Stupid Over-Regulation in Oregon

AGENT J · Feb 28, 2018

Jack Hays said:
This would be funny if it were not so sadly reminiscent of 1984 and Brave New World. One can only hope the author is right and these over-zealous regulators will be publicly slapped down.

Oregon is suing engineers for . . . speaking up about engineering?

A man is fined $500 for sharing his opinion, or what the state calls practicing engineering without a license.

George F. Will

·

12 hours ago

Beginning this week, Washington hopes that infrastructure, which is a product of civil engineering, will be much discussed. But if you find yourself in Oregon, keep your opinions to yourself, lest you get fined $500 for practicing engineering without a license. This happened to Mats Jarlstrom as a result of events that would be comic if they were not symptoms of something sinister.
Jarlstrom’s troubles began when his wife got a $150 red-light-camera ticket. He became interested in the timing of traffic lights and decided there was something wrong with the formula used in Oregon and elsewhere to time how long traffic lights stay yellow as they transition from green to red. He began thinking, Googling, corresponding and — here he made his big mistake — talking about this subject. He has ignored repeated demands by the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying that he pipe down. So the board considers him to be, like Jesse James, Al Capone and John Dillinger, a dangerous recidivist.
Not that it should matter, but Jarlstrom actually is an engineer. He has a degree in electrical engineering, served in a technical capacity in the Swedish air force and worked for Sweden’s Luxor Electronics before immigrating to the United States in 1992. He is, however, not licensed by Oregon to “practice engineering” — design skyscrapers, bridges, etc. — so, according to the board, he should not be allowed to talk about engineering or even call himself an engineer. Only those the board licenses are admitted to the clerisy uniquely entitled to publicly discuss engineering. . . .

it seems from the ACTUAL info posted and some from another article this guy didnt get in trouble just by commenting but by saying he is an engineer. Oregon doesnt recognize him as such and when they told him he must not say he is and he continued to he was fined.

Not saying I agree with the grey area but stating he was fined simply for talking seems completely dishonest and factually inaccurate unless theres MORE information not provided in the OP and other articles.

Do you have something that shows he was fined just for speaking?

Jack Hays · Feb 28, 2018

AGENT J said:
it seems from the ACTUAL info posted and some from another article this guy didnt get in trouble just by commenting but by saying he is an engineer. Oregon doesnt recognize him as such and when they told him he must not say he is and he continued to he was fined.

Not saying I agree with the grey area but stating he was fined simply for talking seems completely dishonest and factually inaccurate unless theres MORE information not provided in the OP and other articles.

Do you have something that shows he was fined just for speaking?

He offered a public comment in a public forum. He said he is an engineer as anyone would cite educational achievements. This is a free speech case; he was acting as a member of the public, not in a professional capacity.

AGENT J · Feb 28, 2018

Jack Hays said:
He offered a public comment in a public forum. He said he is an engineer as anyone would cite educational achievements. This is a free speech case; he was acting as a member of the public, not in a professional capacity.

so the answer is NO you do NOT have anything that shows he was fined just for simply speaking or this is a free speech matter and any claims that he was are factually not true and dishonest. got it. Thats par for the course with you posts. Let me know if that changes.

Jack Hays · Feb 28, 2018

AGENT J said:
so the answer is NO you do NOT have anything that shows he was fined just for simply speaking or this is a free speech matter and any claims that he was are factually not true and dishonest. got it. Thats par for the course with you posts. Let me know if that changes.

Nothing else is needed. The story stands as presented.

AGENT J · Feb 28, 2018

Jack Hays said:
Nothing else is needed. The story stands as presented.

Agreed the answer remains "NO" you have nothing that shows that anybody was fined for free speech and your description has been proven false as ZERO people in the article were fined for free speech. ZERO. if you disagree by all means bring one fact to the table that proves otherwise. thanks!

Jack Hays · Feb 28, 2018

AGENT J said:
Agreed the answer remains "NO" you have nothing that shows that anybody was fined for free speech and your description has been proven false as ZERO people in the article were fined for free speech. ZERO. if you disagree by all means bring one fact to the table that proves otherwise. thanks!

It's a free speech case.

Gaius46 · Feb 28, 2018

MrWonka said:
Yes, to insure that the people in the field actually know what the **** they are talking about and don't give others within the profession a horrible name. You really want some random idiot who has no idea what they're talking about going around building bridges and other structures only to have them crumble a month later after the guy skipped the state?

If he's an engineer, and he lives in Oregon why doesn't he just go get himself a license and prove he knows his ****? For anybody who truly takes their profession seriously it's generally a pretty small price to pay, and once you're in you don't have to worry about some yahoo who has no idea what he's doing undercutting you or making your whole profession look bad.

Sometimes a little barrier to entry is a good thing it ensures people are truly dedicated to something before they sign up. Imagine how many patents would be filed by random assholes who have no idea how to even bring their invention to market if a patent was free to apply for? Look at how many frivolous lawsuits get filed when lawyers say "they don't get paid until you win your case."

It's one thing to hold yourself out as an engineer to get paid for doing engineering work. It's quite another to put forth an opinion on an engineering topic. And a marginally engineering topic at that. Any fool with a stop watch who can us google can figure out whether or not yellow lights are faster than the standard mandated by the DoT.

AGENT J · Feb 28, 2018

Jack Hays said:
It's a free speech case.

a losing case yes because ZERO free speech was infringed LOL
Fact remains you still have ZERO facts that show this guy was fined simply for speech, zero
If you disagree by all means simply provided the facts that prove otherwise in your next post, thanks!

who wants to bet my request is dodged?

Jack Hays · Feb 28, 2018

AGENT J said:
a losing case yes because ZERO free speech was infringed LOL
Fact remains you still have ZERO facts that show this guy was fined simply for speech, zero
If you disagree by all means simply provided the facts that prove otherwise in your next post, thanks!

who wants to bet my request is dodged?

QED

[h=3]State board concedes it violated free speech rights of red-light camera critic | OregonLive.com[/h]
OregonLive.com › index.ssf › 2017/12

Dec 4, 2017 - Oregon's Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying unconstitutionally applied state law governing engineering practice to Mats Järlström when he exercised his free speech ...Missing: v

AGENT J · Feb 28, 2018

Jack Hays said:
QED

[h=3]State board concedes it violated free speech rights of red-light camera critic | OregonLive.com[/h]
OregonLive.com › index.ssf › 2017/12

Dec 4, 2017 - Oregon's Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying unconstitutionally applied state law governing engineering practice to Mats Järlström when he exercised his free speech ...Missing: v

LMAO :lamo:lamo

christ on a stick was that so hard?

thank you for NOW posting something that supports your claim since the OP did not. WOW too funny, best laugh I had tonight. Kudos, good job!, why not lead with that? LMAO

Jack Hays · Feb 28, 2018

AGENT J said:
LMAO :lamo:lamo

christ on a stick was that so hard?

thank you for NOW posting something that supports your claim since the OP did not. WOW too funny, best laugh I had tonight. Kudos, good job!, why not lead with that? LMAO

Because I wanted to see you make a fool of yourself first. Thanks for not disappointing.

AGENT J · Feb 28, 2018

Jack Hays said:
Because I wanted to see you make a fool of yourself first. Thanks for not disappointing.

One problem though, i did no such thing, EVERYTHING i said i stand by lmao.

I pointed out the fact the op didnt not support your claim, that fact remains true. :shrug:
When i challenged you to show us where the OP supports your claim you could not.
you claimed "Nothing else is needed. The story stands as presented." that was destroyed by me with facts.

and in my own opinion i did not think this would be a winning case at all (I was wrong on that opinion)

then i also challenged you to present anything ADDITIONAL that supports your claim because so far the OP doesnt do that, you bailed on that at least what two times?

then you finally found something and presented NEW information that supports you, which factually did not exist in the op and I thanked you for finally doing so.

fact remains until you posted that your op did not support your claim, all you did is prove what i said, the OP alone didnt support your claim in anyway. thanks for proving it! Like i said, best laugh i had tonight thanks!

If you disagree with any of that PLEASE challenge it and prove otherwise, like your claims about the OP you will fail

opcorn2:

Jack Hays · Feb 28, 2018

AGENT J said:
One problem though, i did no such thing, EVERYTHING i said i stand by lmao.

I pointed out the fact the op didnt not support your claim, that fact remains true. :shrug:
When i challenged you to show us where the OP supports your claim you could not.
you claimed "Nothing else is needed. The story stands as presented." that was destroyed by me with facts.

and in my own opinion i did not think this would be a winning case at all (I was wrong on that opinion)

then i also challenged you to present anything ADDITIONAL that supports your claim because so far the OP doesnt do that, you bailed on that at least what two times?

then you finally found something and presented NEW information that supports you, which factually did not exist in the op and I thanked you for finally doing so.

fact remains until you posted that your op did not support your claim, all you did is prove what i said, the OP alone didnt support your claim in anyway. thanks for proving it! Like i said, best laugh i had tonight thanks!

If you disagree with any of that PLEASE challenge it and prove otherwise, like your claims about the OP you will fail

opcorn2:

The OP was written in June. Oregon conceded in December. Despite this public record you persisted in blathering. It was amusing. Better luck next time.

AGENT J · Feb 28, 2018

Jack Hays said:
The OP was written in June. Oregon conceded in December. Despite this public record you persisted in blathering. It was amusing. Better luck next time.

Translation: you wont take my challenge because everything i stated was true, thats what I thought :laughat:

i agree proving your op didnt support your claims and then factually proving your claim about the op factually wrong was fun! I hope you keep it going!

Seems I dont need luck when i have facts, thanks for playing!

opcorn2:

Jack Hays · Feb 28, 2018

AGENT J said:
Translation: you wont take my challenge because everything i stated was true, thats what I thought :laughat:

i agree proving your op didnt support your claims and then factually proving your claim about the op factually wrong was fun! I hope you keep it going!

Seems I dont need luck when i have facts, thanks for playing!

opcorn2:

I'm afraid you don't grasp what a fool you've made of yourself. Better luck next time.

AGENT J · Feb 28, 2018

Jack Hays said:
I'm afraid you don't grasp what a fool you've made of yourself. Better luck next time.

Sweet irony! LMAO

translation: you are still dodging my challenge in post 87, plea let me know when that fact changes.

opcorn2:

Terryj · Mar 1, 2018

AGENT J said:
a losing case yes because ZERO free speech was infringed LOL
Fact remains you still have ZERO facts that show this guy was fined simply for speech, zero
If you disagree by all means simply provided the facts that prove otherwise in your next post, thanks!

who wants to bet my request is dodged?

I will have to ask you this, are you a Constitutional Attorney? Do you have a license to practice Constitutional law in Oregon? If not, then you are opening yourself up to possible fines by making such an absolute statement, that ZERO free speech infringement occurred. In other words, you are offering legal advice without a license. Don't come to Oregon and do that.

Jack Hays · Mar 1, 2018

Terryj said:
I will have to ask you this, are you a Constitutional Attorney? Do you have a license to practice Constitutional law in Oregon? If not, then you are opening yourself up to possible fines by making such an absolute statement, that ZERO free speech infringement occurred. In other words, you are offering legal advice without a license. Don't come to Oregon and do that.

Please see #84. Oregon conceded in December.

maxparrish · Mar 1, 2018

AGENT J said:
Agreed the answer remains "NO" you have nothing that shows that anybody was fined for free speech and your description has been proven false as ZERO people in the article were fined for free speech. ZERO. if you disagree by all means bring one fact to the table that proves otherwise. thanks!

Only you truly know why you think it 'clever' to post transparently idiotic denials of the self-evident - one of your worn out trolling practices.

The Oregon Board CONFESSED it fined the victim BECAUSE they wrongly ignored his right of free speech. Hence, he was (improperly) fined for his free speech.

As your notorious trolling tactic is to just repeat your unsupported denial, you need not bother to repeat yourself. Moving on...

maxparrish · Mar 1, 2018

Jack Hays said:
Because I wanted to see you make a fool of yourself first. Thanks for not disappointing.

In that, he never disappoints.

AGENT J · Mar 1, 2018

Terryj said:
I will have to ask you this, are you a Constitutional Attorney? Do you have a license to practice Constitutional law in Oregon? If not, then you are opening yourself up to possible fines by making such an absolute statement, that ZERO free speech infringement occurred. In other words, you are offering legal advice without a license. Don't come to Oregon and do that.

wrong, based on the OP i would only be at risk if i said i was, i would be free to speak about it all i want.

AGENT J · Mar 1, 2018

maxparrish said:
Only you truly know why you think it 'clever' to post transparently idiotic denials of the self-evident - one of your worn out trolling practices.

The Oregon Board CONFESSED it fined the victim BECAUSE they wrongly ignored his right of free speech. Hence, he was (improperly) fined for his free speech.

As your notorious trolling tactic is to just repeat your unsupported denial, you need not bother to repeat yourself. Moving on...

Translation: the FACTS in post 87 stand and you have nothing that show otherwise. LMOA
thanks for playing

Stupid Over-Regulation in Oregon

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Traveler

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Traveler

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Traveler

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Traveler

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Traveler

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Traveler

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Traveler

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Traveler

Conservatarian

Conservatarian

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency