Posting

James,

Thank you for your comments. They are appreciated. I have to go through
and proof one more time so I'll be sure to keep an eye out for the too/two
incident. As to your second comment, part of it was a attempting something
that apparently did not work. I'll relook at the way I restated things for
emphasis for an alternative way of getting across what I was attempting to.
You are correct in the next to points that while the last one was the one I
used citations from SSI resources, I cited some of the members in other
areas. I think a couple were personal emails and therefore would only have
an internal citation and not an entry in the reference list. Also you are
absolutely correct in that this project is entirely derivative. That was my
task. In it, I needed to demonstrate theoretical teachings with what was
within the literature. Hopefully I accomplished that, I'm not as sure as
I'd like to be about it. The original research project comes next. I'd
love to hear any suggestions you might have on what you see as a worthwhile
project in that vein. Your last comment concerned me a bit. My main reason
for posting this document to the list aside from the fact I thought some of
you may find it interesting, was to ensure that I hadn't taken anything out
of context. I believe that you are saying I have with FBC paper. I will
pull out all the original source documents again for another in depth look.
I would appreciate any further thoughts you have on the matter, and
references to any source documents you feel I may have left out.

Again, I really appreciate the feedback. I've found the people on this list
to be extremely constructive in their criticism, and I'm sure that any
criticisms you have will come up in my defense as well. I'd prefer to fix
the problems now than later.

Sincerely,

DBJ

Okay, I read it though I did fast forward through some of it like the
funding paper.
I noticed a "two" that should have been a "too" in the first or second one.
You have a tendency to restate your opening paragraph several times. By
the time I am though the second or third restatement I am wondering
where the meat is.
While only the last paper had actually references to the SSI list, I
noticed several areas that have been topics of discussion on the list.
This is a derivative work rather than a primary research paper. All of
the concepts were pulled from some form of source material and as such
represents a history of other peoples research and opinions. Where I
really didn't like this was in the discussion of FasterCheaperBetter
which was solely focused on doing NASA work the NASA way using NASA
because that is the way the source papers were written. There was no
out-of-the box thinking and therefore I felt that the conclusions and
suggestions were invalid. It bothered me that somebody reading this
paper would think that this was all that there was on the subject rather
than understand that it was only a very limited set of fix NASA solutions.

Mitchell James