Ralph Crafts responds to Greg Aharonian(!)

Ralph Crafts responds to Greg Aharonian(!)

[David Weller]

Please note that I am forwarding this for Ralph Crafts, who
lacks netnews access. If you wish to reply by e-mail, please use 
this address:
	0003291513@mcimail.com
Message Follows:
==================================
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 14:46 GMT
From: "SS&T, Inc." <0003291513@mcimail.com>

Ralph Crafts

Subject:  GAG (Greg Aharonian Gaffe)

Since Greg's latest diatribe is just one in a never-ending sequence of
insupportable, illogical conclusions, it is time to coin a suitable
descriptor--GAG:  Greg Aharonian Gaffe.  His latest message, "A measure of
Pentagon apathy to Ada," is just another example.

Contrary to the 5JUL93 GAG, there are several excellent reasons (as opposed to
excuses) why there were no flag-rank officers at the WAdaS conference:

1.  None were invited, including the names listed in the GAG.
2.  Many senior officials (probably most of them) were not aware of the event,
since they did not receive promotional materials.  In my meeting on Tuesday
morning (of the conference) with Emmett Paige, I showed him a copy of the
WAdaS agenda.  He commented that he would have made plans to attend, if he had
only known about it.
3.  There were no sessions, papers, or panels that were of interest to people
at that level.  Generals, admirals, and senior executives should not, and will
not, waste their time listening to presentations about object-oriented
development, Ada 9X, reuse with Ada generics, and the like.
4.  Even generals have to justify spending more than $300 to attend a
conference, especially if they are only going for part of one day.

These reasons are contrary to the erroneous assumptions/ conclusions in the
5JUL93 GAG, specifically:

--the cost to attend WAdaS was/is not just $2.50 for the metro; rather, it
exceeds $300, even for generals;
--MILCOM stands for Military Communications Conference, which is a major event
targeted specifically to the military.  WAdaS, by comparison, does not focus
at all on military issues.
--With government airfare rates, the cost for a flag-rank officer to attend
MILCOM, even from Washington, DC, is LESS THAN the cost of that same officer
to attend WAdaS.  All of the names listed in the GAG are MILCOM speakers, and
they attend/speak for free.  This is totally different from the GAG claim that
"thousands of dollars" are spent on travel to Boston.

It would also be useful for the GAG to note that MILCOM is sponsored in part
by the AFCEA, which is the ARMED FORCES Communication and Electronics
Association.  As part of the event, there are several classified briefings
conducted by the DoD.  The AFCEA is probably the largest defense-oriented
association, and it routinely invites and attracts the top officials of the
DoD.  WAdaS, and most other Ada events, do not.

Contrary to claims of the GAG, the information it cited proved nothing except
the vacuous nature of the claims it contained.

Perhaps a more accurate focus and series of questions would have been:

A.  With a SIGAda membership of more than 4,000, why did the WAdaS draw only
about 220 people?
B.  For a more pertinent measure of apathy, why not question the fact that
only 658 ballots were sent in for the recent SIGAda elections, out of a
membership of more than 4,000?
C.  If there is a desire to draw attendance from the military, why aren't
there sessions scheduled that specifically pertain to military issues?
D.  In the WAdaS debate, DoD participation/sponsorship of Ada-related
initiatives was deemed "the kiss of death."  Should anyone be surprised that
members of the DoD are not really interested in attending?  Why should they? 
Would you?

I usually would not bother responding to such pap.  But, since some of the
addressees of the GAG are people like Lloyd Mosemann and Chris Anderson, who
are DoD employees whose support and influence are valued, I wanted them to
know that the GAG does not speak for the Ada community.  Of course, neither do
I, but my track record for supporting Ada is hopefully not in question.

What a waste of time!

Ralph Crafts
=======================
Message Ends

-- 
-Comments above aren't neceessarily the opinion of the SEI, AJPO, or CAE-Link-
David Weller  |  Have you hugged your DRAGOON lately?
----I'm the Ultimate International Masochist: I speak Ada AND Esperanto!-----

Re: Ralph Crafts responds to Greg Aharonian(!)

[John Cobarruvias]

In article <1993Jul8.145544.12824@sei.cmu.edu> wellerd@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu
(David Weller) writes:
>Please note that I am forwarding this for Ralph Crafts, who
>lacks netnews access. If you wish to reply by e-mail, please use 
>this address:

HEY GREG! Here is your chance to go one on one with Ralph in an open
forum! Give him access to Internet! Or are you of type Fowl? ie Chicken?

>	0003291513@mcimail.com
>Message Follows:
>==================================
>Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 14:46 GMT
>From: "SS&T, Inc." <0003291513@mcimail.com>
>
>Ralph Crafts
>
>Subject:  GAG (Greg Aharonian Gaffe)
>
>Since Greg's latest diatribe is just one in a never-ending sequence of
>insupportable, illogical conclusions, it is time to coin a suitable
>descriptor--GAG:  Greg Aharonian Gaffe.  His latest message, "A measure
of
>Pentagon apathy to Ada," is just another example.
>
>Contrary to the 5JUL93 GAG, there are several excellent reasons (as
opposed to
>excuses) why there were no flag-rank officers at the WAdaS conference:
>
>1.  None were invited, including the names listed in the GAG.
>2.  Many senior officials (probably most of them) were not aware of the
event,
>since they did not receive promotional materials.  In my meeting on
Tuesday
>morning (of the conference) with Emmett Paige, I showed him a copy of the
>WAdaS agenda.  He commented that he would have made plans to attend, if
he had
>only known about it.
>3.  There were no sessions, papers, or panels that were of interest to
people
>at that level.  Generals, admirals, and senior executives should not, and
will
>not, waste their time listening to presentations about object-oriented
>development, Ada 9X, reuse with Ada generics, and the like.
>4.  Even generals have to justify spending more than $300 to attend a
>conference, especially if they are only going for part of one day.
>
>These reasons are contrary to the erroneous assumptions/ conclusions in
the
>5JUL93 GAG, specifically:
>
>--the cost to attend WAdaS was/is not just $2.50 for the metro; rather,
it
>exceeds $300, even for generals;
>--MILCOM stands for Military Communications Conference, which is a major
event
>targeted specifically to the military.  WAdaS, by comparison, does not
focus
>at all on military issues.
>--With government airfare rates, the cost for a flag-rank officer to
attend
>MILCOM, even from Washington, DC, is LESS THAN the cost of that same
officer
>to attend WAdaS.  All of the names listed in the GAG are MILCOM speakers,
and
>they attend/speak for free.  This is totally different from the GAG claim
that
>"thousands of dollars" are spent on travel to Boston.
>
>It would also be useful for the GAG to note that MILCOM is sponsored in
part
>by the AFCEA, which is the ARMED FORCES Communication and Electronics
>Association.  As part of the event, there are several classified
briefings
>conducted by the DoD.  The AFCEA is probably the largest defense-oriented
>association, and it routinely invites and attracts the top officials of
the
>DoD.  WAdaS, and most other Ada events, do not.
>
>Contrary to claims of the GAG, the information it cited proved nothing
except
>the vacuous nature of the claims it contained.
>
>Perhaps a more accurate focus and series of questions would have been:
>
>A.  With a SIGAda membership of more than 4,000, why did the WAdaS draw
only
>about 220 people?
>B.  For a more pertinent measure of apathy, why not question the fact
that
>only 658 ballots were sent in for the recent SIGAda elections, out of a
>membership of more than 4,000?
>C.  If there is a desire to draw attendance from the military, why aren't
>there sessions scheduled that specifically pertain to military issues?
>D.  In the WAdaS debate, DoD participation/sponsorship of Ada-related
>initiatives was deemed "the kiss of death."  Should anyone be surprised
that
>members of the DoD are not really interested in attending?  Why should
they? 
>Would you?
>
>I usually would not bother responding to such pap.  But, since some of
the
>addressees of the GAG are people like Lloyd Mosemann and Chris Anderson,
who
>are DoD employees whose support and influence are valued, I wanted them
to
>know that the GAG does not speak for the Ada community.  Of course,
neither do
>I, but my track record for supporting Ada is hopefully not in question.
>
>What a waste of time!
>
>Ralph Crafts
>=======================
>Message Ends
>
>-- 
>-Comments above aren't neceessarily the opinion of the SEI, AJPO, or
CAE-Link-
>David Weller  |  Have you hugged your DRAGOON lately?
>----I'm the Ultimate International Masochist: I speak Ada AND
Esperanto!-----
>




*************************************************************
John R. Cobarruvias, Texas A&M Class of '78, 
NASA Johnson Space Center Houston Tx.
(713)483-9357

"Your pain will be legendary" (Hellraiser I)
"And to think..................I hesitated" (Hellraiser II)
"These pins are killing me!" (Pinhead in Hellraiser IV)
*************************************************************