electrifing windows for security

"Spel chekur" broken "ahgin"?? "Wierd", huh?? :-)

Y'know, You've accused me of lying about this story (and the one where you say I was supposedly piloting a Boeing 737 inverted) again and again. So far you've little to offer in the way of actual proof.

With respect to the ladder incident... Were you there?? The warehouse where this happened was under construction at the time. I was about six or seven steps up an aluminum extension ladder. I don't recall

*everything* about the incident. What I do remember is that there was cable being pulled all over the place at the time in addition to the work we were doing. There was this big spark above me and the next thing I knew I was flat on my back on the floor looking up at a bunch of smoke in the rafters. I wasn't hurt and neither my partner (who witnessed my being "blown" off the ladder) or myself filed a report with WCB (so the incident was never formally investigated). Now, Mr. Bass, I'd very much like you to prove I lied about this... Go ahead... Google anywhere you want, speak to any number of "aircraft mechanics and pilots"... Your own record on usenet is so chocker-block full of lies, innuendo, and misrepresentation I doubt anyone here takes you seriously (and if they do, they won't for long).

With respect to the inverted Boeing 737. I was an *observer*. I did not at any time assume command of the aircraft or act in an capacity as flight crew (even though I did hold a senior commercial pilot's license at the time and had 130 hours left seat time "on type"). You have "twisted" what I originally stated happened so much so that *now* you're telling people that I was PIC on this flight. You've also managed to add another lie (that I "borrowed" the aircraft from Boeing). I invite you to prove I said anything like this.

Your petty desire for "one-up-man-ship" has more to do with obscuring your own record in Usenet as well as your criminal one (which makes you incapable of obtaining any form of licensing or bonding in Florida as an alarm sales or service representative). Now, like so many individuals involved in online scams, you're now "hiding behind" multiple websites (you've opened two additional online stores to try and avoid the "bad rap" Bass Home has with the BBB in Clearwater). Your excuse about "better search engine positioning" is as phony as a nine dollar bill.

You don't know who I really am, have never been able post what "small distributor in Vancouver" I work for, and have even gone so far as to post a message on the AlarmsBC forum using the name "Jake" and the email address of an innocent Grade Four student in a vain attempt to "locate" me. You're a sad, twisted, miserable little man. Your "stories" about being a Christian Lay Minister are patently false in light of the nature you repeatedly demonstrate in this (and other) forums. If there's any truth to them at all, it would mean that you have actually "turned" from your faith, which is sadder still.

You do that frequently.

Yes, and if I had told this story, you wouldn't have been as "charitable" with your comments would you have??

Fixed the pop-ups on at BassBurglarAlarms.com yet??

I would look in to electric cattle fences and jury-rig something. There's something used to electrify lanes where drunks piss too I seem to have come across somewheres. Post a warning sign somewhere.

I was supposedly piloting a Boeing 737 inverted) again and again. So far you've little to offer in the way of actual proof...

OK, here's proof. In the stupid lie you told about getting zapped when your ladder miraculously jumped into an open-front, high voltage electrical cabinet, you claimed to have been partway up the ladder and that someone else was at the foot of the ladder. Ergo you were only touching the ladder. If you knew *anything* about electricity, you'd know that even if the ladder had touched a live wire you would not have fealt anything since you would have presented no path to ground. The other reason it didn't happen is that you made up the whole story.

As to the fable of the inverted Boeing, that one was an even more ludicrous lie. First of all, the only way to invert a 737 without destroying it is a barrel roll, which has nothing to do with the ignorant claim you made that the pilot (not you actually; you've never held a pilot's license). Had the pilot of this fictional flight actually jammed full rudder at 5,000 AGL the airplane would have either yawed in the direction of the rudder and then (if he didn't correct quickly) banked and s-l-o-w-l-y rolled to one side as the wing on the inside of the yaw lost lift and dipped downward. That is what happens in an uncoordinated turn. Do it long enough at 5000 AGL and you'll stain the terrain. What you will NEVER get is a sudden, aerobatic snap-roll of the type you described. The 737 is a very strong airframe but it is not designed to handle aerobatics and it is strictly forbidden to try them in that airplane. The reason for the rule is simple. Do it and things inside like wing supports tend to break.

You also claimed at first that you wanted to test your theory about reverse thrusters by deploying them in flight. You didn't know it until I told you but that is patently imp[ossible. The reverse thrusters cannot be deployed withoout weight on the main gear (IOW, they won't budge until the plane is on the ground). There's a reason for that, too. If anyone ever deployed them in flight they would cause the airplane to crash within seconds. There's no way to stow them once deployed until the airplane comes to a stop either because the hydraulices couldn't overcome the pressure of the jet exhaust against the thrusters.

Next we come to the matter of how you claimed to have come into possession of this fabled airliner. This is the best part of all. You lied that Boeing lent a brand new 737 it to you so you could test your pet theory of what brought another. Boeing is not in the habit of lending their jet airliners to claims adjusters (that is, assuming you even were a claims adjuster).

Some years ago a Boeing engineer bought a system for his home from my online store. He has since referred a number of his colleagues to me. Just for fun I asked some of these fellows if any of your story was even possible. One lughed and said you were totally FOS. Another said that there's no way to snap-roll a 737, no matter what you do; that if you tried, you'd never survive. He also pointed out that there have been two known incidences of 737's getting into inverted flight. One happened at FL220 (that's over 4 miles up). No one survived either event bvecause it's impossibl;e to recover that aircraft from an uncoordinated inversion. The famous 737 barrel roll which someone mentioned here is nothing like the maneuver in your lie. It's a relatively slow, co-ordinated, climbing turn which continues until the airplane spirals horizontally.

Face it, Olson. You told a pack of lies and got caught. It infuriated you when I exposed your nonsense for what it was. But that was your own fault. If you hadn't started flaming me in an attempt to win the comeraderie among the IB, I'd have just ignored your blather. After all, nobody else believed your stories either.

Merry Christmas

Works with electric fences, you don't see farmers chaining their horses and cattle to grounded pipes. :P

Anyway, it's not my story, I'm just relating it as it was told to me.

Ever notice how people can be electrocuted by lighting standing 50 feet away from a tree that it hits? Ball lightning has been reported to float around in strange patterns and even enter through open windows.

Electricity is a strange thing, especially at high voltages.

employee's body and out through his shoes? If there happened to be a grounded pipe nearby and the employee happened to beholding onto it while relieving himself that might work.

cattle to grounded pipes. :P

Cattle fences are insulated from the ground.

Understood. Someone else told you the story and you simply related what you'd heard. That's nothing like Olson -- he makes up absurd lies himself.

electricity) was how he managed to get shocked while standing partway up the ladder. Have you ever seen a bird on a high tension wire? Notice how they don't get shocked, even though the cable may be carrying 50,000 Volts?

from a tree that it hits? Ball lightning has been reported to float around in strange patterns and even enter through open windows...

There are lots of stories about ball lightning. Whether any of them are true or not, Olson's nonsensical tale was not about any form of lightning. Likewise, your friend's story was not about lightning. Anyway, no flame here toward you. You only repeated what someone told you. I just don't happen to believe the guy who told the story to you. Olson's case is completely different. He lied.

I was supposedly piloting a Boeing 737 inverted) again and again. So far you've little to offer in the way of actual proof...

Nope... Sorry... that is "far" from proof, Robert. You weren't there. Like I said the place was under construction. You have no idea (and neither do I) about what happened... All I can tell you is that it did. We pulled the rest of the cable required for the system we were installing and called it a day. I'm grateful (in retrospect) that I wasn't hurt.

Wait a minute bud. Weren't you the one that stated *unequivocally* that rolling a 737 past 60 degrees of bank would result in it becoming a "stain on the ground"?? Whoa... Now you're saying something completely different... Typical...

I've got many hours PIC. I'm type rated on several aircraft you aren't even qualified to kick tires on.

Hmmm... "Slowly"... It actually happened pretty quickly from my position. We were in landing configuration. Wheels down, flaps and leading edge slats extended. We were trying to simulate the flight profile of the 737 which crashed at Cranbrook, B.C.

We weren't in an "uncoordinated turn".

Nope. The PIC (Boeing's senior test pilot) righted the aircraft by completing the roll.

Happened pretty quick from where I was sitting.

Ahhh... I see you're now including some of the information I've supplied you in previous posts... The Boeing 737 was *designed* from the ground up as a STOL aircraft. That means it can get into shorter fields than most other transport aircraft of it's size. Ever been into "Tuk", Churchill, Castelgar?? Have a look at the approach charts to those fields...

"Wing supports"?? Where would they be?? How about looking up the correct terminology before you start posting your "FAQs"? How do you spell "Aileron"?? A skilled pilot could do rolls all day long and not exceed 2.5 G's... The 737's designed to handle that and more.

Nope... I never said that... What I said was that there was no way we could deploy the thrusters in flight so (after speaking to a couple of Boeing Engineers), it was decided that the application of full left rudder would sufficiently simulate deployment of one reverser in the flight configuration under test. If you Google this subject to any extent you'll quickly discover that what I said here is the absolute truth, and what you've said is the "Bass Twisted Version".

Another lie, Bass. You're a master at twisting people's words... Point us to the Google that proves what you're spewing!

You're wrong again!!! There are "reverser over-ride" switches on the overhead console. In fact they're located immediately behind the "reverser unlock" indicators. You've never flown a 737, never spoken to anyone that's flown one, and have repeatedly demonstrated such a lack of knowledge of basic aerodynamics in previous posts that any claims you've made to being a "student pilot" are ludicrous in the extreme. In the accident at Cranbrook, the co-pilot had broken the seal on one of the reverser over-ride toggles but never got the chance to flip the switch to restore hydraulic power and stow that reverser before the aircraft nose dived into the ground. The engineers *I* spoke with at the time had all told me that if they were at 3500 feet AGL (and Cranbrook was at "sea level"), they would have stood a good chance to recover the aircraft and land it safely. Unfortunately the aircraft had just initiated a "go-around" (also known as a "touch-and-go"), was extremely "dirty" aerodynamically, and was just above the stall speed. If you listen to the cockpit tapes, you can actually hear the stick shaker in the back-ground.

Nope... I've never said that... Point to the Google where I did!

You're right... They wouldn't have lent their airliner to a claims adjuster (but then I never said they did, did I?).

Sure.

Uh-huh... Including an MD-80 "Wanna-be" Captain who also said you couldn't roll one of those... Interesting... I happen to know a *real* MD-80 Captain (who lives in Orlando) who *has* rolled one. It handles like a "fighter", he says.

Ah, yes.... I knew the "fictitious" engineers and pilots would rear their ugly heads at one time or another... Funny how they're always "jumping in" to defend your rather meager knowledge of aerodynamics, isn't it??

Once again, you fail to mention that both incidences also involved failure of the rudder servo (you keep missing this one little item in your vain attempt at "one-up-man-ship"). The rudder deflected hard over and you're absolutely right... there would be no way to recover from that in *any* flight regimen or altitude. By the way, one "rudder incident" that happened did manage to land safely. And guess what?? Even though the rudder had deflected hard over, there was *NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE* to any part of the airframe.

I don't think you were there... for either maneuver, so you can't really comment, can you??

You really don't know what you're talking about do you?? You don't start a barrel roll (or snap for that matter) with a climbing turn.

Only according to your twisted reckoning... You have yet to post any proof of what you say I said via Google. Go ahead, Robert.... Make my day...

No actually... I've enjoyed watching you make a total idiot of yourself. This last bit is just another example to add to the growing list.

Really??

So... what are we saying here??? That the foremost liar in Usenet has now accused another person of lying with *no* actual proof except for what he "says"?? C'mon Robert... you can do better than that...

How about a few Google searches on lies you've spewed??

Or how about this little beauty:

What's worse than all this?? Your customer service sucks. How many people have posted here (even recently) trying to get in touch with you?? Your email's full, your voice messages are full... What are they "full" of, Robert?? Refund demands, supplier payment demands?? Tsk!! And you *still* haven't fixed the pop-ups on BassBurglarAlarms dot con.

And you've yet to be able to prove that I've lied about anything.

Prove it!! Can't, can you?? Just like you can't find out where I work. You're a sad case, Robert.

You got me there, Olson. I misspelled weird. Since weirdness is so much a part of your life I can understand how you'd get that one right though.

And since lying, misrepresentation, and fraud is such a large part of yours, it would explain your having four websites. Up to *fourteen* complaints now at the BBB... Tsk!!

I see you've back into your "old neighbourhood" (on Fallcrest Circle).

Did they all welcome you with open arms, or was the reaction more like: "Oh Crap, Martha, he's back!"? :-)

Talk about "weirdness", the Affidavit you had to sign ranks right up there:

Then there's the time you spent in Ohio (while we all thought you were running your "modestly successful central station alarm company" in Connecticut):

Install/service a lot of systems there?? Were you licensed?? Amazing the stuff one can "dig up" if you look hard enough... "Wierd", huh??

Dang!!! Where's that "Goofy Webmaster"??