> On Sep 30, 6:46 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> On 09-30-2012 12:40, DirtRoadie wrote:

>>> On Sep 30, 9:22 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> They have no idea what they _don't_ know.  They've never taken the first
>>>> qualifying test, never competed for a position, never accumulated any
>>>> practical experience.  But in their imagination, they are brilliant.

>>> Why Frank! Speaking of those who in their imagination are brilliant...
>>> That's precisely how your name came up in discussion!
>>> It's remarkable you do not understand the difference between a
>>> hypothetical and a fact.
>>> One of your problems is that you very obviously fall into the category
>>> of not knowing what you don't know.
>>> You repeatedly and unapologetically say silly things.

>> Uh, it wasn't Frank that started this sub-thread
>> with a very silly denigration of engineers.

>> --
>> Wes Groleau

>>      Curmudgeon's Complaints on Courtesy:
>>     http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html

> Thanks for taking the bait.
> I agree that there are good engineers and bad engineers (or any other
> occupation or avocation) .
> However whether any individual is one or the other cannot be
> determined solely from what he tells you.

> The individual does not
> define the profession nor vice versa, the latter being the primary
> point I wanted to make.

> On 09-30-2012 22:47, DirtRoadie wrote:

> > The individual does not
> > define the profession nor vice versa, the latter being the primary
> > point I wanted to make.

>     "There's no end to the problems that can pop
>      up when engineers have been involved."

> is a rather ineffective way to make that point.

> --
> Wes Groleau

> Change is inevitable.  We need to learn that “inevitable" is
> neither a synonym for “good" nor for “bad.”

> On Oct 1, 7:11 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> On 09-30-2012 22:47, DirtRoadie wrote:
>>> The individual does not
>>> define the profession nor vice versa, the latter being the primary
>>> point I wanted to make.

>>      "There's no end to the problems that can pop
>>       up when engineers have been involved."

>> is a rather ineffective way to make that point.

> I agree. But that wasn't intended to make the point standing alone. It
> took responses and a bit of discussion. Thanks.