Plummer-English dictionary?
Eric Archer
Plummer seems to have a lot to say, but I really don't understand more than
50% of it... perhaps I'm too uneducated to even try. Is there some sort of
Plummer translator that'll actually put his stuff into a language us mere
mortals can understand?
--
Eric Archer
eric....@noaa.gov
---
"Marine biologist?!?!?... I didn't even know that WAS a job!"
- George Costanza
Stephen Harding
> I'm just a lurker here, but I really love reading everyone's posts. Kurt
> Plummer seems to have a lot to say, but I really don't understand more than
> 50% of it... perhaps I'm too uneducated to even try. Is there some sort of
> Plummer translator that'll actually put his stuff into a language us mere
> mortals can understand?
I too often lose something in translating him. He's full of technical idioms
apparently known only to himself.
He's generally a good read though.
SMH
Eric Archer
"Stephen Harding" <har...@hobart.cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:3B69BEF2...@hobart.cs.umass.edu...
What's his (or "your" if you're reading this Kurt) background by the way?
Matt Clonfero
<eric....@noaa.gov> wrote:
>I'm just a lurker here, but I really love reading everyone's posts. Kurt
>Plummer seems to have a lot to say, but I really don't understand more than
>50% of it... perhaps I'm too uneducated to even try. Is there some sort of
>Plummer translator that'll actually put his stuff into a language us mere
>mortals can understand?
It's easy. When you get so deep into acronyms and not-yet-developed
technology that your eyes cross, it's reasonable to assume that Kurt has
departed rational thought and you can hit the `next message' button.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt
--
To err is human
To forgive is not
Air Force Policy
Frank May
worse, they realize it, too, but don't care!
Ken Sykes
Hehe, that, and I look at the size of the right hand scroll-down
button. If it's smaller than an inch or so, then click -next-.
Tallyho!
KS
Guy Alcala
> I'm just a lurker here, but I really love reading everyone's posts. Kurt
> Plummer seems to have a lot to say, but I really don't understand more than
> 50% of it... perhaps I'm too uneducated to even try. Is there some sort of
> Plummer translator that'll actually put his stuff into a language us mere
> mortals can understand?
<insert tongue firmly in cheek>
Unfortunately, no. Occasional translations of individual posts have been made
by volunteers, but to my knowledge no one has managed to write a universal
Plummer translator akin to, say, Babelfish. Repeated requests by numerous
individuals over the years asking Kurt to write his posts in at least an
approximation of the English language have proven unavailing. You see, while
most of us consider the normal purpose of language is to express meaning as
clearly as possible, Kurt apparently works for a company that does lots of
government business. As such, he has become used to writing in a form that is
intended to obscure meaning rather than clarify it, and this has apparently
become so much second nature to him that he's now unable to revert to normal
mode when conversing with the rest of the world.
It is, however, possible to decipher the texts of his messages, provided you
have a fair amount of time and a large supply of analgesics handy. After long
experience, here's the method I find works best.
First, pause for aspirin intake (or acetaminophen/ibuprofen as appropriate.
Consult your doctor if unsure) to avoid onset of headache. Then, read each
paragraph through once, then again.
Next, break the paragraph down into individual sentences (if applicable; many
of Kurt's sentences, like Hemingway's, run the entire paragraph if not the
entire page). Try and read the first sentence through from beginning to end,
being sure to take a deep breath at the beginning and end, to avoid
asphyxiation. If it proves impossible to get all the way through on one
breath, try and find some reasonable point in the sentence to break it in two.
If this prove's impossible (as will often be the case), take a break, say two
months, while you practice holding your breath underwater to increase your lung
capacity. Once you can stay under for oh, two minutes without moving, you're
ready to proceed.
Returning to the same sentence, re-read it. Caution is called for: attempting
to read a sentence straight through from beginning to end can be dangerous. By
the time you come up for air at the end you may well have become so confused
and overwhelmed that you have not only forgotten what the subject of the
sentence was (assuming you've been able to identify it sometime during the
first five read-throughs), but you find that you are wandering around an empty
bus station at three in the morning dressed only in your bathrobe and slippers,
mumbling to yourself. Fortunately, no one will take the slightest notice of
you, giving you time to collect yourself and remember where you live, the names
of your immediate family members, and other routine matters.
Notice the large number of acronyms. Most of us with an interest or employment
in military aviation are familiar with a large number of acronyms, and can take
these in stride. However, when encountered locked seven or eight in tandem
like so many overloaded railroad cars, your brain may lock up. To avoid this,
first swallow some more aspirin, then go through and hi-lite each acronym you
don't recognize. This will usually be no more than three to five of the seven
or more in each string. Replace the hi-lited words (at least in your mind)
with a holding phrase that indicates they are of no immediate importance. I
use "blah-blah," but you should pick one that suits you.
Mixed in with or tacked onto the ends of these acronym trains like an engine
and caboose, there will likely be several Plummer-coined phrases which sound
really cool and tactical, but which usually just serve to make the meaning more
opaque. If you can decipher their meaning within the context of the short
sentence fragment you're working on, great, but if not set them aside until
you've gotten to the end of the next step.
Re-read the sentence, looking only at the syntax and trying to identify nouns,
verbs and other parts of basic grammar like subjects and objects. Notice that
many verbs appear to have become nouns, or vice-versa.. Also notice that the
sentence structure often appears inverted. Mentally or physically rearrange
the sentence to follow more traditional grammar usage. Once you've done so,
try to fit the Plummer-phrases back into where you think they belong, and see
if they make any sense. Chances are you'll guess wrong the first several
times, but persevere; eventually you'll fit them in somewhere. Heavy
prophylactic intake of painkillers and/or tranquillizers may be necessary
before attempting this. Also, don't forget to re-hydrate frequently, as well
as getting up and walking around every couple of hours. Warning: do not spend
more than 18 hours straight working on a single sentence. Take regular sleep
breaks as well. Repeat as long as necessary until you feel a tingle that
indicates you either understand the sentence, or else have incipient nerve
damage.
Congratulations! You've earned a rest, and a small celebration. Moderate to
heavy intake of recreational chemicals is called for, but make sure you have a
designated driver. Once you've woken up and cleaned the vomit off yourself,
take care of the little chores you just haven't had time for, like seeing your
wife/lover/significant other, kids, relatives and pets. Putting in an
appearance at work may also be tactful, but quite frankly your brain will be so
worn out that you'll accomplish little of use, and may well do harm. Best
thing is take it in moderation; show up, but stick close to the water cooler
and only say things like "How about those (insert appropriate local sports team
name here)?" Careful: the seasons may well have changed without you noticing
since you started this project. Try and consult a calendar first to avoid
embarrassment.
After perhaps a week of this regimen, you'll probably have recovered enough to
go on to the next sentence. Repeat as above, until you get to the end of the
paragraph. You should be proud of yourself: writing your dissertation will be
a piece of cake by comparison. Splurge! Take a family vacation. This will
probably prove necessary in any case: chances are you'll have lost your job and
had your house repossessed. But there's nothing like two adults and three kids
living in a '72 Impala for several months to reestablish the special closeness
that a family needs to thrive.
Once you get someplace where you won't be distracted by unimportant issues (for
instance, county jail after you are sentenced for shoplifting food), you're
ready to put the sentences together and read the paragraph as a whole. You
shouldn't be discouraged if this doesn't work. It may well be that the
paragraph will only make sense when read in context with one or more of the
following ones, so dive right into the next one, Tiger!
Repeating the above steps as many times as necessary, you will eventually reach
the end of the post, and putting it all together you will finally discover
exactly what Kurt meant, a revelation of such astounding brilliance that you're
forced to your knees in awe (or it's just your back giving you problems
again). The logic, the structural consistency, the almost mandelbrotian
intricacies of his insight will leave you feeling breathless, stunned, and
overwhelmed; you have been privileged to share the thoughts of a superior
being, and you feel uplifted to a higher plane of existence, one that few
mortals ever reach!
Or not.
But no matter, here at St Cecilia's Old Age Home for the Hopelessly Insane,
there are many other hobbies to pursue. Look here! A class showing you how to
find the meaning of life in the swirl patterns of the milk in your morning
oatmeal will be starting in an hour. I'm going to hurry on over and sign up,
just as soon as the thorazine kicks in.
Guy
Eric Archer
news:3B69E441...@postoffice.pacbell.net...
> It is, however, possible to decipher the texts of his messages, provided
you
> have a fair amount of time and a large supply of analgesics handy. After
long
> experience, here's the method I find works best.
[snip fine dissertation on how to reduce oneself from sentient being to
drooling idiot via the pearls of wisdom that spew forth from Kurt's fingers]
> The logic, the structural consistency, the almost mandelbrotian
> intricacies of his insight will leave you feeling breathless, stunned, and
> overwhelmed; you have been privileged to share the thoughts of a superior
> being, and you feel uplifted to a higher plane of existence, one that few
> mortals ever reach!
Great advice Guy! However, I think I'll continue with my current strategy
of reading the first line and immediately passing out at my keyboard until
some part of my face randomly hits CTL-ALT-DEL and I reboot which wakes me
up and moves me to the next message.
John Keeney
Eric Archer <eric....@noaa.gov> wrote in message
news:9kc5o7$fmn$1...@hovis.rdc.noaa.gov...
> I'm just a lurker here, but I really love reading everyone's posts. Kurt
> Plummer seems to have a lot to say, but I really don't understand more
than
> 50% of it... perhaps I'm too uneducated to even try. Is there some sort
of
> Plummer translator that'll actually put his stuff into a language us mere
> mortals can understand?
"Is there a Plummer translator?" Should be in the FAQ...
No, there is not. But don't fret that it's the fault of your
education, he boggles the best of us; he boggles those
with decades of active duty doing what he's talking about.
John Keeney
Ken Sykes <kens...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:3B69DE...@epix.net...
> Hehe, that, and I look at the size of the right hand scroll-down
> button. If it's smaller than an inch or so, then click -next-.
Sheeeee! That's an "old timer" secret.
Peter Twydell
<eric....@noaa.gov> writes
>"Guy Alcala" <g_al...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:3B69E441...@postoffice.pacbell.net...
>
>> It is, however, possible to decipher the texts of his messages, provided
>you
>> have a fair amount of time and a large supply of analgesics handy. After
>long
>> experience, here's the method I find works best.
>
I am _so_ grateful for this thread! As a poor ignorant Limey, I have
trouble with a lot of US acronyms/abbreviations/terminology, especially
the USN stuff regarding ranks and functions. As a result, I thought my
inability to understand 99% of Plummerese was my fault. I do get the
impression he's not all that keen on the RN or the Harrier, though.
What's American for "total bollocks"?
--
Peter
Ying Tong Diddle I Po
Vladimir Malukh
> trouble with a lot of US acronyms/abbreviations/terminology, especially
> the USN stuff regarding ranks and functions. As a result, I thought my
> inability to understand 99% of Plummerese was my fault. I do get the
> impression he's not all that keen on the RN or the Harrier, though.
Well, I know quite few of russians I don't understand either :)
> What's American for "total bollocks"?
Well, when I come to UK for very first time and rented a room an the
house
my landlord was keen to explain about usage of _ENGLISH_ (thanks to him
for that).
One of his lessons was - "the main difference between british and
americans - last ones don't say "bollocks" while we don't mind the
bollocks" :)
And most surprisingly we have 100% equivalent of british terms
"bollocks" and
"total bollocks" in russian and use them in exactly the same
circumstances.
--
Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
-----------------------------------------
Drewe Manton
Vladimir Malukh <b...@propro.ru> wrote:
> And most surprisingly we have 100% equivalent of british terms
> "bollocks" and
> "total bollocks" in russian and use them in exactly the same
> circumstances.
Well. . come on Vladimir, share them with us! (with pronunciations
please, I need to confound my supervisor whilst simultaneously insulting
him!)
--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
in a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
when a colourful rag is unfurled"
Vladimir Malukh
Drewe Manton wrote:
>
> In article <3B6A7ABB...@propro.ru>,
> Vladimir Malukh <b...@propro.ru> wrote:
>
> > And most surprisingly we have 100% equivalent of british terms
> > "bollocks" and
> > "total bollocks" in russian and use them in exactly the same
> > circumstances.
>
> Well. . come on Vladimir, share them with us! (with pronunciations
> please, I need to confound my supervisor whilst simultaneously insulting
> him!)
Easy :) bollocks == khernya, total bollocks == polnaya khernya,
I guess my fellow countrymans in this NG will confirm it.
Also we have even exactly the same for famous "Never mind the bollocks"
it sounds in russian like "ne berite khernyu v golovu".
Clark
"John Keeney" <jdke...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3b6a5...@news.iglou.com...
Is the correct translation of this Keeney note: he's full of it?
Dudley Henriques
"Guy Alcala" <g_al...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3B69E441...@postoffice.pacbell.net...
There's a wonderful story about James A. Mitchner as a child that I love.
Apparently, when Mitchner was in the second grade, he showed up late for
school one day. The teacher told him to bring a note from his mother the
next morning.
The next day, Mitchner showed up on time with a note. The teacher began to
read,
" In the beginning, as Dinosaurs were roaming the earth........."
The teacher looked down at Mitchner and said,
"This isn't going to be a long story, is it James?"
--
Dudley A. Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI/Retired
Maury Markowitz
> Plummer seems to have a lot to say, but I really don't understand more
than
> 50% of it... perhaps I'm too uneducated to even try. Is there some sort
of
> Plummer translator that'll actually put his stuff into a language us mere
> mortals can understand?
Yes, Google. 80% hit ratio. For the other 20 write back and ask for a
picture.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
news:aVva7.911$Fe.169...@twister2.starband.net...
> Is the correct translation of this Keeney note: he's full of it?
No.
Maury
Ken Duffey
So.....
Will a kick in the bollocks give you a khernya ????
Thanks for that Vladimir, I will try and use it next week in
Moscow............
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
S-37 Model - http://www.samolet.co.uk/s37model.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Clark
"he boggles those with decades of active duty doing what he's talking
"Maury Markowitz" <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote in message
news:EVya7.50090$sf2.9...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
BUFDRVR
Complete Bull S**t.
BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
Flanker
Sorry, I'm not aware of such a beast.
I liken his posts to the babblings of David Koresh before the feds
toasted him--they kind of ramble on following his stream of
consciousness. If you read just one sentence, it sorta makes sense;
put them all together and it really doesn't go anywhere.
Lately his posts have come down to two things:
1) He sees no utility is STOVL strike aircraft, and
2) He believes UCAVS are just what the country needs.
When I was new to this newsgroup, without realizing who I was dealing
with, I got into a war with Plummer and Tarver. Big mistake! Just
realize who you're dealing with and consider their posts as amusement
(a word, which, BTW, comes from the Greek words for "to not think")
Flanker
"Eric Archer" <eric....@noaa.gov> wrote in message news:<9kc5o7$fmn$1...@hovis.rdc.noaa.gov>...
Guy Alcala
> "Guy Alcala" <g_al...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3B69E441...@postoffice.pacbell.net...
>
> There's a wonderful story about James A. Mitchner as a child that I love.
> Apparently, when Mitchner was in the second grade, he showed up late for
> school one day. The teacher told him to bring a note from his mother the
> next morning.
> The next day, Mitchner showed up on time with a note. The teacher began to
> read,
> " In the beginning, as Dinosaurs were roaming the earth........."
> The teacher looked down at Mitchner and said,
> "This isn't going to be a long story, is it James?"
LoL! Personally, I burned out on Michener somewhere between "Space," Texas,"
and "Poland" (or maybe it was "Mexico"? I remember there was bullfighting)
;-)
Guy
Maury Markowitz
> Ok Maury, what do you call it when the comment is:
> "he boggles those with decades of active duty doing what he's talking
> about." ?
Eliptical.
Maury
Clark
"Maury Markowitz" <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote in message
omit words. Believe I'll just stick with my interpretation.
>
> Maury
>
>
Paul J. Adam
<g_al...@postoffice.pacbell.net> writes
>LoL! Personally, I burned out on Michener somewhere between "Space," Texas,"
>and "Poland" (or maybe it was "Mexico"? I remember there was bullfighting)
I only read "Centennial" of his, but I did enjoy it.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
William W. Plummer
> > Eliptical.
> Elliptical: Having a word or words omitted. Hmmm, Plummer doesn't exactly
> omit words. Believe I'll just stick with my interpretation.
Nope. Eliptical means oval. You are thinking of an elipsis meaning a
purposeful omission. (I'm not sure "elipsical" is a word.)
--Bill Plummer
John Cook
I think you may have missed something - take a look at this Vogon
poetry ....
"Oh Freddled Gruntbuggly
Thy nacturations are to me
as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee
Groop! I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes
And hooptiously drangle with me, crinkly Bindlewirdles,
or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon
See if I don't!"
(from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
The above is clearly a concise description of a UCAV offensive
deployment options.
Now read one of Kurts posts, coincidence? I think not!!!.
No offence Kurt :)
Cheers
John Cook
Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
Email Address :- Jwc...@ozemail.com.au
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter.pso-online.com/
Clark
"William W. Plummer" <wplu...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:kREa7.19604$bm5.7...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
>
>
Drewe Manton
John Cook <Jwc...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> "Oh Freddled Gruntbuggly
> Thy nacturations are to me
> as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee
> Groop! I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes
> And hooptiously drangle with me, crinkly Bindlewirdles,
> or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon
> See if I don't!"
I thought it was micturations, not nacturations?. . . . <rushes off to
find his trilogy in four parts>
Maury Markowitz
> Elliptical: Having a word or words omitted. Hmmm, Plummer doesn't exactly
> omit words.
No, but you seem to...
Main Entry: el·lip·ti·cal
Pronunciation: i-'lip-ti-k&l, e-
Variant(s): or el·lip·tic /-tik/
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek elleiptikos defective, marked by ellipsis, from elleipein
Date: 1656
1 : of, relating to, or shaped like an ellipse
2 a : of, relating to, or marked by ellipsis or an ellipsis b (1) : of,
relating to, or marked by extreme economy of speech or writing (2) : of or
relating to deliberate obscurity (as of literary or conversational style)
Note version 2b(2), "deliberate obscurity".
> Believe I'll just stick with my interpretation.
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.
Can you provide any evidence for your postion? Anything off topic? Obvious
name dropping? Made up FLAs? No?
Maury
Peter Twydell
<snip some excellent posting>
>I think you may have missed something - take a look at this Vogon
>poetry ....
>
>"Oh Freddled Gruntbuggly
>Thy nacturations are to me
>as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee
>Groop! I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes
>And hooptiously drangle with me, crinkly Bindlewirdles,
>or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon
>See if I don't!"
>
> (from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
>
BBC2 are re-running HHGTTG this week and next...
>The above is clearly a concise description of a UCAV offensive
>deployment options.
>
>Now read one of Kurts posts, coincidence? I think not!!!.
>
>No offence Kurt :)
>
Any chance that Kurt's UCAVs could turn into bowls of petunias or sperm
whales?
>Cheers
>
>
>
>
>
>John Cook
>
<snip again>
Peter Twydell
<buf...@aol.com> writes
>>What's American for "total bollocks"?
>
>Complete Bull S**t.
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"
--
Peter Twydell
writes
>
>
>Drewe Manton wrote:
>>
>> In article <3B6A7ABB...@propro.ru>,
>> Vladimir Malukh <b...@propro.ru> wrote:
>>
>> > And most surprisingly we have 100% equivalent of british terms
>> > "bollocks" and
>> > "total bollocks" in russian and use them in exactly the same
>> > circumstances.
>>
>> Well. . come on Vladimir, share them with us! (with pronunciations
>> please, I need to confound my supervisor whilst simultaneously insulting
>> him!)
>
>
>Easy :) bollocks == khernya, total bollocks == polnaya khernya,
>I guess my fellow countrymans in this NG will confirm it.
>
>Also we have even exactly the same for famous "Never mind the bollocks"
>it sounds in russian like "ne berite khernyu v golovu".
>
Russians!
Clark
"Maury Markowitz" <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote in message
> "Clark" <nos...@me.com> wrote in message
> news:UwDa7.1000$xm3.18...@twister2.starband.net...
> > Elliptical: Having a word or words omitted. Hmmm, Plummer doesn't
exactly
> > omit words.
>
> No, but you seem to...
>
> Main Entry: el·lip·ti·cal
> Pronunciation: i-'lip-ti-k&l, e-
> Variant(s): or el·lip·tic /-tik/
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: Greek elleiptikos defective, marked by ellipsis, from elleipein
> Date: 1656
> 1 : of, relating to, or shaped like an ellipse
> 2 a : of, relating to, or marked by ellipsis or an ellipsis b (1) : of,
> relating to, or marked by extreme economy of speech or writing (2) : of or
> relating to deliberate obscurity (as of literary or conversational style)
>
> Note version 2b(2), "deliberate obscurity".
>
> > Believe I'll just stick with my interpretation.
>
> 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.
Bad assumption. Its my exposure to "scientists" that convinces me that KP is
mostly full of it. Learning to communicate coherently is a major challenge
for many folks who are technically inclined. KP may understand something,
but unless he learns to communicate clearly, without made up words and
obscure acronyms, then his knowledge is of little benefit to the rest of us.
>
> Can you provide any evidence for your postion? Anything off topic?
Obvious
> name dropping? Made up FLAs? No?
>
> Maury
2b(2) isn't in my dictionary. sorry. As for evidence, KP's arguement against
success in the Osirak (sp?) raid. The rest of the evidence is more tenuous
but it follows the line that if experts in the field can't or won't follow
the writing then it is basically useless. When you include the fact that KP
has projected his toy flight simulator experience into his attempted "real
world" arguements, his credibility gets real low. I suspect that KP has fair
to good intellectual capability, but right now as demonstrated in this forum
its of little use.
Maury, your penchant for leaping to conclusions as demonstrated in this post
is amazing. Do you "do" science for a living? Or are you just looking for an
arguement?
>
>
Paul J. Adam
Markowitz <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> 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.
John Keeney
Let's just say he gets a little over enthusiastic at times.
John Keeney
Maury Markowitz <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote in message
Does it work though? For example, I never did find out what it
meant for a plane to be "Doritoed".
Clark
> >
> > Is the correct translation of this Keeney note: he's full of it?
>
> Let's just say he gets a little over enthusiastic at times.
>
You obviously have a fine grasp of understatement. <BG>
Sean Long
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:73l0p5Cn...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> 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.
Nobody speaks K. Plummerese.
Sean Long
Eric Archer
where he get his info from? It helps me decide how much weight I should put
on the 25% of his posts that I think I understand.
Glesca
Science/Engineering?) and what kind of company he works for?
Guy Alcala <g_al...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote...
> Unfortunately, no. Occasional translations of individual posts have been made
> by volunteers, but to my knowledge no one has managed to write a universal
> Plummer translator akin to, say, Babelfish. Repeated requests by numerous
> individuals over the years asking Kurt to write his posts in at least an
> approximation of the English language have proven unavailing. You see, while
> most of us consider the normal purpose of language is to express meaning as
> clearly as possible, Kurt apparently works for a company that does lots of
> government business. As such, he has become used to writing in a form that is
> intended to obscure meaning rather than clarify it, and this has apparently
> become so much second nature to him that he's now unable to revert to normal
> mode when conversing with the rest of the world.
Kent Kinal
John, I beleive it derives from the appearance of the A-12. Triangular, no
protrusions, much like the everpopular snack item.
Just a guess though as I have never been able to exert the energy to attempt
translation of Plummerese.
Kent
John Keeney
> Markowitz <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> 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.
At which point my laugh turned to coughing.
> 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.
Here my eyes began to water.
If you have done me any injury still apperant tomorrow you will be hearing
from my lawyer, Sir.
Vladimir Malukh
Ken Duffey wrote:
> > Easy :) bollocks == khernya, total bollocks == polnaya khernya,
> > I guess my fellow countrymans in this NG will confirm it.
> >
> > Also we have even exactly the same for famous "Never mind the bollocks"
> > it sounds in russian like "ne berite khernyu v golovu".
>
> Will a kick in the bollocks give you a khernya ????
close enough :)
> Thanks for that Vladimir, I will try and use it next week in
> Moscow............
I guess week after - 14-19th? :)
--
Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
-----------------------------------------
Vladimir Malukh
BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> >What's American for "total bollocks"?
>
> Complete Bull S**t.
Exactly what I mean about diff. from russian synonims, which
are aven by translation have very close meanings to british words :)
Guy Alcala
> Just curious, what's his background (ex-Military? Humanities?
> Science/Engineering?) and what kind of company he works for?
Why don't you ask him directly? Go on over to the thread "Handicapping the JSF
Competition," as he's posting there. While you're at it, you can ask him to
translate this choice example of Plummerese:
"Nor would I want to loft manned-endurance limited systems just to the Monkey Can
Press The Pulsar Button."
Too bad, the rest of that post was relatively restrained and comprehensible,
compared to his usual standard ;-)
Guy
Guy Alcala
Thanks for putting my thoughts into words, John. When I read Paul's post my
immediate thought was to reply "ROTFLMAO," but considering the behavior under
discussion I thought it would be better if I didn't ;-)
Guy
Ken Sykes
/fouled/loused/mucked/muffed/screwed up, bungled, flubbed,
fumbled, and mishandled.
> > >What's American for "total bollocks"?
> >
> > Complete Bull S**t.
>
> Exactly what I mean about diff. from russian synonims, which
> are aven by translation have very close meanings to british words :)
>
A handy-dandy 5 meg FREE thesaurus/dictionary for your puter
may be gotten at:
http://www.wordweb.co.uk/free/
Definitions and synonyms
Proper nouns Related words
120,000 root words 100,000 synonym sets
It has many Britishisms.
Enjoy, &
Tallyho!
KS
Sean Long
> "Nor would I want to loft manned-endurance limited systems just to the
Monkey Can
> Press The Pulsar Button."
I know this one!
"I wouldn't want to send up short range aircraft just so an over-trained
pilot can push the button that fires the death ray."
It's about the only thing in his post that made much sense even though he's
wrong. A real person is the ONLY way to ensure that the death ray doesn't
hit the wrong target, but people forget that war must have moral checks in
place that robots and unmanned combat vehicles (both aircraft and ground
vehicles) can't provide.
Look at the tomahawk... About 1 in 100 goes stupid and blows up in a random
location hundreds of miles away from it's target. Imagine if 1 in 100
manned F-16 sorties resulted in the pilot turning 90 deg away from the
target, flying 500 miles, then bombing whatever he found there? Not a very
moral application of combat power, but that's the reality of our current
UCAV precursors, the cruise missile.
Leave the magic computers and unmanned systems to missions that can't hurt
anyone.
Sean Long
William W. Plummer
but the character assassination going on here is really objectionable.
Kurt has a right to free expression of his ideas and newsgroup members
should be mature enough to ignore what they don't like. "Sticks and
stones..." --Bill
"Sean Long" <sean...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9kjmo2$je5$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Clark
> Perhaps it is only because Kurt Plummer and I share the same family name,
> but the character assassination going on here is really objectionable.
> Kurt has a right to free expression of his ideas and newsgroup members
> should be mature enough to ignore what they don't like. "Sticks and
> stones..." --Bill
>
you should take your own advice?
As for the character assassination, nobody has called KP a cheat, thief, or
other assorted scoundrel. They have said that his writing style is
indecipherable for most practical purposes. KP would be hard pressed to
successfully dispute that charge (and might even enjoy the accusation, who
knows?).
I suggest finding a bit of perspective Mr. Plummer. As things go, this
thread is fairly harmless and perhaps KP could learn just a little bit from
it.
Matt Clonfero
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>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.
Gotcha. Surely you are aware that the correct form for this august
Government body is Dstl. Yes, I know that it's an acronym. Yes, I know
that I've got three of the letters in lower case.
>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.
And, even if you do, it makes you have to slow down and check them.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt
--
To err is human
To forgive is not
Air Force Policy
Matt Clonfero
>> Believe I'll just stick with my interpretation.
>
> 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.
It is my contention that anyone with a subscription to Janes or AvLeak
can develop a familiarity with the acronyms used to describe military
aviation developments that are in embryonic form. However, it is also my
contention that clear writing about these subjects does not need to be
acronym heavy.
Sean Long
What are you talking about? K. Plummer posted a bunch of stuff that made no
sense, someone commented on it, I decyphered one sentence and said that I
disagreed with KP's opinion. Where is the character assassination there,
and where do you come off with this holier-than-thou crap in the middle of a
discussion that doesn't even involve you? Practice what you preach, and
ignore it. Sticks and stones indeed.
K. Plummer can defend himself if he thinks he's being attacked... He does
his own fair share of ridiculing other people and ideas, so he's a big boy
playing in a big boy world.
And thank you for choosing MY post, the only one in this thread that deals
with K. Plummer's actual opinion rather than his style, to use as your
soapbox. Nice job actually reading the posts.
Sean Long
"William W. Plummer" <wplu...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:Paeb7.22996$bm5.8...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
Keith Willshaw
"William W. Plummer" <wplu...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:Paeb7.22996$bm5.8...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> but the character assassination going on here is really objectionable.
> Kurt has a right to free expression of his ideas and newsgroup members
> should be mature enough to ignore what they don't like. "Sticks and
> stones..." --Bill
>
I've seen no character assassination here, just a critique
of the gentleman's communication skills.
Nor have I seen any suggestion that he should be prevented
from exercising his right to free expression. However the
right to free speech does not make him immune to comment.
Keith
Paul J. Adam
<Matt@[127.0.0.1]> writes
>In article <73l0p5Cn...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>, Paul J. Adam
><ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>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
> ^^^^
>
>Government body is Dstl. Yes, I know that it's an acronym. Yes, I know
>that I've got three of the letters in lower case.
That's news to the Bincleaves boys we deal with :) They capitalise the
name :) If you guys can't be consistent, how do you expect us to get it
right?
At least you got a nice clean four-letter acronym that means something.
I thought BAE SYSTEMS was bad, but it was topped by QinetiQ...
Paul J. Adam
Plummer <wplu...@alum.mit.edu> writes
>Perhaps it is only because Kurt Plummer and I share the same family name,
>but the character assassination going on here is really objectionable.
Hey, *he's* the one calling *me* a closed-minded idiotic liar.
I don't see you leaping to my defence, though. Why not?
>Kurt has a right to free expression of his ideas
Sure. And when he expresses ideas in public, other folks have a right to
express their opinions of those ideas.
Robey Price
signed the following confession:
>Perhaps it is only because Kurt Plummer and I share the same family name,
>but the character assassination going on here is really objectionable.
Respectfully...sincerely...honestly. KP is notorious for NG "name
calling" when folks with a professional background contradict him or
challenge his mind numbing Plummerese.
Perhaps KP likes to "think outside the box," and that is great.
Perhaps he is the second coming of John Boyd. But, KP likes to employ
the tactic of, "If I can't dazzle 'em with my brilliance...maybe
they'll get tired of reading my epistles and cry uncle, or they're
just too stupid to recognize my genius."
>Kurt has a right to free expression of his ideas and newsgroup members
>should be mature enough to ignore what they don't like. "Sticks and
>stones..."
Absolutely.
However, KP has opted to post in a manner that many lurkers conclude
he has actual aviation/military experience (by virtue of his
Plummerese). When challenged he simply reacts as an immature
'wannabe'...folks/lurkers are entitled to be informed that Kurt does
NOT have "the secret handshake."
In his current unmanned/drone thread KP sounds like a guy that got
rejected for Pilot Training...lots of sour grapes. I can't be one, so
fighter pilots are useless fuckwits.
Now I'll be the first to admit that military pilots have big egos, and
fighter pilots have HUGE egos, but if you want to continually toss out
insults to a group of folks (like KP does), you've got to expect
return fire.
FWIW (tongue in cheek) with your last name on this NG is a lot like
the Far Side cartoon of the two deer (one with the bullseye
birthmark)..."Bummer of a birthmark [name]."
Robey
Shawn D. Gahring
> > meant for a plane to be "Doritoed".
>
> John, I beleive it derives from the appearance of the A-12. Triangular, no
> protrusions, much like the everpopular snack item.
>
> Just a guess though as I have never been able to exert the energy to attempt
> translation of Plummerese.
Actually, I think Dorito'd is a reference to the Frito-Lay
company's ad campaign of a few years ago. "Crunch all you
want, we'll make more."
The key to understanding a Plummer post is to know where
his mindset starts. If you assume that Unmanned Combat
Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs) are the solution to the world's
problems, you have a start. They can solve anything in
Kurtworld, from global nuclear threats to who should win
the next Miss Universe pageant (the contestant that survives
the strafing run of a UCAV run amok).
Reading Kurt's posts is not altogether unlike reading James
Joyce. Joyce was an Irish Catholic who spoke 7 foreign
languages, and if he couldn't find a world in English that
fit his particular purpose, he'd borrow from another language.
If he couldn't find one in any language, he'd borrow bits and
pieces from _all_ languages to meet his particular meaning.
Thus, you can probably _really_ understand what Joyce meant
if you share the common background and foreign language skills
he had. In Kurt's case, this means you need to be well-versed
in three areas:
1) popular culture: To be succinct, any event in popular culture
is fair game for a Plummerism. Hence "dorito'd". Words to
look for in the future with respect to this will be J. Lo'd or
P. Diddy'd--no one knows what these references will mean, but
they will clearly hold deep inner meanings to Kurt himself.
2) Theyoughtawannas: Many engineers suffer from this problem.
"They ought to want a..." Whatever is the hip new development
at the time. Unfortunately, most hip new developments aren't
safe around battle zones. A certain maturation is required to
ensure your new toy doesn't blow off the head of the guy you are
trying to protect. Rather than find out what "they" (meaning
the people who actually do the work in the field) want, the
engineers trust their own brain to tell them what people _should_
want. Thus, many of Kurt's ideas can spring forth from ideas
gleaned from "Popular Mechanics", "Popular Science" and a host
of other fanciful publications that promise technological
developments that never make it to fruition--usually because a
practical solution (or use) cannot be found.
3) UCAVs: They are their own special category. If you can't
get behind UCAVs as a solution to everything, then you are
apparently unable to get beyond your own "man-uber-alles"
mentality. Once you recognize that Kurt should be placed
as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions and given
unlimited developmental powers, you should be okay. So long
as you don't press the unavailability of systems that don't
exist or highlight possible flaws in his development scheme.
If so, refer back to the passage on "man-uber-alles".
SG
Guy alcala
> but the character assassination going on here is really objectionable.
> Kurt has a right to free expression of his ideas and newsgroup members
> should be mature enough to ignore what they don't like. "Sticks and
> stones..." --Bill
>
> "Sean Long" <sean...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:9kjmo2$je5$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > "Guy Alcala" <g_al...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:3B6CFF2F...@postoffice.pacbell.net...
> >
> > > "Nor would I want to loft manned-endurance limited systems just to the
> Monkey Can
> > > Press The Pulsar Button."
> >
> > I know this one!
> >
> > "I wouldn't want to send up short range aircraft just so an over-trained
> > pilot can push the button that fires the death ray."
Thanks, Sean. And Bill, I leave it to you to decide which version
scans better and which is deliberately cryptic. Of course, if Kurt
had bothered to add the word "point" after "Button," with the whole
"Monkey" phrase in quotes, things would have been clearer. Actually,
everything up to "Monkey" was fine; rewriting just that phrase would
have done it.
No one minds the use of acronyms or pithy phrases which are in common
usage in the field concerned, which will be readily understood by the
majority of the audience, or at least by the individuals directly
involved in the conversation. Our posts would be far longer than many
of them already are, if we didn't use them. I use them myself, and
have been known to throw around HUD, JDAM, GLOC, Ps, SFC, Vne, IFOV,
FAIP, shooter-cover, Get Out of Dodge, etc, if I think the audience
will be familiar with them. However, constant use of obscure jargon,
the meaning of which is known to few if any in your audience (without
making recourse to a glossary), is extremely irritating. It's also
counterproductive, assuming that the intent is to communicate.
OTOH, it's often true that the whole idea behind writing or speaking
in this fashion is to give the impression that you're 'with it,' that
you're on the inside, so intimately involved with the subject matter
on a daily basis that you converse like this all the time. That is,
after all, one of the primary purposes of jargon, to separate "our
group" from the general public. I suspect that this motivation may be
primary for him, but that's just a guess. No-one I've ever talked to
who actually works in these fields has ever felt the need to indulge
in the use of jargon to the extent Kurt does, at least not with an
audience of vastly differing levels of knowledge and background like
this one has.
Be that as it may, Bill, it really doesn't matter. There has been no
character assassination of Kurt here; I think you'll find that Kurt is
far more ready to throw around terms like "idiot," "moron," "fool,"
etc. than any of us are. And, as you say, we are free to ignore what
we don't like. If Kurt were just another troll with nothing useful to
contribute, most of us would have killfiled him years ago. As it is,
we tend to glance at his posts and decide that they'll take more time
and energy deciphering than we're willing to spend, and so we DO
ignore them. Which is too bad, because Kurt often does have
interesting things to say or information to impart, even when we
disagree with his take.
Consider this thread as a way for those of us who've suffered for so
long to blow off steam, with the hope that he will read it and modify
his style. I have no great hopes of this; people with far more
practical experience than he has in many of these fields have asked
him to do so over the years, with little or no effect. If he wishes
to be widely read and respected, he'll have to; otherwise, he'll be
increasingly ignored as not worth the time.
Guy
John Keeney
William W. Plummer <wplu...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:Paeb7.22996$bm5.8...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> but the character assassination going on here is really objectionable.
> Kurt has a right to free expression of his ideas and newsgroup members
> should be mature enough to ignore what they don't like. "Sticks and
> stones..." --Bill
I don't see any character assassination, just communications skills
assassination with some disagreement of ideas thrown in.
Kurt's freedom of expression does not restict that of others'.
That Amendment is about freedom of expression, not freedom from criticisem.
Matt Clonfero
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>That's news to the Bincleaves boys we deal with :) They capitalise the
>name :) If you guys can't be consistent, how do you expect us to get it
>right?
We don't expect you to be right. You're contractors. That's why we have
Dstl Analysis ;>
>At least you got a nice clean four-letter acronym that means something.
>I thought BAE SYSTEMS was bad, but it was topped by QinetiQ...
Pretty poor, isn't it. A big `Q' to get in; a big `Q' to get out, and no
room for U in the middle.....
I take it you've seen the organisation chart with every department in
QinetiQ spelt in a similar manner?
Matt Clonfero
Plummer <wplu...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>Perhaps it is only because Kurt Plummer and I share the same family name,
>but the character assassination going on here is really objectionable.
>Kurt has a right to free expression of his ideas and newsgroup members
>should be mature enough to ignore what they don't like. "Sticks and
>stones..." --Bill
I'm happy to ignore that which I don't like. However, when someone
decides to pass of his or her opinion as `the one true way' I feel at
liberty to argue. I am also content that pointing out a major flaw in
the written style of someone who is trying to hold a discussion on a
technical forum isn't `character assassination'.
Lloyd Lim
Guy Alcala <g_al...@junkpacbell.net> wrote:
>Eric Archer wrote:
>
>> I'm just a lurker here, but I really love reading everyone's posts. Kurt
>> Plummer seems to have a lot to say, but I really don't understand more than
>> 50% of it... perhaps I'm too uneducated to even try. Is there some sort of
>> Plummer translator that'll actually put his stuff into a language us mere
>> mortals can understand?
>
>
>Mixed in with or tacked onto the ends of these acronym trains like an engine
>and caboose, there will likely be several Plummer-coined phrases which sound
>really cool and tactical, but which usually just serve to make the meaning more
>opaque. If you can decipher their meaning within the context of the short
>sentence fragment you're working on, great, but if not set them aside until
>you've gotten to the end of the next step.
IMHO, the Plummer-coined phrases are the worst. Acronyms usually
aren't that bad. Most long-time readers know most military acronyms
anyway. If it comes down to it, you can usually look up a key acronym
that you don't know off the top of your head.
You have to guess the Plummerisms solely from context. And since they
almost always serve no purpose except to sound cool or make an inside
joke, they can get annoying.
I usually just skim the first paragraph or two. Unless he appears
to be saying something really interesting, I usually skip on to the
next article. Life is short. :)
+++
Lloyd Lim <Lloy...@mail.limunltd.com>
Paul J. Adam
<Matt@[127.0.0.1]> writes
>In article <5sSkITA4...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>, Paul J. Adam
><ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>That's news to the Bincleaves boys we deal with :) They capitalise the
>>name :) If you guys can't be consistent, how do you expect us to get it
>>right?
>
>We don't expect you to be right. You're contractors. That's why we have
>Dstl Analysis ;>
Let us know when they're ready to tell us what the requirements are :)
Otherwise we're having to make up our own...
>>At least you got a nice clean four-letter acronym that means something.
>>I thought BAE SYSTEMS was bad, but it was topped by QinetiQ...
>
>Pretty poor, isn't it. A big `Q' to get in; a big `Q' to get out, and no
>room for U in the middle.....
Hadn't heard that one before... but it fits far too well.
>I take it you've seen the organisation chart with every department in
>QinetiQ spelt in a similar manner?
Nope, but wouldn't mind.
Still good guys (a little blue-skies at times but often _very_
technically aware), but not sure how privatisation will change things...
All opinions my own, speaking solely for my self, et cetera et cetera.
Maury Markowitz
news:73l0p5Cn...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> 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've had this problem myself, so I bother to actually ask him. In every
situtation he's quickly provided details. Would you like me to demonstrate?
Recently I had trouble parsing a term in the thread about advanced missile
designs (nothing on the net, nothing in my missile books), so I asked him
about it. He quickly responded with scans of the missile in question.
I'm going to need some specifics Paul. Claiming that he's just making crap
up is insulting, and that's what people are doing here.
> 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.
This would seem to be excellent evidence that he's _not_ full of it then.
> 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.
It's not his job to make sure you can parse english. That's your job. His
posts being hard to read are a lot different than his posts being full of
"snake oil".
> If you're peddling snake oil, bury as much as you can in technobabble.
Tell that to every author of a scientific paper in the last, oh, 50 years.
The editors of Nature complain continually about the horrid writing and use
of specialist terminology - often included simply because everyone else does
it - in the papers they are given. Yet the situation does not improve. Even
the _titles_ of the papers are unclear.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
news:VYjgSFA$BXb7...@ntlworld.com...
> It is my contention that anyone with a subscription to Janes or AvLeak
> can develop a familiarity with the acronyms used to describe military
> aviation developments that are in embryonic form. However, it is also my
> contention that clear writing about these subjects does not need to be
> acronym heavy.
So then your point is what? That you don't like his writing? Why are you
replying to me? To agree with me, or disagree?
Talk about unclear!
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> > Yes, Google. 80% hit ratio. For the other 20 write back and ask for a
> > picture.
>
> Does it work though?
My inbox is filled with examples.
> For example, I never did find out what it
> meant for a plane to be "Doritoed".
Well let's try this one then. Here is what I did:
1) go to www.google.com
2) type in "dorito airplane" - hmm, not s great
3) type in "dorito flying " - ahhh
This is interesting, the first hit is a page on the CANCELLED A-12
project. I don't know, maybe it has something to do with the fact that this
CANCELLED plane was painted black? No, maybe it's the name of the CANCELLED
airplane, "Avenger". Or that Dick CANCELLED it?
You're right, no one with half a brain can figure it out his posts.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
news:1HFa7.994$K41.15...@twister1.starband.net...
> Bad assumption. Its my exposure to "scientists" that convinces me that KP
is
> mostly full of it.
I note:
1) you do not answer the question
2) you quote the term scientists
May I infer from this that the people you are referring to are not
actually scientists? Perhaps the people "with decades of active service
duty" you mentioned in an earlier message?
If this is the case, the proper response would have been "yes, I do not do
science for a living."
> for many folks who are technically inclined. KP may understand something,
> but unless he learns to communicate clearly, without made up words and
> obscure acronyms, then his knowledge is of little benefit to the rest of
us.
What!? So let me see if I understand this correctly, your implication in
the past has been that he's full of crap. Now you're saying that due to his
writing style, it's of no use to you? This is supposed to be similar?
> 2b(2) isn't in my dictionary. sorry.
I have to ask, which one is that? I tried several, Webster's 1828 version
did not have it but the Merriam-Webster version does, WordNet, allwords, MW,
Wordsmyth and word-a-day all did. Try it yourself:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm
> success in the Osirak (sp?) raid. The rest of the evidence is more tenuous
> but it follows the line that if experts in the field can't or won't follow
> the writing then it is basically useless.
So what exactly is your complaint, that you can't read his posts?
I have an idea, I'm going to start a thread about how bad your reading
comprehension is. Then when you protest that I'm involved in character
assasination and that you can read just fine, I'll simply change my story
and say that that's not what I meant, I meant you actually have a bad
dictionary.
The nice thing is that I can demonstrate both of these points with
evidence found right here in your message, while I note that you are
grasping for evidence of your claims.
> Do you "do" science for a living?
Not for a living, but I am a physicist by training and still keep my hand
in.
> Or are you just looking for an arguement?
Har! What do you call your comments in this thread? Reasoned discourse for
higher learning?!
Maury
Paul J. Adam
Markowitz <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:73l0p5Cn...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>up is insulting, and that's what people are doing here.
Well, he's basically pulling up isolated pieces of technology, saying
that if they're bolted together they'll make a better solution than
anyone else can think of, and being abusive to anyone who points out the
problems and limitations of his solutions.
It becomes a little tiresome after a while.
>> 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.
>
> This would seem to be excellent evidence that he's _not_ full of it then.
Never said he was: I say that he's accidentally or deliberately failing
to communicate, for reasons known only to him, and that detracts from
the clarity of his message.
I have other issues, but that one's the point of this thread.
>
>> 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.
>
> It's not his job to make sure you can parse english. That's your job. His
>posts being hard to read are a lot different than his posts being full of
>"snake oil".
Well, the latest one is getting very confusing. He's currently calling
me a liar for quoting his own words back at him, as far as I can tell.
On the technical side, my disagreements would be threefold.
1 - Lack Of Requirement Analysis.
Kurt starts with a solution and pushes it, without managing to visibly
link it to the problem.
So, his argument slithers around a lot because every time you think
you're getting the _mission_ defined, he changes his mind or shifts tack
and suddenly this system's meant to be doing something else.
Likewise, the solution is both inflexible (gotta be drones somehow) and
very slippery (airlifted vehicles delivered by drone helicopters? No
problem... except then we added a UAV platform for recce, and then we
had to have some unmanned robotanks for point-defence, and this small
sneaky force turns into a marching band...)
2 - Lack of Integration
His solutions start with nominally-feasible elements, which he conflates
together and calls a complete solution, regardless of feasiblity.
Again, the current debate offers a good example; having evolved the
solution, we're looking at a drone that can carry ~2,000lb of sensors
and weapons, loiter at ten thousand feet, for eight hours. It seamlessly
and instantly fuses sniper-detector radar, long-range gas analysers,
spectroscopes, GPS/INS and a high-bandwidth low-latency datalink in
order to identify hostile fires with complete reliability. And it folds
up small enough to fit into a rucksack.
And I'm a closed-minded idiot for doubting that it could have been in
service, in numbers, years ago if only the "International Fighter Pilot
Cabal" hadn't collaborated to destroy it.
3 - Lack of Manners
I don't know about you, but I get tired of being repeatedly and
regularly told that I'm a liar, that I'm an idiot, that I'm a closed-
minded fool and (more recently) that I'm a vampire leeching off the US
defence industry.
Clark
"Maury Markowitz" <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote in message
news:i3Ub7.9617$st4.2...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> "Clark" <nos...@me.com> wrote in message
> news:1HFa7.994$K41.15...@twister1.starband.net...
> > Bad assumption. Its my exposure to "scientists" that convinces me that
KP
> is
> > mostly full of it.
>
> I note:
>
> 1) you do not answer the question
Wrong. I answered the question which you then quoted. Perhaps you don't
understand my answer which would be a reason to continue a discussion. But
since you insist on being rude and apparently just want an argument, have a
nice day.
Maury Markowitz
> Well, he's basically pulling up isolated pieces of technology, saying
> that if they're bolted together they'll make a better solution than
> anyone else can think of, and being abusive to anyone who points out the
> problems and limitations of his solutions.
This is certainly NOT my experience. Ahh the wonders of such a limited
medium.
> Never said he was:
YOU didn't, but that's the central thesis of others.
> I say that he's accidentally or deliberately failing
> to communicate, for reasons known only to him, and that detracts from
> the clarity of his message.
Yes, he's elliptical.
> Kurt starts with a solution and pushes it, without managing to visibly
> link it to the problem.
Oh come on, I'm a million billion times worse than him at that. Yet I
don't see any theads about it. No, I take that back, there was the single
exception of a rather similar thread that Erik started a year or so ago.
> I don't know about you, but I get tired of being repeatedly and
> regularly told that I'm a liar, that I'm an idiot, that I'm a closed-
> minded fool and (more recently) that I'm a vampire leeching off the US
> defence industry.
Well I've been here almost as long as you, and involved in many of the
same threads. I don't know what to say, that's simply not how I read his
posts. Of course that's true for my own posts as well, and certain people
take great offence at anything I write, so there you go.
Maury
Paul J. Adam
Markowitz <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:A3GaOSA0...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> regularly told that I'm a liar, that I'm an idiot, that I'm a closed-
>> minded fool and (more recently) that I'm a vampire leeching off the US
>> defence industry.
>
> Well I've been here almost as long as you, and involved in many of
> the same threads. I don't know what to say, that's simply not how I
> read his posts.
Take a look at "Future Requirements of Air Forces" - here's an edited
summary of his latest missive.
"You were the one who brought up the "UCAV's are impossible" BS."
"Nope. We aren't a pissant feudal kingdom trying to ride herd on a
bunch of deranged religious fanatics who don't want us there."
"Liar... You are either retarded or attempting to exploit the ignorance
or patience of others. Where such misdirection is done deliberately
with intent we call it Lying."
"Only pissant feudal states without the money make up the difference try
and pretend they don't want the capability. Based on jealousy or envy
or fear that they will have to try and match the Real Nations in yet
another area of no-budget chase."
"Oh really? You don't want a capability to see the enemy coming at you
and decide which force to hit first with a weapons system that requires
ZERO exposure of your bulletless own self?"
"Except you wait on U.S. because you are too backward to try." <I've
given him the information of where we're not just trying but *doing* -
but after whining that he doesn't get given information, he then can't
be bothered to go check and insults me for providing it>
"Of course even if this piddling little 'rent the office and buy the
paperclips' amount" <we're talking $131 million dollars here - what
planet does this man live on?> "
"Golly Wally, back to being a deceptive, misdirective, "Let's develop
them a little more, shall we?" advocate." <I give him facts and this is
how he replies?>
"Raise your trousers and drop the pointless issue."
"Are You Retarded?"
"Are You Retarded?"
"Pull up your trousers sir, my eyes have seen more than they care to."
"I guess you're just slow."
"Don't ask for clarification to your confuscation of an issue and then
expect to get away with more bamboozlery."
"Nope. By your own admittance a mix of robot air in command overwatch
and direct support is NOT being tested." <A barefaced lie.>
"Get a LINK." <He rejected information because it wasn't online.>
"Give me a full text so that I have a chance to explain or apologize."
<Journal of Defence Science and Jane's both carry those inconvenient
little (c) symbols>
"Learn To Read."
"Cheap Shot. Poor logic on your part shows through yet again."
"I'll thank you to THINK."
Now, I'd not really call that little lot polite. Would you?
In fact, I'd call it personally offensive and thoroughly *dishonest*,
and particularly hypocritical since he insults my integrity so often
while taking theatrical umbrage at the smallest perceived slight to him.
That's okay, this is Usenet and you either bring a thick skin, but Kurt
is not just obsessively narrow-minded but seems to be becoming
increasingly mendacious and petty.
I skimmed through that last post, wondered whether to reply, and decided
not to bother: he's simply not listening to anything that challenges his
prejudices, and even my patience with single-issue fanatics wears thin
eventually.
He raised a couple of moderately valid points, but why bother answering?
When I do, he accuses me of lying or being retarded rather than
addressing the issues.
Maury Markowitz
> Now, I'd not really call that little lot polite. Would you?
No. I'm glad I missed that thread.
Maury
Matt Clonfero
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>We don't expect you to be right. You're contractors. That's why we have
>>Dstl Analysis ;>
>
>Let us know when they're ready to tell us what the requirements are :)
>Otherwise we're having to make up our own...
Hadn't you heard, it's the latest thing in Smart Procurement. You tell
us what you think the requirements should be; and then you find out if
you're right or wrong.
>>I take it you've seen the organisation chart with every department in
>>QinetiQ spelt in a similar manner?
>
>Nope, but wouldn't mind.
E-mail me with your fax number, I'll send it over (I've only got it in
hard copy).
>Still good guys (a little blue-skies at times but often _very_
>technically aware), but not sure how privatisation will change things...
Time will tell.
Matt Clonfero
1. Anyone can learn a whole slew of acronyms for conceptual systems.
2. Anyone can string the acronyms together into a Usenet post.
3. Anyone who wants their post to be clear - which includes any
proficient scientist or engineer - should avoid this method of writing.
Now, in response to a post by "Clark" which included this line:
>> Believe I'll just stick with my interpretation.
You wrote:
> 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.
As you are no doubt aware, good technical and scientific writing
shouldn't attempt to make a point by `baffling the reader with bullshit'
- which is the only reason to take a whole collection of acronyms and
nicknames that are not in common use and run them together in long
paragraphs.
As it happens, I don't do `science' for a living. My job title is
`Senior Engineer'. What about you? If you think that Mr Plummer's
writing style is acceptable for a technical debate, I would be forced to
differ.
Stephen Harding
> So what exactly is your complaint, that you can't read his posts?
>
> I have an idea, I'm going to start a thread about how bad your reading
> comprehension is. Then when you protest that I'm involved in character
> assasination and that you can read just fine, I'll simply change my story
> and say that that's not what I meant, I meant you actually have a bad
> dictionary.
>
> The nice thing is that I can demonstrate both of these points with
> evidence found right here in your message, while I note that you are
> grasping for evidence of your claims.
Geez Maury, just read KPs posts!
How much damn proof of what Clark is saying do you need??!!!
SMH
Stephen Harding
> It's not his job to make sure you can parse english. That's your job. His
> posts being hard to read are a lot different than his posts being full of
> "snake oil".
I don't for a minute believe KP is "full of it", but his posts can come off
looking like it because of his style of writing.
This is a *written* medium. I think your missing a major point of this
communication medium to say it is the responsibility of the "listener"
to figure out what someone is saying.
You're a physicist. I presume you go to conferences from time to time,
perhaps give a paper now and then?
If you're as smart as you generally appear in this group, I can't believe
you would simply patch up a set of sentences and deliver it to the conference
as a paper and *hope* the conferees come away with the meaning you intended!
It is *your job* to communicate your intentions, not someone else's
responsibility to devine them! Accept the consequences if this is the
way you choose to communicate!
SMH
Maury Markowitz
news:3B71402D...@hobart.cs.umass.edu...
> Geez Maury, just read KPs posts!
I do.
> How much damn proof of what Clark is saying do you need??!!!
I agree completely, KP's posts are hard to read and filled with jargon.
And?
Maury
Stephen Harding
> "John Keeney" <jdke...@iglou.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Yes, Google. 80% hit ratio. For the other 20 write back and ask for a
> > > picture.
> >
> > Does it work though?
>
> My inbox is filled with examples.
>
> > For example, I never did find out what it
> > meant for a plane to be "Doritoed".
>
> Well let's try this one then. Here is what I did:
>
> 1) go to www.google.com
> 2) type in "dorito airplane" - hmm, not s great
> 3) type in "dorito flying " - ahhh
>
> This is interesting, the first hit is a page on the CANCELLED A-12
> project. I don't know, maybe it has something to do with the fact that this
> CANCELLED plane was painted black? No, maybe it's the name of the CANCELLED
> airplane, "Avenger". Or that Dick CANCELLED it?
>
> You're right, no one with half a brain can figure it out his posts.
So...did you actually figure it out? Is this the meaning of the phrase?
I just did a Google search on "the meaning of life" and after a bit more
reading, I'll certainly have it figured out!
Thanks for the tips!
Stephen "Half Brain" Harding
Maury Markowitz
> I don't for a minute believe KP is "full of it", but his posts can come
off
> looking like it because of his style of writing.
>
> This is a *written* medium. I think your missing a major point of this
> communication medium to say it is the responsibility of the "listener"
> to figure out what someone is saying.
Yes and no. It's been my experience that people will misinterpret what you
say no matter how you say it. Does that let Kurt off the hook? No, but
that's not the issue.
> You're a physicist. I presume you go to conferences from time to time,
> perhaps give a paper now and then?
I'm not a physicist, I'm a programmer. I _trained_ as a physicist however.
Sadly the programming fills pretty much 100% of my time, so I miss even
things like AAAS and such which I'd love to go to.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> As you are no doubt aware, good technical and scientific writing
> shouldn't attempt to make a point by `baffling the reader with bullshit'
And as you are no doubt aware, this nevertheless represents something on
the order of 99% of all papers delivered. There's a reason science students
are being forced to take creative writing courses.
> As it happens, I don't do `science' for a living. My job title is
> `Senior Engineer'. What about you?
Chief Scientist.
> If you think that Mr Plummer's writing style is acceptable for a technical
> debate, I would be forced to differ.
Your perogative of course, but this is still a long ways from claiming he
doesn't know what he's talking about.
Right?
Maury
Guy Alcala
> "Matt Clonfero" <Matt@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> news:1pi4OFAl...@ntlworld.com...
<snip>
> > If you think that Mr Plummer's writing style is acceptable for a technical
> > debate, I would be forced to differ.
>
> Your perogative of course, but this is still a long ways from claiming he
> doesn't know what he's talking about.
>
> Right?
Which is hardly the point, Maury, and you know it. The point is that Kurt's
writing style is so inaccessible that relatively few people can be bothered to
expend the energy to decode it. Further, as was amply illustrated by Paul Adam
in a message to you, Kurt's behavior is getting to be more and more insulting to
anyone who disagrees with him, i.e. who doesn't agree that he's found the holy
grail. Considering that many of the people he insults are exactly the same
people who raise the S/N ratio above -60dB in this Newsgroup, that's pretty
inexcusable in my book. Combining the two together, it's hardly surprising that
more and more people decide to only glance at most of his posts and skip to the
next one at the first sign of mind-numbing jargon. If you still find them worth
your time, good for you - enjoy.
Guy
me
I enjoy Kurt Plummer's posts. I sometimes have difficulty understanding
parts of them, but what I do understand makes me think. I especially enjoy
the discussions that he has with people that disagree with him.
I have no beef with people who want to disagree with him, or with his
writing style, that is your right. Kurt adds interesting _content_ to this
group, as do others. The people bitching about Kurt certainly do not add
content, it is more akin to noise.
It worries me that pissant attacks like this could lead to pushing Kurt out
of this group. That would definitely be a loss, for _everyone_ , both fans
and detractors. I've seen it happen in other newsgroups, and it ain't
pretty.
In a perfect newsgroup, people would attack Kurt's ideas and posts, and we
could all enjoy a fascinating interchange. I am not sure that this thread
is up to that level of discourse (note how many of this newsgroup's
celebrities have avoided this thread like it was a live grenade).
Ralph Savelsberg
I've found to be a rather friendly chap. He does write in a lingo that is hard to
understand. The acronyms aren't really the difficulty. What makes his writing hard
to understand is the way he seems to jump from one subject to the next and the lack
of a clear direction towards the point he's trying to make, primarily because he
seems to want to make lots of points simultaneously. If he were to spend a little
more time on presenting his views instead of typing the unfiltered reasoning that
goes through his mind, the whole thing would become a bit easier. However, if you
put some effort into deciphering it, much of what he writes does make sense. I
might not agree with it, but in my opinion he is certainly not an idiot. His posts
remind me of many presentations that I've heard on conferences (usually given by
theoreticians, often from the FSU). People often try to compile so much stuff into
a short presentation that it becomes unintelligable as a whole.
People who don't like to read his posts can simply ignore them. That's what I
usually do with threads like this one or with long discussions between John Tarver
and whoever else.
I don't know what bugs Kurt so much that he gets testy with some posters (many of
which don't seem to deserve it), but I'm pretty sure a negative thread like this
one about him won't help.
regards,
Ralph Savelsberg
Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
Eindhoven University of Technology
http://www.fluid.tue.nl/
John Keeney
Maury Markowitz <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote in message
> It's not his job to make sure you can parse english. That's your job.
His
> posts being hard to read are a lot different than his posts being full of
> "snake oil".
Every English teacher I've ever had would disagree with you if
you are claiming clear writing for the entended audience is not
the writer's responablity.
> Tell that to every author of a scientific paper in the last, oh, 50
years.
> The editors of Nature complain continually about the horrid writing and
use
> of specialist terminology - often included simply because everyone else
does
> it - in the papers they are given. Yet the situation does not improve.
Even
> the _titles_ of the papers are unclear.
Has much to do with the pier review process. A lot of it goes in to
satisfy the scientist reviewer's sense of completness.
Maury Markowitz
news:3B714E01...@postoffice.pacbell.net...
> Which is hardly the point, Maury, and you know it.
It is EXACTLY the point Guy. There have been several comments made to the
effect that:
1) he uses lots of jargon
2) he does this to hide the fact that he's full of it
3) at least some of it is made up
I don't know what thread you're reading, but that's certainly the thread
I'm upset about!
Maury
Paul J. Adam
Markowitz <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> writes
>"Guy Alcala" <g_al...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:3B714E01...@postoffice.pacbell.net...
>> Which is hardly the point, Maury, and you know it.
>
> It is EXACTLY the point Guy. There have been several comments made to the
>effect that:
>
>1) he uses lots of jargon
You would dispute this?
>2) he does this to hide the fact that he's full of it
Debatable. I think he knows a fair amount about the subject, but he
confuses ignorance with open-mindedness (anything's easy if you don't
have to do it yourself...)
>3) at least some of it is made up
Yep, some of it *is* invented. If you can't find it anywhere except by
asking him (not in print, not in a three-engine Web search) then it's
hard to say other than that it's made up.
Guy Alcala
me wrote:
> I enjoy Kurt Plummer's posts. I sometimes have difficulty understanding
> parts of them, but what I do understand makes me think. I especially enjoy
> the discussions that he has with people that disagree with him.
>
> I have no beef with people who want to disagree with him, or with his
> writing style, that is your right. Kurt adds interesting _content_ to this
> group, as do others. The people bitching about Kurt certainly do not add
> content, it is more akin to noise.
More like long suppressed irritation, combined with an attempt to let him know
how many people feel. Since more subtle methods have repeastedly failed in the
past, this seems the only way left.
> It worries me that pissant attacks like this could lead to pushing Kurt out
> of this group. That would definitely be a loss, for _everyone_ , both fans
> and detractors. I've seen it happen in other newsgroups, and it ain't
> pretty.
>
> In a perfect newsgroup, people would attack Kurt's ideas and posts, and we
> could all enjoy a fascinating interchange. I am not sure that this thread
> is up to that level of discourse (note how many of this newsgroup's
> celebrities have avoided this thread like it was a live grenade).
People are happy to attack Kurt's ideas and posts, assuming they can be
bothered to decipher them (as is clear from many of the responders to this
thread, the number who are is a lot smaller than it used to be). What many of
us are not happy about is the personal attacks he launches at people who
disagree with him. Maybe you missed him describing Ed Rasimus as "insane"
because Ed defended a practice of pilot flight assignments that Kurt took
exception to (after also describing the U.S. and Israeli Air Forces as
populated somewhat interchangeably by idiots, morons and fools), and I think Ed
would rightly be called one of the stars of the NG. Ed replied with both
maturity and restraint, but to him I'm sure Kurt is nothing more than a minor
irritation like a single mosquito, not worth getting worked up about. Ed's had
to deal with far more important matters in his life, like his own and his
friends' somewhat tenuous grip on mortality as young adults, and probably has
just learned to ignore people he finds offensive. He certainly took no further
part in that particular thread (although he may just have felt he had nothing
more to contribute). If someone like Ed were to get disgusted and leave, I'd
consider that far more of a loss to the NG than the loss of Kurt.
By and large, I try to just ignore irritating people as well, and if Kurt were
a troll he'd have been in the Tarver file already. I can't speak for anyone
else, but I consider this thread sort of a public airing of grievances which I
hope Kurt has been reading, so that he can see the fairly widespread discontent
with both his writing style and behavior. I hope he will decide that it's
worth his while to change, because I do think that he can contribute to the NG
very positively; he cerytainly has in the past, and I have enjoyed many useful
and often stimulating exchanges with him. But for me personally, I'm less
willing to put up with his writing style and especially his behavior than I
used to be. Even when I am willing to spend the energy to unravel his prose, I
often find myself disgusted by his, to me, inexcusable and insulting behavior
towards people who actually do/have done the things that Kurt has only ever
read about. The fact that Kurt may disagree with one of these individuals, and
may do so strongly, isn't a problem. I've disagreed with plenty of people,
including Ed, Art and others on the NG over the years, and expressed that
disagreement quite strongly; I've also developed a pretty thick skin. But, if
civility is to prevail there has to be a distinction drawn between the argument
and the arguer (except in the case of trolls), and Kurt has been crossing that
line a great deal of late. It seems that a fair number of others feel the same
way: many of us may be reaching the stage that Ed probably did years ago.
Those of you that find reading Kurt's posts worthy of the effort, I wish you
continued enjoyment of them. I hope to find them so again myself. And for my
own part, I've think I've said everything I wish to say on the subject: we've
long since gotten to the stage of arguing about the argument.
Guy
Ralph Savelsberg
I've been away for a few weeks, so I don't really know what Kurt has been up to,
but as far as I'm concerned a discussion has to getty very far out of hand before
getting personal with somebody. I must admit that I've called some people idiots
(p_mg, Mladen and the rest of the three stooges) or loopy (John Tarver).
If he did start insulting people because they disagreed with him, then you're
right.
Perhaps Kurt reads your message, which to me seems to be a sincere warning for him
to relax a little or loose the limited credibility he has with some people.
Nuff said,
Ralph
Maury Markowitz
news:$M7lQVAC...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> >3) at least some of it is made up
>
> Yep, some of it *is* invented. If you can't find it anywhere except by
> asking him (not in print, not in a three-engine Web search
Name one single example.
When I said I asked him, his replies were in the form of scans. In other
words, in print.
Maury
Burkhard Domke
>>...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.
So what?
I'm an aerospace engineer and most of Kurt's "techno rant" is pretty
clear to me.
Burkhard
Berlin, Germany
Paul J. Adam
Markowitz <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:$M7lQVAC...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> >3) at least some of it is made up
>>
>> Yep, some of it *is* invented. If you can't find it anywhere except by
>> asking him (not in print, not in a three-engine Web search
>
> Name one single example.
PTOD munitions?
Matt Clonfero
Markowitz <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote:
>> As you are no doubt aware, good technical and scientific writing
>> shouldn't attempt to make a point by `baffling the reader with bullshit'
>
> And as you are no doubt aware, this nevertheless represents something on
>the order of 99% of all papers delivered. There's a reason science students
>are being forced to take creative writing courses.
Maybe in Canada or the US; not true here.
>> As it happens, I don't do `science' for a living. My job title is
>> `Senior Engineer'. What about you?
>
> Chief Scientist.
And you think that it is incumbent on the listener/reader to make a
piece of work clear?
>> If you think that Mr Plummer's writing style is acceptable for a technical
>> debate, I would be forced to differ.
>
> Your perogative of course, but this is still a long ways from claiming he
>doesn't know what he's talking about.
>
> Right?
A fair point. I guess that make my position along the lines of: I don't
think that Kurt knows what he is talking about; and I disapprove of the
method by which he tries to debate.
Bill Baker
<Matt@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>As you are no doubt aware, good technical and scientific writing
>shouldn't attempt to make a point by `baffling the reader with bullshit'
>- which is the only reason to take a whole collection of acronyms and
>nicknames that are not in common use and run them together in long
>paragraphs.
>
>As it happens, I don't do `science' for a living. My job title is
>`Senior Engineer'. What about you? If you think that Mr Plummer's
>writing style is acceptable for a technical debate, I would be forced to
>differ.
Ay-hem! Since your title is Senior *Engineer* instead of Senior
Technical Writer I submit that your opinion is, frankly, bollocks.
Engineers *think* they know what constitutes good technical writing,
but engineers also think they know how to run the universe. "World
poverty? No problem, just step aside, folks. Now, where's my
vice-grips and a big hammer...."
I like working with engineers. I've got a lot of friends who are
engineers of various types--software, EE's, even nuke engineering.
I've known a few engineers who wrote excellent technical documentation
and substantially more who could truly judge the compositional quality
(as opposed to technical accuracy) of a draft manual. The vast
majority, though, shouldn't be trusted with a dull pencil anywhere near
a ream of paper. Engineers should *not* be quibbling over !*#%@
commas! Except that the bad ones, by inevitable nature, quibble over
everything.
Anyhaps...you silly folk can't see the forest for the trees, concerning
K.P. The techno-babble is just window dressing; the guy exhibits some
truly unique cognitive zigs in his screeds. Really, there's a degree
of mad genius--and I use that term advisedly--at work. I'm half
convinced he's actually Thomas Pynchon slumming through a weird jag.
(Pynchon, if you don't know, wrote Minuteman technical doc. for the
Lazy B while working on his first novel.) When I'm slogging through
the tortuous vernacular of one of his articles I have flashbacks to the
first time I waded through Finnegan's Wake. Have you guys even twigged
on how insanely layered his tropes are? You don't just fall off a
turnip truck and write this stuff. Forget that he's blithering about
AMRAAM engagement envelopes. He could be babbling about crop rotation,
it doesn't matter. Hey, Jacques Derrida writes just as nutty stuff and
he's considered one of the great critical thinkers of this century.
Kurt, I've been scratching my head over you a while now. You are one
weird trip, man. You can't just be some obsessive wannabee drooling
over back issues of AW&ST. I don't know what your story is, but you're
wasting a unique talent. Certainly you're putting a lot of effort into
copy yer chucking into the aether for free. You may have missed your
calling, bud. Get yourself a copy of Strunk & White, sit down with a
month's supply of coffee and see what you can do. Don't limit yourself
and do *not* tone down your style.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Maury Markowitz
> > And as you are no doubt aware, this nevertheless represents something
on
> >the order of 99% of all papers delivered. There's a reason science
students
> >are being forced to take creative writing courses.
>
> Maybe in Canada or the US; not true here.
A rather picayune comment really, do you see me claiming this is
universal?
> And you think that it is incumbent on the listener/reader to make a
> piece of work clear?
A person walks up to you and asks questions in a foreign language. In
response you:
1) assume they are a lying, know-nothing moron
2) try to understand what they are saying
People are doing (1) and then seem astonished to find that I consider that
to be reprehensible.
I believe the reason for not making his posts "more readable" is something
known only to Kurt. I also believe that their nature of itself does not make
him the rightful target of ridicule, any more than a cleft palette or
harelip is.
Maury
Paul J. Adam
<burkhar...@pace.de> writes
Then I'd suggest that either you're a genius for understanding its full
depths and realising how they could be achieved, or you're only skimming
the surface of what he's saying.
Many excellent concepts, marred by incoherent expression and the problem
of how you actually _build_ the stuff to acceptable safety (picking on
that because it's a current bugbear - got to love DEF STAN 00-56)
standards.
Burkhard Domke
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3b72a095...@news.de.colt.net>, Burkhard Domke
><burkhar...@pace.de> writes
>>I'm an aerospace engineer and most of Kurt's "techno rant" is pretty
>>clear to me.
>
>Then I'd suggest that either you're a genius for understanding its full
>depths and realising how they could be achieved, or you're only skimming
>the surface of what he's saying.
>
>Many excellent concepts, marred by incoherent expression and the problem
>of how you actually _build_ the stuff to acceptable safety (picking on
>that because it's a current bugbear - got to love DEF STAN 00-56)
>standards.
I said it's pretty clear to me what he's talking about and that I'm
able to decipher most of the abbreviations. That doesn't imply that I
totally agree with his point of view.
The requirements, design goals and design drivers that *really* matter
aren't discussed here, anayway.
Burkhard
Matt Clonfero
Markowitz <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> wrote:
>> > And as you are no doubt aware, this nevertheless represents something
>on
>> >the order of 99% of all papers delivered. There's a reason science
>students
>> >are being forced to take creative writing courses.
>>
>> Maybe in Canada or the US; not true here.
>
> A rather picayune comment really, do you see me claiming this is
>universal?
No; but your comment seemed to imply generality (or, at least, it wasn't
specific).
>> And you think that it is incumbent on the listener/reader to make a
>> piece of work clear?
>
> A person walks up to you and asks questions in a foreign language. In
>response you:
>
>1) assume they are a lying, know-nothing moron
>2) try to understand what they are saying
Not really a suitable comparison, is it? After all, the person in your
example might not speak English at all; whereas in this situation we are
discussing someone who does; and someone who continues to apply the
`bullsh*t baffles brains' approach when it isn't necessary.
You also didn't answer my question: As a Chief Scientist, do you believe
that it is incumbent on the listener/reader to make the meaning of a
piece of work clear?
> People are doing (1) and then seem astonished to find that I consider that
>to be reprehensible.
>
> I believe the reason for not making his posts "more readable" is something
>known only to Kurt. I also believe that their nature of itself does not make
>him the rightful target of ridicule, any more than a cleft palette or
>harelip is.
To be fair, we've all seen this kind of poster before. Someone with a
fairly good background knowledge, who has derived their own world view.
However, when posed with real world issues (usually practicality issues
or a scenario that they had never considered) they are unable to accept
the change in their world view.