around November 2006: the whistleblower Dekort goes public; Lockheed states either Dekort's comments are based on outdated information or not accurate. The Coast Guard made statements in effect that it was investigating the matter.

December 2006: DOJ is reported to have started an investigation on Lockheed

Feb 2007: The DHS Office of Inspector General reports: "Additionally, the contractor installed C4ISR topside equipment aboard both the 123' cutters and prosecutors, which either did not comply or was not tested to ensure compliance with specific environmental performance requirements outlined in the Deepwater contract."

Aug 2007: the Coast Guard issued a letter to ICGS stating that it has revoked acceptance of the 123's because in part of "topside equipment" non-compliance with requirements issues:

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,145313,00.html

Do you have a point to your post? Hard to discuss without making a point. Thank you.

I am wondering if you are that guy on youtube putting out those videos about all this. I wouldn't doubt it. You or 1110.

I agree with Nobodyaskedmebut regarding your point.

OK SO>>>The Coast Guard messed up with Deepwater. Stop beating the dead horse. We get the concern about wasting taxpayer dollars, but I, personally, find these "Bash" the CG posts about deepwater a little annoying and in poor taste, at least on this forum.

Hobab
Oh and incase you are wondering I WAS stationted on one of the 123' conversions.

My friend IamHobab: It is not about bashing the Coast Guard. It is ensuring that the Coast Guard is not wronged. It is ensuring that the Coast Guard's organization pride and other political factors within does not allow the Coast Guard to unknowingly or uncannily wrong itself at the sole benefit of Lockheed. That is the intent.

Tim, it is not about bashing the Coast Guard. It is about bashing the dark forces within it. You have to separate the dark forces from the good forces. Right now the good-natured likes of L. Muldowney, you, IamHobab and others seems to not grasp that the Coast Guard at times could be too proud to a fault. This effects how they work with contractors that do not have the Coast Guard's interests as one of their top priorities. Now I didn't say priorities, I said "top priorities". That is my observation based on all what I've read in newspapers, seen on tv, and elsewhere.

Aaron Jones

JONES,

SO continue reading the NEWSPAPERS and internet BLOGS and let the crew of the Bertholf do their JOB. We know what is going on with the ship and you do not need to know. You do not know the crew and you definitely do not know me. If you think I am going to let some contractor hurt my crew then you can go shove the mouse you use to look through the internet up your kuzzo.

Plain and simple. There was a problem. The problem is being fixed. end of story.

Frankly I do not care if I get banned or not. the crap you constently put out about people who try to spread good info about the program and the Bertholf is B.S. You ask why we won't post info it is for this exact reason.
SO GO F.O.

Larry

quote:

Originally posted by KeepingUpWithJones:
My friend IamHobab: It is not about bashing the Coast Guard. It is ensuring that the Coast Guard is not wronged. It is ensuring that the Coast Guard's organization pride and other political factors within does not allow the Coast Guard to unknowingly or uncannily wrong itself at the sole benefit of Lockheed. That is the intent.

Tim, it is not about bashing the Coast Guard. It is about bashing the dark forces within it. You have to separate the dark forces from the good forces. Right now the good-natured likes of L. Muldowney, you, IamHobab and others seems to not grasp that the Coast Guard at times could be too proud to a fault. This effects how they work with contractors that do not have the Coast Guard's interests as one of their top priorities. Now I didn't say priorities, I said "top priorities". That is my observation based on all what I've read in newspapers, seen on tv, and elsewhere.

Aaron Jones

No Hobab, Surface Force is not Michael Dekort. Mike used to post here, but his criticisms of certain defense contractors which are currently the subject of criminal investigation by the US Dept of Justice ruffled the feathers of some too much.

you mean he was thrown off........

AJ,

As a 30 year retiree from the Active Duty Coast Guard with the last 10 years as a warranted Contracting Officer I take offense to your remarks that insinuate that I, LMuldowney, and some others don't "grasp" something about the Coast Guard that you clam to be dark and sinister...

Since at best, based on your profile, you list yourself as a

quote:

Department of Defense , Military Enthusiast
Resides in Arkansas

I would venture that (unless your posted profile is false) we are a lot more intune with the Coast Guard then you assume. What qualifications do you possess that you feel gives you the ability to make such a comment about myself or others?

I have experienced first hand the poor judgement calls and financial waste that the CG used on Deepwater. I lived in the holiday in and other hotels for almost a year because our cutter was only underway for 22 days in a year and a half. Don't think I'm blinded. I lived out of a suitcase and ate bar food as well as other sacrifices because of the many mistakes that Deepwater made. I don't fault the CG for it because that kind of stuff happens when major changes try to take place.

The CG has never had a budget like we have with Deepwater, so I, personally think that constantly bringing up the problems of the financial mistakes is in poor taste. I don't think that Admiral Allen is going to let this just slide under the rug. I think that the leadership in the CG is well aware of the mistakes and they are making changes as they can.

People on here just don't seem to do anything except inform everyone of all the mistakes etc, but don't do anything to help. Sorry, but I directly experienced the problems and didn't see my wife for almost a full year because of the errors with the 123' program.

Hobab

Hobab;
Thanks for your hard work, great attitude and the sacrifices you and your family made trying to do the best job possible!
MC

quote:

Originally posted by SacraficialMetal:
you mean he was thrown off........

Wow, there's one of the bunch that I was talking about right there. I mentioned nobody by name, but yet one of them slithered out of the shadows to identify himself. The guilty do indeed return to the scene of the crime.

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:

quote:

Originally posted by SacraficialMetal:
you mean he was thrown off........

Wow, there's one of the bunch that I was talking about right there. I mentioned nobody by name, but yet one of them slithered out of the shadows to identify himself. The guilty do indeed return to the scene of the crime.

[Hat]Moderator Hat On
If you are making reference to me 1110 - you're post has pushed out into the very very thin ice. The decision to permanently ban Mike DeKoort was made by moderators and the forums administrator. The reasons do not need to be discussed again; your reference to slithering out of the shadows - even with the smiley face insults all of the moderators and the Forums Administrator. Moderator hat off....[/hat]

No Nobodyaskemebut, your assumption is unfounded as I was not making reference to you or any other moderator. If I wished to refer to how you or the other moderators perform your volunteer positions, I'd have either responded to something you posted in public or refered to your specific reply to something I had posted (not the self-declared "hard-core leftist" SacraficalMetal), emailed any of you directly or brought it up with Rob.

However, you and I know very well that there is a certain bunch of members who make a very big deal of how long they've been posting, being "known" to each other and generally parade around here as if they own the place - I am not the only one who has pointed this out either. You and I also know very well that many in this same certain bunch whined and complained incessently about Mike's presence before he was banned (we don't need to name names...they know who they are).

Ironic how the "civil liberties" advocates always seek to ostracize and oppress any view that counters their own isn't it?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 1110,

Ironic indeed 1110 that you presume to include me in your opinion....please refrain from doing so. Consider still that in my opinion your post pushes the limits regardless of what you write now. I'm a lot smarter then you wish you think I was - and I'm not buying your particular brand of response. Enough said.

Back to the topic at hand - the original post is lacking; is there a point to the post? Refer to my first post on the subject.

Well Nobodyaskedmebut, if it's so hard for your self-described "a lot smarter" intellect to comprehend that I wasn't responding to you nor mentioned any of the other moderators in my post, you can always email me offline and I'll send you a detailed roadmap for the difference between your (in this case flawed) extrapolated reasoning and factual information. It's not like you don't have the address.

1110 - I wrote previously, enough said. Unless I would have a legitimate reason to do so, I would contact you via the link to your personal profile - the same way that anyone can. As a moderator can I access your "real" e-mail address - the one you used to register with? Yes I can as well as a member's IP address. Would I? Only if I had a legitimate reason to contact you (or someone else). The Milcom "contact a member" function of the software is very slow so if I need to contact someone quicker I would get their address and e-mail them. To date, just so you know, I have never disclosed anyone's registration e-mail address to anyone - sorry, won't do it; its an integrity issue.

Back to the subject at hand; I could go to many different websites and post something similar in form that AJ has posted but would love to what point AJ's making or the purpose of his post; many many people here are cognizant of Deepwater; sometimes I think you and AJ assume that because not many people post about Deepwater here that they don't know or care about it. I will have to disagree with you; as an organization (partly because of its size) Coasties are much more aware and dialed into what's going on internally and externally in the Coast Guard. Way back, 36 years ago, as a SN assigned to the deck department of a Sub Tender we were clueless, almost kept in the dark; one Friday the Division Chief told us we were getting underway on Monday for 2 weeks...be ready. Once underway we were told we were going to Fleet Week in San Franciso. 30 years later, we were all much more informed about OPSCHEDS, etc; I don't know if the Afloat Navy Surface Forces do risk assessments prior to major events (I bet they do) but on my cutter, prior to entering port, getting underway, etc, the active participants usually included representatives from all divisions and even the most junior PO2 present or the crusty CWO4 Supply Officer (me in this case) were asked to give their opinion/comments/recommendations concerning the evolution. I cite that as an example of how at a unit level, involved the crew is.

There is a very strong Coast Guard intranetwork that spreads the "news, opinions, and comments" very quickly throughout the service; Telephone, Telegram, TeleCoastie has been around a long time. What you seem to miss with all the finger pointing, insinuations, and accusations is that the men and women of the Coast Guard are living and working through the issues of Deepwater, Class "A" Mishaps, reliefs for cause, etc. that affect their daily lives; it doesn't help one iota when someone comes here, obstensibly trying to "educate and inform" that doesn't come across that way. 1110 they're living it; I bet alot of them get asked by their friends, neighbors, and families about everything going on - I'm sure you have been on the receiving end of something like it; not fun for you I bet...

Well, being the curious, inquisitive person I am, I would like to know why Surface Force, being

quote:

Navy , Veteran/Prior Service
O-2, Lieutenant

has posted three times on general discussion boards, 40 times on the Navy boards, and 182 times on CG discussions since he signed on this past May.

Is 1110 a closet Coastie?

quote:

Originally posted by JerryG:
Well, being the curious, inquisitive person I am, I would like to know why Surface Force, being

quote:

Navy , Veteran/Prior Service
O-2, Lieutenant

has posted three times on general discussion boards, 40 times on the Navy boards, and 182 times on CG discussions since he signed on this past May.

Is 1110 a closet Coastie?

Interesting theory JerryG from a much different angle than the other ones going around the past few months: e.g., Surface Force's military career was a failure or was passed over for promotion and is just disgruntled, Surface Force is a reincarnation of a previous military.com member who has since been banned, Surface Force is multiple screen names/handles, the information in Surface Force's profile is "probably false", Surface Force is an "outsider" and a "non-Coastie", etc.

If my profile is fraudulent to begin with, given how the other military services and the Pentagon's actions against our nation's enemies (both here at home and abroad) have been derided (sic) on these USCG forums, why on Earth would I claim service in the USN if I actually was concerned about trying to impress anyone here?

Who exactly I am really doesn't matter at all in the big scheme of things. If it means so much to some who aren't even associated with Deepwater or for that matter are no longer even on active duty, well they'll just have to get over it. From what I've seen, if I revealed exactly what my name was, given the group dynamics here, none of the self-appointed forum elitists would believe it anyway.

I wish you the best.

Respectfully,
Surface Force

quote:

Originally posted by SacraficialMetal:
you mean he was thrown off........

He was tossed because he was asking for info from current/past Coasties who were in the know about the subject matter but way before that, he was an embarrassment to all those involved. Soliciting this info was wrong in the way he did and was in violation of the UA for this forum. However, it was pretty clear way before that moment in time that the buzzards were waiting for him to slip up so they could kick him off (silence him). The guy was getting ripped from all directions on this board and he did not deserve it. And who really gives a rats a$$ if he was pissed at his employer? He blew the whistle on a wrong. I said it then, I'll say it, NOBODY can say he was wrong for what he did to bring this light. As embarrassing as it was to the CG, we are not in fallible, we make mistakes. What this guy did could have saved our shipmates lives if not gone unchecked and I find it down right disgusting that ANYONE would bash the guy, discredit or even question him about his motives and then make light of him for getting banned for what he did and why. I don’t need my feet planted firmly on the deck of any of the products this project has produced to figure out that something isn't right. The DW project as a whole is tainted, anything associated to it is perceived to be tanted and it's isn't going to go way anytime soon so get past it fellas. Since I come here to READ about CG matters, I would like to thank all the KUWJ’s and 1110 and yes.. even the late TB for posting this info here as a one stop shopping experience to read all the dirt. They don't have to have apoint. Half the postings here don't have a point so who cares. It's just stuff to make you go HMMM..

Now.. to be clear.. I ventured into this thread due to a email sent to me via my mil.com email address. I was wondering what was going on over here since the last time I visited. I can see the mud still flys and people still like to stick out their chests and strut around. Get a grip people. Take it off line. Your only clouding the issue here with your ego's and the moment things heat up.. it's time to lock it up. Not doing otherwise is only baiting for the moment someone that's not liked can get the boot, again.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tc1uscg,

quote:

Your only clouding the issue here with your ego's and the moment things heat up.. it's time to lock it up. Not doing otherwise is only baiting for the moment someone that's not liked can get the boot, again

Dennis - this thread is moving as smooth as any thread and doesn't need to be locked; kindly let all the mods moderate. There were a lot of reasons he was banned; and not even I condemned him for the Whistle Blow...