Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: ACI 117

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Gail,
I think you got up on the wrong side of the bed. I find
Bill's posts interesting even if I don't always agree
with him.
Gary

On 9 Feb 2005 at 9:47, GSKWY(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote:

> You are correct -the SUBJ: of the thread is ACI 117,  which I guess I
> should know since I was the one that started it to comment on the fact
> that ACI 117 was not a well written document.  I also commented that
> ACI 301 was not a well written document and was frequently misused.
> 
> A discussion of how an engineer incorrectly claimed that ACI 301
> required the contractor test the concrete certainly seemed a locigal
> extension of the original post.  But apparently not,  I guess I should
> have started a new thread with the SUBJ:  "Incompetent Engineers".
> 
> It's not entirely clear to me why you think people around the world
> are interested in your whining about how everyone ignores you,  but
> heck,  if it makes you feel good, go at it.  It's no worse than your
> political commentary.  
> 
> Some people would chose to spend their time doing something about a
> problem rather than whining about it,  but that's just some people.
> 
> 
> Gail Kelley 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 2/9/2005 9:23:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc writes:
> > Unless I completely lost track of the thread,  there was no
> > discussion of "your market."  We were discussing concrete testing.
> 
> No, YOU were attempting to discuss concrete testing.
> 
> I was discussing the futility of expecting to have any say-so
> whatsoever in an environment where everyone, from the Owner to the
> Contractor to the Building Official, routinely ignores the Building
> Code, the drawings and the specifications. Please note that the SUBJ:
> of the thread is ACI 117, which is used to specify tolerances in 
> concrete construction specifications.
> 
> Instead of reading what I wrote, however, you somehow veered into
> these comments about competency.
> 



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********