Such language. However, I believe you are being a little unfair to shit.
After all if shit when properly processed becomes nutrients for the soil.
The 1997 Code has no redeeming qualities.
Please I beg you to be fair.
From: NDZ28(--nospam--at)aol.com <NDZ28(--nospam--at)aol.com>
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Date: Monday, April 19, 1999 1:18 PM
Subject: Fwd: Comments and suggestions
> Subj: Comments and suggestions
> Date: 99-04-16 17:06:21 EDT
> From: Efaa(--nospam--at)aol.com
> To: Seaoc
> Structural Engineers Association of California
> Attention: Executive Director
> I have just received a copy of the Seismic Design Manual, Volume 1, and
>would like to make the following comments and suggestion. My personal
>opinion should in no way detract from the efforts made in the production of
>this Manual. I appreciate the hard work and dedication that had to go into
>its preparation and publication.
> My displeasure is directed toward the 1997 Uniform Building Code. I have
>been in the structural engineering profession for the past forty six years
>and find this Code to be the worst piece of shit I have ever come across.
>This Code is nothing but a cookbook of formulas and confusing requirements
>that takes away from the engineer his understanding of the basic principles
>behind good structures. Is all of this supposed to produce better designed
>buildings? I think not, because engineers will depend more and more on the
>computer to solve their problems and will replace common sense and
>intutition. Will this translate into better construction in the field? I
>think not, particularly in the field where the same shabby construction
>continue regardless of the so-called sophistication of the new Code.
> My only suggestion is to flush this Code, right where it belongs, down
> Norman J. Epstein, Structural Engineer