It is relevant for reasons I specified in my others posts. AFTC's past Navy work did not produce fruit. There past work is all you have to tie them in any way shape or form to future Navy work. Unless I missed something that stated the Navy is looking at AFTC. Mad crazy speculation.
Kathy has not mentioned Navy,
AFTC struck out on Navy,
Navy = speculation.
AS always that is just my opinion. But I am glad that the respectable BT caught it and it was not just me, because we all know what happens when I do no walk in step with the boards top poster.
IT IS WHAT IT IS, I saw a Navy post, From Monda, who by the way is always respectful to me in his replies. Thanks Monda. I personally think that linking AFTC to the Navy is a dead end based on past. Is that so wrong???????? Does that not count as board material?
If that does not count, then everyone saying GM AFTC! Sure the heck should be investigated by the Board powers that be. ;)
Not to mention that when the Navy contract speculation in the past went bye bye, the stock plummeted. I would hate to make the same speculation now, with even less to tie AFTC to the Navy.
I was a WCW guy. OH YYYEAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
