US Army Cancels Comanche Helo

Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer

OK, I give...what/who is a Kurt Plummer? It's late here, and I am scratching
my head...

Brooks

Its kind of a joke now that he does not seem to post here anymore, but his
postings seemed to be composed almost entirely of acronyms.

Those who have been here for a while will know who i am talking about.

Your post wasnt near as bad as his, I just saw an lot of acronyms and thought
of him.




Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message

snip

Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer

OK, I give...what/who is a Kurt Plummer? It's late here, and I am scratching
my head...

Tust me, you don't want to go there ;-) But if you just have to know, google on
r.a.m., r.a.m.n., or s.m.n., with author "Kurt Plummer".

Guy

362436 (Ron) wrote:

True, but then the smartest option would probably be to skip the 155mm
rounds and just use the GMLRS and ATACMS. GMLRS' longer range when compared
to the current 155mm capability means you won't have to waste an ATACMS when
the target is in that range that exceeds the capability of the 155mm's (say
35-40 km) but also falls within the GMLRS max of around 75 km. Lay that
template down on a fluid mechanized battlefield and the area that results,
as measured from the FLOT, is going to put a band of about 30 km depth
beginning some 25 km the other side of the FLOT where your 155's can't
strike, and your ATACMS is being shot-short. With HIMARS ready to enter into
service (ISTR they were doing the troop trials a year or more ago) you are
guaranteed GMLRS availability across the spectrum, so the 155mm has no
advantage there either.



Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

Yes! wasn't that fun?...I'd find whole paragraphs in which I'd
find absolutely nothing that was comprehensible to me...once
found a whole post (decent sized) in which I couldn't get a
glimmer...gee...saved it somewhere...
--

-Gord.

Guy Alcala wrote:

Ron wrote:

True, but then the smartest option would probably be to skip the 155mm
rounds and just use the GMLRS and ATACMS. GMLRS' longer range when compared
to the current 155mm capability means you won't have to waste an ATACMS when
the target is in that range that exceeds the capability of the 155mm's (say
35-40 km) but also falls within the GMLRS max of around 75 km. Lay that
template down on a fluid mechanized battlefield and the area that results,
as measured from the FLOT, is going to put a band of about 30 km depth
beginning some 25 km the other side of the FLOT where your 155's can't
strike, and your ATACMS is being shot-short. With HIMARS ready to enter into
service (ISTR they were doing the troop trials a year or more ago) you are
guaranteed GMLRS availability across the spectrum, so the 155mm has no
advantage there either.



Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer

Kevin's in no danger of that as yet. He'd have to string a bunch of obscure
acronyms together without any breaks and then throw in a few even more obscure
(to all but him) pithy phrases that he'd made up, in a sentence that's a very
long paragraph in length. Oh, and the syntax is too conventional, he needs to
rearrange the order and make a few verbs into nouns (or vice versa). The above
is entirely too readable to qualify as Plummer-speak -- not only is Kevin's
thesis identified in the first sentence, but when you get to the end of the
paragraph you can still remember what the whole thing was about ;-)

Guy

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

-Gord.

"Ron" wrote in message
...

Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer

I about went blind towards the end of last summer: during one
of the training missions one of the fake IDs I ran across was
for one "Kurt Plummer".
I have yet to confront the person who supplied those IDs about
the sources for those names...

"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.

"Ron" wrote in message
...
Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer

OK, I give...what/who is a Kurt Plummer? It's late here, and I am
scratching
my head...

Brooks

Its kind of a joke now that he does not seem to post here anymore, but his
postings seemed to be composed almost entirely of acronyms.

Those who have been here for a while will know who i am talking about.

Your post wasnt near as bad as his, I just saw an lot of acronyms and
thought
of him.

Gee, thanks Ron, you really know how to stroke a guy's ego... :-) Messeur
Plummer apparently abdicated about the time I started participating in the
group (nad no, damnit, that should *not* infer that I am him, or he is
me...).

I *usually* try to include the full nomenclature for any acronyms that might
be unintelligible to the general, but militarily knowledgable, reader. I
think most folks here know what GMLRS and ATACMS are. That said, I reread
that passage after I wrote it--it was not the acronyms that bothered me so
much as the rather tortuous logic chain I was trying to contstruct. Not one
of my better efforts, I'd agree. Mea culpa.

Brooks





Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer

OK, I give...what/who is a Kurt Plummer? It's late here, and I am
scratching
my head...

Brooks

Its kind of a joke now that he does not seem to post here anymore, but his
postings seemed to be composed almost entirely of acronyms.

Those who have been here for a while will know who i am talking about.

Your post wasnt near as bad as his, I just saw an lot of acronyms and
thought
of him.

Gee, thanks Ron, you really know how to stroke a guy's ego... :-) Messeur
Plummer apparently abdicated about the time I started participating in the
group (nad no, damnit, that should *not* infer that I am him, or he is
me...).

I *usually* try to include the full nomenclature for any acronyms that might
be unintelligible to the general, but militarily knowledgable, reader. I
think most folks here know what GMLRS and ATACMS are. That said, I reread
that passage after I wrote it--it was not the acronyms that bothered me so
much as the rather tortuous logic chain I was trying to contstruct. Not one
of my better efforts, I'd agree. Mea culpa.

Kevin, it wasn't a problem, and the logic chain and acronynm use was fine. Lots
of acronyms was just part of what made KP's posts so special. Here's a tutorial
I once wrote, explaining how to read Kurt's posts:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...00%2 6hl%3Den



Guy

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer

OK, I give...what/who is a Kurt Plummer? It's late here, and I am
scratching
my head...

Brooks

Its kind of a joke now that he does not seem to post here anymore, but
his
postings seemed to be composed almost entirely of acronyms.

Those who have been here for a while will know who i am talking about.

Your post wasnt near as bad as his, I just saw an lot of acronyms and
thought
of him.

Gee, thanks Ron, you really know how to stroke a guy's ego... :-)
Messeur
Plummer apparently abdicated about the time I started participating in
the
group (nad no, damnit, that should *not* infer that I am him, or he is
me...).

I *usually* try to include the full nomenclature for any acronyms that
might
be unintelligible to the general, but militarily knowledgable, reader. I
think most folks here know what GMLRS and ATACMS are. That said, I
reread
that passage after I wrote it--it was not the acronyms that bothered me
so
much as the rather tortuous logic chain I was trying to contstruct. Not
one
of my better efforts, I'd agree. Mea culpa.

Kevin, it wasn't a problem, and the logic chain and acronynm use was fine.
Lots
of acronyms was just part of what made KP's posts so special. Here's a
tutorial
I once wrote, explaining how to read Kurt's posts:

LOL! Nice job. When are you going to come up with the complimentary "How to
Explain Simple Concepts to Henry Cobb"?

Brooks



http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...-8859-1%26as_u
group%3Drec.aviation.military%26as_usubject%3DPlum mer-English%2520dictionary
%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D12%26as_minm%3D5%26as_m iny%3D2001%26as_maxd%3D29%
26as_maxm%3D2%26as_maxy%3D2004%26lr%3D%26num%3D100 %26hl%3Den



Guy