You seem to be assuming that this will be a rational discussion & not
another parade of political rants. Good luck with that.
Chuck
Richard Calvert wrote:
> So wait, we left an engineering decision up to "the people?" And are you saying that we should pay more taxes? Or, that the agency who shouldn't be held liable, should better appropriate its funds? Kind of seems like you're saying neither... but then how would you propose it to have been fixed?
>
> They knew there was a problem. If you or I knew one of our structures could fail, we certainly couldn't use the excuse "well no one was willing to pay me to fix it" ...
>
> And smart enough for what? people to live were there is no chance of natural catastrophe? Where might that be?
>
> To me this is a good thing. I imagine that politics held more weight than safety in this situation; and that is a problem that ought to be addressed by someone.
>
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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@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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********