I just came across a pair of articles responding to my Death Star article. The first one, by a gentleman named Gulliver, called it "easily the best article I've seen in a defense acqusition trade publication in my entire time following the subject" (acknowledging of course that the bar isn't terribly high in the defense acquisition literature genre).
The other piece, posted by "Bucherm," took issue with my "article" (yes, he put quotes around the word article), and speculated that I must have watched some other movie. This post included the following remarkable sentence: "By any stretch, the second DS program was well run with the end product being a good one."
Clearly, the first writer is well-groomed, intelligent and thoughtful. The second's parents are obviously unmarried first cousins. I bet he even likes Jar Jar Binks.
I kid! The truth is, I'm tremendously glad to see that people are writing about my piece, whether they agreed with it or not. I can't say I followed Bucherm's logic - in what universe were the Death Star programs (I or II) well run? - but I'm glad he cared enough to write a rebuttal. Now, I thought my article was pretty clear about Vader's psychopathic "leadership" style. But hey, the man is entitled to his opinion, right? If he likes that stuff, I'm sure we can find all sorts of Vaderific bosses to work for. Good luck with that.
As for Gulliver's piece over at Ink Spots, all I can say is wow, thank you for the kind words... and may the Force be with you!