"fudog50" wrote in message
news
I'm done with you, you can't even accept anothers point of view.

Dude, your point of view is a demonstration of denial.

Plus
you insulted me,

I consider your references to my background experiance being lacking to be
very insulting. Perhaps you would do better to run with ram's gutter
trolls, where the truth doesn't matter. (Ferrin, Irby, Willshaw, et al)
which there was no call for. Have fun ****ing off
everyone dude, have a nice day....

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:50:12 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Is that what you call sailors on ships, Tarver? You can call them
whatever you want, but just to let you know, we don't call ourselves
"guys on boats"!!! LOL And what in the world do you know about "where
the rubber meets the deck"??? Please, stick to what you know.

Hmmm, you are on a a Navy flightline and you don't call them "boats".

I think perhaps you are a fraud, foodog.

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:11:19 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Guys on boats??? LOL

Sure. Where the rubber meets the deck.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:56:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Tarver,
Nice of you to speak for the entire Navy,

Guys on boats like the F-18Es reliability.

but you must be only
speaking of the Contractors, PMA guys and bean counters that
can't
see the forest through the trees. COTS is good if you have the
sparing
and support, (rare).

LOL

OK

COTS allows engineers to buy parts, as opposed to designing to now
expired
component Mil-specs. The first real benifit of COTS was seen in
Desert
Storm, where the USAF had greatly improved missiles. Allowing
engineers
to
buy parts to test solid fuels created technology during the 1980s
and
the
in
service reliabity data tied to Mil-Hbk 217F. Once an engineer
adopts
the
way of thinking that some parts/lines* count is directly tied to
reliabilty,
(statistical) then they will "design for reliability by using less
lines/parts.

* software code.