bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Because there was no "crappy little comment", Brian.

It was.

No, there wasn't.

Yes, there was.

No, there wasn't.

"Always at a deficit for information, aren't you, Brian?"

That's not "crappy", Brian...It's the truth. That YOU
don't
LIKE
it is one thing...

You don't like being called a liar. So stop lying.

I'm not lying, Brian.

Lie #10 this week?

You haven't presented #1,

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.


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".

If I cannot trust the information that the participant
provides,
then
what can I trust?

Yeah...I guess when RRAP is the ONLY place you get
your
"information" from, then you're pretty much at loggerheads
as
to
what
you "know"...

I know you're a liar.

You SAY I'm a liar, but I've PROVED that you are.

You've proven your self to be a liar this past week, and many
many
times previously.

Then why can't we get you to provide the cites? Where's the
proof
of your assertions, Brian?

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.

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 keep saying only two. That's even better.

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.

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

Day Two, Team two. Operator 2A comes on duty at 0600 until 1600

Etc etc etc, with team one on again on day three, and team two on
again for day four. Six people of two teams covering 96 hours. Hours
least likely to have heavy traffic flows were covered with minimal
staffing. The bulk of the day had two operators at the mic with the
third available if needed.

100% coverage of the required hours. Two teams of three operators
each.

Done.

And you STILL have not shown me ONE instance where ARES
has
failed
to respond to ANY incident when asked to do so.

I've showed one instance where one volunteer is overextended.
Are
you
the only overextended volunteer in the ARS?

I'm not overextended.

And my managerial skills are such that no one working for me is
either.

You indicate otherwise. Do you work in a M-F, 8-5 Emergency Room?

And if I do? It still does not mean that you can't cover a 96
hour exercise with only six people.

My behaviour here has nothing to do with what happens
in
the
cockpit of an aircraft, Brian.

Then you admit to having multiple personalities?

Nice stretch, Brian.

Not a stretch. When ATC fumbles a phonetic or pressure atlitude,
do
you key the mic and keep repeating "LIAR, LIAR, LIAR?"

They don't fumble.

They do. Unless your experience is so limited that you've yet to see
it.

My experience is from 1974 when I was first licensed as an
aviator. I've flown everywhere in the United States except North
Central, Alaska and Hawaii. I have never once had an ATC error.

An ATC controller in Memphis in particular saved my bacon from an
uncontrolled, pop-up target, on January 21st, 1975. Split second,
no-BS, "do this now" instructions saved me and two other Marines from a
guy in a Skymaster who had just taken off from an uncontrolled field
and could not see me since he was climbing into the sun and coming up
from behind me.

I have NO complaints with the ATC system!

That's the Steve Robeson in RRAP. Introduce us to the Steve
Robeson,
CAP Ace sometime.

What's a "CAP Ace", Brian? The Civil Air Patrol doesn't have
"aces", and I never flew "combat air patrols" in the Armed Forces.

You never flew combat air patrols for anyone, but you've got flight
suits and medals...

Yes I do. The flight suit is PPE...Personal Protective Equipment
as defined by OSHA.

None of any medals I have ever been awarded by either the United
States Marine Corps or the CAP are on that flight suit.

So you STILL have yet to answer the question, Brian....WHAT, in
your opinion, is a "CAP Ace".

Is this yet ANOTHER assertion that will take us a year to get you
to finally admit was an unsubstantiated opinion?

What lie? And yes it IS what YOU said, Brian. Word for
word.
Not a period or comma was dropped.

Lie #11?

Where's #1?

10 back. Last week.

And you said that I had a math problem. Hi!

You do.

You also have a "fact" problem.

And a reading comprehension problem.

Not to mention the already existing honesty and character issues.

This continuing "dodge" to cite the alleged "lie" is yet more
proof of MY assertion that you are without facts or honesty. You are
being intentionally deceitful. Same as lying.

And you have made the assumption that they are working
12
hour
shifts. Your re-arrangement still does not substantiate
your
other
claims.

Re-arrangement??? The 12 hour shift scenario is a Best Case
Scenario.
If the shifts were 8 hours, the volunteer deficits would be
even
greater.

"Best case" for whom?

For covering all of the shifts.

Uh huh.

Remember the customer? The customer that is never, ever, ever
denied?

YOU made the assertion that there is a failure of ARES to respond.

YOU have YET to provide even ONE example where ARES or RACES has
failed to respond for any of the criteria you have suggested...or for
ANY criteria for that matter.

I have been with ARES teams for wildfires in Southern California,
missing children searches in Georgia, public service support in
Pennsylvania and cross country bike races in Tennessee.

You gotta cover all the shifts with the right number of qualified
ops.

I did.

Anyone who has really done any of these knows that's NOT the
facts, Brian...Like you...

Three qualified operators per team. Them's the facts.

Yep. Three. See above. You may not like it, but I've "been
there, done that", and it works. Sorry if you don't agree.

By the way, from what PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE in emergency services
are YOU coming, Brian? Just what have YOU done for Amateur Radio?
MARS? CAP? The VFW Ladies Auxiliary?

One more example of "Not A Clue Burke" hanging his bacon out to
dry!

Explain. And you've yet to show where the customer is not shorted in
this 96hr scenario.

See above.

OK, 8 hour shifts:

Let's put Phil on Team A, and Phil is pulling two shifts.

Day 1, Team A: Day
Team B: Swing
Team C: Mid (deficit of 3)

Day 2, Team A: Day
Team B: Swing
Team nothing: Mid (deficit of 3)

Day 3, Team A: Day (no Phil, deficit of 1)
Team B: Swing
Team C: Mid (deficit of 3)

Day 4, Team A: Day (no Phil, deficit of 1)
Team B: Swing
Team C: Mid (deficit of 3)

Steve, have it your way. It makes the situation worse.

No, it doesn't. You can still cover all operating periods
with
staff. I doubt you were ever a supervisor in the USAF, Brain,
from
your "all hands on duty now" contention.

Hi! Hi, hi, hi!!!

Were you a reservist?

Nope. Active Duty.

You think like a day weanie.

You don't think. At all. You're not capable of "fluid
management". Your planning and execution have to be at someone else's
direction, Brian. Ever hear of "TQM", Brian? It's USAF Core Value.

And I've asked you to define your "day weanie" comment. I say
it's just a Lenniesque diminutive without substantiation.

As usual.

Sorry, Brian...Your contentions are still grasping for
straws.

Nice try, though.

Idiot. Would you like me to show you what 6 or 4 hour shifts
look
like???

Brian, six people for a 48 hour period is thin, but
adequate.

Inadequate for the 96 hour period that you specified, and the
"team
of
3" requirement that Phil specified.

Them's the facts.

No, they're not.

Then state all of the conditions. Then show how the customer is not
shorted.

Done.

Sorry you don't agree, but then it appears you don't have the
supervisory skills to make it work.

Steve, K4YZ

The supervisor fills in when there are a lack of personnel. But
you
didn't see much of that in the USMC, didja, ya Day-Weanie Marine.

"Day-Weanie Marine"...?!?! Really getting P/O'ed that you
keep
getting your nose rubbed in your own inadequacies, aren't you?

You're the only inedaquate equation in this. You have yet to show
how
to cover the 96 hour exercise, with the available personnel, while
maintaining the required number of qualified operators per team.

Done. I thought if I kept nudging you to think a bit you'd pull
it out, but I was wrong. My bad.

Look, it's a new week and I'm in a good mood. Just got back from
a
great scout camping trip. Wx was perfect, invigorating hike,
gourmet
chicken in a foil pack dinner last night, must not have snored
too
much
last night because my throat isn't sore.

Glad to hear you had a nice day.

The best.

Not QUITE the best. You've still got serious honesty and
character issues to overcome.

But we'll take you one day at a time.

Just admit to your lies, say you're sorry, and begin this week
with
a
fresh start. The truth will set you free.

Take your own advice, Brian.

I do. Every day. I start off by not lying.

Then by denying that you have a problem with honesty is yet
ANOTHER of YOUR lies, Burke.

The kids are going to see this some day.

Why not make them proud by having the intestinal fortitude to
gut-up and admit your problem and move forward...???

Start off by TRYING to cite my alleged 11 lies. Then you can
provide us with some evidence to support your "ARES won't respond"
assertion.

You need to requote that.

I don't need to requote anything, Brian.

YOU need to quit stalling and get your act together.

Then move on to your "unlicensed devices" issue.

You need to requote that.

More stalling, Brian.

We're
still waiting for documentation of the legality of your Somalia
operation

Why? You are not in my Somalia log and you will not receive a QSL
card. You are not the Somalia minister of communications. You are
not
the US Air Foce on site commander. You are not the United Nations.
You are not the ARRL.

Nope. I am none of those.

But I HAVE been the "recipient" of your blatant dishonesty in THIS
forum vis-a-vis your Somalia operations, and I KNOW that you acts were
not legal unless you can pony-up some facts that show that you DID have
valid authority to operate an Amateur Radio transmitter while in
Somalia.

As it stands, you were simply pirating. Toddie would be proud.

and some evidence of your claims of having worked the
equilvilent of DXCC from two or three other DX locations.

You're a chronic liar, Brian. It really is THAT simple.

Steve, K4YZ

You make claims, Steve. You do it often and loudly. But your claims
aren't worth spit because they are lies.

No, they are not.

You continue to make unsubstantiated claims. You make those
claims in such manner, tone and repetitiveness as to state them as
fact. To do so over and over when no where there is no substance to
support it (and evidence to the contrary is prevelant) is a lie.
Period.

Now show me your Top-Off 96 hour duty schedule where all shifts are
covered with the proper number of qualified radio operators, and
without abusing the volunteers. You claim you could, so do it.

Did it.

Best of Luck.

No luck needed.

Steve, K4YZ

"K4YZ" wrote in message
ups.com...

:
: Yes I do. The flight suit is PPE...Personal Protective Equipment
: as defined by OSHA.
:

More commonly called a "poopy suit". When I saw your photo on QRZ.com it
suddenly became clear where that name came from.

M.A.N.
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire

Mel A. Nomah wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
ups.com...

:
: Yes I do. The flight suit is PPE...Personal Protective
Equipment
: as defined by OSHA.
:

More commonly called a "poopy suit". When I saw your photo on
QRZ.com it
suddenly became clear where that name came from.

Says it is defined by OSHA. OSHA is heavy into military fashion wear.

M.A.N.
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire

It's as if you prayed for Steve to appear in a flight suit, and your
prayer was answered. He couldn't be more ridiculous unless he had
medals pinned to it, too.

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Because there was no "crappy little comment", Brian.

It was.

No, there wasn't.

Yes, there was.

No, there wasn't.

"Always at a deficit for information, aren't you,
Brian?"

That's not "crappy", Brian...It's the truth. That
YOU
don't
LIKE
it is one thing...

You don't like being called a liar. So stop lying.

I'm not lying, Brian.

Lie #10 this week?

You haven't presented #1,

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. Hi!

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.

If I cannot trust the information that the participant
provides,
then
what can I trust?

Yeah...I guess when RRAP is the ONLY place you get
your
"information" from, then you're pretty much at
loggerheads
as
to
what
you "know"...

I know you're a liar.

You SAY I'm a liar, but I've PROVED that you are.

You've proven your self to be a liar this past week, and many
many
times previously.

Then why can't we get you to provide the cites? Where's the
proof
of your assertions, Brian?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 ! ! ! ! !

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 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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The criteria was met, Brian.

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?

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.

Try again, Brian.

Steve, K4YZ

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.

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

K4YZ wrote:

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

Still waiting for an answer to that one, Brian...

And while your figuring out how you're going to dance around the
initial question and the three examples I provided that DISproved your
original assertion, here's yet another one:

QUOTE:

Radio Amateurs, ARES Group among NOAA's 2005 "Environmental Heroes"
(Apr 28, 2005) -- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) has recognized four Amateur Radio operators and an Amateur Radio
Emergency Service (ARES) group among its list of 2005 Environmental
Heroes. Given in conjunction with Earth Day celebrations, Environmental
Hero awards honor NOAA volunteers for their tireless efforts to
preserve and protect the nation's environment.

UNQUOTE.

It just keeps getting better and better.....

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

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

"Won't respond???"

You'll have to Google up that one.

Still waiting for an answer to that one, Brian...

Why? You've answered it yourself with your own inability to write a
duty schedule with available qualified radio amateur volunteers that
will meet the requirements laid out by the exercise planners.

Too bad for you, too bad for ARES, and too bad for Amateur Radio.

Next?