Bob Kaplow wrote:
Based on what I've seen over the years, that's probably true (my two cents, which in this case isn't worth much because I wasn't active at that time)
Again, based on what I've seen over the years, that's also probably true, but I also understand how/why NAR may or may not have responded in the way that you might have desired.
This is the first I've heard of this, and it's somewhat illuminating. If that is the case, what was the response? If NFPA decided that there WAS something to be concerned about, what was done? If they decided there WASN'T anything to be concerned about, then this pretty much says that your concerns may have been unfounded, does it not?
This last is a serious question, not meant as flame bait. Hopefully, you've seen enough of my commentary to believe that...
David Erbas-White
Based on what I've seen over the years, that's probably true (my two cents, which in this case isn't worth much because I wasn't active at that time)
Again, based on what I've seen over the years, that's also probably true, but I also understand how/why NAR may or may not have responded in the way that you might have desired.
This is the first I've heard of this, and it's somewhat illuminating. If that is the case, what was the response? If NFPA decided that there WAS something to be concerned about, what was done? If they decided there WASN'T anything to be concerned about, then this pretty much says that your concerns may have been unfounded, does it not?
This last is a serious question, not meant as flame bait. Hopefully, you've seen enough of my commentary to believe that...
David Erbas-White