<HTML>In a message dated 5/1/02 6:43:38 AM Central Daylight Time, lawrence.becker@uc.edu writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Wim- Your comment that Fred is copping out is beyond the pale.  Fred has been charged by the CAUT committee to revise the Workload Guidelines.  This is a very time-consuming task, which he has undertaken willingly, and for which he should be commended and supported.  CAUT as a whole has been working on this document for around 15 years now.  For Fred to stop working on his task, change gears completely, and devote time to evaluating your formula is not his job. Don't just give lip service to "due respect".  Give Fred the respect he is due. </BLOCKQUOTE> I am giving Fred all the respect he is due. But with equal respect, I would like to at least have my proposal given a "look see." But to dismiss it because he doesn't have time, in my opinion, is not respecting the time and effort I have put into what I am proposing. I have recognized Fred's efforts, over and over. And I greatly respect all of the work he, and the others, have done for the past 15 years. But does that justify not investigating another way of coming up with a workload formula? If I had been involved in this 15 years ago, and came up with a similar plan, would I have been given the same treatment?   I am sorry, but it is appearing that my plan is being rejected for only two reason. One, because I have only been a CAUT for 9 months. And two, because the other plan has been in existence for 10 or 15 years. In my eyes, that is being as close minded as considering the idea that an electronic tuning device could actually help us do our job better. If I can be shown, by actually doing the math, and coming up with the figures, that my plan is flawed, I will pitch it in the can. But until then, all I see is a bunch of sour grapes. Wim </HTML>