proceed to quote a section where the term Guest Suite appears! Not suprised you didn't "get" the point you can't see the forest for the trees.



You continue to scrape the bottom of the barrel, it is you who display "your true colors".

Your word searches and frenzied copy and pasting activites and especially your tantrums and off-topic off-color personal attacks do us all a disservice.

We all don't spend every waking moment on this and other web sites - by the time some of us plunk down to ask a question or make a contribution we're tired, fingers might not be working 100% and occasionally WE ALL have a brain blip, mis-spell something, make a typo, and sometimes we're just too tired to see a spelling error. You yourself are frequently "guilty" of a variety of such.

To carry on about such as you do is a low-brow gutter tactic. The rest is just "garbage".

You make a regular habit of putting words in others mouths, twist, contort, misdirect, and hijack strings...often ignoring the original poster when they return to the string to clarify their question or issue and it gets burried in your activites. Often you IGNORE the original poster instead focusing on your EGO-driven WARFARE.

Dear readers,

The report button appears on the lower right corner of every post (when one is logged in). You can Private Message or email our host with your complaints. Anyone other than Jerry Peck is welcome to PM me at any time.

Sincerely,

H. G.

Hey, Watson, know what?

Yep, I missed that when I went through didn't I?

Hmmm, can you say that about the GFCI protection for the pool lights, or the whatever it was you went back and changed instead of acknowledging that you were incorrect?

In fact, you have not admitted to being wrong at any of the times you've been wrong, how about that.

Question: By the way, how can we trust someone who goes back and edits out incorrect information and tries to not acknowledge they were wrong?

Answer: We can't.

I guess my effort to call you HG was for naught, so, as you wish, Watson it will be.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

The report button appears on the lower right corner of every post (when one is logged in).

Yep, I used that for your post. Thanks, but I already knew it was there.

You can Private Message or email our host with your complaints. Anyone other than Jerry Peck is welcome to PM me at any time.

Sincerely,

H. G.

Unlike Watson, I will welcome PMs from all at any time, even from trash talkers such as Watson.