Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: English 101

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
So.. the guys from AIT were right ...ugh
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Allen" <Bill(--nospam--at)AllenDesigns.com>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 9:22 PM
Subject: RE: English 101


> Hmmmm....I see your interpretation.
>
> My thinking was (is?) that if "aseismic design" is translated to "almost
> free of earthquake design", I would interpret this approach as one where
the
> designer didn't consider earthquakes in his/her design whatsoever.
>
> This English is a funny language.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)
> ALLEN DESIGNS
> Consulting Structural Engineers
> Laguna Niguel, CA
> http://www.AllenDesigns.com
> V (949) 365-5696
> F (949) 249-2297
>
> ||-----Original Message-----
> ||From: fturner [mailto:fturner(--nospam--at)quiknet.com]
> ||Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 6:19 PM
> ||To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> ||Subject: Re: English 101
> ||
> ||
> ||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).
> ||
> ||
> ||
> ||
>
>
>