Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Survey, final result (Corrected)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
That's because we are the same person with two dissimilar personalities
fighting for possession. Bill refuses to accept the liberal side of his
personality and that's what caused me to emerge.
The most difficult part of this dual personality is maintaining two distinct
lives 150 miles apart. I think Curt Vonnegut called it the Chronosynclastic
Infindibulum.
Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen, S.E. [mailto:billallen(--nospam--at)earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 1998 9:03 PM
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
Subject: Re: Survey, final result (Corrected)


Sorry, John but you probably will never catch Dennis and I in the same room
:o).

Regards,
Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: John Nichols <cejn(--nospam--at)engmail.newcastle.edu.au>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
Date: Thursday, April 30, 1998 6:53 PM
Subject: RE: Survey, final result (Corrected)


>Dear Bill and Dennis,
>
>It looks like I will be in the States in July next year at a Conference.
Do
>you two live close enough togehtor to have lunch.  Kate to as well.  It
>would be interesting to have you both at the same table.
>
>John Nichols
>
>
>
>At 18:21 30/04/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>Bill Allen responded:
>>BTW, your inferences of "you suggest.." is offensive.
>>I say exactly what I mean. If you want to read something else into it,
>>that's your problem.
>>
>>
>>Dennis> Your right, I apologize. I should have said that I interpreted
your
>>comment... You do state clearly what is on your mind (and maybe that's
what
>>gets me riled).
>>
>>[Bill Allen]
>>
>>My goal of the E&O requirement is to eliminate "part timers" since
>>"Structural Engineering" is a costly line item of practice. No hidden
agenda
>>here.
>>
>>
>>
>>Dennis> What you stated was "Another element I would propose is mandatory
>>E&O insurance (just like the requirements to register a car here). "  It
>>does not matter what you believe your goal is, this approach directly
>>affects any engineer in private practice who does not have or is not able
to
>>obtain E&O coverage.
>>
>>Moonlighters are not necessarily the problem to our competition. After
>>twelve years in private practice I loose very few jobs to moonlighters. In
>>fact, if a client wants to use someone who moonlights it's usually because
>>they don't want to spend the money to be represented during conventional
>>business hours. In this case, I would tend to turn down their business
>>because we can't educate them on the pitfalls of dealing with part time
>>help. They generally end up coming back for help to clean up the mess they
>>got themselves into.
>>
>>Mandatory insurance coverage never works. For a staunch conservative I am
>>surprised that you would want more controls of our state licensing agency
>>(the Dept of Consumer Affairs) by allowing them to mandate E&O coverage.
>>
>>I suggest you, too, stick to what you know. Your first suggestion for a
>>mandatory one question test was damn good. Work with that and get off the
>>E&O bandwagon. The mandatory problem will be a great way to weed out the
>>incompetents. Let the clients looking for a bargain deal with
moonlighters.
>>
>>Dennis
>>
>>
>>
>><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
>><HTML>
>><HEAD>
>>
>><META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
>><META content='"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=GENERATOR>
>></HEAD>
>><BODY>
>><P><FONT size=3>Bill Allen responded:<BR>BTW, your inferences of &quot;you
>>suggest..&quot; is offensive.<BR>I say exactly what I mean. If you want to
>read
>>something else into it,<BR>that's your problem.<BR></FONT></P>
>><P><FONT size=3>Dennis&gt; Your right, I apologize. I should have said
that I
>>interpreted your comment... You do state clearly what is on your mind (and
>maybe
>>that's what gets me riled).</FONT></P><FONT size=2><FONT size=2>
>><P><FONT size=3>[Bill Allen]</FONT></P>
>><P><FONT size=3>My goal of the E&amp;O requirement is to eliminate
&quot;part
>>timers&quot; since &quot;Structural Engineering&quot; is a costly line
item of
>>practice. No hidden agenda here.</FONT></P>
>><P><FONT size=3></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
>><P><FONT size=3>Dennis&gt; What you stated was &quot;<FONT
>color=#000000>Another
>>element I would propose is mandatory E&amp;O insurance (just like the
>>requirements to register a car here). &quot;&nbsp; It does not matter what
you
>>believe your goal is, this approach directly affects any engineer in
private
>>practice who does not have or is not able to obtain E&amp;O coverage.
>></FONT></FONT></P>
>><P><FONT size=3><FONT color=#000000></FONT>Moonlighters are not
necessarily
>the
>>problem to our competition. After twelve years in private practice I loose
>very
>>few jobs to moonlighters. In fact, if a client wants to use someone who
>>moonlights it's usually because they don't want to spend the money to be
>>represented during conventional business hours. In this case, I would tend
to
>>turn down their business because we can't educate them on the pitfalls of
>>dealing with part time help. They generally end up coming back for help to
>clean
>>up the mess they got themselves into.</FONT></P>
>><P><FONT size=3>Mandatory insurance coverage never works. For a staunch
>>conservative I am surprised that you would want more controls of our state
>>licensing agency (the Dept of Consumer Affairs) by allowing them to
mandate
>>E&amp;O coverage.</FONT></P>
>><P><FONT size=3>I suggest you, too, stick to what you know. Your first
>>suggestion for a mandatory one question test was damn good. Work with that
and
>>get off the E&amp;O bandwagon. The mandatory problem will be a great way
to
>weed
>>out the incompetents. Let the clients looking for a bargain deal with
>>moonlighters.</FONT></P>
>><P><FONT size=3>Dennis</FONT></P></FONT>
>><P>&nbsp;</P></FONT></BODY></HTML>
>>
>
>
>
>