Phil,
I thought you weren't going to respond to anything I say.
First off, I know I'm the only guy who had done the 'shovelling because there was no sign of 'digging' when I got there, and there still isn't anyone 'digging' next to me.
The world of US Defence my be classified, but its deliverables are not invisible. Look up ACV 1.1
That is, there is no physical evidence to suggest anyone else has done ANY THING to rectify the $3.5 b oops moment.
I didn't just 'do a study'. In your haste with ad hominens towards me you seem to have been hard of reading.
Design is more than a study because it requires proof of concept. Don't ask. Its IP and classified.
I wasn't talking to 'folks'. These people are paid to do a job. And I wasn't asking for a 'leap of faith' either. Proof of concept means substantial evidence is provided that the concept works. It just works very differently from how these 'folks' would like it to work. That is tough.
Since providing reading advice seems to be in vogue, I would suggest you find a book on appropriate use of idioms.
By the way, I have studied warfare for a lot longer than most colonels because 90% of military officer's life is following administrative procedure, not warfare. And even when deployed on active operations in theatre, its not all combat. Most colonels in the USMC have never fired on the enemy, and NONE have conducted an opposed amphibious landing.
The two officers in question were a pilot and an artillery specialists. How much combined arms warfare understanding and translating into vehicle design did their miles provide? 0
They should have forwarded me to someone else, but instead they lied.
I think I have an advantage over them because my thinking is not limited by many factors I would be happy to explain to you off list.
Greg
This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the sender's email address (philpugliese@yahoo.com) has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message follows:
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 6/21/15, Greg Chalik <mrg3105@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [TML]Question
To: "tml@simplelists.com" <tml@simplelists.com>
Date: Sunday, June 21, 2015, 7:41 PM
Phil,
<And it just may be that
the aforesaid 'tude' is why no one at the USMC will
listen?
"OK, all you ignorant god-for-saken fools. I, the
'ONE&ONLY KEEPER
OF THE TRUTH' have arrived & will now enlighten you!
Rejoice, for
now you won't have to act like brain-damaged retarded
morons anymore. On
top of that I have years & years of paper studies to
back up the
ultimate wisdom of my assertions!"<
Thanks for
that. I'll use it next time :-)
Actually I
mostly based my desings on the USMC and some US Army
manuals.
Because I was
aware of the GFC in 2007 and the US DoD was not, I based my
design in the first place on the perception that it needs to
be affordable (after correspondence with a USAF colonel who
wrote a book on the subject).
There is
virtually no advanced technology in my design. Most of the
'advanced' stuff is in the doctrine, or 'soft
ware' if you wish.
To criticise
me as being arrogant, you first need to understand how the
particular program that I started off performing analysis on
came about and developed. You don't know this, and I
would say that those who were in charge in 1996 didn't
know either. Certainly the GDLS project staff didn't
know. Even my USMC expert knowledge colonel (a marine
tanker) had to pull the info out of the deeper recesses of
his memory.
I have done
the 'shovelling', so I can be arrogant to say I have
done the work.
As for paper
studies, where do you think DoD projects come from? Most at
one stage all 'looked good on paper'.
The USMC has
been running Analysis of Alternatives studies for four years
now, all 'paper studies'.
You think the
US Army operational wing colonels have an engineering
workshop somewhere at Ft Benning they all run down to to
weld up a prototype when they see fit?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which only means that you're just another guy who's done a 'study'.
Naturally you will think that your baby is the 'cherry on top' but so does everyone else!
Statements like " I have done the 'shovelling', so I can be arrogant to say I have
done the work." is guaran-damn-teed to turn off whoever you're speaking to 'cuz it implies that if they weren't so stupid they'd be able to see how good your baby is already.
HINT: insulting folks like that is NOT going to get you what you want.
Look, you think you're the first 'know-it-all' guy to show up w/ a 'holy grail'?
GET REAL, anyone w/ any kind of experience has already heard that claim many, many times & some have been 'burned' when the bought into it.
You can't realistically expect anyone to take a leap of faith (drink the kool-aid) just on your say-so. And esp not when you take the position that everything that person has learned is WRONG(tm)!
Besides that, they're just as likely to think that they're the one who's knowledge is superior, their beliefs are valid, & therefore treat you w/ the same amount of contempt that you display towards them.
====================================================================================
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=JydxSB9tZc6TS63HiAHJcg6SAwighNGJ