K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Steve, do a search on "Robeson" and "liar." You've presented
all
of
your lies under your own signature.

Vaporware, Brian. Vaporware.

You claim there are lies. I've been asking you to
substantiate
the claim. You have not. You furhter exacerbate your own
situation
by
making even MORE assertions without corroborating facts. Oh
well.

Vaporware? Your lies are so obvious. Like claiming Len
disapproved
of
your lying thread 30 hours before he posted anything at all.

And here YOU are still trying to misrepresent what was said.

You didn't go back and READ what I had said about Lennie, his
rantings against me, etc.

Brian...S L O W D O W N A N D R E A D W H A T W A S
P O S T E D ! ! ! ! !

30 hours before he posted a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.

Brian, so how could this be #10? You
and Todd need to see if you can carpool...Him for remedial
English,
you
for remedial math.

There's nothing wrong with my math.

Sure there is. In that line you claim there's "10" lies.
You've
yet to substantiate "1".

You can't raise a building without a foundation. And you
can't
get to "10" without having started at "1".

Counting your lies isn't heavy construction. More like tinker
toys.

You keep avoiding the truth, Brian.

You've been asked to cite the lies. All you do is make more
cutesy rhetoric about how much I allegedly lie.

In other words, you can't do it. It enver happened.

You recently admitted to lie #17. No apology to Len yet.

You lie. That's enough for me.

You say I've lied.

I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate that claim.

You never have.

That would put the onus of liar upon you, Brian. (Not that
it
ever LEFT you...)

Sorry.

Your lies are obvious and numerous. Anyone with just a few moments
could find a handful. I saw your lies the first time around;
seeing
them again might spoil my day.

In other words you've made yet more claims about others for
which
there is no fact or validation.

Brian P. Burke continues his characteristic deceit and lying.

Steve makes an "assertion of fact" and when he's shown to be wrong, he
calls it a "mistake."

Anyone else states an opinion, and if they don't jump through hoops to
Steve's satisfaction, gets the K4YZ "LIAR" stamp of disapproval.

And people say there's no dougle-standard here. Hi!

Looks like there are some empty spots in the schedule.

Not from here.

Did you fill them in?

I can fill those scehdules with 6 people for 48 hours of
24h
coverage, Brian...Why couldn't you?

Whoa!

After you posted "Always at a deficit for information, aren't
you,
Brian?" you linked us to a website that showed that this was a
four
day
exercise. So why are you trying to make it into a two day
exercise
again? More lies and misdirection?

Nope....I can still fill even a 96 hour assignment with six
operators for four days.

You can't without abusing the volunteers.

OK, Brian, what's YOUR definition of "abusing volunteers"...?!?!

I've now provided FOUR scenarios where avaialable resoures could
be employed working shifts of 4, 8, 10 or 12 hours. NEVER with less
hours off between shifts than the number of hours they "worked".

Oooh! Four hours ON, four hours OFF for 96 hours. You're sooo kind.

YOU keep saying only two. That's even better.

Nope. 96 hours. Do you want me to do the math so you'll know how
many
days that is?

Doesn't matter, Brian. Two days. Four. Six.

Apparently it does matter. You're the one who jumped in here with
"Always at a deficit for information, aren't you, Brian?"

If it didn't matter, why did you take it as an opportunity to take a
jab at me?

Oh, I see. It only matters when other people make a mistake. Doesn't
matter when you do it. And people say there's no dougle-standard here.
Hi!

And without working any one or several individual(s) a double
shift,
and maintaining the requirement of three person shifts of
qualified
communicators...

No all communicators need to be at the mic for the whole
24hours.

Teams of three, Steve, teams of three. Be sure there are three
qualified communicators on shift at all times.

And again, Brian. not all "operators" are going to be on a mic
the
whole shift.

You don't know that. The exercise planners specified "Teams of Three"
for a reason. But of course you know better how to run "thier"
exercise than they do.

Especially if they have 6 people to cover a 48
hour period that they are participating...

Correction. Two teams of 3 people each.

Two teams...Six people...Yeah...SIX is what I said,
Brian.

So show me your 96 hour schedule.

Day one. Team one. Operator 1A comes on duty at 0600 until
1600.
Operator 1B comes on duty at 1000 until
2000.
Operator 1C comes on at 2000 and
maintains
watch until 0600

Hi, hi, hi! You couldn't even get through the first six hours
without
blowing it. Then there are gaping holes in the rest of the very
first
day's schedule.

There's no "gaping holes", Brian. Thee ARE periods of overlap
and
still using two teams of three.

Overlap??? Overlap would be having "Two Teams of Three (six qualified
operators)" on duty at the same time, as in during shift change.

OK, let me put it plainly.

1. You have absolutely no one on duty from 0000 to 0559hrs.

2. You're first manned shift has an UNDERlap of 2 Operators for a
period of four hours.

3. And it just gets worse.

You blew it. If you can't follow the plan, you need to excuse yourself
from the operation. Cowboys like you aren't wanted.

Phil said they were required to have three qualified operators per
shift, and you couldn't follow the rules even this once. You just
had
to start changing the rules and winging it so that my opinion would
be
"WRONG!" and you could call me a "LIAR!" again. Poor Steve.

There are three operators there, Brian.

I'm sure the world is full of operators.

Not all three have to be on the mic, Brian.

When did you decide this? Oh, I see. You're treating this as an
unimportant Command Post exercise where you only have to pay lip
service to supporting it.

The criteria was met, Brian.

You failed.

Some supervisor and schedule writer you are. You're fired.

Do you pull these stunts in the ER? Do you pull them in the
cockpit?
Did you pull them in the USMC?

What "stunts", Brian? You mean making sure that the needs of
the
mission were met with limited resources in such a way that all
obligations were met?

Limited resources? You told us that ARES always gets what they want.
Why did you short them on requirements? Who said you get to decide
what ARES needs?

Sorry you're standing there with egg on your face, Brian...The
numbers work. The format works. YOUR assertion that you could get
six
volunteers to cover 48 (or 96) hours DID'T.

You were the one who said that you could get it to work. You couldn't.
You failed. You left your customer completely unsupported for some of
the exercise, and woefully undersupported for the remainder of the
exercise.

Looks like a sea gull flew over your position.