Guy Macon on using terms such as "Professional Engineer"

[John Larkin]

When you objected and provided a valid agrument as to why
it was a bad practice, I apologized and stopped at once.
Apparently that wasn't good enough for you, and here you
are, months later, still flaming me over it. I would be
most interested in any hint you might be willing to give
concerning exactly what a person has to do to satisfy you.

Post some interesting or helpful stuff about electronics, and, if you
don't mind too much, back off on the long-winded prose.

John

 

[Roger Manyard]

[email protected] says...

You're humor challenged too? <rhetorical question, if you hadn't
guessed>

Apparently you're the one who is "humour challenged", since what you
said couldn't be considered remotely funny by a reasonable person.

And you are an English Major! Good for you.

cordially, as always,

rm

 

[Two Ravens]

Of course not.  Perhaps you're in the wrong newsgroup.  This isn't
alt.english.composition.

Is there an alt.english.composition newsgroup? My news server doesn't seem
to carry it. I can find alt.english and alt.english.usage.

 

[[email protected]]

You are incorrect.

What evidence would I possibly have to base a negative opinion
on? All the individuals mentioned either have a history of
posting material that shows a high degree of skill or have not
posted any material that tells me anything one way or the other
about their skills. Just because some folks set a rather low
evidentiary standard before engaging in flaming, that doesn't
mean that I should respond in kind. I find the resulting back-
and-forth flaming to be rather boring, so why not say something
that is nice and likely to be true?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, this approach requires a sense of proportion. You have
to say somethig that is nice, but not so nice that is sounds either
ironic or sarcastic.

" I realized what an honor it is to have my poor attempts at Usenet
posts share the same disk as my intellectual superiors such as the
great Bill Sloman. "

There is a big gap between qualifying as your intellectual superior -
which I can concede might be an honest self-assessment on your part,
though I rather doubt it - and deserving the title "the great Bill
Sloman" which is pure comedy.

Around here, the only regular posters who might qualify for that that
sort of title are Winfield Hill, Spehro Pefany, Tony Williams, John
Poplish, Tom Bruhns and Jim Thompson, and since neither Jim Thompson
nor Winfield Hill would concede the other's right to that title and
the other four clearly don't regard themselves as great, the title
"the great" clearly has to be a sarcasm.

 

[ChuMaiFat]

Try reading the paragraph again. Two binary variables, "license" and
"degree":

Neither = no license and no degree
Both = licensed and degreed.

I did try and read the paragraph again, but I think you've confused me.

I thought he was talking about a California Engineer (Mr Macon is not
one, by the way) and he wrote that a California Engineer can have a
license without a degree, a degree ......hang it, just read it for
yourself at the top of the page.

You explanation using binary variables looked very impressive (however I
do think this is what has confused me) so lets stick to engineers from
California, the subject of this post.

How can this California Engineer have a both a license without a degree
and a degree without a license? How many engineers are we talking about?
Is that where the binary variable comes in, there are two engineers?

If we are suddenly talking about two engineers, well then yes, this all
makes sense now and I see where I went wrong. Thank you for enlightening me.

With kind regards

Chu

 

[Two Ravens]

How can this California Engineer have a both a license without a degree
and a degree without a license? How many engineers are we talking about?
Is that where the binary variable comes in, there are two engineers?

If we are suddenly talking about two engineers, well then yes, this all
makes sense now and I see where I went wrong. Thank you for enlightening
me.

With kind regards

Chu

It looked to me that it must be TWO Engineers, one who has a degree, and
another who has a license, but not a degree. I think the demonstration was
that one 'could' be an Engineer, as he had a license to practise as an
Engineer, and the other 'was' an Engineer as he was qualified to be an
engineer. It can't be the same individual as he would have either the
degree, OR, the license, or both, but surely not be an engineer without
either, perhaps an Engineer who has either a degree or a license from
California could enlighten us.

 

[Guy Macon]

Post some interesting or helpful stuff about electronics,
and, if you don't mind too much, back off on the long-
winded prose.

I am going to take you at your word and do my best to "post
interesting or helpful stuff about electronics" and to "back
off on the long-winded prose." Those are Good Things to do
anyway.

Based on past behavior I suspect that my best won't be good
enough for you and that the flaming will continue, but I am
willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[krw]

I did try and read the paragraph again, but I think you've confused me.

Aparently a simple task.

I thought he was talking about a California Engineer (Mr Macon is not
one, by the way) and he wrote that a California Engineer can have a
license without a degree, a degree ......hang it, just read it for
yourself at the top of the page.

I did, several times.

You explanation using binary variables looked very impressive (however I ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
do think this is what has confused me) so lets stick to engineers from
California, the subject of this post.

Really? Want to try that again? The meaning, if not the grammar,
was quite clear. I used binary variables as a way of trying to
translate the (obvious) meaning to other engineers (or not .

How can this California Engineer have a both a license without a degree
and a degree without a license? How many engineers are we talking about?
Is that where the binary variable comes in, there are two engineers?

Read it again. Do you know what "OR* means?

If we are suddenly talking about two engineers, well then yes, this all
makes sense now and I see where I went wrong. Thank you for enlightening me.

Read it again and think *OR*.

With kind regards

There seems to be a lot of that shit going around.

 

[krw]

Apparently you're the one who is "humour challenged", since what you
said couldn't be considered remotely funny by a reasonable person.

And you are an English Major! Good for you.

....too funny to be an engineer.

cordially, as always,

BS, as always.

 

[Charlie Edmondson]

Unfortunately, this approach requires a sense of proportion. You have
to say somethig that is nice, but not so nice that is sounds either
ironic or sarcastic.

" I realized what an honor it is to have my poor attempts at Usenet
posts share the same disk as my intellectual superiors such as the
great Bill Sloman. "

There is a big gap between qualifying as your intellectual superior -
which I can concede might be an honest self-assessment on your part,
though I rather doubt it - and deserving the title "the great Bill
Sloman" which is pure comedy.

Around here, the only regular posters who might qualify for that that
sort of title are Winfield Hill, Spehro Pefany, Tony Williams, John
Poplish, Tom Bruhns and Jim Thompson, and since neither Jim Thompson
nor Winfield Hill would concede the other's right to that title and
the other four clearly don't regard themselves as great, the title
"the great" clearly has to be a sarcasm.

Hey! I'm Great!

At something...

I'm sure of it...

If I only knew what it was... ;-)

Charlie

Actually, Bill, I think both Jim and Win aknowledge each other's design
skills, they just enjoy tweaking each other over polytics to admit it...

 

[Guy Macon]

It looked to me that it must be TWO Engineers, one who has a degree, and
another who has a license, but not a degree. I think the demonstration was
that one 'could' be an Engineer, as he had a license to practise as an
Engineer, and the other 'was' an Engineer as he was qualified to be an
engineer. It can't be the same individual as he would have either the
degree, OR, the license, or both, but surely not be an engineer without
either, perhaps an Engineer who has either a degree or a license from
California could enlighten us.

Why would you think that having a engineering degree or an
engineering license would qualify someone to expound upon
a legal question?

Why would you think that one could "surely not be an engineer
without either" [license or degree]?

In California an Engineer may have a license and have a degree.

In California an Engineer may have a license and have no degree.

In California an Engineer may have no license and have a degree.

In California an Engineer may have no license and have no degree.

( Hint: 11 10 01 00 )

There is no licensing requirement for being an Engineer in California.

There is no educational requirement for being an Engineer in California.

There are titles that are restricted, but "Engineer" is not
one of them. For example:

The title "PE" requires a license.

The Title "PhD" requires a degree.

An autodidact with no license or certification may call herself
an engineer, work as an engineer, and advertise herself as an
engineer. She can design consumer products, aircraft (military
and commercial), industrial equipment, medical devices, etc.
Safety comes from insuring that the product is designed to
comply with appropriate standards, not by attempting to control
who is and isn't allowed to design things.

 

[Two Ravens]

There are titles that are restricted, but "Engineer" is not
one of them.  For example:

The Title "PhD" requires a degree.

More usually, the post-nominal PhD refers to one who having a degree has
then taken, a secondary, more advanced degree, (or even a tertiary degree,
having attained an MA or MSc). Or after a period of further supervised
study or original research has been adjudged worthy of the award of the
post-nominal PhD.

I see your point, Medical Practitioners, are known as, or addressed as,
Doctor or Doctors, (as a group), but it is purely a courtesy title, as
with some dentists. They have no PhD but still use the title 'Doctor',
having undertaken extensive periods of study.

 

[John Larkin]

I am going to take you at your word and do my best to "post
interesting or helpful stuff about electronics" and to "back
off on the long-winded prose." Those are Good Things to do
anyway.

Based on past behavior I suspect that my best won't be good
enough for you and that the flaming will continue, but I am
willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Do you care if I flame you? This is an unmoderated group (I hardly
need remind you!) and any one of the 6 billion people on Earth can
post here and razz you. So get used to it.

John

 

[John Larkin]

Hey! I'm Great!

At something...

I'm sure of it...

If I only knew what it was... ;-)

Charlie

Actually, Bill, I think both Jim and Win aknowledge each other's design
skills, they just enjoy tweaking each other over polytics to admit it...

What's all this strutting about intellectual superiority? Everybody is
as smart as they were born, and nobody can take credit for that.

Designing circuits at least takes some work.

John

 

[Two Ravens]

There is no licensing requirement for being an Engineer in California.

There is no educational requirement for being an Engineer in California.

There are titles that are restricted, but "Engineer" is not
one of them.  For example:

The title "PE" requires a license.

Is this passage from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer that to
which you refer above, regarding the title "PE" requiring a license?

"Laws exist in all U.S. states and in Canada which limit the use of several
engineer titles, particularly the title of "Professional Engineer," and
often also titles indicating a specific, regulated branch of engineering,
such as "civil engineer" or "mechanical engineer." Most U.S. states do not
restrict unlicensed persons from calling themselves an "engineer" or
indicating branches or specialties not covered by the licensing acts...

 

[Rich Grise]

I am going to take you at your word and do my best to "post
interesting or helpful stuff about electronics" and to "back
off on the long-winded prose." Those are Good Things to do
anyway.

Based on past behavior I suspect that my best won't be good
enough for you and that the flaming will continue, but I am
willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Do you suppose this passive-aggressive martyr complex might
somehow be related to that weight problem?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:16:54 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

.... Everybody is

as smart as they were born ...

I'd take exception to this. Take a pair of identical twins, separate
them at birth, and put one in a bare room and have somebody feed it and
diaper it regularly, and then leave it lie there.

Put the other one in a room full of educational toys, jungle gyms,
books, speak-n-spells, etc, and send in a nanny to play with the kid,
read to it, etc, and I bet by the time they're kiddiegarter age, they'll
test different on for example a Benet.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[[email protected]]

Hey! I'm Great!

At something...

I'm sure of it...

Me too.

If I only knew what it was... ;-)

I'd be happy if a potential employer knew what it was

Actually, Bill, I think both Jim and Win acknowledge each other's design
skills, they just enjoy tweaking each other over politics too much to admit it...

Jim's politics worry me too.

 

[[email protected]]

What's all this strutting about intellectual superiority? Everybody is
as smart as they were born, and nobody can take credit for that.

Nature versus nurture. In fact smarts are roughly half inherited while
the other half reflects the environment in which you grow up - mainly
the influence of the kids that you grow up with. And nobody can take
credit for that either.

Designing circuits at least takes some work.

And the personality traits that make it easier for some people to
knuckle down and work hard are roughly half inherited and half
instilled by the environment in which you grew up.

It make sense to know what you are good at so you can concentrate your
efforts where they can do the most good, but strutting about
intellectual superiority is indeed a waste of time.

Exhibiting intellectual superiority might make more sense - as a form
of advertising - but you do have to know enough not to parade daft
misunderstandings as if they might be bright ideas.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:16:54 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

... Everybody is

I'd take exception to this. Take a pair of identical twins, separate
them at birth, and put one in a bare room and have somebody feed it and
diaper it regularly, and then leave it lie there.

Put the other one in a room full of educational toys, jungle gyms,
books, speak-n-spells, etc, and send in a nanny to play with the kid,
read to it, etc, and I bet by the time they're kiddiegarter age, they'll
test different on for example a Benet.

So, how does the smarter one take credit for that?

John