«

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:00:23 -0500, Bernie <> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:43:09 GMT, Tom MacIntyre
><> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:28:01 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Semantics and Title Sickness seams to be all this is about.
>>>I'm holding a University degree in teaching but I'm not a teacher. Why not?
>>>Because I'm not teaching. Why am I not calling myself an Adjunct? Because
>>>I'm not holding that Job Position just now that gives me that Job Title.
>>>Nowhere in my degree is mentioned the word Teacher and that is the same for
>>>a degree in Engineering. You don't find the word Engineer in the degree.
>>
>> ???
>>
>>You find the word Engineer within the word Engineering in the degree.
>>
>>Tom
>
>No, no Tom. A person with a doctorate in Mathematics is not a
>mathematician since the diploma doesn't have the letters
>M-A-T-H-E-M-A-T-I-C-I-A-N on it in that order. Forget what the term
>mathematician means, we don't want to be bothered with reality.
>
>Likewise, a physicist is not really a physicist, a psychologist a
>psychologist, etc. all because those combinations of letters are not
>explicitly printed on the diploma. Don't you see that?!?!?
>
>--Bernie

Man I love sarcasm...thanks!

Tom

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:55:36 -0500, Bernie <> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:28:01 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>

>>Further more when looking in your definitions from your dictionaries I
>>wonder if you are reading the same as I do? Tell me where in your
>>dictionaries you find the connection between The title Engineer and a degree
>>in Engineering!!
>
>Uhhh. Are you really that obtuse, or do you just pretend to be as a
>party gag on Usenet?
>A...PERSON...WHO...IS...TRAINED...IN...A...BRANCH ...OF...ENGINEERING
>is AN...ENGINEER (n.). It is no more simple than that.
>
>The *only* argument you could possibly make other than a claim that
>Webster is wrong (which is assinine)

Wow...I have actually experienced that, in a discussion about the term
"brother-in-law". The person who doubted the dictionary's correctness
claimed that should she marry someone, that person's sister's husband
does not become her brother-in-law, since their marriage was first.


Tom

>, is to claim that a degree in a
>branch of engineering does not constitute training in a branch of
>engineer (and I know you won't make that assinine argument either).
>

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:59:04 GMT, Tom MacIntyre
<> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:55:36 -0500, Bernie <> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:28:01 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>>Further more when looking in your definitions from your dictionaries I
>>>wonder if you are reading the same as I do? Tell me where in your
>>>dictionaries you find the connection between The title Engineer and a degree
>>>in Engineering!!
>>
>>Uhhh. Are you really that obtuse, or do you just pretend to be as a
>>party gag on Usenet?
>>A...PERSON...WHO...IS...TRAINED...IN...A...BRANC H...OF...ENGINEERING
>>is AN...ENGINEER (n.). It is no more simple than that.
>>
>>The *only* argument you could possibly make other than a claim that
>>Webster is wrong (which is assinine)
>
>Wow...I have actually experienced that, in a discussion about the term
>"brother-in-law". The person who doubted the dictionary's correctness
>claimed that should she marry someone, that person's sister's husband
>does not become her brother-in-law, since their marriage was first.
>

Except that he is coupling this type of silliness with a bold
hypocrisy when he goes on to posit the connection of money to
"Engineer" without a whit of substantiation. He also seems to be
arguing the existence in nature of the freestanding job title
"Engineer", sort of like trying to argue freestanding quarks, free
standing anti-matter, freestanding free radicals, etc. IOW, that
there are these IT people who have simply the word "Engineer" on their
business card, not "Systems Engineer," "Network Engineer," etc, that
the noun "engineer" (except when used as a simple job title) must
always be coupled with an adjective describing the field of study.
IOW, if I am a EE, I am not an engineer, I am only a EE. However, if
I am some loser IT guy who passed a CCNA exam but still can't identify
a router from my own butt, I am an "engineer," not a network engineer,
just a plain "engineer," but only if I make a lot of money when
destroying people's networks.

Never mind that he can't come up with examples of the word "engineer"
*by itself* being used as a job title by anyone other than himself.
Never mind that the definition of the noun actually refers to the
traditional branches of engineering, not the fake ones we invented.
Never mind that the DoL defines "Engineer" as an occupation (a larger
category under which the branches fall) which does not include the
bastard IT designations under it.

Never mind that he has contradicted himself so many times I have begun
to lose count. The most egregious offense is one is strikes at the
heart of his own position:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:48:31 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>The title Engineer by itself does not say more then that you are holding an
>engineering position

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:28:01 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>Get in your head that Engineer as a freestanding word is a simple Job Title.
>Nothing else. It's only putting the Job a little bit higher in salary then a
>Technician.

So does it say you are holding an engineering position (which by
definition means you are applying science and math, which excludes the
vast majority of IT jobs that lift the term) or that you are making
more money than a technician? Oh, and never mind that those who hold
real engineering positions, by his twist-a-plot logic, would not be
allowed to use the "freestanding" title "Engineer." They would have
to use civil engineer, or nuclear engineer, etc. I guess only the
fake engineers are allowed to use "engineer" as a "freestanding"
title...

Basically, he is making these connections up as he goes. That much is
obvious. It is one fallacious construct after another to justify a
fallacious POV.

>Tom
>
>>, is to claim that a degree in a
>>branch of engineering does not constitute training in a branch of
>>engineer (and I know you won't make that assinine argument either).
>>


--Bernie

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:04:06 -0500, Insurrection <> wrote:

>
>
>Bernie wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:59:04 GMT, Tom MacIntyre
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:55:36 -0500, Bernie <> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:28:01 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>Further more when looking in your definitions from your dictionaries I
>>>>>wonder if you are reading the same as I do? Tell me where in your
>>>>>dictionaries you find the connection between The title Engineer and a degree
>>>>>in Engineering!!
>>>>
>>>>Uhhh. Are you really that obtuse, or do you just pretend to be as a
>>>>party gag on Usenet?
>>>>A...PERSON...WHO...IS...TRAINED...IN...A...BRA NCH...OF...ENGINEERING
>>>>is AN...ENGINEER (n.). It is no more simple than that.
>>>>
>>>>The *only* argument you could possibly make other than a claim that
>>>>Webster is wrong (which is assinine)
>>>
>>>Wow...I have actually experienced that, in a discussion about the term
>>>"brother-in-law". The person who doubted the dictionary's correctness
>>>claimed that should she marry someone, that person's sister's husband
>>>does not become her brother-in-law, since their marriage was first.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Except that he is coupling this type of silliness with a bold
>> hypocrisy when he goes on to posit the connection of money to
>> "Engineer" without a whit of substantiation. He also seems to be
>> arguing the existence in nature of the freestanding job title
>> "Engineer", sort of like trying to argue freestanding quarks, free
>> standing anti-matter, freestanding free radicals, etc. IOW, that
>> there are these IT people who have simply the word "Engineer" on their
>> business card, not "Systems Engineer," "Network Engineer," etc, that
>> the noun "engineer" (except when used as a simple job title) must
>> always be coupled with an adjective describing the field of study.
>> IOW, if I am a EE, I am not an engineer, I am only a EE. However, if
>> I am some loser IT guy who passed a CCNA exam but still can't identify
>> a router from my own butt, I am an "engineer," not a network engineer,
>> just a plain "engineer," but only if I make a lot of money when
>> destroying people's networks.
>>
>> Never mind that he can't come up with examples of the word "engineer"
>> *by itself* being used as a job title by anyone other than himself.
>> Never mind that the definition of the noun actually refers to the
>> traditional branches of engineering, not the fake ones we invented.
>> Never mind that the DoL defines "Engineer" as an occupation (a larger
>> category under which the branches fall) which does not include the
>> bastard IT designations under it.
>>
>> Never mind that he has contradicted himself so many times I have begun
>> to lose count. The most egregious offense is one is strikes at the
>> heart of his own position:
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:48:31 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The title Engineer by itself does not say more then that you are holding an
>>>engineering position
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:28:01 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Get in your head that Engineer as a freestanding word is a simple Job Title.
>>>Nothing else. It's only putting the Job a little bit higher in salary then a
>>>Technician.
>>
>>
>> So does it say you are holding an engineering position (which by
>> definition means you are applying science and math, which excludes the
>> vast majority of IT jobs that lift the term) or that you are making
>> more money than a technician? Oh, and never mind that those who hold
>> real engineering positions, by his twist-a-plot logic, would not be
>> allowed to use the "freestanding" title "Engineer." They would have
>> to use civil engineer, or nuclear engineer, etc. I guess only the
>> fake engineers are allowed to use "engineer" as a "freestanding"
>> title...
>>
>> Basically, he is making these connections up as he goes. That much is
>> obvious. It is one fallacious construct after another to justify a
>> fallacious POV.
>>
>>
>>>Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>>, is to claim that a degree in a
>>>>branch of engineering does not constitute training in a branch of
>>>>engineer (and I know you won't make that assinine argument either).
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --Bernie
>Bernie you seem to be a little angry why ?

I'm not angry, but one of my pet peeves in life is when people try to
justify clearly wrong behavior. For example, if someone cheats, they
should just say, "I am cheating, and I don't care if it is wrong..."
But it becomes really annoying when said person goes on an endless
tirade of justification for what they are doing.

In this case people have been trying to wrongfully steal job titles
from another profession. Fine, it happens. But trying to justify it
with ridiculous constructs like, "I make $x/hr therefore I must be an
'engineer'" is just beyond belief.

>**** like this has been going
>on for sometime and will get worse before better so if you have an idea
>on how to change it I would like to know because I can take you on a
>tour and show you people who have Technology Coordinator and Network
>Administrator in front of their name and can not explain the difference
>from DNS to their ASS but this is the wrong group for this conversation
>all though I would like to discuss it further in the wright group.

But that is a different issue from the one I am talking about.
Network administrator and technology coordinator are not rip-offs from
other prestigious professions. Competency issues aside, I have no
problem with those job titles.

--Bernie

"Bernie" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:04:06 -0500, Insurrection <> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bernie wrote:
> >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:59:04 GMT, Tom MacIntyre
> >> <> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:55:36 -0500, Bernie <> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:28:01 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Further more when looking in your definitions from your dictionaries
I
> >>>>>wonder if you are reading the same as I do? Tell me where in your
> >>>>>dictionaries you find the connection between The title Engineer and a
degree
> >>>>>in Engineering!!
> >>>>
> >>>>Uhhh. Are you really that obtuse, or do you just pretend to be as a
> >>>>party gag on Usenet?
> >>>>A...PERSON...WHO...IS...TRAINED...IN...A...BRA NCH...OF...ENGINEERING
> >>>>is AN...ENGINEER (n.). It is no more simple than that.
> >>>>
> >>>>The *only* argument you could possibly make other than a claim that
> >>>>Webster is wrong (which is assinine)
> >>>
> >>>Wow...I have actually experienced that, in a discussion about the term
> >>>"brother-in-law". The person who doubted the dictionary's correctness
> >>>claimed that should she marry someone, that person's sister's husband
> >>>does not become her brother-in-law, since their marriage was first.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Except that he is coupling this type of silliness with a bold
> >> hypocrisy when he goes on to posit the connection of money to
> >> "Engineer" without a whit of substantiation. He also seems to be
> >> arguing the existence in nature of the freestanding job title
> >> "Engineer", sort of like trying to argue freestanding quarks, free
> >> standing anti-matter, freestanding free radicals, etc. IOW, that
> >> there are these IT people who have simply the word "Engineer" on their
> >> business card, not "Systems Engineer," "Network Engineer," etc, that
> >> the noun "engineer" (except when used as a simple job title) must
> >> always be coupled with an adjective describing the field of study.
> >> IOW, if I am a EE, I am not an engineer, I am only a EE. However, if
> >> I am some loser IT guy who passed a CCNA exam but still can't identify
> >> a router from my own butt, I am an "engineer," not a network engineer,
> >> just a plain "engineer," but only if I make a lot of money when
> >> destroying people's networks.
> >>
> >> Never mind that he can't come up with examples of the word "engineer"
> >> *by itself* being used as a job title by anyone other than himself.
> >> Never mind that the definition of the noun actually refers to the
> >> traditional branches of engineering, not the fake ones we invented.
> >> Never mind that the DoL defines "Engineer" as an occupation (a larger
> >> category under which the branches fall) which does not include the
> >> bastard IT designations under it.
> >>
> >> Never mind that he has contradicted himself so many times I have begun
> >> to lose count. The most egregious offense is one is strikes at the
> >> heart of his own position:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:48:31 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>The title Engineer by itself does not say more then that you are
holding an
> >>>engineering position
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:28:01 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Get in your head that Engineer as a freestanding word is a simple Job
Title.
> >>>Nothing else. It's only putting the Job a little bit higher in salary
then a
> >>>Technician.
> >>
> >>
> >> So does it say you are holding an engineering position (which by
> >> definition means you are applying science and math, which excludes the
> >> vast majority of IT jobs that lift the term) or that you are making
> >> more money than a technician? Oh, and never mind that those who hold
> >> real engineering positions, by his twist-a-plot logic, would not be
> >> allowed to use the "freestanding" title "Engineer." They would have
> >> to use civil engineer, or nuclear engineer, etc. I guess only the
> >> fake engineers are allowed to use "engineer" as a "freestanding"
> >> title...
> >>
> >> Basically, he is making these connections up as he goes. That much is
> >> obvious. It is one fallacious construct after another to justify a
> >> fallacious POV.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Tom
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>, is to claim that a degree in a
> >>>>branch of engineering does not constitute training in a branch of
> >>>>engineer (and I know you won't make that assinine argument either).
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --Bernie
> >Bernie you seem to be a little angry why ?
>
> I'm not angry, but one of my pet peeves in life is when people try to
> justify clearly wrong behavior. For example, if someone cheats, they
> should just say, "I am cheating, and I don't care if it is wrong..."
> But it becomes really annoying when said person goes on an endless
> tirade of justification for what they are doing.
>
> In this case people have been trying to wrongfully steal job titles
> from another profession. Fine, it happens. But trying to justify it
> with ridiculous constructs like, "I make $x/hr therefore I must be an
> 'engineer'" is just beyond belief.

Far far more egregious was one guy I know who passed his CCIE and then
started referring to himself as a 'network doctor'.

I think much of the phenomenom of network guys appropriating titles they
clearly have no right to use stems from simple insecurity. In their
hearts, they know that the skills they have, however hard they might have
worked to acquire those skills, don't hold a candle to the skills of real
engineers or real doctors. So they coopt their titles to try to gain some
measure of legitimacy. Notice how strongly competent people never seem to
care too much about titles. I know a whole bunch of MIT alumni, and none of
them particularly care about titles or whether people call them engineers or
not. Only in IT have I ever found people who insist on using the title of
'engineer'.


>
> >**** like this has been going
> >on for sometime and will get worse before better so if you have an idea
> >on how to change it I would like to know because I can take you on a
> >tour and show you people who have Technology Coordinator and Network
> >Administrator in front of their name and can not explain the difference
> >from DNS to their ASS but this is the wrong group for this conversation
> >all though I would like to discuss it further in the wright group.
>
> But that is a different issue from the one I am talking about.
> Network administrator and technology coordinator are not rip-offs from
> other prestigious professions. Competency issues aside, I have no
> problem with those job titles.
>
> --Bernie

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 05:27:43 GMT, "nrf" <> wrote:

>
>"Bernie" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:04:06 -0500, Insurrection <> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Bernie wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:59:04 GMT, Tom MacIntyre
>> >> <> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:55:36 -0500, Bernie <> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:28:01 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>>Further more when looking in your definitions from your dictionaries
>I
>> >>>>>wonder if you are reading the same as I do? Tell me where in your
>> >>>>>dictionaries you find the connection between The title Engineer and a
>degree
>> >>>>>in Engineering!!
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Uhhh. Are you really that obtuse, or do you just pretend to be as a
>> >>>>party gag on Usenet?
>> >>>>A...PERSON...WHO...IS...TRAINED...IN...A...BRA NCH...OF...ENGINEERING
>> >>>>is AN...ENGINEER (n.). It is no more simple than that.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>The *only* argument you could possibly make other than a claim that
>> >>>>Webster is wrong (which is assinine)
>> >>>
>> >>>Wow...I have actually experienced that, in a discussion about the term
>> >>>"brother-in-law". The person who doubted the dictionary's correctness
>> >>>claimed that should she marry someone, that person's sister's husband
>> >>>does not become her brother-in-law, since their marriage was first.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Except that he is coupling this type of silliness with a bold
>> >> hypocrisy when he goes on to posit the connection of money to
>> >> "Engineer" without a whit of substantiation. He also seems to be
>> >> arguing the existence in nature of the freestanding job title
>> >> "Engineer", sort of like trying to argue freestanding quarks, free
>> >> standing anti-matter, freestanding free radicals, etc. IOW, that
>> >> there are these IT people who have simply the word "Engineer" on their
>> >> business card, not "Systems Engineer," "Network Engineer," etc, that
>> >> the noun "engineer" (except when used as a simple job title) must
>> >> always be coupled with an adjective describing the field of study.
>> >> IOW, if I am a EE, I am not an engineer, I am only a EE. However, if
>> >> I am some loser IT guy who passed a CCNA exam but still can't identify
>> >> a router from my own butt, I am an "engineer," not a network engineer,
>> >> just a plain "engineer," but only if I make a lot of money when
>> >> destroying people's networks.
>> >>
>> >> Never mind that he can't come up with examples of the word "engineer"
>> >> *by itself* being used as a job title by anyone other than himself.
>> >> Never mind that the definition of the noun actually refers to the
>> >> traditional branches of engineering, not the fake ones we invented.
>> >> Never mind that the DoL defines "Engineer" as an occupation (a larger
>> >> category under which the branches fall) which does not include the
>> >> bastard IT designations under it.
>> >>
>> >> Never mind that he has contradicted himself so many times I have begun
>> >> to lose count. The most egregious offense is one is strikes at the
>> >> heart of his own position:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:48:31 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>The title Engineer by itself does not say more then that you are
>holding an
>> >>>engineering position
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:28:01 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Get in your head that Engineer as a freestanding word is a simple Job
>Title.
>> >>>Nothing else. It's only putting the Job a little bit higher in salary
>then a
>> >>>Technician.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So does it say you are holding an engineering position (which by
>> >> definition means you are applying science and math, which excludes the
>> >> vast majority of IT jobs that lift the term) or that you are making
>> >> more money than a technician? Oh, and never mind that those who hold
>> >> real engineering positions, by his twist-a-plot logic, would not be
>> >> allowed to use the "freestanding" title "Engineer." They would have
>> >> to use civil engineer, or nuclear engineer, etc. I guess only the
>> >> fake engineers are allowed to use "engineer" as a "freestanding"
>> >> title...
>> >>
>> >> Basically, he is making these connections up as he goes. That much is
>> >> obvious. It is one fallacious construct after another to justify a
>> >> fallacious POV.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Tom
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>, is to claim that a degree in a
>> >>>>branch of engineering does not constitute training in a branch of
>> >>>>engineer (and I know you won't make that assinine argument either).
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --Bernie
>> >Bernie you seem to be a little angry why ?
>>
>> I'm not angry, but one of my pet peeves in life is when people try to
>> justify clearly wrong behavior. For example, if someone cheats, they
>> should just say, "I am cheating, and I don't care if it is wrong..."
>> But it becomes really annoying when said person goes on an endless
>> tirade of justification for what they are doing.
>>
>> In this case people have been trying to wrongfully steal job titles
>> from another profession. Fine, it happens. But trying to justify it
>> with ridiculous constructs like, "I make $x/hr therefore I must be an
>> 'engineer'" is just beyond belief.
>
>Far far more egregious was one guy I know who passed his CCIE and then
>started referring to himself as a 'network doctor'.

Well there you go... I mentioned that title a while back as something
the future might adopt once "engineer" is so thoroughly worn out, like
a dirty piece of underwear. I didn't realize there were *already*
individuals stooping so low.

>I think much of the phenomenom of network guys appropriating titles they
>clearly have no right to use stems from simple insecurity. In their
>hearts, they know that the skills they have, however hard they might have
>worked to acquire those skills, don't hold a candle to the skills of real
>engineers or real doctors. So they coopt their titles to try to gain some
>measure of legitimacy. Notice how strongly competent people never seem to
>care too much about titles. I know a whole bunch of MIT alumni, and none of
>them particularly care about titles or whether people call them engineers or
>not. Only in IT have I ever found people who insist on using the title of
>'engineer'.
>
>
>> >**** like this has been going
>> >on for sometime and will get worse before better so if you have an idea
>> >on how to change it I would like to know because I can take you on a
>> >tour and show you people who have Technology Coordinator and Network
>> >Administrator in front of their name and can not explain the difference
>> >from DNS to their ASS but this is the wrong group for this conversation
>> >all though I would like to discuss it further in the wright group.
>>
>> But that is a different issue from the one I am talking about.
>> Network administrator and technology coordinator are not rip-offs from
>> other prestigious professions. Competency issues aside, I have no
>> problem with those job titles.
>>
>> --Bernie
>


--Bernie

en·gi·neer [ ènj? n?r ]

noun (plural en·gi·neers)

1. engineering engineering professional: somebody who is trained in a
branch of professional engineering


2. rail locomotive driver: somebody who operates a railroad
locomotive.
U.K. term engine driver


3. mechanical engineering mechanic: somebody who operates or services
machines


4. shipping navy ship's officer: an officer on a ship who is in charge
of the engines


5. military construction soldier: a member of a unit of the armed
forces that specializes in building and sometimes destroying bridges,
fortifications, and other large structures


6. planner: somebody who plans, oversees, or brings about something,
especially something that is achieved with ingenuity or secretiveness
the engineer of the overthrow of the government

You're all right and you are all wrong. Now find something worthwhile
to argue about.


--
Kelley
aka catwalker
IT Professional, MCP


"Sunny Cheung" <> wrote in message
news:40d05057$...
> I agree. Calling someone an Engineer who is not formally qualified (in
that
> I mean by successfully graduating from a recognised tertiary institution
> with a B.E or equivalent as deemed so by IEAust) is a total sham to the
> profession!
>
> Everyone would get upset if "alternative medicine practioners" suddenly
> called themselves "doctors", so whats the difference with those getting
> MSCE's and calling themselves "Engineers"? I think its time regulatory
> bodies impose strict guidlines on how organisations can use titles.
>
> What really gets my goat is sparkies calling themselves Electrical
> Engineers!!!
>
>

Definition # 6 describes an engineer as someone who plans, oversees, or
brings about something that is achieved with ingenuity or secretiveness.
That's IT to a tee! <g>

RE your BTW: I'm female so I'm quite able to believe in logical
impossibilities. It's part of my nature. And the term has six definitions
so it's in no way binary.

--
Kelley
aka catwalker
IT Professional, MCP


"Bernie" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 21:56:02 -0700, "catwalker63"
> <_catwalker63_@hotmamamail.com> wrote:
>
> > en·gi·neer [ ènj? n?r ]
> >
> > noun (plural en·gi·neers)
> >
> > 1. engineering engineering professional: somebody who is trained in
a
> >branch of professional engineering
> >
> >
> > 2. rail locomotive driver: somebody who operates a railroad
> >locomotive.
> > U.K. term engine driver
> >
> >
> > 3. mechanical engineering mechanic: somebody who operates or
services
> >machines
> >
> >
> > 4. shipping navy ship's officer: an officer on a ship who is in
charge
> >of the engines
> >
> >
> > 5. military construction soldier: a member of a unit of the armed
> >forces that specializes in building and sometimes destroying bridges,
> >fortifications, and other large structures
> >
> >
> > 6. planner: somebody who plans, oversees, or brings about
something,
> >especially something that is achieved with ingenuity or secretiveness
> > the engineer of the overthrow of the government
> >
> > You're all right and you are all wrong. Now find something
worthwhile
> >to argue about.
>
> Except that none of those definitions fit the so-called "network
> engineer" or "systems engineer"....
>
> BTW, you present a logical impossibility as the solution to the
> argument. We can't all be right and all be wrong on a binary issue.
> The term either fits or it doesn't.
>
> --Bernie

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 21:56:02 -0700, "catwalker63"
<_catwalker63_@hotmamamail.com> wrote:

> en·gi·neer [ ènj? n?r ]
>
> noun (plural en·gi·neers)
>
> 1. engineering engineering professional: somebody who is trained in a
>branch of professional engineering
>
>
> 2. rail locomotive driver: somebody who operates a railroad
>locomotive.
> U.K. term engine driver
>
>
> 3. mechanical engineering mechanic: somebody who operates or services
>machines
>
>
> 4. shipping navy ship's officer: an officer on a ship who is in charge
>of the engines
>
>
> 5. military construction soldier: a member of a unit of the armed
>forces that specializes in building and sometimes destroying bridges,
>fortifications, and other large structures
>
>
> 6. planner: somebody who plans, oversees, or brings about something,
>especially something that is achieved with ingenuity or secretiveness
> the engineer of the overthrow of the government
>
> You're all right and you are all wrong. Now find something worthwhile
>to argue about.

Except that none of those definitions fit the so-called "network
engineer" or "systems engineer"....

BTW, you present a logical impossibility as the solution to the
argument. We can't all be right and all be wrong on a binary issue.
The term either fits or it doesn't.

--Bernie

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 22:47:00 -0700, "catwalker63"
<_catwalker63_@hotmamamail.com> wrote:

>Definition # 6 describes an engineer as someone who plans, oversees, or
>brings about something that is achieved with ingenuity or secretiveness.
>That's IT to a tee! <g>

There are several problems with #6. I'll list those in a reasonable
and logical order.

First, there is disagreement on whether #6 is a true definition.
Webster and American Heritage, carry only a similar definition, but
not nearly as generic. "[3] c : a person who carries through an
enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance." Not sure what your
source is, but I'll tend to stick to Webster. (Note that under the
Webster definition, the bar is much higher so similar arguments apply
but to a greater degree.) MSN Encarta is hardly the end authority on
the English language <g>. Either way, the rest of the argument will
follow very similarly, so for sake of ease, I will still refer to #6
from here on out.

Second, #6 has transient application, and is clearly not applicable to
this topic of job titles. #1 is clearly the definition that has
application to job titles. #6 may apply to certain circumstances, or
activities in time, but it does not make one an engineer by
profession. What didn't come through as clearly in the copying and
pasting is the bold type for the category of the different
definitions. One was labeled "engineering professional" and the other
"planner." Which do you think fits this application (i.e. job titles)
best? As for support in this interpretation, the Department of Labor
who tracks and publishes info on occupations, does not apply this
definition to the term engineer. They apply something along the lines
of #1, but with much greater depth of definition and description. The
heading on your definition #1 "engineering professional" does
highlight the fact that this is the definition that applies to jobs
and job titles if any of them do. For example, an engineer may be
what I am when I get out my roll of duct tape around the house <g>,
but that doesn't make me an engineer by profession. If I call myself
a Network Engineer, I am essentially claiming to be part of the class
of engineering professionals. Definition #6 is clearly not the
definition that is invoked when someone introduces themselves as a
"Systems Engineer."

Third, (for the sake of argument, assuming you still disagree with 1
and 2 above) lets look at the discrepancy between #6 and the vast
majority of those using the title "engineer" in the IT field. At
best, #6 only has application to those who work in the design phase of
projects, particularly the consultants who typically get involved at
the planning level. Yet people who are troubleshooters, fixers, tech
support, implementers, installers, technical salespeople, ad nauseam
all steal the term "engineer" and put it on their business cards too.
Why is that? The interesting dynamic here is that the people who snub
the consultant and say "I am a real engineer because I play with nerd
knobs all day; the consultant is a bozo" are not the engineers...the
consultant is (under that definition)!! Fixing a network, even with
ingenuity, is clearly not an application of #6. Installing a router,
even with ingenuity, is not an application of #6. Designing a network
with ingenuity is at least an arguable application, so see the next
note. But with respect to the hoards of Systems Engineers, Sales
Engineers, Support Engineers, Network Engineers [ad nauseam] whose
jobs don't include design/planning, sorry, but #6 just doesn't cut it.
As an example of this distinction, Software Engineer and Computer
Programmer are two distinctly different jobs, and the DoL tracks them
as separate (but obviously related) professions. So even if you still
believe that #6 applies to some, you have to admit that most of those
using the title in the IT field are using it illegitimately.

Forth, for those few IT people remaining in consideration under point
3, ingenuity and secretiveness don't quite cut it either. Lets narrow
the focus to only those designers who can make argument of the use of
the title under #6. You can't call it secretiveness when bookstores
carry hoards of publications on these subjects of IT. Ingenuity is
certainly debatable here too. I have run across few people who
actually practice ingenuity in their daily jobs. They follow Cisco's
blueprint for design and throw gigabit (and now 10G) pipes everywhere,
even to the desktop, when it really isn't needed. Throwing raw
bandwidth at problems until problems go away is not ingenuity. As
another example, with WLANs (wireless being an area that has
previously been a true application of an engineering field) these so
called planners are not RF engineers, they are people who are looking
for simple rules of thumb to design by, like "one AP per 7500 sq.
ft...." and when those rules of thumb fail them they do a site survey
to figure it out by trial an error. That is not ingenuity. Following
like a lemming the blueprint from Cisco is not ingenuity. Calling an
SME to help them figure out the only complex part of a design is not
ingenuity. Case in point, how many times have you looked at a network
and said "Why that design is ingenious!" Probably never. These
cookie-cutter designs are things you see everywhere you go.
Alternatively put, if your mind convulsed at the suggestion above
(point 3) that the consultant is the "engineer" of the project then
you agree with me on this point too, i.e. that the planner isn't
particularly ingenious in his work. Summary, the guy who wrote the
Cisco blueprint *might* be considered an engineer, some top people in
the industry *might* be considered engineers, but most of the planners
who steal the title "engineer" do not practice ingenuity at all, if
ever. And I then refer you back to point 2 above: even so, it is a
transient description of an activity, not a job title or legitimate
profession.

Fifth, you just really cannot possibly be putting network design on
the same level as engineering a plot to overthrow a government, or
building a bridge to withstand earthquakes, can you???? When they say
(#6) ingenuity, they *mean* ingenuity. They provide an example that
illustrates the level that they are talking about. It just doesn't
follow that our jobs fit in that echelon. For example, I plan to go
to the store, and I think through in my head the shortcut I will take.
Did I engineer my trip to the store? No. There is a level of
ingenuity required, and a level of difficulty required before the term
fits. If former truck drivers could learn the trade in a few months
and do the job as well as the former plumber <g>, then we aren't
talking about a trade that requires a particularly high level of
ingenuity (no offense to truck drivers or plumbers <g>). Your
application of ingenuity to the IT field is greatly overstated.

Sixth, I submit that if #6 really did apply to IT, then we wouldn't be
complaining about offshoring right now because it wouldn't be
happening except as a trickle of jobs moving. I really can't claim
that I am performing secretive arts or ingenuity if just about
*anyone* can do my same job in my place.

Seventh, if you argue that #6 applies to IT as a general statement,
then you also open the flood gates to application of the term doctor
to ourselves. By genericizing beyond the intended application of the
definition (which is fairly clear given the context of it: see point
2) in order to cheapen the term making it apply to a broader set of
people than it should, you open the floodgates to this happening to
other revered titles. In fact, if you want to insist that Encarta is
the authority on the subject of word definitions, all tech support
people in the IT industry should heretofore start calling themselves
"doctors" and change their job titles:

3. somebody who can fix things: somebody who is good at doing
something, especially fixing or improving something

As with the term engineer, Webster offers similar "loopholes" if you
insist on interpreting them that way. Webster is also similarly not as
watered down in wording as Encarta. Encarta seems to be trying to
legitimize the colloquialisms which is not the way you maintain
standards in a language. That is why Encarta isn't authoritative as a
dictionary. See point 1.



Conclusion. 1 and 2 really discredits any application of that
definition to our use of job titles. However, if you contest that,
you at least have to grant 3, that most who do use the title,
shouldn't use that title. 4 through 7 contests even that limited
application of the title. (I suppose all the domestic engineers,
sanitation engineers, custodial engineers, etc. cite #6 and claim they
do some planning in their work too....)

>RE your BTW: I'm female so I'm quite able to believe in logical
>impossibilities. It's part of my nature. And the term has six definitions
>so it's in no way binary.

It is binary by the fact that if one of the six fits the definition
fits, and if none of the six fits it doesn't fit. That is why there
are multiple (sub)definitions--you can't say that a train engineer
(#2) is not an engineer because they aren't in the Navy (#3). That is
obviously not how the logic of definitions works. So regarding the
question posed, there are only two possible conclusions. Since
various sub definitions are meant to be read as logical ORs, the
definition (as a whole) fits or doesn't fit as a simple binary.

--Bernie