Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Graham "Poopie" Stevenson claims to be a qualified engineer. Yet he
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the qualities in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim.

Is that so Jootikins ?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's exceedingly unprofessional lack of
professional gravitas.

I expect that if true, this knowledge must be widely available. How about a cite
?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's illiterate use of the verb "cite" for
the noun, "citation", or Poopie's appalling misuse of that concept when
he means "reference".

But what sort of an engineer has never heard of Timoshenko's Strength
of Materials? Several hundred editions were published in the last
hundred years. It is a reference known to every engineer and techie, to
every scaffolder and rigger. But Graham "Poopie" Stevenson is ignorant
of Timo!

Is there is anyone who was at college with Poopie Stevenson who can
confirm his claim that he qualified as an engineer? Not that a diploma
guarantees competence -- we've seen quite a few diplomaed quarterwits
on these newsgroups over the years -- but at least its lack would be a
start towards explaining Poopie Stevenson's ignorance on this and other
matters essential to any self-respecting engineer.

Andre Jute
The trouble with Poopie is not what he doesn't know, but what he knows
for certain that isn't true. --- with apologies to Mark Twain

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Andre Jute wrote:
Graham "Poopie" Stevenson claims to be a qualified engineer. Yet he
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the qualities in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim.

Is that so Jootikins ?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's exceedingly unprofessional lack of
professional gravitas.

I expect that if true, this knowledge must be widely available. How about a cite
?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's illiterate use of the verb "cite" for
the noun, "citation", or Poopie's appalling misuse of that concept when
he means "reference".

But what sort of an engineer has never heard of Timoshenko's Strength
of Materials? Several hundred editions were published in the last
hundred years. It is a reference known to every engineer and techie, to
every scaffolder and rigger. But Graham "Poopie" Stevenson is ignorant
of Timo!

Is there is anyone who was at college with Poopie Stevenson who can
confirm his claim that he qualified as an engineer? Not that a diploma
guarantees competence -- we've seen quite a few diplomaed quarterwits
on these newsgroups over the years -- but at least its lack would be a
start towards explaining Poopie Stevenson's ignorance on this and other
matters essential to any self-respecting engineer.

Andre Jute
The trouble with Poopie is not what he doesn't know, but what he knows
for certain that isn't true. --- with apologies to Mark Twain

those of use who are not mechanical or structural engineers will almost
certainly not be familiar with timmy's strength of materials.
electrical engineers are not required to study structures at length.

Jason

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"Jason Lavoie" wrote in message
ps.com...

Andre Jute wrote:
Graham "Poopie" Stevenson claims to be a qualified engineer. Yet he
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the qualities
in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim.

Is that so Jootikins ?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's exceedingly unprofessional lack of
professional gravitas.

I expect that if true, this knowledge must be widely available. How
about a cite
?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's illiterate use of the verb "cite" for
the noun, "citation", or Poopie's appalling misuse of that concept when
he means "reference".

But what sort of an engineer has never heard of Timoshenko's Strength
of Materials? Several hundred editions were published in the last
hundred years. It is a reference known to every engineer and techie, to
every scaffolder and rigger. But Graham "Poopie" Stevenson is ignorant
of Timo!

Is there is anyone who was at college with Poopie Stevenson who can
confirm his claim that he qualified as an engineer? Not that a diploma
guarantees competence -- we've seen quite a few diplomaed quarterwits
on these newsgroups over the years -- but at least its lack would be a
start towards explaining Poopie Stevenson's ignorance on this and other
matters essential to any self-respecting engineer.

Andre Jute
The trouble with Poopie is not what he doesn't know, but what he knows
for certain that isn't true. --- with apologies to Mark Twain

those of use who are not mechanical or structural engineers will almost
certainly not be familiar with timmy's strength of materials.
electrical engineers are not required to study structures at length.

Jason

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:


And the fact that he makes grammatic errors

What was that?

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

(paul packer) writes:

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:


And the fact that he makes grammatic errors

What was that?

Log/splinter.
--
% Randy Yates % "So now it's getting late,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and those who hesitate
%%% 919-577-9882 % got no one..."
%%%% % 'Waterfall', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"

"only reinforces he's" should be "only reinforces the supposition that
he's"

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Don Pearce wrote:

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"

"only reinforces he's" should be "only reinforces the supposition that
he's"

You're quite correct Don.

Graham

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Don Pearce wrote:

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:


And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.


Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"

"only reinforces he's" should be "only reinforces the supposition that
he's"

'Grammatic' is a valid alternative to 'grammatical' according to the OED.
A man should be praised, not criticized, for the breadth of his vocabulary.
The main error, grammatic and otherwise, in this thread, is:
"There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the qualities in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim."

--
Eiron.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Eiron said:

"There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the qualities in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim."

Are you suggesting we cut off the rims?







--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"



Not necessarily - check your Webster's. (It probably depends on the way it
is used in a specifical context.... ;-)

Now, as you obviously have a little time on your hands, you might be
interested in this (which I nearly didn't bother to post, due to its
near-uselessness):


I have recorded this array of speakers:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...r%20lineup.JPG


With a single (ribbon) mic, set back in a reet lazy-like, 'catch-all'
postion thus:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/mic%20setup.JPG


And (as well as a lot of 'roominess') captured the following:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20A.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20B.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20C.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20D.wav


I would be interested in any comment you have and also which one you think
'best' or 'least worse'...?? (Or order them in accord with your preference?)

(I am only really interested in a direct comparison between two of the
speakers in question and may well post a better-miked comparison shortly,
but have included them all here out of casual interest....)