Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: English 101[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Re: English 101
- From: "fturner" <fturner(--nospam--at)quiknet.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:18:44 -0700
Sorry I was out for the last couple days and missed this critical development. Bill, if you agree with the definition of "aseismic" as "almost free of earthquakes" as promoted by B. Bolt in his books titled "Earthquakes", then "aseismic" is indeed "seismic" albeit just a wee bit. Several Japanese-translated publications use the aseismic term. Along those lines, I wonder if some of the Japanese think we are trying to repair and reoccupy old buildings when the translation for the term "rehabilitation" is applied literally... Fred ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Welliver" <wellive(--nospam--at)attglobal.net> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 6:11 AM Subject: Re: English 101 > Gosh, is there some inside meaning I'm missing about this retrofit vs > rehabilitation controversy?? Perhaps we should retrofire a discussion like this > on the Structualist?? > > Barry H. Welliver > > Bill Allen wrote: > > > Fred- > > > > Thanks. > > > > But, the definition you have provided sounds pretty "non-seismic" to me. > > > > Besides, wouldn't "aseismic" have to mean either "seismic" or "non-seismic"? > > > > Get off that fence :o).
- Prev by Subject: RE: English 101
- Next by Subject: RE: English 101
- Previous by thread: RE: English 101
- Next by thread: RE: English 101