Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Was Steel Shapes

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In a message dated 6/8/2004 2:54:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, carter(--nospam--at) writes:
In the interest of disclosure, I'll say that you previously and privately sent me some more descriptive details of what you would like to see improved in AISC Design Guide 18.   I have given your comments to the author and I am awaiting his response.  Until that time, I think it is presumptuous of you to declare it bad simply based upon your own opinion. 
In the spirit of fuller disclosure,  I will note that I did not previously discuss what I would like to see improved in the AISC Design Guide.  I said I thought it should not have been published because it contained too many technical errors.  This is also my opinion of the PCA Concrete Floors on Ground publication.
Are there rules somewhere that tell one how to offer an opinion on an engineering document? Apparently engineering documents are different from movies, other books, cars, refrigerators, electric shavers, etc., and one is not supposed to simply state one thinks it is good or bad and give reasons. 
Does the opinion have to start with the statement "With all due respect"?  Does it have to contain a requisite number of cliches like "At the end of the day", and "Bottom line"?
Or is one not allowed to have opinions? 
... perhaps you should be less quick to launch such summary judgments.

I am not sure what a non-summary judgment is.  Typically, one does try to summarize any opinion.  I would also note that I read the document in question closely enough to notice that there were a fairly large number of typos, which had apparently escaped the attention of the fairly large number of reviewers. 
I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinion of the documents in question.  Has no one else read either document? 
I am not particularly interested in testimonials about perfection and/or lack thereof.  Which is not to say that individuals can't post such testimonials, if they feel so compelled.  In my opinon, to not see a significant difference between "perfect" and "not very good" perhaps points out a lack in one's ability for critical thinking.  It is interesting to hear engineers complain about what lawyers get paid.  What (good) lawyers get paid for is their ability to think critically.
On another note, I could have told someone that in my opinion, ACI 360 is not worth $90.  It provides some good information, but is very badly written and contains alot of  unsubstantiated opinions. However,  I've spent thousands of dollars and lots of days attending ACI conventions to participate in committee meetings and work on these documents. 
Someone who has simply spent a little money and a small amount of time buying and reading the document has gotten off kind of cheap.
Gail Kelley