- - The original note follows - -
From: rons_hat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ron Shattil)
Subject: Re: Illegal Architecture
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 01:13:59 GMT
dmittleman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Daniel Mittleman) writes:
>In article <CK4E70.3n7@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, GLangdon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Geoff M Langdon)
writes...
>>A quick look through the Boston Globe today had some 15 job openings for
>>architects. Upon closer look though, all but 3 or 4 were actually for
>>software programmers that havenothing at all to do with the actual
>>practice of architecture and certainly were not "Architects".
>>[diatribe deleted]
> Um, you are too late. "architect" is in the public domain and is
> established as terms in the field of computer science. It has been in
> use there longer than you seem to realize (from your diatribe) and is
> not going to go away (as it is in use internationally where Mass. law
> will have no impact on it.)
> Magazines will not refuse ads; Bill Gates will not take your calls; and
> people will not cease using the term when it is commonly understood
> within their circles to mean something very different than you want it
> to mean. And nobody is ever going to lose a lawsuit over it.
> So "architecture" has gone the way of "kleenex" and "aspirin". It now
> has a general meaning. Deal with it.
>===========================================================================
>daniel david mittleman - danny@xxxxxxxxxxx - (602) 621-2932
Here in California, it is illegal for anyone not licensed by the Board of
Architectural Examiners to call him or her self "architect",
"architecture graduate", "architectural designer", "intern architect",
etc.
The Board only licenses construction industry architects, not the computer
type.
Ron Shattil
From: rons_hat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ron Shattil)
Subject: Re: Illegal Architecture
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 01:13:59 GMT
dmittleman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Daniel Mittleman) writes:
>In article <CK4E70.3n7@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, GLangdon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Geoff M Langdon)
writes...
>>A quick look through the Boston Globe today had some 15 job openings for
>>architects. Upon closer look though, all but 3 or 4 were actually for
>>software programmers that havenothing at all to do with the actual
>>practice of architecture and certainly were not "Architects".
>>[diatribe deleted]
> Um, you are too late. "architect" is in the public domain and is
> established as terms in the field of computer science. It has been in
> use there longer than you seem to realize (from your diatribe) and is
> not going to go away (as it is in use internationally where Mass. law
> will have no impact on it.)
> Magazines will not refuse ads; Bill Gates will not take your calls; and
> people will not cease using the term when it is commonly understood
> within their circles to mean something very different than you want it
> to mean. And nobody is ever going to lose a lawsuit over it.
> So "architecture" has gone the way of "kleenex" and "aspirin". It now
> has a general meaning. Deal with it.
>===========================================================================
>daniel david mittleman - danny@xxxxxxxxxxx - (602) 621-2932
Here in California, it is illegal for anyone not licensed by the Board of
Architectural Examiners to call him or her self "architect",
"architecture graduate", "architectural designer", "intern architect",
etc.
The Board only licenses construction industry architects, not the computer
type.
Ron Shattil