Subject: Re: Code Created Malpractice Opportunity-Rigid v.Flexible Diaphragm
From: Rick Ranous <RRanous(--nospam--at)eqe.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:18:05 -0700
IMO, John's letter was not intended to "cut-off" or "limit" debate in
anyway. In fact, I see it as trying to encourage active debate on a
serious problem. Some may see it as a real problem, others may not. The
debate is healthy and important for all of us to understand the
significance of the problem. John provided us all with an approach to
carry the debate into a forum where actions can be taken to address the
situation. Additionally, he provided his insight into the problem.
What he was warrning all of us is that when we resort to personal attacks
on the committees we are not doing anything helpful to further the debate
or resolve the issue. The thread simply degenerates into name calling and
nothing positive is gained or learned. Those who actively participate on
the committees have the time and the support necessary to do the work.
Many of us do not have the time or the support. This listserve provides
the avenue for or positions to be expressed and heard by the committee
members. As time goes on I would hope that the various committees will
place their proposals on the list so we can all read, question, and
understand what is being proposed. It will give us the opportunity to
openly debate the issues and hear what engineers in the rest of the country
and world have to say about the issues. Like everything else in the
engineering profession, these advancements do not happen overnight. They
need to be nurtured and encouraged.
When committee members bring issues to the list, it is important that they
be discussed and debated in a open, non-judgemental, and professional
manner. If we resort to name calling because we do not like the concept,
it will be the surest and quickest way to drive the committee members away
from sharing their work. I, for one, would not blame them!