bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

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.

And what I said before S T I L L applies.

It's too bad you didn't take the time and do what I suggested and
GO BACK AND READ WHAT I ORIGINALLY POSTED.

What I had said THEN had nothing to do with THIS NARROW THREAD,
Brian, but rahter Lennie's history of newsgroup antagonism both towards
me in particular and the group in general.

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.

There's no "double standard", Brian. I made a mistake on the math
AND apologized for it.

However YOU have never been even as REMOTELY forthcoming with any
such "admissions of error"...

The most recent of which was YOUR assertion of how "overblown"
(your words" ARES and it's value as an emergency asset was and how it
wouldn't be able to respond for various reasons.

In the last 72 hours, give or take, I've posted no fewer than four
references that have proved you WRONG on so many levels...

But not a single word of acknowledgement of error.

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.

I still made my point.

You were wrong there too.

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?"

And you were. Still are, as far as I can see.

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

Because you provide so many of them, Brian...

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.

Why do you keep saying "Hi!"...?!?!

And there's no "double standard" here.

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.

And I "covered" the shifts.

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.

Unless the exercise starts at 0000, Brain, you're way wrong.

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

"You're"...?!?! You keep slapping me with some "double standard"
about stuff, but seem to forget it when you make typos.

The first operator starts at 0800. S/he goes until 1600. (10
hours)

The second operator comes on at 1000 and goes until 2000. That's
double coverage from 1000-1600. We can reasonbly stretch that to
double coverage until 1800 if the first operator works a 12 hour shift.
Again, not an unreasonable expectation.

The third operator comes on at 2000 until 0800. I have yet, in
over 30+ years of Hamming, to participate in an "exercise" that
required anything more.

Team "A" covered 24 hours.

And I have the SAME 30+ years of ACTUAL experience at various
"missions" that worked with similar parameters "just fine".

3. And it just gets worse.

How?

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

No, Brain...YOU just have the expectation that you'll get to the
EOC, have a couple donuts, a cup of coffee, have an eyeball QSO with
"the guys" then head on home, having "worked all day" after four hours.

YOU consider anything more as "abused".

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.

Nope.

The first operator is the Team Leader. S/he arrives to make the
morning brief, get tasking assignments, and ensure the station's ready
to go.

The second opertor arrives ready to go to work after getting a
brief from the team leader. By this time the mission is in motion.

The third operator arrives to wrap up the afternoon and maintain
radio watch through the night.

The criteria was met, Brian.

You failed.

No I didn't. You don't like the numbers, but oh well..They work.

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?

WHOA ! ! !

YET ANOTHER EPISODE OF CRANIAL FLATULANCE ON THE PART OF BRIAN P
BURKE!

WWW HHH EEE RRR EEE did I EVER say "ARES always gets
what they want"...?!?!

And all that was stated herein was YOUR suggestion that it
couldn't be done with the resources available.

I said it could and mapped it out.

You keep stompping your feet going "NO NO NO!", but it's too late.

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.

I've shown where it actually OVERLAPS, Brian...

Looks like a sea gull flew over your position.

If he did, I'll never know.

Nice try, Brian. You stompped, you whined, you called me liar and
tried to un-do the numbers despite the fact that they work.

Sucks to be you.

Now...About this assertion of yours that ARES won't respond and is
"overblown"...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ