Whenever someone quotes the work of Dupuy it is automatically rejected. It seems to me that people try to ridicule or refute his work. Working for Dupuy does not guarantee thinking like Dupuy or accepting his figures.Meanwhile, I admit to getting a tad irritated when the OP decides to channel the late Trevor Dupuy and deliberately distorts his work to fit his own inane ideas. I WORKED for Trevor for nearly ten years and for TDI for more than another ten years doing the same work. I had extended daily DISCUSSIONS with him regarding this work. I ATTENDED his funeral at Arlington. I WORKED on the QJM/TNDM. I DID the work researching the new data and checking the original engagements.
Guaporense might not be always precise, nor do I always agree, but he surely hits the nail most of the time when it comes to economy. While posting precise and accurate figures is of utmost importance, a difference of 1 or 0,5% or if unit A had 52 instead of 51tanks on date XX.XX.XX is irrelevant. That is what most discussions revolve and degrade to on this forum, instead of talking about more complex issues.
Alright, im listening, then we should have a first class opportunity here. What is the intent behind the QJM/TNDM (and also in regards to what Guaporense posted)?I UNDERSTAND the intent behind the QJM/TNDM.