Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: SEAOC CAD STANDARDS

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Excuse me Gentlemen. I did not request that this thread die, I 
simply stated my opinion. I am glad that both Barry and Robert 
took the time to state their opinions on the list rather than 
privately or else the general concensus would have been to let 
this die.
The fact is that some of you find usefulness in developing a 
standard. This is reason enough to continue the thread or even 
the work on the list. I would suggest that those of you 
interested work on this privately and keep the rest of us aware 
of your progress.
I think what gets me most upset to read these comments is that 
those who valued a standard had to respond in private rather 
than let the rest of us hear reasons why they supported the 
issue. Maybe my thinking is all screwed up from the way I am set 
in my business. Possibly some of you can show me a better way. 
By answering privately you assume our minds are set and I feel 
that this can not be farther from the truth.
When Bill Allen responded with his layer method, I printed the 
post out so that I can see if his method is more logical than 
mine and I really liked the idea of creating scripts to turn 
layers on and off. So there was just one example of what I 
learned about this thread.
My point? Don't be afraid to have an opinion that does not 
follow the majority. The reason for this list is not to allow me 
to spout my limited wisdom but for me to have the oportunity to 
learn from each of you that has a different opinion and to allow 
me to weigh that opinion against my own in order to find a 
better solution that will work for me.

Please, please, please don't assume that any one of us (Even 
Bill Allen) is set in our ways. I think we are all professional 
and intellegent enough to recognize a good idea.

Dennis Wish PE