«

catwalker63 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.
>
>
>

No ****!

Furrfu.

JaR

Blah, blah, blah. I read enough to realize you have entirely missed the
point of my post. <sigh> Find something important to argue about! <eg>

--
Kelley
aka catwalker
IT Professional, MCP


"Bernie" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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

On Jul 26, 2004 "catwalker63" blathered:

<snipped>

Please don't post binaries in text newsgroups.

--
TechGeekPro - MCSA, A+, Net+, i-Net+
"Not only am I certified, I'm certifiable!"

And I don't even really like fish. <eg>

--
Kelley
aka catwalker
IT Professional, MCP


"Bernie" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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

catwalker63 wrote:

> And I don't even really like fish. <eg>
>

WTF?

On Jul 26, 2004 "catwalker63" blathered:

> And I don't even really like fish. <eg>

You should snip more. I don't know what the h*ll you were replying to.
Bottom-posting would also be nice.

--
TechGeekPro - MCSA, A+, Net+, i-Net+
"Not only am I certified, I'm certifiable!"

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:32:36 -0700, "catwalker63"
<_catwalker63_@hotmamamail.com> wrote:

>Blah, blah, blah. I read enough to realize you have entirely missed the
>point of my post. <sigh> Find something important to argue about! <eg>

It seemed like the point was to resurrect the justification. Sorry if
I missed the real point.

But what is important is entirely relative. It is probably important
to those professions that are the victim of the title theft, don't you
think? If it is important enough for people to keep resurrecting the
debate, then it is important enough for me to reply....it works both
ways. I'm not running a monolog here and last I checked you were
contributing [some point] to the discussion [even if I missed it].
Don't complain that I responded.

--Bernie

On Jul 26, 2004 "JaR" blathered:

> catwalker63 wrote:
>
>> And I don't even really like fish. <eg>
>>
>
> WTF?

Maybe she was referring to her smell?

--
TechGeekPro - MCSA, A+, Net+, i-Net+
"Not only am I certified, I'm certifiable!"

TechGeekPro wrote:

> On Jul 26, 2004 "catwalker63" blathered:
>
>
>>And I don't even really like fish. <eg>
>
>
> You should snip more. I don't know what the h*ll you were replying to.
> Bottom-posting would also be nice.
>

Ms Kelley is a little bit clue-resistant, it seems.

On Jul 26, 2004 "JaR" blathered:

> Ms Kelley is a little bit clue-resistant, it seems.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

--
TechGeekPro - MCSA, A+, Net+, i-Net+
"Not only am I certified, I'm certifiable!"