Can your town be nuked?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

See if Russia or China can nuke your hometown here This is a real site, no joke...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), April 20, 2001

Answers

As long as Dumbyafuck is running our country, ANY town can be nuked.

-- (it's @ good. bet), April 20, 2001.

Shoot, were screwed, KB, put in your zip code :-)

Damn, whatta way to start my mornin, thanks UB :-)

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 20, 2001.


It only took me a minute to send to my congressmen. This is a real issue to be dealt with. Thanks for the post.

-- John Littmann (LITTMANNJOHNTL@AOL.COM), April 20, 2001.

Mayport is a target, no doubt. 15 different missles can make it there. Great.....

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 23, 2001.


Why do I get the feeling that every town is considered a potential target and no matter what zip code you put in, it will show between five and fifteen missles within range?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 23, 2001.


Because any town is a potential target, Tar.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.

My point exactly, Maria.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 23, 2001.

Gee, you were making a point. I thought you were asking a question. Mark this one down, we agree on something.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.

Please forgive Maria, Tarzan. She is more than just a little dim.

-- (maria is 3 tacos short @ of. a combination plate), April 23, 2001.

She's certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Still, she did give me an opening to point out that while every town in the US is a potential target, relatively few towns are actual targets. For instance, while there may be the same amount of nukes pointed at Atlanta, GA as there are at Remote, OR, it does not immediately follow that Atlanta and Remote are at the same level of risk for a nuclear attack.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 23, 2001.


Ah Tar, do tell how you would know these things?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.

tee hee hee hee

hee hee hee

-- kids at sesame street (maria not the @ sharpest crayon. in the box), April 23, 2001.


Wow this is just too funny. I'll join in...

Tar's engine's runnin' but ain't nobody driving

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.


Maria-

In Atlanta, we have Dobbins Air Force base, the Atlanta Naval Air Station, Fort Gillem, Hartsfiled International (the busiest airport in the world), and the headquarters of CNN. In Remote, Oregon, they have trees. And a nice covered bridge. And a store. Here's a map

In short, there's several reasons in the world to nuke Atlanta (not the least of which is our traffic and local politics) and no reason to nuke Remote. Yet Remote, OR, according to this website, has seventeen nukes pointed at it. Their zip code is 97458, check it out for yourself.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 23, 2001.


Hey, leave Maria alone. She's more to be pitied than ridiculed.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 23, 2001.


Another one for Tar, He thinks the sun come up just to hear him crow.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.

Hey, if you would stop lobbing soft balls, I might stop hitting them. But when you

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 23, 2001.

I knew if Tar kept on posting he would eventually make a fool of himself. "yet Remote, OR, according to this website, has seventeen nukes pointed at it. Their zip code is 97458, check it out for yourself. " According to the web site, it shows "which countries have missiles that COULD hit your community". It doesn't state anything, even remotely, about the targeting strategies of these countries. Actual targets are not being discussed by this web site.

Again I agree that some cites may have more risk than others BUT all are potential targets because of the nuclear capabilities of these countries.

And then to substantiate your knowledge of nuclear strategies, you wrote, "there's several reasons in the world to nuke Atlanta (not the least of which is our traffic and local politics) and no reason to nuke Remote." LOL where did you find this piece of wisdom! China seeks to destroy Atlanta based on Tar's evaluation, HQ for CNN!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.


I knew if Tar kept on posting he would eventually make a fool of himself. "yet Remote, OR, according to this website, has seventeen nukes pointed at it. Their zip code is 97458, check it out for yourself. " According to the web site, it shows "which countries have missiles that COULD hit your community". It doesn't state anything, even remotely, about the targeting strategies of these countries.

LOL! Are you really this stupid, Maria? Again I agree that some cites may have more risk than others BUT all are potential targets because of the nuclear capabilities of these countries.

Oh man. You really are that stupid. I mean, who'd want to take out Dobbins, Gillem, and Hartsfield when they could take out the Remote General Store?

And then to substantiate your knowledge of nuclear strategies, you wrote, "there's several reasons in the world to nuke Atlanta (not the least of which is our traffic and local politics) and no reason to nuke Remote." LOL where did you find this piece of wisdom! China seeks to destroy Atlanta based on Tar's evaluation, HQ for CNN!

If you really don't think destroying a major media center would be a big blow in a nuclear war (not to mention the busiest airport in the world and a couple of large military installations), then there's nothing more I can do for you.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 23, 2001.


Maria: "It doesn't state anything, even remotely, about the targeting strategies of these countries."

That's nice. So, if this particular web site doesn't mention targeting strategies, then Tarzan and the rest of us are supposed to act as if such strategies don't exist and are beyond reasoning about?

IIRC, in developmental studies, babies tend to learn that objects still exist after you close your eyes or when they move out of sight at about 4 months old. That's the joke that makes peekaboo so fun.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 23, 2001.


Tar, calling me stupid a number of times must really boost your ego. I'm glad I could help you out.

"If you really don't think destroying a major media center would be a big blow in a nuclear war (not to mention the busiest airport in the world and a couple of large military installations), then there's nothing more I can do for you. " LOL Wasting nukes on an airport and commerical comm center is so ineffective. Tar, you have no clue do you? When you've studied this a little more, get back to me. In the mean time, keep making yourself look like a fool. When you know a little more about the costs involved and the pay off for such a strategy, we'll have a more useful discussion. But to more directly answer your question or comment, no it wouldn't be a big blow in a nuclear exchange ya moron. Bombers and other offensive targets would be better. From my strategic planning 101 course.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.


Nipper-

I think that's the point of this website, scare tactics and half- truths. Ridiculous to think that Remote, OR is as much (or more of, depending on zip code) a target as Atlanta. But you're not supposed to compare zip codes, you're supposed to have a knee-jerk reaction like "MY GOD! I had no idea our covered bridge was such a tactical target! Yet it must be, for why else would seventeen nuclear missles be able to land on us at any second?!? We've got to DO something about this, and right now!"

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 23, 2001.


LN, "That's nice. So, if this particular web site doesn't mention targeting strategies, then Tarzan and the rest of us are supposed to act as if such strategies don't exist and are beyond reasoning about? " No, and I agreed with Tar that some are better targets than others, duh! But that isn't the purpose of the site.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.

Wasting nukes on an airport and commerical comm center is so ineffective.

Sure. It's the busiest airport in the world. Why would you want to destroy it? It's not like leaving destroying Hartsfield would have a huge impact on the rest of the world now, is it? And you can't possibly use it to stage military aircraft or fly supplies in. And while you're at it, there's no use whatsoever in destroying the world's number one source of news. Why would you want to keep the country you're fighting in the dark about what's going on?

When you know a little more about the costs involved and the pay off for such a strategy, we'll have a more useful discussion. But to more directly answer your question or comment, no it wouldn't be a big blow in a nuclear exchange ya moron. Bombers and other offensive targets would be better. From my strategic planning 101 course.

They wouldn't have bombers at Dobbins Air Force base now, would they? No, no bombers or any offensive equipment there or at the Naval Air Station. And even if they had them, they sure wouldn't move them through Hartsfield. And everyone knows that Fort Gillem isn't a command center, either.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 23, 2001.


You don't know what you're talking about. Huge airport, media cetner, military installs, maybe take these one by one and they might not be worth your attention. Put them all together in one city? Hell yeah you'd better believe they'd blow up Atlanta. They might try to take it in one piece since its a regional center but in a nuke exchange it would be better to disable it since you probably won't have enough ground troops around anyway. They'd probably go after Chicago for the same reason big airport and lots of military in the region also the Lakes would be strategically good.

-- Gulfwar Vet (gulfwar@vet.yep), April 23, 2001.

It seems obvious that this web site is a hard-right attempt to build support for Bush's "Star Wars" plan, the strategic missile defense system that most reputable scientists and physicists have declared a collosal waste of money, and, moreover, is simply not going to work. "Star Wars" is not mentioned per se, but Donald Rumsfeld is mentioned quite a lot. Remember, Rumsfeld is the guy Henry Kissinger declared the "most ruthless man" he had ever met -- depots and dictators included.

If we let themselves be manipulated by propaganda and fear, then we will continue to receive worthless GOP-sponsored spending programs that do nothing to alter world nuclear threats. We ought to be spending our energy on disabling what nuclear weapons exist instead of wasting billions of dollars on useless missile programs that don't work.

Remember, Bush cut the budget that would have supported efforts to contain Russia's deteriorated, unstable nuclear arsenal. Instead, he wants to waste billions of tax dollars on short-sited "defense" programs merely to keep the industrial/military complex financially robust.

-- More GOP Insanity (get@clue.com), April 23, 2001.


I entered my podunk town into that thing and found out that there are 15 nukes pointed right at me!

Once I recovered from the shock I wondered if it is Wal-Mart the "Reds" are after, or if it is that damned Denny's that has them so upset? Of course, it could be those old white hairs that we have so many of that has our enemies pointing those nukes right at me. I'm sure lots of those old folks are retired military, and are thus a valuable target for destruction.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 23, 2001.


What a crock of fuckin shit. I put in zip codes from Ca. to NY and every one of them came up with the same 15. Stop believing everything you read on the fucking internet.

-- (idiots@idiots.idiots), April 23, 2001.

Just for fun, I entered my Zip Code 20016 (I live in Washington, DC)

Here's the results: Customized Missile Threat Profile For Zip Code 20016

Based on publicly available data,* your community is at risk from at least 12 different types of missiles from the following countries: China · CSS-4 · DF-41 · JL-2

More information about China. Russia · SS-18 · SS-19 · SS-24 · SS-25 · SS-27 · SS-N-18 · SS-N-20 · SS-N-23 · SS-N-8

More information about Russia.

I then entered the zip for the White House 20500. I got the same result. I then entered the zip for the US Senate 20510--same.

It seems that DC can only be hit by 12 types of missiles, but the west coast can be hit by more types.

My conclusion: not much info. here you didn't already know.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), April 23, 2001.


Buddy, the web site only compares the distance to the city and the missiles range. Period, no other info is determined. Tar's impression that it should match it against some countries' strategic planning list is absurd.

"And you can't possibly use it to stage military aircraft or fly supplies in. And while you're at it, there's no use whatsoever in destroying the world's number one source of news. Why would you want to keep the country you're fighting in the dark about what's going on?" Like there aren't alternatives to Atlanta's airport? Like there aren't alternatives to comm. Oh BTW, the military has its own comm survivable against EMP and other nuclear effects. Destroying CNN wouldn't put our military in the dark. Maybe you'd be in the dark. But also there are other ways for the "world" to get its news; CNN isn't the end-all to the news. Thank God you aren't working for our strategic planners.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.


12 types of Russian missiles can reach the eastern US and we are supposed to consider this news? Hell and damnation! Those Red Russkis and their fellow-travelling Soviet Bolshevists have been designing and building ICBMs since the mid-1950s that could reach anywhere in the USA.

This news is as stale as yesterday's cigar butt.

Also, I wonder why they didn't mention any French or British missile types? Those frogs and limeys have submarine-based missiles that could glaze over St. Louis or Denver in two shakes of a lamb's tail.

What about our own missiles fer Christ's sake? We've probably got the Reds doubled down on sheer numbers of different models, since the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard probably each ordered their own missile spec, just to prove they could. A silo launch from South Dakota could hit either US coast faster than you could say "Jack Robinson". (Or should that be Pat Robertson?)

And, my dear Maria, it actually does make a smidgeon of difference to most of us slack-jawed mortals whether a missile could hit our house or would hit it. I bet you could understand that, if you tried.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), April 23, 2001.


SOB, "And, my dear Maria, it actually does make a smidgeon of difference to most of us slack-jawed mortals whether a missile could hit our house or would hit it." It would? What would you do? Build a shelter? Move? Please tell me.

Fact *is* I could give you the list of high risk targets. I used to categorize them as A, B, or C, that is high, medium, or low when I worked in this area. What difference would it make to you to know you were at ground zero?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.


"What difference would it make to you to know you were at ground zero?"

Think, child. You never know when some little piece of knowledge might come in handy.

F'rinstance, if I knew I was living in an area far, far away from from any likely targets, then it might inspire me to stay put if a nuclear exchange looked to be in the cards, instead of going into town to buy that new particle accelerator for the barn.

Little thing like that could save your life, you know.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.sob), April 23, 2001.


Like there aren't alternatives to Atlanta's airport? Like there aren't alternatives to comm.

No one said there aren't alternatives. However, since Hartsfield is the world's busiest airport, and since CNN is the world leader in news, it makes Atlanta a good target, better than, say, Remote, OR.

Oh BTW, the military has its own comm survivable against EMP and other nuclear effects. Destroying CNN wouldn't put our military in the dark.

No, but it would put American civilians and most of the rest of the world in a media crunch, which would be a big blow to morale. I don't suppose you remember the morale boost Desert Storm got from CNN's live broadcasts, do you? No, I guess not. I guess you don't remember the outpouring of civilian support they garnered. Could we have won without them? Sure. But was it a big contribution? Absolutely.

Maybe you'd be in the dark. But also there are other ways for the "world" to get its news; CNN isn't the end-all to the news. Thank God you aren't working for our strategic planners.

No offense, Maria, but given that you didn't realize that Dobbins has bombers, that Hartsfield could be extremely useful if left intact, and that CNN is the leading world news source, I'm certainly glad that you are a veteran, and not an active member of the military.

And, my dear Maria, it actually does make a smidgeon of difference to most of us slack-jawed mortals whether a missile could hit our house or would hit it. I bet you could understand that, if you tried.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Fact *is* I could give you the list of high risk targets. I used to categorize them as A, B, or C, that is high, medium, or low when I worked in this area. What difference would it make to you to know you were at ground zero?

You USED to categorize targets. During the Vietnam era. Thirty to forty years ago. This makes you an expert today?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 23, 2001.


Maria, I used to think you were pretty good at slapping Tarzan, but you've opened your mouth pretty wide on this and now your foot is wedged firmly in there. Atlanta not a worthwhile target? Fort MacPherson alone says you're wrong. Yeah, Maria, FORSCOM HQ isn't high on the "blow me up" list. Even if you leave off all the other military bases in Atlanta, plus Lockheed's big ol' plant on the north side (the one that's building the F-22 and loads of C-130s), Fort Mac alone would be reason enough to target Atlanta. Even if you forget that all four services have major or minor posts in Atlanta, Fort Mac's worth taking out if you are an enemy. Even if you forget that big airport on the south side and its four huge runways that can accomodate any airplane in the world, Atlanta would be worth taking out. Maria, it sounds like you don't know a whole lot about my fair city. Maybe you could come visit Atlanta and I could show you what we mean. You might learn something.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), April 24, 2001.

"For instance, while there may be the same amount of nukes pointed at Atlanta, GA as there are at Remote, OR, it does not immediately follow that Atlanta and Remote are at the same level of risk for a nuclear attack."

You folks might want to consider projected fallout paths due to prevailing wind patterns. An AF weatherman told me that northern AZ is a reasonably good area to be in if there is ever a nuclear attack on a major target city or even a nuke accident. There was a web site posted on the old TB2000 which showed projected fallout patterns. Does anyone remember it's URL? If I can find it after I get my main computer back I'll post it.

-- Flash (nazflash@northlink.com), April 24, 2001.


SOB, "if I knew I was living in an area far, far away from from any likely targets, then it might inspire me to stay put if a nuclear exchange looked to be in the cards, instead of going into town to buy that new particle accelerator for the barn." Well, it doesn't matter to me. In fact, I live right next to ground zero, pretty certain about the odds of getting one and I wouldn't move. If we ever do get hit, I seriously doubt it would be just one. I think that if someone hits the button, then they all go. If that's the case no where in the northern hemisphere is safe. If that would happen, the only place on earth safe from the nuclear effects and the fallout would be the southern hemisphere. So, if I was really concerned about nukes, I pick up my family and move to New Zealand. But I'm not concerned.

George, Atlanta wasn't on the list. I remember a Robbins, but sometimes bases change their names. "Fort Mac's worth taking out if you are an enemy" I don't remember anything about Fort Mac. If you say so, then I'll believe you. When Tar talks about using nukes to take out airports and CNN, I chuckle. He has no clue about targeting strategies and thinks nukes are a dime a dozen, worthless enough to waste on airports and CNN. Too funny to me.

Tar, "You USED to categorize targets. During the Vietnam era. Thirty to forty years ago. This makes you an expert today? " Oh yeah, and when was the last time you read an intelligence report? When did you study nuclear weapons effects? I thought so.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 24, 2001.


Robbins Air Force Base is south of the city by about twenty miles. I didn't list it because it's not in Atlanta, but it certainly would be affected by a nuclear attack and is yet another reason why Atlanta would be a target. Dobbins is in Marietta, less than ten miles from city center. The NAS is in the same vicinity. Fort McPherson is right in Atlanta, so is Fort Gillem.

Clearly, you yourself have no idea about targeting strategies, unless of course those targeting strategies have nothing to do with common sense or the strategy is not to actually win a nuclear exchange.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 24, 2001.


Thanks for the update Tar. But you still didn't answer when you last studied nuclear weapons effects. Also tell me when you complete your computer simlulation which optimizes weapon laydown to obtain the maximum kill. When you finish, we can compare notes and techniques. Until then, keep up with your Maria bashing; it's all you got.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 24, 2001.

Actually, I studied the effects of nuclear weapons in college as a graduate-level history course specifically on modern warfare. Ironically enough, I built a simulation of nuclear strikes for a computer science class. This was about fifteen years ago or so. It doesn't make me an expert by any means, particularly when you realize that a person doesn't need to have studied nuclear weapons or strategy to realize that the world's biggest airport + four military installations (including FORSCOM HQ)+the plant that makes the most advanced jet available to the US +the leading internatnioal news media =a pretty good target. I suspect you know this, too, because although you're not a very smart person you are capable of rudimentary logic. I suspect that once again you have chosen a position in an argument because it's the opposite of mine as opposed to choosing one based on logic and reason.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 24, 2001.

Maria was responsible for strategy during Vietname? Jesus Christ, no wonder we lost!

Maria pull your head out of your ass and admit when you've been beaten. Atlanta might not be the first target but it would be pretty high up on the list.

-- ICU (ICU@yes.you), April 24, 2001.


I studied the effects of nuclear weapons in college. . . I built a simulation of nuclear strikes for a computer science class. OK compare notes. What kind of nuclear weapons, MIRV's and megatons? What were the locations of those weapons? What psi and thermal effects did you consider? What kind of trajectories, depressed? What optimization technique did you use? Was it a continuous solution or discrete? I used Lagrangian multipliers. This is not the best but for the size of my simulation, it came close enough to optimum. How would you use discrete optimization methodologies with large numbers of equations? What equations did you use for optimization? Which bases or targets did you insert into the simulation? What were the vulnerabilities of those bases? And finally what were your conclusions?

ICU, "Maria was responsible for strategy during Vietname?" Tar wrote that not me. LOL

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 24, 2001.


Now I know you've lost it. You want me to give you details of a college course and project I produced fifteen years ago? Okay, I can do that, but what would be the point? To prove that it wasn't as thorough as your military experience of thirty years ago? You need an argument fix so bad you want to go head to head on outdated military knowledge? Get a grip woman! I can just see it now:

Maria: My knowledge is deeper!

Tarzan: My knowledge is more recent!

Maria: Deeper!

Tarzan: Recent!

Maria: You're an asshole!

Tarzan: You're an idiot!

Here's the problem, Maria. I said Atlanta would be a better target than Remote, OR though according to this site, Remote is in range of more missiles than Atlanta. You laughed at the idea that Atlanta would be a target at all. Then, when I proceeded to tell you why Atlanta would be a target, you claimed you had special knowledge of nuclear strategy, from thirty years ago of course. Then, when other people proceeded to tell you why Atlanta would be a target, you said, "News to me," Well no wonder it's news to you, it wasn't the same town thirty years ago as it is today.

Maybe once upon a time you were an expert in this kind of stuff. But even you have to admit that the military, nuclear weapons, strategy, and potential targets change a lot in thirty years. Hell, they change a lot in fifteen years (which is why I say I'm not an expert). But your knee jerk need to argue with me put you in the uncomfortable position of defending a barely tenable argument. If you want to show why Atlanta wouldn't be a target now, go right ahead. If you want someone to admit you were an expert on this thirty years ago, then fine. But the fact of the matter is, when looked at in 2001, Atlanta makes sense as a target, a hell of a lot more sense than Remote, OR. You know it. I know it. No amount of bluster from you will change that fact.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 24, 2001.


I brought up my experience Tar, when you questioned it, no change that to *mocked* it. No matter how old it may be, it's still more advanced than yours.

Tar recounts this thread, "Here's the problem, Maria. I said Atlanta would be a better target than Remote, OR though according to this site, Remote is in range of more missiles than Atlanta. You laughed at the idea that Atlanta would be a target at all."

No Tar, you said the site was "wrong" based on your analysis of actual targets. . . "yet Remote, OR, according to this web site, has seventeen nukes pointed at it. But as I pointed out the web site shows "which countries have missiles that COULD hit your community". It doesn't state anything, even remotely, about the targeting strategies of these countries. All it does is compare distances with missile ranges. I agreed that some cities have more risk but they all are potential targets. We fucking agreed and you started to bash me.

And then to substantiate your knowledge of nuclear strategies, you wrote, "there's several reasons in the world to nuke Atlanta (not the least of which is our traffic and local politics) and no reason to nuke Remote." I joked about your evaluation based on my experience (15 years old, yet still closer to reality than your experience). Ya know, if you'd like a serious discussion then stop being such a horse's ass.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 24, 2001.


No one, but some troll, mocked your experience. However, it still doesn't make you an expert today. I'm sorry, but your knowledge, like mine, is outdated. It isn't even necessary. Anyone with any sense can see that Atlanta would be a good target, certainly better than Remote, OR. Yet here you are in the same position, trying desperately to take both sides. "All cities are potential targets, but Tarzan's being a fool when he says Atlanta would make a good target," That can't be a fun argument to make, knowing it's wrong yet having to make it because of some imagined personal vendetta. If you would try to actually make an argument of your own instead of defining yourself in oppositio to me, you wouldn't get into this position.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 24, 2001.

She's certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer... She's more to be pitied than ridiculed... LOL! Are you really this stupid, Maria?... Oh man. You really are that stupid.

This isn't bashing, is it?

I'm sorry, but your knowledge, like mine, is outdated... No Tar my experience isn't anything like yours. It's far superior to yours.

Thanks for the advice Tar. I'm not trying to take both sides but you'll see it your way no matter what I say. Like I said I fucking agreed with you and you still had to be abrasive. I can go into it (why Atlanta wouldn't make a good target) but I'd have to shoot you afterwards. Hmmm That's not such a bad idea! And again no matter what I write, you'd still ridicule it. It's not a personal vendetta, just thoughts typed on the screen. Have a nice day.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 24, 2001.


The First Rule of Holes: When you are in one, stop digging.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), April 24, 2001.

SOB-

:-)

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 24, 2001.


SOB, I take it that was meant for me and you're siding with Tar. Tar's vast knowledge (2 courses, 1 on weapons and 1 on computers) gives him the insight to conclude that yes Atlanta *is* on the actual target list. Further, he doesn't stipulate from which country or which weapon (ICBM, SLBM) but he in fact has shown that based on his say so, there is a weapon out there programmed with Atlanta's coordinates. And my experience, my reading of intelligence documents, calculating weapons effects and determining our systems' vulnerabilities only dig my hole deeper. I say that Atlanta wouldn't make the list because it would be a waste of valuable resources (that is there are cheaper ways to destroy these "lower" value sites). But of course Tar knows better.

:)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 24, 2001.


Maria, I don't doubt that Atlanta wasn't on the list 30 years ago, because Atlanta was a little jerkwater burg in the late 60s and early 70s. But now Metro Atlanta has over 4 million people, and is one of the 10 biggest metro areas in the US. We're the third fastest growing city in the US. We're also highly wired, and we have a great business climate, and a relatively low cost of living. Atlanta has changed an awful lot in 30 years, and perhaps you weren't aware of that. Heck, Hartsfield International was a little bitty hole in the wall in the early 70s, but have you been through there lately? If an enemy couldn't capture it for their use, I think they would sure think about destroying it. At the least, they'd want to drop some cluster munitions in order to interdict it.

I'm not surprised you don't know about Fort Macpherson. Most Atlantans don't realize we have a four-star headquarters post in the city, and I bet that less than a third could tell you where it is and how to get there. Still, it is FORSCOM HQ. Look it up on the web.

A correction for Tarzan -- Fort Gillem is not in the city. It's on the southeast side, maybe 20 miles from the city center. And if Tarzan means "Warner-Robins" when he says "Robbins," he's off there, too. Warner-Robins AFB is down near Macon, closer to 90 miles away.

Maria, I agree that using a nuke simply to take out airports and CNN is silly, but Atlanta is a huge center for transport, communications, business, government and news. Surely an enemy isn't going to waste a 330KT warhead on CNN Center, but given everything else Atlanta has, it's not out of the realm of possibility to think that we might have a 1MT, 2MT or even a 5MT citybuster aimed our way. One of those 5MT monsters would do a fairly good job of knocking the city out and messing up any military posts and equipment within 15 miles or so. And cutting off C3 capability would be a primary objective for any enemy wishing to engage us, especially on our own soil.

After rereading the thread, I think Tarzan was saying that Atlanta is a good target because it has all those things in close proximity, and I agree. If I were planning bombing strategies for an enemy, I'd take a good hard look at Atlanta. Anyway, I don't think Tarzan was saying that those things in Atlanta are good targets in and of themselves. Nuclear warheads are definitely not a dime a dozen, but there are a whole bunch of them, and based on your experience, I'd think you'd know that already.

Tarzan may not have a clue about targeting strategies, but I do. You can call me Lieutenant Colonel (Retired). If you want to talk about nuclear weapons or targeting strategies, we can sure go in that direction. BDA is something I'll leave to you.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), April 24, 2001.


Sorry, Georgia, I appreciate your post on what the city of Atlanta has to offer. I'm sure your correct in that regard. But first my experience doesn't go back 30 years (I'm old but not THAT old) and second major metropolitans aren't considered just because they have lots of people. The intent of war is NOT to kill people but to gain control. People are actually needed for infrastructure support. Also, just because there are hq's in the area doesn't imply anything like a 1, 2 or 5 mt will go their way. The country is filled with large cities and hq's of all kinds; this doesn't warrant expending a resource. Once a nuke is lobbed, you can't get it back. If it doesn't destroy at least a sufficient amount of the enemy's military capability, it's wasted. First things first, disable the military power, not necessarily the officers but the weapon systems, then get to the military officers and take over control of cities and CNN using ground forces. An enemy doesn't have an endless supply of nukes. Further if an enemy wants to gain control of a city (you agree to that), destroying it just means a lot of effort to rebuild it. An enemy would like to take control without destruction; control means he can use it for his purposes, through destruction he can't. Case in point, Hilter wanted to take over Paris but he knew enough not to obliterate it. (I only bring it up because of Atlanta's metropolitan appeal; WWII didn't have nukes, the size of today's. Today's military is a megaton different than yesterday's.)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 25, 2001.

ROFLMAOWPIMP

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 25, 2001.

Tar, you're too funny! Tell me how many lines of code did your little program have? With your little computer program how many studies did you do and how many Pentagon officials did you brief? Have you ever *been* to the Pentagon? Did you publish your little program? What about your studies? Can I find them some where? You still haven't answer my previous questions but yes you know so much more than me and you're right too! Too funny!

Anyway, glad to see I can predict your responses. I wrote earlier, "no matter what I write, you'd still ridicule it."

One final question Pizza Face, when will you grow up?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 25, 2001.


maria...pizza face?

and you actually expect to be taken seriously?

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 25, 2001.


nudges cin and says "geez, i aint heard that un in along time'.

ROFLMAO

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 25, 2001.


cin, he admitted on another thread his peers gave him this name when he was young because of his acne problem. If you take any cyber person here seriously doesn't matter to me.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 25, 2001.

Maria claimed on the Cherri thread to be a Vietnam-era veteran. On this thread, she claimed to have been involved in nuclear strategy fifteen years ago and claims to not have been a Vietnam Vet. She also claims to have an intimate knowledge and understanding of defense department strategy, but she didn't even know about Fort McPherson. Okay. On the thread about OSHA, she claimed to own a construction business. On the thread about birth control, she calimed to have been a lamaze coach for "hundreds of births". She also claims to have three children.

So Maria's a Vietnam vet who's not a Vietnam vet, or maybe not a vet at all, who worked in the defense industry or possibly worked in strategy as a service member (if she was in the service at all). Somehow, she found time to have not one but two businesses (construction and lamaze coach) and three children.

This doesn't add up. Either she's lying about something or she's one of those people who gets along on only two hours of sleep a night.

-- Score Keeper (score@keep.er), April 25, 2001.


So Maria's a Vietnam vet who's not a Vietnam vet, or maybe not a vet at all, who worked in the defense industry or possibly worked in strategy as a service member (if she was in the service at all). Somehow, she found time to have not one but two businesses (construction and lamaze coach) and three children.

Or Maria could be an ex navy pilot, who was a gulf vet or maybe not a gulf vet at all who worked in a kitchen and managed to become a midwife after she got out and have 3 businesses and six children.

Oh hell, who's countin?

-- sumer ;-) (shh@aol......con), April 25, 2001.


LOL too funny! Can you talk and walk at the same time? I can't stop laughing. I find it extremely funny that there's a cyber person out there who would go to such lengths to keep track of who I am. Who would even care that much who I am. For the record, my little scribe, I wrote that I am a vet (didn't specify which "era") and questioned if Tar has ever even spoken to a Nam vet. Besides, why isn't it possible that I served during the war and continued my service until just 15 years ago? That would imply that my record of service was from 1968 - 1986, certainly feasible to serve for 18 years. Further I have not stated that I did strategic planning only while in the service. I could have started this while on tour of duty and continued it with a DOD contractor.

And also tell me why I can't own a business and work full time? This construction business isn't the first business I owned. I also owned a cabinet shop. Yes there are times when I operate on only four hours sleep.

I never claimed to be a Lamaze coach (even though I have coached); I claimed to teach. I also never claimed that this was a business. In fact little one, I volunteered to do this for two and half years, met hundreds of couples and learned about all their childbirth experiences. As my kids' needs change, so did my volunteering, on to PTA president for two years with a year as secretary and then on to little league soccer ball coach for two years. Plus all the countless times driving them to other sports and cheering from the stands. Fun times. Also during this time in my life I managed to work a 40-hour week, obtained my Masters in Engineering in two and a half years, supported two foreign exchange students (one year each), built the house I'm currently living in, vacationed in some of the world's most enchanting spots, and engaged in outdoor activities such as skiing, cycling (did a hundred mile race), jogging (entered in the bay to breakers - the most enjoyable race in the US), back packing, and canoeing.

LOL! Keep up the good work score keeper! Let me know if you have any other questions.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 25, 2001.


sumer shakes her head and mutters, damn IF I could do all that, my ass would be DEAD.

but, hey, maria, ya left out what you had for breakfast this am.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 25, 2001.


Exactly what I thought. So desperate for approval that you throw everything about your life out at the first opportunity, yet unable to keep it all straight. You don't even know enough about nuclear strategy to use the correct terminology or to know that anyone who'd worked on classified military plans as deeply as you claim would never offer to talk about them so freely as you did here.

As for your accomplishments, Master's programs usually take about two years. It's good you got one but getting it in under three years isn't an accomplishmnet. Bay to Breakers is a nice race, but not much more than a fun run. The foreign exchange program I participated in gave stipends to the parents. Not much of a list of accomplishments.

-- Score Keeper (score@keep.er), April 25, 2001.


I think getting a Masters at all is a big deal. Your right though no one who worked on targeting would be so open about it. It takes a lot of effort to get a security clearance and the kind of people who get it are the kind of people who wouldn't piss it away over the web. I don't even think the military would let civilian contractors have access to the really deep, double top secret shit Maria says she knew. Why would Uncle Sam want a bunch of civilians running around knowing how we formulate nuclear strategy and volunteering to tell the whole world?

-- Gulfwar Vet (gulfwar@vet.yep), April 25, 2001.

[So desperate for approval that you throw everything about your life out at the first opportunity] LOL First opportunity? Like Anita who expands on every thread with her personal info. She starts thread with her daughters arrests. If I so desired, I could have taken many opportunities in the last two years. Also so sorry to disappoint you but you didn't say when you completed your Masters?

And finally, I have given away no secrets. I'm very careful about that. Sometimes I find that I hit the backspace key even if there's a slightest possibility of the info being classified. I don't comment on many unclassified sources available on the web specifically for the compromise issue. I could have commented on the missile ranges given in this particular web site but held my fingers back. Janes offers lots of info. Check it out.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 25, 2001.


I still think you guys & gals should consider fallout patterns... :-)

-- Flash (nazflash@northlink.com), April 25, 2001.

yeah me too sumer, like...jr. high

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 25, 2001.

Maria, those are some accomplishments

But...I think what matters most is what's in ones' heart

-- (cin@cin.cin), April 25, 2001.


Cin, absolutely. However I don't share my personal life (as this is the FIRST) on this board. I couldn't do that much volunteering if there wasn't enough in my heart to share. I loved every minute of it; family is the most important aspect to my life. I'm not here to make friends, I like the exchange of ideas. It's entertainment for me, nothing more. Should I take Tar's bashing seriously? Do you take the bashing you receive seriously? This isn't REAL LIFE. But I appreciate your words, I think I understand where they're coming from.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 26, 2001.

Anyone with a security clearance knows that offering to share classified information is a serious no-no. You may not have reveald any secrets but you did offer to exchange notes. That makes me think you have probably never had much of a secruity clearance or maybe none at all, and you would have had one to do the work you claimed.

I've known lots of people who have high level security clearances and I've never seen any of them volunteer to share info the way you did. The people who really work on this stuff take it seriously since its national security. I think you got in a pissing match and exaggerated your experience to try to win it. Maybe you did do the work you claim but if you're hanging out on the web volunteering to compare notes with people you should have never done it in the first place.

-- Gulfwar Vet (gulfwar@vet.yep), April 26, 2001.


After the way Maria embarassed herself with her response the retired Lt. Colonel, I figured it was time to let this thread die. I am surprised by the way it keeps coming back.

Cin and 'sumer-

There was a thread where someone was picking on Patricia and calling her names. I listed some nicknames I myself had been called and asked if he wouldn't bestow the honor on me. I think Maria was just reaching empty on the arguments when she called me Pizza Face, but I got a laugh out of it.

Score Keeper-

I got my Master's in two years without having a family (though I was working full-time). I think you're picking on Maria unfairly here.

Vet-

I hadn't thought about that angle, but it makes sense. I have a couple of friends who are in the defense industry. Both work on missle delivery systems. After knowing both for most of our lives, neither of them have given anything other than a very cursory explanation of what it is they do. To complicate matters further, they work for different companies on conceivably different project (I don't really know and neither do they). It makes for some weird conversations when we all get together. Their wives don't even know what exactly they do for a living. One said she didn't want to know, the other jokes that her husband could be some sort of Austin Powers - type spy for all she knows. Both these guys are civilians, but they had very extensive background checks done before they got the jobs they hold now. I can't imagine either of them bragging about how much they know or topics they know anything about. They've certainly never said anything to me or anyone else in our circle of friends or even their wives, let alone on a web site.

Maria-

I think it was a really low blow dragging Anita into this. She hasn't even posted on this thread for crying out loud!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarza@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 26, 2001.


"Low blow", LOL too funny. It's your opinion and you're entitled. Score was stating that I have somehow just spewed forth all kinds of personal stuff at the FIRST opportunity. I pointed out that this is NOT the first opportunity. And provided an example of how some people, namely Anita, share personal stories ALL the time. It's not like I said she isn't "the sharpest knife in the drawer" or called her stupid a couple of times.

On the classified issue, I have shared my job description, which isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, classified. I have to be able to speak about my experience with future employers, do I not? I have found a way to sanitize it and I will never talk about any spook programs I worked on. Many cyber people in the past have criticized me for not providing MORE information. Sometimes when I post, the info is so sanitized that it says nothing. War strategies have been documented in many unclassified publications. I haven't provided any more details than what is available, just my view of it. Take it or leave it, obviously the choice is yours. Believe me or not believe me, again the choice is yours. No matter what you feel about me, I know I have done nothing wrong.

Tar, you still have answered my questions about your "warfare" course or your computer program. Certainly you can discuss them because they weren't unclassified, were they?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 26, 2001.


I'll bet maria and tarzan would have really good sex together

-- (wild@wild.passionate), April 26, 2001.

When someone works on classified material, is that person required to sign an oath or a contract promising not to divulge any of the information? Are there legal penalties for breaking the oath or contract? Is there a government entity that monitors media to look for possible leaks? Do entities lacking the proper security clearance for classified information ever approach former government employees with the intent of coercing classified information out of that person?

-- helen (is@this.bad), April 26, 2001.

The answer to all your questions is yes Helen though in this case I don't know why a foreign agent would have to coerce information out of someone who volunteers to share it.

-- Gulfwar Vet (gulfwar@vet.yep), April 27, 2001.

Maria, I have heard just about enough out of you on this topic.

Based on what you have been posting, I know what your alleged job was, and it had nothing to do with target selection. If your “experience” is as you have claimed, then you were sitting in a small, windowless office or cube, plugging variables into formulae in order to estimate bomb or missile damage on a specific target or town. You would be given an estimated bomb, missile or aggregate throw weight, would be given a specific target or target location, and would be told to determine how extensive the damage would be if that target or location was attacked. People higher than you – such as myself - would then use that information to determine whether or not that target or location would be attacked, or whether the mission called for more or less munitions or air assets in order to achieve the desired level of damage. However – and I say this firmly – you had absolutely nothing to do with selecting targets. You were told what targets to look at, and you were told what amount and type of munitions to apply to your formulae, but you did not pick and choose targets on your own, as you have suggested. You did not plan or strategize.

I know this because of the language you have used, the terms you have used, and also because I used to have such people working for me. Whether you were a civilian contractor or a servicemember is beside the point. You’ve falsely claimed knowledge which you simply do not have, ma’am. You didn’t pick targets. You just assessed potential targets from a list you were given.

In addition, anyone who deals with nuclear weaponry knows that the term “ground zero” applies only to ground-burst detonations. However, since most US nuclear weaponry in inventory is designed for air-burst detonations (thereby reducing the chance and amount of fallout), there’s another term that is used in place of “ground zero.” Strangely enough, you don’t use that term when flaunting your claimed technical expertise. Maybe you don’t have that expertise at all.

You ask Tarzan whether an ICBM or an SLBM would be used in his analyses. Well, Maria, you know as well as I do that the delivery system doesn’t matter when you’re calculating damage potential. If the ICBM and SLBM in question both mount a single warhead with the same rated yield, then why would it matter which one you used to attack a given target? Comments like this and others suggest very strongly to me that you’re tossing out jargon with no real grasp of what it means, probably so you can make Tarzan look bad. That’s wrong, Maria.

Your post to me of April 25 indicates several misconceptions on your part. You seem to think that nuclear weapons are a scarce resource. They aren’t. Next, I don’t need a lecture from you on what the purpose of war is. Given your tone and behavior, I think you could stand a few lectures on that topic yourself. Also, when you speak of disabling a military force, you claim that disabling weapon systems should be the first aim. Well, little lady, perhaps you don’t understand how important C3 capability is in wartime. Remove that from an enemy, and you disable their entire force. When orders and reports cannot be disseminated up and down the chain of command, an enemy loses the ability to synchronize its warfighting force. C3 is a force multiplier, Maria, and disabling it fast and effectively is part and parcel of current US warfighting doctrine. Get some education on this area.

In the same post, you mistakenly claim that I agree with you that Atlanta is not a target. You should return to my previous post and reread. You also make the mistaken claim that an enemy would want to use all existing infrastructure, rather than rebuilding it. That’s simply wrong. If infrastructure gives an enemy a supporting strongpoint that prevents the advancement of your forces, then you take it out. If the infrastructure is worth more to your enemy now than it would be to you later, then you attack it. And regarding your claim about Hitler – do you not understand Hitler’s strategy with France? Hitler knew that destroying Paris might cause the US to enter the war against him. Reading Nazi documents from this period should tell you that Hitler chose his strategies with an eye toward keeping noncombatant isolationist nations like the US out of the war for as long as possible.

Mistaken claims like these, Maria, tell me that you didn’t prioritize targets at all. In fact, they also tell me that you don’t know much about military or world history.

Also, Maria, your claim that “WWII didn't have nukes, the size of today's” is both correct and incorrect at the same time. It is correct because there were no nuclear weapons the size of today’s during WWII. It is INcorrect because there were no nuclear weapons extant during WWII. We developed atomic weaponry during WWII, but nuclear weaponry was not developed until after the war. The first nuclear device was detonated in the fall of 1952. The famed “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” were atomic weapons, not nuclear. But someone claiming as much knowledge as you are would certainly know that, wouldn’t they?

Further, you should know that selling, exchanging, sharing, giving, and OFFERING to sell, exchange, share or give classified material is a violation of Federal law. You made a rather pitiful claim that you had “given away no secrets,” but if you really had all the knowledge you claim, then you’d know that your hiney could be clapped into Federal prison simply for offering to swap notes with Tarzan. And this crap about job descriptions not being classified is a load of bull. If you work on classified matters, then you CANNOT discuss those matters with future potential employers. You can tell them what your clearance level was, what department you worked for (DoD, DoE, etc.), and the area in which you worked (weaponry, strategy, planning, logistics, R&D), but NO DETAILS. You claim that you won’t talk about any “spook” programs you worked on, but you have, Maria. That’s the whole point of this extended argument between you and Tarzan.

I’m going to give you some valuable advice, lady. If you really did work in planning (and I don’t believe you worked at the level you appear to want us to think), then keep your mouth shut about it. If Tarzan is blowing his mouth off about something like abortion, taxes, adoption or something everyday like that, then have at him. Hammer him into the ground. But when he shoots his mouth off about this, you’d better resist the temptation to shoot YOUR mouth off about it. Because if you do, Maria, either you are going to make yourself look like a silly ass (because you don’t know everything you claim), or you’re going to get your butt in a crack with the DoD because you’re talking about classified material just to win a silly pissing contest.

Think about it, Maria.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man), May 01, 2001.


"...you don’t understand how important C3 capability is in wartime" Oh please tell me. Why do you think I laughed so hard at CNN being a prime target. You want to talk about C3, I can do that. After I stopped playing with missile basing, I moved on to C3. I really enjoyed learning about satellites, fun stuff!

"The first nuclear device was detonated in the fall of 1952. The famed “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” were atomic weapons, not nuclear." No, do tell! Tell that to the men who died at Los Alamos creating that "atomic" weapon and to the survivors in Japan.

"the term “ground zero” applies only to ground-burst detonations. However, since most US nuclear weaponry in inventory is designed for air-burst detonations (thereby reducing the chance and amount of fallout)" This is the funniest of all! The doomers knew more than you about this stuff. Reducing fallout?! Can you tell me, which is the optimum height of a burst to maximize the kill?

Yes, you're right sweetheart, I did have superiors to whom I reported and I did brief pentagon officals. I was a good little soldier who obeyed orders but I also studied the problem not just given the targets and locations. I actually performed optimization, war games if you will. Played with missile basing and moving those targets and weapons for the optimum basing and the optimum kill.

"...you know as well as I do that the delivery system doesn’t matter when you’re calculating damage potential." I understand the difference between a launch vehicle and a weapon. One cannot study the probability of kill without considering both these items in our enemies' capabilities. If an enemy can't deliver the weapon in a certain time period what good is it?

Do you know about OR (operations research)?

Too funny, Georgia. Why would you care so much about this topic that you'd call me a liar and challenge what I write? That I find most amusing. Like I posted earlier, believe me or not, the choice is yours.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 01, 2001.


Match point: Georgia Bidnessman

Game: Georgia Bidnessman

-- Referree (ref@ref.eree), May 01, 2001.


All right, little lady. I'll play your game.

For some reason, you seem to confuse C3 with CNN, either that or you think that I am. If so, then that is your mistake, and not mine. You yourself said that "First things first, disable the military power, not necessarily the officers but the weapon systems, then get to the military officers and take over control of cities and CNN using ground forces."

Well, Maria, I say you're wrong. Taking out internal comm and power distribution, disrupting broadcast service and (in some cases) outright destroying higher HQs is American warfighting doctrine right now. Look at Iraq. Look at Yugoslavia. In both cases, C3 was high on the priority list, and was an early target. I am not talking about CNN, lady. I am talking about headquarters posts, where strategy is planned and orders are issued, a target type that you apparently don't think is worth aiming at.

Moreover, Maria, if you think that C3 involves only satellites, then perhaps your info is older than you let on. Perhaps you're not aware of the level of usage that fiberoptics enjoys in the Army. Perhaps you're also not aware of SINCGARS. Perhaps you're not aware of frequency-hopping relays and how to slave together a SINCGARS network in the field so that you can have C3 anywhere on earth. C3 isn't just COMSAT phones, Maria.

Regarding Fat Man and Little Boy, yes, ma'am, they were *atomic* weapons, not nuclear. You need to do some reading on the topic, whereas I know the history of the A-bomb project very, very well. Moreover, simply because people were killed during the project does not in any way prove that the weapons were nuclear in nature. What kind of foolish claim are you making, Maria?

Furthermore, I have been to Nagasaki. Have you? Do you know the term "pikadon" in Japanese? Do you know what it means? How about "hibakusha?"

Let's move on to fallout, Maria. Obviously you don't know enough to tell the difference between direct radiation (maximized in air-burst detonations) and fallout (maximized in ground-burst detonations). Further, you ask a question that cannot be answered accurately without further information. What's the optimum air-burst HAAT for detonation in order to maximize the kill? That depends on the rated yield of the warhead, Maria. And I think you knew that. But then again, maybe you didn't. I think that you didn't.

But the most telling part of your post is that you don't take the opportunity to clear up your "ground zero" boner. The word you are looking for, General, is "hypocenter." That's the technical word for what you call "ground zero." The next time you want to look like you're knowledgeable about nuclear weapons, use it. I guarantee it will make you look less foolish.

I know you had superiors, honeybunch. You worked for someone like me, assuming you aren't making all this up. In fact, you may very well have worked for me. Here's some more for you, Maria. Sitting in a SOC and running simulations is not strategy. I know it seems very seductive to think that it is, but it simply is not strategy. You played with missile basing and moving those targets and weapons for the optimum basing and the optimum kill -- based on lists that you were given and were told to analyze. Period.

Also, Maria, I'm not so sure that you understand the difference between a launch vehicle and a weapon. You specifically berated Tarzan for not indicating which weapon he was considering in his analyses when you know perfectly well that it was beside the point. This is another example of you shooting your mouth off and misstating something in order to make hay out of Tarzan. If you want to beat him up, then go do it on another thread. Don't exaggerate your own knowledge, flirt with revealing classified information and make outright errors like you are on this thread in order to beat up on him.

Do I know about OR? Perhaps I do. And perhaps it is best not to speak of such things in an unclassified forum. So perhaps it would be best for you to keep your mouth shut about it.

And why do I care about this topic? Because I worked in it for a long time, and because arrogant blowhards like you are dangerous. Whether it's some drunk 21-year-old enlisted kid who wants to impress a girl in a bar or some woman who wants to get an advantage in an Internet argument, people who would mess around with classified information are a hazard, and they need to be reminded of it before they get their hineys into some very deep trouble.

I'm challenging what you write because a great deal of it is flat-out WRONG, and because you seem to be arguing your points simply because you don't like Tarzan. I don't like him either, and I don't like that I have to share a state with him, but you are making a total ass out of yourself on this thread.

I'm challenging what you write because you may have violated Federal law regarding the handling of classified information, and when I and Gulf War Vet point this out, you either ignore it, or you engage in the fruitless dodge of "oh, I didn't really share anything classified, I just offered to." Well, sweetcakes, that's a VIOLATION. And it would be better for you to shut up and lose this argument to Tarzan than to keep hollering and win, but to reveal classified information in the process. I said it nicely, Maria, so now I'm saying it harshly.

Shut your mouth on this topic. Whoever wins the argument doesn't matter.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 01, 2001.


"All right, little lady. I'll play your game." *sigh* Am I playing a game? What game would that be? You're arguing about my knowledge, claiming I'm a liar. This thread sat dead for two days until you came back with a vengeance. Is that the game *I'm* playing?

"Well, Maria, I say you're wrong. . . Look at Iraq. Look at Yugoslavia. In both cases, C3 was high on the priority list, and was an early target." We fought Iraq and Yugoslavia with nukes? Geez, I thought this thread was talking hypothetical nuclear wars; sorry, my misunderstanding.

"Perhaps you're not aware of the level of usage that fiberoptics enjoys in the Army. . .C3 isn't just COMSAT phones, Maria." I never said it was. I posted to Tar that comm can be duplicated, highly redundant. Also once again are we talking in the support of tactical or strategic forces? Which do you think is survivable? Part of the C3 you seem to be "throwing around" is the NCA. Certainly they use all kinds of comm. Do you know which is survivable and which isn't?

" because people were killed during the project does not in any way prove that the weapons were nuclear in nature. What kind of foolish claim are you making, Maria?" I didn't intend to prove or disprove nuclear capabilities. That would turn the discussion to classified. Point: the end of WWII was the genesis of the nuclear ear, a different way of fighting wars. Immediately following that statement you'll see, "Today's military is a megaton different than yesterday's". But please continue to twist.

"Let's move on to fallout, Maria. Obviously you don't know enough to tell the difference between direct radiation (maximized in air-burst detonations) and fallout (maximized in ground-burst detonations)." I don't? What did you do for a living (besides supervise me)? Yes I do know the difference ma'am. I also know about EMP effects. Will you give me a "quiz" about that too?

"What's the optimum air-burst. . . That depends on the rated yield of the warhead, Maria. . . ." AND the target's vulnerabilities. Your statement sounded as if altitude bursts were designed specifically to reduce fallout. ("designed for air-burst detonations (thereby reducing the chance and amount of fallout).") Reducing fallout wasn't a concern.

"Hypocenter", oh I see. You use the word hypocenter as proof I don't know about missile targeting. I wrote, "What difference would it make to you to know you were at ground zero?" Is there anything in this statement that says anything at all about detonations, their location, weapon capabilities or target vulnerabilities? I was addressing the concerns of some post on the closeness of his home to incoming missiles.

" You worked for someone like me." The suspense is killing me; what do (did) you do for a living?

"You played with missile basing and moving those targets and weapons for the optimum basing and the optimum kill -- based on lists that you were given and were told to analyze. Period." No I didn't. I looked at missile basing, what if games. I also looked at next generation basing; no current locations at all, for funding in the out years to improve our current vulnerabilities. Fun stuff! That information can be found in the RFP, a necessarily public document. Geez I really wish I knew which supervisor you were.

" You specifically berated Tarzan for not indicating which weapon he was considering in his analyses when you know perfectly well that it was beside the point." I know it's beside the point? It is? You really baffle me on this one. Are you saying that it doesn't matter if you launch an SLBM or an ICBM? Once again this depends on the target and its vulnerabilities. I know I can't say much on this one but you're way off base (pun intended) here.

"Do I know about OR? Perhaps I do. And perhaps it is best not to speak of such things in an unclassified forum. So perhaps it would be best for you to keep your mouth shut about it." And this is even funnier than the other "funniest" post from above. Universities offer degrees in OR! When I was looking for my advanced degree, I wanted to get it in OR. I went for space operations instead. I even spelled out the acronym, operations research, the study of mathematical techniques for optimization.

" Because I worked in it for a long time" How long and in what capacity?

" and because arrogant blowhards like you are dangerous." You obviously don't recall the many threads during timebomb. Many cyber people discussed MAD and all kinds of *nuclear* scenarios, making this thread look like day-care talk. Nikoli (?) posted all kinds of shit from unclassified sources. Look at Janes. I reveal less info than any of the unclassified sources. And your indication that OR is a classified topic is absolute proof you have no clue. OR, classified? Too funny! Sorry I just had to bring that up again.

"Shut your mouth on this topic. Whoever wins the argument doesn't matter." I suggest you take your own advice.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 01, 2001.


Good post GB.

Maria in the name of God please stop embarassing yourself like this. It's obvious that you were bullshitting earlier and your sad attempts to turn the discussion to something else like what this guy does or did aren't fooling anybody.

-- Gulfwar Vet (gulfwar@vet.yep), May 01, 2001.


Just out of curiosity I did a search on the web and came up with lots of stuff. It looks like I *am* out of date!

http://www.cdiss.org/bmthreat.htm

http://www.cdiss.org/cmthreat.htm

Georgia, please take a look.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 01, 2001.


and these...

http://www.insiderussia.org/update.html

http://www.lasg.org/hmpgfrm_a.html

http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 01, 2001.


Try this for OR

http://www.temi.com/AboutTEMI.html

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 01, 2001.


From your last website.

"TEMI will use all reasonable precautions to guard the confidentiality of all client information gathered during the course of the assignment."

Gee, you think that includes not offering to trade secrets with a stranger on a website?

-- (someplace@maria.can't.work), May 01, 2001.


If there isn't already a mandatory psych evaluation for jobs applicants who may end up working on classified material, I think there ought to be one now.

-- helen (my@eyes.oh.my.eyes), May 01, 2001.

I'll add the only thing I CAN to this thread in that I worked in the Operations Research Department of Standard Oil before the Bay of Pigs. [Yeah...I'm that old. I was fresh out of high-school and was a secretary in that department.] I took a course in OR in College later on, but I'll never forget how Standard Oil had this "think tank" that was supposed to surmise how things would go.

They blew it BIG-TIME on the Bay of Pigs thing. Their combined opinion was that the affair would go the opposite of the way it went, and Standard Oil lost TONS of money based on this judgment. I think my old boss was actually fired over this, but by that time I'd already moved on to programmer training.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 02, 2001.


What game are you playing, Maria? Several, actually. One game you are playing is "I'm right, Tarzan's wrong, I'm the authority, I know classified stuff, all bow down to me." Another game you're playing is claiming knowledge and experience that you *do not have,* which you are doing in order to get a leg up in an argument. Even if you do actually have some degree of knowledge in this area (which you have probably pulled together from the Internet), then you are flirting with a felony, little lady. You are so arrogant and so bent on winning this argument that you don't even screw your head back on when Gulf War Vet and I tell you why you shouldn't be arguing about some of this material.

I am arguing about your knowledge because you *are* a liar, Maria. A liar and a damn fool. You don't know *elementary* things that a person with your claimed level of experience would know, and you're claiming things as fact that are flat-out *wrong.* You don't know where fallout comes from. You don't know that "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" were atomic weapons (not nuclear), and when I point it out, your response is "No, do tell! Tell that to the men who died at Los Alamos creating that "atomic" weapon and to the survivors in Japan." That's supposed to prove you right? You need to get over yourself, lady.

You use incorrect terms like "ground zero" and then try to pass yourself off as an expert. You tell us that universities offer degrees in Ops Research so of course Ops Research can't possibly deal with classified matters, right? So, Maria, since universities offer degrees in Nuclear Physics, then nothing about that topic could possibly be classified either, right? I ask you questions, and you either don't answer them, or you answer them incorrectly. And regardless of what I post, you're right back with more poorly-put questions, which generally only serve to make you look more foolish. I'm sorry, Maria, you've already proven yourself a liar and a fool. I think that's why someone told you to stop digging your own hole a few dozen posts back.

Your "optimum HAAT air-burst" question depends on both the warhead yield (as I said) and the target's vulnerabilities (as you said), honeybunch, but it also depends on a few other things. Like the topography of the target area, for one. The proximity of friendly forces, for two. There are a pile of considerations here, sweet thing, and you're not helping your cause by coming back with "target's vulnerabilities." Your response only serves to demonstrate to me that you plugged numbers into formulae and little else.

I don't care how long this thread sat dead. I posted when *I* had an opportunity. I saw that you continued to screw around after I tried to set you straight before, and I came back and told you so. If you don't like it, that's too bad, soldier.

Arrogant blowhards like you are certainly all over the Internet, Maria, and I've met quite a few. I am certain that there are plenty of discussions of this topic all over the Internet, little lady, but I cannot see them all. However, I *did* see this one, and I am doing something about it. You can be assured that if I see another discussion like this one out there, I will step in there, too.

As for you, Maria, shut your yap. Drop the argument. Stop embarrassing yourself, and I'll stop embarrassing you, too.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 02, 2001.


Maria, here's some strategic advice from a recent arrival - "when you're wrong, you're wrong". You have lost a lot of credibility on this thread because you have come at the the subject matter from the wrong direction. Save yourself from more humiliation - and clam up!

-- Strategy Boy (strategy@nuke.com), May 02, 2001.

"Do I know about OR? Perhaps I do. And perhaps it is best not to speak of such things in an unclassified forum. So perhaps it would be best for you to keep your mouth shut about it." And this is even funnier than the other "funniest" post from above. Universities offer degrees in OR! When I was looking for my advanced degree, I wanted to get it in OR. I went for space operations instead. I even spelled out the acronym, operations research, the study of mathematical techniques for optimization. I just asked if you knew about OR. You responded with the above quote. Of course, one can apply science to classified scenarios. It can't happen any other way. I asked a simple UNCLASSIFIED question and got the response above. There's no law that says if you answered that question (or the question about nuclear physics), we have a breech in security. I didn't ask how you applied it, just if you knew it. Further you wouldn't have compromised any classified information if you told me how you applied it. I have published an UNCLASSIFIED document (you can ask for it under FOIA) on the methodology used for optimization. So, sweetheart, nothing classified about this.

The problem, Georgia, is that you read too much into it. You take my simple question and assume it has to do with classified info. Further you make yourself look foolish by claiming "maybe I do, maybe I don't" as if the answer would be classified. You read too much into the "ground zero" thing. (Sorry, sweetheart, but that term still has meaning and most people know what it means; it's used quite frequently). I posted that based on the fears another poster professed. I didn't in any way discuss any more about the topic.

One game you are playing is "I'm right, Tarzan's wrong, I'm the authority, I know classified stuff, all bow down to me."

Well that's not completely accurate, Georgia. I AGREED with Tarzan; some targets ARE more likely than others. (That's when he said I wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer). I didn't agree that indeed Altanta was on the list for the reasons he pointed out. You think your fair city is on the list, fine. Also you apply the emotion to me that all should bow down to me. I couldn't give a shit what cyber people do, IT IS NOT REAL LIFE. Too funny!

Another game you're playing is claiming knowledge and experience that you *do not have,* which you are doing in order to get a leg up in an argument.

Like I said Georgia, believe me or not, you haven't proved anything you set out to prove about my experience. How could you possibly prove anything about me, ya twit? You have no clue who I am, where I've been or what I've done (outside of the little tid bits I posted above). I can look like a fool in your eyes, you can call me an arrogant blowhard or what ever your little heart desires. I haven't called you anything (outside this "ya twit"). Again, you are taking this way too personally but that too is your choice.

I have lost credibility,eh? I guess I need to do something fast. How will I ever get my credibility back. I need credibility to post on this forum. No one will ever believe anything I ever write again because now I've lost credibility.

I'm sorry but I find these arguments extremely funny. It's brings back so many memories about the doomers. Thanks for the trip down memory lane. LOL

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 02, 2001.


Someone gets on the internet and claims to have had access to classified material and maybe even makes what looks like an offer to transfer information that may or may not be classified -- what happens then? Does a government legal entity begin an investigation of the person making the claims? If the person is found to have had access to classified material in the past, is that person apprehended? Are any formal charges made in public, or is classified information too sensitive to risk with an open-court hearing? Does the person making the claims disappear? Can that person be held without trial?

-- helen (questions@bout.this), May 02, 2001.

I imagine that an infraction of this sort would garner at least a few phone calls. If Maria really did work on some top secret stuff, she could certainly be brought up on charges. The information she offered to pass wouldn't enter into it, since passing secrets, or offering to pass secrets, is illegal in and of itself. All that matters if whether she offered to pass secrets or not. I don't know that she would disappear, the government would probably want to make an example of her, as in "See what this person did? Don't do it," Whoever she worked for would be under heightened scrutiny and whoever did her background check, if they were still around, would certainly be reprimanded.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker (polly@wanna.cracker), May 02, 2001.

"I'm challenging what you write because you may have violated Federal law regarding the handling of classified information..."

You folks are making too big a deal about Maria's so-called security violations. I'll bet that everything that has been said here and a hell of a lot more is easily accessible in the public domain, via the internet, defense industry publicatons, and other pubs such as Air Force, etc. Some of it sounds familiar to me, and I'm just an interested reader of defense-type news. You can bet that the Russkies, Chicoms, and at least the Israelis know a lot about this stuff already. Lighten up, will ya?

-- Realist (get@real.folks), May 02, 2001.


Realist = Maria

-- (dudesy@37.com), May 02, 2001.

This argument can be summed up in one sentence.

Tarzan: "It doesn't make me an expert by any means, particularly when you realize that a person doesn't need to have studied nuclear weapons or strategy to realize that the world's biggest airport + four military installations (including FORSCOM HQ)+the plant that makes the most advanced jet available to the US +the leading internatnioal news media =a pretty good target."

-- Polly Wanna Cracker (polly@wanna.cracker), May 02, 2001.


Here's more news for you, Maria. Universities offer degrees in OR. But some material dealing with OR is classified. Universities offer degrees in Applied Mathematics, but some related material (like specific areas in algorithms, combinatorics, optimization and network theory) is classified. Universities offer degrees in Nuclear Physics. However, some material in the field is classified. You know this, and you really shouldn't need to be reminded of it. The fact that you practically beg to be reminded of it tells me that you're desperate to get out of the hole you're digging for yourself.

I know you simply brought the topic up. However, some of the topics you have 'simply brought up' flirt with classified areas. And given your apparent eagerness to share notes with anonymous people on the Internet, you apparently need to be reminded not to do so.

If you have published the document you claim, then you have an excellent opportunity to prove me wrong, Missy. Identify yourself, the document and what agency can provide me with a copy, and I will check the matter out. Of course, if you don't want to do that, then you will have missed out on yet another opportunity to prove what you claim.

The problem, Maria, is that you are too eager to beat Tarzan, and your eagerness makes you arrogant and careless. It makes you overstate your own knowledge and experience. Those are human things to do, but when you offer to share information (which might be classified) on the Internet, then you're getting a little more into the dangerous area. An earlier poster observed that people with clearances rarely speak so openly or brag so much about their knowledge. I have to agree with that. Someone who acts like you have on this thread either didn't have a security clearance or they didn't deserve one.

I don't make myself look foolish with my direct questions to you, Maria. You make yourself look ridiculous by refusing to answer them, and by continuing to ask questions yourself. I've answered quite a few of your questions, honey. All you have done is offer weak excuses for not knowing *elementary* terms and have used expressions like "ground zero" that mark you as either a poseur, a liar or a dilettante. Hell, lady, you don't know where fallout comes from.

Regarding your claim that you don't care what folks online say or think -- you're talking out your hind end here, Maria. I've looked back over a few threads in the last couple of days, and it's quite apparent that you *do* care what people think of you. You can't let matters go, you respond in kind when insulted (I don't like Flint, either, but at least he's politely disagreeable) and you don't know how to walk away from a discussion when it descends into name- calling. Hell, woman, if you didn't care what people thought, you'd have dropped this thread after the first couple of exchanges you and I had. Instead, you're digging yourself in deeper, embarrassing yourself more and more, and trying to explain your behavior and errors away. Grow up, Maria.

I have proven quite a bit about you, whereas you have proven *nothing* about yourself. I have proven that you don't know elementary terminology. With that proven, I don't think I need to go much further. Also, since *you* claimed all this vast knowledge and experience, I think that *you* are obligated to prove your claim. I'm not obligated to disprove you -- although I have done so -- by you are obligated to prove your claims. So do so, Maria. Identify yourself and your document, and tell me where to ask after a copy.

Contrary to your drama-queen claim, Maria, you don't need credibility to post here. But you do need credibility to be BELIEVED here. So you can post on this thread all you want, but I don't think there's anyone left who will believe what you have to say. You had chances to back yourself up, and you blew them all.

Give it up, Maria. That's an order.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 03, 2001.


Georgia seems bent on proving that I am a liar and that I don't know any thing about nuclear targeting strategies. According to her, I simply plugged numbers into formulae to provide to my superiors (someone of her ilk). I simply assessed damage of targets from a list given to me. Her proof entails a number of statements:

1) I used the term "ground zero". People who worked in the industry know this term and use it with the full understanding of its meaning and all of its implications. Also the average layperson understands this term, as in this excerpt found at http://encarta.msn.com/find/concise.asp?mod=1&ti=048B0000&page=2#s12 :

"The degree of blast damage suffered on the ground depends on the TNT equivalent of the explosion; the altitude at which the bomb is exploded, referred to as the height of burst; and the distance of the structure from ground zero, that is, the point directly under the bomb."

2) She knows that the delivery system doesn't matter when you're calculating damage and my question on the launch vehicle was bogus. Well, she's partly right. The vehicle doesn't matter for *stationary* targets. But ya see Georgia I did more than just stationary, I also examined mobile targets, such as flushing aircraft. So not only does the vehicle (that is sea, land, or air) matter but so does the *location* of the vehicle and how fast the weapon can be delivered. Further not all kinds of payloads can be place on any launcher. If you want the scenario to be as real as possible, you use accurate information, associating launchers and weapons.

If you want a lesson on launch vehicles, I can tell you about rocket boosters, the best materials for burns, orbital mechanics of these vehicles, the size of payload for the type of rocket, the amount of burn to get into the right orbit and others. Oh and before you call that last statement ("into the right orbit") a boner, a ballistic missile follows an orbital path which intersects the earth. I learned all about launch vehicles and payloads in my Space Operations graduate program.

3) She wrote, "You seem to think that nuclear weapons are a scarce resource." Georgia you twisted my words. That's ok. It's a common thing that Tar does too. I wrote that nuclear weapons weren't a dime a dozen and that there wasn't an endless supply. Let me clarify the meaning of my statements. First it costs money to build a nuclear weapon; they are not cheap (like rifles and conventional bombs). When expending those weapons, a strategist must consider "bang for buck". Also, there isn't an infinite supply to just throw around on any potential target. That is, if the probability of kill or the value placed on the target is low, a strategist will select a more valuable target with a higher Pk. To say they aren't scarce, as you have, seems to imply that they can be found on every street corner. True the world does have enough to inflict great damage on the globe, but this doesn't mean that a strategist wouldn't be prudent in targeting options. Launching his entire load means he has nothing left for contingencies.

4) Georgia implied that disabling C3 ("orders and reports . . . disseminated up and down the chain") is paramount in war fighting doctrine. True. I didn't claim that it wasn't. The typical scenario calls for a very high altitude burst, one that doesn't cause any real ground damage. This one would disable comm (the third C of C3) with its EMP effects. Hollywood depicts this type of scenario but with inaccurate resultant effects. In a nuclear exchange, "bolt from the blue", (assuming that we have no strategic warning different from tactical warning and if you don't know the difference I won't explain it), attacking the comm (those systems Georgia referenced) would be a waste. Comm is so highly redundant, some of it survivable, that orders and reports would still go out. In an exclusively nuclear exchang, the only reporting going up and down the chain is the missile stuff, no tactical stuff going on, no troops mobilizing. Try to think strategic here, not tactical, if you know the difference.

She continues to "prove" how wrong I am with, "Look at Iraq. Look at Yugoslavia. In both cases, C3 was high on the priority list." Again she is talking about conventional wars. Then she moves on to the fact that comm is more than satellites. I never said it was ONLY satellites. However, in a nuclear exchange don't you think that satellites (being 23,000 miles up) would see little to no effects? I'll leave the answer as an exercise to the reader.

5) She writes that I made a "mistaken claim that an enemy would want to use all existing infrastructure, rather than rebuilding it." Of course Georgia, you are correct even though you misquote me - I didn't say "all" but "An enemy would like to take control without destruction; control means he can use it for his purposes, through destruction he can't." My point, if the enemy is to gain control of an area, completely annihilating the area also inhibits his ability to rebuild. So it would be advantageous to destroy *only* those targets that are absolutely necessary to gain control and use as much of the remaining infrastructure as possible. The example of CNN fits well into this category. What good does it do to destroy CNN? What better way to make his announcement to the world that he now controls a certain country?

6) I wrote, "WWII didn't have nukes, the size of today's." Georgia corrected me in that WWII didn't have ANY nukes. Thanks for sharing those facts, which I already knew. My intent was to head off comments from someone bringing up the fact (obviously I was wrong on this) that WWII was a different kind of war. It was a conventional war. Since the introduction of nukes the face of war has changed very dramatically. We no longer need troops to fight a war. A war can be fought from behind a computer. Just a world of difference, which I stated immediately following that statement. Strategists know this and strategize differently for nuclear war. A nuclear strategy wouldn't be used in guerilla warfare, such as Nam. And conversely, guerilla tactics are useless in nuclear war. Too bad with all of her experience in defining targets, Georgia seemed to miss this point.

7) Then she chides me on violating Federal law. Thanks for your concern but I haven't provided any DETAILS.

8) And finally, she claims I know nothing of radiation and fallout, refining the difference of these terms by using "air-burst" and "ground-burst". What I know about radiation can be found on the internet. I studied it very briefly some time ago. When a nuke detonates, it creates a vacuum where the target and debris from the ground get sucked up. The atmospheric pressure continues to "weigh" down on the burst. This creates the "mushroom cloud". Radiation, ejected from the sun continuously, comes from the weapon, thereby contaminating the debris from both the missile itself and the upheaval of the ground. Fallout is the radiated material that "falls out" of the cloud. Most of the heavy stuff falls back to the ground within short order. The remaining light stuff gets picked up by prevailing winds and carried across areas depending on the winds. This thread posted a web site that showed these effects. Georgia said that air-bursts have minimal fallout, as if 1) this were the intent of air-bursts and 2) radiation and fallout were completely different phenomena. Her going into the fine points of radiation and fallout doesn't prove I'm wrong about the height of burst and the NWE associated with it. And one final comment. These effects went into my comment to the post on being concerned about ground zero. The earth's geomagnetic field lines would pick up radiation (just as it does in "northern lights") from a nuke (for whatever didn't fall back to the ground). This travels to the northern magnetic pole. If there would ever be a MAD exchange, then the radiation effects would be felt throughout the northern hemisphere.

Georgia commented, "optimum HAAT air-burst . . . proximity of friendly forces." A nuclear exchange doesn't really consider "proximity of friendly forces". I chuckle at the thought! I already assumed if nukes were going off in an area, friendly forces wouldn't be anywhere in sight. Nukes, once again "little lady", are strategic, not tactical. I don't envision nukes being used in a tactical exchange, though I guess it could happen as you've indicated. It would be stupid to lob nukes on your own troops.

In rereading her points, I was struck by her misconceptions. Someone, bent on proving me wrong and who thinks I only did damage assessment, would refuse to look at the big picture. I don't think she understands the big picture. Her "proof" shows she doesn't know the difference between strategic and tactical forces and the difference between offense and defense. Her comment on radiation and fallout are very important in tactical arenas but in the strategic strategies it's of little importance. And her comments on C3 imply the tactical, not the strategic. She made no comment on the strategic picture of command and control (the first and second C of C3).

Post over the last couple of days? I posted (I think) twice this week (outside this thread). Where did I post something to Flint? Last I wrote something directly to Flint was in the religious thread of about five weeks ago. In the "no pill for state workers" thread I supported what Flint said. Keep up with your ranting. I *do* chuckle.

BTW Georgia you must really hate when the men, you deal with in your daily life, call you "little lady". I assume you find it extremely degrading.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 04, 2001.


It's become extremely obvious that Maria cares very deeply about what people on this board think about her.

-- (hmmm@hmmm.hmmmm), May 04, 2001.

One quick way for Maria to gain back the credibility she so obviously desires would be to call Georgia BidnessMAN by the correct gender.

Hmmmmm.... On one thread, Maria said another poster wasn't really a woman if she had small breasts. On another thread, Maria said that women shouldn't get pre-natal care. Now on this thread, Maria repeatedly and insistantly refers to Georgia BidnessMAN in the femine, perhaps as a sort of insult. Maybe Maria has a problem with women?

-- Polly Wanna Cracker (polly@wanna.cracker), May 04, 2001.


I used to practice dropping nuclear bombs on Cuba. Now mr. retired light bird, gonna have a problem with me saying that? Maria has never , to my knowledge in reading her posts, said anything that would fall under the secured information.

And anyone who retires as a light bird can't command too much respect anyway~~. As for Gulf War Vet~playing soldier doesn't make you one. The military today is nothing like it was. Maria never said she was a Viet Nam era vet, I did.

Maria is really really wrong in her political beliefs, but as for her bearing as a vet, and one who worked with classified information, she has shown the correct behavior in discussions.

We know what we are and are not allowed to talk about. What may surprise many is the amount of information that civilians around a military instillation have as common knowledge, but you would thing would be classified.

I think Georgia is one of those poor lifers who couldn't get far and rode out his time doing grunt work for his superiors~his attitude towards Maria shows some of the reasons why he was probably left behind. Enlisted people do most of the important work, there are few Officers who know anything in as much detail as we do.

I have not problem bashing Maria when she is wrong, but had I known what was going on in this thread I would have jumped in sooner to stand up for her. I just have no interest in casual talk of nukes, I was brought up with the threat of them over my head and learned to use them as an adult- there's nothing more I wish to know about them.

Maria knows what she has done and knows what she knows. There is no way she can "prove" to anyone who chooses not to believe her. And she would not attempt to prove anything at the expense of revealing classified information.

I think the idea she was attempting to get across was not which city has the most to reason to be bombed due to the military/civilian activities that exist around it. There are other considerations that would be strategically more important to destroy from the aspect of another country wishing to disable us. Not bringing up those details or explaining these points when she very well could have shows me the high degree to which Maria does go in making sure she does not give out any information she should not. A lot of times unclassified information added to other unclassified information can be added together to draw conclusions about classified information.

So ease up on Maria, she hasn't lost anything in this thread, if anything she is the winner by virtue of her self control. And yep people can talk about what they have done, she wasn't going to spill classified information, but probably wished to talk about things only people in the same field can understand. When I have "met" someone online who understand military aircraft, we have enjoyed discussing them, without betraying ANY secrets. Even if we are sure the other knows we know what they know we know.

It is intellectually dishonest to accuse Maria of wrongdoing.

And little birdis~~~Your attitude towards females sucks, and is unbecoming of the officer you claim to have been.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), May 04, 2001.


First of all, Cherri, playing soldier doesn't make you a soldier, true. What does going to a foreign land and fighting for your country make you? I can't believe that you are seriously claiming I am not a soldier just because you don't like my opinion about Maria. I never even brought up her military service, Nam era or otherwise. My whole problem with Maria is that she OFFERED to exchange information with some anonymous nut on a public message board calling himself the King of the Jungle. Did she cross the line? No. Is it acceptable to walk up to that line and piss all over it? No.

As for this Maria knows what she knows shit, that's exactly what it is. It was a bad argument when the doomers made it and it's a bad argument now.

-- Gulfwar Vet (gulfwar@vet.yep), May 04, 2001.


People, please! Let this thread die, it's too damn long already! I personally couldn't care less what Maria claims to know or not know, though I was sort of surprised to read that someone who claims to know about nuclear weapons didn't know what causes fallout, or that Fat Man and Little Boy were atomic and not nuclear. Not exactly classified or arcane knowledge here folks. Anyway, whether she's a liar, an exaggerator, or just someone who should never have been granted a security clearance in the first place, she has consistantly failed to show that Remote, OR would be a better target than Atlanta, GA, or even an equal target to Atlanta, GA. I for one, feel vindicated.

Gulfwar, I don't really believe that that last post was Cherri. Based on what I know about her, she would never disparage the service of another vet for having a contrary opinion. Cherri's too honorable for that. I'm pretty sure Cherri was an officer and whoever wrote that last post obviously never got over getting rejected for ROTC or OCS. Also, Maria hasn't exercised any self-control whatsoever, as you can see by her frothing-at-the-mouth, bulging eyeballed "I'm an expert damn it!" posts. Like you, I have to wonder what would have happened if I'd agreed to exchange information with her. I guess even offering is bad enough. Finally, this business of saying that Georgia Bidnessman has a problem with women because he disagrees with Maria sounds like too much of a logical fallacy for an intelligent woman like Cherri to make. By that logic, anyone who disagrees with Georgia Bidnessman must not like officers and anyone who disagrees with me must not like Southerners. Note the big S by the way.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 04, 2001.


Maria --

you have already demonstrated yourself a liar. I need not demonstrate anything else. You had your chances to vindicate yourself, and you blew them all. Desperately tossing out more technical jargon is not going to help you at this point. And claiming support from as august a source as Encarta doesn't help you, either.

1) The problem with your use of the term "ground zero" is not that you used it; it's that I gave you two clear opportunities to correct yourself, and you failed to use either one. Moreover, you're still ranting that "ground zero" is the correct term. If you're talking about air-bursts, then "ground zero" is *incorrect,* and the term "hypocenter" is applicable instead, contrary to Encarta's claim. I bet Encarta didn't work with nuclear weapons either. You think?

2) Your red herring regarding ICBMs and SLBMs is exactly that. You know good and well that, for the question you asked, the delivery vehicle wasn't a factor. Throw weight was. Come off it. Also, Maria, I don't need a lesson on launch vehicles from you any more than I need a lesson on nuclear weapons from you.

3) Regarding your lengthy defense of nuclear weapons as scarce resources, Maria, I know how scarce they are, and I know about how many there are in current inventory, in the varying configurations thereof. I think there are plenty in other nations' inventory for one to be pointed at Atlanta, and were I an enemy, knowing what I do about this city, I'd be sure to target it. You don't agree, but you admit to not knowing much about Atlanta. It couldn't possibly be that you simply don't know enough about the city to be able to do an accurate assessment, could it? Further, I said nothing whatsoever about 'launching an entire load.' I spoke of one specific city. Perhaps you're just twisting someone else's words, Maria, hmm?

4) For all your ranting in this item, the fact that I had to distinguish between C3 and CNN for you pretty much leaves you out in the cold. Also, Maria, you've left a pretty long list of my questions unanswered. Are you going to get around to them, Ms. Resident Expert?

5) Maria, once again, you ask me (in a long, convoluted paragraph) what good it would do to destroy CNN. Why ask me? I never *claimed* that CNN was a target. I claimed that *Atlanta* was. Your lack of reading skills makes me question your claim to have a graduate degree.

6) You already knew that there were no nukes in WWII? Bull, lady. When I pointed that fact out to you, you responded with "No, do tell! Tell that to the men who died at Los Alamos creating that "atomic" weapon and to the survivors in Japan." You did *not* know, Maria. Just stop it, woman. You're digging your hole deeper and deeper.

7) I chide you for violating Federal law, Maria, because all you have do to is OFFER to provide details. Actually providing them is beside the point, and someone with your claimed experience would know it.

8) Your long-awaited explanation of radiation and fallout is certainly welcome on this thread. However, contrary to your assertion that I claimed air-bursts are *intended* to cause limited fallout (which I never claimed), you fail to observe that limited fallout is a simple *fact* of air-bursts. Further, the transient radiation from air-bursts and the more persistent radiation emanating from fallout are quite distinctive characteristics of the two burst types. If you can't distinguish between the two, that's your problem, not mine.

Have you ever heard of tac-nukes, Maria? Apparently not. You claim that proximity of friendly troops is not considered when planning a nuclear exchange. Well, honeybunch, where tac-nukes are concerned (something of which you obviously know little), the proximity of friendly troops is a *high* concern. If you're not worried about whether or not you hit friendly troops, then I wouldn't trust you with a sidearm, let alone an ICBM. Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of this field by claiming that nuclear weaponry is solely strategic. It is most assuredly not. To be sure, a colonel, general or a naval captain or admiral can't just add them to his TOE, roll them out to the field and cut them loose as he pleases, but there *are* tactical nuclear weapons in the US inventory. Surprise!

In reading your post, Maria, I was struck by your misconceptions. Rather than me being bent on proving you wrong, you continue to prove *yourself* wrong. Also, you somehow believe that by posting correct information now, you'll wipe out your earlier errors and mistaken claims. You also seem to believe that I don't understand the 'big picture.' Considering that you don't know elementary terms from an area in which *you* claim expertise, I don't see how you can claim to understand it yourself.

Your admitted ignorance regarding tactical nuclear weapons further demonstrates that *you* are the one who doesn't understand and can't distinguish between strategic and tactical forces, let alone the difference between offense and defense. And your failure to make the elementary radiation-versus-fallout air-burst-versus-ground-burst distinction until now further completes the picture of you as a dilettante.

Getting on to more mundane matters, Maria, I didn't claim that I read your posts over the last couple of days -- I claimed that I read threads over the last couple of days that had posts from you *in* them. And I didn't say that you posted anything to Flint. I said that I don't like him, either, just as I don't like Tarzan. Please try harder to pay attention. Or perhaps you could just try harder not to twist the words of others, since you object to it so readily and so frequently. The only thing to chuckle at here is how poorly you read.

BTW, Maria, I'm a man, and I don't get called "little lady." Either this is further proof of your poor reading skills, or it's a desperate attempt on your part to get under my skin. Either way, I think you know you've lost.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 05, 2001.


Cherri, or whoever you are --

I don't believe you are Cherri. But I'm going to respond to you as if you are. If that upsets the real Cherri, then so be it.

If you did really practice dropping nuclear munitions on Cuba as you claim, then one of two things is true. If you did do it, and that matter is unclassified or declassified, then no, I don't have a problem with it. If you did do it, and that matter is classified, then yes, I do have a problem with it. Understand? Regardless of your claim that Maria has never, to your knowledge, revealed classified information is totally beside the point. Simply OFFERING to do so is a violation of Federal law. That's that.

If you don't find retired LTCs worthy of much respect, that's fine as far as it goes. I'm not looking for respect for myself here -- I'm looking for respect for the secrets of the United States of America. If you don't find those secrets worth respecting and keeping secure, then I will be overjoyed to personally purchase you an airline ticket so that you can leave. Disagreeing with your country or your lawmakers is one thing, and that's fine. Revealing or offering to reveal any of your country's vital secrets is another thing, and that thing is a violation of Federal law. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that. Whether you know what you are and are not allowed to talk about is beside the point. What is more to the point is whether or not you talk about it around people who *aren't* cleared to know it.

Was I a lifer? Sure. I did my 22 years and left for the private sector. If you think that's not getting far, then talk to the Army, Air Force and Marine lieutenants and captains (and the Navy ensigns, jgs and lieutenants) who weren't permitted to put in their 20 and were forced out. Granted, advancements were slow as Christmas in my functional area, but some people choose job satisfaction over rank in the military. I enjoyed my job, so getting out with a leaf on my collar instead of a bird doesn't bother me. And I'm definitely making up for any pay I may have missed when I was in uniform. It's no secret that private-sector pay beats military pay in just about every occupation.

Regarding Maria, Cherri, if she "knows what she knows" (you're right Gulf War Vet, it's a bad argument, and laughable), then my earlier suggestion to her to drop the thread and walk away is even better advice, and supported by you. If she doesn't need to prove anything, then there's no need for her to participate any longer on this thread. Also, it's not a matter of me 'choosing' not to believe Maria -- it's a matter of Maria not being *believable.* If you can believe the unbelievable, then be my guest. Further, I disagree that Maria would not reveal classified information. She had already offered to do so, and I believe that if she knew any, and saw an opportunity to get over on Tarzan with it, she would have presented it, either on this thread or privately. If you believe she wouldn't have, fine. I disagree. But it is intellectually dishonest to claim that Maria did not offer to share or exchange classified information. Get serious, Cherri.

Whether or not Maria actually knows any is another matter.

Finally, Cherri, it would be more accurate to say that my attitude toward *female* sucks, that female being Maria. If you think that I'm taking Maria on solely because she's a woman, then you need to pull your head out of your third point of contact and comb the fecal matter out of your follicles and pinna.

I hate to say it, but Tarzan's right on this point. Maybe Maria's attitude toward Southerners sucks? Or her attitude toward men? Or officers? You can't have it both ways, Cherri.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 05, 2001.


Thanks Cherri. Yeah we have the same impression of LCs around here. They were there just marking time till retirement. Also had a low opinion of anyone from the Army, (but I wouldn't say anything like that directly to them). I worked with people from all branches including Canadians forces and you could definitely see a trend in behavior of the branches. Of course there were exceptions but the services do have somewhat of a "culture".

Georgia, for the last time I didn't offer to exchange classified information on this thread, but since I'm discussing something with an Army retired LC I wouldn't expect much to sink in. The document I published I threw out last year (yes that's right I had it in my home and threw it in the trash - unclassified). I hadn't look at it in ten years, so I thought I'd never use it again. I can't recall the document number but it had TR-AFWL in it. Can you guess what that stands for? If you know what you say you know about nukes, then you can guess easily. Also, I don't read everything you write, so excuse me for skipping some of the things you've written in this thread or any other thread. And finally, I apologize for "making" you side with Tar. However, that's just a copout; I didn't force you to keep jumping into this thread. What a bunch of losers supporting this asshole!

Tar, you're still an idiot.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 07, 2001.


M

-- (Just@keeping.score), May 07, 2001.

Tarzan's still smarter than you.

-- (anonymous@coward.troll), May 07, 2001.

Maria, they know the class structure of the military branches, personally don't have a problem stating that the Air Force is the elete, the service that is run on brains not testosterone.
I apologise to GolfWar vet, But not Georgia Bidnessman,as his attitude toward Maria is condensating and superior.

He accuses her of compramising our security, yet he has "spilled" rows upon rows of information and details that I suspect should not be discussed in public, things that when added to other information could lead to knowledge that is classified. He continually demands Maria give information, which may be classified, to defend herslf. She has not fallen for this, even if it is detrimental to her "credability" here on this forum. As she appears to have no "need" to prove her knowledge and ability to him or others, she would therefore not have to do so to "prove her point" to Tarzan, as was claimed. If georga is so concerned about national security, whay is he saying so much and demanding Maria say more?

Damned if she does, Damned if she doesn't?

I am no fan of Maria. But that is no excuse for being dishonest about what she has done or said. To do otherwise would make me the same as those I despise, those who go to the extreme of saying that everything a person says and does is wrong or bad just because some of the things they have done are wrong or bad. Also, doing to her what the media and repugs have done to Clinton, take everything she says and does twisting it and turning it into something bad, even when it isn't, would make us the same as those repugs, bring us down to their level of behavior and moral character.

This is how I read what has happened in this thread.

First, Tarzan made a statement and Maria agreed with him, which he acknowledged.

Why do I get the feeling that every town is considered a potential target and no matter what zip code you put in, it will show between five and fifteen missiles within range?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 23, 2001.


Because any town is a potential target, Tar.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.

My point exactly, Maria.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 23, 2001.

She then realized it was a rhetorical question.

Gee, you were making a point. I thought you were asking a question. Mark this one down, we agree on something.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.

No problem there yet. But in pops a troll

Please forgive Maria, Tarzan. She is more than just a little dim.

-- (maria is 3 tacos short @ of. a combination plate), April 23, 2001.

Which always does wonders for turning a heretofore civil social intercourse into a flame fest. Tarzan added his opinion about her, why at that point I do not understand, (perhaps out of habit because it is Maria?), but added that he was pleased about the opening she gave him so he could expand on it. Maria asks a fair enough question, although, knowing now what her specialty was, it is obvious that her ears perked up because here he was professing knowledge of a subject she is very experienced in. I would do the same if someone professed a knowledge of one of my uncommon areas of knowledge. But then Tar has some training in the subject also, so he feels he has credibility in his opinion too
I'm not the only one who notices the tension building.

tee hee hee hee

hee hee hee

-- kids at sesame street (maria not the @ sharpest crayon. in the box), April 23, 2001.

Maria chimes in, in my view, to a friendly? bantering back and fourth of mild insults with Tarzan. It is almost as if it is "required" because they usually disagree strongly with each other, and are having a difficult time publicly agreeing on something.

I think they went on to "prove" their individual opinions, it was like my parents would do, argue about something not realizing that they were not discussing what the other was talking about.
The two of them (Tar and Maria) are so used to conflicting that they ended up going out of their ways to create more of a conflict than existed in reality. *sigh*

I think Maria realized this and tried to point it out.

LN, "That's nice. So, if this particular web site doesn't mention targeting strategies, then Tarzan and the rest of us are supposed to act as if such strategies don't exist and are beyond reasoning about? " No, and I agreed with Tar that some are better targets than others, duh! But that isn't the purpose of the site.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.

Tarzon clings to the "conflict" like a pit bull does with a 2 year old girl.

Wasting nukes on an airport and commercial comm center is so ineffective. Sure. It's the busiest airport in the world. Why would you want to destroy it? It's not like leaving destroying Hartsfield would have a huge impact on the rest of the world now, is it? And you can't possibly use it to stage military aircraft or fly supplies in. And while you're at it, there's no use whatsoever in destroying the world's number one source of news. Why would you want to keep the country you're fighting in the dark about what's going on?

Next we get another opinion thrown into the fray

You don't know what you're talking about. Huge airport, media center, military installs, maybe take these one by one and they might not be worth your attention. Put them all together in one city? Hell yeah you'd better believe they'd blow up Atlanta. They might try to take it in one piece since its a regional center but in a nuke exchange it would be better to disable it since you probably won't have enough ground troops around anyway. They'd probably go after Chicago for the same reason big airport and lots of military in the region also the Lakes would be strategically good.

-- Gulfwar Vet (gulfwar@vet.yep), April 23, 2001.

Other do some checking and realize any town can be reached. Maria reiterates this point.

Buddy, the web site only compares the distance to the city and the missiles range. Period, no other info is determined. Tar's impression that it should match it against some countries' strategic planning list is absurd.

It is almost funny, she is trying to make one point, Tar another point and they miss each other in the process. again we get another antagonist against Maria

Maria, I used to think you were pretty good at slapping Tarzan, but you've opened your mouth pretty wide on this and now your foot is wedged firmly in there. Atlanta not a worthwhile target?

The conflict and insults continue........

Maria:When Tar talks about using nukes to take out airports and CNN, I chuckle. He has no clue about targeting strategies and thinks nukes are a dime a dozen, worthless enough to waste on airports and CNN. Too funny to me.
Tarzan Clearly, you yourself have no idea about targeting strategies, unless of course those targeting strategies have nothing to do with common sense or the strategy is not to actually win a nuclear exchange.

Now we get to Maria's alleged crime against her country~~~

Thanks for the update Tar. But you still didn't answer when you last studied nuclear weapons effects. Also tell me when you complete your computer simulation which optimizes weapon laydown to obtain the maximum kill. When you finish, we can compare notes and techniques. Until then, keep up with your Maria bashing; it's all you got.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 24, 2001.

Now where here does she even hint at giving out classified information. Would it be classified if Tarzan had the ability to study the effects of nuclear weapons in college as a graduate-level history course specifically on modern warfare.

Yet this is the statement that is being used to try and convict her of treason. This is the same thing that was done to Al Gore about him supposedly saying he invented the internet. It was actually a reporter who started that rumor, but people continued to repeat the lie, using it as proof of Gore lying and exaggerating about everything he said. Yet he had NEVER said it, he had not made the statement that he invented the internet. The same thing is being done to Maria, something she has written has been taken out of context, blown up and repeated over and over to the point where it is considered to be the thruth.

I'm sorry, but no matter how much I disagree with Maria's political views and do not like a lot of the things she says, I will not lie and pretend Maria did offered to share or exchange classified information. I will not lower myself down to the level of lying about someone just because I do not agree with them. As a matter of fact, maria pointed out the fact that her offer to Tarzan is unclassified. But that is ignored in the attempt to further convince the reader she has committed a crime. I have published an UNCLASSIFIED document (you can ask for it under FOIA) on the methodology used for optimization. What part of this statement does no one understand?

If I went along with the "group mentality" of Georgia Bidnessman and Gulfwar Vet and condemned her for something she had not done, I would be doing the very thing I despise the repugs of doing.
No thanks
As for the "subject" of this thread, I do agree with Maria that the targets of a nuclear attack would not necessarily be an infrastructure hub. Like chess here are moves within moves within moves involved. The most obvious is not necessarily the best method of achieving a goal, or more than one way to skin a cat~Why would anyone want to skin a cat? If the "enemy" wanted to take over the country they would have different targets than if they wanted to just destroy it.

All they would have to do is provide enough money and influence and get their "man" into the oval office without a shot being fired.

So do not expect me to lie or be intellectually dishonest in this or any situation, it is against my principles.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), May 07, 2001.


M Some peoples brains are already nuked.

-- (Just@keeping.score), May 07, 2001.

Maria, just so we're all clear on this, I never said I was Army. I did point out some items of note that specifically *applied* to the Army, but I did not specify that I was an Army officer. If you believe that anyone with an understanding of Army commo is automatically Army, then perhaps you don't know what a "purple-suit" assignment is. Once again you try to get under my skin with comments about the Army and about LTCs, but it just doesn't work. The fact of the matter, Maria, is that you've been soundly whipped, and that you let yourself in for it. You've been reduced to snarling like a rabid possum in a cage, and you've completely abandoned the discussion and whatever pretense of politeness you had.

I thought that would happen eventually.

Once again you protest that you didn't offer to exchange classified information on this thread. I disagree. You appear to have some sort of weird sense of honor about this, as if the accusation is more important than the classified material in question. Hint: It isn't. If you want to be an arrogant ass, then go on protesting. If you want to be an adult, say something like "okay, I don't agree with you, but I see what you're saying, so let's regroup and start over." But you didn't do that because you're more worried about kicking Tarzan's sorry hiney. You know, Maria, giving Tarzan a bloody nose is a really good goal, and it's one I can get behind. But don't screw around while doing it, okay? Get your head on straight and do it the right way. I can't believe I actually need to *tell* you this.

Regarding your document, Maria . . . as I indicated earlier, you could identify *yourself,* as well. If you wrote the document for the DoD or DoE (or whoever), then it could be findable if you provided your name and the approximate date of publication. Furthermore, you should know that. I'm not impressed by your claim to have written some peachy-keen document that would prove your bona- fides, only to see that document evaporate like a Sahara mirage when I try to get close to it. If you weren't prepared to present that document as proof, then you shouldn't have bothered bringing it up. It's now *worse* than no proof -- it's nonexistent "proof" that appears to have been made up by you, and it makes you look even more like a fool.

If you don't read everything I write, then that's your problem. Besides, it doesn't look to me like you just missed out on reading some parts of my posts. It looks like you either didn't want to answer or couldn't answer questions that *could* have bolstered your credibility, assuming you had bothered to answer them. You sling a lot of questions, and I answered quite a few of them. However, you are pretty much a failure when it comes to answering the questions of others.

Also, I never said that you made me side with or support Tarzan. I still don't like Tarzan or what he says, but he's not my issue here. My whole issue in this thread has been you, your claims, your behavior and your cavalier attitude about classified material. I also never claimed that you made me jump into this thread. I take full responsibility for my actions here, something you have yet to do, Miss "I-Didn't-Do-It."

Finally, Maria, the only loser here is you.

Cherri, I'll get to you in the morning. Wouldn't want you to mistake a temper for misogyny, 'cause Lord knows, no woman *ever* does anything that could *possibly* make a man angry. Any man who ever becomes intemperate or angry with any woman for any reason whatsoever is a misogynist, right?

What a convenient excuse.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 07, 2001.


Ahh, Cherri, Cherri, Cherri. Where to begin? Let’s begin by observing that your posts have a decided anti-male flavor. Obviously you feel that any disparaging statements regarding a female poster must be indicative of a person who is anti-female. If that is true, then disparaging statements regarding a male poster must likewise be indicative of a person who is anti-male. Your double standard is apparent, and so you demonstrate yourself as being intellectually dishonest before you even get started.

If you have a problem with “condescending” and “superior” attitudes, then I suggest you start with Maria. Let’s review.

Ah Tar, do tell how you would know these things? -- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.

Wow this is just too funny. I'll join in... Tar's engine's runnin' but ain't nobody driving -- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.

Another one for Tar, He thinks the sun come up just to hear him crow. -- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.

How interesting, Cherri. Three posts from Maria, all in the same day, all exhibiting a “condescending” and “superior” attitude, and with no other content than that. Another double standard from Cherri. Let’s mark it down.

Next, to add further errors to your list, Cherri, you claim that I have accused Maria of compromising national security. You are wrong. I accused Maria of *offering* to share classified information, not of actually sharing it. Perhaps your reading skills could use some work. You also claim that I have revealed “rows upon rows of information and details,” yet you handily dodge away from saying that said information is classified. If you have direct knowledge that a single scrap of information that I have posted is classified, then present it. Otherwise, get stuffed, Cherri.

I demanded that Maria prove her bona fides with *unclassified* information, and all the while, Maria has been asking leading questions that could very well have revealed classified information had I answered them in a certain way. Contrary to your claim, Cherri, Maria’s been getting *incredibly* easy questions with *unclassified* answers (“hypocenter,” “atomic weapons,” etc.), and SHE HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER THEM.

In her case, she’s been asking leading questions, incomplete questions and questions based on incorrect suppositions (ICBM vs. SLBM). She’s also been demanding that I prove my bona fides without proving her own. Considering the piss-poor way she has “proven” herself, I don’t feel any great compulsion to give her what she’s asking for. It sounds like a case of an uninformed wannabe and dilettante (Maria) asking someone with classified information (me) to cough up some of those secrets. Sorry, Maria and Cherri, I’m not going to be lured into that.

Furthermore, if Maria truly felt she had no need to defend herself or prove her point, then she could have dropped the discussion any one of the first three times I told her to do so.

I am concerned about national security, Cherri, but I have said an awful lot less than you think, and the “more” I am demanding from Maria could actually be found in some of those unclassified sources she’s referring to. In fact, you could probably find them in a good set of Encyclopedia Britannica. So now we have example number three if your intellectual dishonesty.

Cherri, you say that “I am no fan of Maria. But that is no excuse for being dishonest about what she has done or said.”

Guess what, Cherri? You have already been dishonest about what she has done and said, as well as about what I have done and said. Looks like you’ve already dropped the ball. Apparently you are the same as those you “despise” (odd how you can despise me, while I do not despise Maria). Moreover, you apparently are claiming in your posts that everything I say and do is bad because I am a man, because you believe I was in the testosterone-driven Army, because you believe I have a bad attitude toward women, etc. etc. If you don’t want to be dishonest, that’s great. I commend you for that. But don’t pat yourself on the back for your honesty and speak out both sides of your mouth at the same time.

Your comparison of Maria and President Clinton is a real head- scratcher. Do you often engage in such strained, tortured hyperbole? I can already tell that you carry your prejudices on your sleeve (men, Army, Republicans, etc.), and that really hurts your argument. BTW, it might surprise you to know that I haven’t voted for a Republican president in the last three elections, since I am a Southern Yellow-Dog Democrat, but I’m sure you won’t let that get in your argument’s way. You’re too intellectually honest for that, aren’t you? No chance that mere facts would ever change your mind, right? Besides, you’re probably prejudiced against Southerners (as well as against men, Army veterans, military retirees and Lieutenant Colonels) anyway.

I’ve snipped your recap of the thread, because it is obvious upon even the most cursory reading that you’re taking Maria’s side for no apparent reason. Snide comments from Tarzan and others get painted in dark, forbidding, threatening shades, while snide comments from Maria are called “friendly banter.” Furthermore, I am called an “antagonist” from my very first post.

Cherri, your hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty and double standards are lit up with runway lights for all to see. Perhaps intellectual dishonesty is against your principles, but if so, then your principles need to be taken out of the attic and given a good dusting- off. And while you’re at it, your prejudices need to be given the principles’ former place in the attic.

“Convict her of treason?” Get serious, Cherri. No one’s called for any charges, and no one has used the word “treason” except *you.* Now we have *two* drama queens on this thread.

“I'm sorry, but no matter how much I disagree with Maria's political views and do not like a lot of the things she says, I will not lie and pretend Maria did offered to share or exchange classified information.” Cherri, no pretending is required. I have already demonstrated that you hold double standards regarding what Maria posts and what I post in opposition to her. If you are knowingly engaging in that double standard, then you ARE lying, Madam. I can already see that you are pretending Maria didn’t offer to share classified info.

“I will not lower myself down to the level of lying about someone just because I do not agree with them.” You are lying about me, most probably because you do not agree with me. And you are lying about Maria.

“But that is ignored in the attempt to further convince the reader she has committed a crime.” No, I am attempting to convince her to SHUT HER MOUTH regarding classified information. I am not trying to convince anyone that she has committed a crime. I said it before and I will say it again – I don’t care who wins the argument between Tarzan and Maria, but I want Maria to get her head on straight and stop fooling around with the classified information she claims to have simply so she can get a leg up on Tarzan. Cherri, if you were intellectually honest and refused to lie about people, then you would have already understood this from all the previous times I have said it. But you’re not intellectually honest, you do lie, and you’ll misrepresent what I say in order to try to get a leg up on me in this argument.

You invoke Maria’s unclassified document as some sort of proof that she is not offering to share classified information. Listen closely, Cherri. The two events (offering to share classified information, claiming to have authored an unclassified document) are two different things. The unclassified document does not support your claim or Maria’s. Furthermore, if she really did author it (and remember, she claimed authorship in order to bolster her claim to knowledge in this field), then she shouldn’t have any problem with identifying herself and the document so that her claim can be checked out and given the appropriate weight it deserves. But if she won’t present confirmable proof, then all she’s doing is blowing smoke. And YOU, my dear, are sucking on Maria’s second-hand smoke. Hope it doesn't make you sick.

“If I went along with the "group mentality" of Georgia Bidnessman and Gulfwar Vet and condemned her for something she had not done, I would be doing the very thing I despise the repugs of doing.” What a surprise. You have already condemned me for doing something I have not done, and you are overlooking Maria’s misdeeds.

Congratulations. You talk JUST like a Republican, Cherri.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 08, 2001.


It is difficult for me to have to defend a person who accused me of wanting to "suck Clinton's cock".

Unfortunatly, it is necessary.

*sigh*

Cherri, I'll get to you in the morning. Wouldn't want you to mistake a temper for misogyny, 'cause Lord knows, no woman *ever* does anything that could *possibly* make a man angry.

What does that have to do with anything? The subject and Maria's alleged breach of security is nothing to do with gender. You are free to claim she is guilty of anything, which does not mean it is true, but why do you use gender slurs in the process? Or is it such a normal part of your daily life that you are not aware that it may be offensive to some?

Any man who ever becomes intemperate or angry with any woman for any reason whatsoever is a misogynist, right?

Once again, what does it have to do with gender? My point being, if she were male, these statements would be irrelevant. They should be irrelevant.

What a convenient excuse. I am not making excuses, I am giving an explanation.

Ok, my problems with what happened on this thread.

Gulfwar Vet, again I apologize, I am guilty of grouping you with Georgia Bidnessman, making you guilty by association with his (unconscious?) attitude towards females.

As for the military branches, there is a rivalry that exists. We may go back and forth about which is better, but we stand together against outsiders who would bash any of them. But it is true that the Air Force is the most technical and contains the most intelligent troops.

Next, as for the disagreement between Maria and Tar, personally I believe there is more to what an enemy would nuke then civilian and or military targets. Especially in this day and age where it would be more expedient to use psychological warfare or financial efforts to take control of the country then destroying things. I don't think the argument between them is relevant in today's world.

Now for Maria offering secrets, Bull Shit. She did not. Repeating that she did in different ways will not change that fact. And for Georga to keep demanding she offer proof of her job and theories, he is guilty of asking her to reveal information that may be secure. That makes him more guilty of complicity then she is. During the Y2K debate there was a person who I believed was close to crossing the line and I jumped in and put a stop to it as soon as I read it. I explained in no uncertain terms that this person would be reported and held responsible for breach of security if it went any further. And I would have had no problem with doing so.

As for my view that he has a problem with her gender on top of the subject being discussed, he is probably not even aware of how he comes off to someone like me who is "sensitive", especially in a military situation where the fact of gender appears to color opinion. I offer his own words as an explanation for my discomfort with what I view as his attitude and let them speak for themselves.

The authoritarian and gender related statements below.

Gender related remarks:

I’m going to give you some valuable advice, lady.

All right, little lady. I'll play your game.

I know you had superiors, honeybunch.

Whether it's some drunk 21-year-old enlisted kid who wants to impress a girl in a bar or some woman who wants to get an advantage in an Internet argument

Well, sweetcakes, that's a VIOLATION.

then you are flirting with a felony, little lady.

and the target's vulnerabilities (as you said), honeybunch,

I am certain that there are plenty of discussions of this topic all over the Internet, little lady

opportunity to prove me wrong, Missy.

I've answered quite a few of your questions, honey.

mark you as either a poseur, a liar or a dilettante.

Contrary to your drama-queen claim, Maria

BTW, Maria, I'm a man, and I don't get called "little lady."

Authoritarian related remarks - attitude of superiority:

People higher than you – such as myself -

The word you are looking for, General, is "hypocenter."

Maria, I have heard just about enough out of you on this topic.

You worked for someone like me, assuming you aren't making all this up.

Give it up, Maria. That's an order.

What makes him think he has the authority to ORDER her around?

Yea, sure, I'll bet you are ready to "read me out" and tell me all the things I have said that were wrong come morning. *sigh*

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), May 08, 2001.


Cherri, the only arrogant blowhard on this thread is Georgia. She insists I offer to exchanged classified data. I did no such thing. Yet she continues to write reams and reams about it. Cherri, I appreciate your attitude towards the military. Even though we don't see eye to eye on politics we do have that in common. Don't bother with the "purple suit" (I worked for NORAD - is that purple enough for you, Georgia), she's not worth it.

LOL I love it when cyber folks psycho analyze. From my posts this cyber person can tell I'm a male basher. Too funny.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 08, 2001.


Haven't you ever heard of Atlanta, Georgia? Sheesh, Georgia Bidnessman is a MAN you dangerous, stupid nimrods.

IMHO, Maria did offer to trade notes with Tarzan: When you know a little more about the costs involved and the pay off for such a strategy, we'll have a more useful discussion.

She also said,

Fact *is* I could give you the list of high risk targets. I used to categorize them as A, B, or C, that is high, medium, or low when I worked in this area.

She attempted to bolster the fact that she knows classified information by saying:

I can go into it (why Atlanta wouldn't make a good target) but I'd have to shoot you afterwards. Hmmm That's not such a bad idea!

She states she thought about it (otherwise she wouldn't have to "hold her fingers back") but hasn't given classified info yet:

I could have commented on the missile ranges given in this particular web site but held my fingers back. Janes offers lots of info. Check it out.

Cherri, You really should crawl back under that rock you came from. It is amazing how your selective thinking shows up in everything you post. Bidnessman DID use the terms "little lady" etc. but you were out of line when you said he has an attitude of superiority when he said:

"People higher than you – such as myself - would then use that information to determine whether or not that target or location would be attacked, or whether the mission called for more or less munitions or air assets in order to achieve the desired level of damage."

There is heirachy in the military, imbicile. He had an air of authority because he had authority.

Speaking of an attitude of authority, Maria said:

No Tar my experience isn't anything like yours. It's far superior to yours.

It's amazing how you glossed over that.

Cherri, as usual, you make me want to PUKE!

-- (Just@keeping.score), May 08, 2001.


Polly hit the nail on the head. Maria insists on referring to Georgia Bidnessman in the feminine because among a certain mindset that is an insult. This, coupled with Maria's delusional rantings against pre-natal care and other bizarre statements on feminism betray a deeply, profoundly fucked up individual. Either that or Maria is so abysmally stupid she doesn't think about what she says.

-- Gloria Steinem (gloria.steinem@now.cam), May 08, 2001.

LOL I'm not a woman; I'm a gay black man. You want proof. Turn around and bend over.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 08, 2001.

Exactly as I thought. A deeply fucked up, self-loathing individual

-- Gloria Steinem (gloria.steinem@now.cam), May 08, 2001.

Cherri, to borrow from Maria, your claim that it is necessary for you to defend her is a “cop-out.”

I berate you on the gender topic because you have demonstrated yourself on this thread as being more interested in sexist language than in the topic at hand. That’s fine, if that’s what you want to talk about. Start a thread for it, and I’ll come on over. But do you think you could actually *prove* that I’ve asked Maria for classified information? Do you think that you could actually *prove* that I have revealed classified information? Come on, Cherri. Prove it. Don’t be like Maria and beg off when you’re asked to give proof.

What does misogyny have to do with anything? I’ll tell you what it has to do with this particular thread. The only ground which either of you have left to defend yourselves is the misogyny you allege and accuse me of. Neither of you are talking ‘shop’ any more. Maria probably doesn’t want to because she’s been shown to be unacquainted with some elementary terms that someone in her field would know. You probably don’t want to talk about it because you can’t prove that I’ve revealed classified information. I know that the subject has nothing to do with gender. *You* and *Maria* brought gender up, not me. But then again, if I were arguing with someone named “Mario,” it probably wouldn’t bother you, would it? Why use gender slurs? Perhaps *you* should ask *yourself* why you use slurs against the “testosterone-driven” Army. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you use slurs against “lifers” and retired LTCs. Perhaps you should curb your own slurs before trying to take someone else to task, but perhaps such slurs are such a normal part of your daily life that you are not aware that they may be offensive to some.

You say that “I am not making excuses, I am giving an explanation.” No, Cherri, you are definitely making excuses. Further, if you can apologize to Gulf War Vet for saying that he was “playing soldier,” then perhaps you can also apologize to the Army in general. You know, there are women in the Army; don’t you think some of them might be offended by what you said?

You say: “Now for Maria offering secrets, Bull Shit. She did not.” You are *wrong,* Cherri. If you disagree, fine. But consider that the judgment is not yours to make. If I really had it in for Maria, then I am perfectly capable of contacting the proper military authorities, who would THEN make the judgment. But as I have said over and over again, my objective is to get Maria to watch her mouth and keep her head, rather than get overheated and let something slip. I’ve been watching Maria’s posts with interest over the last few weeks, because she opposes Tarzan so frequently. I generally agree with her, even though I think she is smart enough to do a better job on him. In this particular case, though, Maria let her ego get the better of her, and she rapidly went from insults to offering to swap notes.

(Sigh) As if I should have to say it again . . . IT WOULD BE BETTER TO LET TARZAN WIN EVERY ARGUMENT HE GETS IN THAN TO LET CLASSIFIED INFORMATION SLIP. If you can’t support that, then you have a big problem, Cherri.

If you dealt with classified information during your tenure with the Air Force, you know that it is best to err on the side of caution when dealing with it. Infosec is everyone’s job, right?

You also say that “Repeating that she did in different ways will not change that fact.” Cherri, repeating that Maria did not offer to exchange or outright give classified information will not change the fact that she did. Do you really want me to turn this over to the authorities? I’ve told you that was not my aim, but if you keep this argument up, I will.

You also make the claim that: “And for Georga to keep demanding she offer proof of her job and theories, he is guilty of asking her to reveal information that may be secure. That makes him more guilty of complicity then she is.” Let me give you a lesson, Cherri. The questions I asked Maria could have easily been answered with UNCLASSIFIED information, just as I told you this morning. Read that post more closely. However, even if I HAD asked for classified information – which I did not ever do (and I’d like to see you prove that I did) – simply asking for information that may or may not be classified is NOT a crime, and certainly not something I would be “guilty” of. So you just think about that, Cherri. If you think otherwise, then you just bring it on.

And let’s try this on for size, Cherri. If Maria actually did write the UNCLASSIFIED paper she referred to earlier, then just how am I asking her for classified information when I ask her to tell me how to find it?

Whether you are uncomfortable with my attitude has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is a separate topic entirely, yet you entwine the two as if they are cut from the same cloth. If you don’t like what I say, that’s one thing. If you don’t like how I say it, then that’s another. Obviously you don’t like how I say what I’m saying, but as far as the content goes, you’re making weak and unfounded complaints that you can’t defend. You’re also reduced to lying about me revealing (or asking Cherri to reveal) classified information. I asked you to prove either of those claims, and you have done neither. And I don’t think you will.

If you don’t like the language I am using, then point it out and ask – like an adult – for me to stop. But if you think slurs are so low, then perhaps you should refrain for sinking to that level yourself. Rising above the fray would add a lot of weight to your argument, Cherri, but it’s way too late for you now.

And as regards the “authoritarian” statements, well, we’ve already seen Maria’s authoritarian statements to Tarzan. I can give you a list of those, if you like. But I'm sure such a list wouldn't cause you any indigestion, because you've got no problem with authoritarian statements that come from women, do you?

In any event, no doubt you understand the concept of the chain of command, so I’m sure you know how authority works in the military. It's pretty easy to tell that if Maria actually did work in NW S&P, she was at a pretty low level. Her language gives that much away.

Cherri, once you’ve removed your blinders, we should be able to talk about my “slurs” and those of you and Maria. Once you’ve removed your blinders, we should be able to talk about my authoritarian attitude as well as Maria’s. Once you’ve removed your blinders, you might even be able to give us some actual proof of one of your wild- eyed accusations.

Yup. You’re arguing JUST like a Republican again.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 08, 2001.


Maria, the only arrogant blowhard on this thread is yourself. You consistently deny wrongdoing, even though there's ample proof, and you continue to post on the topic. You holler for proof, and when you get it, you complain about the length of the posts. I don't know if your eyes get tired from all that reading or if your head starts to hurt from all the big words, but you're just going to have to deal with it.

I hate to say it, Maria, but I don't appreciate your attitude towards classified information. However, we do seem to see eye to eye on politics. Also, the only way you were a purple-suiter is if you were an officer.

Well, Maria? Were you an officer? If so, then that makes your violation and your attitude even worse.

Finally, Maria, no one psychoanalyzed you, and certainly not me. The male-basher is *Cherri.* Obviously the long posts and the hard words made your head hurt and got you confused. Too funny.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 08, 2001.


Um...if folks don't mind, I'm gonna try and kill this thread. As far as *I* can see [and I wouldn't know military intelligence if it bit me on the butt], the link provided in the original post showed possibilities that probably existed when *I* was a child. *I* saw it as just another "excuse" to support a missile-defense system and threw in about 30 random zip-codes that showed a threat from SOMEWHERE. I thought the whole thing silly, which is why I didn't bother posting. THEN, the thread turned into a soap-opera.

I've never been a woman in the military, but I HAVE been a woman in a man's field [well...at the time programming was a man's field.] I worked with only men day in and day out for over 20 years and it wasn't until I'd moved to Texas that a co-worker asked a male systems' programmer if the code I'd given him to do something was correct. I'd used the code successfully at plenty of other sites, and said, "I already said the code worked." Larry said, "Well, excuse ME If I want another opinion." I blew that off as just the way Larry was, the systems' programmer confirmed my code, and I never really encountered any "professional" flack from him again, and we worked on about five contracts together and are still friends to this day.

I may be talking out of turn here, but I've gotten the impression from posting alongside both Maria and Cherri for about 2 years now that success for women in the military didn't come as easily as success [maybe I really mean recognition of ability] in the private sector. I saw a certain defensive mechanism in them that *I* didn't have. I didn't have to convince folks that I knew the stuff in my field. I wrote programs, tested them, and turned them over. I didn't even care if other folks took credit for my work. I got paid to do a job and [truth be told], I loved it so much I would have paid THEM to let me do it.

I don't know why Georgia used the "affectionate" terms he did. I seem to recall discussing Zell with him at one time and I don't remember that behavior. I don't know why Maria referenced him using the female gender either. I don't even know why this whole "pissing match" started in the FIRST place, but it's become "bait" FISH..."bait"...FISH. I'm familiar with being "baited", but methinks the smartest fish will eventually say, "Enough is enough."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 08, 2001.


You're right, Anita, we did talk about Zell Miller once, and though we disagreed, I don't believe we ever used any insults or diminutives. I think that's because you and I were able to disagree without being disagreeable. I don't think that's possible to do with Maria and Cherri.

In the case of Maria, I think she wants to whip Tarzan at any cost. I can't understand why she would argue so loudly about the mishandling of classified information unless she thought that beating Tarzan was more important than keeping classified info secure. She's taken some odd positions on other threads (like screaming that pregnant women don't need prenatal care - what the heck is THAT about?) that she appears to be taking simply so she can oppose Tarzan. She can take any weird position she wants, but when she starts screwing around with classified info, I simply can't sit still.

In Cherri's case, she seems to be more infuriated by sexist language than about Maria's slack attitude toward classified information. Cherri posts plenty of "evidence" of my "authoritarian attitude" and "sexism," but not a single scrap of evidence that *I* have revealed classified info. Nor has she posted an effective rebuttal to the claim (from me and others) that Maria offered to exchange classified info. I think Cherri is more interested in countering sexist langugage than in anything else on this thread.

You're right in saying that the smart fish say "enough," Anita. I've been telling Maria to say that for over a week now. I wish it were enough simply to *remind* her not to fool around with classified info, but she's made it clear that reminding simply isn't sufficient. I don't relish having to get in the mud with a pig (because you both get all dirty, but the pig likes it), but as long as Maria's screaming at *me* and not offering to trade notes with people, I am keeping her quiet on classified matters, and therefore achieving my objective.

I'll certainly play target for some flames so I can do that. Small sacrifice.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 09, 2001.


Well, as I said Georgia, I don't read everything you write and not all my responses are directed to you. And let me repeat something that I wrote 2/3 of the way down this thread "Georgia, for the last time I didn't offer to exchange classified information on this thread" I would never do that but continue to rant.

The "purple suit" means you worked in an integrated outfit. You didn't give up your branch of service or your rank.

Anita, this thread won't die because Georgia won't let it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 09, 2001.


Mr. Bidnessman, I think we should let this thread stand as evidence of the stupidity of these two women. I think a quick note on the bottom of it once a day to keep it active to remind everyone what kind of deluded thinking goes on with these women might serve as a good reminder for them also. Our country is too precious to allow this kind of activity to continue so I thank you for your intervention.

-- (Just@keeping.score), May 09, 2001.

Georgia and Just's "duty" is amusing and sad. You have nothing better to do than to "shut Maria up" and "keep the thread active" speaks volumes of your life.

-- one (who@cares.for.the.mentally.retarded), May 09, 2001.

The easiest way to settle this is to report Maria to the proper authorities to see if they care.

-- helen (not_kidding@all.now), May 09, 2001.

Well, Maria, as I said, not reading everything is a weak excuse for not answering questions. Picking and choosing bits of your opponent’s posts for response is a quick way to miss things and thereby weaken your own argument. Besides, it was rude of you not to answer my questions since I was polite enough to answer many of the questions you threw my way. Perhaps you just didn’t realize that answering would have been the smart – and polite – thing to do. And I disagree with you – you did offer to exchange or give classified information out. You *did* do it, and you continue to rant about it. Very good answer on ‘purple-suits,” however. I knew you would eventually answer at least one question correctly. Good work!

Maria, this thread would have died a long time ago if *you* had simply shut *your* mouth, as I told you to do so many times. In case you hadn't noticed, it takes *at least two* people to have an argument, so if you'd clam up, the thread would die. Instead, you keep screaming about how you haven't done anything wrong. If you want the thread to die, then be quiet.

Scorekeeper, I have no intention of keeping this thread alive for the purpose you advocate. Memories seem to be pretty long around here, so I’m sure that people who care will remember Maria’s faux pas and Cherri’s faulty reasoning. However, thank you for the kind words.

One Who Cares, my duty is not to “shut Maria up,” and if you had read this thread more fully, you would know that. My duty is to see to it that classified information is not mishandled or revealed to uncleared persons. I’ve said that at least twice now. Obviously, you missed that. Also, I do not agree with Scorekeeper’s proposed course of action. Perhaps you should, as we say in the military, “check yourself,” because you’re jumping to some unfounded conclusions and making yourself look bad.

Finally, Helen, I really don’t want to report Maria, just as I said earlier. I’d rather Maria get her head screwed on straight, take this argument as an object lesson and ‘sin no more.’ I’d really rather not report her and have the NSA up in her business, but she can decide which way she wants to go.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 10, 2001.


"In case you hadn't noticed, it takes *at least two* people to have an argument" and the thread did die before you started with your ranting. I did not pass on classified or offer to pass on classified. You are so wrong, OR classified?! Admit you're wrong. Impossible for a retired LC. *Sigh*

"I knew you would eventually answer at least one question correctly. Good work!" You arrogant blowhard. I don't have to take your tests. (A test from a retired LC proves what? That LCs are assholes) Your approval of me isn't what I seek out of life.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 10, 2001.


Georgia, is there a law that requires you to report Maria?

-- helen (w@it.ing), May 10, 2001.

You know Maria, I was going to let this drop since Bidnessman asked me to. Seems you're just hankering for trouble and I'm sure someone is going to accomodate you.

-- (Just@keeping.score), May 10, 2001.

No way does this thread die!!!

Just wouldn't seem right now would it.....

TGIF!!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), May 11, 2001.


This thread had not died, Maria. This thread was *still* on the "Recent Answers" list, and so had not died. You are wrongly claiming that this thread had died because in retrospect, you did not WANT me to respond. Since you cannot prove me wrong, since you cannot prove yourself right, and since you are so thoroughly whipped, you are desperately claiming that this thread was dead as if that would mean that all my posts somehow didn't 'count.' How perfectly *pitiful,* Maria.

Furthermore, you *did* offer to pass on classified information. Nothing keeps this thread going other than your own ego and your disrespect for the secrets of this nation. If you had an ounce of self-respect, you'd bow out gracefully and this thread WOULD die. But you're such an arrogant egomaniac that you simply can't do it. It would mean admitting that you had been beaten, and that's too bitter a pill for you to swallow.

"You are so wrong, OR classified?!" Some parts of OR are classified, just as I said, you ridiculous woman. Some areas of Applied Mathematics are classified, just as I said. Some areas of Nuclear Physics are classified, just as I said. YOU admit that YOU'RE wrong, Maria. I was right. You were, are and will continue to be WRONG.

"Impossible for a retired LC. *Sigh*" And here you display more of your bad attitude toward officers. I think that perhaps Tarzan was right -- you're some failure who either got kicked out of ROTC or was washed out of OCS.

"You arrogant blowhard. I don't have to take your tests." You most certainly DO have to take them if you expect to be believed on this thread. You claim that YOU don't have to take MY tests, but you expect that I have to take YOURS? You expect answers from others, but refuse to give answers to those same others? More double standard. More refusal to prove your claims. More dodges from the Queen of Evasion. More proof of your desperation.

BTW, Maria, you misused the word "blowhard." Look it up.

"(A test from a retired LC proves what? That LCs are assholes)" A test on UNCLASSIFIED information from a retired LTC proves that you don't know even a fragment of the things you claim. A test from this particular retired LTC proves that you're full of BULL, Maria. You're a liar, and with your kind assistance and help, I've proven it.

"Your approval of me isn't what I seek out of life." On the contrary, you ridiculous liar. The approval of everyone on this board is painfully important to you. Since you have been shown to be a blowhard and a liar, you just can't keep away from this thread, can you?

I told you to shut up and stop embarrassing yourself. If you want to keep screaming a bunch of bull and embarrass yourself even worse, that's your decision. But you are not going to do yourself any favors by continuing to post on this thread. You are beaten.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 12, 2001.


Helen, for a case like this, it's really discretionary. If I knew for a cold, hard fact that Maria had *knowingly* given or traded classified information, then I would be an accessory if I did *not* report her.

However, in a case like this, if Maria and I were both on active duty, I would most probably notify her supervisor and let him or her smarten Maria up without getting Maria's hiney barbecued. However, I would still be within regulations if I notified the G2 (Intelligence) department of our unit and let them drop the hammer on her. Basically, I'm doing Maria a favor by *not* reporting her, and I've said as much several times. I *could* report her and ruin her day, but I don't *have* to. And in this case, a warning seems to be sufficient.

The fact that Maria's snarling and spitting like a rabid possum in a cage tells me that she's not about to admit that she was wrong, but did you notice that she has stopped talking about nuclear targeting strategies and that she's no longer offering to "trade notes?" Since Maria's stopped engaging the the questionable actions, and since I have no reason to believe that she has actually *given* anyone the information in question, then I may choose to either report her or not report her.

If, however, Maria were responding with "you ridiculous man, Tarzan and I are comparing notes RIGHT NOW, and it's none of your business," then I would be on the phone, making a call.

Does that help, Helen?

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 12, 2001.


Yes sir, Georgia.

-- helen (resting@siesta.now), May 12, 2001.

giggling bubbles out of my nose!

-- jiggy giggler (g@i.g), May 13, 2001.

Georga, exactly where does Maria offer to pass on classified information?



-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), May 14, 2001.


You want to know, Cherri? I will be more than happy to repost that material for you, and I'll do so, either tonight or tomorrow morning. And while you are waiting for me to do that, perhaps you can do *me* a favor or two . . .

You accused *me* of posting classified information. Do you think that YOU could post proof of that for us? I've already asked you for it once or twice, and you've been notably silent on the matter.

Do you think you can demonstrate where I *asked* Maria for classified information? You claimed that I did, and so I asked you to show me where, but you never responded. Do you now repudiate that statement? Do you admit to being wrong? Or do you stand by it though you are simply unable (or don't want) to back that statement up?

Do you think you can apologize for those terrible gender slurs you used earlier? If it was wrong of me to use them, then it was just as wrong for you to do so. Besides, the women in the "testosterone- driven" Army (your words, Cherri) might be offended by your statements, and you wouldn't want that, would you?

I don't mind obliging you, Cherri, but you, like Maria, appear to have a nasty habit of demanding that other people prove their claims while you refuse to prove your own. I think it's only fair that you give some support to your own accusations if you're going to demand proof from others. You also demand a certain standard of behavior from others that you do not appear to be willing to meet yourself.

You've been shown by me and others to have a gigantic double standard in this argument. You've also had a week since I asked you for some proof of your own accusations. Now you return, with no proof in hand, and you're asking me to do that which you either will not or can not. If you had come back with proof, that would be one thing. But you haven't, and you demand that I give *you* some. What's the story?

With this latest post from you, Cherri, I simply must ask -- does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 14, 2001.


All right, Cherri, here’s the proof you have asked for. Bear in mind that you must consider this evidence as a *body,* which is how G2 would consider it. G2 is not very likely to behave as a civilian court and say “well, she didn’t come right out and say “here’s the classified information you asked for.” Given your claimed military experience, Cherri, you would know that the military relies on a much less stringent standard of proof, requiring only an *indication of willingness* on the part of an individual to give or exchange classified data in order to take action.

Keep that in mind as I present the evidence you asked for.

You can present the evidence for your earlier claims as soon as you are ready.

Firstly, Maria says this. She does not outright offer to give out classified data, but she does try to establish her *knowledge* of classified data, and tantalizingly says, in effect, ‘I *could* share it with you if I wanted to.’

###

Fact *is* I could give you the list of high risk targets. I used to categorize them as A, B, or C, that is high, medium, or low when I worked in this area.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 2001.

And here, Maria tries to bolster her claim to knowledge. She also boasts of her access to classified information, and that she has studied nuclear weapon effects. Of course, as we have seen earlier, Maria lacks any knowledge of nuclear weapon *history.*

###

Oh yeah, and when was the last time you read an intelligence report? When did you study nuclear weapons effects?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 24, 2001.

In this post, Maria outright offers to compare her classified notes and techniques with Tarzan’s unclassified notes and techniques. NOWHERE has Maria claimed that her knowledge comes from unclassified sources; in fact, she has taken pains to tell us several times that her information comes from CLASSIFIED sources. Ergo, if she’s offering to swap notes with Tarzan, then she’s offering to trade classified data for unclassified data.

###

Also tell me when you complete your computer simlulation which optimizes weapon laydown to obtain the maximum kill. When you finish, we can compare notes and techniques.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 24, 2001.

In the next post, Maria asks Tarzan for specific information that he might have used in arriving at his conclusions. Strangely enough, Maria asks some questions that have absolutely nothing to do with targeting. For example, psi and thermal effects have to do with BDP and BDA (Bomb Damage Projection and Bomb Damage Assessment), not with which way warheads are aimed.

However, Maria wants to know what mathematical techniques Tarzan used, and tells us which ones she has used. Since Maria STILL claims access to classified information in this area, and since she hasn’t retracted her offer to share, she’s again offering to give up classified information if Tarzan will tell how he approached these issues.

###

OK compare notes. What kind of nuclear weapons, MIRV's and megatons? What were the locations of those weapons? What psi and thermal effects did you consider? What kind of trajectories, depressed? What optimization technique did you use? Was it a continuous solution or discrete? I used Lagrangian multipliers. This is not the best but for the size of my simulation, it came close enough to optimum. How would you use discrete optimization methodologies with large numbers of equations? What equations did you use for optimization? Which bases or targets did you insert into the simulation? What were the vulnerabilities of those bases? And finally what were your conclusions?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 24, 2001.

In this post, Maria again claims to possess classified knowledge, and now offers to have a “serious discussion” with Tarzan. Another offer to exchange classified information? Looks that way to me. I’d be happy to let G2 decide.

###

And then to substantiate your knowledge of nuclear strategies, you wrote, "there's several reasons in the world to nuke Atlanta (not the least of which is our traffic and local politics) and no reason to nuke Remote." I joked about your evaluation based on my experience (15 years old, yet still closer to reality than your experience). Ya know, if you'd like a serious discussion then stop being such a horse's ass.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 24, 2001.

Here, Maria gets angry at people who are questioning her claimed knowledge. Instead of letting it pass (as someone who knew classified data would do), she just gets angry at them. Of course, she AGAIN tries to bolster her claim that she has access to classified data.

###

And my experience, my reading of intelligence documents, calculating weapons effects and determining our systems' vulnerabilities only dig my hole deeper. :)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 24, 2001.

Also, a day later, Maria tosses around some further claims regarding her great big store of classified government information. She claims to have briefed Pentagon officials. She claims that her data is published (and did so again later in the thread). She asks if she can find Tarzan’s published studies (but won’t produce her own allegedly-published studies when asked). Maria is going to an awful lot of trouble to claim that she has access to classified info, and she is STILL trying to swap notes with Tarzan.

###

Tar, you're too funny! Tell me how many lines of code did your little program have? With your little computer program how many studies did you do and how many Pentagon officials did you brief? Have you ever *been* to the Pentagon? Did you publish your little program? What about your studies? Can I find them some where? You still haven't answer my previous questions but yes you know so much more than me and you're right too! Too funny!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 25, 2001.

Of course, when I ask Maria questions, she either can’t answer them or won’t answer them, even when the answer is simple (for someone of her claimed knowledge and experience) and unclassified. When I take her to task for failing to answer my questions, I’m told that she doesn’t bother to read everything that’s posted (even when it is a direct response to her. Well, to borrow directly from Maria, my response to that is --

###

You still haven't answer my previous questions but yes you know so much more than me and you're right too! Too funny!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 25, 2001.

What’s fair is fair, Maria and Cherri. If Maria wants to take that position, then she needs to be prepared for that position to be used against her.

In any event . . .

You know, Cherri, you might be right. Maria might not have offered to share classified information. But if that’s true, then it would only be so because she doesn’t POSSESS any. Given her answers (and lack thereof) to my questions, I’m beginning to think that Maria doesn’t know even a quarter of what she claims she does.

However, if she DOES possess classified information, then her participation on this thread clearly indicates a willingness on her part to share or outright *give* that classified information away. That is ALL that is necessary to constitute a violation. If either you or Maria are not clear on that, Cherri, then you need to check yourself and smarten up. Once again, IT WOULD BE BETTER TO LET TARZAN WIN EVERY ARGUMENT HE GETS IN THAN TO LET CLASSIFIED MATERIAL SLIP OUT.

Maria could make amends in one of two ways, Cherri.

One – if she’s just jerking our chains, then she could come right out and admit that she’s been exaggerating. She could admit that she doesn’t know the classified data she claims, and then there’d be no question of a violation.

Two – if she really does possess the knowledge she claims, she could – no, make that SHOULD – repudiate her offer to swap notes, then take her parting shot at Tarzan and finally sit down and shut up on this matter.

Maria has made an awful mess of this thread and of her credibility. I hate to see it come to that, but nobody made Maria do what she’s done. It’s time now for her to be responsible for cleaning up her own mess.

As for you, Cherri, let's have *your* evidence. It's sauce for the goose.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 15, 2001.


Georgia, You backed up what I said. I'm sorry, but no matter how much I disagree with Maria's political views and do not like a lot of the things she says, I will not lie and pretend Maria did offered to share or exchange classified information.

The accusation against Maria was a serious one. Had she been giving out secure information, I personally would have turned her in. I would turn anyone in who did so. The point was, she did not. I cannot condone potentially ruining someone's life just because I do not like them or their views. It was important that the point be made that she did NOT offer to share classified information.

Georga, you are enjoying this thread in the same way Maria was with Tar, because it is a subject you are pretty knowledgeable about.

I think you would be an interesting person to discuss some things with, but this whole thread has gotten to a point I am uncomfortable with. I find myself on the opposite side of the fence with people who's "side" I am on, in a position where I am feeling manipulated into trying to defend myself as being in the same boat as Maria. I have no opinion of how much she knows and if she has exaggerated her knowledge. That is between others on this thread. I made my point about the security issue, and she and I do have a kinship based on our position as women in the military. Other than that there is little we have in common, and I have no desire to defend her.

Georga, Your way of wording things does manage to try to manipulate the person you are writing to, but I don't feel like "biting" at this time. You attempt to justify your actions by throwing an accusation back, then building upon it as if it were fact. Case in point: Let’s begin by observing that your posts have a decided anti-male flavor. Obviously you feel that any disparaging statements regarding a female poster must be indicative of a person who is anti-female. If that is true, then disparaging statements regarding a male poster must likewise be indicative of a person who is anti-male. Your double standard is apparent, and so you demonstrate yourself as being intellectually dishonest before you even get started.

You set the rules, then make a judgment based on them. But you are NOT in charge of "the rules". Stating that I am anti-male does not make it so. Claiming I am does not negate the sexist attitude in your posts.

Anyway, I have no wish to argue with you just for the sake of argument. I think it might be enjoyable to have a reasonable discussion about an interesting subject without the arguments. I'm tired of fighting and have no desire add to this bringing us to the point where we would become permanent advisories.

Yes I am guilty af making offensive remarks that were uncalled for. Tarzan was right to point that out. Thanks Tarzan for doing it so nicely.

I am sorry for making them. Especially the military slurs. I should not allow myself to use that kind of tactic for any reason. Purposely insulting others without justification is the sign of a coward, which I should not have lowered myself to. Just because it has become so common lately does not justify my doing it too.

Georga,, do whatever you want to do, as far as I'm concerned you acknowledged my point and I'm finished with this discussion.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), May 15, 2001.


"Georgia, You backed up what I said." >>I did no such thing. You asked where Maria offered to pass on classified information. I showed you where.

"I'm sorry, but no matter how much I disagree with Maria's political views and do not like a lot of the things she says, I will not lie and pretend Maria did offered to share or exchange classified information." >>Cherri, you have already been proven to be a liar on this thread. You accused me of a number of things, none of which you will present proof for. You have hollered loud and long about others engaging in "intellectual dishonesty," but then you jump right into it yourself, first chance you get. You demand apologies for sexist language, while USING SEXIST LANGUAGE YOURSELF IN THE SELFSAME POST.

You are a liar, you are a dissembler, you are intellectually dishonest, and you are wrong. You don't say "ha, I was right" and then run away without presenting proof. At least, not when you expect people to believe you.

"The accusation against Maria was a serious one. Had she been giving out secure information, I personally would have turned her in." >>Read carefully, Cherri. Obviously you haven't caught this on any of the previous eleven occasions I have pointed it out. Maria did not exchange classified information, but SHE OFFERED TO EXCHANGE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, and that's all that is necessary to demonstrate a violation. You are wrong again.

"I would turn anyone in who did so. The point was, she did not." >>The point was that she DID offer to EXCHANGE classified information, and you are being intellectually dishonest when you gloss over that point.

"I cannot condone potentially ruining someone's life just because I do not like them or their views. It was important that the point be made that she did NOT offer to share classified information." >>She did do so, and you have neither disproven nor refuted my points. To borrow from you, Cherri, repeating over and over "she didn't, she didn't, she didn't" will not change the fact that she did. In fact, you haven't even bothered to present anything to support your point of view! You simply repeat "she didn't" as if it were some sort of mystic chant that will cause reality to change so that it suits your wishes. Hint: it won't.

"Georga, you are enjoying this thread in the same way Maria was with Tar, because it is a subject you are pretty knowledgeable about." >>I really don't enjoy having to argue this particular point. There hasn't been a great deal of discussion of nukes on this thread, mostly because you and Maria and I have been arguing over the security issue. If you think I find that enjoyable, then you must have rocks in your head. Besides, how you would possibly know what I "enjoy" is beyond me.

"I think you would be an interesting person to discuss some things with, but this whole thread has gotten to a point I am uncomfortable with." >>The whole REASON I started arguing with Maria is because the thread had gotten to a point that ANY military servicemember or veteran should be uncomfortable with.

I should observe, however, Cherri, that I don't think I would care to socialize with you. You make some pretty aggressive accusations, but when asked to back them up, you simply pretend that those accusations don't exist. Perhaps you want others to forget that you made them? More intellectual dishonesty. You berate others for misdeeds (sexist language) while simultaneously engaging in the same misdeeds yourself. Even more intellectual dishonesty. You demand proof while refusing to present it yourself. Still more intellectual dishonesty! Who could possibly have a polite discussion with someone who behaves like that? Not I.

I'm sorry, Cherri. I make it a habit to not socialize with liars and the intellectually dishonest. It tends to drag one down to their level, and I don't plan on sinking to yours.

"I find myself on the opposite side of the fence with people who's "side" I am on, in a position where I am feeling manipulated into trying to defend myself as being in the same boat as Maria." >>What's to defend? To quote Maria, that's a cop-out. Maria offered to exchange classified information. You argued that she did not, yet you refuse to present anything to support your point. I'd say you haven't even started to *defend* anything -- to defend would imply that you have exerted some sort of effort.

"I have no opinion of how much she knows and if she has exaggerated her knowledge." >>Well, since you have no opinion of the entire POINT of the argument, then perhaps you could stand down.

"That is between others on this thread. I made my point about the security issue, and she and I do have a kinship based on our position as women in the military. Other than that there is little we have in common, and I have no desire to defend her." >>You made no point or points about security. Further, this "kinship" crap is totally beside the point of the argument, and supports my point that you were only here to argue the sexism issue. As I said before, if I were arguing with someone named "Mario," instead of someone named "Maria," you wouldn't even care. The whole point here for you is women in uniform getting what you perceive to be the proper measure of respect. However, you're not willing to give the same measure of respect to retirees, LTCs, men or people who now serve or once served in the Army. You're ridiculous, Cherri. And intellectually dishonest, to boot.

"Georga, Your way of wording things does manage to try to manipulate the person you are writing to, but I don't feel like "biting" at this time." >>I'm not trying to manipulate anyone. If you feel manipulated, I'm sorry for that, but perhaps you should check yourself. OTOH, perhaps claiming "manipulation" is just your defense mechanism when you can't refute an opponent's argument. Don't blame me if you can't support what you say.

Whining diatribe CUT

"You set the rules, then make a judgment based on them. But you are NOT in charge of "the rules". Stating that I am anti-male does not make it so. Claiming I am does not negate the sexist attitude in your posts." >>Cherri, *YOU* were the one who claimed that *I* was intellectually dishonest. YOU claimed to set the rules, and YOU made a judgment based on them. You did that FIRST, but you did not do it LAST. When the tables are turned on you, and you are shown to be engaging in the EXACT SAME MISDEEDS, you holler "not fair." Well, Cherri, claiming that I am sexist does not make it so. And claiming that I am sexist does not negate the sexist, anti-male, anti-officer and anti-Army *statements* (attitude be damned) in YOUR posts.

If you want to claim the moral high ground, then perhaps you'd better stay out of mudholes while doing it. Otherwise, you are no better than the people you are trying to lecture.

"Anyway, I have no wish to argue with you just for the sake of argument. I think it might be enjoyable to have a reasonable discussion about an interesting subject without the arguments. I'm tired of fighting and have no desire add to this bringing us to the point where we would become permanent advisories." Then pipe down, Cherri. Either that, or become intellectually honest, and prepare yourself for the distinct possibility that you will lose some arguments from time to time.

"Georga,, do whatever you want to do, as far as I'm concerned you acknowledged my point and I'm finished with this discussion." That's right, Cherri. Fail to prove your points, claim victory and run away. You argue like a Republican, which is to say *pitifully.* However, I really don't care to argue with you, but as I have said earlier, I'm on this thread for however long it takes. If you and/or Maria keep popping up, I will be here. The quickest way for this thread to die is for you two to stop posting on it.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 16, 2001.


Georgia, how do the people around you stand to listen to you? You drone on and on, saying nothing. You just have to have the last word!

-- Put a (fuckin@sock.in.it), May 16, 2001.

Georga, whatever~~~ Talk to the hand.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), May 16, 2001.

Put A Sock, if you're not hearing what I'm saying, then you need to comb the crap out of your hair and ears. I go on and on, sure, but I'm saying more in one post than either Maria or Cherri have said in *all* of theirs on this thread.

Just have to have the last word? That's correct. And the last word is "Maria, shut your mouth on this topic." If you don't like it, I don't care.

Cherri, that piddling grade-school response is about what I expected from you -- especially after your arguments rife with whining, lying and intellectual dishonesty. I don't know how you can look at yourself in the mirror in the morning.

The person who says "whatever" is the person who has run out of arguments and words, but who hasn't got the character to surrender gracefully.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 17, 2001.


"Maria, shut your mouth on this topic." That's the last word? My last post was on May 10; your last post, May 17. Well it seems you've been having the LAST word now for a week.

And after thinking about it; yes, you're right. I didn't mean to call you an arrogant blowhard. I meant to say arrogant asshole.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 17, 2001.


For Maria and Cherri:

When to Keep Your Mouth Shut

Do NOT open your mouth:

When you don't have all the facts -

When you have not verified the story -

If yor words will offend a weaker person -

If your words will be a poor refelction of t your friends and family -

If you would be ashamed of your words later -

If your words would convey a wrong impression -

If the issue is none of your business -

When you are tempted to tell an outright lie -

If your words will damage someone's reputation -

If your words would destroy a friendship -

When you are feeling critical -

If you can't speak with without yelling -

When it is time to listen -

If you may have to eat your words later -

When you are tempted to flatter a wicked person -

When you supposed to be working instead -

-- (A @little. help), May 17, 2001.


You should add: when you are tempted to trade government secrets for no good reason.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), May 17, 2001.

And then........and you did...........and i did not........but.............but nothing..............wah wah wah..............what the f___..................and then if you would just....................okay Gordy

-- sdkhjksjjf;skf (adjhfdj@kdhfdf.adjfidf), May 17, 2001.

LOL too funny, more from the peanut gallery who wouldn't know a secret if it bit them on the ass. The last two posts were so reminiscent of doomer retorts. Thanks for the memories guys!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 17, 2001.

When you are tempted to trade government secrets for no good reason -

When you are tempted to jump into a thread and ask for clarification but unwilling to provide it -

When you are tempted to jump into a thead and not be intellectually honest -

-- (A @little .help), May 17, 2001.


And never trust anyone who posts *these* it is a familiar trademark of one disturbed woman who still posts here.

-- truth Teller (what@bunch.of huey), May 17, 2001.

Georgia, the horse is dead. Sir.

-- helen (be@ting.dead.horses.is.tiresome), May 17, 2001.

This is the thread that would not die.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 18, 2001.

Maria, you silly goose, your last post was *not* on May 10th. It was on Thursday, May 17th, and there were two of them on that date, as we can all clearly see. And considering that you posted your first response about four to six hours after my post, and that Greenspun was down for much of Thursday and Friday, I bet you're watching this thread very carefully. You're not done here. You're going to keep coming back, again and again. You can't help yourself.

Your whining about my posts recalls your whining about 'the thread was dead before YOU started in on me, Georgia.' Give it a rest, Maria. Just go away and never post on this thread again. Give it up. Reclaim some respect by sitting down and shutting up.

Don't care what people on this thread think? Sure you do. It's *painfully* important to you, otherwise you would shove off and let it go.

Call me an arrogant a##hole all you like, Maria. It just makes me picture the rabid possum in a cage again. :)

Helen, the horse isn't dead, but Maria and Cherri won't let me put it out of its misery. There's nothing merciful about forcing a wounded animal to live when it is in pain.

And there's nothing noble about them continuing to argue such a lost cause as this. I don't think they can manage to pry victory from the jaws of this particular defeat.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 19, 2001.


Thanks for giving me an interesting way to avoid thoughts of death and dying...Maria is still free to post, so I guess

Maria didn't do anything illegal on this thread, or

Echelon isn't working very quickly, or

No one has reported this thread to the proper authorites, or

Echelon or a report instigated an investigation, and

Maria didn't do anything illegal on this thread, or

Maria didn't really know anything classified, or

The FBI is too busy defending itself to Congress to check on Maria

-- helen (o@the.possibilities), May 19, 2001.


Not dead, only frozen!

-- The Famous Mr. Ed (beatingon@dead.horse), May 21, 2001.

This whole arguement is too funny! LCOL (if you really are one), I'm not a frequent poster here, although I've been around for a couple of years. Given your threats, I'm not inclined to give you my rank or status. I don't often agree with Maria's posts (on religion for example) or any political post by Cherri. However, their posts on military matters have been more often right on than wrong. In this case, I can't see ANYTHING that Maria has posted that isn't freely available (and frequently discussed) on the 'net. In fact, from what I've seen from Maria's posts over the years, she does indeed know quite a bit more than she posts. I can understand her frustration of wanting to correct misinformation while not wanting to cross the line of giving away classified data. Her reaction is often to attempt to convey the level of her knowledge, without giving substance. On an open forum such as this, it is the best one can do.

You are asking for substance, knowing that providing substance is a trap, and calling her a liar when she doesn't provide it. I suspect that Maria knows this as well. I think your arguments are bait only, since you are simultaneously asking for more elaboration while condemning her for providing "classified" info. This is akin to asking someone "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" There is no acceptable answer.

Some of you know me here, and know where I'm coming from. I've been in similar positions myself.

Helen, whatever axe you have to grind with Maria, this is the wrong tact to take. She hasn't violated any laws or confidences, in spite of what some people have implied. It's old news. You'll have to trust me on that.

Maria, don't respond; this guy is looking for a "nail" and will find it if you give him enough verbage. Time to close this. Move on.

-- Verdoctor (Verdoctor@No.Way), May 22, 2001.


Verdoctor = Maria

-- (dudesy@37.com), May 22, 2001.

Verdoctor, I don't have an axe to grind with Maria.

-- helen (wh@t.who.me), May 22, 2001.

The problem isn't that Maria actually gave out information, it's that she offered to trade that information with Tarzan. That, in and of itself, is a serious offense, if Maria actually knew what she was talking about. Given her very basic errors in nomenclature and her complete inability to answer any of Georgia Bidnessman's questions, it seems obvious that she's either vastly overstating her experience or completely fabricating it. In either case, she'll have to answer to the LORD for her actions, as we all will someday. I trust that He will sort out all our human messes in His good time.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), May 22, 2001.

Polly, you've touched on the issues that bother me the most. Whenever someone says that another poster has violated a law, I like to see the actual statute given. This is a very serious accusation against Maria, and yet no statute has been referenced.

"The problem isn't that Maria actually gave out information, it's that she offered to trade that information with Tarzan. That, in and of itself, is a serious offense, if Maria actually knew what she was talking about."

Mandatory reporting laws usually associate a penalty with failure to report. Is this situation covered by a mandatory reporting law? If so, who is liable for reporting Maria? All of us? Or just the few who are certain Maria broke a law in "offering" information to Tarzan?

One thing I happen to know about mandatory reporting is that the citizen's duty is to report, not to evaluate. An authorized agency will investigate and evaluate the threat. Georgia is not legally empowered to decide whether or not Maria's actions constitute a breach of law, and neither am I, and neither are you.

"Given her very basic errors in nomenclature and her complete inability to answer any of Georgia Bidnessman's questions, it seems obvious that she's either vastly overstating her experience or completely fabricating it."

Georgia's role in this is unclear. Is Georgia legally required to report Maria? Why spend so much time telling Maria to shut up, if a phone call could clear the matter up for her officially? Her errors have been pointed out repeatedly, but why correct misinformation if giving correct information may be illegal?

" In either case, she'll have to answer to the LORD for her actions, as we all will someday. I trust that He will sort out all our human messes in His good time."

I hope God is more merciful than Maria's accusers. I respect our people in service, and Georgia has earned the right to be addressed as "sir". However, I think this could have been handled more easily by simply making that phone call or posting a reference to the statute involved.

In case Georgia feels the urge to respond to this post, I would like to add that a dressing down like Maria got will have me hiding under the bed by the second sentence. The rest would be wasted. :)

-- helen (w@it.a.minute.verdoctor), May 22, 2001.


Verdoctor, your post smells more like a rant than anything else. You're laboring under a number of misconceptions.

I would like to observe that while you may have found Maria's and Cherri's past posts on military matters to be on target, that in no way guarantees that they have been on target in this matter. Further, I would also appreciate some clarification from you regarding these "threats" you claim I have made. I've told Maria to either clam up or be reported. If, as you claim, Maria's done nothing wrong, then she need not fear being reported, right? Ergo, there is no threat. However, if she *has* done something wrong -- well, that's another matter entirely. Perhaps you could parse your claims more accurately.

You state that "you can't see anything that Maria has posted that isn't freely available (and frequently discussed) on the net." Perhaps you missed my statements -- over and over -- that exhibiting a willingness to trade, exchange, swap, sell or give classified information to someone else is all that is necessary to demonstrate a violation. I NEVER said that Maria revealed classified information. I said that she OFFERED to trade it. You need to read this thread more fully before you put your foot in your mouth again, Verdoctor.

So Maria "knows quite a bit more than she posts?" Great. That's exactly how it should be, assuming she actually knows anything classified. Perhaps you "can understand her frustration of wanting to correct misinformation while not wanting to cross the line of giving away classified data," but that frustration is quite beside the point. Regulations are quite clear on the handling of classified information. If Maria felt that she were incapable of handling that data in the required way, then she should have found another line of work.

You made the rather ridiculous claim that "Her reaction is often to attempt to convey the level of her knowledge, without giving substance." This is a real laugh. If Maria's not willing to answer questions about her knowledge (she says she doesn't have to answer questions), if she's not willing to *acknowledge* questions ("I don't read every word you write") and if she's going to *demand* answers to her questions as the same time (witness her many questions which I answered), then her knowledge level appears to be much, much lower than she claims. In fact, given all that, she appears to be trying to fake a level of knowledge which she probably does not possess.

"You are asking for substance, knowing that providing substance is a trap, and calling her a liar when she doesn't provide it."<< I asked Maria EASY, UNCLASSIFIED questions, and SHE COULDN'T ANSWER THEM. She asked me CLASSIFIED questions and then shrieked like a harpy when I refused to fall into *her* trap. Get your head out of your third point of contact, Verdoctor.

"I think your arguments are bait only, since you are simultaneously asking for more elaboration while condemning her for providing "classified" info."<< "She hasn't violated any laws or confidences, in spite of what some people have implied."<< "It's old news. You'll have to trust me on that."<< "Maria, don't respond; this guy is looking for a "nail" and will find it if you give him enough verbage."<< "Time to close this. Move on."<< Helen, here's some data for you to chew on. Please let me know if you would like more references.

The Code of Federal Regulations or the United States Code can be great places for citizens to look to find this sort of information. You can usually find copies in a university library, or in a state library, or a law library. You may also be able to find it online.

Let's use the US Code. Title 18 USC, Part 1, Chapter 37, Section 793 (dated 23 JAN 2000) is applicable. It says, in part, that a person has violated this regulation when "Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Helen, as I indicated in an earlier post, Maria's classified knowledge (assuming she has any) hasn't been revealed. Here's the content of that post from May 12, reproduced.

<< << << << Regarding mandatory reporting, as I said earlier, I don't think any classified material actually changed hands. If I thought or knew that it had, then we'd be in a different ball game. As I have said several times earlier, I'm not interested in ruining Maria's day; I'm just interested in safeguarding classified information. I'd rather she shut her mouth and know that she screwed up.

If I were to report this, then all sorts of nastiness could happen. And I do not want Greenspun subpoenaed. I do not want Unk subpoenaed. I do not want Maria's ISP subpoenaed. I do not want Maria dragged into the light kicking and screaming for an error in judgment. But I do want her to pipe down.

Am I legally required to report Maria? No, but as I said, I *could* do so if I chose to. That would likely result in some serious hassle from the government, but probably not any actual penalty. Maria's transgression falls into the "stupid mistake" category, and I hope that a wise person would learn their lesson and 'go and sin no more' once warned about it. Helen, I'd prefer not to make the phone call because that's using a shotgun to kill a cockroach.

I'm not sure what you mean by this -- "Her errors have been pointed out repeatedly, but why correct misinformation if giving correct information may be illegal?"<< "I think this could have been handled more easily by simply making that phone call or posting a reference to the statute involved."<< "In case Georgia feels the urge to respond to this post, I would like to add that a dressing down like Maria got will have me hiding under the bed by the second sentence. The rest would be wasted. :)<<
-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 23, 2001.


Close those tags!

-- (clean@up.crew), May 23, 2001.


-- (clean@up.crew), May 23, 2001.

Helen, you *are* as stupid as everyone thinks. Polly merely repeated Georgia's words and you finally got what he was saying? Take this as a "dressing down".

-- Go Hide (under@your.bed), May 23, 2001.

Hmmm... I noticed that Maria just used an almost identical domestic violence analogy on the Jenna Bush thread. Could it be that Verdoctor is nothing more than Maria under a different name?

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), May 23, 2001.

My guess is georgia is actually tarzan. Since georgia likes to report people and so does the ape fucker it is easier to surmize that he is one in the same. Surely we cant be so dense as to not see it. Right ape fuck?

-- i seen it all now (just@observ.ing), May 23, 2001.

What a lackluster post, "seen it all." As I have indicated several times in the past, I really don't care for Tarzan's politics at all. For example, Tarzan is pro-abortion. I am pro-life. There are other differences I can discuss, but they are beside the point. The point is that despite our differences, I would rather see Tarzan win arguments than risk the disclosure of classified information. Can you not understand that, troll? Are you so thickheaded that you, like Maria, see classified information as simply a tool to help you win arguments? Get lost, yo-yo.

Moreover, I have gone to great lengths to *stop* Maria from talking on this topic so that I WOULD *NOT* HAVE TO REPORT HER. Does that sound like the actions of someone who *likes* to "report" others? I think not. And I do not think that you are thinking at all, troll. Also, the word you are looking for is "surmise."

"Surely we cant be so dense as to not see it."<<
-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 23, 2001.


Georgia, today one of my kids heard some older kids discussing where they were going to plant the pipebombs they had made. My kid asked a friend if it should be reported. The friend reported it. The school authorities dragged my kid out of semester finals three or four times to repeat the story to yet another authority. My kid was forced to identify one of the suspects, who was lined up without being told why. The parents of the identified suspect were not available, so the school officials and the school security officer took the suspect home to search for the pipe bombs. No real cops, no warrant. Now my kid is convinced that things are going to get ugly next school year. There's no way my kid got to remain anonymous.

I'm not able to articulate my question for you adequately. My understanding of mandatory reporting laws is that the report must be made on suspicion alone, without judgement on the part of the reporting party and without proof. That's why I'm confused about why you didn't report. Doesn't that endanger YOU?

I'll shut up now.

-- helen (after@this.silence), May 23, 2001.


This thread continues to amuse (and alarm).

First of all, I used to post under another name similar to Verdoctor, before someone started messing with my email (guess who?). My persona is no secret to those who have been here long enough. Pre Y2K, Maria was a "polly" and I was a "doomer" although I don't post very often. About Y2K, she was mostly right, I was mostly wrong. The only thing we have in common is military experience. I only recall a couple of times when I even posted to the same thread.

I say again, the persona I recognise as Maria has been dead-on for military matters, and the read-between the lines gouge I get from her posts is that she posts far less than she knows. In spite of our differences, I attend to her posts, with interest. To my knowledge, she has never passed on classified or even confidential info. She has only hinted at it. That is not a crime.

I am reacting to what I perceive as witch-hunt. By that I mean that the very accusation is sufficient to cause damage, no matter the truth of the accusation. One non-pc analogy is the accusation of "sexual harrassment". Even if the charge is totally untrue, the accusation alone is enough to ruin a career in the military, given the current climate. The appearance of impropriety, and all that, etc. If you've been there, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Do you really want to go there?

Truly, Maria, this guy is chumming with blood; do not respond to this thread. I've seen his type before, and you cannot win.

-- Verdoctor (Verdoctor@No.Way), May 23, 2001.


Verdoctor, Thanks for putting into words what I cannot seem to get across.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), May 24, 2001.

Helen, I don't think your pipebomb analogy holds up well with the issue we have here. I don't think Maria was looking for kicks when she did what she did, and I don't think she was *intentionally* offering to swap some classified data with Tarzan. I'm within the bounds of regulations here.

Early in my career, I did have to deal with a young serviceman who, late one night after a few too many beers, came back to the barracks shouting about his job at the top of his lungs. IIRC, he was a COMSEC (communications security) guy, and he hollered about some things that I was pretty sure were classified. Young lieutenant me had the duty sergeant secure the kid in his quarters and stick with him all night. The kid sobered up somewhat by the time I came off duty in the morning, at which point the duty sergeant and I told him what he'd done, along with some of the things he said.

The kid just about wet his pants, and he admitted that he *had* said some things that were classified. I was just about to go report him to the unit commander, but the sergeant told me that this kid was a good serviceman, had never caused any kind of trouble, but that he was upset because of a recent string of personal problems (I think he had recently had a parent die recently; I don't remember precisely). The sergeant convinced me to give him until the end of the day to deal with the issue before I reported the incident.

The sergeant talked to the first sergeant about the incident, and the first sergeant talked to the CO. Then all five of us (including drunky-kid) met in the commander's office. The commander gave the kid a stern lecture, but didn't report him. The first sergeant told him that reporting the incident could cause him a lot of trouble, and that he wasn't going to be reported *because he didn't intend to reveal the classified data.*

The commander and first sergeant noted the incident in their private records, and I only noted in my duty log that the kid was "shouting drunkenly." The kid got 14 days extra duty for being a drunken noisebox, I got him into counseling with the chaplain so that there wouldn't be any psychiatric report on him (possibly endangering his security clearance) and so far as I know, he never caused any other trouble. In fact, he turned out to be a pretty good sergeant himself.

Verdoctor, once again you pose a non-sequitur. If Maria does indeed possess classified knowledge, then she is EXPECTED to post far less than she knows. Do you not recognize that?

You say that you are unaware of Maria ever passing on classified information. Good. That's my experience of her, too. If I knew that she *had* passed on classified information, then there would be no question of whether or not I would report her. The critical piece that you seem to miss is that she OFFERED classified knowledge. Go back and read the extract from the CFR I posted yesterday.

And again, to respond to your apparent belief that I want to cause Maria harm -- I haven't reported her, and I don't WANT to do so. If Maria would straighten up and fly right, instead of trying to act like a tough nut in an anonymous online argument, then she wouldn't be in this crack. Reporting Maria -- do I really want to go there? No, I don't. That's why I've been demanding that Maria be quiet. If she doesn't know how to handle classified information, then she should be quiet. Otherwise, she could risk revealing classified information, which could put her in hot water with the government. What's so hard about understanding that? I could understand your upset if I were demanding money from Maria for her silence on the topic, but I'm not. I'm telling her to shut up FOR HER OWN GOOD.

I get NOTHING out of it if she's quiet, and I have to drop the hammer on a person I like if she keeps it up. Are you NUTS, Verdoctor? And this "cannot win" language -- Maria wins if she shuts up, and so do I. If she's quiet, I win by not having to report her, and she wins by not being reported. Regrettably, Tarzan would win the argument, but to me, that's a small price to pay for avoiding the hard rain that would fall if Maria *didn't* keep her mouth shut.

Cherri, whatever. Talk to the hand.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 24, 2001.


Verdoctor, thanks. I did post a number of times that OR and my computer program is not classified. It's published. I offered to exchange the information on the simulation (the program). Again, not classified. Helen doesn't seem to understand this and neither does the esteemed LC. I don't think LC will report me because he knows this is a witch hunt and false accusations.

Yet another day and Georgia keeps saying that he wants me to stop "offering" to trade secrets. I know he hasn't noticed but Tarzan left this thread weeks ago and I posted last on May 17. Too funny! The guy is beating the maggots on the dead horse. This horse has been dead now for two or three weeks but he doesn't give up. I'd say he and helen have some personal issues to work out. Thanks for your kind words :)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 24, 2001.


"I know he hasn't noticed but Tarzan left this thread weeks ago and I posted last on May 17."

We all know you've posted more recently than that. Just because you don't post under your own name doesn't mean you're not posting.

"Too funny! The guy is beating the maggots on the dead horse. This horse has been dead now for two or three weeks but he doesn't give up."

If this horse is so dead, why do you keep posting here, Maria?

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), May 24, 2001.


Maria, it's not what it looks like. If there is a mandatory reporting law, it is illogical that one aware of it would both acknowledge the law and acknowledge not following the law. Either we are all in your (legal) boat, or there was no boat to begin with. I get told to shut up all the time, so I took an interest in this.

NOW I really will shut up.

-- helen (not@really.maria), May 24, 2001.


Maria, some parts of OR are classified. You know that already, so stop being a horse's patoot about it. I also ASKED you to tell me how to find a published paper you claimed to have written. You begged off and dodged the question. Now you're back, claiming MORE published evidence.

So will you now tell me where to find your newly-claimed published evidence (and how I will know your work when I find it), or are you going to punk out again and refuse to provide proof? The Lord abhors a liar, Maria, so either get right or get left behind.

Maria, I do not want to report you for the reasons I have stated over and over again for the last three or four weeks (and maybe you'd better take my charity while it's still available). If you want to claim that there are really other reasons, and that makes you feel better, then go ahead. Of course, I'd like to point out that you've complained in the past about armchair psychiatrists and how they're full of bull, so perhaps you're also full of bull now that YOU are playing armchair psychiatrist. Fair's fair. Either both of you are full of it, or both of you are on target. Which will it be?

Yes, I want you to stop offering to trade secrets. And I'm still posting. How remarkable! I know you haven't noticed, but other people are posting to me -- so I respond! I know that must be hard for you to comprehend, Maria, but if people are speaking to me, I feel I should respond to them. This, of course, is why I am posting. Your occasional reappearances only serve to embarrass you and to give me more reason to stay here. I am going to stay here until either this thread goes away or you do, so get used to it, Maria.

And once again, you're STILL posting. And I'm pretty sure that you're using a troll or two to post on this thread. Go away, Maria. Let it go. Drop it.

"I'd say he and helen have some personal issues to work out."< Now I am going outside to clean up the debris from last night's storms. Hopefully Maria and the weather won't give me any more crap to clean up for a few days, so I can enjoy my long weekend.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 25, 2001.


Hopefully it will rain on you all weekend. Go on outside and pick up the trash hopefully it will keep you busy for awhile so we can share some more trade secrets military secrets any kind of secrets. Dont look now but I know they are coming.

-- (i@luv.secrets), May 25, 2001.

Maybe the dingo ate your security clearance Maria.

-- Secret Squirrel (secret@squirrel.gov), May 29, 2001.

Truly the thread that will not die.

-- (observer@observant.com), May 29, 2001.

Dingo -- chuckle!

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), May 31, 2001.

Georgia Bidnessman=Filibuster

Filibuster and his pet topic form an endless loop. If his first thrust doesn't win the day, he will try to gain ground with a second, third, fourth ... nth repetition. He may even make a good initial attack, but his monotonous hectoring and prodigious output rapidly clears the field of other Warriors. Filibuster eventually lands in everyone's killfile .

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), May 31, 2001.


Name calling is silly and adolescent, Cherri. Also, it's obvious that this person hasn't landed in your killfile yet, since you keep posting on this thread.

Why don't we ALL just let this tawdry episode drop off the board?

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), May 31, 2001.


Oh, Cherri, do give it a rest. My last post was all of two words and for some reason you think that "Filibuster" is an appropriate name to call me? Give it up, Cherri. You've refused to prove your claims, you continue to make groundless accusations and you refuse to apologize for your misdeeds while simultaneously demanding that I do the same. And along with all this, you use the snappy comeback of "talk to the hand." Madam, if you want to be taken seriously, then behave in a serious manner. Namecalling and cartoon-posting don't contribute positively to your status as an adult.

By the way, Cherri, this "filibuster" has made excellent attacks on every occasion. Neither you nor Maria has deflected or refuted any of my points. In fact, rather than proving your points or disproving mine, you go so far as to simply claim victory and run off (which you did on at least one occasion on this very thread). Perhaps you're frustrated at being wrong, or possibly at not being able to prove yourself right. Well, Cherri, if you "know what you know," then get lost and be happy with your knowledge. I don't think that anyone else here wants to hear about it.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), June 02, 2001.


Bump

-- (bump@bumper.bump), June 04, 2001.

This is the thread that will not load.

-- (this@is.the.thread.that.will.not.load), June 06, 2001.

Bumpity bump bump bump

-- Threads that (go@bump.in.the.night), June 11, 2001.

How does that end this thread?

-- Threads that (go@bump.in.the.night), June 11, 2001.

Amen.

-- Threads without end (thespoiler@thread.wont.die), June 13, 2001.

Come out come out wherever you are!

-- Thread Said Fred (thread@said.fred), June 19, 2001.

What is the sound of one thread bumping?

-- (bumper@cars.vroom), June 26, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ