On Oct 30, 8:12 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Oct 30, 10:06 am, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:55:51 -0000, wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:04 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...

wrote:
On Oct 29, 5:00 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
messagenews:I_ednaaXNKvCWbjanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comca st.com...

JohnH wrote:
I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He
seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of
which I
was a member for 24 years.
I have no idea about the engineering specs and manual that Bassy
was
talking about, but it seems to me that the jobs the C.O.E's
tackle
would
require them to be very creative and to think outside the box.
I do think he was correct about the water management issues,
based upon
what I have read about the Corps priority lists and down stream
commitments.
Did you notice I change the Corps to COE, so I would not make the
Fax
Paux
of calling them Corp
The COE would follow the rules. And codes are rules. Thinking
outside
the
box would leave them liable for immense damage judgements if their
was a
failure in a project. Whether the failure was from the
compromised code
or
not. Just the fact that the codes were not followed would be the
deep
pocket entrance.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can follow all of the rules, and still be able to use your
engineering judgement, and still comply with all applicable codes.
What is different with the Corps, is that if it isn't written
somewhere, you can't do it. What you don't understand (and probably
never will) is just that. An engineer can follow all applicable
codes
and regulations, but still use his judgement for engineering. Not
with
the corps. If it's not written, it ain't gonna happen.

Military mindset. Crawl into the box and pull the lid down tight.
Fortunately, we do have some officers in the military who see the
fallacy
in that sort of behavior and break free.

Not a military mindset. A legal mindset. Weird interpretation of the
code
and a natural disaster hits and a dam fails. The COE will be liable
for a
lot more dollars. Costing us the taxpayers a lot more dollars.
Just like
here in California, the developer got the state to rule the levees
were 200
year storm safe in hte Sacramento area and now if there is a levee
break,
the state is on the hook for replacement of all homes that are built
in the
flood plain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From your above paragraph, as usual, you don't have a damned clue what
you're talking about. Did you read my example to JohnH? THAT is just
plain stupid.

What was so stupid in the example you gave me?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, hell, are you really so thick that you don't understand? I guess
maybe you DID work for the Corps then! I'll try to use small simple
words that you can understand. I specified ladder type horizontal
joint reinforcement for a damned good reason. In this instance, every
other vertical cell was to be grouted solid with one #5 bar for
reinforcing to to the height of the CMU and it's seismic catagory. IF
you use diagonally braced horizontal joint reinforcement, it
interferes with the vertical cells. BUT, the Corps of Engineers has
some criteria somewhere (NOT a code issue) that says they'll only
except the diagonally braced reinforcement. After two or three
conversations with a representative of the Corps, I gave up. He
couldn't even think about using ladder type even though I explained to
him several times that it will interfere with the cells that HAVE to
be grouted. The next week I get a call. Hmm, there seems to be a
problem! First the grout isn't getting consolidated in the cells
because of the interference. Secondly, they can't get the reinforcing
centered in the cells, because of the interference which is completely
100% their fault. Tried and tried to tell them. Now, you said it was
bull**** that the engineers for the corps couldn't make engineering
decisions. This is just a small taste of what I've gone through with
the bumble****s. Never again. Haven't done any corps work for 3 years,
don't miss them a bit.

Your example is stupid. The COE is going to go with what ever is written as
SOP. Prevents legal problems. Does not matter if it is the best way or
cheapest way to do a job. My example is far from stupid. Is the way the
world runs. Why there is a statement on auto sunshades to remove before
driving. That fear of legal repercussions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Stupid? How many Army Corps of Engineers projects have YOU been the
engineer on? You need to learn how to read, Bill. IF you'll notice, I
stated over and over in this thread that the coe can only do what ever
is written as SOP or code. THAT is the problem. No amount of
engineering judgement can be used. As a civilian, I can, and do. I
have no fear of legal "repercussions" if I've followed the applicable
codes for the job, and have used good, sound engineering, and can
prove such.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:32:36 -0000, wrote:

On Oct 30, 8:12 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Oct 30, 10:06 am, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:55:51 -0000, wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:04 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...

wrote:
On Oct 29, 5:00 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
messagenews:I_ednaaXNKvCWbjanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comca st.com...

JohnH wrote:
I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He
seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of
which I
was a member for 24 years.
I have no idea about the engineering specs and manual that Bassy
was
talking about, but it seems to me that the jobs the C.O.E's
tackle
would
require them to be very creative and to think outside the box.
I do think he was correct about the water management issues,
based upon
what I have read about the Corps priority lists and down stream
commitments.
Did you notice I change the Corps to COE, so I would not make the
Fax
Paux
of calling them Corp
The COE would follow the rules. And codes are rules. Thinking
outside
the
box would leave them liable for immense damage judgements if their
was a
failure in a project. Whether the failure was from the
compromised code
or
not. Just the fact that the codes were not followed would be the
deep
pocket entrance.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can follow all of the rules, and still be able to use your
engineering judgement, and still comply with all applicable codes.
What is different with the Corps, is that if it isn't written
somewhere, you can't do it. What you don't understand (and probably
never will) is just that. An engineer can follow all applicable
codes
and regulations, but still use his judgement for engineering. Not
with
the corps. If it's not written, it ain't gonna happen.

Military mindset. Crawl into the box and pull the lid down tight.
Fortunately, we do have some officers in the military who see the
fallacy
in that sort of behavior and break free.

Not a military mindset. A legal mindset. Weird interpretation of the
code
and a natural disaster hits and a dam fails. The COE will be liable
for a
lot more dollars. Costing us the taxpayers a lot more dollars.
Just like
here in California, the developer got the state to rule the levees
were 200
year storm safe in hte Sacramento area and now if there is a levee
break,
the state is on the hook for replacement of all homes that are built
in the
flood plain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From your above paragraph, as usual, you don't have a damned clue what
you're talking about. Did you read my example to JohnH? THAT is just
plain stupid.

What was so stupid in the example you gave me?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, hell, are you really so thick that you don't understand? I guess
maybe you DID work for the Corps then! I'll try to use small simple
words that you can understand. I specified ladder type horizontal
joint reinforcement for a damned good reason. In this instance, every
other vertical cell was to be grouted solid with one #5 bar for
reinforcing to to the height of the CMU and it's seismic catagory. IF
you use diagonally braced horizontal joint reinforcement, it
interferes with the vertical cells. BUT, the Corps of Engineers has
some criteria somewhere (NOT a code issue) that says they'll only
except the diagonally braced reinforcement. After two or three
conversations with a representative of the Corps, I gave up. He
couldn't even think about using ladder type even though I explained to
him several times that it will interfere with the cells that HAVE to
be grouted. The next week I get a call. Hmm, there seems to be a
problem! First the grout isn't getting consolidated in the cells
because of the interference. Secondly, they can't get the reinforcing
centered in the cells, because of the interference which is completely
100% their fault. Tried and tried to tell them. Now, you said it was
bull**** that the engineers for the corps couldn't make engineering
decisions. This is just a small taste of what I've gone through with
the bumble****s. Never again. Haven't done any corps work for 3 years,
don't miss them a bit.

Your example is stupid. The COE is going to go with what ever is written as
SOP. Prevents legal problems. Does not matter if it is the best way or
cheapest way to do a job. My example is far from stupid. Is the way the
world runs. Why there is a statement on auto sunshades to remove before
driving. That fear of legal repercussions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Stupid? How many Army Corps of Engineers projects have YOU been the
engineer on? You need to learn how to read, Bill. IF you'll notice, I
stated over and over in this thread that the coe can only do what ever
is written as SOP or code. THAT is the problem. No amount of
engineering judgement can be used. As a civilian, I can, and do. I
have no fear of legal "repercussions" if I've followed the applicable
codes for the job, and have used good, sound engineering, and can
prove such.

You state that you also "follow the applicable codes for the job...".

Wow.

On Oct 31, 12:30 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:32:36 -0000, wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:12 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

On Oct 30, 10:06 am, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:55:51 -0000, wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:04 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...

wrote:
On Oct 29, 5:00 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
messagenews:I_ednaaXNKvCWbjanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comca st.com...

JohnH wrote:
I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He
seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of
which I
was a member for 24 years.
I have no idea about the engineering specs and manual that Bassy
was
talking about, but it seems to me that the jobs the C.O.E's
tackle
would
require them to be very creative and to think outside the box.
I do think he was correct about the water management issues,
based upon
what I have read about the Corps priority lists and down stream
commitments.
Did you notice I change the Corps to COE, so I would not make the
Fax
Paux
of calling them Corp
The COE would follow the rules. And codes are rules. Thinking
outside
the
box would leave them liable for immense damage judgements if their
was a
failure in a project. Whether the failure was from the
compromised code
or
not. Just the fact that the codes were not followed would be the
deep
pocket entrance.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can follow all of the rules, and still be able to use your
engineering judgement, and still comply with all applicable codes.
What is different with the Corps, is that if it isn't written
somewhere, you can't do it. What you don't understand (and probably
never will) is just that. An engineer can follow all applicable
codes
and regulations, but still use his judgement for engineering. Not
with
the corps. If it's not written, it ain't gonna happen.

Military mindset. Crawl into the box and pull the lid down tight.
Fortunately, we do have some officers in the military who see the
fallacy
in that sort of behavior and break free.

Not a military mindset. A legal mindset. Weird interpretation of the
code
and a natural disaster hits and a dam fails. The COE will be liable
for a
lot more dollars. Costing us the taxpayers a lot more dollars.
Just like
here in California, the developer got the state to rule the levees
were 200
year storm safe in hte Sacramento area and now if there is a levee
break,
the state is on the hook for replacement of all homes that are built
in the
flood plain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From your above paragraph, as usual, you don't have a damned clue what
you're talking about. Did you read my example to JohnH? THAT is just
plain stupid.

What was so stupid in the example you gave me?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, hell, are you really so thick that you don't understand? I guess
maybe you DID work for the Corps then! I'll try to use small simple
words that you can understand. I specified ladder type horizontal
joint reinforcement for a damned good reason. In this instance, every
other vertical cell was to be grouted solid with one #5 bar for
reinforcing to to the height of the CMU and it's seismic catagory. IF
you use diagonally braced horizontal joint reinforcement, it
interferes with the vertical cells. BUT, the Corps of Engineers has
some criteria somewhere (NOT a code issue) that says they'll only
except the diagonally braced reinforcement. After two or three
conversations with a representative of the Corps, I gave up. He
couldn't even think about using ladder type even though I explained to
him several times that it will interfere with the cells that HAVE to
be grouted. The next week I get a call. Hmm, there seems to be a
problem! First the grout isn't getting consolidated in the cells
because of the interference. Secondly, they can't get the reinforcing
centered in the cells, because of the interference which is completely
100% their fault. Tried and tried to tell them. Now, you said it was
bull**** that the engineers for the corps couldn't make engineering
decisions. This is just a small taste of what I've gone through with
the bumble****s. Never again. Haven't done any corps work for 3 years,
don't miss them a bit.

Your example is stupid. The COE is going to go with what ever is written as
SOP. Prevents legal problems. Does not matter if it is the best way or
cheapest way to do a job. My example is far from stupid. Is the way the
world runs. Why there is a statement on auto sunshades to remove before
driving. That fear of legal repercussions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Stupid? How many Army Corps of Engineers projects have YOU been the
engineer on? You need to learn how to read, Bill. IF you'll notice, I
stated over and over in this thread that the coe can only do what ever
is written as SOP or code. THAT is the problem. No amount of
engineering judgement can be used. As a civilian, I can, and do. I
have no fear of legal "repercussions" if I've followed the applicable
codes for the job, and have used good, sound engineering, and can
prove such.

You state that you also "follow the applicable codes for the job...".

Wow.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Uh, yes?
But, the applicable codes don't cover every nuance of properly
engineering a building. There, if it's not a Corps job, I can use my
engineering judgement. I've given you an example of how the corps goes
about it. In the private sector there are some varients to the codes,
such as quite a few insurers of large industrial buildings will have
guidelines more stringent than the applicable codes, but a person can
still use their expertise to get to the end result. I know of an A&E
firm right in this area that will do Corps work, but automatically
adds a third to their fee.