|
K4YZ wrote: wrote: [we still don't know the When and Where of those claimed "seven hostile actions"...] Only because I know it chaps your hide that you can't swish your swagger stick around demanding to know and not get what you want. That's just your excuse. It is common belief on RRAP that there was no combat where you are concerned. |
KC8GXW wrote: Where's the career Air Force sergeant when you need him? You still alive Larry? I hope none of Toads toucans got him! Larry the "Human Resources" student probably single-handedly killed a career in HR due to the comments he made and archived on RRAP. |
bb wrote: wrote: Unfortunately, that's not the de facto situation with message topics...which have ranged widely from the (usual) bragging and self-glorification of individuals to U.S. national politics and political figures to choo-choo trains and other items in-between. Where's Paul when you need him? He and his group did some fine rescue work getting the K0AIR call out of the hands of micreants like K4CAP. The most recent holder of K4CAP never held K0AIR. So one has to wonder what your point is, Brian...Not that there's ever any meaningingful point to ANY of it... It's just ENVY on Robeson's part because he's never been IN electronics engineering in any way (a short- term job as a purchasing agent doesn't qualify for electronics engineering). He never got into military communications handling despite having that vaunted amateur radio license before first joining. He never got to be any kind of military pilot despite having a private pilot's ticket before joining. [we still don't know the When and Where of those claimed "seven hostile actions"...] No doubt that inadequacy is at the root of his hatred for you. You continue to insist that I ahte Lennie. I don't. I understand him better than he accepts tht I do, and therefore make sure that OTHERS understand him too. Just like I do you, Brian. and tries to use it as a semi- perjorative. So few know the meaning of that Yiddish expression (including himself), that he thinks he can get away with it. Welp, The Amateur Formerly Known As Reverend Jim doesn't seem to mind. Wondering who THAT is becasue there's never been an Amateur KNOWN as "Reverend Jim" That I am aware of, other than in Lennie's imagination. What is curious is that Robeson cries/whines/bitches and moans about "civility" and use of "nasty" words, yet uses them himself and is most uncivil in his remarks. See the "complaint" he alleges he made to Google about Todd (who has received far too many nastygrams for a non-amateur-policy subject). Steve has single handedly given thes rra.misc idiots a home on rrap. Thank you Steve. They'll soon move on and you and Lennie will have it all back to yourselves...And it wasn't my doings, Brian...It was Toiddie's cross-posted rantings, not me, that brought them here. Please try to keep your "facts" (snickersnicker)straight. He fakes "outrage" that others would do such a thing to HIM! :-) On the other hand, as the compleat hypocrite, he tells rather bad, unreferencible LIES about others. I started counting his new lies last week. He absolutely hates it. I "absolutely hate" that you further humilate yourself counting nothing, Brian. You have never substantiated the first alleged lie. Sooooooo.....Zero is still zero.... retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person Oooh! You gonna get Steve all worked up over that last comment. Why? He (Lennie) still has yet to provide us with so much as one professional paper with his name on it. So Lennie's claim to having been a "professional engineer" is vaporware. Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: wrote: Unfortunately, that's not the de facto situation with message topics...which have ranged widely from the (usual) bragging and self-glorification of individuals to U.S. national politics and political figures to choo-choo trains and other items in-between. Where's Paul when you need him? He and his group did some fine rescue work getting the K0AIR call out of the hands of micreants like K4CAP. The most recent holder of K4CAP never held K0AIR. So one has to wonder what your point is, Brian...Not that there's ever any meaningingful point to ANY of it... Callsign collectors. It's just ENVY on Robeson's part because he's never been IN electronics engineering in any way (a short- term job as a purchasing agent doesn't qualify for electronics engineering). He never got into military communications handling despite having that vaunted amateur radio license before first joining. He never got to be any kind of military pilot despite having a private pilot's ticket before joining. [we still don't know the When and Where of those claimed "seven hostile actions"...] No doubt that inadequacy is at the root of his hatred for you. You continue to insist that I ahte Lennie. I don't. I understand him better than he accepts tht I do, and therefore make sure that OTHERS understand him too. Just like I do you, Brian. You hate me too? OK, Mr Obvious. and tries to use it as a semi- perjorative. So few know the meaning of that Yiddish expression (including himself), that he thinks he can get away with it. Welp, The Amateur Formerly Known As Reverend Jim doesn't seem to mind. Wondering who THAT is becasue there's never been an Amateur KNOWN as "Reverend Jim" That I am aware of, other than in Lennie's imagination. You know, the guy that trims out "W5TIT" but leaves in "Putz." What is curious is that Robeson cries/whines/bitches and moans about "civility" and use of "nasty" words, yet uses them himself and is most uncivil in his remarks. See the "complaint" he alleges he made to Google about Todd (who has received far too many nastygrams for a non-amateur-policy subject). Steve has single handedly given thes rra.misc idiots a home on rrap. Thank you Steve. They'll soon move on and you and Lennie will have it all back to yourselves...And it wasn't my doings, Brian...It was Toiddie's cross-posted rantings, not me, that brought them here. Please try to keep your "facts" (snickersnicker)straight. Without you bringing him back for more with your incessant "demanding of facts" etc, Todd would have dried up and blown away a long time ago. He fakes "outrage" that others would do such a thing to HIM! :-) On the other hand, as the compleat hypocrite, he tells rather bad, unreferencible LIES about others. I started counting his new lies last week. He absolutely hates it. I "absolutely hate" that you further humilate yourself counting nothing, Brian. You have never substantiated the first alleged lie. Sooooooo.....Zero is still zero.... Lie #12? retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person Oooh! You gonna get Steve all worked up over that last comment. Why? He (Lennie) still has yet to provide us with so much as one professional paper with his name on it. So Lennie's claim to having been a "professional engineer" is vaporware. Steve, K4YZ Is that more of your "facts," Steve? An electronic engineer must have published papers. Hi! Be sure to tell that to Congress before they let hundreds of thousands more of them immigrate to the USA. Welp, we always did know that you don't know what you're talking about. And them's the facts. |
From: "bb" on Mon,Apr 11 2005 3:44 pm
wrote: From: "bb" on Wed, Apr 6 2005 8:38 pm K4YZ wrote: wrote: The original intent of this newsgroup was to discuss amateur radio policy. Whoooooooa! There's a major rhetoric change on the part of Lennie the Lame! How much more uninformed could a "person" be? Len has been saying this for years. Quite true. However, Robeson is in the constant aggravated antagonistic mode and therefore makes up lies about what other people have written. The idiot actually claimed that I was the antagonist for NOT giving Mike grief over his postponing the balloon shot. Stebie just can't take ANY negative response to his shouts and hollerings... :-) to revlieve the crowding there. According to Paul's often-stated welcome message text, it is concerned with all topics of amateur radio POLICY. Unfortunately, that's not the de facto situation with message topics...which have ranged widely from the (usual) bragging and self-glorification of individuals to U.S. national politics and political figures to choo-choo trains and other items in-between. Where's Paul when you need him? He and his group did some fine rescue work getting the K0AIR call out of the hands of micreants like K4CAP. Paul Schleck (the extra who "signs" those welcome e-mails to new names in the newsgroup) is apparently long gone on some sabbatical or whatever. He doesn't answer any e-mails...at least to the web address on those "canned" welcome messages. ??? It would seem prudent for Paul to convene his jolly troika and have this newsgroup nulled and voided for a while. That's happened before when certain others "took over" the place...just like it is now with Stebie and the Anonymouses battling back and forth. Putz. Penis envy or just penis inuendo and infatuation? It's just ENVY on Robeson's part because he's never been IN electronics engineering in any way (a short- term job as a purchasing agent doesn't qualify for electronics engineering). He never got into military communications handling despite having that vaunted amateur radio license before first joining. He never got to be any kind of military pilot despite having a private pilot's ticket before joining. [we still don't know the When and Where of those claimed "seven hostile actions"...] No doubt that inadequacy is at the root of his hatred for you. It seems to me that Stebie just CANNOT take any negativisms on anything he says. That's been the pattern for years. Oppose him enough and he grows his hatred in his own little steaming pot and keeps stirring it. That makes him worse. Tsk. When Stebie just can't take it anymore, he gets out the mirror and tells everyone else they are just like that mirror image...which isn't true...but it's Stebie's "argument device" and its all he's got. Tsk. Stebie tries to "insult" me by calling the me of half a century ago a "military radio mechanic." :-) I can't find any evidence that the U.S. Army EVER called radio communication operators and supervisors as "mechanics." At one large Army depot involved with electronics overhaul, the CIVILIAN technicians are referred to as "mechanics" as a job title. That's an exception as far as titles go. Most everyplace else, a "mechanic" is someone who works on vehicles. w3rv wanted to pull my chain some years back in a long and unnecessary give-and-take about "engineer" as a title. Kellie insisted one HAD to attend a college or university and "earn" that degree in only four years. With Stebie it got worse with him equating college-accredited night classes as some kind of "night school" on the level of teaching citizenship to immigrants wanting to become citizens. :-) Stebie is all about CREDENTIALISM, of having all those pretty (suitable for framing) certificates on the wall to "show how smart he is" and etc. Somehow he got the idea that being a purchasing agent at a mid-size electronics company was "equivalent to working in electronics engineering." Tsk...I've been 45 years IN electronics design engineering just in southern California, by job, title, responsibility, and (eventually) by degree. Stebie is now working a schtick that "I don't know anything about raising children" (which is untrue, by example)" again. Tsk, tsk. Stebie should talk...after fathering at least one poor deformed child who eventually died. Of course NONE of that is Stebie's fault. By just SAYING so, he is an expert, knowledgeable about everything in pediatrics (his LPN credential is about that?). :-) Welp, The Amateur Formerly Known As Reverend Jim doesn't seem to mind. Jimmie has been FORCED into a back seat position on the basis of Stebie's avalanche of postings plus all those Anyonmouses, all shouting hatred and e-ganging up like vultures on a few in here. Jimmie (Who?) is starting to emerge about now, possibly taking some testosterone supplements so he can show others what a "man" he is in here. :-) I just learned from him that unless an opinion is fully documented with facts, that it is a lie. Irrelevant. Stebie determines what is a "lie" and what is "truth." :-) If someone else has an opinion contrary to his, it is (according to Stebie) a "LIE!" complete with an exclamation mark. :-) Stebie just CANNOT accept that anyone is contrary to his glorious being/mind/ego. Can't be! Ergo, it is a "LIE!" Eventually, EVERYTHING in this newsgroup has to become Capt. Stebie's own "battleground" where he can hold forth like some self-styled feudal warlord. :-) Robeson, but a problem to others since they don't care that much about Robeson's "outrage." That "outrage" is NOT a part of amateur radio policy and, as a result, has helped (greatly) to turn this newsgroup into a petty internecine personalily warfare blog. Only Robeson maters. Agreed...he can be a "mother" all right. :-) retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person Oooh! You gonna get Steve all worked up over that last comment. TS. :-) Tsk. I EARNED that IEEE membership the hard way...I worked for it. Now, as a Life Member, I don't have to pay dues and remain a full member in a professional worldwide organization. Joined in '73 and had to have three members' affidavits to accompany that application. About the same time Stebie joined the murines and had to have three DIs shout in his face. Now he's getting even for all that abuse he took back then. :-) Stebie has LIED about my "lackluster career" and "doing nothing" etc., but the poor guy has NEVER had anything remotely as good, nor with the income. Tsk. There was, in his case, not a "lack" but a VOID of "luster" and one can't polish up something that isn't there. [Stebie tries very had, but everyone can see he isn't doing anything but jabbering generalities in his bragging :-) ] Sooner is later there MIGHT be a recursive move to talk about "policy" concerning amateur radio in here. I will remain optimistic. :-) |
From: "bb" on Mon,Apr 11 2005 3:44 pm
wrote: From: "bb" on Wed, Apr 6 2005 8:38 pm K4YZ wrote: wrote: The original intent of this newsgroup was to discuss amateur radio policy. Whoooooooa! There's a major rhetoric change on the part of Lennie the Lame! How much more uninformed could a "person" be? Len has been saying this for years. Quite true. However, Robeson is in the constant aggravated antagonistic mode and therefore makes up lies about what other people have written. The idiot actually claimed that I was the antagonist for NOT giving Mike grief over his postponing the balloon shot. Stebie just can't take ANY negative response to his shouts and hollerings... :-) to revlieve the crowding there. According to Paul's often-stated welcome message text, it is concerned with all topics of amateur radio POLICY. Unfortunately, that's not the de facto situation with message topics...which have ranged widely from the (usual) bragging and self-glorification of individuals to U.S. national politics and political figures to choo-choo trains and other items in-between. Where's Paul when you need him? He and his group did some fine rescue work getting the K0AIR call out of the hands of micreants like K4CAP. Paul Schleck (the extra who "signs" those welcome e-mails to new names in the newsgroup) is apparently long gone on some sabbatical or whatever. He doesn't answer any e-mails...at least to the web address on those "canned" welcome messages. ??? It would seem prudent for Paul to convene his jolly troika and have this newsgroup nulled and voided for a while. That's happened before when certain others "took over" the place...just like it is now with Stebie and the Anonymouses battling back and forth. Putz. Penis envy or just penis inuendo and infatuation? It's just ENVY on Robeson's part because he's never been IN electronics engineering in any way (a short- term job as a purchasing agent doesn't qualify for electronics engineering). He never got into military communications handling despite having that vaunted amateur radio license before first joining. He never got to be any kind of military pilot despite having a private pilot's ticket before joining. [we still don't know the When and Where of those claimed "seven hostile actions"...] No doubt that inadequacy is at the root of his hatred for you. It seems to me that Stebie just CANNOT take any negativisms on anything he says. That's been the pattern for years. Oppose him enough and he grows his hatred in his own little steaming pot and keeps stirring it. That makes him worse. Tsk. When Stebie just can't take it anymore, he gets out the mirror and tells everyone else they are just like that mirror image...which isn't true...but it's Stebie's "argument device" and its all he's got. Tsk. Stebie tries to "insult" me by calling the me of half a century ago a "military radio mechanic." :-) I can't find any evidence that the U.S. Army EVER called radio communication operators and supervisors as "mechanics." At one large Army depot involved with electronics overhaul, the CIVILIAN technicians are referred to as "mechanics" as a job title. That's an exception as far as titles go. Most everyplace else, a "mechanic" is someone who works on vehicles. w3rv wanted to pull my chain some years back in a long and unnecessary give-and-take about "engineer" as a title. Kellie insisted one HAD to attend a college or university and "earn" that degree in only four years. With Stebie it got worse with him equating college-accredited night classes as some kind of "night school" on the level of teaching citizenship to immigrants wanting to become citizens. :-) Stebie is all about CREDENTIALISM, of having all those pretty (suitable for framing) certificates on the wall to "show how smart he is" and etc. Somehow he got the idea that being a purchasing agent at a mid-size electronics company was "equivalent to working in electronics engineering." Tsk...I've been 45 years IN electronics design engineering just in southern California, by job, title, responsibility, and (eventually) by degree. Stebie is now working a schtick that "I don't know anything about raising children" (which is untrue, by example)" again. Tsk, tsk. Stebie should talk...after fathering at least one poor deformed child who eventually died. Of course NONE of that is Stebie's fault. By just SAYING so, he is an expert, knowledgeable about everything in pediatrics (his LPN credential is about that?). :-) Welp, The Amateur Formerly Known As Reverend Jim doesn't seem to mind. Jimmie has been FORCED into a back seat position on the basis of Stebie's avalanche of postings plus all those Anyonmouses, all shouting hatred and e-ganging up like vultures on a few in here. Jimmie (Who?) is starting to emerge about now, possibly taking some testosterone supplements so he can show others what a "man" he is in here. :-) I just learned from him that unless an opinion is fully documented with facts, that it is a lie. Irrelevant. Stebie determines what is a "lie" and what is "truth." :-) If someone else has an opinion contrary to his, it is (according to Stebie) a "LIE!" complete with an exclamation mark. :-) Stebie just CANNOT accept that anyone is contrary to his glorious being/mind/ego. Can't be! Ergo, it is a "LIE!" Eventually, EVERYTHING in this newsgroup has to become Capt. Stebie's own "battleground" where he can hold forth like some self-styled feudal warlord. :-) Robeson, but a problem to others since they don't care that much about Robeson's "outrage." That "outrage" is NOT a part of amateur radio policy and, as a result, has helped (greatly) to turn this newsgroup into a petty internecine personalily warfare blog. Only Robeson maters. Agreed...he can be a "mother" all right. :-) retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person Oooh! You gonna get Steve all worked up over that last comment. TS. :-) Tsk. I EARNED that IEEE membership the hard way...I worked for it. Now, as a Life Member, I don't have to pay dues and remain a full member in a professional worldwide organization. Joined in '73 and had to have three members' affidavits to accompany that application. About the same time Stebie joined the murines and had to have three DIs shout in his face. Now he's getting even for all that abuse he took back then. :-) Stebie has LIED about my "lackluster career" and "doing nothing" etc., but the poor guy has NEVER had anything remotely as good, nor with the income. Tsk. There was, in his case, not a "lack" but a VOID of "luster" and one can't polish up something that isn't there. [Stebie tries very had, but everyone can see he isn't doing anything but jabbering generalities in his bragging :-) ] Sooner is later there MIGHT be a recursive move to talk about "policy" concerning amateur radio in here. I will remain optimistic. :-) |
From: "bb" on Mon,Apr 11 2005 8:09 pm
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: wrote: No doubt that inadequacy is at the root of his hatred for you. You continue to insist that I ahte Lennie. I don't. I understand him better than he accepts tht I do, and therefore make sure that OTHERS understand him too. Just like I do you, Brian. You hate me too? OK, Mr Obvious. :-) Stebie HATES everyone who stands up to him. :-) Tsk. He probably calls Amelia "putz" as a term of affection? :-) Welp, The Amateur Formerly Known As Reverend Jim doesn't seem to mind. Wondering who THAT is becasue there's never been an Amateur KNOWN as "Reverend Jim" That I am aware of, other than in Lennie's imagination. You know, the guy that trims out "W5TIT" but leaves in "Putz." :-) Poor Stebie...still can't see others making fun of him. The same thing is true for Jimmie, but then he might be taking those testosterone supplements... Steve has single handedly given thes rra.misc idiots a home on rrap. Thank you Steve. They'll soon move on and you and Lennie will have it all back to yourselves...And it wasn't my doings, Brian...It was Toiddie's cross-posted rantings, not me, that brought them here. Please try to keep your "facts" (snickersnicker)straight. Without you bringing him back for more with your incessant "demanding of facts" etc, Todd would have dried up and blown away a long time ago. Quite true again. Stebie has to antagonizingly PRESS on "everyone ELSE is always wrong" in the famous "big lie" technique he learned from "Mein Kampf." I started counting his new lies last week. He absolutely hates it. I "absolutely hate" that you further humilate yourself counting nothing, Brian. You have never substantiated the first alleged lie. Sooooooo.....Zero is still zero.... Lie #12? ...plus a thousand more before it... :-) retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person Oooh! You gonna get Steve all worked up over that last comment. Why? He (Lennie) still has yet to provide us with so much as one professional paper with his name on it. So Lennie's claim to having been a "professional engineer" is vaporware. Steve, K4YZ Is that more of your "facts," Steve? An electronic engineer must have published papers. Hi! Be sure to tell that to Congress before they let hundreds of thousands more of them immigrate to the USA. Stebie KNOWS ALL ABOUT ENGINEERING, Brian. After all, he did work as a purchasing agent for less than half a year. "real close" to those who were actually doing engineering. :-) Poor Stebie hasn't bothered to check the references I posted in here, hasn't even checked with the hams I've named in here, hasn't done a literature search other than ham publications. I could digitize some of those papers and send them out in private mail attachments...but Stebie would REJECT that just as he did with my commercial first 'phone license scan. :-) That's a waste of time. Tsk...I put up some memorabilia on communications and radio relay on another's website, put the web address in here, and NO ONE bothered to look. Dave said it was a waste of time and couldn't be bothered. Just so's w3rv doesn't chime in with that false argument again, I am NOT a state-registered Professional Engineer. I AM an electronics design engineer who works for money and that makes me a professional person. I am a Life Member of the IEEE, a professional association. I don't HAVE to get up and go to work every working day...that's called "retirement." :-) [sometimes that really ****es off those who still have a mortgage and loans to pay off, etc., but we are NOT all in the same working situation] Stebie is really working overtime on manufacturing LIES about me and you and Todd and anyone else who crosses him in here. Not surprising to me. Welp, we always did know that you don't know what you're talking about. And them's the facts. That's stating the obvious. :-) |
wrote: From: "bb" on Mon,Apr 11 2005 8:09 pm K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: wrote: No doubt that inadequacy is at the root of his hatred for you. You continue to insist that I ahte Lennie. I don't. I understand him better than he accepts tht I do, and therefore make sure that OTHERS understand him too. Just like I do you, Brian. You hate me too? OK, Mr Obvious. :-) Stebie HATES everyone who stands up to him. :-) Snip of usual regurgitated LennieStuff to: Stebie is really working overtime on manufacturing LIES about me and you and Todd and anyone else who crosses him in here. Not surprising to me. There's nothing "manufactured" about you, Lennie....Everything that's been said here has been a direct result of information YOU provided. Sorry if that's a problem, but you did provide it. You do lie, both about Amateur Radio in general and many of us who are practitioners of that art. You've told us of things you'd do and of things you've done, yet NO PROOF. You taught Brian well...Just keep pouring the lies in to try and further dilute the already muddled pool...Except that some of us can stay ahead of your silliness and THAT is what YOU hate. Leonard H. Anderson is a known chronic liar. Steve, K4YZ |
From: K4YZ on Apr 12, 6:04 am
wrote: From: "bb" on Mon,Apr 11 2005 8:09 pm K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: wrote: No doubt that inadequacy is at the root of his hatred for you. You continue to insist that I ahte Lennie. I don't. I understand him better than he accepts tht I do, and therefore make sure that OTHERS understand him too. Just like I do you, Brian. You hate me too? OK, Mr Obvious. :-) Stebie HATES everyone who stands up to him. :-) Snip of usual regurgitated LennieStuff to: Poor baby...lil Stebie just CAN'T handle it...tsk, tsk. Stebie is really working overtime on manufacturing LIES about me and you and Todd and anyone else who crosses him in here. Not surprising to me. There's nothing "manufactured" about you, Lennie....Everything that's been said here has been a direct result of information YOU provided. Tsk, tsk. You're going to say it is "all LIES" again, aren't you? :-) Is that all you "ahve?" :-) Sorry if that's a problem, but you did provide it. Provide WHAT? :-) Poor baby...you couldn't STAND a short-form resume', you thought it all some kind of "brag" exercise. Tsk, it wasn't. It made you resentful and that prompted your anger, hatred, and in-group attacks. I've provided names and callsigns of those who know me, but you have NOT contacted them. Instead, you MANUFACTURE some person at NADC that claims to know me...a decade after I'd been there and a PhD to boot but NOBODY (but you) knows the name. :-) I sent you a scan of my first 'phone license (the very first one) and you would NOT look at it! :-) Instead you manufactured a clear-libel "personal page" on AOL damning me in no uncertain terms. Fortunately for all concerned (except yourself), AOL took it down as soon as they were informed. :-) You do lie, both about Amateur Radio in general and many of us who are practitioners of that art. You've told us of things you'd do and of things you've done, yet NO PROOF. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Here's the way things go down in the rational world: "Proof" is provided in the form of unalterable third-party sources...things like employers, friends (preferrably those that aren't within easy driving distance to avoid collusion), publications, local and national governmental records archives, some place that is relatively easy to get at such as Internet sites. [I've given you ALL those "links" in here] The next step is for YOU to check out those third-party references...or anyone else to do it, as they want. That "proof" remains unalterable except when a personal reference passes on (none of mine have yet). NO ONE MUST give YOU any "proof" of what they WILL do. NO ONE can predict the future. :-) In any event, you are NOT some kind of "judge" to hand out any "ruling" on anyone, certainly not your e-opponents. :-) You keep crowing that you ARE one, but that is YOUR OWN LIE that you tell the world. A LIE anywhichway it goes. Now you MUST tell all about this former NADC employee who claims to know me a decade after I was there. You have NOT done so. You LIE. You haven't told the Where or When of those famous "seven hostile actions" you claim but won't reveal. Tsk. You LIE and then give yourself a pat on the back for imagining that to be "truth!" :-) You have NOT acknowledged that the DoD directs and supervises MARS, even when informed of the website and full link details of the directive by DoD (as I did in here). In short, sweetums, like the infamous Colonel Jessup of the film "A Few Good Men," you just can't handle the truth! You LIE with impunity and then accuse others of "lying" when they give details and references. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You taught Brian well...Just keep pouring the lies in to try and further dilute the already muddled pool...Except that some of us can stay ahead of your silliness and THAT is what YOU hate. You poor psychoed-to-the-max thing. Brian is a rational human being who can think for himself. I didn't "teach" him anything in regards to being rational. We've both observed you in detail and came to the same agreement...you're some kind of sick psycho who CAN'T STAND being opposed in anything. Leonard H. Anderson is a known chronic liar. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Not at all. You are SICK, sweetums, and all you can do is make all those personal attacks on everyone who disagrees with you. You NEED some personal mental counseling but you've obviously not gotten any. That's a danger to yourself and your immediate family, not to mention cutting down on all the hate and anger your actions ignite in this newsgroup. Try to keep focussed on the FACT that this newsgroup is SUPPOSED to be about amateur radio policy. It is NOT some kind of kiddie sandbox that was created for Stebie to show his courage in personal attacks on everyone who disagrees with him. |
|
K4YZ wrote: wrote: From: K4YZ on Apr 12, 6:04 am I've provided names and callsigns of those who know me, but you have NOT contacted them. Instead, you MANUFACTURE some person at NADC that claims to know me...a decade after I'd been there and a PhD to boot but NOBODY (but you) knows the name. Let's see....I "contact" some beer drinking buddy of yours who you've already briefed on what to say and he'll tell me...what? Like the time Hans contacted the ARRL...? Or was that the FCC? And The person I knew at NADC was an acquaintance of mine...certainly no one who owed me any favor or would make up something. But you would certainly "make up something." |
From: "K4YZ" on Wed,Apr 13 2005 1:16 am
wrote: From: K4YZ on Apr 12, 6:04 am I've provided names and callsigns of those who know me, but you have NOT contacted them. Instead, you MANUFACTURE some person at NADC that claims to know me...a decade after I'd been there and a PhD to boot but NOBODY (but you) knows the name. Let's see....I "contact" some beer drinking buddy of yours who you've already briefed on what to say and he'll tell me...what? And The person I knew at NADC was an acquaintance of mine...certainly no one who owed me any favor or would make up something. He has a REAL Doctorate in Electrical Engineering and HAS been published. He has credentials that I trust. You don't. You are getting way too deep in your psychosis. Regardless of how much you "believe" the above to be true, for the purposes of argument in here you must reveal the name of that person or PUT IT AWAY. I was visiting NADC 34 years ago as an employee of RCA Corporation and stayed there a total of three months. The former Naval Air Development Center, NOT NAS Warminster across the road. I had daily contact with only three NADC engineers in that group and NONE of them would be "your acquaintence." The only one "fortunate" was you, Lennie. But then I've had several years of rubbing your nose in your lies, deceit and mistruths here to make up for it. You are living in some fantasy again. Reset. Nothing lost for me. Lot's lost for you. Like any chance at ever being accepted for what you THINK you should be.... Tsk, tsk. The ONLY thing I've "lost" is thinking you might be rational. I'm way too optimistic. You aren't rational. I had all the "proof" I need, Lennie. A third party with no allegience to protect. A man with a professional reputation that I can bank on. You have BOGUS "proof." Non-existant. That "acquaintence" doesn't exist. You made him up. He didn't know you "a decade after (you were) there". He knew you WHEN you were there. And I do not name him because I protect his privacy at his request. 1. You can't name him because he doesn't exist. 2. The ONLY thing you are protecting is your own bragging LIE about that fantasy individual. 3. "Protecting privacy" is totally bogus. Rationalization expressed to attempt masking your own LIE. I have no reason to doubt his assessment or opinion. You probably believe your own fantasy. To you it is "truth." To everyone else it is just your fantasy. There is nothing "rational" about adult males repeatedly and adamandtly lying in public, Lennie. but the two of you keep doing it. Then you are your own worst enemy since you are describing YOURSELF. The only way you can clear your LYING is to name this supposed person in order to actually prove something. Your "word" that he exists is also bogus. He doesn't exist anywhere except in your own psychotic imagination. Your "word" is therefore meaningless. Provide this "name." Without it you have a bogus "reference" that means nothing. You are SICK and need help. Go get some. |
wrote: From: "K4YZ" on Wed,Apr 13 2005 1:16 am wrote: From: K4YZ on Apr 12, 6:04 am I've provided names and callsigns of those who know me, but you have NOT contacted them. Instead, you MANUFACTURE some person at NADC that claims to know me...a decade after I'd been there and a PhD to boot but NOBODY (but you) knows the name. Let's see....I "contact" some beer drinking buddy of yours who you've already briefed on what to say and he'll tell me...what? And The person I knew at NADC was an acquaintance of mine...certainly no one who owed me any favor or would make up something. He has a REAL Doctorate in Electrical Engineering and HAS been published. He has credentials that I trust. You don't. You are getting way too deep in your psychosis. Regardless of how much you "believe" the above to be true, for the purposes of argument in here you must reveal the name of that person or PUT IT AWAY. I was visiting NADC 34 years ago as an employee of RCA Corporation and stayed there a total of three months. The former Naval Air Development Center, NOT NAS Warminster across the road. I had daily contact with only three NADC engineers in that group and NONE of them would be "your acquaintence." Your freedom of speech allows you to verbalize any statement you care to make, Lennie. Saying it does not make it true. You were useless to them. Period. Now suck it up and move along, old man! You ran your mouth off about all your hot jobs. You happened to drop one name where I had an "in". I found you out. Sucks to be you. The only one "fortunate" was you, Lennie. But then I've had several years of rubbing your nose in your lies, deceit and mistruths here to make up for it. You are living in some fantasy again. Reset. Reset yourself, old man. About 50 years worth. Nothing lost for me. Lot's lost for you. Like any chance at ever being accepted for what you THINK you should be.... Tsk, tsk. The ONLY thing I've "lost" is thinking you might be rational. I'm way too optimistic. You aren't rational. Sure I am. That you try and redirect from YOUR misfortunes by making such claims is ludicrous and transparent. I had all the "proof" I need, Lennie. A third party with no allegience to protect. A man with a professional reputation that I can bank on. You have BOGUS "proof." Non-existant. That "acquaintence" doesn't exist. You made him up. Nope. What I TRULY know is that YOU find it hard to believe that there really are people in the world who didn't develop a life-long devotion to your wisdom, knowledge and skill. He didn't know you "a decade after (you were) there". He knew you WHEN you were there. And I do not name him because I protect his privacy at his request. 1. You can't name him because he doesn't exist. I WON'T name him becasue I promised. 2. The ONLY thing you are protecting is your own bragging LIE about that fantasy individual. That is not a truthful statement. And no matter how many more times you repeat it, Lennie, it STILL will NOT be true. 3. "Protecting privacy" is totally bogus. Rationalization expressed to attempt masking your own LIE. No rationalization. A promise to a friend. I have no reason to doubt his assessment or opinion. You probably believe your own fantasy. To you it is "truth." To everyone else it is just your fantasy. Again, Lennie, you may repeate that over and over if you think it will salve your ego...But the bottom line is that people at NADC did not find you very effective. There is nothing "rational" about adult males repeatedly and adamandtly lying in public, Lennie. but the two of you keep doing it. Then you are your own worst enemy since you are describing YOURSELF. Nope. The only way you can clear your LYING is to name this supposed person in order to actually prove something. Your "word" that he exists is also bogus. He doesn't exist anywhere except in your own psychotic imagination. Your "word" is therefore meaningless. My "word" is bogus to YOU since claiming it is so is the ONLY way you have of escaping the fact that you ran your mouth off one time too many. Provide this "name." Without it you have a bogus "reference" that means nothing. Here's a name that is bogus and means nothing: Leonard H. Anderson. You are SICK and need help. Go get some. I am quite well, thank you. You, on the otherhand, still have issues to deal with. Accepting that not everyone thinks you're the genius and expert YOU think you are is one of them. You're outted, Lennie. Get over it. Steve, K4YZ |
From: "K4YZ" on Thurs,Apr 14 2005 2:40 am
wrote: From: "K4YZ" on Wed,Apr 13 2005 1:16 am wrote: From: K4YZ on Apr 12, 6:04 am Regardless of how much you "believe" the above to be true, for the purposes of argument in here you must reveal the name of that person or PUT IT AWAY. I was visiting NADC 34 years ago as an employee of RCA Corporation and stayed there a total of three months. The former Naval Air Development Center, NOT NAS Warminster across the road. I had daily contact with only three NADC engineers in that group and NONE of them would be "your acquaintence." Your freedom of speech allows you to verbalize any statement you care to make, Lennie. Saying it does not make it true. You were useless to them. Period. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You don't know anything about what took place on three successive R&D jobs where NADC was the test agency for evaluation of SECANT (the RCA acronym for the anti-collision system back then). At NO time was I doing anything "for" NADC. NADC was the federal test agency for that project and a similar one of Minneapolis-Honeywell. My employer was RCA and that remained so until 1975. As a field engineer I was representing RCA for technical support of RCA equipment under test. NADC had the aircraft and air crews available in 1971 and were directed by Naval Air System Command to perform the testing of RCA's and Minny-Honey's systems. USN was requested by the U.S. government to do the testing (as a disinterested third- party) and the USN passed that to Systems who passed it to NADC. SECANT (SEparation and Control of Aircraft by Non- synchronous Techniques) performed well on the air-to-air testing, as did the Minneapolis-Honeywell system. The data acquisition and data-reduction by NADC was deemed costly (to NADC) so that group was directed to employ tape-recording of data instead of using the old-style (at the time) of phototheater recording on synchronized motion-picure film. The government and USN suggested some slight alterations in threat logic used to provide avoidance manuever warnings as well and both corporations agreed to do a second generation of collision avoidance equipment to be tested in 1973. This generation included bring-outs of signals and logic states to be tape-recorded in a multi-channel tape unit. That second generation equipment was successfully flight-tested but I was spared having to be the on-site field engineer. I did participate in some of the design on that generation and did work with the principal NADC engineering crew that visited Van Nuys (twice) before 2nd gen testing began. Based on the results of that 2nd gen flight test, RCA was requested to and awarded a contract for a third generation, this time representing a "preproduction" airborne version. A "prepro" is as close as can be to a final production prototype and includes as many specialized circuits as would be considered for a production model. That was done by mid-1975 and I was responsible for the 8-channel (pulse) receiver, front-end to video out (1.6 GHz RF band then) plus co-designer of the (non-flyable) checkout set which presented simulated air-traffic signals to evaluate crowded conditions. Jim Hall, KD6JG, was immediate group manager and Al Walston, W6MJN, was both my office cubicle sharer and the designer on the transmitter (pulse) portion. Packaging shrunk from 3 full-ATR cases of generation 1 to the quarter-ATR single-case of the 3rd generation. Three 3rd generation SECANTs were done and checked out, ready for shipment to PA, when the U.S. government (likely through FAA) canceled any further work or testing on a new aircraft anti-collision system. The government decided on adopting a relatively untried hodge-podge system devised by MIT which supposedly fit inside the RF spectrum of present-day ATCRBS frequencies. Now suck it up and move along, old man! You ran your mouth off about all your hot jobs. Wasn't a "hot" job. Was an everyday kind of design job. It was "hot" only in the SAW filters used to make it possible to have "brick-wall" response matched filters in a terribly small size in the 50 to 65 MHz region. RCA corporate back east funded one of the labs there to do the design and aluminum deposition on quartz plates (first time I ever put a purchase order in on BLANK quartz...kind of a novelty). In 1974 that was truly state of the art. Once they were shipped in to Van Nuys I had to mount them on something...RTV on epoxy PCB with compression-bonding wires connecting aluminum film contact ends to PCB lands. Luckily, Van Nuys had a good thin-film lab at the time. Skirt response on the filters was (to me) unbelievable...50 db drop in less than 100 KHz at the edges, very nearly flat across the top in the mid-VHF range. You happened to drop one name where I had an "in". I found you out. Steve Robeson was *NEVER* "in" on either the RCA or Minneapolis-Honeywell aircraft anti-collision systems. Steve Robeson wan't even AT NADC in 1971 to 1975. He was a jarhead who never got beyond Warminster NAS on the other side of the road A DECADE LATER. You are living in some fantasy again. Reset. Reset yourself, old man. About 50 years worth. No, just two hours worth...had a good sandwich for lunch and it tasted like more. I'll settle for another cup of coffee, though. :-) Tsk. I have a copy of the FINAL report on SECANT. I helped write it (name is on the cover). NOWHERE in there is any mention of any "Steve Robeson" as part of the government personnel at NADC. The document identifier is VNES-74-TR-001 and was then marked "company confidential." It's somewhere in the General Electric archives now. Considering it is 31 years later, I doubt that presence of the revealed document number is going to hurt the RCA Corporation. :-) That you try and redirect from YOUR misfortunes by making such claims is ludicrous and transparent. Tsk. Lil Stevie can't name detail one on what went down at NADC, has NO knowledge of the SECANT or Minny-Honey System testing. You can't even name the military aircraft at the NAS or which ones were used for anti-collision testing. [one was shared with NAVSTAR...which would later become GPSS...:-) ] Tsk, tsk, tsk. I had all the "proof" I need, Lennie. A third party with no allegience to protect. A man with a professional reputation that I can bank on. You have BOGUS "proof." Non-existant. That "acquaintence" doesn't exist. You made him up. Nope. What I TRULY know is that YOU find it hard to believe that there really are people in the world who didn't develop a life-long devotion to your wisdom, knowledge and skill. Tsk, tsk, tsk. :-) The only person "devoted to me" is my wife...as I am devoted to her. Nothing else is requested in life. The only "credential" needed is that marriage certificate. :-) He didn't know you "a decade after (you were) there". He knew you WHEN you were there. Amazing. After a total of six trips to NADC and a total time there of about three months, this (fantasy) person "knows" me? 34 years AFTER the fact?!? :-) Incredulosity uber alles! :-) And I do not name him because I protect his privacy at his request. 1. You can't name him because he doesn't exist. I WON'T name him becasue I promised. Total BULL****, bluffmeister! :-) 2. The ONLY thing you are protecting is your own bragging LIE about that fantasy individual. That is not a truthful statement. And no matter how many more times you repeat it, Lennie, it STILL will NOT be true. Sweetums, NOBODY can "prove" the non-existance of a non-existant entity. NOBODY. :-) All you have is a BLUFF. A LIE. :-) 3. "Protecting privacy" is totally bogus. Rationalization expressed to attempt masking your own LIE. No rationalization. A promise to a friend. QUIT bull****ting us, Little Big Man. You tried a BLUFF. You CANNOT BACK IT UP. :-) Name the department this (fantasy) "friend" worked in at NADC. Name some DETAILS that ONLY an NADC worker would know. You have NOT revealed a thing. I have no reason to doubt his assessment or opinion. You probably believe your own fantasy. To you it is "truth." To everyone else it is just your fantasy. Again, Lennie, you may repeate that over and over if you think it will salve your ego...But the bottom line is that people at NADC did not find you very effective. No problem! I WILL "repeate" it (better, I'll just repeat it) that I could care less how "that [sic] people at NADC did not find..." I never worked for NADC, never worked for the USN as a civilian, never even applied for any job at NADC. :-) I was an employee of RCA Corporation at the time and REMAINED an employee until the RCA shut-down of the Van Nuys, CA, Electromagnetic and Aviation Systems Division's Position Locating Systems Group in November, 1975. My "word" is bogus to YOU since claiming it is so is the ONLY way you have of escaping the fact that you ran your mouth off one time too many. Your "word" is bogus. Period. You can't name a thing about that (fantasy) "reference" individual...not a thing about what went on at NADC in 1971-1975, not a thing about any other projects under Naval Air Systems Command then. You are FABRICATING a falsity. You have NO references except what I reveal. YOU can't describe a damn thing except your bogus "outrage" at "not being believed." :-) Provide this "name." Without it you have a bogus "reference" that means nothing. Here's a name that is bogus and means nothing: Leonard H. Anderson. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Emotionalism and name-calling. Not to worry. Your buddies Jimmie Miccolis and Davie Heil will support you. PCTA extra Double Standard MUST be operative to you and them! :-) You are SICK and need help. Go get some. I am quite well, thank you. You, on the otherhand, still have issues to deal with. No "issues to deal with." Haven't submitted any manuscripts to any publications having "issues" in the last year. Not expecting any proofs on those. :-) Accepting that not everyone thinks you're the genius and expert YOU think you are is one of them. Poor baby. Getting all petulant and snoddy again? I COULD CARE LESS. :-) Electrons, fields and waves don't much care for human emotions like "love" or "personal desire." One works by THEIR laws, not yours, not by somebody else's ideas. Similarly, when trying to "prove" someone "wrong," you have to REALLY PROVE them by REAL references, details, information, VERIFIABLE sources. Trying to use some unspecified, unnamed imaginary person is just bluffing BULL****. Quit doing that. You will be better off doing so. You're outted, Lennie. Get over it. Tsk. I was out this morning. Nice day. Still is. Tomorrow will be a repeat of that. I will not "get over it," since I like that kind of weather. :-) Let me just repeat what your buddie Jimmie Miccolis used to write in he "It ain't bragging if ya done it!" Okay, I did it. Not only that, I KNOW what was done and have valid references as to what I did there. Not a problem to me. Seems to be a helluva problem to you, though, and you have your psychotic imagination in afterburner and you can't get off the ground. Tsk, tsk. Get some mental help. You need it. |
wrote: From: "K4YZ" on Thurs,Apr 14 2005 2:40 am wrote: From: "K4YZ" on Wed,Apr 13 2005 1:16 am wrote: From: K4YZ on Apr 12, 6:04 am Regardless of how much you "believe" the above to be true, for the purposes of argument in here you must reveal the name of that person or PUT IT AWAY. I was visiting NADC 34 years ago as an employee of RCA Corporation and stayed there a total of three months. The former Naval Air Development Center, NOT NAS Warminster across the road. I had daily contact with only three NADC engineers in that group and NONE of them would be "your acquaintence." Your freedom of speech allows you to verbalize any statement you care to make, Lennie. Saying it does not make it true. You were useless to them. Period. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You don't know anything about what took place on three successive R&D jobs where NADC was the test agency for evaluation of SECANT (the RCA acronym for the anti-collision system back then). It doesn't matter, Lennie. I know what happened on ONE of them. At NO time was I doing anything "for" NADC...(SNIP) But you were there and your performance was lackluster. You got a bad "fit rep". Oh well. We can't all be "100%" 100% of the time. Deal with it. One of my first fitreps in the Corps was less than what it could have been. Not bad, but certainly a wake-up call. I took my "spanking", did what I needed to do to correct the shortcomings, and moved on. No big deal. SECANT (SEparation and Control of Aircraft by Non- synchronous Techniques) performed well...(SNIP Has nothing to do with Amateur Radio policy or that you were deemed less than adequate at NADC. Based on the results of that 2nd gen flight test...(SNIP) Twenty one lines of non-relevent story telling. Now suck it up and move along, old man! You ran your mouth off about all your hot jobs. Wasn't a "hot" job. Was an everyday kind of design job. One you didn't do well at. Oh well. It was "hot" only in the SAW filters...(SNIP) Great. Ohhhhhhhhhhh...Ahhhhhhhhhhhh....Stuff that extend's an engineer's slide rule, I am sure. Of no relevence to Amateur Radio policy at ANY level or you behaviour herein. You happened to drop one name where I had an "in". I found you out. Steve Robeson was *NEVER* "in" on either the RCA or Minneapolis-Honeywell aircraft anti-collision systems. Steve Robeson wan't even AT NADC in 1971 to 1975. He was a jarhead who never got beyond Warminster NAS on the other side of the road A DECADE LATER. Nope...wasn't in those programs. I did have an "in" with a gentleman who was, however. Outted you nicely. You are living in some fantasy again. Reset. Reset yourself, old man. About 50 years worth. No, just two hours worth...had a good sandwich for lunch and it tasted like more. I'll settle for another cup of coffee, though. Perhaps all that coffee is your undoing, Lennie. At your age more thyan one cup a day is a sure bet for premature cardiac demise. Tsk. I have a copy of the FINAL report on SECANT...(SNIP) I am sure the Anderson household is ripe with files of old projects that have absolutely nothing to do with Amateur Radio. Fifteen more lines of non-relevent stuff snipped for brevity. That you try and redirect from YOUR misfortunes by making such claims is ludicrous and transparent. Tsk. Lil Stevie can't name detail one on what went down at NADC, has NO knowledge of the SECANT or Minny-Honey System testing. You can't even name the military aircraft at the NAS or which ones were used for anti-collision testing. [one was shared with NAVSTAR...which would later become GPSS...:-) ] Tsk, tsk, tsk. And not a bit of it relvent to the fact that Leonard H. Anderson was at NADC, was a less than stellar performer, and when I asked around about him, I got a "hit"... I've not once "challenged" that any of that occured at NADC, nor have I "challenged" that you were there. I KNOW you were there, Lennie. What I TRULY know is that YOU find it hard to believe that there really are people in the world who didn't develop a life-long devotion to your wisdom, knowledge and skill. Tsk, tsk, tsk. :-) The only person "devoted to me" is my wife...as I am devoted to her. Nothing else is requested in life. The only "credential" needed is that marriage certificate. A marriage certificat is NO guarnatee of devotion, Lennie. It was only legal permission for the two of you to get maried. An old high school acquaintence of mine has been "cohabitating" with his high school sweetheart for over 25 years now. No marriage. They are as devoted as any couple I've ever known. He didn't know you "a decade after (you were) there". He knew you WHEN you were there. Amazing. After a total of six trips to NADC and a total time there of about three months, this (fantasy) person "knows" me? 34 years AFTER the fact?!? Actaully at the time I found you out it was only 20-some years, and no, he didn't "know" you off the top of his head. He did some research, however, on contractors who had been there. You were there. You weren't the best "engineer" in their estimation. I WON'T name him becasue I promised. Total BULL####, bluffmeister! No "BS", Lennie....I won't name him. No bluff intended. 2. The ONLY thing you are protecting is your own bragging LIE about that fantasy individual. That is not a truthful statement. And no matter how many more times you repeat it, Lennie, it STILL will NOT be true. Sweetums, NOBODY can "prove" the non-existance of a non-existant entity. NOBODY. Who's "sweetums"...?!?! All you have is a BLUFF. A LIE. Nope. 3. "Protecting privacy" is totally bogus. Rationalization expressed to attempt masking your own LIE. No rationalization. A promise to a friend. QUIT bull####ting us, Little Big Man. You tried a BLUFF. You CANNOT BACK IT UP. Name the department this (fantasy) "friend" worked in at NADC. Name some DETAILS that ONLY an NADC worker would know. You have NOT revealed a thing. I have revealed that you were less than spectacular at atleast ONE of your "jobs". And there will be no further "details" forthcomimg. You can't squeal and whine all you like, Lennie, but just like your promises to us, that's all you'll get from me on this subject. I have no reason to doubt his assessment or opinion. You probably believe your own fantasy. To you it is "truth." To everyone else it is just your fantasy. Again, Lennie, you may repeate that over and over if you think it will salve your ego...But the bottom line is that people at NADC did not find you very effective. No problem! I WILL "repeate" it (better, I'll just repeat it) that I could care less how "that [sic] people at NADC did not find..." I never worked for NADC, never worked for the USN as a civilian, never even applied for any job at NADC. I was an employee of RCA Corporation at the time and REMAINED an employee until the RCA shut-down of the Van Nuys, CA, Electromagnetic and Aviation Systems Division's Position Locating Systems Group in November, 1975. And the people at NADC that had to evaluate the performace of the contract weren't impressed with YOU, Lennie. Rant all you care to. It really is THAT simple. My "word" is bogus to YOU since claiming it is so is the ONLY way you have of escaping the fact that you ran your mouth off one time too many. Your "word" is bogus. Period. You can't name a thing about that (fantasy) "reference" individual...not a thing about what went on at NADC in 1971-1975, not a thing about any other projects under Naval Air Systems Command then. And I could care less about them, Lennie. I inquired about YOU, and YOU are what I got answers about. You are FABRICATING a falsity. Nope. You have NO reference except what I reveal. Your "refrences" where what lead me to find out what I did. Thanks. YOU can't describe a damn thing except your bogus "outrage" at "not being believed." Oh, Lennie, I am farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr from "outraged"! YOU, old man, are the one with the outrage issues!. To the tune of thousands of lines of irrelevent rhetoric over the last several years meant only to blunt the damage of what I discovered. Too late! Shudda kept your mouth shut! Provide this "name." Without it you have a bogus "reference" that means nothing. Here's a name that is bogus and means nothing: Leonard H. Anderson. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Emotionalism and name-calling. Nope. Fact. Established by YOUR track record of lying, deceit, misconduct and dishonesty. Not to worry. Your buddies Jimmie Miccolis and Davie Heil will support you. PCTA extra Double Standard MUST be operative to you and them! "Jimmie" Miccolis? Jim has a little son? Whether or not N2EY or K8MN "support" me is also irrelevent. I know what I know because YOU shot your mouth off and I just happened to know someone in a postion to verify it. You are SICK and need help. Go get some. I am quite well, thank you. You, on the otherhand, still have issues to deal with. No "issues to deal with." Haven't submitted any manuscripts to any publications having "issues" in the last year. Not expecting any proofs on those. How can you expect a "proof" on something that doesn't exist? On the otherhand, the foregoing rant and spin-doctoring you just hit us with IS evidence of your "issues" with your own condcut. Accepting that not everyone thinks you're the genius and expert YOU think you are is one of them. Poor baby. Getting all petulant and snoddy again? I COULD CARE LESS. Liar, liar, pants on fire! Several YEARS worth of YOUR rantings reveal otherwise! You're outted, Lennie. Get over it. Tsk. I was out this morning. Nice day. Still is. Tomorrow will be a repeat of that. I will not "get over it," since I like that kind of weather. :-) Let me just repeat what your buddie Jimmie Miccolis used to write in he "It ain't bragging if ya done it!" Okay, I did it. Not only that, I KNOW what was done and have valid references as to what I did there. Not a problem to me. Seems to be a helluva problem to you, though, and you have your psychotic imagination in afterburner and you can't get off the ground. Tsk, tsk. Get some mental help. You need it. No, I don't. You, on the otherhand, have honesty issues to get straightened out. Still. Still The Putz Today That You Were Yesterday And Will Be Tomorrow. Steve, K4YZ |
From: "K4YZ" on Fri,Apr 15 2005 12:15 am
wrote: From: "K4YZ" on Thurs,Apr 14 2005 2:40 am Tsk, tsk, tsk. You don't know anything about what took place on three successive R&D jobs where NADC was the test agency for evaluation of SECANT (the RCA acronym for the anti-collision system back then). It doesn't matter, Lennie. I know what happened on ONE of them. You know NOTHING. :-) All you do in here is try to demean and denigrate others who HAVE some experience in radio...especially those who have done MORE than you ever have. Tsk. At NO time was I doing anything "for" NADC...(SNIP) But you were there and your performance was lackluster. You got a bad "fit rep". Oh well. We can't all be "100%" 100% of the time. Deal with it. Tsk. You have NO frame of reference in trying to compare industry with your personal experience in the military. To reiterate - because you can't understand how industry works - I was NOT EVER an employee of the USN and NOT EVER at NADC. I was an employee of RCA Corporation then and remained so until 1975. At NO TIME did any NADC people do any performance reviews of my work. They couldn't. I was NOT an employee there. :-) Industry doesn't have "fitreps" as you call them. They are called performance reviews and are periodic, the period of review times dependent on local corporate policy. [see any Personnel department...or "Human Resources" - same thing under a new buzzword] One of my first fitreps in the Corps was less than what it could have been. Not bad, but certainly a wake-up call. I took my "spanking", did what I needed to do to correct the shortcomings, and moved on. No big deal. The electronics industry is NOT "the corps." :-) I've not had a bad performance review in my whole career in southern California aerospace. That career started in 1956. Not anywhere close to what you think deserves a "spanking." :-) The only "wake-up calls" I've had were from operators at motels and hotels I was staying at while on field trips for my employers. :-) SECANT (SEparation and Control of Aircraft by Non- synchronous Techniques) performed well...(SNIP Has nothing to do with Amateur Radio policy or that you were deemed less than adequate at NADC. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Still trying to spin your undetailed yarn of "less than adequate" performance at NADC? Idiot. I was never employed by NADC. I was never employed by the USN in any capacity. No part of the USN ever rated me for any "performance review" and certainly not a "fitrep" a la the murines. :-) You are still trying a snow job on everyone in a vague effort to cover up your original LIE. Tsk. The ONLY way you can right your terrible wrong is to give enough detail into what was actually done while I was at NADC as "contractor personnel," aka field engineer. You can't do that. You have NO real information to base your personal attack, don't know how contracts are carried out, have NO idea what this particular project was about (even if explained in detail to you), have NO understanding of research and development with Department of Defense contractural procedures. Based on the results of that 2nd gen flight test...(SNIP) Twenty one lines of non-relevent story telling. Tsk. VERY relevant and necessary to counter all your pitiful little LIES told about others. Now suck it up and move along, old man! You ran your mouth off about all your hot jobs. Wasn't a "hot" job. Was an everyday kind of design job. One you didn't do well at. Oh well. Tsk, tsk. You have NO idea of what was involved, don't understand the technology, don't understand the way contracts are performed, don't understand the way individual performance is rated by the electronics industry. As I said, I've had NO bad performance reviews in the aerospace industry. [research that all you want...if you say you "found" something, then that would be FALSE, a LIE] Proof of performance is that equipment works according to pre-established specifications. In the case of Research and Development contracts, test data may turn up some need to change the original specifications (not unusual). Such changes may be instituted by the contractee (or testing agency assigned by contractee) or the contractor. In the case of the first generation SECANT, the testing agency (NADC) found that their data recording methods (phototheater) was inadequate. That was solved on the second generation by incorporating a multi-channel tape recorder formatted for the on-site NADC computer (can your mythical "reference" name that main- frame computer, hmmm?). That condition applied to the Minneapolis-Honeywell collision avoidance system also under test (separate contract). It was "hot" only in the SAW filters...(SNIP) Great. Ohhhhhhhhhhh...Ahhhhhhhhhhhh....Stuff that extend's an engineer's slide rule, I am sure. Tsk. Improper use of pluralities. :-) "SAW" is an acronym for Surface Acoustic Wave. Those are frequency-domain filters using the phenomena of very ultrasonic wave propagation on surface of piezo-electric material such as quartz or lithium niobate. Interdigital SAW filters can be made with extreme sharpness of skirt selectivity at the passband edges. As such they make ideal "matched" filters; i.e., their passband is equivalent to the reciprocal of a pulse width...resulting in an RF envelope output shape close to a cosine-squared (very low harmonic content) waveform. SAW filters are common as "roofing filters" or the very first filter of multiple-conversion receivers. You will find SAW filters in common use in cell phones due to their very small size...as well as cell site terminal equipment...and now TV receivers, especially those for DTV. In 1974 SAW filter use was "cutting edge" technology, especially in the mid-VHF frequency range. 31 years later it is rather common and Murata (among many makers) have produced hundreds of thousands of SAW filters on lithium niobate substrates. Of no relevence to Amateur Radio policy at ANY level or you behaviour herein. "Behaviour?" :-) Since when has YOUR name-calling, denigrations, and attempts at defamation of character ever concerned "amateur radio policy?" Tsk, tsk, tsk. You happened to drop one name where I had an "in". I found you out. Steve Robeson was *NEVER* "in" on either the RCA or Minneapolis-Honeywell aircraft anti-collision systems. Steve Robeson wan't even AT NADC in 1971 to 1975. He was a jarhead who never got beyond Warminster NAS on the other side of the road A DECADE LATER. Nope...wasn't in those programs. I did have an "in" with a gentleman who was, however. Outted you nicely. An "in?" Tsk. You've been talking to YOURSELF, busy telling your various personalities tall tales. You are so far OUT you couldn't get "in" anything but your own sociopathic psychotic activity of constantly trying to denigrate ANYONE who opposes you in any way. You keep compounding your own LIES. You can NOT produce any DETAIL at all of what I was doing at NADC or even whatever I did at any time in my career in electronics design engineering. You haven't a clue as to what is done in industry on a regular basis. You can't describe NADC or Warminster NAS across the street, you can't describe how one crosses that road, the shape of the NADC buildings, their special NASA astronaut test facilities (only one), any of the broadband HF radio antennas outside, the fact that the original building and airfield was constructed for Brewster Aircraft (the only aircraft corporation known to go bankrupt DURING WW2), or the curious taxiway from ramp area to runway at the NAS. You can't name anything about the NADC computer center, can't identify the curious little tracks on part of the ground floor buildings that were at NADC, don't understand that the NAS was all-Navy but NADC was largely civilian. You can't describe the cafeteria at NADC or the "O club" right above it nor the various little offices that can serve both NADC and contractor personnel, can't describe their internal police arrangement, or even their playing of reveille at an unusual time. All you can say is that you "knew somebody" there who "gave me a bad fitrep" and said I did "lackluster" work for NADC. You LIE and compound that LIE. Tsk. I have a copy of the FINAL report on SECANT...(SNIP) I am sure the Anderson household is ripe with files of old projects that have absolutely nothing to do with Amateur Radio. The proper word is "rife." Yes, I have enough from a half century of working IN electronics and radio, but a small part of it DOES have to do with hobby electronics (such as amateur radio. I converted a spare 3rd bedroom into an office/library for my wife and myself years ago...in the southern house (not the northern one in WA)...one 13-foot wall has three rows of bookshelves (and that isn't enough). And not a bit of it relvent to the fact that Leonard H. Anderson was at NADC, was a less than stellar performer, and when I asked around about him, I got a "hit"... You got ****. Bad word or not, that describes what you do to EVERYONE who disagrees with you. You **** on their person, defecating on them verbally in a momentous display of your rage and hatred if they so much as say anything negative against you. All you do is practice sociopathic verbal defecation. And the people at NADC that had to evaluate the performace of the contract weren't impressed with YOU, Lennie. Idiot. A TESTING AGENCY "evaluates the performance" of the TEST. It doesn't "evaluate contractor personnel." For the last time: "Contractor personnel" do NOT work FOR any federal test agency. They work FOR their employer. Employers do the performance reviews of their employees. If a contractor's employee does not perform as they are required to do, the contractor removes them. I've NEVER been removed for such a reason. I've never been removed from a field test location for ANY reason. You have to TRY and stop ****TING on people you don't like. It isn't productive, it isn't civil, it isn't according to The Amateur's Code. All you've done so far is to dig yourself deeper into your original LIE. You have NO proof. You can't supply ANY details. You have so many misunderstandings about defense contracts and procedure that it shows you are totally BOGUS in all that ****TING on others. You are SICK. You have diss-temper. You need a vet... a veterinarian...or something. GET HELP for yourself. |
|
|
K4YZ wrote: wrote: Amazing. After a total of six trips to NADC and a total time there of about three months, this (fantasy) person "knows" me? 34 years AFTER the fact?!? Actaully at the time I found you out it was only 20-some years, and no, he didn't "know" you off the top of his head. He did some research, however, on contractors who had been there. Inneresting. The difference between 34 years after the fact and 20 years is ~14 years. And Steve claims he hasn't been on RRAP even a decade. So somehow, more than 4 years before Steve was on RRAP and ever heard of Len, he was having a conversation with a former colleague of Lens, discussing Len's performance reports. "Captain, I find it Quiteillogical" Spock So, is lie #16 the conversation with a former colleague of Len's? Or is lie #16 Steve's tenure on RRAP? Or is it actually lies #16 and #17? |
bb wrote: So, is lie #16 the conversation with a former colleague of Len's? Or is lie #16 Steve's tenure on RRAP? Or is it actually lies #16 and #17? Neither, but nice try. Now...what about those "unlicensed devices"...?!?!? Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: So, is lie #16 the conversation with a former colleague of Len's? Or is lie #16 Steve's tenure on RRAP? Or is it actually lies #16 and #17? Neither, but nice try. Steve, you lied. The only question is which time? The conversation with a former colleague of Len's? The length of tenure on RRAP? Or both. Fess up. |
From: "bb" on Sat,Apr 16 2005 6:34 am
K4YZ wrote: wrote: Amazing. After a total of six trips to NADC and a total time there of about three months, this (fantasy) person "knows" me? 34 years AFTER the fact?!? Actaully at the time I found you out it was only 20-some years, and no, he didn't "know" you off the top of his head. He did some research, however, on contractors who had been there. Inneresting. The difference between 34 years after the fact and 20 years is ~14 years. And Steve claims he hasn't been on RRAP even a decade. So somehow, more than 4 years before Steve was on RRAP and ever heard of Len, he was having a conversation with a former colleague of Lens, discussing Len's performance reports. "Captain, I find it Quiteillogical" Spock So, is lie #16 the conversation with a former colleague of Len's? Or is lie #16 Steve's tenure on RRAP? Or is it actually lies #16 and #17? Psychotic Pstevie is doing a MARVELOUS job of back- pedalling! :-) But...his LIE is still a LIE. There were three contract numbers involved in SECANT. I have the exact number on the first two generations; I was at NADC on the first contract...representing RCA Corporation, the REAL "contractor." Adminstratively and for the purpose of my VISITING there, I was NOT listed as "the" contractor. "Contractor personnel," perhaps...for the on-site security group (civilians at NADC) and for the project reports, if then (I was NOT listed as anything but one of the visitors in the NADC report, a rather low-rank at that! :-) Somewhere in the dusty archives of someplace MIGHT be a few mentions of me 34 years ago signing for a VISITOR badge plus a VISITOR parking placard for the rented vehicle I had plus a sign-off on a two-page standard form for VISITORS on-site. I could care less, been there and done that at other sites. :-) While VISITING there, I worked daily with only two NADC engineers on a regular basis, maybe every two days with the lead engineer, met the group leader a couple times, the pilots of the test aircraft, and the maintenance officer at the NAS. Pstevie thinks I was "supposed" to do "stellar" things there, but doesn't understand that I was simply a representative of the contractor who knew the whole system under test. There was no time or budget for a "technical manual" (seldom is on an R&D program), just a tech rep and a bunch of ozalid copies of schematics plus a few photos of the system as set up. There wasn't any chit-chatting "off-duty" nor was there any "hoisting a few after hours." Neither did we "get liberty" but were on our own recognizance as to working hours. [must be amazing fact to a conditioned military mindset like Pstevie's...:-) ] Pstevie uses the word "colleague" as if I was working for NADC. Was NOT the case. I tried to explain that, but to no avail. :-) So..."performance reports" of civilian contractor personnel are NOT done by contractees. If they don't like a tech rep's whatever, they can simply call up the contractor and complain, probably have the tech rep replaced. Did not happen with me...there were NO "reports" filed by NADC as to behavior, demeanor, performance skills or anything else except for a brief mention of my name in an NADC internal project report. So...not only is Pstevie all forked up on his arithmetic but he don't know fecal matter from shoe polish on how contracts with civilian firms are handled...he doesn't really know much about anything what happened across the street from the NAS. As to REAL arithmetic on his LYING, it's hard to pin that down. Most of his blabbering on personal attacks after the first one is simply attempts at rationalizing (badly) on his original LIE. Tsk. |
|
bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: So, is lie #16 the conversation with a former colleague of Len's? Or is lie #16 Steve's tenure on RRAP? Or is it actually lies #16 and #17? Neither, but nice try. Steve, you lied. The only question is which time? The conversation with a former colleague of Len's? The length of tenure on RRAP? Or both. Fess up. Well well...Looks like I made an error in math. My bust. Lennie's ex-colleague is stil in PA and still remains anonymous, however. As for your allegeations of lies 1-17, Brian, you still have yet to document a single one. Now...About those unlicensed devices...? About your Somalia "operation"...? About your assertions about how poor ARES is...? About that "worked DXCC from HL and KH"...? Steve, K4YZ |
wrote: Psychotic Pstevie is doing a MARVELOUS job of back- pedalling! But...his LIE is still a LIE. No backpedalling. There were three contract numbers involved in SECANT....(SNIP of ususal trying to hide under the blustery rhetoric) So...not only is Pstevie all forked up on his arithmetic but he don't know fecal matter from shoe polish on how contracts with civilian firms are handled...he doesn't really know much about anything what happened across the street from the NAS. You keep trying to redirect to "contracts", Lennie. Your work at NADC was not up to what they wanted. Period. As to REAL arithmetic on his LYING, it's hard to pin that down. Most of his blabbering on personal attacks after the first one is simply attempts at rationalizing (badly) on his original LIE. Tsk. Still waiting for you to enlighten us as to what the "original lie" was, Lennie. Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: So, is lie #16 the conversation with a former colleague of Len's? Or is lie #16 Steve's tenure on RRAP? Or is it actually lies #16 and #17? Neither, but nice try. Steve, you lied. The only question is which time? The conversation with a former colleague of Len's? The length of tenure on RRAP? Or both. Fess up. Well well...Looks like I made an error in math. My bust. Well, well...it took you Quitesometime to fess up. Now where is Len's apology? |
bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: So, is lie #16 the conversation with a former colleague of Len's? Or is lie #16 Steve's tenure on RRAP? Or is it actually lies #16 and #17? Neither, but nice try. Steve, you lied. The only question is which time? The conversation with a former colleague of Len's? The length of tenure on RRAP? Or both. Fess up. Well well...Looks like I made an error in math. My bust. Well, well...it took you Quitesometime to fess up. Now where is Len's apology? Right behind HIS apology to this NG for years of lying, accusing, deceiving and antagonism, Brian...Right behind! Just hold your breath and wait! Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: So, is lie #16 the conversation with a former colleague of Len's? Or is lie #16 Steve's tenure on RRAP? Or is it actually lies #16 and #17? Neither, but nice try. Steve, you lied. The only question is which time? The conversation with a former colleague of Len's? The length of tenure on RRAP? Or both. Fess up. Well well...Looks like I made an error in math. My bust. Well, well...it took you Quitesometime to fess up. Now where is Len's apology? Right behind HIS apology to this NG for years of lying, accusing, deceiving and antagonism, Brian...Right behind! Just hold your breath and wait! Steve, K4YZ Well, well. So much for your "strength of conviction." You won't do what you know to be right because someone else isn't doing what you know to be right. I'm just glad the world isn't full of people like you. Actually, I thank my lucky stars every night that the world isn't full of people like you. |
bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: So, is lie #16 the conversation with a former colleague of Len's? Or is lie #16 Steve's tenure on RRAP? Or is it actually lies #16 and #17? Neither, but nice try. Steve, you lied. The only question is which time? The conversation with a former colleague of Len's? The length of tenure on RRAP? Or both. Fess up. Well well...Looks like I made an error in math. My bust. Well, well...it took you Quitesometime to fess up. Now where is Len's apology? Right behind HIS apology to this NG for years of lying, accusing, deceiving and antagonism, Brian...Right behind! Just hold your breath and wait! Steve, K4YZ Well, well. So much for your "strength of conviction." Lennie is YEARS BEHIND coming clean on his errors, lies and deceit, Brian... Y E A R S ! ! ! ! You won't do what you know to be right because someone else isn't doing what you know to be right. I AM, repeat AM doing "what's right". You and Leonard are lairs, Brian. You don't tell the truth. YOU make glaring errors, and then when I make a simple one, all of a sudden you think your slates are wiped clean. Sorry...Doesn't work that way. I already count two acknowledgements of errors I have made this week. I haven't seen a single one from you acknowledging your ARES errors alone... I'm just glad the world isn't full of people like you. Actually, I thank my lucky stars every night that the world isn't full of people like you. As well you should. It's got to be embarrassing getting your nose rubbd in all the errors YOU make by just little ole me...You'd not withstand more than one. Here's your sign, Brian LOSER Steve, K4YZ |
From: "bb" on Sun,Apr 17 2005 6:02 am
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: So, is lie #16 the conversation with a former colleague of Len's? Or is lie #16 Steve's tenure on RRAP? Or is it actually lies #16 and #17? Neither, but nice try. Steve, you lied. The only question is which time? The conversation with a former colleague of Len's? The length of tenure on RRAP? Or both. Fess up. Well well...Looks like I made an error in math. My bust. Well, well...it took you Quitesometime to fess up. Now where is Len's apology? Psycho Pstevie doesn't issue apologies. The reason is simple: This "witness" (or "reference" or whatever) does NOT exist. It's not possible for anyone to "apologize" for someone that doesn't exist. Ergo, Psycho Pstevie "does not need" to apologize. You have to approach this denizen of Pstevieland as you would a cryptologic attack. Work the puzzle and try to think in terms of those who REFUSE to yield to ANYONE. With years and years of experience (several reading this newsgroup is more than adequate), it becomes easier to do, but less easier to take. Toss out logic, use great heaping shovelfulls of their ego, pride, and sociopathy and it becomes clearer. Pstevie IMAGINES this individual "exists" and, furthermore, INSISTS he (or she) "knows all about me through 'reports'" all of which don't exist. By Pstevie "logic" all of it is "correct" even though: 1. There's no evidence. 2. It's all hearsay, mostly hearing from one of Pstevie's voices in his head talking to him. 3. He has "made promises to not reveal the identity." THAT is the top-notch rationalization...used often on computer-modem communications yet is totally WORTHLESS in reality from the following: A. It relies on some curious "honesty" and "loyalty" factor which is supposed to be followed by all newsgroup communicators in which Pstevie self-describes himself as "honest, loyal, trustworthy," etc., etc., etc. which has been shown to be bunkum. B. A non-existant person cannot be evidenciary of anything but extreme imagination on the part of the imaginator. No one else can disprove something that doesn't exist but the imaginator cannot prove the imaginary to actually exist. C. The excuse of existance is that the imaginator expresses "outrage" that anyone could imagine him telling a "lie." He HAS told a LIE to begin with, so all the following rationalization is nothing but MORE LIES. D. During the rationalization posting, the imaginator will MISDIRECT the thread hoping to take viewers' minds off his own lies and put some blame on the person of the challenger. That's a common ploy in computer-modem communications, been around since before BBSs on the old ARPANET. It serves no argument but does take some of the heat away from the lying imaginator. AKA "smoke-screening" in trying to mask any challenge to the LIE. 4. There can be an endless recursion back to (3) depending on the intensity of the psychosis of the LIAR. They profess "being wounded" by a challenge and must "avenge" such "personal insult" (of being called a liar in the first place) by more and more and more misdirection and outright name-calling against challengers. Some years ago (about 1986 give or take) I logged into a Bulletin Board System that specialized in all sorts of paranormal subject, conspiracy theories and "majic" (apparently a modern version of magic). This was out of curiosity on how people behaved when they thought they couldn't be found out. On the subject that "The U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado teaches the existance of extra-terrestrial beings and has textbooks on the subject," a person made what I consider to be the ultimate rationalization for the lack of evidence of that: "After it was found out, the Air Force removed and destroyed all the textbooks. Of course you can't find any evidence of such books, they were all confiscated and destroyed, but they did exist!" So, despite NO evidence remaining, the claimant remained adamant that such books DID exist. No one can disprove it. But, given in such "outrage" of being challenged (misdirection ploy), readers of the message got an impression that they did. The claimant could NOT prove his case no matter how he tried...had to resort to emotional excuses and his alleged "honesty" (claimant had not gone to the USAF Academy but "knew someone who did"). The analogy applies directly to Robeson's claim of having a "trustworthy reference" to my character (as it was 34 years ago). He cannot prove this "reference" exists yet demands he be "believed." No one else can check up on this because nothing but vague generalities about this invisible man are presented. This "fitrep" report-writer is either a LIE or he might be some alien being from outer space. We don't know about the latter so the former must be a better bet. Psycho Pstevie told a LIE and just tried to cover it up...again and again and again. A clear and open role-model for today's Amateur Extra class amateur radio licensee? :-) |
wrote: From: "bb" on Sun,Apr 17 2005 6:02 am Now where is Len's apology? Psycho Pstevie doesn't issue apologies. Lennie...Why do you insist on lying so blatantly? This week alone has seen me do it...And ask Hans. Or Cecil... The reason is simple: This "witness" (or "reference" or whatever) does NOT exist. Been there...done that...same old dodge, Lennie... Huge snip of Lennie trying to dodge behind even more irrelevent story-telling and make believe: This "fitrep" report-writer is either a LIE or he might be some alien being from outer space. Now we know where Lennie's been spending his time....The "SciFi Channel". Will probably go off on some "X-Files" spin-off of his own. We don't know about the latter so the former must be a better bet. Psycho Pstevie told a LIE and just tried to cover it up...again and again and again. A clear and open role-model for today's Amateur Extra class amateur radio licensee? Nope. Just keeping the annoying little fact that not everybody that worked with you liked you, as hard as I know you find that to be... :-) You should try sincerity once in a while, Lennie...Like when you tell people you're going to do something...do it. And if you have skeletons in your closet, keep your mouth shut. Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: So, is lie #16 the conversation with a former colleague of Len's? Or is lie #16 Steve's tenure on RRAP? Or is it actually lies #16 and #17? Neither, but nice try. Steve, you lied. The only question is which time? The conversation with a former colleague of Len's? The length of tenure on RRAP? Or both. Fess up. Well well...Looks like I made an error in math. My bust. Well, well...it took you Quitesometime to fess up. Now where is Len's apology? Right behind HIS apology to this NG for years of lying, accusing, deceiving and antagonism, Brian...Right behind! Just hold your breath and wait! Steve, K4YZ Well, well. So much for your "strength of conviction." Lennie is YEARS BEHIND coming clean on his errors, lies and deceit, Brian... Y E A R S ! ! ! ! The old, "two wrongs makes a right" defense. You won't do what you know to be right because someone else isn't doing what you know to be right. I AM, repeat AM doing "what's right". Repeating something doesn't make it any more true or false. But in this case, it makes lies #19 and #20. You and Leonard are lairs, Brian. You don't tell the truth. YOU make glaring errors, and then when I make a simple one, all of a sudden you think your slates are wiped clean. Lessee? 30 hours before Len makes an appearance in one of your demented threads, you're chiding him for disapproving of what you said. Then you have a conversation with a claimed colleague of Len's years and years before you ever heard of Len. Both cases were smear campaigns against Len, and you say you make simple errors??? Sorry...Doesn't work that way. That's right Steve, it doesn't work that way. What you said was an outright lie. I already count two acknowledgements of errors I have made this week. Errors? Simple mistakes? Nobody thinks that, not even you. I haven't seen a single one from you acknowledging your ARES errors alone... There's a profound reason that you haven't seen such an acknowledgement from me... I made no error. You fudged the entire exercise (lied) so that you could "prove" me wrong, but nobody's buying it. You chalked up quite a few lies in that little fiasco. Quit before you reach the point of no return. I'm just glad the world isn't full of people like you. Actually, I thank my lucky stars every night that the world isn't full of people like you. As well you should. And I do. It's got to be embarrassing getting your nose rubbd in all the errors YOU make by just little ole me...You'd not withstand more than one. #21. Here's your sign, Brian LOSER #22. Steve, K4YZ Hey, you finally told a truth. See? You are capable of it. |
K4YZ wrote: And if you have skeletons in your closet, keep your mouth shut. Steve, K4YZ Must be why Robeson clammed up about the seven hostile actions. |
bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: Lennie is YEARS BEHIND coming clean on his errors, lies and deceit, Brian... Y E A R S ! ! ! ! The old, "two wrongs makes a right" defense. Other than getting my math wrong, there was no "wrong" commited, Brain...And certainly not one that rates an "apology" to Lennie. You won't do what you know to be right because someone else isn't doing what you know to be right. I AM, repeat AM doing "what's right". Repeating something doesn't make it any more true or false. But in this case, it makes lies #19 and #20. STILL WAITING on you to produce some validation of your claims on 1 through 18, Brain. You've not documented a one of them. You and Leonard are lairs, Brian. You don't tell the truth. YOU make glaring errors, and then when I make a simple one, all of a sudden you think your slates are wiped clean. Lessee? 30 hours before Len makes an appearance in one of your demented threads, you're chiding him for disapproving of what you said. Then you have a conversation with a claimed colleague of Len's years and years before you ever heard of Len. Both cases were smear campaigns against Len, and you say you make simple errors??? A N D Y O U A R E S T I L L R E F U S I N G to read what was said in the first place, Brian. There's a lot of things I can help with, Brian, but arrogant isn't one of them. Sorry...Doesn't work that way. That's right Steve, it doesn't work that way. What you said was an outright lie. Nope. Never was. The O R I G I N A L comments addressed Lennie's history of doing EXACTLY what I said then.... I already count two acknowledgements of errors I have made this week. Errors? Simple mistakes? Nobody thinks that, not even you. Sure I do. And Brain P Burke STILL has not acknowledged his errors about ARES. Very clearly documented. Very clearly DISproven with MULTIPLE news releases. I haven't seen a single one from you acknowledging your ARES errors alone... There's a profound reason that you haven't seen such an acknowledgement from me... I made no error. You fudged the entire exercise (lied) so that you could "prove" me wrong, but nobody's buying it. You chalked up quite a few lies in that little fiasco. Quit before you reach the point of no return. You say "no one", Brain, but so far YOU are the only one trying to make a point about it. And you DID make an error. You've made NUMEROUS errors, yet refuse to acknowledge a one of them despite reams of documentation that PROVE you to be in error. I'm just glad the world isn't full of people like you. Actually, I thank my lucky stars every night that the world isn't full of people like you. As well you should. And I do. Good. It's your FIRST wise move. It's got to be embarrassing getting your nose rubbd in all the errors YOU make by just little ole me...You'd not withstand more than one. #21. Where's 1 through 20? Here's your sign, Brian LOSER #22. Where's 1 through 21? Steve, K4YZ Hey, you finally told a truth. See? You are capable of it. So far I'd say I am ahead of you about 100 to 1 without fear of contradiction. 10,000 to 1 if you count your refusal to sign your name to your posts in an attempt to hide your identity. Steve, K4YZ |
In . com writes:
*snip!* Paul Schleck (the extra who "signs" those welcome e-mails to new names in the newsgroup) is apparently long gone on some sabbatical or whatever. He doesn't answer any e-mails...at least to the web address on those "canned" welcome messages. ??? I prefer to read widely, but post judiciously, and only when I have something original to say. I always respond to replies to my welcome message. In fact, the text of the message itself invites such replies: 'The author welcomes any and all constructive feedback. Please direct all such feedback to and retain the original subject (e.g., " WELCOME to rec.radio.amateur.*") in your reply.' Just this month, I received and replied to messages from three correspondents about the welcome message. Most repliers express confusion over getting the message, as they didn't realize that they followed up to an article cross-posted to many newsgroups. I invite anyone who didn't get a reply to try again, and post any bounce messages received. Failing that, if the reply isn't too personal, please post it here or on *.misc, and I will try to follow up with a considered reply. The last time someone complained about bounces (someone named Andreas "Tekman"), it was due to a SPAM blacklist filtering out their message at the ISP level because they were posting from a site identified as a significant source of SPAM. His degree of good faith and sincerity in the matter (his followup posts included several schoolyard taunts and a death threat) was also strongly in question. Len, if it was you that tried to reply, and didn't get an answer, does that mean that you now wish to have an E-mail conversion on newsgroup subjects? Your last message to me, on January 27th, 2004, said in no uncertain terms that you did not. -- 73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key |
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: Lennie is YEARS BEHIND coming clean on his errors, lies and deceit, Brian... Y E A R S ! ! ! ! The old, "two wrongs makes a right" defense. Other than getting my math wrong, there was no "wrong" commited, Brain...And certainly not one that rates an "apology" to Lennie. Two seperate lies in two seperate threads? I'd say that makes you wrong! You won't do what you know to be right because someone else isn't doing what you know to be right. I AM, repeat AM doing "what's right". Repeating something doesn't make it any more true or false. But in this case, it makes lies #19 and #20. STILL WAITING on you to produce some validation of your claims on 1 through 18, Brain. You've not documented a one of them. You've got them archived in Google. You and Leonard are lairs, Brian. You don't tell the truth. YOU make glaring errors, and then when I make a simple one, all of a sudden you think your slates are wiped clean. Lessee? 30 hours before Len makes an appearance in one of your demented threads, you're chiding him for disapproving of what you said. Then you have a conversation with a claimed colleague of Len's years and years before you ever heard of Len. Both cases were smear campaigns against Len, and you say you make simple errors??? A N D Y O U A R E S T I L L R E F U S I N G to read what was said in the first place, Brian. There's a lot of things I can help with, Brian, but arrogant isn't one of them. That's why I've repeatedly asked you to seek professional help. You're not enough to solve your own problems. Sorry...Doesn't work that way. That's right Steve, it doesn't work that way. What you said was an outright lie. Nope. Never was. The O R I G I N A L comments addressed Lennie's history of doing EXACTLY what I said then.... I am PRESENTLY addressing your history of doing EXACTLY what you accuse Len of doing. I already count two acknowledgements of errors I have made this week. Errors? Simple mistakes? Nobody thinks that, not even you. Sure I do. Self-deceit is easily accomplished when you have problems such as you have. Again, I recommend professional help. And Brain P Burke STILL has not acknowledged his errors about ARES. Very clearly documented. Very clearly DISproven with MULTIPLE news releases. The only thing clearly documented is your inability to accept that the available resources were inadequate to cover the designed capability of the volunteer group. You manipulated the exercise to have the outcome that you desired. Unfortunately for you, I saw through the gaping holes instantly. I haven't seen a single one from you acknowledging your ARES errors alone... There's a profound reason that you haven't seen such an acknowledgement from me... I made no error. You fudged the entire exercise (lied) so that you could "prove" me wrong, but nobody's buying it. You chalked up quite a few lies in that little fiasco. Quit before you reach the point of no return. You say "no one", Brain, but so far YOU are the only one trying to make a point about it. I don't mind. And you DID make an error. You've made NUMEROUS errors, yet refuse to acknowledge a one of them despite reams of documentation that PROVE you to be in error. So you say. Oh, well. Meanwhile, I pointed out PRECISELY where you fudged the exercise in an attempt to gain the desired outcome. Hi! I'm just glad the world isn't full of people like you. Actually, I thank my lucky stars every night that the world isn't full of people like you. As well you should. And I do. Good. It's your FIRST wise move. Nonsense statement. It's got to be embarrassing getting your nose rubbd in all the errors YOU make by just little ole me...You'd not withstand more than one. #21. Where's 1 through 20? In the past two weeks, #s 1 through 20 precede #21. Here's your sign, Brian LOSER #22. Where's 1 through 21? Steve, K4YZ Hey, you finally told a truth. See? You are capable of it. So far I'd say I am ahead of you about 100 to 1 without fear of contradiction. Sure, if you lie about it! 10,000 to 1 if you count your refusal to sign your name to your posts in an attempt to hide your identity. That's #23. Hi! |
From: Paul W. Schleck on Mon,Apr 18 2005 12:32 pm
In .com writes: Paul Schleck (the extra who "signs" those welcome e-mails to new names in the newsgroup) is apparently long gone on some sabbatical or whatever. He doesn't answer any e-mails...at least to the web address on those "canned" welcome messages. ??? I prefer to read widely, but post judiciously, and only when I have something original to say. Wise procedure from one who is not quite a moderator here. However, those replies SEEM to begin as a result of automatic comparison against a list of those who had previously been sent such messages. That is based on my use of the IEEE address instead of the AOL one (AOL has dropped access to newsgroups) when using Google. I always respond to replies to my welcome message. In fact, the text of the message itself invites such replies: 'The author welcomes any and all constructive feedback. Please direct all such feedback to and retain the original subject (e.g., " WELCOME to rec.radio.amateur.*") in your reply.' I have NO problems with that. Please do not assume I do. Automatically-generated messages are very common on the Internet. The last time someone complained about bounces (someone named Andreas "Tekman"), it was due to a SPAM blacklist filtering out their message at the ISP level because they were posting from a site identified as a significant source of SPAM. I am NOT that person, have NO complaints about that in this thread or any other. Len, if it was you that tried to reply, and didn't get an answer, does that mean that you now wish to have an E-mail conversion on newsgroup subjects? Your last message to me, on January 27th, 2004, said in no uncertain terms that you did not. I am NOT interested in discussing any "policy matter" on amateur radio with anyone who is biased, coarse, cannot accept any viewpoint different from their own, or who becomes petulant and abusive when "not accepted," nor anyone who attempts to command anything when NOT in any position of authority to force such commands. If this PUBLIC venue is insufficient to "discuss" matters about Rec.radio.amateur.policy, then it is not productive to consider that private correspondence is also "useful." I've received quite enough of those in the past. I've received some angry, petulant responses while engaged in Instant Messaging with my wife who was visiting up north while our niece was undergoing a risky corrective operation. I had neglected to set my AOL blocking controls fully and now have to allow only certain screen names through. I have received a couple of telephone messages from irate individuals. That was during a trip, were duly recorded along with their desitination number, all forwarded to telephone company security people and the LAPD Stalking unit (LAPD does not consider ANY form of stalking as minor or trivial). Neither do I live in any form of "fear" of anything...it is tiring to see so many wanting to "fight" via messages as if they could "accomplish" anything that way. 27 Jan 04 was nearly 15 months ago. That is VERY late to assume any sort of "remedial action from authority" communications. However, anyone is still "free" to send me any sort of e-mail. I have the perfect freedom to ignore such or to respond in any way I choose. I have not sent any messages to you since 27 Jan 04. If you have ANY complaints about my personal e-mails then you can either exercise your newsgroup authority by stating so plainly in private e-mail. That should be clear enough... |
|
In . com writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Mon,Apr 18 2005 12:32 pm In .com writes: Paul Schleck (the extra who "signs" those welcome e-mails to new names in the newsgroup) is apparently long gone on some sabbatical or whatever. He doesn't answer any e-mails...at least to the web address on those "canned" welcome messages. ??? I prefer to read widely, but post judiciously, and only when I have something original to say. Wise procedure from one who is not quite a moderator here. What an obviously self-evident thing to say. I would also post judiciously about military matters, not being a General, about legal matters, not being a member of the bar, and about technical matters, not being a P.E. or PhD. However, those replies SEEM to begin as a result of automatic comparison against a list of those who had previously been sent such messages. That is based on my use of the IEEE address instead of the AOL one (AOL has dropped access to newsgroups) when using Google. Yes, you described how the setup works fairly accurately. The Perl script that is used can only distinguish users by E-mail address. If you post from a different E-mail address, that it hasn't seen before, you will get the welcome message. It's an admitted technical limitation, but one that is probably not easily overcome, and doesn't seem to bother most people too much. I always respond to replies to my welcome message. In fact, the text of the message itself invites such replies: 'The author welcomes any and all constructive feedback. Please direct all such feedback to and retain the original subject (e.g., " WELCOME to rec.radio.amateur.*") in your reply.' I have NO problems with that. Please do not assume I do. I didn't. I followed up to rebut your fairly plain statement above that 'He doesn't answer any e-mails...at least to the web address on those "canned" welcome messages.' Please don't assume that because I haven't posted recently, that I am not reading, or not in positive control of the welcome message service, or that I wouldn't respond to any E-mail replies. Automatically-generated messages are very common on the Internet. The last time someone complained about bounces (someone named Andreas "Tekman"), it was due to a SPAM blacklist filtering out their message at the ISP level because they were posting from a site identified as a significant source of SPAM. I am NOT that person, have NO complaints about that in this thread or any other. I did wonder, however, on what basis you were making the statement about me not replying. Was it based on personal experience, as I asked below: Len, if it was you that tried to reply, and didn't get an answer, does or was it based on hearsay that you read on the newsgroups? The only hearsay I can recall is that of Andreas "Tekman," and I explained in my previously reply that his assertions are contradicted by evidence, and his behavior on the matter calls his reliability into question. Since I have successfully rebutted your assertion (or hypothesis, or assumption, or whatever) that I do not respond to E-mail, would you now be willing to do the honorable thing, and retract your original statement? I really don't care very much either way, but I, and others, would recognize such a retraction as honorable. that mean that you now wish to have an E-mail conversion on newsgroup subjects? Your last message to me, on January 27th, 2004, said in no uncertain terms that you did not. I am NOT interested in discussing any "policy matter" on amateur radio with anyone who is biased, coarse, cannot accept any viewpoint different from their own, or who becomes petulant and abusive when "not accepted," nor anyone who attempts to command anything when NOT in any position of authority to force such commands. I don't see how that describes me. Even you have described my E-mail communications to you as suggestions or advice. If this PUBLIC venue is insufficient to "discuss" matters about Rec.radio.amateur.policy, then it is not productive to consider that private correspondence is also "useful." I've received quite enough of those in the past. I've received some angry, petulant responses while engaged in Instant Messaging with my wife who was visiting up north while our niece was undergoing a risky corrective operation. I had neglected to set my AOL blocking controls fully and now have to allow only certain screen names through. I have received a couple of telephone messages from irate individuals. That was during a trip, were duly recorded along with their desitination number, all forwarded to telephone company security people and the LAPD Stalking unit (LAPD does not consider ANY form of stalking as minor or trivial). Neither do I live in any form of "fear" of anything...it is tiring to see so many wanting to "fight" via messages as if they could "accomplish" anything that way. That wasn't me. Just give your consent, and I can make public (on a web page, no need to annoy the newsgroup), our entire E-mail conversation and allow others to judge its content. 27 Jan 04 was nearly 15 months ago. That is VERY late to assume any sort of "remedial action from authority" communications. However, anyone is still "free" to send me any sort of e-mail. I have the perfect freedom to ignore such or to respond in any way I choose. I have not sent any messages to you since 27 Jan 04. Nor have I to you, except for the automated welcome message. Did you wish to reply to my welcome message, did you have any questions about how it works and why you got the message, or did you want to resume having an E-mail conversation about other newsgroup subjects? If you have ANY complaints about my personal e-mails then you can either exercise your newsgroup authority by stating so plainly in private e-mail. That should be clear enough... I have no rank, commission, or authority here, as you take pains to point out (except maybe as a peer-recognized "authority" on Usenet history, as well as on posting practices that have proven over time to foster effective communications, as opposed to non-productive arguments). -- 73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com