[CFD] John Maxson FAQ <- This one's worth reading, kids.
OM
conclusion that *something* needs to be compiled that can be posted
each and every time someone decides to respond to a Maxson troll post.
A while back, I posted a framework for an "Anti-Maxson FAQ" of sorts.
I'm reposting it here once again in hopes that everyone will
contribute and we can get this online and posted on a regular basis.
...Now, to sweeten the pot, I'm offering this one-time deal: help me
get this up and running, with the best information possible to put
nails in his coffin once and for all, and I'll promise that from now
on, the only response I'll make to any and all Maxson posts is to
simply repost the FAQ if actually necessary.
No. This isn't April Fool's Day. I'm serious.
...Look at it this way: While I really, truly enjoy putting John,
Paul, and even George and Ringo Maxson in their place with my usual
vehemence, with the number of website contracts I'm getting taking up
more and more of my time, it's actually logical for me to simply post
an Anti-Maxson FAQ whenever people respond to one of his rantings. At
the same time, everyone else will need to killfile the feeble old
bastard and his offspring, and whenever someone - most likely a newbie
- responds, I or someone else simply posts the FAQ and advises the
newbie to killfile accordingly.
...So again, I'm giving up one of my favorite pasttimes for the sake
of the group. The least I can ask in return is for some help in
getting this all put together. And as an added incentive. I'll also
make sure that when you're listed in the credits list, your e-mail
addresses all point to one of John's many accounts so that all the
porn and viagra spam winds up there, where it'll do absolutely no good
whatsoever other than to fill up his mailbox.
Again, here's the framework:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I: Who is John Maxson?
a. Bio data
i. Who is Daniel Maxson?
ii. Who is Paul Maxson?
iii. Alcoholic wife & divorce
b. Employment data
i. Some blue-collar burger flipper job in Boston.
ii. Lockheed
1. Engineer or Janitor?
2. Termination due to mental problems?
c. Current status.
i, Retired and/or Welfare?
d. ISP info
i. Abuse Admin info
ii. Library or home access now?
1. Library access admin info
II: What exactly does his theory/theories claim?
a. Challenger
b. His book & website
c. Columbia
III: Are his theories valid? If not, why?
a. Why all his theories are bogus.
i. Cite examples.
1. Google.
2. Book Review Websites.
b. Failure to respond to source requests & clarifications.
i. Cite examples.
1. Google.
ii. Cite examples from other Maxsons
1. Google.
c. Typical response is to evade and/or flame.
i. Cite examples.
1. Google.
ii. Cite examples from other Maxsons
1. Google.
IV: How should we deal with his rantings in the newsgroups?
a. Killfile, killfile, killfile.
b. File complaints with Maxson's ISP requesting his access be
terminated with regards to usenet.
c. Advise newbies to read this FAQ before even considering to
respond to his rantings.
d. Forward his postings to talk.bizarre.
e. Copy and save all slanderous rantings for possible use in
any legal actions and/or responses to any complaints
filed against your ISP as per Section V.
V: One of the Maxsons has filed a complaint with my ISP. What should I
do?
a. Forward a copy of this FAQ to your ISP, pointing out the
Google links to examples of his trolling the groups.
b. Post notice of the false complaint to the newsgroups in
question, and include the e-mail address of the ISP admin
who is investigating the matter. Those in the group
wishing to assist should then e-mail the ISP admin with
their own advisories and experiences regarding the
Maxsons, and requesting that the admin:
i. Ignore the complaint.
ii. File an official complaint with the ISP of the
Maxson in question, requesting that some sort
of action be taken to prevent such claims from
originating from Maxson's ISP again.
iii. Add the Maxson to their killfiles, and offer all
known e-mail addresses for their convenience.
VI: One of the Maxsons has filed a false complaint with my employer.
What should I do?
a. Hire an attorney and sue the pants off of him.
b. Hire an attorney just in case your employer is too wishy-
washy to believe your side of the story despite any and
all evidence that the Maxson is pulling a scam.
VII: What should we *not* do when dealing with the Maxsons?
a. Stoop to their level and flame the living shit out of them.
i. OM exceptions.
ii. Michael Grabois logic flame exceptions.
iii. Scott Lowther exceptions.
iv. Pat Flannery exceptions.
v. Mary Shaffer exceptions.
b. Threaten bodily harm in lieu of legal action.
c. Instigate a DDOS attack on his ISP.
d. Crosspost any replies to alt.disasters.aviation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Call for discussion now in effect. Let's do this one the way it
should be done, and clear the groups of John Maxson once and for all.
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Allan Larsen
.
.
.
.
.
Remember when he shot that shit eating
dog that was chasing you last year?
OM
Larsen) wrote:
>How can you be so disrespectful to the man that saved your life? Remember when he shot that shit eating
>dog that was chasing you last year?
...And which "shit-eating dog" are you referring to? ~CT?
LooseChanj
> ...Kids, after much thought about this, I think I've come to a
> conclusion that *something* needs to be compiled that can be posted
> each and every time someone decides to respond to a Maxson troll post.
Great, more noise. Just what we need. For the love of all that's good, and
pure, and fuzzy, use X-No-Archive.
That said, here's all I know for sure:
John Maxson employed by Lockheed Martin from 1/1/1984 to 5/20/1986. Date of
birth is 1936.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here
Alan Erskine
news:6EiEa.25745$cm4.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> On or about Sat, 07 Jun 2003 00:46:16 -0600, OM
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> made the
sensational claim that:
> > ...Kids, after much thought about this, I think I've come to a
> > conclusion that *something* needs to be compiled that can be posted
> > each and every time someone decides to respond to a Maxson troll post.
>
> Great, more noise. Just what we need. For the love of all that's good,
and
> pure, and fuzzy, use X-No-Archive.
>
> That said, here's all I know for sure:
> John Maxson employed by Lockheed Martin from 1/1/1984 to 5/20/1986. Date
of
> birth is 1936.
Two years with LockMart and he's an expert on the shuttle?
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
Where's the WMD Mr Bush?
Terrell Miller
in message news:t913ev88e80ehuupi...@4ax.com...
> iii. Alcoholic wife & divorce
none of our business and totally out of line, sparky
> b. Employment data
none of our business and totally out of line, sparky
> 2. Termination due to mental problems?
none of our business and probably grounds for litigation against you, sparky
> c. Current status.
> i, Retired and/or Welfare?
none of our business and totally out of line, sparky
> II: What exactly does his theory/theories claim?
> a. Challenger
> b. His book & website
> c. Columbia
>
> III: Are his theories valid? If not, why?
> a. Why all his theories are bogus.
> i. Cite examples.
> 1. Google.
> 2. Book Review Websites.
now you're talking
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"To a scientist nothing is proven until it is demonstrated, every way up,
before the eyes of a dozen of his sober-sided peers. But an engineer seeks
what is possible"
-Stephen Baxter
Brett Buck
> ...Kids, after much thought about this, I think I've come to a
> conclusion that *something* needs to be compiled that can be posted
> each and every time someone decides to respond to a Maxson troll post.
> A while back, I posted a framework for an "Anti-Maxson FAQ" of sorts.
> I'm reposting it here once again in hopes that everyone will
> contribute and we can get this online and posted on a regular basis.
I would not be considered a Maxson apologist, but I think it's a
HUGE mistake to waste any significant bandwidth on the topic. Guth, UFO
idiots, McElwaine, etc., too.
All that this will do is feed the need for attention. Mention of
the kooks plays right into their hands - it's what they crave. We all
enjoy getting a dig in now and then - but just look what the last week
or so has been like.
Brett
John Beaderstadt
Brett Buck <buc...@pacbell.net> on Sat, 07 Jun 2003 16:37:06 GMT,
which said:
>but just look what the last week
>or so has been like.
Pretty quiet, actually. Are my killfiles that comprehensive?
---------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring."
Chuck Stewart
> "OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote
> in message news:t913ev88e80ehuupi...@4ax.com...
>> iii. Alcoholic wife & divorce
> none of our business and totally out of line, sparky
Correct.
>> b. Employment data
> none of our business and totally out of line, sparky
Er... not quite.
JTM's claims to technical expertise concerning, and personal
knowledge of, purported conspiracy "events" are almost totally
dependent on his claim to have been employed by Lockheed in certain
capacities at the time of the events... but he refuses to specify
details that could verify, or debunk, thise claims.
Thus his refusal to specify exactly what he was doing at Lockheed
becomes a very major part of his failures to back his claims here.
In short, _he_ opened that can of worms... and they ate him :)
>> 2. Termination due to mental problems?
> none of our business and probably grounds for litigation against you, sparky
Er... mot quite and no chance.
>> c. Current status.
>> i, Retired and/or Welfare?
> none of our business and totally out of line, sparky
Correct.
>> II: What exactly does his theory/theories claim?
>> a. Challenger
>> b. His book & website
>> c. Columbia
>>
>> III: Are his theories valid? If not, why?
>> a. Why all his theories are bogus.
>> i. Cite examples.
>> 1. Google.
>> 2. Book Review Websites.
>
> now you're talking
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
Chuck Stewart
> "OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote
> in message news:t913ev88e80ehuupi...@4ax.com...
>> iii. Alcoholic wife & divorce
> none of our business and totally out of line, sparky
Correct.
>> b. Employment data
> none of our business and totally out of line, sparky
Er... no.
JTM's claims to technical expertise in, and personal knowledge of,
various purported "comspiracy" events are entirely dependent on his
being employed by the aerospace industry in general and Lockheed in
paricular.
Since JTM constantly bases his... er.. credibility... on this
employment, yet always refuses to provide details that could
validate (or debunk) his claims of such, it is very much a valid
point of inquiry.
>> 2. Termination due to mental problems?
> none of our business and probably grounds for litigation against you, sparky
Er... no, and no chance.
JTM very publicly stated that he was asked to seek mental help or
be walked off the job site... and that he chose to walk. He regards
the event as a part of the vast conspiracy against him.
Verifying this claim is again a valid point of investigation,
and one not subject to litigation. JTM himself opened this can of
worms... and the worms ate him... :)
>> c. Current status.
>> i, Retired and/or Welfare?
> none of our business and totally out of line, sparky
Correct.
>> II: What exactly does his theory/theories claim?
>> a. Challenger
>> b. His book & website
>> c. Columbia
>> III: Are his theories valid? If not, why?
>> a. Why all his theories are bogus.
>> i. Cite examples.
>> 1. Google.
>> 2. Book Review Websites.
> now you're talking
Indeed
Clark
news:USnEa.403$EE3...@fe08.atl2.webusenet.com:
> "OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org>
> wrote in message news:t913ev88e80ehuupi...@4ax.com...
>
[snip]
>
>> 2. Termination due to mental problems?
>
> none of our business and probably grounds for litigation against you,
Actually, Maxson wrote that he was given a choice between getting a mental
health evaluation and termination. No grounds for litigation at all and
definitely our business in evaluating the Maxson's arguements.
Allan Larsen
poodle. An honest mistake as a lot of people mistake you for a turd.
Maxson MAY be a flake but you ARE a jerk.
Alan Erskine
news:USnEa.403$EE3...@fe08.atl2.webusenet.com...
> "OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org>
wrote
> in message news:t913ev88e80ehuupi...@4ax.com...
>
>
> none of our business and probably grounds for litigation against you,
sparky
Why the last bit? That's why John Maxson was given the boot by Lockheed.
The guy's shown how crazy he is on this group.
Kevin Willoughby
> ...Look at it this way: While I really, truly enjoy putting John,
> Paul, and even George and Ringo Maxson in their place with my usual
> vehemence, with the number of website contracts I'm getting taking up
> more and more of my time, it's actually logical for me to simply post
> an Anti-Maxson FAQ whenever people respond to one of his rantings.
You are trying to sell us on the concept of replacing your Maxson
bashing by some kind of group-written Maxson bash because you want to
spend more time on your job?
You lack the self discipline needed to do what you tell others to do
and not respond to any Maxson posts (either direct posts or replies by
others to Maxson posts), so we are supposed to help you with invective
and insult?
I'm proud that my trivial contributions on the Columbia FAQ got me a
name-check on that document. Yet I'll decline to volunteer to do
something I once said was the moral equivalent to pulling the wings off
of flies.
> At
> the same time, everyone else will need to killfile the feeble old
> bastard and his offspring,
"everyone else"? Maybe it isn't lack of self discipline, maybe it is
hypocrisy.
> and whenever someone - most likely a newbie - responds,
uh, can you name two or three newbies who have come to accept that
Challenger was lost due to conspiracy rather than cold O-rings/bad
management?
No, I didn't think you could...
> I or someone else simply posts the FAQ and advises the
> newbie to killfile accordingly.
Multiple postings of the same message, perhaps several times a day.
That's not going to help the S/N around here.
> III: Are his theories valid? If not, why?
> a. Why all his theories are bogus.
> i. Cite examples.
This is trying to solve a solved problem. The web sites authored by
Roger B. and JSB already do a great job of this.
> IV: How should we deal with his rantings in the newsgroups?
> a. Killfile, killfile, killfile.
Yes, please. All of us. No exceptions.
> a. Stoop to their level and flame the living shit out of them.
> i. OM exceptions.
No exceptions, please.
> ...Call for discussion now in effect. Let's do this one the way it
> should be done, and clear the groups of John Maxson once and for all.
A simpler form of this has been tried in the past in sss. It failed.
Why will it work this time?
--
Kevin Willoughby kevinwi...@scispace.org.invalid
What gets measured gets done. -- David Patterson
OM
Larsen) wrote:
>As to what shit eating dog I was referring to ,it was a nearsighted
>poodle. An honest mistake as a lot of people mistake you for a turd.
...Oh. Gee. I. Am. SO. Hurt. How. Ever. Will. I. Bear. The. Shame?
[/dripping_bleeding_vehement_sarcastic_derision]
>Maxson MAY be a flake but you ARE a jerk.
...And you can simply go fuck yourself. If you don't know how, ask
John Maxson, I'm sure he's written a book on how to do that he'll be
glad to sell you.
[PLONK!]
Yet another example of why WebTV needs to be eradicated from the face
of the Earth...