Always, a legitimate argument deserves a reply.

Harry, you've had more than ample time (even for an engineer, who by
trade reads slowly) to digest the hundred-or-so pages I led you to.

So, what are your impressions of NFPA 1123 and 1126?  (if you're
interested 1124 deals with manufacturing).

It's gotten awfully quiet since you condemned NFPA as an organization,
and since I gave you the information you requested.

Still no response?  That's more than rude, it's... nah... I'll let
that one rest.

LLoyd

This
makes me believe you have one Hell of a lot of spare time on your
hands. Do you actually still work full time for Nunzio Santore's son,
or like me are you retired and simply do consulting? Curous minds
want to know

hhc314 <hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> fired this volley in news:f4c8690a-6539-4b6e-
a208-c1b42f0fc... at (no spam) j3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

This
makes me believe you have one Hell of a lot of spare time on your
hands.  Do you actually still work full time for Nunzio Santore's son,
or like me are you retired and simply do consulting?  Curous minds
want to know

You're right about one thing;  your mind certainly is "curious", but not
in the inquisitive, exploring way.

I'm still working for the Santores.  We'll go on making and displaying
fireworks; I'll leave you to your simple consulting.

Harry, any reasonable person would assume all that you listed meant I
have NO spare time.  But since all you have to do is burn spare time, why
not spend a few of those "precious" minutes of yours to read and comment
on the NFPA code links I listed.

Here's a third prompt for you.  I know it's hard for you to "get it" on
the first or second go-round.

www.minhbao.vn/userfiles/file/A_NFPA1123.pdfwww.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/1126.PDF

And see?  I didn't even have to defy copyright laws to give them to you!

LLoyd

The consumer _believes_ a listed device is
"approved" by UL; it is not. Basically it means nothing except you paid
to have your device listed.

Lloyd, just as an afterthought, remember the Rhode Island night-club
disaster?

Proximate firewroks meeting NFPA guidelines, and do you remember how
many died?

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh writes:
The consumer _believes_ a listed device is
"approved" by UL; it is not. Basically it means nothing except you paid
to have your device listed.

More often it means the AC cord only is UL listed.  The appliance attached
to the cord is not.  There's a big business in making those listed cords
for unlisted appliances.

hhc314 <hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> fired this volley in news:5f36e49e-3bb4-4ec0-
9575-ad0f69c50... at (no spam) k39g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

Lloyd, just as an afterthought, remember the Rhode Island night-club
disaster?

Proximate firewroks meeting NFPA guidelines, and do you remember how
many died?

Harry?  Are you on dope?  There were no "proximate fireworks meeting NFPA
guidelines", unless you are confusing manufacturing standards with
display standards.  YOU have been spouting off for years about how inept  
practices can make even good fireworks dangerous.  Didn't you even take a
moment to find out what happened in that club?

The fireworks were shot without a permit or fire inspector approval in an
inappropriate venue (under an 8' styrofoam-lined ceiling) by an
unlicensed "pyrotechnician".  The devices (gerbs) were at least 15'
devices, and they impinged directly on the low, flammable ceiling for
several seconds before the fire began.

See? Again you're blaming NFPA for an illegal act that had nothing
whatsover to do with their standards.

LLoyd

So why do I have this hate of the NFPA and the CPSC (which bothers me
less), the cascade of state regulations based upon incompetent and
poorly thought-out NFPA guidelines is something that I personally
consider pathetic.

Here, before issuing a certificate of competency, MA requires a
personal and in-depth interview with the candidate, a check of his
criminal history, and a summary of his fireworks display experience.
NFPA guidelines don't on first glance appear to address these vital
issues.

On the other hand, if a state bases their fireworks laws based upon
any NFPA publication, it may be wise not to allow your kids or loved
ones to attend a fireworks display in that state.

I personally consider MA's 527 CMR, as amended, to be the finest piece
of fireworks legilation ever created. The reason is simply that it
was crafted by seasoned fireworks professionals, who also work in the
state fire marshalls office, and moonlight in the state's bomb squard.

Again, you read hardly any of someone's post that might have enlightened

Lloyd, here you go again with a ad hominem attack.

Frankly, I really could not give a damn about proximate fireworks,
except for my belief that they should be completly outlawed because of
the history trail of deaths and injuries that they have caused.

Let's
forget about Rhode Island.

Let's talk about Michael Jackson, and his
fireworks injury is now leading the press to his addiction problem.

Lloyd, with no disrespect, I believe that proximate fireworks in an
enclosed environment should be totally outlawed.

I have no doubt that you will disagree on this point, because you have
a vested interest in preserving this ultimately very dangerous special
effect.

Give me a little time to formulate my respone to the NFPA
"suggestions". Initially, they appear to be harmless, but so
incoplete to make on wonder what these guys who wrote this thing were
smoking, and more so if they had ever actually participated in
shooting a public fireworks display.

Loyld, try to lay off the cheap ad hominem attacks, because they make
you apprear to be a very small, angry, and frustrated person.

On Sep 4, 7:42 am, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"





lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:
hhc314 <hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> fired this volley in news:5f36e49e-3bb4-4ec0-
9575-ad0f69c50... at (no spam) k39g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

Lloyd, just as an afterthought, remember the Rhode Island night-club
disaster?

Proximate firewroks meeting NFPA guidelines, and do you remember how
many died?

Harry?  Are you on dope?  There were no "proximate fireworks meeting NFPA
guidelines", unless you are confusing manufacturing standards with
display standards.  YOU have been spouting off for years about how inept  
practices can make even good fireworks dangerous.  Didn't you even take a
moment to find out what happened in that club?

The fireworks were shot without a permit or fire inspector approval in an
inappropriate venue (under an 8' styrofoam-lined ceiling) by an
unlicensed "pyrotechnician".  The devices (gerbs) were at least 15'
devices, and they impinged directly on the low, flammable ceiling for
several seconds before the fire began.

See? Again you're blaming NFPA for an illegal act that had nothing
whatsover to do with their standards.

LLoyd

Lloyd, here you go again with a ad hominem attack.

Frankly, I really could not give a damn about proximate fireworks,
except for my belief that they should be completly outlawed because of
the history trail of deaths and injuries that they have caused.  Let's
forget about Rhode Island. Let's talk about Michael Jackson, and his
fireworks injury is now leading the press to his addiction problem.

Lloyd, with no disrespect, I believe that proximate fireworks in an
enclosed environment should be totally outlawed.
I have no doubt that you will disagree on this point, because you have
a vested interest in preserving this ultimately very dangerous special
effect.

Give me a little time to formulate my respone to the NFPA
"suggestions".  Initially, they appear to be harmless, but so
incoplete to make on wonder what these guys who wrote this thing were
smoking,

shooting a public fireworks display.

Loyld, try to lay off the cheap ad hominem attacks,  because they make
you apprear to be a very small, angry, and frustrated person.

Harry C.

.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -