Enough Already!!!

Brad,

for a while there, I was thinking that you were just an asshole.

But further perusal of your posts has shown certain patterns that have
me worrying about you. (not for you... about you you... as in "I'm
worried that brad guth might be outside.")

You have shown that you can string together words into coherent
sentences. Yet you have little outside contextual meaning.

You keep using the same phrases (****ologist, spookology, incest-clones,
pagan gods of NASA/MI6.)

You keep hanging on arguments on faulty logic, missing facts, and some
strange linkage/interest in hitler, pagans, and ass fixations.

Therefore, As a certified teacher of Special Needs, I am making this
statement:

Based upon my 10 years experience in working with learning disabled
populations (including people with dyslexia), it is my opinion that the
person known as Brad Guth is not dyslexic. Brad Guth's sympotms a
-constant use of mild invective
-near total reliance on purple prose
-demonstratable lack of punctuation
-demonstratable reliance on 100+ sentences
-constant attention grabs
-apparent belief of superiority in specific subject knowledge, despite
contrasting facts
-internally constant, oral formuaic structure to most posts

This could possibly point to a mental illness, as opposed to a mere
learning disability. Many people with mental illness _may_ learn coping
skills, but this course is not a certain solution.

Therefore, Brad, I strongly urge you to seek professional help.

Bob (thread ends)

Brad Guth wrote:
Maybe I'll phone up your mommy and tell her what you've been saying!

Christ almighty upon another stick; now you're talking to the dead.
Are you that good or what?

With regard to my "What part(s) about other life upon Venus isn't
getting through?"

What part of "people are laughing at you, Brad!" isn't getting through?

Only the damn incest cloned fools on the hill, and/or of those most
brown-nosed, are laughing their intellectual flatulence spewing butts
off because, they're so snookered and otherwise brown-nosed dumbfounded
beyond the point of no-return, thus your pagan incest reply having
proven that point at least 10:1.

Silly me, I didn't realize that you'd based all of whatever's NASA (aka
MI6/NSA~CIA--DoD) upon soft-science and those conditional laws of
physics. Are you also still into being pro-perpetrated cold-war(s) or
bust?

BTW; your Google Groups
"rec.netkooks.brad.guth's.mommy.sucks.private.part s" is yet another
clasic MI6/NSA~CIA spookology/****ology tactic at it's very best.
-
Brad Guth

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:22:21 -0600, Robert Juliano wrote
(in article ):

Therefore, As a certified teacher of Special Needs, I am making this
statement:

Based upon my 10 years experience in working with learning disabled
populations (including people with dyslexia), it is my opinion that the
person known as Brad Guth is not dyslexic. Brad Guth's sympotms a
-constant use of mild invective
-near total reliance on purple prose
-demonstratable lack of punctuation
-demonstratable reliance on 100+ sentences
-constant attention grabs
-apparent belief of superiority in specific subject knowledge, despite
contrasting facts
-internally constant, oral formuaic structure to most posts

Facts we in sci.space.* have known for years.

This could possibly point to a mental illness,

Gee, you think?!?!?

as opposed to a mere
learning disability. Many people with mental illness _may_ learn coping
skills, but this course is not a certain solution.

Do you have access to a copy of the DSM IV? I'd say Brad is already
very familiar with it, and I bet he's already been prescribed lots of
meds to deal with various diagnostic codes but refuses to take them.

Therefore, Brad, I strongly urge you to seek professional help.

You're far from the first to make such a suggestion.

--
Herb

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
~ RAH

Wow!
That's certainly food for thought, if not news that I could use (may
I?). Thanks so much.

However, again replacing "Brad Guth" with most any one of your
brown-nosed naysayers (including yourself) and lo and behold, you've
hit the freaking nail right on the head.

I'll kindly keep asking these fine and supposedly upstanding naysay
rocket-science wizards if they've GOT 32:1 ROCKET? or GOT 64:1 ROCKET?
or GOT SQUAT?

How about it, Bob; GOT SQUAT?
-
Brad Guth

Brad,

I understand that having someone point out your weaknesses can be
painful. I understand that there is always the temptation to attempt the
apparently facetious comment, and the need to cast other's attentions
from your weaknesses, via projection. Please remember that projecting
your problems onto others does not help you in your journey to recovery.

please tell me...

-how does labeling the others in this room as brown nosers help you?
-how does blanket-labeling others as "nay-sayers" help you, in your road
to self-improvement?
-how does posting faked up conspiracies regarding moon landings help you?

thank you, and that'll be $75...

Bob

Brad Guth wrote:
Wow!
That's certainly food for thought, if not news that I could use (may
I?). Thanks so much.

However, again replacing "Brad Guth" with most any one of your
brown-nosed naysayers (including yourself) and lo and behold, you've
hit the freaking nail right on the head.

I'll kindly keep asking these fine and supposedly upstanding naysay
rocket-science wizards if they've GOT 32:1 ROCKET? or GOT 64:1 ROCKET?
or GOT SQUAT?

How about it, Bob; GOT SQUAT?
-
Brad Guth

Dear Robert Juliano (aka "Special Needs" person),
My "weaknesses" for tolerating such born again liars is a problem that
perhaps some day I'll get myself fully assimilated into your
brown-nosed status quo that'll help to keep your mainstream of
disinformation flowing like so much other disinformation crapolla
that's keeping your kind of happy campers so nicely inside that box of
your's.

I believe your contributions of "you have shown", "you keep using" and
of your "therefore" conclusions need a little work, especially since
the only contrasting facts that do not add up are for the most part of
those contributed by folks like yourself and as otherwise having been
provided from your NASA/Apollo official record, as well as by most of
everything else as having transpired since.

You left off that I'm a wee bit more than merely vindictive and just
plain old and narly, that's in addition to my good standing in "lack of
punctuation" and "reliance on 100+ sentences". I've also become
especially testy (aka favor returning) whenever certain folks that
claim knowing all there is to know simply don't want to be caught dead
forking over the whole truth and nothing but the truth, whereas that's
when I tend to go a little Usenet postal with my formuaic battery of
lose cannons that have been known to invent a few new words without
proper punctuation rather than having invented WMD that never existed
in the first place. Besides the NASA/Apollo fiasco portion of our
perpetrated cold-war, would you like to know of what else I think of
our LLPOF naysay administrations, including their Skull and Bones SEC
portion of their ulterior motives, of what I'm thinking has been at the
root of most all modern day evil(s) upon Earth?

Of course, since you're so above it all that you wouldn't have noticed
that I'm only utilizing my "oral formuaic structure" upon those that so
badly deserve a good butt kicking, especially if it's a past due sort
of favor that needs badly to be returned, and thus qualifying as to a
few retroactive butt kickings comes to mind. Of folks taking a
positive and thereby constructive point of view, which by the way does
not have to agree with each and every one of my deductive
interpretations, by their way of contributing useful information that
adds up to being the most likely truth, instead of the skewed truth
that suits the formuaic structure of whatever the mainstream status quo
has in their sick/perverted mindset, whereas I've been rather nice and
accepting as to the likes of such constructive topic contributions,
especially if those are pro-ET and thereby pro other intelligent life
as being entirely possible upon Venus. However, your brown-nose status
quo of having chosen to stay the mainstream course of a thousands
lights is NOT what I'd qualify as being constructive.

Unlike yourself, I'm not the least bit all-knowing, just otherwise
all-wondering and having to be all-guessing from time to time, as to
why the heck those rocket-science and fly-by-rocket numbers simply are
not adding up, especially since Kodak-science has already proven that
we've NOT walked upon the moon. In fact, I may even have to research
upon a few of those other "attention grabbing" phrases of your's before
I can grasp their typical usage, especially as to how your intended
usage of such applies to myself. Whereas you say "This could possibly
point to a mental illness, as opposed to a mere learning disability.
Many people with mental illness _may_ learn coping skills, but this
course is not a certain solution", which thereby explains as to why
folks like yourself that have become so totally snookered and thereby
having slipped way past the dumbfounded point of no return are just
like those fools that followed Hitler, and perhaps even himself were
foregone conclusions of the self destructive nature of such folks
living a lie on the edge of reality, and wherever possible perpetrating
another lie. Matter of fact, I think that's the hard core basis of
most born again religious cults that have been known to suck the heart
and soul out of humanity without a stitch of remorse.

Here I'd thought the best course of any war was to thoroughly know thy
enemy and to as much as possible snooker thy enemy (somewhat like how
Osama bin Laden is doing to us), was back then and still is a good
tactic. What I had not realized up until 6+ years ago was the extent
of how well snookered we've been taken to the cleaners by our own kind,
as having perpetrated such cold-wars that obviously needed trillions
upon trillions of funding that simply would not have materialized if we
weren't so snookered and summarily dumbfounded by our own kind in the
first place. Clearly the pillaging and plundering of the vast
intellectual and scientific superiority of Germany was the opening of a
motherload worth of what Pandora's box had to share. Unfortunately,
since Russia accomplished by far the most good on behalf of terminating
Hitler and his Third Reich minions, as such they took their fair share
of whatever Pandora's box of goodies had to offer.

Therefore, your "I strongly urge you to seek professional help" I'd
thought was pretty much exactly what I was doing, by way of
communicating via my lose cannon, especially with regard to the likes
of rocket-science that simply can not manage to have such an outrageous
difference as 64:1 up against the 764:1, which is actually a whole lot
worse off because the amount of time required for achieving the 764:1
deployment of the extremely little Lunar Prospector as taken nearly 50%
longer than the NASA/Apollo ruse accomplishment of having supposedly
deployed 47t in under 3 days is suggesting the absolute absurdity that
a scaled up 470t deployment would therefore only involve a 6.4:1
rocket/payload factor as based upon the old Saturn-V formula. Is that
the phony baloney basis of what the 2018 plan of action is founded
upon? (somehow with all the SRB/SRM stacking and usage of composites
that's being planned, I don't think so)

BTW; if it weren't for my limited "spell checker" you'd be in need of
a good Klingon code decryption manual. Unfortunately, my wall-of-words
processor via "NoteTab" software does not auto-punctuate, does not seem
to offer dyslexic syntax corrections, nor has it any grammar
compression mode, whereas at best it merely catches a few dozen reverse
spelled words per paragraph.

BTW No.2; you're not actually a very good "teacher of Special Needs"
if you can't grasp onto the "Special Needs" of what I've had to share
for the past 6 years and counting. Is it the dyslexic truthsayer or
the ulterior motivated naysayer; which one of us represents a lost
cause?

-how does labeling the others in this room as brown nosers help you?
-how does blanket-labeling others as "nay-sayers" help you, in your road
to self-improvement?
-how does posting faked up conspiracies regarding moon landings help you?

thank you, and that'll be $75...
Christ almighty on another stick, Robert. For resolving all of that
you're certainly dirt cheap.

BTW No.3; this "room" that you speak of as containing others of your
kind. Could you be a little more title and physical address specific
as to the exact nature of this MI6/NSA~CIA "room" of special needs that
you've spoken of?
-
Brad Guth

Yew speeka Eengrish??

In article . com,
on 21 Jan 2006 12:02:14 -0800,
Brad Guth attempted to say .....


I'm a wee bit

I'm only utilizing my "oral formuaic structure"


I'm not the least bit all-knowing



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Brad Guth wrote:

a lot of words from his processing of emotional issues


That's good Bradley! Thank you for being willing open up to the group!

now then,

-how does this supposed lunar conspiracy effect your social interactions
with other people?

-how does your belief in a group of beings, living on venus, comfort you?

-how does the apparent negative attention that you've mentioned from the
group, color your views of other people?

Please remember, that next session, we'll be talking about some of hte
root causes...

Thank you, and that will be another $75.

Bob

Robert Juliano (aka root cause),
Of whatever's "lunar conspiracy" worthy is in fact providing a
perfectly good battery of reasons for myself and countless others
before my involvement, in my case to believe that whatever I've
uncovered that's most interesting about our nearest solar system being
encharge of the 105,000 year cycle, about our once upon a time icy
proto-moon (quite salty none the less), of what values the LL-1 affords
as per usage on behalf of the one and only LSE-CM/ISS, or of whatever
intelligent other life had created upon Venus that's in plain sight is
simply never going to see the polluted light of day on your global
warming watch, just like the truth and nothing but the truth as to your
perpetrated cold-war that had been so extensively contributed to by the
NASA/Apollo sting of the century, isn't going down without a WW-III or
worse fight.

Oops! I've identified yet another one of my mistakes. However, this
one only keeps the old Saturn-V fly-by-rocket situation well within the
nearest space-toilet, whereas before I'd been thinking they had
accomplished such massive tonnage deployments of nearly 47t within less
than 3 days, when in fact it took 3+ days of 74.5 Hrs, up to taking as
great as 86.3 Hrs. That makes the most recent argument of 86.3/9 =
9.59 times longer than what New Horizons having accomplished just 0.48t
(that's roughly 1% of the Apollo tonnage) as having used up a
rocket/payload ratio of 1194:1, therefore 1194:1/9.59 = 124.5:1

According to the official 'history.nasa.gov' record; Apollo-16
accomplished their fastest manned translunar deployment at 74.5 hrs,
which further interprets as taking 8.28 fold greater time than New
Horizons 9 hrs. Thus 1194/8.28 = 144.2:1 as the revised rocket/payload
ratio.

Apparently NASA's rocket-science isn't such a science after all. At
least when such an old 64:1 method that's relatively inert massive,
plus hauling a few other drag related and inert mass worthy
compromises, is the same as the newest streamlined possibility of
144:1, that's offered only because of having the least inert mass to
deal with, as well as least otherwise compromised.

Any way you'd care to cut it; Of utilizing the newest and most
effective 144:1 or even of the 124.5:1 form of accounting simply is not
nearly an equal match to what such an old and terribly outdated method
by all supposedly accepted rocket-science high standards and
accountability, as having supposedly transpired on behalf of our nearly
40 year old 64:1 capability that oddly can't be touched by the bestest
rocket technologies of today. Don't look now folks, but lo and behold,
that previous record simply sucks and blows whatever's truth in
rocket-science right out the nearest window for exactly what it
represents, which is a nasty butt-load of pure cold-war crapolla (aka
disinformation) on stick.

Of course, as I've previously suggested, it's actually much worse off
because, that supposed 64:1 accomplishment is not having taken into
account for all of the advancements in regard to the reductions in
inert mass, or of the reduced if any auxiliary impact of
cryogenic-storage related ice loading (due to the superior insulation
R-factors in use today), of the better engine efficiencies to boot, or
that of having a significantly reduced aerodynamic drag, as well as
having a mere fraction of the time dealing with exiting Earth's
atmosphere. In other words, I'm not the least bit convinced that a
200:1 ratio for the old Saturn-V wouldn't have been the case, making at
best 15t doable (not the nearly 47t).

Here's where I've pulled the running time for Apollo tonnage arriving
into lunar orbit.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-08 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: 069:12:27.3

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-10 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: GET(hhh:mm:ss) 076:01:50.1

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-11 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: GET(hhh:mm:ss) 075:55:47.90

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-12 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: GET(hhh:mm:ss) 083:31:15.61

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-13 (N/A) Apparently Apollo-13 never had to bother with any stinking
Lunar orbit insertion since they didn't have to actually go any further
than LL-1.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-14 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: GET(hhh:mm:ss) 082:02:51.54

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-15 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: GET(hhh:mm:ss) 078:38:25.06

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-16 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: GET(hhh:mm:ss) 074:34:42.77

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apol...rbit_Phase.htm
A-17 Lunar orbit insertion cutoff: GET(hhh:mm:ss) 086:20:55.76

I'm assuming their insertion phase of retrothrust cutoff had to have
transpired somewhat prior to reaching any significant distance of their
going past the maximum lunar gravity influence, thus obviously they
weren't previously trying to exit the Earth/moon gravity constraints by
way of zipping their way past LL-1 any faster than they absolutely had
to, whereas if they had allowed for such extra velocity would have
added far too much retrothrust insult to injury (taking away even more
of the available launch energy, which only makes their rocket/payload
ratio as having that extra/spare load of retrothrust fuel added to the
launch and deployment phase of accomplishing their in-orbit worth of
47t, thus obviously making it that much worse off). Therefore, until I
can learn better, I'm sticking with calling Saturn-V no better off than
200:1. Go figure otherwise for yourself.

I can see that your Usenet malware/****ware has been arriving as I
type, and otherwise attempting to interpret and/or interrupt whatever I
copy or type. Image that, it's right back into the same old
MI6/NSA~CIA crapolla of my having to deal with even more of your intent
to terminate my PC. I wonder what's the next mainstream damage-control
gauntlet of MIB going to be like, Bob?
-
Brad Guth

On 20 Jan 2006 13:09:09 -0800, "Brad Guth"
wrote:

I'll kindly keep asking these fine and supposedly upstanding naysay
rocket-science wizards if they've GOT 32:1 ROCKET? or GOT 64:1 ROCKET?

32:1...? As in thrust-to-weight? I've got several that can do the
range of 15:1 and 20:1, that I've put together with cardboard,
plywood, and plastic. If I wanted to spend the money for advanced
composites - carbon-fiber everything, etc... - I ought to be able to
reach a 64:1 ratio.