Dennis Wish wrote:
"It would be nice to have a calm platform to debate history, but
seems counterproductive to the main issue of repairing an
liability issue and methodology requirment."
[BC] With code provisions, I feel it is always important to
understand the history. When you do, sometimes you find the provision was
meant to address something entirely different than what you get from the
provision itself. In the present discussion of flexible/not flexible, Ed
Zacher's name has been mentioned by Charles Greenlaw as being the primary
proponent of the current code provisions. Ed's always been great resource
to the Northern Section (and the State committees as well) . It might be
productive to to see what type of response/recollection he has as to intent
of the provisions and how he applies them.
With a knowledge of intent, I think we can more easily address the
Bill Cain, SE