Again, my newsfeed seems to have some sort of vendetta against JW,

An impressive résumé, to be sure. However, what I asked you to do was
reference specific work that you have done, and articles that you have
written. I could tell you all sorts of things about my life, for
example, but without solid backup you would have no more reason to
believe my claims than I have to believe that you worked on the Space
Shuttle 'when it was called Tiger'...

All very well. But you also believe in a God who kills for pleasure,
and you praise Him for it. That you gain satisfaction from the
suffering and death of others makes you a little 'extreme', in my view.
And that is a polite word for it.

As I have explained MANY times before, I did not write "articles" for
the above-mentioned organizations. I was an "in-house" staff-writer.
The documents were ALL proprietary, meaning "For the End-User's Eyes
Only. I have ALWAYS worked in endeavors that were either Secret or
Proprietary, meaning I can't go into any detail about the content.

By far a better approach to Secret-graded work would be not to discuss
it at all. Given this tendency of yours to use it as a cheap tactic in
a trivial debate, I very much doubt your reliability in this regard.
After all, at the moment you are simply trying to show off. How much
information would you reveal, I wonder, if you were to get really
annoyed?

A half-decent interrogator would have a field day with you. You wave
your weaknesses like a flag.

However, if you would like to actually SEE one of my projects, the
NASA project, I invite you to go to

www.download.com

Go to the "games" area, and type in a request for "Space Station
Manager". Download it, and you will be able to pretend to assemble a
Space Station IN ORBIT. I wrote a significant amount of documentation
for the space station. And one of the requirements for the program
was that it had to be able to rotate the object in space 360 degrees.

I note that you have been careful not to actually say that you have any
connection to this game. The game is certainly more than I could do,
having no skill in programming - but even had you claimed that you wrote
it I still would not accept it as evidence of DoD/NASA work, or any of
your other spectacular achievement.

I could not imagine how that could be. Get the program, point at a
piece of "space" BESIDE (not ON) the space station, and move the
mouse. As you move the mouse, this way and that way, you will note
that you can actually rotate the space station 360 degrees.

Again, this is a mere game, nothing more. You have made no claim that
you wrote the game, and therefore its relevance here is questionable.

I have told several stories about how the project was developed-- the
theory-- but have since realized that I may not be authorized to
divulge that information.

You have SINCE REALISED? Rubbish. You would - or certainly should -
have known exactly what you could disclose and what you could not.
Unless you are a project director or other specifically-authorised
person it is usually best to disclose nothing. But that, of course,
would prevent you from trumpeting your great achievements here in public
on Usenet. I wonder just how 'secret' these secrets can have been, if
you have suffered no repercussions as a result of your remarkable big
mouth.

To a non-writer, non-Christian perhaps.

Well, this would be open to interpretation. If by 'non-writer' you mean
someone who does not write, then clearly your assessment is wrong. One
of my many failings is my tendency to write too much. Given that I have
been on Usenet in general and ARC in particular for probably six or
seven years now, such a definition does not sit well. I shudder to
think just how many words I have fired off into the ether.

If, however, you mean by 'non-writer' someone who has never been paid
for writing, then you are closer to the mark, if still not entirely on
target. I have never made a great deal of money from writing, that is
true. Finally, if you mean 'one who has never taken part in secret
projects for all sorts of exciting organisations', well obviously I
could not discuss that even if I had, now could I?


You are dead right on 'non-Christian', though.

With that insult, I leave you.

If you wish to take it as an insult, then by all means do so. I have
better things to do with my time than try to offend you. I say as I
see, as they say, and if that upsets you then - similarly - I have
better things to do than try to console you.

But if you are hoping for an apology then you will not get one on this
occasion.

When you can come back and ask your questions without putdowns, come
back.

Would you like another putdown? I am sure there is plenty of scope for
additional ones in the speed with which a 'professional writer', who has
worked in Secret-graded projects, and who also has God On His Side, runs
away from a discussion at the first opportunity...

Well, there is still MUCH debate about copyrighting since so much
writing has been put up on the net. I have kept a close ear to that

Sorry - I thought you had gone.

topic on the news. Last I heard, it is still up to debate, and the
"safe practice" is still considered "to be safe, put your copyright
notice on EVERYTHING you write: it's a good habit."

It is a good, but unnecessary, habit. However, my point remains: given
that Google would provide you dependable evidence of your authorship of
your posts, what are your TRUE reasons for avoiding archiving? IS it
simply to allow you the flexibility you need to make claims and
subsequently deny them, or otherwise shift the goalposts according to
your needs?

Again, my newsfeed seems to have some sort of vendetta against JW, in

that I am only able to read his posts via PharLap's quotes. I hope
PharLap will excuse me undoing the good work in cutting the groups, but
I am trying to reply to JW and I do not know which of the many he is
actually reading.

Go to the "games" area, and type in a request for "Space Station
Manager". Download it, and you will be able to pretend to assemble a
Space Station IN ORBIT. I wrote a significant amount of documentation
for the space station. And one of the requirements for the program
was that it had to be able to rotate the object in space 360 degrees.

I note that you have been careful not to actually say that you have any
connection to this game. The game is certainly more than I could do,
having no skill in programming - but even had you claimed that you wrote
it I still would not accept it as evidence of DoD/NASA work, or any of
your other spectacular achievement.

I could not imagine how that could be. Get the program, point at a
piece of "space" BESIDE (not ON) the space station, and move the
mouse. As you move the mouse, this way and that way, you will note
that you can actually rotate the space station 360 degrees.

Again, this is a mere game, nothing more. You have made no claim that
you wrote the game, and therefore its relevance here is questionable.

I have told several stories about how the project was developed-- the
theory-- but have since realized that I may not be authorized to
divulge that information.

You have SINCE REALISED? Rubbish. You would - or certainly should -
have known exactly what you could disclose and what you could not.
Unless you are a project director or other specifically-authorised
person it is usually best to disclose nothing. But that, of course,
would prevent you from trumpeting your great achievements here in public
on Usenet. I wonder just how 'secret' these secrets can have been, if
you have suffered no repercussions as a result of your remarkable big
mouth.

To a non-writer, non-Christian perhaps.

Well, this would be open to interpretation. If by 'non-writer' you mean
someone who does not write, then clearly your assessment is wrong. One
of my many failings is my tendency to write too much. Given that I have
been on Usenet in general and ARC in particular for probably six or
seven years now, such a definition does not sit well. I shudder to
think just how many words I have fired off into the ether.

If, however, you mean by 'non-writer' someone who has never been paid
for writing, then you are closer to the mark, if still not entirely on
target. I have never made a great deal of money from writing, that is
true. Finally, if you mean 'one who has never taken part in secret
projects for all sorts of exciting organisations', well obviously I
could not discuss that even if I had, now could I?

You are dead right on 'non-Christian', though.

With that insult, I leave you.

If you wish to take it as an insult, then by all means do so. I have

better things to do with my time than try to offend you. I say as I
see, as they say, and if that upsets you then - similarly - I have
better things to do than try to console you.

But if you are hoping for an apology then you will not get one on this
occasion.

When you can come back and ask your questions without putdowns, come
back.

Would you like another putdown? I am sure there is plenty of scope for
additional ones in the speed with which a 'professional writer', who has

worked in Secret-graded projects, and who also has God On His Side, runs
away from a discussion at the first opportunity...

Well, there is still MUCH debate about copyrighting since so much
writing has been put up on the net. I have kept a close ear to that

Sorry - I thought you had gone.

topic on the news. Last I heard, it is still up to debate, and the
"safe practice" is still considered "to be safe, put your copyright
notice on EVERYTHING you write: it's a good habit."

It is a good, but unnecessary, habit. However, my point remains: given
that Google would provide you dependable evidence of your authorship of
your posts, what are your TRUE reasons for avoiding archiving? IS it
simply to allow you the flexibility you need to make claims and
subsequently deny them, or otherwise shift the goalposts according to
your needs?