Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#51
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#52
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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." |
#53
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#54
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#55
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#56
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#57
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#58
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#59
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#60
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ohio/Penn DX Bulletin #665 | Dx | |||
Ohio/Penn DX Bulletin #662 | Dx | |||
Ohio/Penn DX Bulletin #662 | Dx | |||
OPDX Special Bulletin #660.1 | Dx | |||
OPDX Special Bulletin #660.1 | Dx |