High Points, Some Low Points and Too Little Sleep

High Points, Some Low Points and Too Little Sleep
 
This is my final letter as editor of the HGS Bulletin. At first I thought that I would try to write some compelling prose that would capture the imagination of the reader and take him or her on a grand journey of discovery. Then I got real and told myself to sit down and write the darn thing, for if I waited any longer the rapidly closing window of opportunity to be on schedule would surely close long before I could generate anything even pretending to be grandiose. But there are some things I want to say to you, the membership.
One of the most important lessons that I learned over the past 10 months of often grueling work, more than occasional criticism, numerous opportunities for error that I could hardly pass up and occasional moments of redemption that were few and far between is that it was all worth it. Ten issues of the Bulletin were published, and if not always delivered to everyone on the 1st, they were at least delivered sometime in the appropriate month. If I was not able to move mountains with the power of my pen (keyboard just does not sound right), then at least nobody threatened me with bodily harm. There are high points and low points in any worthwhile endeavor. Because my nature is to avoid remembering the low points, it may be meaningful to look at some of the good things that have happened these past months. Several original technical papers were published in the Bulletin, including those by John Lorenz (2006) and Martha Withjack et al. (2007). Both papers were written simply, yet their messages were profound. John Lorenz’s paper on residual stress raised a very important issue mostly neglected or ignored by those who measure stress—residual stress is a component of what is measured as the in situ stress field. Residual stresses can be very important—John believes that the current in situ stress field in the Piceance Basin, northwestern Colorado, is actually residual.The paper by With jack et al. (2007) raised two important issues related to how we use scale models and to scaling in general. Firstly, proper use of scaled models to predict fault distributions in nature requires some prior knowledge of theductility of the system; i.e., how deformation is localized or distributed. The second issue is more theoretical and involves the question, why do two different model materials, scaled properly and deformed under the same boundary conditions, produce such different distributions of faulting. Within that question are even more involved issues that underscore our lack of understanding of the faulting process and of failure in rock sequences.Among most enjoyable aspects of the editor position were the various interactions with other board members and with the membership in general. Many of you took the time (and in some cases, my bait) to write letters to the editor or simply email messages to me. In so doing you  became involved and that is a wonderful thing. The real lesson Ilearned as editor is that becoming involved makes life so much more interesting, so much fuller and so much better. It is true that I gave up some sleep time, quite a lot in fact. In return I got so much more. I got to interact with many of you who saw fit to share your point of view with me and with the rest of the membership. I learned a lot through those interactions and got to know several of you, if only through the internet. It amazed me to discover how well intelligent men and women can communicate when they argue and contest in a civilized manner, no matter how different their individual points of view or how passionatelythey regard the subject. In the end we influence every person with whom we come in contact. Whether or not we convince them of our point of view is completely irrelevant. What is important is that we discuss our differences in a civilized manner, because when we do that we are sure to discover our points of commonality.We see far too little of that these days. And I am very pleased to say to all of you that civility is alive and well in the Houston Geological Society. Thank you all for showing me that and for everything else you taught this humble, sometimes stumbling geologist. It was fun!
ReferencesLorenz, John C., 2006: Residual Stress, HGS Bulletin, Volume 49, No. 1,September, p. 29.Withjack, Martha Oliver, Roy W. Schlische, and Alissa A. Henza, 2007:Scaled Experimental Models of Extension: Dry Sand vs. Wet Clay, HGSBulletin, Volume 49, No. 1, No.8, p. 31.