Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Seismic Design Manual - Vol. 2.

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I agree with Shafat's comments, this manual should be concidered an aid, not the "scripture".  Do any of you have error free text books.  You need to use your judgement.

One thing I found interexting when studng for the SE exam was that I had 3 different study aids created by 3 different authors who produced 3 different solutions and answers for the same problem givin on a previous exam.

It is easier being the critic than the artist.  How many movies have Siskel and Ebert made?

>>> seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org 05/13/00 11:38AM >>>

Are there errors in Volume 2? I am not aware of any. Besides, it was 
released only a few days ago.

To accuse SEAOC of publishing a defective document with knowledge of the 
defects is being naive. It does no good but give a wrong impression to 
general public.

My dear friends, SEAOC is your association. Your membership fee barely pays 
for it's operational  cost. It needs your help to produce quality products. 
So, stop criticizing and get under the hood and fix the engine if you 
believe it has problems. Remember, this list server is SEAOSC's product. A 
tool provided free of charge to help us improve our professional 
image,  the quality of our publications and quality of our design via free 
exchange of ideas.

Assuming that Vol 2 has no errors, would you then find it as a useful 
reference for your office? If you believe so, then buy it. Review it, and 
report the errors if you find any. That will make the second edition even 
better.

Show me your best set of design plans or calculations, and I will find 
errors in them. Does that make you a bad engineer? Point is, finding 
defects in other people's work is very easy. Producing a "perfect" document 
is a challenge!

Shafat




At 12:53 PM 5/13/00 -0400, you wrote:
>To Dennis's comments I would add
>
>SEAOC's sheen is getting pretty tarnished these days. These error ridden
>"manuals" reflect poorly on the organization itself. If we can't get it
>right, we shouldn't be doing it at all.
>
>Personally, I threw mine out. I wouldn't even give Volume I away for fear
>that some poor start up engineer might actually design according to some of
>those "examples".
>
>I haven't seen volume II, since I expected it would be a waste of a good
>$50. Seems it was a good decision from what is posted on the list.
>
>Peter Higgins, SE
>