From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Connors Subject: Re: [OT] NBN revisited
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of David Connors Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013 12:54 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] NBN revisited I think that’s called a “straw man” argument – no one’s advocating the mass burning of money. All you’re doing here is drawing a debateable equivalence. Current batting avg: 0.5% of the outcome for 12%. And? What’s the context? Is the better or worse than expected? Without any such information, the above is a meaningless number. You should know that, so stop being disingenuous. It isn't hard to extrapolate the outcome from the above but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. So, all infrastructure deployment projects have linear capital expenditure and end user enablement pathways? That’s the only scenario where I could see that “it’s not hard to extrapolate” an outcome. I suppose every software development project that follows a waterfall methodology must be a huge waste of money – because you spend a lot of money before actually delivering any functionality. And every time someone builds a data centre, it’s similarly a waste of money. Surely you jest? Frankly, I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not. Why don’t you actually put some fact/figures/analysis out there, instead of just “assuming the answer”. But let’s just assume mine’s an outlier. You seem to be starting from the solution again. Is that how you run all your projects? Absolutely. *rolls eyes* Yet, it seems to be how you’re approaching this one. What’s different? You seem either unable or unwilling to string a together a coherent rebuttal or address issues raised. I don’t see how people are supposed to take you seriously here. I really think you’re doing your side of the argument a disservice. Cheers Ken
