From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 8 Jul 93 20:36:34 GMT
From: aio!usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (John Cobarruvias)
Subject: Re: Ralph Crafts responds to Greg Aharonian(!)
Message-ID: <1993Jul8.203634.20803@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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)
*************************************************************