Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Making a difference ??

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]



It seems like I didn’t get a portion of your email because you did not respond to several of the issues that I raised. Let me repeat them for your convenience:


1. How about my interpretation of a pour strip as a type of construction joint. You said it was not. Please educate me as to why.


2.“As I said before, I have used these documents often. Your statement, “In general, these documents seem to be ‘pay by the pound’”, does alarm me. Can you please expand on the technical errors in the other 40 or so Steel Tips. You obviously must have read a majority of them to make such a statement. Or since most are done for a very nominal fee, did you mean that they are already much too long?”


I know that you said you hadn’t read a lot of them, but I still would like to know those with technical errors that led you to your generalization of all the Steel Tips.


3. “Did you consider sending this information to the SSEC? If you did, why send it here?”


4. “You already made your point on this before.  Please explain what you intended to accomplish by revisiting this again. What is the new point? How are you making a difference??”


Again, I am subscribed in digest mode, so please copy me directly with any responses on this thread. Thank you.




Heath Mitchell


-----Original Message-----
From: GSKWY(--nospam--at) [mailto:GSKWY(--nospam--at)]
Monday, December 15, 2003 2:58 PM
Subject: Making a difference ??


Response to Heath Mitchell:


Within the past five years,  I have volunteered my time on well over a hundred industry documents.  I have authored a number of documents for which I have not been paid.  I have also authored a number of documents where the pay has been an "honorarium", amounting to about 25 cents per hour.  So I don't have problems with my conscience there.


With respect to the Steel Tips documents in general,  no, I haven't read all of them, or even alot of them.  While some of the others were not particularly well-written, this is the only one I thought was completely worthless. I was trying not to make it appear that I was singling out that particular document, but if that's a problem,  I will make it clear,  my opinon is that the document was completely worthless and the authors should be embarrased to have their name on it.  I sure as heck would be.


I also thought the document "Use of Deep Columns In Special Steel Moment Frames", which was essentially 41 pages of bashing someone else's testing, left a lot to be desired. 


Gail Kelley



Below is my response to Brett Herrick.



Please note:


I have gone out of my way to comment on that particular document because I think the quality of the writing was inexcusably bad.  I think the quality of the research was also inexcusably bad.  I do not think the document should have been published, whether for a fee or without a fee.


I am glad to hear that SSEC has hired a technical editor.  I think poorly written and researched documents do a tremendous disservice to the engineering community.   I would have been happy to do your technical editing for a fee.  It was (and still is) unclear to me why you thought I would want to do it on a volunteer basis,  since I assume your employer pays you for your time.  I am a professional writer as well as a professional engineer;  when someone requests my services, I typically expect to be compensated. 


You will be glad to hear that I am equally critical of other documents. 


And if you would like, I can send you a list of my publications, so that you can criticize them, in whatever forum you chose.  If I have written something that other people have negative opinions about,  I would like to know it.


Gail Kelley