Wednesday, February 18, 2004

Clarifications on SEC response

Stay with Trevor's #2&3, below. Insert "work face crew" appropriately in Trevor's #3 and don't look back. All the rest is commentary. The "density" in all my regulatory submittals is intentional and I put much effort into compacting their design. The only audience that I write for (profound or rubbish) is the Federal District Court Judge. This is why each submittal sets that up in the front. As the nation's gatekeeper on the professional standard of care, he is the only dude stuck in the same vise as the PE. He, and he only, has to be objective because the legal system checks and balances forces him to. I have to tell him straight up and he has to take it in. Lawyers are quite capable of logical thinking when paid enough or squeezed enough. In ordinary contact, of course, I employ the opposite approach.

When I search for the best objective analysis, the English are invariably at the top, as in Trevor above. When it comes to dealing with the mess, look to nothing but natural law. In my dotage, blessed with time and internet access at the world, I have learned (exactly like the English lords) that moving the leading edge forward is a personal effort. By the time you triple check your alignment with Newton's physics, the breakthrough is on your lap.