an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 05:17:15 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:
cut

How does your imprecision with words become my splitting of hairs?
no imprecision with word occoured therefore of course that is not what
became your spliting of hairs
Based upon your two lines above, I rest my case.
what case?
Are you narcoleptic?
no

Do you recall my comments about your imprecision
with words? You proved it above. See your terms "occoured" and "spliting".

wrong again I simply proved I suffer from Dyslexia and what the doc
termed Dyslexiod aphasia

Interesting but it doesn't change what I wrote. You are imprecise with
the written word.

I used the terms pricisely

You didn't even use the word "precisely" precisely.

cut


the LAW say the issues you claim are not important
What issues did I claim are not important?

you did not

I did

That isn't what you wrote. You are imprecise in the use of the written
word.

but the issues refer to are my sexuality and my alleged criminality

both are legaly irrelevant in this matter

That has yet to be determined.


I think
you are going to be surprised.

no suprise indeed in making my report they will told of these "issues"
since knowing the turth will be requiredin order to explain Stevie
actions

That'll be great.

You don't believe that U.S. states generally follow the laws they have
enacted?

not always the US is better about it than most nation but I believe
that the US is still imperfect, and liekly always will be to some
extent.

I also know that one of the areas in which the US most often shows its
imperfections is in the treatement of those of its people that are
"defferent" in some way

Oh, you're "defferent" okay.

Your past fabrications
regarding your military service and lies on numerous other topics,

what lies on other topics?

C'mon, Mark! You've lied about any number of things here. You've lied
about your military service and I don't mean just a single lie. You've
lied to cover lies. It isn't like the stuff isn't archived. There are
records of your lies and records of your lies uncovered.

wrong Dave like Stevie you think disagreeing with you is lying

No, I don't believe that disagreeing is lying.

yes you do

No, Mark, that is simply incorrect. In fact, I just told you so previously.

Lying is lying and
you've done it time and again.

yes I have so have you and so has Stevie

Keep in mind that you've just admitted to being a liar. Further down
the post, you'll deny it.

You aren't credible.

Why? I am as credible as Stevie or you.

No, Mark, you aren't. You have a number of issues. Lying is just one
of them.

you lie you have lied within the past 24 hrs about my claims as to
income

So you say. I admitted to being mistaken.

Stevie has lied he has said I have aids, that I engage in unpropected
sex, that I have admited to child mosting

Did you admite to child mosting?

we are on the same footing

No, Mark, we assuredly are not.

There are archived
posts which prove that you've lied.

as their are for Stevie lots of them

You justify your lies by pointing to someone else?

I have lied about my rank and that is all I have told some lies that
have lead Stevie off on wild goose chases about my identity that is it

Yes, you certainly have lied.

agreed

Keep in mind that you've agreed that you have lied. Further in the
post, you deny it.

cut repating yourself get your stuff dumped

I don't need repating, Mark. I have a full head of hair. By the way,
you don't really think my words are dumped when you cut them in a reply,
do you? I checked and my original post is still there. All of my words
are intact.

how do these facts allow Stevie to claim someone has AIDS isn't lie
about medical matters?

Is Steve acting in a medical capacity here?

that is one of the 2 issues for the BoN to decide

Is it?

I would say Yes, as soon as he claims he is making a PROFESSION opinion
he is acting in medical capcity

I've seen newsgroup posts where folks profess belief that a New World
Order will result in global government, that the President and Vice-
President planned the attacks on the World Trade Center and that someone
has invented a miracle penis enlarger. I put no credence in any of them.

as soon as HE gives medical advice to people that KNOW he is an LPN is
is

as soon as he claims to have used the materail here to act
professionaly he is

the BoN will make its ruling and act accordingly

Maybe it will and maybe it'll write you off as a crackpot.

If I am right Stevie will suffer some kind of scantion, he may lose his
license

Maybe he will and maybe he won't.

if Stevie is right nothing will happen to him and no harm done

I wouldn't bank on that.

how does that allow Stevie to LIE about the procedure of BoN so he can
try to frighten someon into not reporting him?
I've not noted Steve attempting to frighten "someon" into not reporting
him.
then you have not been reading

I have observed his warnings to you on what is likely to take
place after you've done so.

and he is lying about it

I wouldn't bank on that either.

deal with reality Dave if you can
Mark, I don't think you are in a position to tell others about reality.

right you don't think but I knew that

That can't be right. You told me that you can't be absolutely sure of
anything.

cut

You've lied about your work.
Were you ever in the Chemical Corps of the United States Army?

yes

cutting unsuported bs

You've lied about your income.
no i have not

I have never stated my income you dolt
Haven't you?

no I have not

Okay, you've lied about your potential income.

therefore having never made such a statement I have never lie within
such a statement

So the way we can tell if you aren't lying is because you haven't said
anything?

not exactly but yuou can assume I making statments I have not made

We'll have to wait for the exact translation of that one.

You've lied about your trained pool of
typists.

nope

Sure you have, Mark. You told us that you have a trained pool of
typists. You later said that you couldn't have one of 'em type
something up because of the expense of paying her.

never said that

I siad I choose not to pay for the time not that I could not pay for it

Read what I wrote. Please point to the portion where I wrote that you
"could not pay for it".

that is the problem you and Stevie take a statement, apply a host of
assumetion and then claim I said what you think was implied in the
first statement and run off from there

No, that isn't the problem. You responded to what I wrote and said I'd
written something I hadn't written.

You're a fabricator.

when it serves to make me safer yes long ago admited

Remember that you wrote that. Further along in the post, you'll deny it.

There you have most of it. You also lie when it is convenient or when
it suits you.

not exactly

You're waffling now, Mark.

by 7 yars of silence from the DoD I can legaly assume the assent of the
DoD and the FBI to that

How does one legally assume?

by doing so

How does one go about doing so?

by doing so

That's a circular response. I'd expect better of an individual with an
IQ of 248.

I reported myself to the FBI all those years ago

If that isn't another of your lies, it is a start. Why not call 'em and
report yourself again?

why report myself again? esp as No rime was comitted Stevei greatly
over simplifies anything when he tlaks about the law

If no "rime" was "comitted", why'd you report yourself? What are you
"tlaking" about?

I discussed the matter as part of reporting stevies death threats

I see. You told the FBI that you'd reported yourself to the FBI?

why does everyting have to be repeated for you

....because the answers keep moving in a veritable carousel of untruth.

your
ideas on sexual fun--you don't think those might lessen your credibility?

the State of TN requires that I not recieve any discrimination based on
my sexuality so yes I expect that Tennesse to obey its own rules

Fine, Colonel. You can dress in full uniform and have a little game of
beat me/spank me/pee on me.

and None of the is legaly something the BoN may consider

...you "legally assume". Those things would seem to go toward
establishing the credibility of an accuser. Do you think you'd be seen
as credible?

they seem might to , to you, but the law ,and the BoN say otherwise

You'd have to show that the law and the Tennessee Board of Nursing say
otherwise. I'm afraid I can't accept your word.

other than some kind of Illegal sex ( and I think all that is left in
feild is sex with kidds, animals and corpses and rape in the legal
sense of the word) the rest does not matter, legaly

....and the other kinds don't matter to you morally?


you are a prude, but the LAW does not allow you to enforce that on
everyone else

A prude, Mark?

yes a prude.

if you prefer another label put it forward with your reasons and I'll
consider using it

Do you think I'm part of some tiny minority which
approves of your lifestyle?

no

Then if your sexual practices fall outside what society finds
"acceptable", I'm no prude.

grow up and get over it Dave

I'm fully grown and nothing compels me to get over anything.

you don't act fully grown, but you are right you don't have to get over
anything but it is good advice

If you were the very last guy left in this newsgroup, I'd not be taking
advice from you.

you don't know what I can or will do

About the only things I can reasonably expect is that it won't be 1)
reasonable, 2) rational or 3) truthful

more BS Dave

Not at all, Mark. It is gospel. Base upon reading your material here
and elsewhere, those are the things I expect.

Indeed just for illustration if i happened to paranoid threat to
myself and other Stevie has claimed to be "his professional opinion"
(and if anything gets him besides mouthing to an investagtor those
words wil be it) pushing proding trying to rerate someone like risk
his own life and you would be risking your iF I were what Stevie says
I am

I don't believe you to be rational,

If Stevie were corect in his Professional assement you should be.

Are you now telling me that I should be afraid of you?

If I am nuts or irtaional of what have I am much more dangerous to you
than If I am

Are you now telling me that I should be afraid of you?

the rest of the paragraph cut off at the tangent
.

You cut yourself off before writing the tangent?

you nor I can know very much about a person based on the degree on
contact you have with me

I know enough about you that I'd not want to hang out with you, work
with you or have a series of QSOs about what interests you.

ture enough and I can say the same of you of course
cut

Are you too lazy to do anything for yourself?

No

Then hop to it.

to what?

Write letters to the
editor of your paper.

why?

...to tell him that I've been mean to you.

to what end?

....both ends.

cut

you do have such a rich fantasy life Dave

Do you think I made up the part about reading a newspaper? having a
nearby TV station? What part do you believe to be fantasy?

that you state I should find either the proper venue to deal with you
cut

Why'd you cut your words before you completed the thought? Either the
proper venue to deal with me or what?

if you have Stevie has if Stevie has he will likely lose his licens or
be oteherwise punished

That doesn't track, Colonel.

sure does

I'm not Steve

are you certain it is hard to tell some days

I'm sure that's the case for you. If it will help you, I sign my posts
"Dave K8MN".

. I made a diagnosis.

See if you can have my license revoked or have me "oteherwise" punished.

First I'll try to deal with Stevie

he has a license to revoke you don't

....that you know of. Hey! I have an amateur radio license. Why not
see if you can get it revoked.

further becuase of his licnese he more dangerous to me in my judegment,

You have a record of finding people to be dangerous to you.

futher still dealing with Stevie liecense which he uses to obtain
criedbilty will alos lessen yours to say much the same thing

That's some faulty logic you've got there, Mark.

Addtionaly I have a plan that I hope will deal Stevie a suitable
punishment, I don't have such a plan w.r.t. you

It is probably wise of you not to have formulated such a plan.

therefore logicaly I should continue to focous on Stevie and I will

There's not much evidence of focus on your part.

but you are fool if you I am going to take on everyone at once

I cringe to think what that might mean.

you should

Why? Is the reality worse than I can imagine?

Stvie has ****ed me off enough and he is far greater danger from a
medical practice issue than ANYONE in the NG

Right. Lots of people get their medical information from some guy
posting in an amateur radio newsgroup.

some one that was talkingabout crufing me based on what he read in NG
did get it from Stevie

Crufing you? I'll bet that hurts.



BTW why don't you stop your lying about addresing a Colonel Dave

Oh, weren't you a Colonel in the U.S. Army Chemical Corps anymore?

right said years ago
I wasn;t a colonel, only YOU and stevie have been trying to continue
that lie other the years

You've accused me of lying in addressing you as "Colonel". You were the
person who told us that you were a Colonel. That must have been *you*
doing the lying.

you contiue to lie after being told the truth

With you, no one can be sure of when you tell the truth and when you
lie. It appears that you lie until you are caught at it. Afterward,
you may come clean or you may tell another lie to cover the original lie.

further you have never had much reason to tell the lie

Get it straight, Colonel. I didn't tell the lie. You did.

I have admit to the lie

Yep, to that one.

Were you in the United States Army Chemical Corps?

asked and answered yes

How can I believe you?

Was
that a bald-faced lie? Was your IQ of 248, higher than that of any other
living person, also a lie?

nope it was the result of test done many years ago

...and the test revealed that you have a higher IQ than the woman
recognized as having the highest tested IQ?

can't addrss you issue without more data

You can't address the issue? Did anyone ever tell you that you had the
highest tested IQ on the planet? Perhaps you need a little more time to
polish the follow up lie.

Here's some data for you ( from http://www.audiblox.com/iq_scores.htm )

IQ Description % of Population
130+ Very Superior 2.2
120-129 Superior 6.7
110-119 High Average 16.1
90-109 Average 50
80-89 Low Average 16.1
70-79 Borderline 6.7
Below 70 Extremely Low 2.2

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant

"Marilyn vos Savant (born August 11, 1946) is an American magazine
columnist, author, lecturer, and playwright who rose to fame through her
listing in the Guinness Book of World Records under "Highest IQ". Since
1986 she has written Ask Marilyn, a Sunday column in Parade magazine in
which she answers questions from readers on a variety of subjects..."

"...Her Stanford-Binet score is discussed in a 1989 New York magazine
article by Julie Baumgold (Baumgold 1989). Marilyn took the
Stanford-Binet when she was ten years old; this was the Second Edition
of the test, published in 1937. The Stanford-Binet at that time yielded
ratio IQs: scores obtained by dividing mental age (as assessed by the
test) by chronological age, and multiplying by 100. Marilyn says she
first took the test in September 1956, at the age of 10 years and 0
months, and achieved the ceiling mental age of 22 years and 10 months,
yielding an IQ of 228. This was the score listed by Guinness, this is
the score she gives in interviews, and this is the score shown in the
"About the Author" section of her books. Rounding it up produces the
value of 230 which sometimes appears."

"The figure of 167+ comes from a school record cited by Baumgold
indicating that Marilyn took the Stanford-Binet in March 1957, at the
age of 10 years and 8 months, and achieved a mental age of "17-10+"
(meaning at least 17 years and 10 months). It is unclear how the
recorded chronological age was derived; dates in March are 6 or 7 months
from her August birthday, not 8. It is also unclear how this record
relates to the account given in the previous paragraph. The
Stanford-Binet at that time had two forms (Form L and Form M), so one
possibility is that Marilyn took the test twice."

"The figure of 218 was derived by psychometrician Ronald K. Hoeflin,
using a chronological age of 10 years and 6 months, and a mental age of
22 years and 11 months. This figure seems to have no obvious rationale.
The ceiling of the Second Edition of the Stanford-Binet was 22 years and
10 months, not 11 months (Terman 1937), and a chronological age of 10
years and 6 months corresponds neither to the age in Marilyn's account
nor to the age in the school record cited by Baumgold (although it could
fit a March test date)."

"The second intelligence test mentioned by Guinness is the Mega Test,
designed by Hoeflin and taken by Marilyn as an adult in the mid-1980s.
The Mega Test yields deviation IQs: scores obtained by multiplying the
testee's z-score (the rarity of their raw score on the test) by a
constant standard deviation (in this case 16) and then adding 100.
Marilyn's raw score was 46 out of 48, corresponding in the latest
norming of the test to a z-score of 5.4 and therefore an IQ of 186, a
percentile of 99.999997, and a rarity of 1 in 30,000,000 (Hoeflin 1989)."

Now, is there anything you'd care to clarify about your claimed IQ?

Was your salary of 200-some thousand dollars
a lie?
never said my salery was 200K I said I turned a job that would paid
240K, and I did do that
My mistake.

no it was YOUR lie

NO, Mark, it was my mistake. I confused your supposed job offer with
the claim of actual employment.

prhaps your claim about turning down "240k" has a built-in
fudge factor

I turned a job overing 240,000.00$ per year becuase I did not need the
money badly enough to tkae the risk

Sure you did, Mark.

you assumed the rest

Sometimes you just have to tkae the risk.


indeed if you are ever being truthfull yourself ain your claims you
don't understand my writting you can't realy claim you know anything I
say

With your writing and your refusal to use spell checking, no one can
know much of anything you are trying to say.

then you agree

If you think I've agreed, then your reading is as bad as your writing.

meaning you are making statements based on materail you admt you don't
understand, meaning you are lying when you claim I make any statement
beyond a direct in context quote

period

As to the accusations of bigotry on
my part, deal with it.

I will of course

You haven't demonstrated that you are able to do so.

where?

Anywhere.

where

It has been answered, Mark.


Yoou two carries these chips on your shoulders thinking everyone
around must confrom toyour expectations

"Yoou two carries"? Phew! I've never asked for any special
accommodations or revisions in regulations, standards or commonly
accepted conduct in my life.

neither have I

Yes, you have, Mark.

I have asked for the same rights as everyone else. most esp the right
to live my life in peace and safety without nosey pikers like yourself
poking into what is none of your affiar

Are you posting to a public newsgroup? Have you posted to public
newsgroups catering to those with peculiar sexual desires? Would a man
who demands a "right to live my life in peace and safety without nosey
pikers like yourself poking into what is none of your affiar (sic), be
doing so?

You're a real non-confromist, Mark.

ok I can live with that label, carries a few overtones of usages I
don't like but it isn't bad

When spelled your way, it carries more than a few.

the question is so what that I am (a nonconformist)?

Oh, now you want to be a non-conformist!

I view your sexual perversity as being immoral.

what sexual perverity?

Not perverity, Mark. Perversity. You know--yours.

none here no prevesity at all

Not "prevesity", Mark. Perversity.

Aren't you the same Mark Morgan who is into bisexual S&M stuff with a
little urination and defecation thrown in for good measure?

again what sexual perverity

Again, not perverity, Mark. Perversity. Start with the ones I asked
about above.

what prevestity?

No, not "prevestity", Mark. I wrote about your perversity.

nothing I consider preverse in your list at all one come under the
heading of "not my kink" not nothing preverse in the list

Perverse, Mark, not "preverse" and I'm not talking of your standards, I
mean societal standards.

You by my starndard are the prevert

I'm sure that you believe that. The world doesn't seem to operate on
your "starnard".

nor do I think it has to

Lucky for the world.

you OTOH think the world and everyone in MUST confrom to yours

Society says that there are things which you can and can't do. There
are things you can and can't say.

I've seen evidence of your frequent lying.

really you see thing that don't exist then wow prehaps help is out
there for you if you seek it

There's the story of your life, Mark.

nope perhaps yours from all apearances

I don't have a history of lying, Mark. You do.

you certainly do

well documented

That is yet another falsehood on your part.

indeed your history of lying is far better archived on RRAP than mine

Mark, you're making one fabrication after another.

You tell all, "your probelm".

not exactly since it is only your problem if you want to read my stuff,
nobdoy is making you.

Is Mister Nobdoy in charge of newsgroup enforcement?

Is someone making you?

Perhaps Mister Nobdoy compels you to read my posts.

I keep asking and you keep ducking the question

To paraphrase you: I owe you no response.

Killfle me that is your previeledge

Thanks for illustrating my point.

no it illustrates MINE

Your point is that you can't write clearly?

....r and it is the problem of everyone else.

not everyones Dave only those that CHOOSE to try and read my stuff

Isn't the point that you are attempting to communicate with others?

other yes, not realy you or Stevie though, or Dee Flint

My target is the lurker population out there

....and the lurkers will be able to read and comprehend your gibberish,
but no one else can. How can I compete with logic such as that?

you and the rest are idea and text to play and use to help me make my
point to my target

The rest of us are idea and text and you believe you are making a point
to a target? There's more of that 248 IQ at work.

Would you have us believe that you don't care if others can't make sense
of your writing ......

yes I have said so many times

So now you don't care about your target audience?

....or that they find it laborious to decipher it?

no but you asked the worng question

I find it desirable that those that choose to read it find laborious to
read

So the target audience isn't supposed to read your posts but they'll
understand you anyway? Hmmmm.

Indeed my motive amusingly goes right to haert of a ProCode arguement
"if you don't work it for you don't value it"

That's some amusement. You come off like an idiot because you don't
work at writing and that's supposed to hit the PCTA right in the
breadbasket, huh?

therefore since being rough to read is easier path for me anyway by
going with that flow I feel i reach a segement that is receptive the No
Coder PoV and isn't geting it from the easier to read spokes people

Tell you what Mark, that has to be one of the dumbest statements I've
ever read from anyone.

that my foes also find it hard to read I find yet an added Bonus

Pretty slick, Mark, and you've told us you don't care if your target
reads your stuff. So, the only person who is supposed to read your
stuff is....you?

you are showing signs of meglomania in claiming your veiwpoint is the
only viewpoint

Right, Mark. Nothing is right or wrong, good or bad. There are only
shades of gray.

exactly glad you agree or more precisely nothing is ALWAYS good or bad,
even murder myhem, have their proper uses the problem with murder is
not that it is never a good thing, it is that it is used in far too
many cases where it is a bad thing

Oh, I'm not agreeing with you, Mark, just the opposite. I firmly
believe that murder is not a gray area. The one point I'll concede is
on the topic of your hem. Both above the knee and below the knee are
"in" this fall.

You tell numerous lies

wrong

Wrong? You admitted it above in the very same posting!

no i don't I lie but i quuible on the details

You may now refer to the portions above where you admitted directly to
lying.

Dave K8MN