Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

FW: Re: Registration --> Licensure in TX

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Hmm.  I'm not quite sure what clarification you'd like me to make, but perhaps posting our email exchange 
below will serve?
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:31:28 -0700  Bill Allen, S.E. @ ALLEN DESIGNS wrote:
>Based on our last couple of e-mails it appears (at least to me) that you
>misunderstood my response regarding moonlighting on the seaoc list serve.
>You apparently felt that I was attacking government officials, which I was
>not. Since you flamed me pretty bad on the list serve, it would be nice if
>you clarified your response. If you do not feel inclined to do so, it is
>still O.K. with me. I just feel it would be the right thing to do.
>Bill Allen
>> From: nmends(--nospam--at)
>> To: Bill Allen, S.E. @ ALLEN DESIGNS <BAllenSE(--nospam--at)>
>> Subject: Re: Registration --> Licensure in TX 
>> Date: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 1:59 PM
>> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 16:10:40 -0700  Bill Allen, S.E. @ ALLEN DESIGNS
>> >Nigel-
>> >If you don't moonlight, I'm not sure why you brought it up. Your message
>> >certainly implied that you did. If not, sorry for the accusation (sp?).
>> >Hopefully I served notice to those who do moonlight.
>> Because I wondered why you had a specific prohibition against government
>engineers, as though we're some 
>> special class undeserving of acceptance into the engineering community. 
>As a government engineer I have 
>> to listen to nasty, sniping comments from legislators, the press, and the
>general public.  I've gotten heartily sick of it and feel obligated to speak
out against it every now and then.  If you'd like a 
>> real treat, you ought to try being a government engineer at a public
>hearing on a controversial project.  
>> You can't believe the abuse the public feels justified in heaping on its
>employees...with the apparent 
>> expectation that they *have* to stand there and take it.  Your original
>comment hinted at similar 
>> chauvinism, and I wanted to draw you out.
>> >> such assumptions on your part make some interesting implications about
>> >*your* ethical behavior. :-)
>> >
>> >Outside of getting defensive, what sort of implications could you
>> >draw about my ethical behavior?
>> I have to admit that part of the comment was defensive.  Your remarks
>were quite offensive, to tell the 
>> truth.  I should have waited a while before responding.
>> But, in a calmer and cooler vein, I always wonder about how folks who
>assume the worst of others so 
>> readily and on so little evidence deal with the same concerns they
>criticize in their own minds and lives.
>> Nigel