To the people that know you, your comments may not appear arrogant and
cynical. But to many of us who do not know you, they most certainly do.
Martin, I suggest that you work on your tone. Your tone appeared TO ME just
as Dennis presented it, and I know neither you nor Dennis, except through
your written words. I suggest that next time you remind us of this, you
include ALL the pertinent information such as the internet address, the
purpose of what you are asking, what the result will be, what length of time
you expect for a typical response, etc. Many people, myself included,
missed the invitation the first time, so how could we expect to know what
you are talking about with your recent post?
You have VOLUNTEERED to be in your position. You should be held to a higher
standard, and that is what Dennis was commenting on. I had to go research
in the archives to find out what you were talking about.
Dennis, myself, and many others are frustrated that you and some people in a
similar position to yours, both past and present, do not appear to be doing
the job that we expect. We base this conclusion on the RESULTS of your
efforts (the written documents such as the Blue Book and the SDM), not on
our perception or knowledge of your good intentions or your character.
And please, for the rest of you who may want to jump in and say, "Why don't
you try doing his job?", that is not the point. We have every right to
criticize his actions without claiming to be able to do his job, just as we
all have the right to criticize a politician or a CEO without having to
claim to be able to do his/her job. He has VOLUNTEERED to be in a similar
Mark Swingle, SE
On 10 Jan 00, Lynn Howard wrote:
You owe Martin an apology for what you wrote below.
I know Martin well and there is not one drop of
arrogant blood in his body.
Dennis Wish had written:
<<Your arrogance and cynicism is unnecessary - certainly, I don't take your
response as a humorous and well intended response. I am not willing to take
more of my productive time to rewrite issues that I submitted on numerous
occasions over the last year to you and Saif Hussain. This type of
redundancy is a waste of my time since I can assume then that the letters of
questions and issues related to the code and submitted to the seismology
committee since July of last year has been filed in the preverbal round
file. I sent in some fifteen or more questions and issues needing
clarification - Arnold Bookbinder submitted some 30 or more issues as did
others. The barrage of questions existing in the Listservice archives back
to a year or more should give you a start. Why not take a little of your
time and catch up with the vocal minority rather than expecting us to cater
The attitude I perceive from your comment about the vocal minority is one of
the strongest reasons supporting my decision not to renew my SEAOC
membership this year.
While you have nothing better to do, why not start with a written position
statement representing the majority opinion at the December 3rd Seismology
Committee meeting to exempt one and two story residential - so far you have
not delivered on that one either.
One of the Vocal Minority,
Dennis S. Wish PE
and Martin Johnson had written:
<I guess I scared everone off when I announced the new seismology web page;
have only received two questions to date. Where is the vocal minority when
you need them?