On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:10:32 -0300, "Gerhard Fiedler" said: > here's what Wikipedia > thinks > of "Engineering": > And while we probably all agree that there is a lot of > discussion > that doesn't fit this description, I think that Russell tries hard to > make > it fit. (Most of the times, at least.) When I read stuff like this I tend to think the writer, a smart person, is intentionally trying to seem thick so as to achieve their goal. In other words, it's a tactic. Why not look at the "spirit of the law". If something like Global Warming generates giant amounts of OT chatter, it belongs OT no matter what the people who say they want "serious scientific discussions" intend. In other words, it defines itself as OT because of the effect it has. Russell has the whole OT space to discuss hot-button issues. If I was a list admin I could force it. I'm not, so I said "please". If Russell wants to discuss specific engineering issues related to the use of lasers to measure ice thickness, and what the differences between what the laser decides is ice and what we define ice to be, that sounds engineering related and it might be possible to keep it on topic. But that's not what he proposed or how he proposed it. Cheerful regards, Bob -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an unladen european swallow -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist