Comments on This blog's a-rockin', February 3rd, 2006:
The Mainichi Shimbun, February 8th, 2006:
Tokyo Tom:
Japanese have tough earthquake codes for new buildings...
GaijinBiker:
Of course, TT, if you've followed the Aneha scandal at all, you know that those tough codes were completely ignored in several cases that we know of. There's no telling how many similarly unscrupulous builders never got caught...
The Mainichi Shimbun, February 8th, 2006:
An architectural office in Fukuoka Prefecture has come under suspicion of falsifying structural data for three condominium blocks, the local government said Wednesday.
The Fukuoka Municipal Government is investigating three condominium blocks designed by architectural firm "Something," based in Dazaifu, Fukuoka Prefecture, on suspicion that the buildings' earthquake resistance data was falsified.
It is the first time that a party other than disgraced former architect Hidetsugu Aneha has come under suspicion for falsifying earthquake-resistance data.
Posted by GaijinBiker on
02.08.2006 at 5:51pm
Topics: Blogging, Business & Econ, Crime, Japan, Natural Disasters
Topics: Blogging, Business & Econ, Crime, Japan, Natural Disasters
Do you think there is a similar risk on newer commercial buildings?
Earthquakes will always be topical here, so I expect to hear more. I have not followed the Aneha scandal to know how it broke, but in the States there would by now be many prosecutors and lawyers in on the act. Any insights on this, GB?
I would have thought that lesson invaluable.
Sean, any further thoughts on the incentives in Japan?
First, you asked me for "insights". I offered a link to Sean's voluminous writing on the subject. And Sean himself came by and was kind enough to actually write a direct response to your question.
But instead of thanking him, you asked him for more — not just once, but twice.
You sound like you think Sean should feel obligated to write about a subject of your choosing until you're fully satisfied with his response. That strikes me as a little presumptuous.
I do ask people for advice and input from time to time, but I'm always aware that I'm essentially asking them to do me a favor.
You demurred, but provided a link to Sean. He kindly posted here, but partially responded to a different question - whether any commercial buldings were involved. I looked at his website but didn't see anything on the incentives issue, and since he had so kindly visited here thought it was kosher to ask him my principal question, as he had already joined our party here. (I see I did neglect to thank Sean for his partial response - you are right on that - thank you, Sean.) But my main question was complete missed, and not answered.
Sounds like you would have preferred that I take the whole question offline to Sean, but I fail to understand why - are you trying to send discussions to other blogs?
I think it was perfectly fair to repeat my question, but you do have a point about the third time - Sean might simply not have had a chance to come back, or might have no views to give. But my intention was not to hector - it's not like I've chased you around for all the questions I ask you that you decline to directly address. I know you've got a blog to run, not to mention a job!
But from your side it seems I committed a whole litany of sins, starting with being so rash as to ask you for your "insights" - strange that that would irk you, as it indicates a respect for your experience and opinion.
Count me confused on blogging manners.
To me this comes out of the blue, so I wonder what's really going on. I won't ask a question, but I begin to wonder if you'd be happier if I stopped visiting regularly.
I appreciate your comments, and you are definitely welcome to keep posting them.
Maybe I'm overreacting, but sometimes, when you ask people to share their thoughts, it really does seem like you're handing out homework assignments. Then again, as a blogger who already doesn't have enough time to write about all the things I would like to, I am probably hypersenstive to people making demands on my time.
A user account is required to post comments. If you do not have an account, please feel free to create one. Accounts with obscene or offensive user names will be rejected.
I always have time for a well-articulated opposing viewpoint, thoughtfully and politely expressed in good faith.
However, I have no time for name calling, personal attacks, rudeness, or other types of hostile behavior, whether directed at me or at other commenters.
Therefore, comments I find to be rude, abusive, profane, annoying, or otherwise inappropriate may be deleted. Comments may also be deleted if they are redundant or off-topic.
The maximum comment length is 3,000 characters. Longer comments broken into multiple parts to circumvent this policy will be deleted. If your comment is too long, please edit it down, link to the full text on your own blog, or both.