To: atm{at}shore.net
From: tkrajci{at}san.osd.mil
Reply-To: tkrajci{at}san.osd.mil


>From:  Leftfieldstar{at}aol.com
>
>Are you having a bad day on the side of the mountain?

Yes.

>Few people can make
>changes without collaboration. Positive and negative advice are part of
the
mix.
>I guess you are supplying today's dose of constructive negativity.

Are you telling me that you don't have any concerns or reservations about
his methods?...that making Robo2 (yet unproven in accuracy) as a way to
compare Robo1 (also unproven in accuracy) is a good step to take?  What
steps do you recommend?

In my opinion, James has proven repeatability between two unproven
mechanical devices.  Is this repeatability accurate (in terms of mirror
testing) or not?  I don't think we know.  Do you agree?

>Clearly, you have become an observer (detractor)
>and not a collaborator.

In my opinion, I'm the kid that's saying "hey, emperor...you're not
wearing new clothes...you're naked!"  ;-)

Why are there so few people on this list that publicly point out potential
errors in thinking?  Collectively we are doing a disservice to beginning
ATM's lurking out there.  The signal to noise ratio on this list needs
improving...yet collectively we do next to nothing to keep it high.  We get
the ATM list we deserve.

If I were merely an observer, I would post nothing.

If I were a detractor...I would say he is inexorably doomed to failure...or
provide intentionally false arguments and/or data.

I have done neither.  I consider myself a contributor...one that is trying
to keep the process from wasting time and using bad/flawed principles and
techniques.

>James has never refused out of hand any advice given.
>So
>why the mean bite?

Based on private discussions between myself and Carl Zambuto...it appears
James *has* refused advice and criticism....and from folks that appear to
know how to wield a very, very accurate, reliable (manual, non-Robo) mirror
tester.

Why would James ignore advice from such a source?

I say again.  I hope that no mirrors have been made while using Robo-
Foucalt as the final and/or only testing method.  Or at least that James
has clearly warned mirror recipients that the mirrors are tested with a
yet-unproven method.

Have any mirrors been made, using Robo-Foucalt as the final and/or only
testing method?

> Much of real change in science involves research before specifics can be
>understood.

I strongly recommend a solid grasp of fundamental concepts before trying to
make a change through research.  I am concerned that such a grasp of
fundamental concepts is not very firm in this case.  In a hasty manner
James is ready to say "yup...I've checked software, mechanical,
etc...it all seems correct....hmmmmm...must be that underlying theory
that's at fault."

>James is doing this publicly. The warts are free.

Nothing wrong with it being in public.  However, because of what I consider
to be a lack of solid/fundamental understanding of underlying
principles...the public is subjected to an excess, unneeded dose of warts. 
I consider that irresponsible on the part of James.

Let’s get our collective feet back to basics...back on firm, known
territory...and from there...proceed in a disciplined fashion towards new
techniques and knowledge.

Tom Krajci
Tashkent, Uzbekistan

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5