US Army Cancels Comanche Helo

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...

Exactly exactly...I always thought it was fun...a few seemed to
understand him so some of it must have made sense I guess...not

Oh, I could understand and follow him (just had to spend the
effort deciphering the acronyms from context). Just that most
of his proposals lacked robustness and all his presentations
were deficient in clarity.
For me it simply got to the point my time was worth more to
me than the return.

much did to me...it was what, a couple of years ago?...three
maybe?...

I would think longer than that...

A quick search out of google shows his last posting as Aug 27, 2001
which was barely over a dozen lines and had but three acronyms and
they were all common.

John Keeney wrote:

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...

Exactly exactly...I always thought it was fun...a few seemed to
understand him so some of it must have made sense I guess...not

Oh, I could understand and follow him (just had to spend the
effort deciphering the acronyms from context). Just that most
of his proposals lacked robustness and all his presentations
were deficient in clarity.
For me it simply got to the point my time was worth more to
me than the return.

As Paul J. Adam put it in a classic post (Sub: "Plummer-English
dictionary"):

In article , Maury
Markowitz writes
Which is what, that he doesn't know what he's talking about? Because
he
writes with lots of acronyms? I assume you don't do science for a
living.

No, I do weapon system development for a living and Kurt throws
acronyms
around that neither I, nor my colleagues, nor printed guides, nor major

Internet search engines, can decipher.

I'd say he lacks clarity in his EOR and fails to apply necessary FFPC
to
his proposals.


Or I could say that he fails to do a proper SNA which poisons the
entire
CADMID cycle, and that he fails to break out his KURs and KSRs.

I could also say that his blatant refusal to do even the most basic TOS

against his KURs makes it impossible to evaluate his claims in any
dispassionate way. He's obviously never had to work within an IPT with
DSTL input using DTUPC/DFS methods to minimise LCC against uncertain
ACs
with a loose URD and no defined SRD from which to derive the design. Of

course you can't get around DEFSTAN 00-56 and its allocation of SILs
which have a massive impact on SCS development costs.

Can you provide any evidence for your postion? Anything off topic?
Obvious
name dropping? Made up FLAs? No?

None of the above abbreviations are made up. Is it easy to read, is it
readily comprehensible? Nope. But it makes perfect sense... if you
speak
the same jargonese as the author.

It's _easy_ to strew incomprehensible jargon into your writing. It's
harder to write readable English. If you believe what you write, make
it
comprehensible. If you're peddling snake oil, bury as much as you can
in
technobabble.