Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-13-2015, 12:03 PM   #141
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
That is a great summation of why our latest product program was the worst program in my company's history and why the previous program was the best.
And why politics and the US Military is wandering around in uncharted waters......and no I don't want to go over to the forum section I try to stay out of.....
__________________
Advertisement

psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2015, 12:57 PM   #142
Guru
 
Codger2's Avatar
 
City: San Diego
Country: US
Vessel Name: "Sandpiper"
Vessel Model: 2006 42' Ocean Alexander Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksanders View Post
It appears that the two of you are supporting the exact opposite positions.While Jeffery is suporting the "free agent" concept, Codger is supporting the "make the employees dependent on you" concept.
.
This may not sit well with a lot of folks but it is absolutely an honest explanation of why OWNERS of businesses do what they do. I say OWNERS because their interests are sometimes diametrically opposed to what EMPLOYEES desire.

Employees want to make as much money as they can doing a job that has no inherent liabilities or excessive demands. A job that will allow them to spend more time recreating and having quality time with their families. A job, if they stay with the employer, that will lead to a decent retirement income (401K?) when their carreer has ended. Couple that with being satisfied at the end of their work day with their contribution to the company. I find no fault with that model.

Owners, on the other hand, have a considerable outlay of treasure, both monetary and time, and want to see a better than average return (profit) for their significant investment. Their efforts are usually channeled towards making the business run as efficiently and smoothly as possible.These efforts may or may not include a lot of personnel training depending on the nature of the business. The obvious goal being to survive while maintaining profitability. Make no mistake about it, most successful owners that I am aware of are very interested and committed to creating a work place that has happy employees, a congenial environment and is above all, profitable. Profitability, of course, is the driving force that makes the owners & the employees successful.


So, to boil this down to it's lowest common denominator, "No, Kevin, I'm not the least bit interested in making the employees dependent on me. But rather, I am interested in making the whole enterprise successful!"
__________________

__________________
Codger2

My passion for improving my boat(s) exceeds my desire to constantly cruise them.
Codger2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2015, 01:49 PM   #143
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,537
"A good friend of mine is one of the top directors of photography in the commercial production industry in the US. He says exactly the same thing. The young folks entering the field have wonderful ideas and are full of cool new concepts of how to shoot and edit. But they can't execute their ideas to save their lives'

Making movies requires Talent , sticking together air craft required precision and dedication , or at least great Quality control inspections. Big difference,

Any artist or talent usually has a portfolio of work to display. No portfolio , no job interview.

After a court decision the airlines had to interview folks that had a commercial license. The interview expanded to include a ride in the antique DC 8 simulator, where more than one pencil time attempted to flee , while about 15 ft up , while underway.

The film guys should be able to sit a candidate in front of a Movieola (or the electric replacement) with 15 min of rough cuts and a task to create a 30 second spot in a couple of hours..
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2015, 02:03 PM   #144
Guru


 
City: Full-time onboard
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Trawler
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
The film guys should be able to sit a candidate in front of a Movieola (or the electric replacement) with 15 min of rough cuts and a task to create a 30 second spot in a couple of hours..
No they shouldn't. I have no idea what half of that even means but I can assume it has to do with a process that's 30 years old.

That new candidate probably knows the ins and outs of iMovie, FinalCut, and the social controls of YouTube. The reason the "Movieola" guy is having problems staying afloat is because he's living in the past instead of understanding the present. By letting that candidate go, he's watching his own business slip through his fingers.
Jeffrey S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2015, 02:49 PM   #145
TF Site Team
 
ksanders's Avatar
 
City: SEWARD ALASKA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: LISAS WAY
Vessel Model: BAYLINER 4788
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codger2 View Post
This may not sit well with a lot of folks but it is absolutely an honest explanation of why OWNERS of businesses do what they do. I say OWNERS because their interests are sometimes diametrically opposed to what EMPLOYEES desire.

Employees want to make as much money as they can doing a job that has no inherent liabilities or excessive demands. A job that will allow them to spend more time recreating and having quality time with their families. A job, if they stay with the employer, that will lead to a decent retirement income (401K?) when their carreer has ended. Couple that with being satisfied at the end of their work day with their contribution to the company. I find no fault with that model.

Owners, on the other hand, have a considerable outlay of treasure, both monetary and time, and want to see a better than average return (profit) for their significant investment. Their efforts are usually channeled towards making the business run as efficiently and smoothly as possible.These efforts may or may not include a lot of personnel training depending on the nature of the business. The obvious goal being to survive while maintaining profitability. Make no mistake about it, most successful owners that I am aware of are very interested and committed to creating a work place that has happy employees, a congenial environment and is above all, profitable. Profitability, of course, is the driving force that makes the owners & the employees successful.


So, to boil this down to it's lowest common denominator, "No, Kevin, I'm not the least bit interested in making the employees dependent on me. But rather, I am interested in making the whole enterprise successful!"
I do not disagree with anything you said. In your previous post you indicated that you intentionally held back training employees so that they could not have the skills to move to other jobs, taking the results of your training with them. You said it, not me.

I can see why that approach might be beneficial in some ways with some workers. The problem as I see it is that having employees dependant, wether it was intended or not in some cases might affect their productivity as I indicated above, and that resultant loss in productivity might negativly affect your bottom line.

Please also understand that I recognize that the dependence problem is in my opinion more the fault of the employee than the employer. Employees need to take control of their own careers. They need to take the time on and off the job to develop job skills that are marketable.

I am sure your method is and has been very successful for you and your industry, just be aware that there are other methods that are effective as well. We are also in different industries. There is no way someone could enter my field using OJT as the method of skill building, so my comments are based on my and similar fields and your comments are based on you as an employer and your industry.
__________________
Kevin Sanders
Bayliner 4788
Seward, Alaska
www.mvlisasway.com
ksanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2015, 03:23 PM   #146
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey S View Post
No they shouldn't. I have no idea what half of that even means but I can assume it has to do with a process that's 30 years old.
Supercharged thread drift........

One of my first projects I had in this industry was to rebuild an old Moviola so it could be used as a backup edit system. This was in the early 1970s and that technology was ancient then, dating from the 1920s

For a historical perspective, Woodstock was the first theatrical movie edited on a flatbed. That was 1970 and while flatbed editors had been around for a long time already, that movie almost overnight changed the way film editing was done in Hollywood forever. A lot of movies are still shot on film, but it's just the capture medium. The editing is all done on video.

(First photo is a basic Moviola with one picture drive and one sound drive. The sound drive could be manually coupled or de-coupled to the film drive. Second photo is an 8-plate KEM, which is what I learned to edit on. This is the same kind of edit machine that was used for Woodstock.)

Quote:
That new candidate probably knows the ins and outs of iMovie, FinalCut, and the social controls of YouTube..
They do, and that's all very nice but it doesn't get a project done. What the newcomers to the field lack is the ability to eficiently execute a concept through to an end product that meets the customer's requirement. They have great ideas and concepts and I include these people in my projects specifically for that reason. They think of things I never would have thought of and their concepts are often better than the concepts I did think of. But once we have a locked-in concept and direction and it's time to produce the project I dismiss them from it because their lack of "big picture" ability slows the process to a crawl and skyrockets the cost.

Also, and this is a huge generality, but they have the attention span of a gnat. This is exactly what you want when you're flailing around for an idea. But when a project requires a continuous effort to get it completed, they can't deal with it. So their execution is generally very superficial.

This is fine if the "customer" is also superficial, which defines the bulk of the folks who get their information from YouTube and Facebook. Unfortunately, in the ad agency world and the corporate world, the customer is not superficial. They are also very demanding and extremely cost-conscious. So a sloppily done product that cost an arm and a leg and took a ton of time to produce doesn't cut it.

However.... as the overall dumbing down process continues, even in the agency and corporate world superficial work will, and is... very slowly... becoming more acceptable. Eventually, it will be the new normal, which will be okay, because the audiences and customers won't know any better, either.

BTW, Final Cut is not considered a viable edit system anymore, at least not in a professional sense. We had it at one of our sites for a number of years but have since replaced it with Adobe Premier. Our primary edit systems are Avids which get updated periodically. You can do a lot with iMovie but it's a toy compared to the more comprehensive edit systems.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Moviola.jpg
Views:	38
Size:	129.5 KB
ID:	40134  
Attached Images
 
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2015, 03:40 PM   #147
Guru


 
City: Full-time onboard
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Trawler
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
What the newcomers to the field lack is the ability to eficiently execute a concept through to an end product that meets the customer's requirement.
Efficiently is a funny word there. Wanna bet that more will be uploaded and watched on YouTube just today in these 24 hours than the professional film media will put out in the next entire year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
...but they have the attention span of a gnat. This is exactly what you want when you're flailing around for an idea. But when a project requires a continuous effort to get it completed, they can't deal with it. So their execution is generally very superficial.
I feel very sorry for you for thinking like that. It's sad - I'll explain why.

I work with about a dozen young developers and entrepreneurs. When I was in my early 20's, there were a bunch of great industry guys who took me on and taught me from their experience. I like to think that I'm giving something back to the next generation in the same way.

The guys and gals in their young adult years that I see are wonderful, energetic, determined, and exceptional models for taking on the challenges that are coming. But you see, I see the future in those positive ways myself.

It's sad because I have a feeling your dim view of today's youth is based on your own dim view of the future. There's nothing wrong with that and it doesn't make one a bad person. It's just sad. I'd rather like knowing that tomorrow is going to be better than today, even if I'm not in it.
Jeffrey S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2015, 04:19 PM   #148
Guru
 
City: NC
Country: US
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
...

The problem is when someone comes along and substitutes management over leadership..and things start to go bad.

No different in the military or the civilian world....when bean counters override good leadership....things start to fall apart.

That is good if leadership still recognizes the bottom line....
I have been very lucky and only had one or two bad managers. Most of the managers I have had have been good people but few of them have been leaders. Conversely, in one of my careers, I know some people who are leaders, and I would follow them, and have followed them, into dicey situations. Their job has management in their job title somewhere but I don't know how good they are at management but if the poo hits the fan you want to be with these leaders.

Management is not easy but many people can be a decent manager. Not many people can be leaders.

What was this thread about? Navigation? Was Columbus a good Manager and/or Leader? Trying to get back on track.

Later,
Dan
dannc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2015, 05:15 PM   #149
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey S View Post
Efficiently is a funny word there. Wanna bet that more will be uploaded and watched on YouTube just today in these 24 hours than the professional film media will put out in the next entire year?
It's easy to load tons of simple fluff stuff to the internet which is what most of it is. In that regard you are correct and efficiency may have been the wrong word. Of course, there is a wee bit of difference between somebody's iPhone video of their girlfriend riding a skateboard for the first time and say, The Imitation Game.

What I meant by "efficiency" is the ability to deliver a complex project on time and on cost and be exactly what the customer wants. In this regard, the next generations seem to have a really tough time. I believe it is because they are losing the ability to think for themselves and have to have a ton of confirmation from others. Hence the constant "communication" with texts, etc. Nothing wrong with this but it takes time and in this business, taking time escalates cost and antagonizes customers.

There is no question that these folks are bright, creative, and energetic. Which is why I always include them in the conceptual phase of a project. But watching them try to do the tasks that are demanded in this industry is like watching paint dry in terms of progress. They are as exuberant as hell and have lively meetings and are constantly talking about doing this, that and the other. But in terms of actually getting the job done, they are far, far slower than what the industry demands, at least today.

Of course, the end result will be that everything will happen slower as industry devolves to match the way the newer generations work. How management, stockholders, customers, etc. will deal with the increased production time and vastly increased cost remains to be seen. As I said earlier, the company I work for is dealing with it by simply eliminating employees wherever possible and replacing them with machines. This and farming work out to other countries where the productivity problem doesn't exist. This works in some industries but not in others.

Quote:
When I was in my early 20's, there were a bunch of great industry guys who took me on and taught me from their experience. I like to think that I'm giving something back to the next generation in the same way.
I think that is a terrific attitude and I commend you for it. If you have the good fortune to work in an industry or environment where you can do this--- and the people you're mentoring are receptive--- it's a great thing to do. I do that as much as I can, but the environment I work in actually puts up roadblocks to doing this. The reasons are far to complicated to describe here.

The other problem that has occurred in our design and manufacturing areas is the younger generations refusing to listen to the "old timers." This is a big reason why our most recent program was such a disaster. In the past, every new program examined the previous programs to learn what worked and what didn't work. The new guys listened to the old guys and the lessons learned were applied to the new program.

This was not done on our newest major program because it was decided to start with a clean piece of paper despite the warnings of what would probably occur. All the warnings came true and the program fell into turmoil and confusion. Eventually, the financial and customer relation penalties to the company became so staggering that we brought back the top people from the previous program in an effort to get things back on the rails.

I know some of these guys because I worked with them on the previous program. And what they told me was this--- the newer generation people, for want of a better term, refused to listen to them. Unlike the previous two generations--- boomers and WWII--- the new folks put no value on the experience the previous generation people had in running the most successful program with the best product the company has ever had.

And so the new program staggered on as it had been, the penalties continued (and continue) to mount, the product itself was flawed in countless ways, we missed the delivery date by years, and the customers continue to be pissed off.

Mentoring is a two-way street. If both parties are receptive, it's a fabulous thing to do.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2015, 05:24 PM   #150
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannc View Post
I have been very lucky and only had one or two bad managers. Most of the managers I have had have been good people but few of them have been leaders. Conversely, in one of my careers, I know some people who are leaders, and I would follow them, and have followed them, into dicey situations. Their job has management in their job title somewhere but I don't know how good they are at management but if the poo hits the fan you want to be with these leaders.

Management is not easy but many people can be a decent manager. Not many people can be leaders.

What was this thread about? Navigation? Was Columbus a good Manager and/or Leader? Trying to get back on track.

Later,
Dan
What is hysterical to me and makes me green with envy (to a point)....the best business man I know is completely lovable and a great guy...yet stinks as a leader in many respects and is a lousy manager from what his office staff kids about.

Go figure....as usual ....to be successful at anything whether from years ago or today...it takes the right combination of things at the right time.
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2015, 05:40 PM   #151
Guru
 
High Wire's Avatar
 
City: Cape May, NJ and Englewood, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Irish Lady
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,602
I think we've navigated this thread into Bligh Reef!!!
High Wire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2015, 06:38 AM   #152
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,537
"Go figure....as usual ....to be successful at anything whether from years ago or today...it takes the right combination of things at the right time."

OR it takes a product with little competition and a huge markup.

Frequently that niravana does not last long.
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2015, 01:06 PM   #153
Guru


 
City: Full-time onboard
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Trawler
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 937
The Coast Guard released this information today.

Quote:
There were 610 recreational boating fatalities in 2014, the second-lowest number of yearly boating deaths on record.

The lowest number of yearly boating deaths was 560 in 2013, according to data released by the Coast Guard.

The most boating deaths occurred in 1973, when 1,754 people died.
Now I fully understand the difference between cause-and-affect and correlation. But it makes you wonder. What percentage of boaters were using electronic vs paper charts in 2013/4 vs 1973?

The answer is obvious. And yes, there are other factors at play here too. But as navigation has moved from throwing potatoes off the bow to integrated MFD's and autopilots, the results have been an incredible increase in safety.

One thing the CG didn't mention was the amount that boating was up over 2013 and 2014 over the previous 5 years. Those 5 years were the start of the transition to full electronics onboard. So more use with fewer fatalities. If only every analysis were so simple.

Electronic navigation doesn't make you immune from risk - no one ever claimed that. You're just less at risk the more you remove paper charts from use.
Jeffrey S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2015, 01:16 PM   #154
Guru
 
Northern Spy's Avatar
 
City: Powell River, BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Northern Spy
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 26
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey S View Post
The Coast Guard released this information today.

Now I fully understand the difference between cause-and-affect and correlation. But it makes you wonder. What percentage of boaters were using electronic vs paper charts in 2013/4 vs 1973?

The answer is obvious. And yes, there are other factors at play here too. But as navigation has moved from throwing potatoes off the bow to integrated MFD's and autopilots, the results have been an incredible increase in safety.

One thing the CG didn't mention was the amount that boating was up over 2013 and 2014 over the previous 5 years. Those 5 years were the start of the transition to full electronics onboard. So more use with fewer fatalities. If only every analysis were so simple.

Electronic navigation doesn't make you immune from risk - no one ever claimed that. You're just less at risk the more you remove paper charts from use.
Because people aren't drunk and falling overboard without life jackets?
I think you could pick any activity from 1973 compared to now and find it safer.

Note: I received lawn jarts as a birthday gift in 1973.
Northern Spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2015, 01:31 PM   #155
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
I doubt there are very many boating deaths attributed to cruising, either now or in 1973. I suspect the vast number of deaths are caused by drunks in go-fast boats and PWCs, people falling overboard, heart attacks, and so forth. I think to try to relate these statistics to paper vs electronic navigation is very wishful thinking.

If you want to relate it to anything it's most likely due to our overall nanny state thinking in which people are increasingly being protected from themselves. As Spy correctly says, you can pick any activity be it bicycling, driving, or boating and the statistics will show a falling fatality rate even as the number of participants increases.

I would venture to say that far more boating deaths have been avoided by the implementation of the little plastic interconnect wire between the kill button on an outboard and the driver's clothes than the change from paper to electronic navigation. And this despite the fact that a huge number of boaters probably don't use it.

That's the problem with statistics like this. It's easy to spin them to "prove" a point which in reality is not accurate.

I'm not saying this to defend paper chart navigation. I'm just pointing out another example of incorrect interpretation of statistics.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2015, 01:43 PM   #156
Guru


 
City: Full-time onboard
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Trawler
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 937
I actually think these statistics do relate to the electronic/paper argument. While it's likely true that smaller motorboats are where the fatalities mostly happen, they're one of the biggest adopters of electronic charting. And it's making them safer for all the same reasons it makes cruising boaters safer.
Jeffrey S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2015, 01:50 PM   #157
Guru
 
Codger2's Avatar
 
City: San Diego
Country: US
Vessel Name: "Sandpiper"
Vessel Model: 2006 42' Ocean Alexander Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
I doubt there are very many boating deaths attributed to cruising, either now or in 1973. I suspect the vast number of deaths are caused by drunks in go-fast boats and PWCs, people falling overboard, heart attacks, and so forth.
I tend to agree as I can't remember seeing, hearing or reading about any boating deaths attributed to cruising. Maybe a few about sail boats caught in high seas. I take that back....there was Zopilote that hit the rocks & and you can bet that she had a full compliment of electronics on board! I'm not counting "Concordia's" Disaster and other commercial boats that were lost.
__________________
Codger2

My passion for improving my boat(s) exceeds my desire to constantly cruise them.
Codger2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2015, 02:02 PM   #158
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
I moved here in 1979. From then until now the majority of boating fatalities (and accidents) here have occurred on the lakes and rivers in go-fast or small fishing boats, PWCs, canoes, kayaks and rafts. A good number of them involve alcohol/drugs and collisions, others are the result of people falling or being knocked overboard. Some are due to capsizing and subsequent drownings. And a few are due to medical emergencies. The same causes are true out in the saltwater although collisions are a minor or non-existent cause.

None of these things have squat-all to do with chart-based navigation of any kind. And I suspect the same situation exists throughout the country. The fact some of these boats may be fitted with electronic navigation devices is irrelevant-- chart-based navigation is not a factor in any of these kinds of accidents. As Walt pointed out, whatever navigation system was in use on the Costa Concordia (or the Exxon Valdez or the Washington State ferry Elwha) it didn't help avert the accident.

I understand your desire to relate the death-reduction trend to advances in navigation-- it's the business you're in. If the Coast Guard's statistics were for groundings instead of deaths I would agree with you 100 percent. But in this case I think you're just going to have to watch this one from the sidelines. Charts and navigation-- other than looking where the hell you're going-- aren't part of this particular game.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2015, 02:38 PM   #159
Guru
 
Ski in NC's Avatar
 
City: Wilmington, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Louisa
Vessel Model: Custom Built 38
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey S View Post
The Coast Guard released this information today.



Now I fully understand the difference between cause-and-affect and correlation. But it makes you wonder. What percentage of boaters were using electronic vs paper charts in 2013/4 vs 1973?

The answer is obvious. And yes, there are other factors at play here too. But as navigation has moved from throwing potatoes off the bow to integrated MFD's and autopilots, the results have been an incredible increase in safety.

One thing the CG didn't mention was the amount that boating was up over 2013 and 2014 over the previous 5 years. Those 5 years were the start of the transition to full electronics onboard. So more use with fewer fatalities. If only every analysis were so simple.

Electronic navigation doesn't make you immune from risk - no one ever claimed that. You're just less at risk the more you remove paper charts from use.
For one willing to accept the difference between causation and correlation, you sure jump quick into making a statement of causation.

I think if you were to look into the details of each rec boating death, both in 1973 and in 2014, I will venture that most involved neither paper nor electonic charting.
__________________

Ski in NC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2015, 02:38 PM   #160
Guru


 
City: Full-time onboard
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Trawler
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
I understand your desire to relate the death-reduction trend to advances in navigation-- it's the business you're in.
I'm not sure where that comes from. People are going to use our data on a variety of platforms. Electronic charts and navigation has little to do with ActiveCaptain. It's like saying that TripAdvisor is interested in making sure you have Tom-Tom in your car. It doesn't really matter to them although they probably think it's pretty dumb to have a fold-out map in the car too.

No one is deciding whether to have only paper charts these days. Everyone has electronics - we're way past that. The reason I've created my position on paper charts is because I've been at too many helms seeing how people "use" paper charts today. Too many people think that the paper charts they have are backups. They're just not. If it works for you after you've seen my arguments and think those arguments are wrong for your particular case, then keep using them.
Jeffrey S is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012