Paul,
Don't get upset, when I say I am on the side of folks who have to comply. That includes my employer, who does NOT want to spend a lot of money -- but still has to comply. Just like you! If I have a different employer next week (and anything can happen) that won't change. But we must all have the same basis for doing so. Don't you agree it is fair to have one set of laws for everyone? Don't you agree we should be able to listen to radio even if the neigbhor turns on his computer? Cheers, Cortland ====================== Original Message Follows ==================== >> Date: 04-Jan-97 23:02:10 MsgID: 1039-126606 ToID: 72146,373 From: Paul Rampelbergh >INTERNET:[email protected] Subj: Re[2]: Shiep rules Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: Std Receipt: No Type: Text Sender: [email protected] Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]) by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id BAA14778; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 01:55:21 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA14841 for emc-pstc-list; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 18:08:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <[email protected]> List-Post: [email protected] Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 23:48:53 -0800 From: Paul Rampelbergh <[email protected]> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [email protected] CC: [email protected], Ron Fotino <[email protected]>, [email protected] Subject: Re[2]: Shiep rules References: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: [email protected] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul Rampelbergh <[email protected]> X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]> X-Listname: emc-pstc X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society X-Info: Help requests to [email protected] X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected] X-Moderator-Address: [email protected] [email protected] wrote: > > While not losing sight of the reason why regulations exist, > let's also remember that if we don't participate in making > them, we can only complain afterwards about their impact.... OK, OK, OK Cortland, Now at least I understand completely your unrealistic reactions and previous statements defending the rules and the rule making people so hungry. Just state you have a financial interest in the rules and it will close the loop. Read my last EMAIL posted under the subject "LOW COST measurement equipment" (not yet published in emc-pstc due turnarround time) and you'll see that I got already the message before your above referenced EMAIL. Useless to lure yourself, even if you state "As usual, the above opinions are my own, and may not reflect those of my employer" you can't hide that you are defending your direct financial interest. Discrediting people by general statements as "do not complain, you didn't participate" is a poor counterbalance to the privileged position you try to maintain "a l'envers et contre tout". In view of your last reactions and how more I reed my first EMAIL (and lounge of the subject), recall: " By making rules, they don't have to justify themselves as their business, " most of the time, is inside institutions or organizations who have " the sovereignty to propose (impose) rules to the governments without " having to justify themselves. " They are not controlled by moderated authorities and even worse usually " address themselves to equipment manufacturers who all have interest " to promote expensive equipment. " Also University's are consulted, they are great but most of the time " have no practical experience with small companies and are not facing " this kind of production reality, so they add rules also. " But anyhow, the rule making people have to protect their job and authority " in no way are concerned with the sometimes unjustified rules they " impose and problems they cause. how more I see my statements are true. Paul Rampelbergh Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium) ------------------------- **Primary Recipient: INTERNET:[email protected] ====================== End of Original Message =====================
