It seems that my point is not getting through to some. It's not a question of
the purpose of the list. Discussing a bad code does not resolve our
responsiblity to use the code. In theory, this list may not be the
appropriate platform to try and change anything associated with code
creation. However, the fact that so many choose to gather on this list
presents an opportunity. This opportunity has proven in the last year to perk
the attention of those in a position to make changes by creating a stronger
consensus of opinions and national (or international) views that spread
through the profession.
It may not be the primary goal of a Listservice to constitute change in the
profession, but it is most certainly is a possiblity. It most certainly is
the only medium in our proffesson that brings 15,000 professional together on
a daily basis and presents them with thoughtful debate.
SEA, like other organizations, don't poll their members and act on the well
intentions of those who can physically participate in the committeess. Often
these members become too close to the problem and can't see a better
solution. This is where the opinions of independent engineers comes into
play. When an argument is run and the weight of the debate is played among a
large group such as this List, the results tend to have validity - however,
very little moves a professional organization than numbers. The numbers add
validity to the argument and tell the professional organization that more
than a few passionate members feel that change is needed.
I believe it is the same responsiblity as we have for voting - we need to
register our opinons for the sake of the profession and this is the strongest
tool we have to accomplish this.
Dennis S. Wish PE
In a message dated 6/13/99 4:24:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
<< Dennis Wish, Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote:
> Appreciation of the services does not justify its existence.
I disagree with you on this. It is obvious to me at least that if the
list were to end now, the 14,900 of the list would loose what they
consider a valuable asset.
> Using the
> service to constitute change for the better, to open up channels of
> information, to solve problems for the sake of the public and to maintain
> ethics of safe buildings through structural engineering is what this
> is all about.
Again, I disagree with here. While solving problems can be a great
fringe benefit of the list, I would not put this as the top priority.
In my mind the main purpose of the list is to allow the free exchange of
of ideas concerning structural engineering for anyone who wishes to
participate. Participation by 99.9% of those who subscribe is to just
read the exchanges by others.
It would be great if more people choose to participate. But I do not
think it is vital for the list to perform it's primary function.