Does fact checking matter to your opinions?

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, radiochaser said:

Yep, there were northerners (Yankees to those from the south) that held slaves.  If I recall correctly, there was a black man that went to court to keep a man, another black man, as his slave, or something like that.   The court ruled in his favor and he kept his slave.   

Also, the Lincoln Emancipation Proclamation, if I recall correctly, only freed slaves in the civil wars, southern states.  Not in the northern states.   Sort of hypocritical ya might think. 

One swallow does not a summer make.

[radiochaser]

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

It's utterly  delusional to assert that the party of racism is the democratic party these days.

Who is being delusional now?

The Big Lie: Democrats and Republicans Switched Sides on Race

Republican failure to refute Democrats’ "big lie" that their parties switched sides on race has allowed that falsehood to become widely accepted.

 

https://lindasuegrimes.substack.com/p/the-big-lie-democrats-and-republicans

Edited February 27, 2023 by radiochaser

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, radiochaser said:

https://lindasuegrimes.substack.com/p/the-big-lie-democrats-and-republicans

It's a paywalled site but here goes:

 

Republican failure to refute Democrats’ "big lie" that their parties switched sides on race has allowed that falsehood to become widely accepted.

 

Why do you think the republicans have failed to refute this? The answer is obvious and as I alleged.

 

 

[radiochaser]

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

One swallow does not a summer make.

Perhaps, but it does appear that it is the first legal ownership of slavery in the Colonies.    And that person was a black man (African descendent) who owned African slaves. 

When you hear or read the term ‘slavery’, the first thing that would readily pop into your mind is a black man being abused and used by white man. After all, this is the battle cry of the black community whenever they likened racism to slavery. While this may be true of most slave cases, do you know that the first legally recognized slaveholder in America was not a white but a black man?

https://history101.com/first-legally-slaveholder-black-man/

[radiochaser]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's a paywalled site but here goes:

 

Republican failure to refute Democrats’ "big lie" that their parties switched sides on race has allowed that falsehood to become widely accepted.

 

Why do you think the republicans have failed to refute this? The answer is obvious and as I alleged.

 

 

Sounds more like an opinion than it does a fact.

I'm not sure what you mean by "paywalled".  You can't open or see the link?  I have no problem with it. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by radiochaser

[radiochaser]

On 2/26/2023 at 8:14 AM, zzaa09 said:

Wondering if anyone will get this.

Probably not.

OK, I give up.  In context, what does it mean?

[ozimoron]

24 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

Perhaps, but it does appear that it is the first legal ownership of slavery in the Colonies.    And that person was a black man (African descendent) who owned African slaves. 

When you hear or read the term ‘slavery’, the first thing that would readily pop into your mind is a black man being abused and used by white man. After all, this is the battle cry of the black community whenever they likened racism to slavery. While this may be true of most slave cases, do you know that the first legally recognized slaveholder in America was not a white but a black man?

https://history101.com/first-legally-slaveholder-black-man/

That is the overwhelming majority of the history of slavery. Pointing to cases where blacks have been corrupted for their own benefit does nothing. Ultimately most of those slaves, at least in the modern era, were sold to whites. You're just engaging in look over there, a black man owned slaves as well so whites are off the hook. Not really an argument is it?

[ozimoron]

25 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

Sounds more like an opinion than it does a fact.

I'm not sure what you mean by "paywalled".  You can't open or see the link?  I have no problem with it. 

It won't let me read the whole article. Can you? All of it?

[Joe Farang]

On 2/24/2023 at 2:35 AM, ozimoron said:

Widely accepted and not credibly contested.

Widely accepted may have been easily checked in the past, but nowadays anything Googled pulls results that are all the same and blocks anything that differs. So if the checks are web based, I wouldn't necessarily go with the majority.

Anytime anyone says "Provide a link" I shake my head in dismay at the sheeplike acceptance of a Google search.

[radiochaser]

On 2/26/2023 at 8:44 AM, asf6 said:

One would like to think so but it is not difficult to invent something and for that something to eventually become a "fact" or "the truth". And if that "fact" spreads widely enough (and people believe it) other people could find a source for it, quote it and add a link to their post, claiming it is as true/a fact from a credible source. 

I would like to believe, that I, when I called the talk line of the ray taliaferro's talk show out of San Francisco, one early morning after midnight, and invented the idea that Bush Sr.  flew to Europe in the back seat of an SR71, and negotiated the hostage release from the Iranians, before Reagon was elected!   ray taliaferro had never heard that claim before, but he immediately and completely accepted and believed it.  I made that claim, hung up the phone, and continued to listen to other caller after another also accept the claim.   

There were some callers wanting to know what the SR71 was.  I don't recall if ray taliaferro knew what it was or if I had to explain what that aircraft was.  I had known about the SR71 was since 1972-1973.  I could look at pictures taken on it's flight over Vietnam and China that were posted on a bulletin board in the OPs building at the 7th RRFS, outside of Udon Thani.   

If I recall correctly, the SR71 would fly at an altitude of 80,000 feet, up the east coast of Vietnam, make a U-turn over China, and fly back down the west boarder of Vietnam, all in about an hour or so, all the while with cameras taking pictures continuously during the north and south flight.   Amazing black and white pictures, taken from an aircraft flying approximately 3000 miles an hour, at 80,000 feet.  I think I was told that the negatives were 24 inches square!  I remember pictures of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun crew, where you could tell they had either sandals or boots on, you could see canteens on their belts, whether they carried an AK47 or an SKS rifle.  Not just something that looked like it might have been those things, but you could see the detail of the objects.  

I sometimes wonder if I had heard this theory, that Bush sr. was flown in the SR71 and that memory was relegated to some deep dark place in my subconscious memory, and then I dug it up on that time.  I don't know at this time so many years after the fact. 

Now there is a claim by a pilot that he flew Bush to Europe in the SR71.  But there are also claims that a single pilot could not as he needed a navigator.   I don't know which is true, I only know that people I have met, who worked with the SR71 program supports the claim that the SR71 could not have been flown with Bush Sr. in the back seat, because he was not a qualified navigator, and the pilot in the front seat, alone, could not navigate, and fly the SR71 by himself.  





 

[radiochaser]

21 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It won't let me read the whole article. Can you? All of it?

Yes I can.  If you cannot I don't know why.   I thought it might be due to you being in Thailand (I don't know where you are) and your IP address was blocked.  I changed my VPN to Singapore and the link opened. 

As to paywalls... I run into that on occasion. What I find works more than 90% (a guess on my part) of the time is, using a search engine (not google, at least not currently) I look for the same story, quote, etc, and keep opening up links until I find one that works.   Something I learned to do when I was working as a Federal Agent and was involved in investigations, beginning back in the the year 2002.     

Here is a brave search of the title:

https://search.brave.com/search?q="The+Big+Lie%3A+Democrats+and+Republicans+Switched+Sides+on+Race"&source=web

Edited February 27, 2023 by radiochaser

[radiochaser]

25 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

That is the overwhelming majority of the history of slavery. Pointing to cases where blacks have been corrupted for their own benefit does nothing. Ultimately most of those slaves, at least in the modern era, were sold to whites. You're just engaging in look over there, a black man owned slaves as well so whites are off the hook. Not really an argument is it?

Slaves in the modern era?   Not today, unless you believe that that muslims who own slaves are white/caucasians!  I don't believe that all muslims are white/caucasian, they can be any ethnic race, and not all own slaves today!   

I would think that you mean during the years of southern slavery and I would agree with you.   There is no "look over there" aspect of my post.  It is what you want to call a, fact base, post, according to the history of what happened. 

One issue that seems to be evident is that too many people believe that America had the most slaves through out the world, or, as is in some cases, the only country that had slaves during that era.   Did America have black slaves, yes, did America own the most slaves or was it the only slave owning country?  No. 


 

[ozimoron]

26 minutes ago, Joe Farang said:

Widely accepted may have been easily checked in the past, but nowadays anything Googled pulls results that are all the same and blocks anything that differs. So if the checks are web based, I wouldn't necessarily go with the majority.

Anytime anyone says "Provide a link" I shake my head in dismay at the sheeplike acceptance of a Google search.

Provide a link that Google blocks anything based on dissent of credible science. What kind of "dissent" are you referring to. Can you give some concrete examples rather than the usual boring innuendo?

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

Slaves in the modern era?   Not today, unless you believe that that muslims who own slaves are white/caucasians!  I don't believe that all muslims are white/caucasian, they can be any ethnic race, and not all own slaves today!   

I would think that you mean during the years of southern slavery and I would agree with you.   There is no "look over there" aspect of my post.  It is what you want to call a, fact base, post, according to the history of what happened. 

One issue that seems to be evident is that too many people believe that America had the most slaves through out the world, or, as is in some cases, the only country that had slaves during that era.   Did America have black slaves, yes, did America own the most slaves or was it the only slave owning country?  No.

Do you think that everything was made good at the end of the civil war? Or that a switch was flipped when the civil rights act was passed? You are obviously one of those who deny that there remains any kind of problem which results in blacks and minorities not getting a fair shake.

 

Arguing that other countries had more slaves is just deflection. And you offer no link to support that contention. Please provide the link.

Edited February 27, 2023 by ozimoron

[radiochaser]

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Do you think that everything was made good at the end of the civil war? Or that a switch was flipped when the civil rights act was passed? You are obviously one of those who deny that there remains any kind of problem which results in blacks and minorities not getting a fair shake.

 

Arguing that other countries had more slaves is just deflection. And you offer no link to support that contention. Please provide the link.

You are projecting your thoughts and emotions onto me.  None of your claims are valid in this case.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/thomas-sowell-on-slavery-and-this-fact-there-are-more-slaves-today-than-were-seized-from-africa-in-four-centuries/

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by radiochaser

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

You are projecting your thoughts and emotions onto me.  None of your claims are valid in this case.

How about the link you are required to produce to back up your claims?

[radiochaser]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

How about the link you are required to produce to back up your claims?

You must not have seen the link.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/thomas-sowell-on-slavery-and-this-fact-there-are-more-slaves-today-than-were-seized-from-africa-in-four-centuries/

 

[ozimoron]

9 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

You must not have seen the link.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/thomas-sowell-on-slavery-and-this-fact-there-are-more-slaves-today-than-were-seized-from-africa-in-four-centuries/

 

Which country does it say had more slaves than the US. That was your claim.

 

The world's population is slightly larger now than it was in 1862 as well so your comparison is misleading as well as deficient. Facts matter. .

Edited February 27, 2023 by ozimoron

[radiochaser]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Which country does it say had more slaves than the US. That was your claim.

 

The world's population is slightly larger now than it was in 1862 as well so your comparison is misleading as well as deficient. Facts matter. .

The answer is just too easy to find.  I do my own searches on the internet, daily, as a result of someone writing something or other.  Why is that difficult for you to do?
I think it was only about 1 minute to find this article.  It is taking me longer to post a response than it did to find it!

Top 10 Countries with the Highest Prevalence of Modern Slavery (by total number of slaves) - Global Slavery Index 2018:

Top 10 Countries with the Highest Prevalence of Modern Slavery (by slaves per 1000 residents) - Global Slavery Index 2018:

 

 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-still-have-slavery

[radiochaser]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

How about the link you are required to produce to back up your claims?

This isn't a thread about news.   From reading this thread, it appears to be mostly about personal opinions!

"In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source."

 

[ozimoron]

37 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

This isn't a thread about news.   From reading this thread, it appears to be mostly about personal opinions!

"In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source."

 

You claimed a fact, you are required to back it up. Period.

 

You should at least have he decency to admit you were wrong and withdraw your assertion if you can't.

Edited February 27, 2023 by ozimoron

[radiochaser]

22 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You claimed a fact, you are required to back it up. Period.

 

You should at least have he decency to admit you were wrong and withdraw your assertion if you can't.

What did I claim was a fact.  I don't remember writing anywhere that, "this is a fact"! 

Please be more specific than to make a general statement.  

If there was no instance of my claiming something I wrote was a fact, I will throw back to you, "at least have the decency" to not make a statement that is not true!
 

[ozimoron]

25 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

What did I claim was a fact.  I don't remember writing anywhere that, "this is a fact"! 

Please be more specific than to make a general statement.  

If there was no instance of my claiming something I wrote was a fact, I will throw back to you, "at least have the decency" to not make a statement that is not true!
 

Your claim: "did America own the most slaves? No.".

 

This was not a fact, it was false. I challenged you to support that claim with a link. You produced a link to say that there were more slaves in the world TODAY than there were in America when it had slaves. You were unable and are still unable to name a country which had more slaves, let alone support that claim. It could not be clearer. Please either withdraw that claim or support it with a link to evidence.

Edited February 27, 2023 by ozimoron

[radiochaser]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Your claim: "did America own the most slaves? No.".

 

This was not a fact, it was false. I challenged you to support that claim with a link. You produced a link to say that there were more slaves in the world TODAY than there were in America when it had slaves. You were unable and are still unable to name a country which had more slaves, let alone support that claim. It could not be clearer. Please either withdraw that claim or support it with a link to evidence.

The most active European nation in the trans-Atlantic slave trade was Portugal, which used the forced labor of Africans in their Latin American colonies in present-day Brazil. Almost 3.9 million enslaved Africans were forced to embark on Portuguese ships. Present-day Brazil received around 3.2 of them, making it the country in the Americas where most enslaved people arrived during the period. British ships also carried upwards of 3 million Africans forcefully removed from the continent, mostly to the Caribbean, the United States and the Guyanas. French ships carried 1.3 million enslaved Africans.

https://www.statista.com/chart/22057/countries-most-active-trans-atlantic-slave-trade/

[ozimoron]

21 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

The most active European nation in the trans-Atlantic slave trade was Portugal, which used the forced labor of Africans in their Latin American colonies in present-day Brazil. Almost 3.9 million enslaved Africans were forced to embark on Portuguese ships. Present-day Brazil received around 3.2 of them, making it the country in the Americas where most enslaved people arrived during the period. British ships also carried upwards of 3 million Africans forcefully removed from the continent, mostly to the Caribbean, the United States and the Guyanas. French ships carried 1.3 million enslaved Africans.

https://www.statista.com/chart/22057/countries-most-active-trans-atlantic-slave-trade/

Most of those slaves were likely destined for the US, the link does not show that they remained in the countries that transported them. In fact, the link implies that most were destined for the US.

 

This chart indicates that the US had almost 4 million slaves back then.

 

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/activities/chart-slave-population-in-1860

 

I'm unable to find a slave population list for other countries which kept slaves during the period of US slavery. Wiki cites that Brazil had 4 million slaves but they probably predated the US by a couple of hundred years.

 

4 million enslaved people were obtained by Brazil, 1.5 million more than any other country

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

 

It is possible that the numbers were roughly similar to the US in Brazil until they were abolished around 1871. However, at best that remains a deflection attempting to diminish the issue the slavery in the US which was right up their with the worst slavers in that era. The Brazil numbers were also over a much longer period of time.

 

However, thank you for stepping up to the plate when challenged and producing a link, even if it's inconclusive. There is obviously no data comparing US slavery with slavery in other countries during the same period of time. I have never disputed that slavery was widespread in earlier times but it was particularly egregious in the US in more modern times and the effects of slavery on modern white attitudes to blacks remains with us even now. Blacks continue to face systemic racism, discrimination and unequal opportunities compared to whites.

Edited February 27, 2023 by ozimoron

[radiochaser]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Most of those slaves were likely destined for the US, the link does not show that they remained in the countries that transported them. In fact, the link implies that most were destined for the US.

 

This chart indicates that the US had almost 4 million slaves back then.

 

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/activities/chart-slave-population-in-1860

 

I'm unable to find a slave population list for other countries which kept slaves during the period of US slavery. Wiki cites that Brazil had 4 million slaves but they probably predated the US by a couple of hundred years.

 

4 million enslaved people were obtained by Brazil, 1.5 million more than any other country

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

 

It is possible that the numbers were roughly similar to the US in Brazil until they were abolished around 1871. However, at best that remains a deflection attempting to diminish the issue the slavery in the US which was right up their with the worst slavers in that era. The Brazil numbers were also over a much longer period of time.

 

However, thank you for stepping up to the plate when challenged and producing a link, even if it's inconclusive. There is obviously no data comparing US slavery with slavery in other countries during the same period of time. I have never disputed that slavery was widespread in earlier times but it was particularly egregious in the US in more modern times and the effects of slavery on modern white attitudes to blacks remains with us even now. Blacks continue to face systemic racism, discrimination and unequal opportunities compared to whites.

I think you take this stuff much too seriously.  It isn't that important in the general scheme of life.  

(wow, this turned out to be more of an essay than a comment response)

I participate in some of these threads for the mental stimulation, for the fun of it, and the occasional education aspects that the debates provide.  If there are errors, mistakes, etc, they do no harm to life!  

If these debates were vastly important in my life, then there would be a very great number more posts from me.  If you look at my profile you will see that I have been a member since November of 2009, 13 years.   Divide the number of posts I have, 1041 by those years and you can see that my yearly average number of posts are,  80.   You however have only been a member for about 2 years.  You have an average post count of 140, per week.  That is why I think that you take this much too serious.  You seem to devote much too much time to posting comments.   I wonder if you have anything else in your life that you can do, besides these ASEAN NOW forums. 

To give you some perspective of me and what my life has been, that influences how I react to some of these threads.   I went to Vietnam in late 1970 and was involved in the Vietnam war for about 27 months.   I was in the Army Security Agency, had a TOP SECRET Clearance equivalent to todays TOP SECRET Clearance with SCI access (TS-SCI).  I had access to classified material from Confidential up to Top Secret.  This was required so that I could perform in the MOS that I was trained in. That training started in October 1969 and ended August of 1970.  This was 8 hour a day, 5 days a week, with some of it requiring studying classified class notes only in a secured facility (breaks for some holidays).  The study of classified class notes had to be done on free time, meaning after class, not during class time!  

 There were times when my MOS affected life, either harming the life of people or killing them, but not directly.   People were injured and killed and there were a lot of them.  Those were not injury or death reports submitted by U.S. Military personnel, those were from reports of field troops back to Hanoi via radio communications.   I once made a mistake and that lead to the death of Allied personnel, namely Army of the Republic of Vietnam.   That was a little over 50 years ago, about 50 ARVN died and I still have guilt about it today.   

Years after Vietnam, I was hired by the U.S. Government.  Some of the work was very similar to what I was trained to do in the Army Security Agency.   I had to undergo 1 year of training for that job consisting of 10 months of 8 hour a day of OJT with 2 months of classroom training.   I also had to have a SECRET level clearance, with access to cryptologic materials.   That clearance took 18 months to complete (before 9/11/01 occurred) and as I did for the TOP SECRET Clearance, I had to provide information going back to when and where I was born!    At the end of the 1 year training with the U.S. Government, I was considered qualified to to function on my own, unsupervised, as a Federal Agent.   I also had a break in that service which lead to my clearance being revoked, as I no longer needed it, not being in the Enforcement Bureau of the agency I worked for.  Then later, I was reassigned back to the Enforcement Bureau, in December 2001.  The subsequent security clearance was much more demanding.  Partly because because of 9/11 and  by then, I had married a Thai national who later became a U.S. citizen.   I was given the same clearance, SECRET level, with access to cryptologic materials.   That part of having access to cryptologic materials is important.  It requires additional back ground investigation.  Fail that part and there is no clearance given!  The second back ground investigation for my third clearance lasted 2 years and 9 months!  

I investigated issues involving violations of Federal laws, Regulations, and Rules.  The punitive results of my investigations of individual people and businesses violations ranged from, please don't do that again, to I am issuing you this written violation, to  you are being fined, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of dollars, or being imprisoned in a Federal Penitentiary.  The shortest sentence in a penitentiary was 1 year, the longest was 7 years. 

When I did investigations, I was the principle person that had to do the work.  I neither depended on anyone else to do the research, nor could I make demands of anyone to do the research.   It was almost entirely on me.  There were times I could ask someone else, hey, if you have the time, can you look this up for me?  But otherwise, I did the investigations.   Apparently I was good at it.   I solved several cases that had already been under investigation for more than a year, to one that was over 2 years old.   That latter case was solved in 2 or 3 months after I was transferred back to the Enforcement Bureau, which was also being investigated by multiple law enforcement agencies in New Jersey and by the U.S. Coast Guard.  

So, I ask that you excuse me if I seem to be reticent in responding to demands that prove what I say is true/real/accurate/etc, when it can be found by just a little bit of internet research, such as one I did today, which actually took me less than 1 minute to complete.   If I question what someone else writes, then I do the internet search myself.   I have years of experience having to do that and ended up being a senior agent at a pay grade of GS-13, Step 6!  Really, it isn't that hard to do.

Aaaaaannnddd  a link providing some information about TS-SCI!

https://thesubtimes.com/2022/08/21/so-what-does-sci-really-mean/

Edited February 27, 2023 by radiochaser

[radiochaser]

8 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

I think you take this stuff much too seriously.  It isn't that important in the general scheme of life.  

(wow, this turned out to be more of an essay than a comment response)

I participate in some of these threads for the mental stimulation, for the fun of it, and the occasional education aspects that the debates provide.  If there are errors, mistakes, etc, they do no harm to life!  

If these debates were vastly important in my life, then there would be a very great number more posts from me.  If you look at my profile you will see that I have been a member since November of 2009, 13 years.   Divide the number of posts I have, 1041 by those years and you can see that my yearly average number of posts are,  80.   You however have only been a member for about 2 years.  You have an average post count of 140, per week.  That is why I think that you take this much too serious.  You seem to devote much too much time to posting comments.   I wonder if you have anything else in your life that you can do, besides these ASEAN NOW forums. 

To give you some perspective of me and what my life has been, that influences how I react to some of these threads.   I went to Vietnam in late 1970 and was involved in the Vietnam war for about 27 months.   I was in the Army Security Agency, had a TOP SECRET Clearance equivalent to todays TOP SECRET Clearance with SCI access (TS-SCI).  I had access to classified material from Confidential up to Top Secret.  This was required so that I could perform in the MOS that I was trained in. That training started in October 1969 and ended August of 1970.  This was 8 hour a day, 5 days a week, with some of it requiring studying classified class notes only in a secured facility (breaks for some holidays).  The study of classified class notes had to be done on free time, meaning after class, not during class time!  

 There were times when my MOS affected life, either harming the life of people or killing them, but not directly.   People were injured and killed and there were a lot of them.  Those were not injury or death reports submitted by U.S. Military personnel, those were from reports of field troops back to Hanoi via radio communications.   I once made a mistake and that lead to the death of Allied personnel, namely Army of the Republic of Vietnam.   That was a little over 50 years ago, about 50 ARVN died and I still have guilt about it today.   

Years after Vietnam, I was hired by the U.S. Government.  Some of the work was very similar to what I was trained to do in the Army Security Agency.   I had to undergo 1 year of training for that job consisting of 10 months of 8 hour a day of OJT with 2 months of classroom training.   I also had to have a SECRET level clearance, with access to cryptologic materials.   That clearance took 18 months to complete (before 9/11/01 occurred) and as I did for the TOP SECRET Clearance, I had to provide information going back to when and where I was born!    At the end of the 1 year training with the U.S. Government, I was considered qualified to to function on my own, unsupervised, as a Federal Agent.   I also had a break in that service which lead to my clearance being revoked, as I no longer needed it, not being in the Enforcement Bureau of the agency I worked for.  Then later, I was reassigned back to the Enforcement Bureau, in December 2001.  The subsequent security clearance was much more demanding.  Partly because because of 9/11 and  by then, I had married a Thai national who later became a U.S. citizen.   I was given the same clearance, SECRET level, with access to cryptologic materials.   That part of having access to cryptologic materials is important.  It requires additional back ground investigation.  Fail that part and there is no clearance given!  The second back ground investigation for my third clearance lasted 2 years and 9 months!  

I investigated issues involving violations of Federal laws, Regulations, and Rules.  The punitive results of my investigations of individual people and businesses violations ranged from, please don't do that again, to I am issuing you this written violation, to  you are being fined, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of dollars, or being imprisoned in a Federal Penitentiary.  The shortest sentence in a penitentiary was 1 year, the longest was 7 years. 

When I did investigations, I was the principle person that had to do the work.  I neither depended on anyone else to do the research, nor could I make demands of anyone to do the research.   It was almost entirely on me.  There were times I could ask someone else, hey, if you have the time, can you look this up for me?  But otherwise, I did the investigations.   Apparently I was good at it.   I solved several cases that had already been under investigation for more than a year, to one that was over 2 years old.   That latter case was solved in 2 or 3 months after I was transferred back to the Enforcement Bureau, which was also being investigated by multiple law enforcement agencies in New Jersey and by the U.S. Coast Guard.  

So, I ask that you excuse me if I seem to be reticent in responding to demands that prove what I say is true/real/accurate/etc, when it can be found by just a little bit of internet research, such as one I did today, which actually took me less than 1 minute to complete.   If I question what someone else writes, then I do the internet search myself.   I have years of experience having to do that and ended up being a senior agent at a pay grade of GS-13, Step 6!  Really, it isn't that hard to do.

Aaaaaannnddd  a link providing some information about TS-SCI!

https://thesubtimes.com/2022/08/21/so-what-does-sci-really-mean/

Oh, by the way, even though I held a GS-13 pay grade, I only had a high school education.   

So I must have done something right!   Regardless of what this link implies!

https://www.federalpay.org/gs/2021/GS-13#:~:text=The GS-13 pay grade,are known as Career Competitive.

[ozimoron]

5 hours ago, radiochaser said:

I think you take this stuff much too seriously.  It isn't that important in the general scheme of life.  

(wow, this turned out to be more of an essay than a comment response)

I participate in some of these threads for the mental stimulation, for the fun of it, and the occasional education aspects that the debates provide.  If there are errors, mistakes, etc, they do no harm to life!  

If these debates were vastly important in my life, then there would be a very great number more posts from me.  If you look at my profile you will see that I have been a member since November of 2009, 13 years.   Divide the number of posts I have, 1041 by those years and you can see that my yearly average number of posts are,  80.   You however have only been a member for about 2 years.  You have an average post count of 140, per week.  That is why I think that you take this much too serious.  You seem to devote much too much time to posting comments.   I wonder if you have anything else in your life that you can do, besides these ASEAN NOW forums. 

To give you some perspective of me and what my life has been, that influences how I react to some of these threads.   I went to Vietnam in late 1970 and was involved in the Vietnam war for about 27 months.   I was in the Army Security Agency, had a TOP SECRET Clearance equivalent to todays TOP SECRET Clearance with SCI access (TS-SCI).  I had access to classified material from Confidential up to Top Secret.  This was required so that I could perform in the MOS that I was trained in. That training started in October 1969 and ended August of 1970.  This was 8 hour a day, 5 days a week, with some of it requiring studying classified class notes only in a secured facility (breaks for some holidays).  The study of classified class notes had to be done on free time, meaning after class, not during class time!  

 There were times when my MOS affected life, either harming the life of people or killing them, but not directly.   People were injured and killed and there were a lot of them.  Those were not injury or death reports submitted by U.S. Military personnel, those were from reports of field troops back to Hanoi via radio communications.   I once made a mistake and that lead to the death of Allied personnel, namely Army of the Republic of Vietnam.   That was a little over 50 years ago, about 50 ARVN died and I still have guilt about it today.   

Years after Vietnam, I was hired by the U.S. Government.  Some of the work was very similar to what I was trained to do in the Army Security Agency.   I had to undergo 1 year of training for that job consisting of 10 months of 8 hour a day of OJT with 2 months of classroom training.   I also had to have a SECRET level clearance, with access to cryptologic materials.   That clearance took 18 months to complete (before 9/11/01 occurred) and as I did for the TOP SECRET Clearance, I had to provide information going back to when and where I was born!    At the end of the 1 year training with the U.S. Government, I was considered qualified to to function on my own, unsupervised, as a Federal Agent.   I also had a break in that service which lead to my clearance being revoked, as I no longer needed it, not being in the Enforcement Bureau of the agency I worked for.  Then later, I was reassigned back to the Enforcement Bureau, in December 2001.  The subsequent security clearance was much more demanding.  Partly because because of 9/11 and  by then, I had married a Thai national who later became a U.S. citizen.   I was given the same clearance, SECRET level, with access to cryptologic materials.   That part of having access to cryptologic materials is important.  It requires additional back ground investigation.  Fail that part and there is no clearance given!  The second back ground investigation for my third clearance lasted 2 years and 9 months!  

I investigated issues involving violations of Federal laws, Regulations, and Rules.  The punitive results of my investigations of individual people and businesses violations ranged from, please don't do that again, to I am issuing you this written violation, to  you are being fined, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of dollars, or being imprisoned in a Federal Penitentiary.  The shortest sentence in a penitentiary was 1 year, the longest was 7 years. 

When I did investigations, I was the principle person that had to do the work.  I neither depended on anyone else to do the research, nor could I make demands of anyone to do the research.   It was almost entirely on me.  There were times I could ask someone else, hey, if you have the time, can you look this up for me?  But otherwise, I did the investigations.   Apparently I was good at it.   I solved several cases that had already been under investigation for more than a year, to one that was over 2 years old.   That latter case was solved in 2 or 3 months after I was transferred back to the Enforcement Bureau, which was also being investigated by multiple law enforcement agencies in New Jersey and by the U.S. Coast Guard.  

So, I ask that you excuse me if I seem to be reticent in responding to demands that prove what I say is true/real/accurate/etc, when it can be found by just a little bit of internet research, such as one I did today, which actually took me less than 1 minute to complete.   If I question what someone else writes, then I do the internet search myself.   I have years of experience having to do that and ended up being a senior agent at a pay grade of GS-13, Step 6!  Really, it isn't that hard to do.

Aaaaaannnddd  a link providing some information about TS-SCI!

https://thesubtimes.com/2022/08/21/so-what-does-sci-really-mean/

I do a lot of my own research and I spend a lot, way too much time here. I don't like to waste my time chasing down "facts" that others claim which, in a very many cases I believe to be false. Do you know how hard it is to research and find a fact which is false? I guess you do. The reason I demand links to facts is because a lot of folks around here love to peddle conspiracy theories and cite facts which can never be substantiated because they are just conspiracy theories or misinformation. The rules regarding production of links are intended to keep those posts down to a dull roar. The false claims people make are generally intended to support misinformation.

 

Posters accusing others of not seeking the truth and suggesting they are blind because the truth is out there or that they can just google it are almost always just inviting people to go find links to misinformation and conspiracy theories and are in the category of not credible links which are not allowed on this forum. I'm absolutely amazed at how many people are willing to believe garbage which is just false. How many for example believe the nonsense which Fox news peddle and which they now admit is purely for profit because so many people are willing to read only the echo chamber. If Fox were required to adhere to what they believed was the truth in reporting they couldn't compete. 

 

I also do make a strong effort to provide links to my claims and expect others to follow suit. If I were forced to put up bat guano crazy claims and conspiracy theories I simply would not read or contribute to this board. The imposition of standards and consistent maintenance of those standards is crucial to my participation here. I hope you understand my rationale here.

[Photoguy21]

On 2/24/2023 at 1:30 PM, Photoguy21 said:

Or until Social Media wanted to silence you.

Definitely. Or if they get paid to delete the truth.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

Definitely. Or if they get paid to delete the truth.

I'm not surprised that you agree with yourself but who's paying social media to delete the truth?