Ideally, I agree with you that a foreward of the post to a board or chair
would be more benificial. The problem stems from getting Lurkers to express
their opinions on topics that they not only have interest in, but that has an
effect upon their practice.
I'm not advocating indiscriminate flooding of the List just to waste
bandwidth. You should be able to see by this thread alone that no matter how
hard I try to get a response from the "Lurking" community very few actually
We will soon have Global Codes which we need to comply with. If there are
problems in the written code or the methodology used, we have an obligation
to speak out on the issue. If "lurkers" or any other active participant was
willing to foreward their comments to appropriate organization members who
could consititute change, I would not have an argument - most don't and most
The one thought I disagree with is the level of understanding by those who
respond. A great many Lurkers don't have the confidence in their opinions,
maybe can't debate as well as others, but can still have an opinion as to
what is right and what is wrong (or simply what needs to be changed). The day
that we have too many responses flooding this list - we will break it up into
multiple lists to accomodate the most active types of construction. Until
then, we are not flooded with posts which we are obligated to read - this is
the reason for the delete key.
Finally, the last thing in the world I would want to do is to negate another
professional's opinion because he or she is not as opinionated as the rest of
us - there is equality on the List and enough room for a post to appear.
Other than these points, I would agree with the ideal direction that support
or rejection should go - I just don't believe that Lurkers will take the time
or effort to do this.
Dennis S. Wish PE
In a message dated 6/13/99 8:08:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
<< I disagree. We do not want 15000 responses all saying they agree on a
topic. If you want a survey of opinions on a specific topic then create one
on the website and use that to foreward you requests for code changes etc.
Use one email on the list to tell members about the survey and to get them
to participate but not 15000.
If someone disagrees with, or can add to, what is being said and can back
up his or her opinion with logic or theory or intelligent comment then he
or she should reply, otherwise they should keep out of it and listen to
what is being said and learn from it.
We do not want people cluttering up the list with repeats of other emails
or with biased and onesided comments on areas in which they have no
expertise or understanding (eg computer operating systems comments by
certain list members with an obvious deepseated bias or hatred for one side).
For example, I have no experience with wood diaphragms so I am not going to
comment on them but am interested in the discussions. Hoever, if there is a
question relating to my areas of expertise which are prestressed concrete
design, various design codes and computer software then I will gladly offer
Regards Gil Brock
Prestressed Concrete Design Consultants Pty. Ltd.
5 Cameron Street Beenleigh Qld 4207 Australia
Ph +61 7 3807 8022 Fax +61 7 3807 8422
webpage: http://www.home.aone.net.au/rapt.pcdc/ >>