Guy Macon on using terms such as "Professional Engineer"

Irony does not imply falsehood.

Y
--
Guy Macon
Reply to
Guy Macon
Loading thread data ...

Try reading the paragraph again. Two binary variables, "license" and "degree":

Neither = no license and no degree Both = licensed and degreed.

No, just an elementary understanding of English.

--
  Keith
Reply to
krw

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit

ChuMaiFat wrote:

Don't forget, I am not only in California, but I work in Hollywood and live in "The OC"... :)

Please forgive me if this is oversimplified; I don't know you or your level of familiarity with the English language, so I will try to lay out all the details.

When a statement in the English language is in the following form:

"Person X can have attribute A without attribute B, attribute B without attribute A, neither, or both"

The correct parsing is:

X = (A AND (NOT B)) OR (B AND (NOT A)) OR ((NOT A) AND (NOT B)) OR (A AND B).

Your incorrect parsing appears to have been

X = (A AND (NOT B)) AND (B AND (NOT A)) -- Changing the OR to an AND.

In other words, A and B are independent 1-bit variables, and can have any of the following values; 00, 01, 10, 11.

The following is a direct restatement of your question with a different set of independent binary variables. Logically it is the same.

MY STATEMENT (REWRITTEN): An Australian can be blond without being female, a female without being blond, neither blond nor female, or both blond and female.

YOUR RESPONSE (REWRITTEN): If you are talking about someone living in Australia, how the hell could that person be both a "blond without being female" and a "female without being blond" at the same time? Obviously something you'd have to be from OZ to understand, or it some sort of upside down southern hemisphere thing?

The flaw in your reasoning being that in English a comma separated list with "or" between the last two attributes ("X has attribute one, two, three or four") does not imply that X has attributes one and two at the same time.

Again, I don't mean to insult you. I simply don't know whether you are an accomplished English speaker who simply read what I wrote incorrectly or a non-native who needs a detailed explanation so as to understand how to correctly parse the English language.

I hope this helps.

----------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

In the state of California there is no requirement for any degree or license in order to call oneself an "Engineer."

California employers use the term "Engineer" when referring to degreed, non-degreed, licensed, or non-licensed engineers.

California employers use terms such as "BSEE" to refer to that subset of engineers that has a degree.

California employers use the term "Professional Engineer" or "PE" when referring to licensed engineers.

A California engineer can have:

A license and a degree,

A license without a degree,

A degree without a license,

No license, no degree.

What you call yourself depends on your degree or license.

It would be fraud to call oneself "Professional Engineer", "Registered Engineer", "Licensed Engineer", "PE", or "P.E." "EIT", etc. without the proper license.

It would be fraud to call oneself "BSEE", "PHD", "Degreed", Dr.", etc. without the proper degree.

The applicable California law is:

Professional Engineers Act Business And Professions Code sections 6700 ? 6799 Effective January 1, 2007 Chapter 7. Professional Engineers

formatting link

Section 6704 defines who may use various engineer titles:

"Only persons licensed under this chapter shall be entitled to take and use the titles 'consulting engineer,' 'professional engineer,' or 'registered engineer,' or any combination of those titles or abbreviations thereof."

Wikipedia has a good overview of the law in various parts of the world with links to authoritative sources: [

formatting link
]

--
GOOG1E FOOD: Guy Macon guymacon.com Guy Macon 
Guy Macon www.guymacon.com Guy Macon  Guy Macon
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Guy Macon

Mr. Macon has neither the education, nor the recognized qualifications necessary to call himself an "Electrical Engineer", and those who hire him as an Engineer should know that he is not insurable as such and he is legally unable to sign off on jobs as an Engineer.

To the extent that Mr. Macon misrepresents himself, he is a fraud.

Reply to
Rhonda Moffat

No, the two variables, clearly separated by commas, are not binary. The variables are the conjunctives "license without a degree" and "degree without a license." And, quite obviously, it is impossible for Mr. Macon to have both a "license without a degree" and a "degree without a license".

We love it when people try to insult others and end up insulting only themselves.

Bye.

cordially, as always,

rm

Reply to
Roger Manyard

Wrong. The correct parsing is:

X = (A AND NOT B) OR #license without degree (B AND NOT A) OR #degree without license NOT((A AND NOT B) OR (B AND NOT A)) OR #Neither ((A AND NOT B) AND (B AND NOT A)) #Both

Since it is impossible to have both A and !B and B and !A, your last phrase is a contradiction. The logic is elementary.

And you are quite wrong. If you had the benefit of an education you would know this. The notion of you programming anything at the binary level is simply preposterous.

cordially, as always,

rm

Reply to
Roger Manyard

In this particular case, an element of falsehood does seem to be involved.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
bill.sloman

You are incorrect.

What evidence would I possibly have to base a negative opinion on? All the individuals mentioned either have a history of posting material that shows a high degree of skill or have not posted any material that tells me anything one way or the other about their skills. Just because some folks set a rather low evidentiary standard before engaging in flaming, that doesn't mean that I should respond in kind. I find the resulting back- and-forth flaming to be rather boring, so why not say something that is niv=ce and likely to be true?

---------------------------------------------------------------

"The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self esteem. These people think well of themselves in general, but their self-esteem fluctuates. They are especially prone to react defensively to ego threats, and they are also more prone to hostility, anger and aggression than other people.

"These findings shed considerable light on the psychology of the bully. Hostile people do not have low self esteem; on the contrary, they think highly of themselves, But their favorable view of themselves is not held with total conviction, and it goes up and down in response to daily events. The bully has a chip on his shoulder because he thinks you might want to deflate his favorable self image."

-Roy F. Baumeister, _Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty_ p 149

Reply to
Guy Macon

How's that misc.business.product-dev thing working out? Still hijacking posts from other groups?

John

Reply to
John Larkin

Why would they put YOUR face on an ESR meter?

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

Want some Kool-Aid, and a dictionary?

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

I see. You're Rich Grise, in drag.

You forgot to mark your post with "Comma Police".

I sure hope so.

Liar. ;-)

--
  Keith
Reply to
krw

That's what makes it worth the admission price. ;-)

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

Commas are pretty standard delimiters. You do know that, don't you? And in this case, since the commas define the variables, the commas are just as important as the variables.

Or don't you think so?

cordially, as always,

rm

--
http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4065/Rose-Pete-Awards-Accomplishments.html
Reply to
Roger Manyard

When you objected and provided a valid agrument as to why it was a bad practice, I apologized and stopped at once. Apparently that wasn't good enough for you, and here you are, months later, still flaming me over it. I would be most interested in any hint you might be willing to give concerning exactly what a person has to do to satisfy you.

Reply to
Guy Macon

No thanks. I believe that the cult you referred to used Flavor-Aid, not Kool-Aid. See the "Notable facts" section at [

formatting link
]. I wouldn't want to not be authentic...

Normally I would run a spell-checker, but leaving in a few typos helps the self-esteem of certain individuals, and who am I to deny them happiness?

--
Guy Macon
Reply to
Guy Macon

Sure. I didn't realize you were nit-picking on commas because you didn't announce the bust and read him his Miranda rights. That's pretty standard procedure, these days.

No, the context made the logic clear, even with bollixed delimiters.

/S/cordially/sarcastically/

--
  Keith
Reply to
krw

Excuses, excuses.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

No, reading people their "rights" has absolutely nothing to do with parsing statements for their logical meaning.

Oh, so we should ignore the commas and go with what you feel is "clear?"

English major?

cordially, as always,

rm

Reply to
Roger Manyard

You're humor challenged too?

Rather then being a nit-picking jerk, yes.

Of course not. Perhaps you're in the wrong newsgroup. This isn't alt.english.composition.

Horsefeathers.

--
  Keith
Reply to
krw

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.