In a message dated 1/19/00 8:42:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> But if we are going to
>  introduce these variations in the test procedure, we have to adjust the
>  tolerances for what is acceptable accordingly.

Michael,

I'm not meaning to suggest we introduce emotional variations in materials
testing, but that unless we can amicably resolve human conflict issues we
cannot get to any consensus.

I've been thinking further about that particular incident when I did bring
all the reps together. The end result for us was that we were quietly
blackballed for more than 10 years from a prominent preservation architect's
bid list for being *unsafe* and dangerous. It took 10 years before anyone
felt comfortable enough to tell us. I admit it was unsafe, and when the as
well prominent preservation educator grabbed onto the pipe scaffolding with a
bucket of acidic cleaner sitting atop it and the scaffolding made a sudden
lurch to the left... my estimation of the intelligence of the prominant
educator went in the ditch, only to be properly corrected several years
later. My reaction, at the time, was to ream holes for a month on safety
issues and to demand that the company walk the talk of safety. We are not
quite as naive in setting up field mock-ups as we were 15 years ago.
Regardless, human emotioinal issues have a lot to do with how projects turn
out. It the mechanics have a chip on their shoulder about a particular
product because of a bad scene with a rep, or rumors... regardless of their
falsity, then it hardly matters what the performance is of the product.
Mechanics need to feel good, and proud, about what they are doing in order to
do a good job.

][<en