Thank you, Greg.
That elaboration on 250.8 helps with that specific issue, and perhaps we can open a thread later discussing that specific issue.
The point of my comment here was to draw attention to the perils of adding references to code books, Folks seem unable to differentiate between what a code actually says, and their supporting their opinion by citing a common reference (like a dictionary).
Time and again I see such references treated as if they were the law. Heck, this very code change — which, as part of Section 90 isn’t part of the code at all, but merely an introduction — will be cited as proof that “The Code requires the use of the latest edition of the referenced document.”
This has been an issue ever since the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) included an appendix illustrating various construction details. Despite the ADA and the appendix both plainly stating that the appendix was NOT part of the law, the whole industry began parroting the 18” receptacle height requirement. Inspectors have been happily enforcing the unenforceable.
Another example came about when the NEC required devices to have a bonding jumper “except when the device was mounted with two screws” The code change illustrations showed a surface-mounted box with a metal cover, and folks insist that this illustration is the ONLY exception to the bonding jumper requirement. No one seems to realize that there are other circumstances — “old work boxes” come to mind — that also meet the requirements of the exception.
