Quote:
"...this discussion about a certified engineer writing a Cgi support letter to a Governor of his home state..."
The above quotation suggests a lack of understanding of what a "Professional Engineer" title is. A person who understands the meaning of the title would not demean this man's educational background by misstating his title as "a certified engineer".
To become a "Professional Engineer" one must undergo a specific set of education, experience, and testing requirements.
You must complete four steps to become a licensed Professional Engineer:
1. Graduate from an ABET-accredited engineering program. (ABET: Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology)
2. Pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam.
3. Work as an engineer for four years.
4. Pass the Professional Engineering (PE) exam (you cannot take the PE exam without first passing the FE exam).
A "certified engineer" does not have a consistent definition in the engineering profession. That title is used much more loosely and varies from industry to industry.
For example, the Information Technology industry will allow one to use that title, (presented from a software manufacturer, not an educational institute) by simply passing a few tests, There is no experience or educational requirement associated with it. (eg: MCSE)
Actually the whole line of reasoning presented has little bearing on the on the upcoming CGFI review proceedings. The tone of a "non-party's" letter means nothing.
The DRMS is required by law to consider only the information and data presented before it.
This is not and should not be a case of if or how much a letter addressing the DRMS and MLRB, is reverent, irreverent, respectful or disrespectful.
That is a trumped up and distracting argument.
The MLRB and DRMS have one task, to answer the questions required by the Hard Rock/Metal Mining Rules.
Emotion and tenor of a letter of comment from a person classified as a "non-party" (as defined by the DRMS) will not and should not effect the decision making process.
If the logic presented by the quoted source were the yardstick used to determine the fate of the ammendment before it, then "INFORM's" letter dictating how the DRMS should do their job and go outside the present laws, would be viewed with equal distaine.
The assertion that harsh words will derail the review process sells the MLRB board members short and demeans their intelligence. I believe the MLRB members are experienced enough to focus only on the pertinent points, and dismiss the extraneous rhetoric.
I suggest the readers here do the same. Focus on what is pertinent for the review and approval of AM-03. Ignore the rhetoric about accusations of imagined unprofessionalism.
"Let's get to work."
CGFIA
Don't take my word for it, Do your own research! Then you will know it's true!
