On 10/18/2021 5:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/18/2021 6:20 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 10/18/2021 4:08 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Do you get it Tommy? Free money but no advisers.
>>
>> Ike should have been smart enough to not get us into
>> Vietnam. But there was plenty of blame to go around to
>> Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon who could have not escalated it.
>>
>>
>> “The past was alterable. The past never had been altered.
>> Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at
>> war with Eastasia.”
>>
>>
>
> Mr Nixon campaigned on ending the Vietnam conflict, which he did,
> effectively and quickly.

LOL, if it had been up to Nixon, the Vietnam war would have gone on for
a lot longer.

"How Congress Got Us Out of Vietnam"
<https://prospect.org/features/congress-got-us-vietnam/>

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 7:59:32 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/18/2021 6:20 PM, sms wrote:
> > On 10/18/2021 4:08 PM, John B. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Do you get it Tommy? Free money but no advisers.
> >
> > Ike should have been smart enough to not get us into
> > Vietnam. But there was plenty of blame to go around to
> > Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon who could have not escalated it.
> >
> >
> > “The past was alterable. The past never had been altered.
> > Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at
> > war with Eastasia.â€
> >
> >
>
> Mr Nixon campaigned on ending the Vietnam conflict, which he
> did, effectively and quickly.

Nixon was inaugurated on January 20, 1969.

> US losses in 1967 11,363
> 1968 16,899
> change of general staff and change of strategy
> 1969 11,780
> 1970 6,173
> 1971 2.414
> 1972 759
> successful re election in some part based on the resolution
> of Vietnam

All of 1969 deaths happened during Nixon's first year as president. And by the time 1970 rolled around, Nixon had ONE WHOLE YEAR to end the war. But did not and another 6173 died during Nixon's SECOND YEAR. And by the time 1971 rolled around, Nixon had been in office for THREE YEARS. But another 2414 died. Now in the election year of 1972 only 759 died. Not too many I guess. Nixon's FOURTH YEAR in office he finally decided to get out of Vietnam.

Contrast your statement of "quickly" ending the Vietnam conflict for Nixon with Joe Biden. Joe ran on getting the USA out of Afghanistan. And SEVEN MONTHS later the USA was out. Now I realize the withdraw did not go too well. But seven months meets my definition of "quickly". Four years to end Vietnam for Nixon is not quick.

I'll let others discuss the "effectively" part of the USA leaving Vietnam.

> 1973 68
> 1974 1
> 1975 62
> Congress abandons support for RSV with predictable results.
>
> https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 9:04:10 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/18/2021 8:53 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:48:31 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/18/2021 6:08 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:58:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 6:07:10 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 11:34:52 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 8:23:41 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
> >>>>>>> Historically, the debt and deficits have been lower under Democrats than
> >>>>>>> Republicans, and the stock market gains have been greater under
> >>>>>>> Democrats than Republicans. Also the Democrats have gotten us into fewer
> >>>>>>> crazy wars than the Republicans (who gave us Vietnam, Iraq, and
> >>>>>>> Afghanistan).
> >>>>>> Historically you have shown that you know absolutely nothing about history. All of the debts have been run up in WARS and the Democrats got the USA into every war since WW I. With a brain like yours no wonder you can't even get a frog to vote for you.
> >>>>> I see history is one more subject Tommy boy failed in school.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> WW1 1914-1918 Woodrow Wilson Democrat
> >>>>> WW2 1939-1945 Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman Democrats
> >>>>> Korean War 1950-1953 Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower Democrat and Republican
> >>>>> Vietnam War 1955-1975 Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford Republican Democrat Democrat Republican Republican After France left Indochina in 1954 Ike sent advisors and arms. In 1964 LBJ sent lots of troops. All US troops pulled in 1973.
> >>>>> Iraq War #1 1991 George Bush 1 Republican
> >>>>> Afghanistan War 2001-2021 George Bush 2, Barack Obama ,Donald Trump, Joe Biden Republican Democrat Republican Democrat
> >>>>> Iraq War #2 2003-2011 George Bush 2, Barack Obama Republican Democrat
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Eisenhower got the USA in Vietnam. Bush1 got the USA into Iraq. Bush2 got the USA into Afghanistan and Iraq again. All Republicans.
> >>>>
> >>>> You have to force yourself to make stupid comments like that. We were required by TREATY to supply the French with military advisors and that is ALL that Eisenhower did. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson turned it into an American war. Nixon ENDED it. What do you think that Gerald Ford had to do with anything? Because we were flying all of the American soldiers out after Nixon resigned?
> >>>>
> >>> That is one of your sillier notions. That the U.S. was required by
> >>> treaty to supply the French with advisers.
> >>>
> >>> If you actually read history, rather then make up your own version you
> >>> would know that in 1944 the U.S. was supplying aid to the Viet Minh,
> >>> led by Ho chi Minh, in the form of military advisers.
> >>>
> >>> By 1945, the U.S. had developed the Domino Theory and by 1947 was
> >>> actively providing funds to the French, some 16 million dollars in
> >>> 1947, $450 million by 1951 and by 1853 it was $785 million.
> >>> By mid-1954, when the French surrendered to the Viet Minh, the U.S.
> >>> had given the French almost $3 billion to "save Indochina from the
> >>> Communists".
> >>>
> >>> Do you get it Tommy? Free money but no advisers.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes but not only funding and arms.
> >>
> >> At Dien Bien Phu, the French asked for US air support which
> >> they expected. Eisenhower refused. As he did at Suez in 1956
> >> and to Tibet in 1958 and to Battista in 1959.
> >
> > Actually I left the air assistance out, but in fact the USAF had a
> > squadron of B-26's in Saigon in (I'm going from memory here)1953. When
> > I was on the airplane going to Japan the guy in the next seat was
> > going to "Indochina" wherever that was. A year so later I ran into him
> > and he told me that it was the greatest duty he ever had.
> >
> > I might add that the bloke I met was a "maintenance guy" and I have no
> > idea who was actually flying the planes but the U.S. was certainly
> > supplying the aircraft, maintenance and parts backup.
> >
> > I was in the 98th Bomb Wing at Yokota Air Base that was alerted for
> > the mission to Dien Bien Phu, guns loaded, flak curtains hung and some
> > weird bomb rack installed in the Bomb Bays. We were on alert over the
> > weekend and then stood down. At the time "nobody knew nothing" but
> > there was a rumor in the squadron that the funny bomb rack was for a
> > nuclear weapon, that were stored at Okinawa.
> >
> Right, a nuclear solution was also considered for Dien Bien
> Phu, but rejected. The net result was 58,000 dead Americans.
> Makes an H-bomb seem cheap in comparison doesn't it?
>
> As an aside, there was a serious program in the early 1960s
> to cut a new canal north of Panama using nuclear blasts,
> about where the chinese '2d canal' project failed a couple
> of years ago.
>
> 'coulda woulda shoulda', the mantra of lost opportunity.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I understand the Chinese rationale for building a new canal through Nicaragua. Because the USA/Panama control the Panama Canal. And its a huge shipping lane. And China and the USA are competitors. Enemies. But WHY would the USA want to build a second Panama canal? Or Nicaragua Canal. With nuclear bombs or any other way. Like with Caterpillars and dredges. Why would the USA need or want a second shortcut from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans? I don't think the Panama Canal is too crowded that it is slowing the economic growth of the USA.

On 10/18/2021 11:07 PM, sms wrote:
> On 10/18/2021 5:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 10/18/2021 6:20 PM, sms wrote:
>>> On 10/18/2021 4:08 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Do you get it Tommy? Free money but no advisers.
>>>
>>> Ike should have been smart enough to not get us into
>>> Vietnam. But there was plenty of blame to go around to
>>> Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon who could have not escalated it.
>>>
>>>
>>> “The past was alterable. The past never had been
>>> altered.
>>> Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at
>>> war with Eastasia.”
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Mr Nixon campaigned on ending the Vietnam conflict, which
>> he did, effectively and quickly.
>
> LOL, if it had been up to Nixon, the Vietnam war would have
> gone on for a lot longer.
>
> "How Congress Got Us Out of Vietnam"
> <https://prospect.org/features/congress-got-us-vietnam/>

Congratulations for a successful edit of the actual numbers
do draw your own conclusions without any factual basis.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:53:11 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The United States Invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, lasted over a month between mid-December 1989 and late January 1990. It occurred during the administration of President George H. W. Bush and ten years after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the U.S. to Panama by January 1, 2000. The primary purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto Panamanian leader, general and dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega, who for a long time worked with the Central Intelligence Agency, was wanted by the United States for racketeering and drug trafficking. Following the operation, the Panama Defense Forces were dissolved and President-elect Guillermo Endara was sworn into office.
> Nice cut-n-paste from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama>
> Nice to see that you're finally starting to quote fairly reputable
> sources. However, you really should cite the source.

Tommy thinks citing sources means you don't know what you're talking about. He'd rather commit plagiarism than make it look like he actually had to look something up.

> >Also Noriega threatened to stop US use of the Panama Canal and turn it over to Russian control. But I'm sure that you are just stupid enough to think that this was caused by Bush I and not Carter.
> That's not in the Wikipedia article. Sources please?

The same place he gets all his baseless assertions - his ass.

>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:36:31 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 12:28:05 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 2:04:59 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 9:44:14 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 12:18:16 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
> > > > > On 10/17/2021 6:07 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > I see history is one more subject Tommy boy failed in school.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WW1 1914-1918 Woodrow Wilson Democrat
> > > > > > WW2 1939-1945 Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman Democrats
> > > > > > Korean War 1950-1953 Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower Democrat and Republican
> > > > > > Vietnam War 1955-1975 Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford Republican Democrat Democrat Republican Republican After France left Indochina in 1954 Ike sent advisors and arms. In 1964 LBJ sent lots of troops. All US troops pulled in 1973.
> > > > > > Iraq War #1 1991 George Bush 1 Republican
> > > > > > Afghanistan War 2001-2021 George Bush 2, Barack Obama ,Donald Trump, Joe Biden Republican Democrat Republican Democrat
> > > > > > Iraq War #2 2003-2011 George Bush 2, Barack Obama Republican Democrat
> > > > I'd offer a caveat that, although bush the younger was president when the US invaded afghanistan and iraq (#2), Cheney was the one driving that bus. He saw a chance to raid the treasury of the suplus Clinton left behind and drove the whole saddam hussein/WMD lie in order to get his KBR buddies the war management contracts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eisenhower got the USA in Vietnam. Bush1 got the USA into Iraq. Bush2 got the USA into Afghanistan and Iraq again. All Republicans.
> > > > > Yes, that's why I qualified my earlier statement with "crazy." The
> > > > > involvement in crazy wars, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, were done by
> > > > > Republicans.
> > > > >
> > > > > And don't forget Grenada, one of the craziest wars, started by Reagan:
> > > > And don't forget the invasion of panama started by bush the elder.
> > > Do you mean the one started by Jimmy Carter? I suppose it would help if you had the slightest knowledge of history.
> > Sure, Jimmy Carter invaded panama....thanks for the laugh pinhead
> >
> > And I'm the one without the slightest knowledge of history....HAH!!!!
> >
> > Still laughing _at_ you sparky....
> The United States Invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, lasted over a month between mid-December 1989 and late January 1990. It occurred during the administration of President George H. W. Bush and ten years after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the U.S. to Panama by January 1, 2000. The primary purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto Panamanian leader, general and dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega, who for a long time worked with the Central Intelligence Agency, was wanted by the United States for racketeering and drug trafficking. Following the operation, the Panama Defense Forces were dissolved and President-elect Guillermo Endara was sworn into office.

Cutting and pasting without attribution is plagiarism, sparky. Still, nothing in that passage comes even close to your assertion that carter started the war.

> Also Noriega threatened to stop US use of the Panama Canal and turn it over to Russian control.

At no point did anything even remotely similar to that happen. Post a reference, or admit you pulled that out of your ass.

> But I'm sure that you are just stupid enough to think that this was caused by Bush I and not Carter.

Well, if you define stupidity by reading history and understanding the sequence of events, then sure. We all know how you like to redefine commonly used words. By that logic I'm sure you're smart enough to think that carter signing a treaty with noriega's predecessor ten years before the invasion means that carter got us into the war. Smart, sparky. Real smart.

Funny though, how you then won't lay the blame for the overthrow of the shah of iran on eisenhower for the CIA backed coup which overthrew the democratically elected prime minister. And before you try going off on some tangent - some how blaming Roosevelt or some other such nonsense, here's a quote from wikipedia with references.

In August 2013 the U.S. government formally acknowledged the U.S. role in the coup by releasing a bulk of previously classified government documents that show it was in charge of both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda.[28][29] The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government".[30]

[28] "CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup". nsarchive2.gwu.edu. The National Security Archive. 19 August 2013. Retrieved 21 August 2018.
[29] Saeed Kamali Dehghan; Richard Norton-Taylor (19 August 2013). "CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 August 2013.
[30] "In declassified document, CIA acknowledges role in '53 Iran coup". Cnn.com. Retrieved 22 August 2013.

You see sparky, this is called researching your materials. As you can plainly see, it's quite unlike your method of randomly pulling unsubstantiated claims out of your ass.

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:48:37 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 10/18/2021 6:08 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:58:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 6:07:10 PM UTC-7, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 11:34:52 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 8:23:41 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
> >>>>> Historically, the debt and deficits have been lower under Democrats than
> >>>>> Republicans, and the stock market gains have been greater under
> >>>>> Democrats than Republicans. Also the Democrats have gotten us into fewer
> >>>>> crazy wars than the Republicans (who gave us Vietnam, Iraq, and
> >>>>> Afghanistan).
> >>>> Historically you have shown that you know absolutely nothing about history. All of the debts have been run up in WARS and the Democrats got the USA into every war since WW I. With a brain like yours no wonder you can't even get a frog to vote for you.
> >>> I see history is one more subject Tommy boy failed in school.
> >>>
> >>> WW1 1914-1918 Woodrow Wilson Democrat
> >>> WW2 1939-1945 Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman Democrats
> >>> Korean War 1950-1953 Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower Democrat and Republican
> >>> Vietnam War 1955-1975 Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford Republican Democrat Democrat Republican Republican After France left Indochina in 1954 Ike sent advisors and arms. In 1964 LBJ sent lots of troops. All US troops pulled in 1973.
> >>> Iraq War #1 1991 George Bush 1 Republican
> >>> Afghanistan War 2001-2021 George Bush 2, Barack Obama ,Donald Trump, Joe Biden Republican Democrat Republican Democrat
> >>> Iraq War #2 2003-2011 George Bush 2, Barack Obama Republican Democrat
> >>>
> >>> Eisenhower got the USA in Vietnam. Bush1 got the USA into Iraq. Bush2 got the USA into Afghanistan and Iraq again. All Republicans.
> >>
> >> You have to force yourself to make stupid comments like that. We were required by TREATY to supply the French with military advisors and that is ALL that Eisenhower did. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson turned it into an American war. Nixon ENDED it. What do you think that Gerald Ford had to do with anything? Because we were flying all of the American soldiers out after Nixon resigned?
> >>
> > That is one of your sillier notions. That the U.S. was required by
> > treaty to supply the French with advisers.
> >
> > If you actually read history, rather then make up your own version you
> > would know that in 1944 the U.S. was supplying aid to the Viet Minh,
> > led by Ho chi Minh, in the form of military advisers.
> >
> > By 1945, the U.S. had developed the Domino Theory and by 1947 was
> > actively providing funds to the French, some 16 million dollars in
> > 1947, $450 million by 1951 and by 1853 it was $785 million.
> > By mid-1954, when the French surrendered to the Viet Minh, the U.S.
> > had given the French almost $3 billion to "save Indochina from the
> > Communists".
> >
> > Do you get it Tommy? Free money but no advisers.
> >
> Yes but not only funding and arms.
>
> At Dien Bien Phu, the French asked for US air support which
> they expected. Eisenhower refused. As he did at Suez in 1956
> and to Tibet in 1958 and to Battista in 1959.

With the US trying to recover from the war, all of the war industries shutting down, jobs unavailable until the economy started up again where was this money supposed to come from?

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 06:58:00 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:53:11 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The United States Invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, lasted over a month between mid-December 1989 and late January 1990. It occurred during the administration of President George H. W. Bush and ten years after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the U.S. to Panama by January 1, 2000. The primary purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto Panamanian leader, general and dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega, who for a long time worked with the Central Intelligence Agency, was wanted by the United States for racketeering and drug trafficking. Following the operation, the Panama Defense Forces were dissolved and President-elect Guillermo Endara was sworn into office.
>> Nice cut-n-paste from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama>
>> Nice to see that you're finally starting to quote fairly reputable
>> sources. However, you really should cite the source.

>Tommy thinks citing sources means you don't know what you're talking about. He'd rather commit plagiarism than make it look like he actually had to look something up.

Not citing sources has another benefit, which his posting is a good
example. The first part, lifted directly from Wikipedia, sound very
credible and will sound authoritative to the casual reader. The 2nd
paragraph is pure conjecture and likely to be baloney, but will also
sound somewhat authoritative because of its proximity to the first
part. It's a technique often used by medical quacks on radio
programs. They start by analyzing the symptoms in great detail, most
which is quite accurate and correct. After the listener has been
suitably conditioned to assuming that everything the medical quack has
been saying is accurate, the medical quack drops the payload by
appending his monologue with a rather dubious claim that his magic
elixir will cure all the previously mentioned symptoms. With
practice, this can be done without missing a beat and often without
the listener even noticing the change.

I don't believe that Tom intentionally wanted to do this, but
regardless of intent, the effect was still there. Had he not
separated the two paragraphs and abruptly changed his writing style, I
probably would have speed read the whole thing and probably thought
that "Noriega threatened to stop US use of the Panama Canal and turn
it over to Russian control" was genuine.

Also, what I found amusing by the Wikipedia quote was that Tom had
previously declared the Wikipedia was full of error, not to be
trusted, and an indication that someone citing a Wikipedia reference
was lacking in understanding. Apparently, Tom has changed is position
on the matter as illustrated by his use of a Wikipedia quote. It's
possible that he's recognized the error of his ways and returned to
sanity, but unlikely. What I see from a Wikipedia quote is that the
writer has actually taken the time to research to topic on Wikipedia
in order to verify the recollections, understandings, events, and
memory.

>> >Also Noriega threatened to stop US use of the Panama Canal and turn it over to Russian control. But I'm sure that you are just stupid enough to think that this was caused by Bush I and not Carter.
>> That's not in the Wikipedia article. Sources please?

>The same place he gets all his baseless assertions - his ass.

Yep. I couldn't find any evidence of Russian involvement or desire to
take over the canal:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama%E2%80%93Russia_relations>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 10/19/2021 10:20 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 06:58:00 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:53:11 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The United States Invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, lasted over a month between mid-December 1989 and late January 1990. It occurred during the administration of President George H. W. Bush and ten years after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the U.S. to Panama by January 1, 2000. The primary purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto Panamanian leader, general and dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega, who for a long time worked with the Central Intelligence Agency, was wanted by the United States for racketeering and drug trafficking. Following the operation, the Panama Defense Forces were dissolved and President-elect Guillermo Endara was sworn into office.
>>> Nice cut-n-paste from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama>
>>> Nice to see that you're finally starting to quote fairly reputable
>>> sources. However, you really should cite the source.
>
>> Tommy thinks citing sources means you don't know what you're talking about. He'd rather commit plagiarism than make it look like he actually had to look something up.
>
> Not citing sources has another benefit, which his posting is a good
> example. The first part, lifted directly from Wikipedia, sound very
> credible and will sound authoritative to the casual reader.

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.

My kids' high school teachers had a policy of an automatic F if a
research paper cited Wikipedia as a reference.

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:20:29 AM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 06:58:00 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:53:11 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The United States Invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, lasted over a month between mid-December 1989 and late January 1990. It occurred during the administration of President George H. W. Bush and ten years after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the U.S. to Panama by January 1, 2000. The primary purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto Panamanian leader, general and dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega, who for a long time worked with the Central Intelligence Agency, was wanted by the United States for racketeering and drug trafficking. Following the operation, the Panama Defense Forces were dissolved and President-elect Guillermo Endara was sworn into office.
> >> Nice cut-n-paste from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama>
> >> Nice to see that you're finally starting to quote fairly reputable
> >> sources. However, you really should cite the source.
>
> >Tommy thinks citing sources means you don't know what you're talking about. He'd rather commit plagiarism than make it look like he actually had to look something up.
> Not citing sources has another benefit, which his posting is a good
> example. The first part, lifted directly from Wikipedia, sound very
> credible and will sound authoritative to the casual reader. The 2nd
> paragraph is pure conjecture and likely to be baloney, but will also
> sound somewhat authoritative because of its proximity to the first
> part. It's a technique often used by medical quacks on radio
> programs. They start by analyzing the symptoms in great detail, most
> which is quite accurate and correct. After the listener has been
> suitably conditioned to assuming that everything the medical quack has
> been saying is accurate, the medical quack drops the payload by
> appending his monologue with a rather dubious claim that his magic
> elixir will cure all the previously mentioned symptoms. With
> practice, this can be done without missing a beat and often without
> the listener even noticing the change.
>
> I don't believe that Tom intentionally wanted to do this, but
> regardless of intent, the effect was still there. Had he not
> separated the two paragraphs and abruptly changed his writing style, I
> probably would have speed read the whole thing and probably thought
> that "Noriega threatened to stop US use of the Panama Canal and turn
> it over to Russian control" was genuine.
>
> Also, what I found amusing by the Wikipedia quote was that Tom had
> previously declared the Wikipedia was full of error, not to be
> trusted, and an indication that someone citing a Wikipedia reference
> was lacking in understanding. Apparently, Tom has changed is position
> on the matter as illustrated by his use of a Wikipedia quote. It's
> possible that he's recognized the error of his ways and returned to
> sanity, but unlikely. What I see from a Wikipedia quote is that the
> writer has actually taken the time to research to topic on Wikipedia
> in order to verify the recollections, understandings, events, and
> memory.
> >> >Also Noriega threatened to stop US use of the Panama Canal and turn it over to Russian control. But I'm sure that you are just stupid enough to think that this was caused by Bush I and not Carter.
> >> That's not in the Wikipedia article. Sources please?
>
> >The same place he gets all his baseless assertions - his ass.
> Yep. I couldn't find any evidence of Russian involvement or desire to
> take over the canal:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama%E2%80%93Russia_relations>
Tell me Jeff, why have you been so upset when you learned that I have had great success with minimal education and you've been a flop after paying out all of that money and time to get a college degree? Why do you write indirect replies to me if you believe that you're wasting your time? Your failures even to the point of your ill health while at older age i am perfectly healthy seems to make you furious. Well you're always good for a laugh taking up hours on my comments and then saying you're wasting your time.

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 11:02:36 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
> On 10/19/2021 10:20 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 06:58:00 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> > <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:53:11 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The United States Invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, lasted over a month between mid-December 1989 and late January 1990. It occurred during the administration of President George H. W. Bush and ten years after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the U.S. to Panama by January 1, 2000. The primary purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto Panamanian leader, general and dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega, who for a long time worked with the Central Intelligence Agency, was wanted by the United States for racketeering and drug trafficking. Following the operation, the Panama Defense Forces were dissolved and President-elect Guillermo Endara was sworn into office.
> >>> Nice cut-n-paste from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:
> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama>
> >>> Nice to see that you're finally starting to quote fairly reputable
> >>> sources. However, you really should cite the source.
> >
> >> Tommy thinks citing sources means you don't know what you're talking about. He'd rather commit plagiarism than make it look like he actually had to look something up.
> >
> > Not citing sources has another benefit, which his posting is a good
> > example. The first part, lifted directly from Wikipedia, sound very
> > credible and will sound authoritative to the casual reader.
> Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.
>
> My kids' high school teachers had a policy of an automatic F if a
> research paper cited Wikipedia as a reference.
Wikipedia often has more and newer references than Encyclopedia Britannica. So that demonstrates that you don't give one single damn about your child's education as long as he is woke.

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 2:02:36 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
> On 10/19/2021 10:20 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 06:58:00 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> > <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:53:11 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The United States Invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, lasted over a month between mid-December 1989 and late January 1990. It occurred during the administration of President George H. W. Bush and ten years after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the U.S. to Panama by January 1, 2000. The primary purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto Panamanian leader, general and dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega, who for a long time worked with the Central Intelligence Agency, was wanted by the United States for racketeering and drug trafficking. Following the operation, the Panama Defense Forces were dissolved and President-elect Guillermo Endara was sworn into office.
> >>> Nice cut-n-paste from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:
> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama>
> >>> Nice to see that you're finally starting to quote fairly reputable
> >>> sources. However, you really should cite the source.
> >
> >> Tommy thinks citing sources means you don't know what you're talking about. He'd rather commit plagiarism than make it look like he actually had to look something up.
> >
> > Not citing sources has another benefit, which his posting is a good
> > example. The first part, lifted directly from Wikipedia, sound very
> > credible and will sound authoritative to the casual reader.
> Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.
>
> My kids' high school teachers had a policy of an automatic F if a
> research paper cited Wikipedia as a reference.
Sounds about right. Wikipedia is a good starting point to looking into other references cited in the article of interest. I'm guessing the teacher was also interested in ensuring their students showed the effort to do research themselves, rather than simply refer to someone elses research.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 12:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
Nice change of subject from your plagiarizing a Wikipedia article and
an imaginary Russian takeover of the Panama Canal.

>Tell me Jeff, why have you been so upset when you learned that I have had great success with minimal education

Logic failure. You presume that I just learned of your great success,
while the truth is more that I've known all along that you are a self
proclaimed braggart with little evidence of your alleged success.

>and you've been a flop after paying out all of that money and time
>to get a college degree?

Hardly a flop. I'm still here. I managed to retire about 11 months
ago and still have money in the bank. However, it's not enough, so
I'm seriously considering starting another business (self-employed).

As for paying out all of that money, that's partly true. I graduated
from a state college, where the tuition was affordable. Still, I had
to work for the entire 6 years it took for me to obtain a BSEE degree,
except for the last semester, when I had dedicate more time or risk
not graduating. I will admit getting some help from my parents, but
in terms of dollars expended on my college education, I paid for all 6
years.

However, obtaining a college degree was not exactly planned. The
problem was that I didn't particularly like the prospects of getting
drafted into the army and spending a few years in Vietnam. Going to
college and obtaining a deferment was highly preferable. Had it not
been for this problem, I would probably have continued working in the
2way radio business and eventually opened my own shop.

>Why do you write indirect replies to me if you believe that you're
>wasting your time?

Because I wasn't replying to you. I was responding to comments by
funkma...@hotmail.com about your plagiarism of Wikipedia. Of course,
you're welcome to provide an explanation for why you found it
necessary to plagiarize the article and then append your inaccurate
comment.

You're correct that point out your failures and fact checking your
fabrications are a partial waste of my time. I cannot imagine that
you would ever consider any of my comments seriously, as is evident by
your apparently incurable habit of changing the topic when confronted
with evidence of your failures. Still, there are others that might be
reading my comments who might benefit from the time I wasted keeping
you entertained.

Why do you find it necessary to respond to literally every thread, on
literally every conceivable topic, in R.B.T?

>Your failures even to the point of your ill health while at older
>age i am perfectly healthy seems to make you furious.

I hardly ever get angry, especially angry at myself. That's self
defeating. I might be somewhat jealous of your alleged abilities to
ride long distances and climb mountains on your bicycle. If you
really want to make me jealous, post your Strava maps and records, and
I might believe you actually do so much riding. No fair posting
virtual exercise on a trainer.

Incidentally, I know quite a few people who are over 65. Perhaps I
mix with the wrong crowd, but all of them seem to have some manner of
medical problem. If you are the exception, then I congratulate you on
your luck and wish you continued physical health. Too bad there's
little that can be done for your mental health.

>Well you're always good for a laugh taking up hours on my comments
>and then saying you're wasting your time.

Isn't that what you want me to do? You do want to be the center of
attention? Last time I checked, you generated something like 35% to
40% of the postings in RBT. I can't imagine any reason you would do
that besides attempting to attract attention to yourself. Now, if you
only wrote something that was accurate, logical and worth reading.
Also, I doubt that anyone (including me) bothers to read everything
your write.

Back to chainsawing and splitting firewood. It's going to rain for at
least the next 5 days and I want to convert more of the fallen
branches into firewood.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:02:33 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/19/2021 10:20 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 06:58:00 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:53:11 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The United States Invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, lasted over a month between mid-December 1989 and late January 1990. It occurred during the administration of President George H. W. Bush and ten years after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the U.S. to Panama by January 1, 2000. The primary purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto Panamanian leader, general and dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega, who for a long time worked with the Central Intelligence Agency, was wanted by the United States for racketeering and drug trafficking. Following the operation, the Panama Defense Forces were dissolved and President-elect Guillermo Endara was sworn into office.
>>>> Nice cut-n-paste from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama>
>>>> Nice to see that you're finally starting to quote fairly reputable
>>>> sources. However, you really should cite the source.
>>
>>> Tommy thinks citing sources means you don't know what you're talking about. He'd rather commit plagiarism than make it look like he actually had to look something up.
>>
>> Not citing sources has another benefit, which his posting is a good
>> example. The first part, lifted directly from Wikipedia, sound very
>> credible and will sound authoritative to the casual reader.
>
>Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.
>
>My kids' high school teachers had a policy of an automatic F if a
>research paper cited Wikipedia as a reference.

I think it is more accurate to say that "Wikipedia may not an
authoritative source" as I have read Wiki posts that are, to my own
knowledge, perfectly correct.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:02:33 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/19/2021 10:20 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 06:58:00 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:53:11 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The United States Invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, lasted over a month between mid-December 1989 and late January 1990. It occurred during the administration of President George H. W. Bush and ten years after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the U.S. to Panama by January 1, 2000. The primary purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto Panamanian leader, general and dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega, who for a long time worked with the Central Intelligence Agency, was wanted by the United States for racketeering and drug trafficking. Following the operation, the Panama Defense Forces were dissolved and President-elect Guillermo Endara was sworn into office.
>>>> Nice cut-n-paste from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama>
>>>> Nice to see that you're finally starting to quote fairly reputable
>>>> sources. However, you really should cite the source.
>>
>>> Tommy thinks citing sources means you don't know what you're talking about. He'd rather commit plagiarism than make it look like he actually had to look something up.
>>
>> Not citing sources has another benefit, which his posting is a good
>> example. The first part, lifted directly from Wikipedia, sound very
>> credible and will sound authoritative to the casual reader.

>Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.

True because none of the articles have been peer reviewed.

>My kids' high school teachers had a policy of an automatic F if a
>research paper cited Wikipedia as a reference.

Also true, for the same reason. Teachers are by definition academics
and academics do not accept as authoritative anything that hasn't been
closely inspected by other academics. I would not expect an academic
to accept crowd sourced information as being authoritative.

There's also the problem of Wikipedia being far too tempting for
student to use it as a sole source. I made that mistake when I was
rather young. As an incentive to study more, my parents bought me the
Encyclopedia Britannica. I spent quite a bit of time reading all the
articles that were important to me, such as sex, explosives, radio,
and music. When it came time to write a paper, the encyclopedia was
far more convenient than riding my bicycle to the library. Gradually,
it became my sole source of information. I'll spare you the details,
but basically, that was a really bad idea. Student should be exposed
to as many sources as possible and learn how to recognize the
difference between facts, interpretations, guesswork, and opinions. I
suspect that the ease of access might be why the high skool teacher
did not allow Wikipedia references.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 1:48:36 PM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 12:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice change of subject from your plagiarizing a Wikipedia article and
> an imaginary Russian takeover of the Panama Canal.
> >Tell me Jeff, why have you been so upset when you learned that I have had great success with minimal education
> Logic failure. You presume that I just learned of your great success,
> while the truth is more that I've known all along that you are a self
> proclaimed braggart with little evidence of your alleged success.
> >and you've been a flop after paying out all of that money and time
> >to get a college degree?
> Hardly a flop. I'm still here. I managed to retire about 11 months
> ago and still have money in the bank. However, it's not enough, so
> I'm seriously considering starting another business (self-employed).
>
> As for paying out all of that money, that's partly true. I graduated
> from a state college, where the tuition was affordable. Still, I had
> to work for the entire 6 years it took for me to obtain a BSEE degree,
> except for the last semester, when I had dedicate more time or risk
> not graduating. I will admit getting some help from my parents, but
> in terms of dollars expended on my college education, I paid for all 6
> years.
>
> However, obtaining a college degree was not exactly planned. The
> problem was that I didn't particularly like the prospects of getting
> drafted into the army and spending a few years in Vietnam. Going to
> college and obtaining a deferment was highly preferable. Had it not
> been for this problem, I would probably have continued working in the
> 2way radio business and eventually opened my own shop.
> >Why do you write indirect replies to me if you believe that you're
> >wasting your time?
> Because I wasn't replying to you. I was responding to comments by
> funkma...@hotmail.com about your plagiarism of Wikipedia. Of course,
> you're welcome to provide an explanation for why you found it
> necessary to plagiarize the article and then append your inaccurate
> comment.
>
> You're correct that point out your failures and fact checking your
> fabrications are a partial waste of my time. I cannot imagine that
> you would ever consider any of my comments seriously, as is evident by
> your apparently incurable habit of changing the topic when confronted
> with evidence of your failures. Still, there are others that might be
> reading my comments who might benefit from the time I wasted keeping
> you entertained.
>
> Why do you find it necessary to respond to literally every thread, on
> literally every conceivable topic, in R.B.T?
> >Your failures even to the point of your ill health while at older
> >age i am perfectly healthy seems to make you furious.
> I hardly ever get angry, especially angry at myself. That's self
> defeating. I might be somewhat jealous of your alleged abilities to
> ride long distances and climb mountains on your bicycle. If you
> really want to make me jealous, post your Strava maps and records, and
> I might believe you actually do so much riding. No fair posting
> virtual exercise on a trainer.
>
> Incidentally, I know quite a few people who are over 65. Perhaps I
> mix with the wrong crowd, but all of them seem to have some manner of
> medical problem. If you are the exception, then I congratulate you on
> your luck and wish you continued physical health. Too bad there's
> little that can be done for your mental health.
> >Well you're always good for a laugh taking up hours on my comments
> >and then saying you're wasting your time.
> Isn't that what you want me to do? You do want to be the center of
> attention? Last time I checked, you generated something like 35% to
> 40% of the postings in RBT. I can't imagine any reason you would do
> that besides attempting to attract attention to yourself. Now, if you
> only wrote something that was accurate, logical and worth reading.
> Also, I doubt that anyone (including me) bothers to read everything
> your write.
>
> Back to chainsawing and splitting firewood. It's going to rain for at
> least the next 5 days and I want to convert more of the fallen
> branches into firewood.
While you showed that you have access to my LinkedIn account that SHOWS my success complete with at least one recommendation from a college professor saying that one of the most remarkable projects of the 20th century could not have been achieved without me. Oh, wait, you don't think the discovery of the cause of AIDS, the ability to reopen the blood banks which saved literally millions of lives was an important achievement, You've done things like that a hundred times over. On that Linkedin account showing hundreds of people attempting to get me back to work. Even Tesla has returned to asking me to work for them but i have no intentions of moving to Nevada. And FuzzyWuzzy can cry that only a fool would turn down a $300k per year job because his eyes would pop out of his head with such an offer.

Aren't you going to tell us how much time you wasted while I was out riding gravel?

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 4:25:01 PM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:02:33 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
> >On 10/19/2021 10:20 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 06:58:00 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> >> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:53:11 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 14:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The United States Invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, lasted over a month between mid-December 1989 and late January 1990. It occurred during the administration of President George H. W. Bush and ten years after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the U.S. to Panama by January 1, 2000. The primary purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto Panamanian leader, general and dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega, who for a long time worked with the Central Intelligence Agency, was wanted by the United States for racketeering and drug trafficking. Following the operation, the Panama Defense Forces were dissolved and President-elect Guillermo Endara was sworn into office.
> >>>> Nice cut-n-paste from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:
> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama>
> >>>> Nice to see that you're finally starting to quote fairly reputable
> >>>> sources. However, you really should cite the source.
> >>
> >>> Tommy thinks citing sources means you don't know what you're talking about. He'd rather commit plagiarism than make it look like he actually had to look something up.
> >>
> >> Not citing sources has another benefit, which his posting is a good
> >> example. The first part, lifted directly from Wikipedia, sound very
> >> credible and will sound authoritative to the casual reader.
>
> >Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.
> True because none of the articles have been peer reviewed.
> >My kids' high school teachers had a policy of an automatic F if a
> >research paper cited Wikipedia as a reference.
> Also true, for the same reason. Teachers are by definition academics
> and academics do not accept as authoritative anything that hasn't been
> closely inspected by other academics. I would not expect an academic
> to accept crowd sourced information as being authoritative.
>
> There's also the problem of Wikipedia being far too tempting for
> student to use it as a sole source. I made that mistake when I was
> rather young. As an incentive to study more, my parents bought me the
> Encyclopedia Britannica. I spent quite a bit of time reading all the
> articles that were important to me, such as sex, explosives, radio,
> and music. When it came time to write a paper, the encyclopedia was
> far more convenient than riding my bicycle to the library. Gradually,
> it became my sole source of information. I'll spare you the details,
> but basically, that was a really bad idea. Student should be exposed
> to as many sources as possible and learn how to recognize the
> difference between facts, interpretations, guesswork, and opinions. I
> suspect that the ease of access might be why the high skool teacher
> did not allow Wikipedia references.

There you go again showing a level of ignorance almost beyond comprehension.. Who 'peer reviews" the Encyclopedia Britannica?

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>There you go again showing a level of ignorance almost beyond comprehension. Who 'peer reviews" the Encyclopedia Britannica?

Read what I wrote, not what you imagine I might have written. I think
I was about 13 years old when my parents bought me the Encyclopedia
Britannica set. At that age, I don't think any of us read or needed
any peer reviewed research papers. I probably didn't even know what
peer review meant. However, I'm fairly certain everything you've read
has been peer reviewed by various right wing organizations.
"Welcome to the Wikipedia of the Alt-Right"
<https://www.wired.com/story/welcome-to-the-wikipedia-of-the-alt-right/>
<https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page>

Anyway, you missed my point. Teaching students to rely on *ANY*
single source for research and information is a really bad idea.

Incidentally, Britannica content is reviewed by an editorial board:
<https://www.mvorganizing.org/is-encyclopedia-britannica-an-academic-source/>
Is Encyclopedia Britannica an academic source?
Encyclopedias are considered a scholarly source. The content
is written by an academic for an academic audience. While
entries are reviewed by an editorial board, they are not
"peer-reviewed".

Since you also don't like Wikipedia, maybe some of these might be more
acceptable?
"Six Free Wikipedia Alternatives - Free online encyclopedias"
<https://blog.reputationx.com/wikipedia-alternatives>

Drivel: PG&E power went off at 4:12AM and just came back on 7:51AM.
I'll continue keeping you entertained after I shut down the generator
and untangle the extension cords.

[ 30 mins wasted ]

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:55:49 AM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >There you go again showing a level of ignorance almost beyond comprehension. Who 'peer reviews" the Encyclopedia Britannica?
> Read what I wrote, not what you imagine I might have written. I think
> I was about 13 years old when my parents bought me the Encyclopedia
> Britannica set. At that age, I don't think any of us read or needed
> any peer reviewed research papers. I probably didn't even know what
> peer review meant. However, I'm fairly certain everything you've read
> has been peer reviewed by various right wing organizations.
> "Welcome to the Wikipedia of the Alt-Right"
> <https://www.wired.com/story/welcome-to-the-wikipedia-of-the-alt-right/>
> <https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page>
>
> Anyway, you missed my point. Teaching students to rely on *ANY*
> single source for research and information is a really bad idea.
>
> Incidentally, Britannica content is reviewed by an editorial board:
> <https://www.mvorganizing.org/is-encyclopedia-britannica-an-academic-source/>
> Is Encyclopedia Britannica an academic source?
> Encyclopedias are considered a scholarly source. The content
> is written by an academic for an academic audience. While
> entries are reviewed by an editorial board, they are not
> "peer-reviewed".
>
> Since you also don't like Wikipedia, maybe some of these might be more
> acceptable?
> "Six Free Wikipedia Alternatives - Free online encyclopedias"
> <https://blog.reputationx.com/wikipedia-alternatives>
>
> Drivel: PG&E power went off at 4:12AM and just came back on 7:51AM.
> I'll continue keeping you entertained after I shut down the generator
> and untangle the extension cords.
>
> [ 30 mins wasted ]
My power has gone off once in the last 10 years because a car ran into the telephone pole at the end of the block. No wonder you waste so much time. Tell me, how many sources did you look in to get reference anything?

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 09:36:27 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>My power has gone off once in the last 10 years because a car ran
>into the telephone pole at the end of the block. No wonder you
>waste so much time.

That's because you don't live in a forest. I'll spare you my rant
about PG&E. If you're interested in what's happening with utility
power in the mountains, I suggest you watch this rather long video.
"Enhanced Power Line Safety Settings Webinar - San Lorenzo Valley"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3qyJLHdB6o> (1:31:10)

>Tell me, how many sources did you look in to get reference anything?

Typically about 5 sources. I start by using Google to find likely
articles, papers, books, and references. I then look at a few to
collect the information. Sometimes, when the information is rather
mundane, such as the years Obama was in office, I just reference a
Wikipedia article. Would it help you if I provided more than one link
to a source demonstrating that your claims are wrong? One source is
better than zero sources, which is your method.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 10:27:20 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

> While you showed that you have access to my LinkedIn account that SHOWS my success

Correction - ALLEGES your successes

> complete with at least one recommendation from a college professor saying that one of the most remarkable projects of the 20th century could not have been achieved without me.

No, tommy, you don't have a recommendation from a college professor saying that one of the most remarkable projects of the 20th century could not have been achieved without you. You do have a recommendation from a former adjunct professor at a community college who claims you're some kind of SW/FW/HW whizkid, but he doesn't list any specific projects let alone one of the most remarkable projects of the 20th century could not have been achieved without you. He must have lost a bet with you over something and wrote that review to settle up, because you're no whizkid.

> Oh, wait, you don't think the discovery of the cause of AIDS, the ability to reopen the blood banks
> which saved literally millions of lives was an important achievement, You've done things like that a hundred times over.

Then why isn't that on your resume sparky?

> On that Linkedin account showing hundreds of people attempting to get me back to work.

Linked in accounts don't show that information, sparky. All it shows are people who have viewed your profile. this is obviously a big point of confusion for you.

> Even Tesla has returned to asking me to work for them but i have no intentions of moving to Nevada.

Complete bullshit. You have no experience of any relevance to Tesla. If you have a hard offer from tesla, post it here.

> And FuzzyWuzzy can cry that only a fool would turn down a $300k per year job

You're right. Only a fool would turn down a 300K offer to be a staff engineer developing embedded OS. A 300K position more than likely comes with a perk of working from home, so you'd never have to leave your mothers house and would still be able to get in bike rides during the day. for that money you'd never have to complain about the price of groceries again. You'd be an absolute idiot not to take that job, and I would say the same thing to anyone I knew, and anyone in this forum. .

> because his eyes would pop out of his head with such an offer.

You're right, because those positions don't offer anywhere near that salary, even for top-level talent (which you aren't).
>
> Aren't you going to tell us how much time you wasted while I was out riding gravel?

Do us a favor, take a long trip down a steep gravel road with no brakes.

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 1:26:07 PM UTC-5, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 10:27:20 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > While you showed that you have access to my LinkedIn account that SHOWS my success
> Correction - ALLEGES your successes
> > complete with at least one recommendation from a college professor saying that one of the most remarkable projects of the 20th century could not have been achieved without me.
> No, tommy, you don't have a recommendation from a college professor saying that one of the most remarkable projects of the 20th century could not have been achieved without you. You do have a recommendation from a former adjunct professor at a community college who claims you're some kind of SW/FW/HW whizkid, but he doesn't list any specific projects let alone one of the most remarkable projects of the 20th century could not have been achieved without you. He must have lost a bet with you over something and wrote that review to settle up, because you're no whizkid.
> > Oh, wait, you don't think the discovery of the cause of AIDS, the ability to reopen the blood banks
> > which saved literally millions of lives was an important achievement, You've done things like that a hundred times over.
> Then why isn't that on your resume sparky?
> > On that Linkedin account showing hundreds of people attempting to get me back to work.
> Linked in accounts don't show that information, sparky. All it shows are people who have viewed your profile. this is obviously a big point of confusion for you.
> > Even Tesla has returned to asking me to work for them but i have no intentions of moving to Nevada.
> Complete bullshit. You have no experience of any relevance to Tesla. If you have a hard offer from tesla, post it here.
> > And FuzzyWuzzy can cry that only a fool would turn down a $300k per year job
> You're right. Only a fool would turn down a 300K offer to be a staff engineer developing embedded OS. A 300K position more than likely comes with a perk of working from home, so you'd never have to leave your mothers house and would still be able to get in bike rides during the day. for that money you'd never have to complain about the price of groceries again. You'd be an absolute idiot not to take that job, and I would say the same thing to anyone I knew, and anyone in this forum. .
> > because his eyes would pop out of his head with such an offer.
> You're right, because those positions don't offer anywhere near that salary, even for top-level talent (which you aren't).
> >
> > Aren't you going to tell us how much time you wasted while I was out riding gravel?
> Do us a favor, take a long trip down a steep gravel road with no brakes.

I'm a bit doubtful of Tommy's $300,000 job offer too. Jobs that pay that much are generally high management type jobs. Not worker bee jobs doing the actual making, designing, working part. And $300,000 jobs are always filled from inside the company by people who have put in the time and worked their way up the ladder. Not a new guy brought in off the street. If you give the top $300,000 job to a new guy what incentive do the current workers have to work hard and advance? None. Or maybe $300,000 jobs are filled with a new guy. But the new guy is doing the same job at a competitor or has gotten some fame and recognition from working hard somewhere else. He is a new guy to the company, but he is not off the street really. Example: Lee Iacocca went from being president of Ford to president of Chrysler in 1978.

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 10:57:55 AM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 09:36:27 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >My power has gone off once in the last 10 years because a car ran
> >into the telephone pole at the end of the block. No wonder you
> >waste so much time.
> That's because you don't live in a forest. I'll spare you my rant
> about PG&E. If you're interested in what's happening with utility
> power in the mountains, I suggest you watch this rather long video.
> "Enhanced Power Line Safety Settings Webinar - San Lorenzo Valley"
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3qyJLHdB6o> (1:31:10)
> >Tell me, how many sources did you look in to get reference anything?
> Typically about 5 sources. I start by using Google to find likely
> articles, papers, books, and references. I then look at a few to
> collect the information. Sometimes, when the information is rather
> mundane, such as the years Obama was in office, I just reference a
> Wikipedia article. Would it help you if I provided more than one link
> to a source demonstrating that your claims are wrong? One source is
> better than zero sources, which is your method.

PG&E had the perfect means of protecting the power lines from sparking fires. They would put the commercial lines underground. That didn't work so well since the people you've been letting into this country by the millions who don't have vaccine mandates simply stole the copper wires and sold them to people like you who didn't care where they were coming from as long as you could make a profit. So you get not only what you ask for but what you deserve.

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 4:36:31 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 12:28:05 PM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 2:04:59 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 9:44:14 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 12:18:16 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
> > > > > On 10/17/2021 6:07 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > I see history is one more subject Tommy boy failed in school.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WW1 1914-1918 Woodrow Wilson Democrat
> > > > > > WW2 1939-1945 Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman Democrats
> > > > > > Korean War 1950-1953 Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower Democrat and Republican
> > > > > > Vietnam War 1955-1975 Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford Republican Democrat Democrat Republican Republican After France left Indochina in 1954 Ike sent advisors and arms. In 1964 LBJ sent lots of troops. All US troops pulled in 1973.
> > > > > > Iraq War #1 1991 George Bush 1 Republican
> > > > > > Afghanistan War 2001-2021 George Bush 2, Barack Obama ,Donald Trump, Joe Biden Republican Democrat Republican Democrat
> > > > > > Iraq War #2 2003-2011 George Bush 2, Barack Obama Republican Democrat
> > > > I'd offer a caveat that, although bush the younger was president when the US invaded afghanistan and iraq (#2), Cheney was the one driving that bus. He saw a chance to raid the treasury of the suplus Clinton left behind and drove the whole saddam hussein/WMD lie in order to get his KBR buddies the war management contracts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eisenhower got the USA in Vietnam. Bush1 got the USA into Iraq. Bush2 got the USA into Afghanistan and Iraq again. All Republicans.
> > > > > Yes, that's why I qualified my earlier statement with "crazy." The
> > > > > involvement in crazy wars, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, were done by
> > > > > Republicans.
> > > > >
> > > > > And don't forget Grenada, one of the craziest wars, started by Reagan:
> > > > And don't forget the invasion of panama started by bush the elder.
> > > Do you mean the one started by Jimmy Carter? I suppose it would help if you had the slightest knowledge of history.
> > Sure, Jimmy Carter invaded panama....thanks for the laugh pinhead
> >
> > And I'm the one without the slightest knowledge of history....HAH!!!!
> >
> > Still laughing _at_ you sparky....
> The United States Invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, lasted over a month between mid-December 1989 and late January 1990. It occurred during the administration of President George H. W. Bush and ten y i would likears after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the U.S. to Panama by January 1, 2000.. The primary purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto Panamanian leader, general and dictator Manuel Noriega. Noriega, who for a long time worked with the Central Intelligence Agency,

..

That is a job I would like

How did Noriega rate such a cool job?

When I applied, I got the message that the application was O.K. (I think).
My understanding was that I failed some portion of the process. I know
that I wrote a terrible response for interpersonal skills and at least one
other . Just spent my brain power before I got to those. I am still
struggling with the way to respond to the interpersonal skills question when I apply again, because
it is so subjective and impossible to prove.....to which my father will tell
me to make up anything. I need to spend some time writing the oral and
written communication sections, just because those have been so over written
that it is hard to come up with fresh statements that will get points (I've
written these too many times in the past, writing and
speaking professionally ).

Where can I get the right answers?

mk5000

Speeding down the high way, looking at the street lights
Geeking on a Friday, I can never sleep right
Knowing I hurt you, I don't deserve you
I should've curved you, I know I'm the worst boo--"Crybaby" lyrics
Lil Peep