Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Error in Phone Book - Structural Engineers

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Dennis S. Wish PE wrote:

> Dennis, you amaze me by your narrow-minded interpretation (and
> wrong at that) of what constitutes a practitioner of structural
> engineering.

I guess my long hair doesn't quite hide my red neck or my conservative
Orange County up bringing but take a look at the definitions of
structural engineers on Lynn's email that I responded to and let me know
which you think is a better definition.

> I may be a bit sensitive, but your venom is
> dripping. If you don't like the subject matter then don't read
> it. If you want to debate the issue, use some intelligence
> rather than striking out blindly and hiding your insecurity
> under a blanket of legal semantics.

I thought legal semantics is what was being debated.  Aren't you arguing
that he board should change their wording or definitions?

> You may feel that your
> opinion is the only side to the issue.

No I don't, it's just mine based on my experience.  I enjoy seeing
others and learn from them.

> The fact is that I am not
> the only CE authorized and licensed to practice structural
> engineering and who does not want to bother with the SE exam.
> Almost 43% of SEAOC "members" are CE's. Count the "member" and
> "member SE" status of the registry. I have not even begun to
> count the hundreds who qualify as instructors who possibly
> posses a great deal more knowledge in the area of structures
> than you do. The titles of CE and SE are only licenses to do
> business and are not de facto standards for qualifications in
> the field of structural engineering.

> Your comment to S P Singh was insulting and degrading. It
> clearly demonstrated your disregard for the educators of this
> world. You have forgotten that you practice from codes that may
> have been developed by the diligent testing and research of
> these individuals. No matter what you think, they deserve the
> respect associated with structural engineering and have worked
> as hard as you or I to achieve it. You owe this gentleman an
> apology - with comments such as those you degrade the title of
>  SE by your lack of professionalism.

I don't see my actions as un professional nor were they intended to be
degrading or insulting.  Mr. Singh asked a question I thought was a very
good one.    I offered some suggestions and as yet have not seen anyone
else give any.  We have been debating between civil structurals and
structurals.   What shall we call those who are not engineers but are
working towards that goal or work in related fields but not legally
allowed to use the word engineer?

I do apoligize to you, Mr. Singh or anyone else who may have been
offended.  It was not my intent to do so.

Now, you tell me what is the right terminoligy.

> This list is intended for educational debate and discussion.

I thought that is what was going on here.

> You
> are welcome not to participate rather than to log on with the
> intention of debasing and insulting others.

Thanks for asking me to leave for not agreeing with you but, no thanks.

> Since I am presently qualified and licensed by BORPELS to
> practice structural engineering I have nothing more to "prove".
> If you don't like it, convince BORPELS to stop CE's from
> practicing by removing structural engineering questions and
> going straight to the SE exam.
> Your response is simply your personal justification to issue a
> gag order to restrain competition. It has nothing what so ever
> to do with ability or with the protection of the public. I have
> seen many SE's who do not deserve their license and are not
> qualified to practice in area's that they are supposed
> authority. How many times do SE's loose their job from large
> firms and end up designing custom home or wood framed structures
> and find that they have no ability in this area. Since they must
> learn this from scratch, what assures the public that they don't
> make a critical mistake. Your reasoning is flawed and it does
> not take someone as average as I am to prove it.

> I resent your implication that I intentionally advertised in the
> wrong section of the phone book to take business away from other
> engineers.

Actually Dennis, I was being devils advocate here.  If you were to
appear before the board or in court because of this, your opposition
would ask that question.  Does the board have a special requirement if
the laws are violated unintentionally?  I don't know?  I don't really
think you did it on purpose, why would you tell the world if you did? I
just found it humorous that we had debated this issue some time back and
now you suddenly find yourself in this dilemma.   I know you want to
abide by the rules, you just want to tweak them a bit to fit you.

> Now here is how I think you see the scenario: I found
> that a close friend (who is the other engineer authorized to
> advertise in this section -yes he is licensed as an SE) may have
> earned about $1,500.00 last year from phone book advertising.
> Because of the building boom that has been going on for the last
> year or more I decided to compete with him for my share of this
> $1,500.00 annual return.  Because of this great wealth of
> business opportunity I decided to jeopardize my license and go
> online to brag about it. Maybe I thought I could become a martyr
> and nail myself to BORPELS cross to legally test the waters. I
> also decided to open the flood gates by publicly debating the
> issue with excessively conservative engineers in hopes that I
> could convince them to "see the light" rather than turn me in
> for my malicious deeds.

Actually, I never thought any of that.

> I misjudged you, I thought you were smart enough to have figured
> this out on your own.
> Next time, my friend, remove the fangs before trying to seduce
> me with your friendly bedside manner.
> Dennis

Dennis, take a look at my response to Lynn's email.  Let me know if you
still feel the same.  Those were not venomous remarks, you'll know the
difference if you see them.  I'm only expressing my opinions and view
point in my way which is often very much to the point with little
rhetoric.  Quite the opposite of you.  You don't have to agree with them
but both are valid.