A question about Camellia

[Doug Barton]

Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> The AF's conclusion seems obvious, however it ignores a critical 
>> factor of the Navy's use case.
> 
> The story is apocryphal, so it doesn't make much sense to talk
> about the motives of the people involved -- it's fiction.

Has every example you've ever learned from been true? :)

> But even were it true, I'd be hard-pressed to agree that it shows
> ignorance on the part of the AF engineers.  It shows the AF
> engineers and the Navy engineers looked at the same data and drew
> two completely different conclusions -- and both of them were
> right.

Perhaps I misread what you wrote then. It seemed to me that you were
implying that the AF guys were obviously correct in their conclusion
and that the Navy guys were obviously wrong. What you said above makes
sense though.


Doug