On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 01:31:12 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

|On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:36:57 -0700, Wes Stewart
|wrote:
||Hi All,
||
||The statement "an engineer" is certainly inaccurate by my count too.
||What about Davis, Grant, and Eisenhower?
|
|I was thinking of people that I had a chance to vote for. But, what
|about them? If we're going to get picky.
|
|You choose to limit the population by who you could've voted for is
|not?

Forgive me. This topic drifted off when Yuri (if I can remember that
far back) proposed the premise that maybe we would be better off with
engineers running things rather than lawyers and politicians.

I offered *an* example of POTUS and *an* example of a mayor to refute
this idea. I did not intend them to be the *only* examples.

|
|Davis wasn't POTUS.
|
|He sure wasn't POTUSSR.
|
|
|Washington was not an engineer in the usually accepted sense of the
|word.
|
|A technically trained user of instrumentation for the purpose of
|measuring and generating specifications is not an engineer? We are
|not talking about Alchemy or Astrology here. Getting picky.

Not me, the place that I worked for sure was though. I can tell you
from very personal experience that it was the accepted norm that many,
many graduate engineers thought that *anyone*, regardless of talent,
without an engineering degree was not a "real" engineer.

Hell, I knew people that thought that if you didn't have a PhD you
didn't know squat. One of these could not hold a conversation about
the weather without interjecting, "When I was working on my
thesis...."

[snip]

| I don't suppose you want
|to vote for me,

You have a great gift of gab, but no, I wouldn't vote for you g