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

RE: AISC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: AISC
I GUESS THE NEXT STEP WILL BE FOR CRSI TO START CHARGING ROYALITES FOR THE USE OF REBAR CROSS SECTIONAL AREAS!
-----Original Message-----
From: EMAIL SERVER
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 9:28 AM
To: MATTHEW STUART
Subject: FW: AISC

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie Carter [mailto:carter(--nospam--at)aiscmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 8:40 AM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
Subject: AISC

I'm gathering the facts to respond to the allegations made regarding the AISC shapes database. In the mean time....

I recently posted a message similar to this one on another list server, but it seems appropriate here too given the thread that just started.

We at AISC do the best we can to maintain fabricated structural steel as the material of choice for building design and construction. In doing so, we address, coordinate between and willingly listen to everybody involved, including owners, developers, code enforcement officials, government and regulatory agencies, code-writing authorities, institutes, associations, architects, engineers, steel producers, product manufacturers, steel service centers, product distributors, steel fabricators, steel detailers, steel erectors, inspectors, construction managers, general contractors, specialty subcontractors .... the list is seemingly without end.

It's sometimes tough to balance all those interest (including some that conflict) as decisions are made that affect just about everybody in some way, shape or form, all the while trying to maintain the safety and competitiveness of this industry upon which the jobs of many are dependent. AISC is the only organization in a position to do this for the fabricated structural steel design community and construction industry. We may not get it right every time (who does?), but I can at least say that you can always depend on AISC's people, including me, to listen to your concerns, explain the situation and/or seek an appropriate resolution.

However, I must say that I frankly do not understand the needlessly negative tones and viewpoints that some of you have adopted. I mean really Fountain, what message am I supposed to take when you say you spit when you say AISC? Shall I categorically ignore your future request for help for fear of making you go parched?

Please pardon me for posting this publicly, but I've contacted several of you privately in the past to try to understand why it is you are so negative. I contacted you with the intent of understanding what it was we'd done wrong so I could change that. There was very little substance in any response I received.

One notable exception occured when Mark Gilligan helped me to understand his personal issues on LRFD and ASD. As a result, I successfully pushed an initiative that is now underway to bring the best of the two specifications (which were not all that different in the end anyway) together into one. Read about it here:

    http://www.aisc.org/engineering.asp?ar=17&co=264

By all means, please continue to help me help AISC help you. I'm willing to help make a difference on your behalf. But unnecessary negativety has the tendency to just turn me off.

Charlie