What is lacking is a
direction by the Seismology Committee to provide facts and methods rather than
supposition and opinions. We don't need arguments that everything can
be done that conforms to the principles of mechanics. Research does more
than look at simple models. We are in a heated debate where one side claims that
holddown failure is a function of simple mechanics based on the post and
connection while the other side argues that the whole system is dependent
on independent elements or variables that comprise the performance of the
system. Still, there is no solution which adds to the argument that we
should never have gone the distance unless we could substantiate the outcome -
and we can not.
In the mean time, I
am sure to receive a great deal of direct, clear and infinitely concise
critism from members of that committee for speaking so harshly about them.
Possibly what I should do is set up a Listservice for Seismology members to
submit their criticism for my review. I will give then very thoughtful
consideration post my opinions on a website for their edification.
Finally, I only hope
that the time and effort in the new Wood E-Committee which many engineers are
expecting to volunteer their efforts will not end on deaf