Talk:Mortar (firestop)

Bounding 'fact' tags
Ahering, I am reverting the removal of tags, as adequate sources have not been provided. An explanation of your interpretation of the intent of the word is not a source. The word "bounding" is a neologism (see WP:NEO), and must be referenced properly, per the results of Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-01 Bounding. Fireproeng 00:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you are questioning whether or not the Pope is Catholic. The fact that you have questioned whether or not a firestop, ANY firestop must be installed in accordance with a listing (bounding, a common industry term that offends you and for which you got your tag team partner to agree) and the fact that you also questioned whether or not a firestop product, ANY firestop product can be substituted with a generic product and still meet any code in any civilised nation on this planet, is enough to make me seriously question whether or not you have any formalised education in this field. Since you do not have the intestinal fortitude to identify yourself and all you do is mess with other people's work, as can be plainly seen by your record of contributions, I think that the education you list on your user page is an item of pure fiction. If you ask ANY FPE whether or not a UL listed item, a proprietary product, can be substituted with a generic item, the answer you will get is no. Also, to question the colouring, is also direct evidence of your having absolutely no experience in passive fire protection whatsoever. It is OK to be human and louse up now and then, but these items are the very basics of the trade. For you to question them here and to enlist the assistance of other nonprofessionals in the trade to agree with you, is a sad state of affairs indeed. If you think otherwise, why not ring up your local building inspector or fire prevention officer? Ask those folks to see what they think. Is it OK to substitute a proprietary listed product with a generic one that you may think is "close"? I think that this is also why you refuse to identify yourself. It would then be possible to connect you with this balderdash you are writing here. This is enough to revoke your license, if you ever had one. And next, you're going to cry the blues again, arent't you? So why not try this: you find evidence that it is OK to make generic substitutions in UL listings, OK? And you come up with an alternate explanation why firestop manufacturers have, for a long time, borne the cost of expensive pigments. These are pure logic and the fundamentals of the trade. What do you think the NBCC means when it states "must be included at the time of test"? Do you actually think that a novice's approximation of something that looks similar would pass muster with UL OR any inspector? Not one of your colleagues with an active license to practice in this field would back you up on this. --Achim 03:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NEO. Fireproeng 03:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, thank you for referring to me as scholarly, but calling me a fool, even in German, is a personal attack, which can get you blocked. Fireproeng 03:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And, as usual, you cannot and will not answer any subject related specifics.--Achim 03:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Mortar (firestop) be merged into Firestop. I think that the content in the Mortar (firestop) article can easily be explained in the context of Firestop, and the Mortar (firestop) article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Mortar (firestop) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Kilmer-san (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)