isctinctly psychopathic. I confine my hilarity to slightly less heavy-weigh t subjects.
hilarious is you. You try to convince readers that you are intelligent an d then you believe that Jim actually reported you to the FBI. You are just too funny.
I doubt you would find much humor if you were in his shoes. When your job depends on maintaining a clearance you don't take such things lightly. Sur e, it is not remotely believable that JT would have any sway over anyone's clearance, but just being investigated is a black mark with the government and even more with your employer.
Clearly you *do* find this amusing in spite of the seriousness.
disctinctly psychopathic. I confine my hilarity to slightly less heavy-wei ght subjects.
nd hilarious is you. You try to convince readers that you are intelligent and then you believe that Jim actually reported you to the FBI. You are ju st too funny.
b depends on maintaining a clearance you don't take such things lightly. S ure, it is not remotely believable that JT would have any sway over anyone' s clearance, but just being investigated is a black mark with the governmen t and even more with your employer.
JT certainly bullied a contributor off of here years ago by threatening to report him to Homeland Security for some very minor perceived slight. Despite it being obvious that the man was genuinely worried, there was no let-up. Nolan was his name IIRC.
as disctinctly psychopathic. I confine my hilarity to slightly less heavy-w eight subjects.
find hilarious is you. You try to convince readers that you are intelligen t and then you believe that Jim actually reported you to the FBI. You are just too funny.
job depends on maintaining a clearance you don't take such things lightly. Sure, it is not remotely believable that JT would have any sway over anyon e's clearance, but just being investigated is a black mark with the governm ent and even more with your employer.
That's not the point. If someone points a gun at you it's no laughing matt er, even if everyone else knows the gun isn't loaded.
to report him to Homeland Security for some very minor perceived slight. "
I dunno, do we want the really stupid around ? I see it now :
C : Is the Homeland security ? H : Yes. C : I want to report someone. H : What did he/she do ? C : Called me an old fuddy duddy on Usenet. H : Use what ? C : Usenet, like before the internet, CERN committee all that, not Al Gore. H : Is that where you download movies ? C : Err..., NO, NO absolutely not. H : What's it for then ? C : Hmm, kinda hard to say. It's like this one is about electronics but it is more political discussion and flame wars now. H : I see, why do you go there ? C : People are WRONG there. H : OK so what does this guy do ? C : Well now he writes for a trade journal. H : Is he disseminating plans for bombs or something ? C : Well, not as far as I know but I know the guy is a menace. H : What state does he live in ? C : The North Southwestern territory or something like that. H : I don't recall us having a state by that name- - hey boss, do have any new states ? Like North Southwestern Territory ? (faint no) C : It's in Australia. H : Oh, OK, where to you live ? C : Kansas. H : (hey, get me the Kansas board of mental health....) H : Do you hear voices ? C : Of course. H : What do they say ? C : Well the last one asked if I hear voices. CLICK
On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 8:49:08 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wro te:
b depends on maintaining a clearance you don't take such things lightly. S ure, it is not remotely believable that JT would have any sway over anyone' s clearance, but just being investigated is a black mark with the governmen t and even more with your employer.
Clearly I do not think it is at all serious. And I had a job that required a security clearance . And it would not have bothered me in the least if someone who I have never met, reported me to the FBI based on statements p osted in SED.
Clearly JT did not contact the FBI with any vague statement like " Dangerou sly Anti-American ". JT is not an idiot. And I am sure he knows that the FBI is not a bunch of idiots. So it is seems to me that it should be obvio us to the most casual observer that if some one contacted the FBI , the fir st thing they would ask is " what leads you to believe that X is " dangerou sly Anti-American". And if the answer was " X posted stuff in SED, they would thank the person and start a file that says the reporter is a kook.
job depends on maintaining a clearance you don't take such things lightly. Sure, it is not remotely believable that JT would have any sway over anyon e's clearance, but just being investigated is a black mark with the governm ent and even more with your employer.
ed a security clearance . And it would not have bothered me in the least i f someone who I have never met, reported me to the FBI based on statements posted in SED.
ously Anti-American ". JT is not an idiot. And I am sure he knows that th e FBI is not a bunch of idiots. So it is seems to me that it should be obv ious to the most casual observer that if some one contacted the FBI , the f irst thing they would ask is " what leads you to believe that X is " danger ously Anti-American".
n and start a file that says the reporter is a kook.
I don't think you understood a single thing I wrote. It doesn't matter if JT is "normal", a kook or a highly functioning sociopath. No one here know s what he is capable of. He could have made a great deal of trouble for Bi ll independent of the fact that there was nothing to base a complaint on. If JT made the right statement, the FBI would have been obligated to invest igate. The mere fact that Bill was investigated could have cost him his cl earance and/or his job independently. That is a simple fact. No one has a ny right to a clearance and it can be revoked at any time for *any* reason or no reason at all.
Well, he wasn't stupid. Maybe gullible, maybe vulnerable, but most decent people would hold back once they realised their threats were being taken seriously. It was just bullying.
r job depends on maintaining a clearance you don't take such things lightly . Sure, it is not remotely believable that JT would have any sway over any one's clearance, but just being investigated is a black mark with the gover nment and even more with your employer.
ired a security clearance . And it would not have bothered me in the least if someone who I have never met, reported me to the FBI based on statemen ts posted in SED.
erously Anti-American ". JT is not an idiot. And I am sure he knows that the FBI is not a bunch of idiots. So it is seems to me that it should be o bvious to the most casual observer that if some one contacted the FBI , the first thing they would ask is " what leads you to believe that X is " dang erously Anti-American".
son and start a file that says the reporter is a kook.
It is more that I do not believe a single thing that you wrote. People do not lose their security clearance based on unsubstantiated statements.
You do not seem to realise that everyone with a security clearance was inve stigated. So the mere fact that anyone is investigated does not cost anyon e their clearance. JT could not make any trouble for Bill as long as there was nothing on which to base a complaint.
Dan
It doesn't matter if JT is "normal", a kook or a highly functioning sociopa th. No one here knows what he is capable of. He could have made a great d eal of trouble for Bill independent of the fact that there was nothing to b ase a complaint on. If JT made the right statement, the FBI would have bee n obligated to investigate. The mere fact that Bill was investigated could have cost him his clearance and/or his job independently. That is a simpl e fact. No one has any right to a clearance and it can be revoked at any t ime for *any* reason or no reason at all.
e as disctinctly psychopathic. I confine my hilarity to slightly less heavy
-weight subjects.
I find hilarious is you. You try to convince readers that you are intellig ent and then you believe that Jim actually reported you to the FBI. You ar e just too funny.
r job depends on maintaining a clearance you don't take such things lightly . Sure, it is not remotely believable that JT would have any sway over any one's clearance, but just being investigated is a black mark with the gover nment and even more with your employer.
tter, even if everyone else knows the gun isn't loaded.
our job depends on maintaining a clearance you don't take such things light ly. Sure, it is not remotely believable that JT would have any sway over a nyone's clearance, but just being investigated is a black mark with the gov ernment and even more with your employer.
quired a security clearance . And it would not have bothered me in the lea st if someone who I have never met, reported me to the FBI based on statem ents posted in SED.
ngerously Anti-American ". JT is not an idiot. And I am sure he knows tha t the FBI is not a bunch of idiots. So it is seems to me that it should be obvious to the most casual observer that if some one contacted the FBI , t he first thing they would ask is " what leads you to believe that X is " da ngerously Anti-American".
erson and start a file that says the reporter is a kook.
o not lose their security clearance based on unsubstantiated statements.
vestigated. So the mere fact that anyone is investigated does not cost any one their clearance. JT could not make any trouble for Bill as long as the re was nothing on which to base a complaint.
path. No one here knows what he is capable of. He could have made a great deal of trouble for Bill independent of the fact that there was nothing to base a complaint on. If JT made the right statement, the FBI would have b een obligated to investigate. The mere fact that Bill was investigated cou ld have cost him his clearance and/or his job independently. That is a sim ple fact. No one has any right to a clearance and it can be revoked at any time for *any* reason or no reason at all.
Yes, I know about investigations. I know that if someone says something th at does not agree with what you said, YOU have to come up with a plausible reason for the difference. To say people don't lose clearances for unsubst antiated claims may be true, but that doesn't mean they don't get investiga ted which can cause problems with the employer. In other words, you didn't read or understand what I wrote. I said that very clearly.
When it comes to clearances, innuendo is enough to make waves, waves that y ou have to then ride out.
me as disctinctly psychopathic. I confine my hilarity to slightly less hea vy-weight subjects.
t I find hilarious is you. You try to convince readers that you are intell igent and then you believe that Jim actually reported you to the FBI. You are just too funny.
our job depends on maintaining a clearance you don't take such things light ly. Sure, it is not remotely believable that JT would have any sway over a nyone's clearance, but just being investigated is a black mark with the gov ernment and even more with your employer.
matter, even if everyone else knows the gun isn't loaded.
On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 2:57:52 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wro te: To say people don't lose clearances for unsubstantiated claims may be tru e, but that doesn't mean they don't get investigated which can cause proble ms with the employer. In other words, you didn't read or understand what I wrote. I said that very clearly.
you have to then ride out.
I read and understand what you wrote. I just do not believe it. And never observed it during about 40 years of aerospace employment.
Can you give an example of innuendo making waves? And an example of being investigating causing problems with the employer?
rue, but that doesn't mean they don't get investigated which can cause prob lems with the employer. In other words, you didn't read or understand what I wrote. I said that very clearly.
at you have to then ride out.
er observed it during about 40 years of aerospace employment.
g investigating causing problems with the employer?
Yeah, ME! Someone in the office wanted to make trouble for me and told the security officer I had classified in my office (supposed to stay in the SCI F). They took the time to search my entire office looking for it. I had t o wait in the hallway while they did it and couldn't do any work for most o f the day. My boss called me into his office to ask me what was going on ( security doesn't discuss their whys or wherefores). In the end they found nothing, but I was still considered "suspect". My boss felt he had to watc h me to make sure I didn't do anything wrong. So, yeah, that impacted my j ob. As far as I am aware they never came down on the guy who reported me. I can't say for sure as they don't tell you who it was even though I was p retty sure.
Believe it or not. Security and bosses don't get paid to be "reasonable". They get paid to make sure there aren't any security screw-ups, they are R EALLY bad when they happen. They can affect renewal of contracts.
true, but that doesn't mean they don't get investigated which can cause pr oblems with the employer. In other words, you didn't read or understand wh at I wrote. I said that very clearly.
that you have to then ride out.
ever observed it during about 40 years of aerospace employment.
ing investigating causing problems with the employer?
e security officer I had classified in my office (supposed to stay in the S CIF). They took the time to search my entire office looking for it. I had to wait in the hallway while they did it and couldn't do any work for most of the day. My boss called me into his office to ask me what was going on (security doesn't discuss their whys or wherefores). In the end they foun d nothing, but I was still considered "suspect". My boss felt he had to wa tch me to make sure I didn't do anything wrong. So, yeah, that impacted my job. As far as I am aware they never came down on the guy who reported me . I can't say for sure as they don't tell you who it was even though I was pretty sure.
. They get paid to make sure there aren't any security screw-ups, they are REALLY bad when they happen. They can affect renewal of contracts.
Sorry to hear about your experience. I believe you now. You would not be so adamant unless it was true.
I still do not think JT contacted the FBI about Bill. But am not as sure as I was.
be true, but that doesn't mean they don't get investigated which can cause problems with the employer. In other words, you didn't read or understand what I wrote. I said that very clearly.
s that you have to then ride out.
never observed it during about 40 years of aerospace employment.
being investigating causing problems with the employer?
the security officer I had classified in my office (supposed to stay in the SCIF). They took the time to search my entire office looking for it. I h ad to wait in the hallway while they did it and couldn't do any work for mo st of the day. My boss called me into his office to ask me what was going on (security doesn't discuss their whys or wherefores). In the end they fo und nothing, but I was still considered "suspect". My boss felt he had to watch me to make sure I didn't do anything wrong. So, yeah, that impacted my job. As far as I am aware they never came down on the guy who reported me. I can't say for sure as they don't tell you who it was even though I w as pretty sure.
e". They get paid to make sure there aren't any security screw-ups, they a re REALLY bad when they happen. They can affect renewal of contracts.
e so adamant unless it was true.
e as I was.
No, I don't believe he did either. The point is he made the threat and Bil l had to take that threat seriously because of the potential ramifications.
All the years I dealt with secure stuff I didn't give it much thought, a bi t like Alfred E. Newman, "What, me worry?" But when it turns to shit it ge ts very ugly. I knew I was a straight arrow, but that is something up to y ou to prove when it is questioned. This is not a court room where you have much in the way of rights.
y be true, but that doesn't mean they don't get investigated which can caus e problems with the employer. In other words, you didn't read or understan d what I wrote. I said that very clearly.
ves that you have to then ride out.
nd never observed it during about 40 years of aerospace employment.
f being investigating causing problems with the employer?
d the security officer I had classified in my office (supposed to stay in t he SCIF). They took the time to search my entire office looking for it. I had to wait in the hallway while they did it and couldn't do any work for most of the day. My boss called me into his office to ask me what was goin g on (security doesn't discuss their whys or wherefores). In the end they found nothing, but I was still considered "suspect". My boss felt he had t o watch me to make sure I didn't do anything wrong. So, yeah, that impacte d my job. As far as I am aware they never came down on the guy who reporte d me. I can't say for sure as they don't tell you who it was even though I was pretty sure.
ble". They get paid to make sure there aren't any security screw-ups, they are REALLY bad when they happen. They can affect renewal of contracts.
be so adamant unless it was true.
ure as I was.
ill had to take that threat seriously because of the potential ramification s.
As far as I know, Bill did not actually do anything other than complain on this use group.
bit like Alfred E. Newman, "What, me worry?" But when it turns to shit it gets very ugly. I knew I was a straight arrow, but that is something up to you to prove when it is questioned. This is not a court room where you ha ve much in the way of rights.
Security can be humorous. I once had to spend several days in the Reentry Body building. Although I had the clearance , there were things that I did not have the need to know, and so they had a sailor escorting me. He stay ed within 3 feet of me until they realised I had information which was proh ibited from being written down at the base. After that the sailor relaxed a bit and just kept me within 10 feet of him.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.