This thread may have more to do with RP than is obvious. Elaine is making
the point that communication, not necessarily articulation, is what is
important. George is trying to impress on Elaine the importance of
communicating clearly (even though he has two obvious spelling errors in the
paragraph below, as well as a couple sentence contstructions that my editor does
not allow). By passing messages back and forth, they are communicating
points of view, in an effort to create a picture of the situation.
In RP, if George had made the kinds of mistakes in his CAD file that he
did in that paragraph, once he prints out the part, he (or Elaine) will see
them and either correct them or decide the picture is clear enough for
modelling purposes and it's not worth the trouble to change this one and
more worth while to go on to a new design. Of course, with the message that
started this whole thread (was it Karl's?) all he got was a pile of goo in
the bottom of the machine.
I'm not sure if we have a pile of goo or simply an ugly model, but
perhaps a new design (topic) is in order.
Brock Hinzmann
Elaine Hunt wrote:
>George Sachs wrote...
>>With all due respect, as a person representing (maybe indirectly) an
>>institution of "higher" learning, I don't think the acceptance of a
dumbing
>>down of our society (with the help of technology all the more!) is
something
>>I think the educators at Clemson would condone. Mistakes are excusable
>>(always) but defending sloppyness and condoning mediocrity
(particularly
>>within a professional context or as a member of SME) is not consistent
with
>>the notion of striving for excellance and global leadership. When many
>
>
>My opinions are my own...not Clemson's nor SME's.....and your opinions
are
>your own and I consider where they originated....and their worth. Thanks
>for educating me and the RP world.....
>
>Elaine
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:39:52 EEST