I think was is at work here is the tendency to lump everyone into a category that we either agree or disagree with and then take pot shots at that group if we disagree. I'm sorry, but the world is not so black and white. Just because someone questions the overall logic behind using or the effectiveness of GFCI's, it does not mean that they are advocating that they should be abandoned. They are merely pointing out some of the flaws in the logic behind their use. And I would hope that just because someone wholeheartedly believes in the proper use of GFCI's, then it would not necessarily follow that they believe that GFCI's are a some sort of sacred panacea for the prevention of electrocution in outdoor or moisture-prone environments. For myself, I believe in use of GFCI's as indicated in the codes to reduce the risk of electrocution. But it is also true that the NEC's are in a constant state of revision. And just because a new code requirement appears, it does not necessarily follow that ALL installations that do not follow the new requirement are suddenly more or less hazardous than they ever were. The installation is the same. It is the new code requirement that changed. This is one of the reasons that many new codes only apply to new installations, not existing ones. If someone has a house with exterior/bath outlets that were at code when they were originally installed, then the use of GFCI's does not apply to that house. Sure, it might be a good idea to install them, but it is not something that is a regulated requirement. This should be a factor when determining whether or not someone's installation is "wrong" and another's is "right." This reminds me of the debate in the entertainment industry over whether or not it is safe to use "cherry-picker" lifts without their outriggers. We all knew that manufacturers started adding all kinds of "idiot proof" cutoff circuits to their lifts so that the equipment could not be used without outriggers. But this was a relatively recent development to increase safety and to reduce their liability should accidents occur. And in cramped spaces it was often impossible to to use a lift since the outriggers took up such a large footprint. So are you "stupid" if you find a way to use the lift without it's outriggers? Not necessarily. The reality is that it depends upon the user. Someone who knows very little about lifts, disables the outrigger cutoffs and then hangs outside the basket to reach something gets what they deserve IMHO. But the operator who disables the outrigger cutoffs and then takes additional precautions because they know that the lift is more likely to tip is certainly not being careless. And it flies in the face of logic to label both operators the same. And it certainly requires no skill on the part of a critic to criticize an operator for not following the manufacturer's instructions to the letter. Actually, it takes no skill at all, though this opinion is often offered as if merely quoting the manual bestows some level of knowledge or authority on the person offering their opinion. And drawing lines in the sand in this manner gets us nowhere. Are GFCI's a good idea? Sure. Are they always required? No. Do they fail? Yes, but not as often as previously, but especially when exposed to surges. And nobody's yet mentioned how/where AFCI's or AFCI/GFCI combo's are now required. You might be surprised if you read the codes. And if the NEC indicated both kinds of protection, would you run right out and upgrade? And do I get to take a dim view of your and your opinion if you don't? If you don't get what I'm saying, then you never will, and further debate is pointless. Opinions are like backsides. Everybody has one, and they all stink!