Discussion

1. I chose not to remove Signature #33 because it gave a name and student number. Without having access to the university’s database, there is no true way to verify someone’s validity.

   I have chosen to only remove those signatures that spread false information. For example, I removed a signature saying that the signer would not donate to WEEF to stop PDEng. In fact, PDEng is not supported by WEEF, nor does WEEF benefit from PDEng. This would be spreading false information.

   I personally do not agree with Joe’s comments, but they are his own. It was his decision to slander the staff of PDEng. In a public forum like that of this petition, people will be entitled to their opinion. My duties are to police the incorrect facts. Who knows, maybe the staff of PDEng are all noobs. :)

   Posted at 10:58 pm on August 8th by Richard Shih.

2. I stand by my statement that choosing to censor at all makes you, at least in a very small way, responsible for all uncensored content. (Perhaps an implementation that [verified identity](newtron.uwmike.com/authenticate.php) might have been in order, but that’s beyond the scope of PetitionOnline.)

   Of course, it all depends on perspective. Some employers might see this as “look at the guy taking initiative,” and others might see “look at all these unprofessional, poorly-spelt comments.” And at that point the program becomes self-justifying.

   Since I’m playing devil’s advocate, I should be very clear: I liked PDEng 15 no more than you. I completed all the same assignments with unstated criteria and endless makeups. But the point is that the program isn’t just going to be *cancelled*. This isn’t an exhortation to just “suck it up”, but I just think that a petition like this has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

   Posted at 12:46 am on August 9th by Mike Purvis.

3. Asking for validation through the use of their UWusername is just as flimsy as what is capable of PetitionOnline. If you UWdir anyone in engineering, you can grab their username right off that.

   You stand by your views and I’ll stand by mine. I will not spread false information, but will allow free speech in any other shape or form. I am not condoning any of it, but it is in the poster’s rights to say anything that they will online. I choose not to slander individuals, while others may. It’s up to them. It’s no different than if I made a website hobbling together random blog posts and having them curse out loud in those blog posts.

   The program is not self-justifying. I constantly use shorthands in blog posts, forum posts, and inter-office e-mails (between co-workers of equal levels). These shorthands include “cuz” and “gotcha” and “gotta”. Why? Because they just make life easier. Now if I were to write a professional e-mail, I would not do anything like that. I know when to turn written professionalism on and off, as do most of the students.

   What I am championing is that obviously you, Jeffrey, and I, as well as many other individuals in UW Engineering, are professional. We can carry on civilized, coherent debate about a topic that irks many people. We have clearly shown that we can communicate to a high degree of clarity. Why then are we asked to go back to the basics and explain ourselves? The intention of this program was an admirable one. “Teach professionalism”. In my opinion, it’s an unrealistic one, but I do think that it should be available as an optional workshop available to students, similar to time management workshops.

   Posted at 9:31 am on August 9th by Richard Shih.

4. What we do for the validation script is scrape uwDir, and then send a random hash to the email on file (“click this link to complete the process…”). So it *is* actually an ironclad authent system, and I think my class members have appreciated having the privacy it brings.

   When I say self-justifying, I mean that as tounge-in-cheek: It’s the program’s design and personnel that cause the angry reactions reflected in your petition. Now, the PDEng steering committee can triumphantly point to that as a reason to have PDEng. I’m not saying it’s right– it’s simply a reality.

   Anyhow, I don’t know if what *I’ve* done over the course of this term has served any useful purpose, so I’ll hold off saying anything until I’ve seen some of the 25 material.

   Posted at 9:43 am on August 9th by Mike Purvis.

5. Let’s hope for the both of us that PDEng25 is drastically better and more thought out. That way we can both lay down our arms and all will be forgotten. Then again, if PDEng25 is the same dribble that PDEng15 was, may god help us all.

   Posted at 10:05 am on August 9th by Richard Shih.

6. I don’t understand what is extremely upsetting about having an opportuinty to be better prepared for the workplace. It seems to me that our generation is only interested in the fast track to success. We live in a culture and society where nothing is worth working hard for, everything is given to us in a silver platter in a few seconds of our demand. We download videos, music, and files in seconds. We share information with everyone in seconds. We’re all about the fast track which seems efficient. However, in the end the scaffolding that is so quickly bolted together will fall apart if its not completely secure.

   In other words, everyone thinks they’re proffessional and competent at Waterloo. After all, isn’t that why we’re here in Waterloo, because we’re so smart and so valuable? No, not at all. We’re here cause we were deemed willing and capable to learn, which I’m afraid so many students today are proving wrong. We think we know what we’re talking about, but really we just have tidbits of the big picture. As Aristotle put it, anyone who thinks themselves wise and understanding truly shows they are indeed not. We should be careful not to think so highly of ourselves so as to think we are above PDEng and what it’s trying to teach us.

   Posted at 11:53 am on August 23rd by Tim McGraw.

Leave a Reply