The "BigUneasy", a different view of New Orleans

[Metullus]

Are you a project manager?

The impression the documentary gave of the COE's project managers were people who knew how to manage, but not how to engineer. In other words, a group or project leader with management skills, but not an engineer or scientist with those skills. And if they were skilled engineers, then they were not interested in the scientific facts or evidence based reality.

Yes, I have been a project manager, albeit not with the COE.

The typical COE Project Manager in my experience has been an engineer, most commonly a civil engineer, and not infrequently a PE. The Project Manager is responsible for, amongst other things, striking a balance between the project goals and the project budget - this frequently involves reducing or adjusting the scope of a project in order to meet financial constraints over which he has no control.

Money is always limited and project scopes are usually developed from wish-lists provided by a host of project stakeholders and interested constituencies (in NO you have Levee Boards, the GNOEC, Orleans Parish, Jeff Parish, St. Bernard Parish, Plaquemines Parish, the State of Louisiana, Save the Lake, The Lake Pontchartrain Foundation, two US Senators, 6 or so US Representatives, EPA, and a multitude of environmental organizations) any one of whom may be able to put the brakes on the project and many of whom have agendas that are irreconcilable with one another. Compromises in project scope are inevitable.

The design team, engineers all, are responsible for developing the design documents and, perhaps, the Special Conditions; the General Conditions and Bid Documents are largely dictated by regulation and statute; the bid process is dictated by statute.

The Project Manager does not unilaterally change the specifications, design requirements, bid documents, project justifications, or design. His job is to get the project built, which generally means to get it out to bid, after which he will, largely through a Resident Engineer who is assigned as his day-to-day representing the District, administer the contract. He will monitor the contractor's work to ensure that it meets the specifications, he will negotiate change orders, he will see to it that the design team makes whatever changes to the design that unforeseen conditions might dictate, he will see that the contractor gets paid, and he will coordinate with other agencies so that the project can proceed without unnecessary interference.

No stake-holder will get everything they want from the project; some will get nothing they want from it. That is not the fault of the PM or even of the COE. It is the nature of any publicaly funded construction project ever.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, I have been a project manager, albeit not with the COE.

The typical COE Project Manager in my experience has been an engineer, most commonly a civil engineer, and not infrequently a PE. The Project Manager is responsible for, amongst other things, striking a balance between the project goals and the project budget - this frequently involves reducing or adjusting the scope of a project in order to meet financial constraints over which he has no control.

Money is always limited and project scopes are usually developed from wish-lists provided by a host of project stakeholders and interested constituencies (in NO you have Levee Boards, the GNOEC, Orleans Parish, Jeff Parish, St. Bernard Parish, Plaquemines Parish, the State of Louisiana, Save the Lake, The Lake Pontchartrain Foundation, two US Senators, 6 or so US Representatives, EPA, and a multitude of environmental organizations) any one of whom may be able to put the brakes on the project and many of whom have agendas that are irreconcilable with one another. Compromises in project scope are inevitable.

The design team, engineers all, are responsible for developing the design documents and, perhaps, the Special Conditions; the General Conditions and Bid Documents are largely dictated by regulation and statute; the bid process is dictated by statute.

The Project Manager does not unilaterally change the specifications, design requirements, bid documents, project justifications, or design. His job is to get the project built, which generally means to get it out to bid, after which he will, largely through a Resident Engineer who is assigned as his day-to-day representing the District, administer the contract. He will monitor the contractor's work to ensure that it meets the specifications, he will negotiate change orders, he will see to it that the design team makes whatever changes to the design that unforeseen conditions might dictate, he will see that the contractor gets paid, and he will coordinate with other agencies so that the project can proceed without unnecessary interference.

No stake-holder will get everything they want from the project; some will get nothing they want from it. That is not the fault of the PM or even of the COE. It is the nature of any publicaly funded construction project ever.

This is all well and good about what should happen. Yet we have the evidence that the COE ignored the science of the likelihood of hurricanes hitting NO. Despite the fact category 4 and 5 hurricanes were KNOWN to have hit NO in the recent past, the COE submitted written reports that chance of such strength hurricanes hitting NO was virtually nil. When it came time to analyzing the levee failures after the Katrina disaster, they again lied or distorted the science in the reports.

So if given what you say is true about project managers, who do you suppose was responsible for the written reports pre-Katrina that said all that was needed were levees built to category 3 hurricane risks? Who pushed the imaginary science in this case?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

A one sided documentary saying the villains were wrong? TELL ME MORE.

Yep. It's funny how gullible some people can be.

 

[Metullus]

This is all well and good about what should happen. Yet we have the evidence that the COE ignored the science of the likelihood of hurricanes hitting NO. Despite the fact category 4 and 5 hurricanes were KNOWN to have hit NO in the recent past, the COE submitted written reports that chance of such strength hurricanes hitting NO was virtually nil. When it came time to analyzing the levee failures after the Katrina disaster, they again lied or distorted the science in the reports.

So if given what you say is true about project managers, who do you suppose was responsible for the written reports pre-Katrina that said all that was needed were levees built to category 3 hurricane risks? Who pushed the imaginary science in this case?

What evidence is there that the COE issued a report that said that there was no risk that a cat 4 or better storm would hit NO? I have seen none. It was well known that the levee system was designed for a cat 3 storm, the fact that cat 4+ storms were not unusual in the gulf was not a secret (hell Betsy was a cat 4 and was a byword in SE Louisiana for 40 years before Katrina), and it was not unusual for storms to come ashore on the LA gulf coast. I very much doubt that there was any COE report that said there was no chance of a big storm hitting NO and if there was such a report I would have expected that it would have been laughed out of region.

I do not think that you understand just how storm aware people were and are in the region. We tracked the storms. We put them on our maps when they became Tropical Storms. People were often given the day off so that they could evacuate if they felt it necessary We listened to radios when a storm was in the gulf. EVERY TIME A STORM WAS HEADED TOWARDS SE LOUISIANA THE BIG QUESTION WAS "IS THIS ANOTHER BETSY"? Very few people underestimated the force of a cat 3 storm, much less that of a cat 4+ storm. Even if some moron wrote a report that a cat 4+ storm hitting NO was not possible no one over the age of 5 would believe him.

 

[Travis]

This is all well and good about what should happen. Yet we have the evidence that the COE ignored the science of the likelihood of hurricanes hitting NO. Despite the fact category 4 and 5 hurricanes were KNOWN to have hit NO in the recent past, the COE submitted written reports that chance of such strength hurricanes hitting NO was virtually nil. When it came time to analyzing the levee failures after the Katrina disaster, they again lied or distorted the science in the reports.

So if given what you say is true about project managers, who do you suppose was responsible for the written reports pre-Katrina that said all that was needed were levees built to category 3 hurricane risks? Who pushed the imaginary science in this case?

Provided such reports are not just fiction my bet would be on them being produced by politicians interested in saving money by only having levee's built to handle a category 3 hurricane. Prior to a disaster people tend to think of such things, like levee's, as extravagances. See popular sentiment in Sacramento to not retrofit Folsom Dam until the floods of 1997 made it clear that there was an actual danger should it fail.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Provided such reports are not just fiction my bet would be on them being produced by politicians interested in saving money by only having levee's built to handle a category 3 hurricane. Prior to a disaster people tend to think of such things, like levee's, as extravagances. See popular sentiment in Sacramento to not retrofit Folsom Dam until the floods of 1997 made it clear that there was an actual danger should it fail.

The category 3 risk report was prepared by the COE and is common public knowledge. I'm not sure why you think that is only a rumor.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What evidence is there that the COE issued a report that said that there was no risk that a cat 4 or better storm would hit NO? I have seen none. It was well known that the levee system was designed for a cat 3 storm, the fact that cat 4+ storms were not unusual in the gulf was not a secret (hell Betsy was a cat 4 and was a byword in SE Louisiana for 40 years before Katrina), and it was not unusual for storms to come ashore on the LA gulf coast. I very much doubt that there was any COE report that said there was no chance of a big storm hitting NO and if there was such a report I would have expected that it would have been laughed out of region.

They showed and quoted from the COE report in the documentary.

I do not think that you understand just how storm aware people were and are in the region. We tracked the storms. We put them on our maps when they became Tropical Storms. People were often given the day off so that they could evacuate if they felt it necessary We listened to radios when a storm was in the gulf. EVERY TIME A STORM WAS HEADED TOWARDS SE LOUISIANA THE BIG QUESTION WAS "IS THIS ANOTHER BETSY"? Very few people underestimated the force of a cat 3 storm, much less that of a cat 4+ storm. Even if some moron wrote a report that a cat 4+ storm hitting NO was not possible no one over the age of 5 would believe him.

Again, you want me to defend what was presented in the documentary without bothering to check yourself before just declaring the documentary was a lie.

Have you seen any reviews that said the documentary was full of lies and half truths?

There's a 140+ court decision that I posted a link to that says you are wrong. I'm not sure I need to keep spoon feeding here.

Find me a rebuttal to the documentary instead of just declaring the film and the court ruling false and we can discuss it.

 

[Metullus]

They showed and quoted from the COE report in the documentary.

Again, you want me to defend what was presented in the documentary without bothering to check yourself before just declaring the documentary was a lie.

Have you seen any reviews that said the documentary was full of lies and half truths?

There's a 140+ court decision that I posted a link to that says you are wrong. I'm not sure I need to keep spoon feeding here.

Find me a rebuttal to the documentary instead of just declaring the film and the court ruling false and we can discuss it.

Where have I said that the documentary is a lie? I can find nothing in the court decision that says anything about a report that says that no storm greater than cat 3 will ever strike NO. Likewise, the court decision says nothing about corruption at COE. Perhaps you can point out where I am wrong.

I do not have access to the film. I have said that I doubt that such a report was issued, largely because there would be no reason to write such a report and that such a report would lack all credibility from its inception. You have made assertions of corruption, I have indicated that my experience would not support such an assertion. You have faulted "Project Managers" for having "ignored" "scientists" and engineers, yet you cannot give me any examples; you cannot even tell me what it is that these PMs do.

Your OP, not mine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Where have I said that the documentary is a lie? ...

You are saying a predominant thesis in the documentary is false. You have presented no evidence. I present the documentary and a court ruling.

Your OP, not mine.

And you are trying to refute the film and/or my reporting of its contents when you haven't seen the film.


Will you admit you are wrong if I go to the trouble of spoon feeding you even more here?

First, state what you think the COE report which you have not seen said about hurricane risks to NO.

Then explain why you think the COE would declare the risk of category 4 and 5 hurricanes to be real then only build a levee to stand category 3 storms and below?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Why would you protect NO from category 4+ and not the rest of the Gulf coast ?

Or the east coast for that matter ?

 

[Metullus]

You are saying a predominant thesis in the documentary is false. You have presented no evidence. I present the documentary and a court ruling.

I am saying that what you are asserting, whatever your source, runs counter to my experience. I am further saying that what you are telling me the movie says makes very little sense. Finally, I am saying that I cannot find any support for your assertions that the Katrina debacle happened because of corruption in the COE in the court ruling. It might be there, but I cannot find it. I asked for your help in locating it. You have demurred. Fine.

And you are trying to refute the film and/or my reporting of its contents when you haven't seen the film.

I do not know what is in the film, I only know what you have told me about it. What you have told me about the film is inconsistent with my experience and common sense. That is what I am saying.

Will you admit you are wrong if I go to the trouble of spoon feeding you even more here?

You are so sweet. I will happily admit that I am wrong if I am given reason to do so. I do not think that it is spoon feeding to provide the factual basis for a statement. BTW, what have you spoon fed me todate? I am sure you can point it out, right?

First, state what you think the COE report which you have not seen said about hurricane risks to NO.

You are joking, right?

Then explain why you think the COE would declare the risk of category 4 and 5 hurricanes to be real then only build a levee to stand category 3 storms and below?

Money. Building levee systems is expensive. Sometimes you build what you can afford. Hence my post above about the need to adjust the scope of projects.

You might better ask this: Why would the District produce a report deliberately understating the risk? The District wants money allocated to its projects, and you don't get that money by understating the need. If anything there is pressure to overstate the problem in order to drum up congressional and local support for project funding. The scenario you are describing, a COE engineering report deliberately understating the risk of a big storm frankly does not make sense - perhaps you can tell me how it was intended to benefit the COE or the District?

I am honestly curious as to what you think a PM does and in what way do you think that a PM would mangle a project by ignoring "scientists" and engineers. And what his/her motivation might be in doing so. I presume that, given your strong opinions and your contempt for those who speak of things about which they are ignorant, you have a clear idea about how and why these things occurred. I am interested in what you have to say...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why would you protect NO from category 4+ and not the rest of the Gulf coast ?

Or the east coast for that matter ?

Maybe because the geography, river and port require it. Did you expect to see canals built elsewhere?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am saying that what you are asserting, whatever your source, runs counter to my experience.

So you are generalizing from some other experience that the evidence presented in the documentary you haven't seen was false.

I am further saying that what you are telling me the movie says makes very little sense. Finally, I am saying that I cannot find any support for your assertions that the Katrina debacle happened because of corruption in the COE in the court ruling. It might be there, but I cannot find it. I asked for your help in locating it. You have demurred. Fine.

You know you have not looked for supporting evidence so don't try to claim you have. I'd even wager you haven't looked at the court document either.

I do not know what is in the film, I only know what you have told me about it. What you have told me about the film is inconsistent with my experience and common sense. That is what I am saying.

So basically you are just incredulous and you haven't bothered to look at any evidence whatsoever.

You are so sweet. I will happily admit that I am wrong if I am given reason to do so. I do not think that it is spoon feeding to provide the factual basis for a statement. BTW, what have you spoon fed me todate? I am sure you can point it out, right?

The documentary you haven't seen nor made any effort to find evidence against, the court ruling you haven't bothered to read, and there is an abundance of information readily available on this matter at your fingertips via the Net.

You are joking, right?

No, I want you to spell it out so you aren't tempted to later twist what the COE risk assessment actually says and claim that is what you said all along.

Money. Building levee systems is expensive. Sometimes you build what you can afford. Hence my post above about the need to adjust the scope of projects.

You might better ask this: Why would the District produce a report deliberately understating the risk? The District wants money allocated to its projects, and you don't get that money by understating the need. If anything there is pressure to overstate the problem in order to drum up congressional and local support for project funding. The scenario you are describing, a COE engineering report deliberately understating the risk of a big storm frankly does not make sense - perhaps you can tell me how it was intended to benefit the COE or the District?

I am honestly curious as to what you think a PM does and in what way do you think that a PM would mangle a project by ignoring "scientists" and engineers. And what his/her motivation might be in doing so. I presume that, given your strong opinions and your contempt for those who speak of things about which they are ignorant, you have a clear idea about how and why these things occurred. I am interested in what you have to say...

There are many reasons a project manager might ignore the science. Lots of idiots think the science can be ignored or downplayed all the time. Look at all the politicians and project managers ignoring the inconvenient science of global warming. And if you wanted a promotion for coming in under budget or making some politician's life easier by offering to do the job for less, those are two reasons for making the project less extensive and making it look like that's all that is needed. Look at BP's ignoring the science and what happened.

You are being unrealistic to think the majority of people in the world respect the science. We could disband the JREF if they did.

 

[jimtron]

I haven't yet seen the movie, but I'm a fan of the director's radio show and his bass playing with Spinal Tap.

 

[Metullus]

So you are generalizing from some other experience that the evidence presented in the documentary you haven't seen was false.

No. I am saying that what you present is inconsistent with my experience.

You know you have not looked for supporting evidence so don't try to claim you have. I'd even wager you haven't looked at the court document either.

Funny, are you claiming to be psychic? You say it is there, I cannot find it where you say it is. Easy problem to solve.

So basically you are just incredulous and you haven't bothered to look at any evidence whatsoever.

No. your propensity for making things up as you go along is not helpful for this conversation.

The documentary you haven't seen nor made any effort to find evidence against, the court ruling you haven't bothered to read, and there is an abundance of information readily available on this matter at your fingertips via the Net.

I am not making any argument against the film. I have not seen it and I have never claimed to have done so. I have merely noted that the conclusions that you have evidently reached are inconsistent with my own experience. Look, if you don't want to discuss this, fine. But one wonders why it is that you brought up the subject to begin with.

No, I want you to spell it out so you aren't tempted to later twist what the COE risk assessment actually says and claim that is what you said all along.

You want my interpretation of a memo that I have never seen and which I have no evidence even exists? You do not see the absurdity of this? I have made no claim about any report. You have made claims about he report.

You will understand if I choose to take offense at your suggestion that I will "later twist what the COE risk assessment actually says and claim that is what you said all along". I have given you no reason to take that attitude towards me; it would appear that your reputation is well earned.

There are many reasons a project manager might ignore the science. Lots of idiots think the science can be ignored or downplayed all the time. Look at all the politicians and project managers ignoring the inconvenient science of global warming. And if you wanted a promotion for coming in under budget or making some politician's life easier by offering to do the job for less, those are two reasons for making the project less extensive and making it look like that's all that is needed. Look at BP's ignoring the science and what happened.

None of which is in any way applicable to the subject at hand. That you think any of your examples are apros pos underscores your profound lack of understanding of the processes you are criticizing. I think that you need to study the construction process from project inception, scope development, design, construction documents, bid, construction, and acceptance and then tell us how your examples fit in. This is why I have repeatedly asked about your understanding of the PM's tasks. What you are saying just does not make sense.

You are being unrealistic to think the majority of people in the world respect the science. We could disband the JREF if they did.

Perhaps you can point at where I have expressed that opinion as well. Or are you making things up again?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They showed and quoted from the COE report in the documentary.

Again, you want me to defend what was presented in the documentary without bothering to check yourself before just declaring the documentary was a lie.

Have you seen any reviews that said the documentary was full of lies and half truths?

There's a 140+ court decision that I posted a link to that says you are wrong. I'm not sure I need to keep spoon feeding here.

Find me a rebuttal to the documentary instead of just declaring the film and the court ruling false and we can discuss it.

Maybe you can provide a link? But I doubt it.

The only other question is, how long until you abandon the thread?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. I am saying that what you present is inconsistent with my experience.

Funny, are you claiming to be psychic? You say it is there, I cannot find it where you say it is. Easy problem to solve.

I don't see a claim here that you read the 140 page court ruling.

No. your propensity for making things up as you go along is not helpful for this conversation.

Making things up?

I am not making any argument against the film. I have not seen it and I have never claimed to have done so. I have merely noted that the conclusions that you have evidently reached are inconsistent with my own experience. Look, if you don't want to discuss this, fine. But one wonders why it is that you brought up the subject to begin with.

These aren't my conclusions. They come straight from the documentary you have not seen.

You want my interpretation of a memo that I have never seen and which I have no evidence even exists? You do not see the absurdity of this? I have made no claim about any report. You have made claims about he report.

It's not a memo, it was an official COE report and yes, I saw it. They showed it and quoted from it in the film.

You will understand if I choose to take offense at your suggestion that I will "later twist what the COE risk assessment actually says and claim that is what you said all along". I have given you no reason to take that attitude towards me; it would appear that your reputation is well earned.

It would have been easier to just make your position clear on what you think the report says.

None of which is in any way applicable to the subject at hand. That you think any of your examples are apros pos underscores your profound lack of understanding of the processes you are criticizing. I think that you need to study the construction process from project inception, scope development, design, construction documents, bid, construction, and acceptance and then tell us how your examples fit in. This is why I have repeatedly asked about your understanding of the PM's tasks. What you are saying just does not make sense.

Again, I've related what the experts in the documentary reported. I am capable of understanding a documentary.

Perhaps you can point at where I have expressed that opinion as well. Or are you making things up again?

You said,

Why would the District produce a report deliberately understating the risk?

and

I am honestly curious as to what you think a PM does and in what way do you think that a PM would mangle a project by ignoring "scientists" and engineers. And what his/her motivation might be in doing so.

Sounds to me like you are incredulous the science would have been ignored. You say you don't believe it because of your experience, but you also say you don't believe it because it doesn't make sense to you they would ignore the science. Yet people in positions of authority ignore the science all the time. And it seems to me that depending on the breadth of your work experience (how many different settings, one state or different states, type of engineering, etc.) your view of these particular COE's projects may or may not apply.

But feel free to explain if that was not your meaning.


Also, how people interpret what you post does not equate to "making things up" just because they don't read what you think you said. You really should save the "making things up" until you make an effort to find out why someone draws a conclusion about what you've posted that you don't agree with.

 

[Metullus]

I don't see a claim here that you read the 140 page court ruling.

So somehow it is my obligation to find support for your assertion? I am satisfied that the ruling does not state, as you claim it does, that corruption in the COE was a cause of the debacle; likewise I am satisfied that the ruling does not include a report that asserts that a storm greater than cat 3 can never strike NO. You can prove me wrong by showing me where it does so, but the fact that you refuse to do so in spite of my repeated requests tends to support my conclusion.

Making things up?

Yup. You state with no evidence whatever that:

You know you have not looked for supporting evidence so don't try to claim you have. I'd even wager you haven't looked at the court document either.

Later on you tell me that

You are being unrealistic to think the majority of people in the world respect the science. We could disband the JREF if they did.

when I have never said any such thing. When you make claims about what I have done or what I have said that are not real that is called "making things up." It is also called "lying".

These aren't my conclusions. They come straight from the documentary you have not seen.

Okay, so you have not come to any conclusions based on the documentary.

It's not a memo, it was an official COE report and yes, I saw it. They showed it and quoted from it in the film.

Okay, report. Does that change anything?

It would have been easier to just make your position clear on what you think the report says.

How in God's name am I supposed to give an interpretation of a report when I have never seen it and have no reason to even believe a report such as you describe exists? Even you should understand the problem here...

Again, I've related what the experts in the documentary reported. I am capable of understanding a documentary.

Great. Did the documentary lead you to a conclusion of any kind? If so, did you at least ensure that you had an understanding of the subject matter that was sufficient to judge the evidence submitted? You do, for instance, understand the process by which COE projects are proposed, justified, funded, and undertaken? You do understand the role of the arch-fiend PM in the process, right? Or is none of this necessary in coming to your conclusion?

You said, andSounds to me like you are incredulous the science would have been ignored. You say you don't believe it because of your experience, but you also say you don't believe it because it doesn't make sense to you they would ignore the science. Yet people in positions of authority ignore the science all the time. And it seems to me that depending on the breadth of your work experience (how many different settings, one state or different states, type of engineering, etc.) your view of these particular COE's projects may or may not apply.

I understand the process and I understand the role of the PM in the process. I worked in the NO area for years dealing with exactly these types of issues. I have been involved in a great many COE projects in SE Louisiana and Texas and Arkansas and Illinois - and never as an employee of the COE. I have been employed as an expert in litigation involving the NO District. I have been employed in litigation involving project justification on COE projects. I have been employed by contractors on dredging and levee repair projects.

The fact is that I have a great deal of experience in this area and, as I have said, what you describe does not make sense in the context of the process. There is no advantage to the District to understate the threat of storms for at least two reasons that I can think of: 1st, the District wants funding, and you do not get funding by understating the need, and 2nd, no sane engineer or bureaucrat is going to go on the record saying that something that everyone down to the janitor at the local McDonald's knows is inevitable is impossible, particularly when the consequences will be catastrophic.

Also, how people interpret what you post does not equate to "making things up" just because they don't read what you think you said. You really should save the "making things up" until you make an effort to find out why someone draws a conclusion about what you've posted that you don't agree with.

Okay, so show me where I said the things you claim I said.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So somehow it is my obligation to find support for your assertion? I am satisfied that the ruling does not state, as you claim it does, that corruption in the COE was a cause of the debacle; likewise I am satisfied that the ruling does not include a report that asserts that a storm greater than cat 3 can never strike NO. You can prove me wrong by showing me where it does so, but the fact that you refuse to do so in spite of my repeated requests tends to support my conclusion.

Yup. You state with no evidence whatever that:

Later on you tell me that
when I have never said any such thing. When you make claims about what I have done or what I have said that are not real that is called "making things up." It is also called "lying".

Okay, so you have not come to any conclusions based on the documentary.

Okay, report. Does that change anything?

How in God's name am I supposed to give an interpretation of a report when I have never seen it and have no reason to even believe a report such as you describe exists? Even you should understand the problem here...

Great. Did the documentary lead you to a conclusion of any kind? If so, did you at least ensure that you had an understanding of the subject matter that was sufficient to judge the evidence submitted? You do, for instance, understand the process by which COE projects are proposed, justified, funded, and undertaken? You do understand the role of the arch-fiend PM in the process, right? Or is none of this necessary in coming to your conclusion?

I understand the process and I understand the role of the PM in the process. I worked in the NO area for years dealing with exactly these types of issues. I have been involved in a great many COE projects in SE Louisiana and Texas and Arkansas and Illinois - and never as an employee of the COE. I have been employed as an expert in litigation involving the NO District. I have been employed in litigation involving project justification on COE projects. I have been employed by contractors on dredging and levee repair projects.

The fact is that I have a great deal of experience in this area and, as I have said, what you describe does not make sense in the context of the process. There is no advantage to the District to understate the threat of storms for at least two reasons that I can think of: 1st, the District wants funding, and you do not get funding by understating the need, and 2nd, no sane engineer or bureaucrat is going to go on the record saying that something that everyone down to the janitor at the local McDonald's knows is inevitable is impossible, particularly when the consequences will be catastrophic.

Okay, so show me where I said the things you claim I said.

Let's see if I have this straight. I related what was in a documentary to which you have claimed you don't believe. I did not make any assertion unless you are questioning my ability to watch a film and write what was in it, or unless you are just declaring I've lied about what was in the film.

You have not found any evidence the documentary made false assertions and in fact, you haven't even seen the documentary.

Now you assert that I should spoon feed you contradiction to your incredulity because you can't be bothered to either see the film or quit complaining about it sans evidence the film is inaccurate.

Is that right?

 

[Metullus]

Let's see if I have this straight. I related what was in a documentary to which you have claimed you don't believe. I did not make any assertion unless you are questioning my ability to watch a film and write what was in it, or unless you are just declaring I've lied about what was in the film.

I only said that what you described runs counter to my experience.

You have not found any evidence the documentary made false assertions and in fact, you haven't even seen the documentary.

I have not said that the documentary made false assertions. I said that your representations run counter to my own experience.

Now you assert that I should spoon feed you contradiction to your incredulity because you can't be bothered to either see the film or quit complaining about it sans evidence the film is inaccurate.

I am not complaining of anything. I have not said that the film is inaccurate. I have said that your representation of the film and opinions that you evidently draw from it do not make a great deal of sense. It is you that said that the court ruling included findings that the COE was corrupt, not I. It is you who said that the report wherein a COE "Project Manager" claimed that there was no risk that a storm greater than cat 3 would ever strike New Orleans could be found in the Court Ruling, not I. It is you who have repeatedly refused to support your own assertions, assertions that were totally independent of what you claimed to have seen in the documentary. It is you who have repeatedly criticized me for not having found the evidence that supports your claim.

If the documents are not to be found in the court's ruling, why did you say that they were? There is nothing wrong with saying that you are relying entirely upon the documentary as the basis of your opinions - there is no reason to lie and say that "if you just read these 120 pages you will find it in there somewhere." When I asked you to point out the evidence that you say is there that supports your assertions you complain that I am demanding that you "spoon-feed" me. A reasonable interpretation of your actions is that you have no evidence that you can produce and you are unwilling to admit it. A reasonable person might conclude that you were lying about it.

You have criticized others for commenting when they did not, in your view, understand the subject matter. Yet you have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the very processes you are criticizing. You are not willing to explain your understanding of the role that the PM plays in COE levee construction and dredging projects while at the same time alleging corruption on their part. You are not at all interested in discussing the subject. You are, I must conclude, wholly ignorant of the subject.

There is nothing wrong with ignorance, it can be corrected. Other failings, unfortunately, are not so easily fixed.