Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity from the very start without even needing to do any math...because I understood
the basic data apparently much better than you did (and still do).
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity from
the very start without even needing to do any math...because I
understood the basic data apparently much better than you did (and
still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that calling a
simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has to be embarrassing.
[snipped, without reading]
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity from
the very start without even needing to do any math...because I
understood the basic data apparently much better than you did (and
still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that calling a
simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has to be embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of consulting time
in total. What you would get for that is a summary overview of what
you've missed, as validated by your 'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of the work
to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic & disingenuous:
the sign of a bad customer who's determined to never be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity from
the very start without even needing to do any math...because I
understood the basic data apparently much better than you did (and
still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that calling a
simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has to be embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of consulting
time in total. What you would get for that is a summary overview of
what you've missed, as validated by your 'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of the work
to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic &
disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's determined to never be
satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what I
missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material model improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and not call for additional data that is not available or does not even exist. If your
advice calls for a statistical model beyond Excel's capability I can
rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for a
PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity from >>>>> the very start without even needing to do any math...because I
understood the basic data apparently much better than you did (and
still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that calling a
simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has to be
embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of consulting
time in total. What you would get for that is a summary overview of
what you've missed, as validated by your 'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of the
work to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic &
disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's determined to never be
satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what I
missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material model
improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and not call for
additional data that is not available or does not even exist. If your
advice calls for a statistical model beyond Excel's capability I can
rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for a
PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity from >>>>> the very start without even needing to do any math...because I
understood the basic data apparently much better than you did (and
still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that calling a
simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has to be
embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of consulting
time in total. What you would get for that is a summary overview of
what you've missed, as validated by your 'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of the
work to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic &
disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's determined to never be
satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what I
missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material model
improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and not call for
additional data that is not available or does not even exist. If your
advice calls for a statistical model beyond Excel's capability I can
rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for a
PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
On 11/25/25 21:12, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity
from the very start without even needing to do any math...because >>>>>> I understood the basic data apparently much better than you did
(and still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that calling
a simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has to be
embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of consulting
time in total. What you would get for that is a summary overview of >>>> what you've missed, as validated by your 'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of the
work to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic &
disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's determined to never
be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what I
missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material model
improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and not call for
additional data that is not available or does not even exist. If your
advice calls for a statistical model beyond Excel's capability I can
rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for a
PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
And already anticipated:
"Of course you'll not like that answer... the sign of a bad customer
who's determined to never be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time."
Tommy has now confirmed that he 100% intends to welsh.
-hh
On 11/25/2025 9:12 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity
from the very start without even needing to do any math...because >>>>>> I understood the basic data apparently much better than you did
(and still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that calling
a simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has to be
embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of consulting
time in total. What you would get for that is a summary overview of >>>> what you've missed, as validated by your 'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of the
work to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic &
disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's determined to never
be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what I
missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material model
improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and not call for
additional data that is not available or does not even exist. If your
advice calls for a statistical model beyond Excel's capability I can
rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for a
PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
Why would I pay up front to a person who has confused a 2 dimension data plot with a statistical model?
On 11/26/2025 11:09 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 21:12, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity >>>>>>> from the very start without even needing to do any math...because >>>>>>> I understood the basic data apparently much better than you did >>>>>>> (and still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that calling >>>>>> a simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has to be
embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of consulting
time in total. What you would get for that is a summary overview
of what you've missed, as validated by your 'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of the
work to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic &
disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's determined to never
be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what I
missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material model
improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and not call
for additional data that is not available or does not even exist. If
your advice calls for a statistical model beyond Excel's capability
I can rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for a
PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
And already anticipated:
"Of course you'll not like that answer... the sign of a bad customer
who's determined to never be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time."
Tommy has now confirmed that he 100% intends to welsh.
-hh
I will pay if you give me useful information.
You have had weeks to
think about this. You have stated several times that you can help
improve the model. It should take no more than 10 minutes to type in
your ideas and hit the send arrow. That's actually $900 an hour.
I do not think you have anything useful. I think you want $150 up front
for nothing. After all, you are the same person who told me I would need
to travel to England to see a friend of yours who could validate my
pilot logbook.
You are the same person who called a simple data plot a
statistical model.
On 2025-11-26 08:53, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 9:12 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity >>>>>>> from the very start without even needing to do any math...because >>>>>>> I understood the basic data apparently much better than you did >>>>>>> (and still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that calling >>>>>> a simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has to be
embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of consulting
time in total. What you would get for that is a summary overview
of what you've missed, as validated by your 'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of the
work to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic &
disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's determined to never
be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what I
missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material model
improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and not call
for additional data that is not available or does not even exist. If
your advice calls for a statistical model beyond Excel's capability
I can rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for a
PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
Why would I pay up front to a person who has confused a 2 dimension
data plot with a statistical model?
Where did he do that exactly?
Sounds like another one of your lies.
On 2025-11-26 09:39, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/26/2025 11:09 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 21:12, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity >>>>>>>> from the very start without even needing to do any
math...because I understood the basic data apparently much
better than you did (and still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that
calling a simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has to >>>>>>> be embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of consulting >>>>>> time in total. What you would get for that is a summary overview >>>>>> of what you've missed, as validated by your 'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of the >>>>>> work to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic &
disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's determined to never >>>>>> be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what I
missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material
model improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and not
call for additional data that is not available or does not even
exist. If your advice calls for a statistical model beyond Excel's
capability I can rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for a
PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
And already anticipated:
"Of course you'll not like that answer... the sign of a bad customer
who's determined to never be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time." >>>
Tommy has now confirmed that he 100% intends to welsh.
-hh
I will pay if you give me useful information.
"No true Scotsman".
You have had weeks to think about this. You have stated several times
that you can help improve the model. It should take no more than 10
minutes to type in your ideas and hit the send arrow. That's actually
$900 an hour.
I do not think you have anything useful. I think you want $150 up
front for nothing. After all, you are the same person who told me I
would need to travel to England to see a friend of yours who could
validate my pilot logbook.
Quote please, Liarboy.
You are the same person who called a simple data plot a statistical
model.
Quote please, Liarboy.
On 2025-11-26 08:53, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 9:12 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity >>>>>>> from the very start without even needing to do any math...because >>>>>>> I understood the basic data apparently much better than you did >>>>>>> (and still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that calling >>>>>> a simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has to be
embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of consulting
time in total. What you would get for that is a summary overview
of what you've missed, as validated by your 'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of the
work to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic &
disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's determined to never
be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what I
missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material model
improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and not call
for additional data that is not available or does not even exist. If
your advice calls for a statistical model beyond Excel's capability
I can rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for a
PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
Why would I pay up front to a person who has confused a 2 dimension
data plot with a statistical model?
Where did he do that exactly?
Sounds like another one of your lies.
On 11/26/25 13:34, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-26 08:53, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 9:12 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity >>>>>>>> from the very start without even needing to do any
math...because I understood the basic data apparently much
better than you did (and still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that
calling a simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has to >>>>>>> be embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of consulting >>>>>> time in total. What you would get for that is a summary overview >>>>>> of what you've missed, as validated by your 'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of the >>>>>> work to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic &
disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's determined to never >>>>>> be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what I
missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material
model improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and not
call for additional data that is not available or does not even
exist. If your advice calls for a statistical model beyond Excel's
capability I can rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for a
PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
Why would I pay up front to a person who has confused a 2 dimension
data plot with a statistical model?
Where did he do that exactly?
Sounds like another one of your lies.
It is, which is necessary for him to try to save face.
And Tommy has made it even more difficult for himself because he's
unwilling to part with even a trivially small amount of money. In the context of his frequent refrains which attempt to brag about how wealthy
he is, it is of itself revealing to his actual reality.
-hh
On 11/26/25 13:34, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-26 08:53, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 9:12 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity >>>>>>>> from the very start without even needing to do any
math...because I understood the basic data apparently much
better than you did (and still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that
calling a simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has to >>>>>>> be embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of consulting >>>>>> time in total. What you would get for that is a summary overview >>>>>> of what you've missed, as validated by your 'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of the >>>>>> work to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic &
disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's determined to never >>>>>> be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what I
missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material
model improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and not
call for additional data that is not available or does not even
exist. If your advice calls for a statistical model beyond Excel's
capability I can rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for a
PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
Why would I pay up front to a person who has confused a 2 dimension
data plot with a statistical model?
Where did he do that exactly?
Sounds like another one of your lies.
It is, which is necessary for him to try to save face.
And Tommy has made it even more difficult for himself because he's
unwilling to part with even a trivially small amount of money. In the context of his frequent refrains which attempt to brag about how wealthy
he is, it is of itself revealing to his actual reality.
-hh
On 11/27/2025 10:27 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/26/25 13:34, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-26 08:53, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 9:12 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity >>>>>>>>> from the very start without even needing to do any
math...because I understood the basic data apparently much
better than you did (and still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that
calling a simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has >>>>>>>> to be embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of
consulting time in total. What you would get for that is a
summary overview of what you've missed, as validated by your
'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of the >>>>>>> work to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic &
disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's determined to
never be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what I >>>>>> missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material
model improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and not >>>>>> call for additional data that is not available or does not even
exist. If your advice calls for a statistical model beyond Excel's >>>>>> capability I can rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for a >>>>>> PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
Why would I pay up front to a person who has confused a 2 dimension
data plot with a statistical model?
Where did he do that exactly?
Sounds like another one of your lies.
It is, which is necessary for him to try to save face.
And Tommy has made it even more difficult for himself because he's
unwilling to part with even a trivially small amount of money. In the
context of his frequent refrains which attempt to brag about how
wealthy he is, it is of itself revealing to his actual reality.
-hh
Followup #2
My take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very important
to YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?
On 2025-11-28 07:58, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/27/2025 10:27 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/26/25 13:34, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-26 08:53, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 9:12 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity >>>>>>>>>> from the very start without even needing to do any
math...because I understood the basic data apparently much >>>>>>>>>> better than you did (and still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that
calling a simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has >>>>>>>>> to be embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of
consulting time in total. What you would get for that is a
summary overview of what you've missed, as validated by your
'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of >>>>>>>> the work to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic >>>>>>>> & disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's determined to >>>>>>>> never be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what I >>>>>>> missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material
model improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and
not call for additional data that is not available or does not
even exist. If your advice calls for a statistical model beyond >>>>>>> Excel's capability I can rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for >>>>>>> a PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
Why would I pay up front to a person who has confused a 2 dimension >>>>> data plot with a statistical model?
Where did he do that exactly?
Sounds like another one of your lies.
It is, which is necessary for him to try to save face.
And Tommy has made it even more difficult for himself because he's
unwilling to part with even a trivially small amount of money. In
the context of his frequent refrains which attempt to brag about how
wealthy he is, it is of itself revealing to his actual reality.
-hh
Followup #2
My take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very important
to YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOOLOLOOOLOL!
On 11/28/25 12:22, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 07:58, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/27/2025 10:27 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/26/25 13:34, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-26 08:53, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 9:12 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the
nonlinearity from the very start without even needing to do >>>>>>>>>>> any math...because I understood the basic data apparently >>>>>>>>>>> much better than you did (and still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that >>>>>>>>>> calling a simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has >>>>>>>>>> to be embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of
consulting time in total. What you would get for that is a >>>>>>>>> summary overview of what you've missed, as validated by your >>>>>>>>> 'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of >>>>>>>>> the work to be also done for that one hour, which is
unrealistic & disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's >>>>>>>>> determined to never be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time. >>>>>>>>>
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what >>>>>>>> I missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material >>>>>>>> model improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and >>>>>>>> not call for additional data that is not available or does not >>>>>>>> even exist. If your advice calls for a statistical model beyond >>>>>>>> Excel's capability I can rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for >>>>>>>> a PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
Why would I pay up front to a person who has confused a 2
dimension data plot with a statistical model?
Where did he do that exactly?
Sounds like another one of your lies.
It is, which is necessary for him to try to save face.
And Tommy has made it even more difficult for himself because he's
unwilling to part with even a trivially small amount of money. In
the context of his frequent refrains which attempt to brag about how
wealthy he is, it is of itself revealing to his actual reality.
-hh
Followup #2
My take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very
important to YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOOLOLOOOLOL!
Tommy's still butthurt ranting?
Seems that he's either not yet heard about Nick Maggiulli's "0.01% Rule"...
...or he has, and his prior wealth brags notwithstanding, $150 exceeds
his 0.01%.
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on rightOooh. I don't need anything at the moment, but I do love Ubiquiti's
now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream Router 7; you may recall that I had been looking at it (well, the prior version) back
during CoVid, but it was constantly out of stock. Figured I'd try it
out, along with their G5 Pro 4K UHD webcam.
On 11/28/25 12:22, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 07:58, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/27/2025 10:27 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/26/25 13:34, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-26 08:53, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 9:12 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the
nonlinearity from the very start without even needing to do >>>>>>>>>>> any math...because I understood the basic data apparently >>>>>>>>>>> much better than you did (and still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that >>>>>>>>>> calling a simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has >>>>>>>>>> to be embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of
consulting time in total. What you would get for that is a >>>>>>>>> summary overview of what you've missed, as validated by your >>>>>>>>> 'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of >>>>>>>>> the work to be also done for that one hour, which is
unrealistic & disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's >>>>>>>>> determined to never be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time. >>>>>>>>>
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what >>>>>>>> I missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material >>>>>>>> model improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and >>>>>>>> not call for additional data that is not available or does not >>>>>>>> even exist. If your advice calls for a statistical model beyond >>>>>>>> Excel's capability I can rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for >>>>>>>> a PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
Why would I pay up front to a person who has confused a 2
dimension data plot with a statistical model?
Where did he do that exactly?
Sounds like another one of your lies.
It is, which is necessary for him to try to save face.
And Tommy has made it even more difficult for himself because he's
unwilling to part with even a trivially small amount of money. In
the context of his frequent refrains which attempt to brag about how
wealthy he is, it is of itself revealing to his actual reality.
-hh
Followup #2
My take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very
important to YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOOLOLOOOLOL!
Tommy's still butthurt ranting?
Seems that he's either not yet heard about Nick Maggiulli's "0.01% Rule"...
...or he has, and his prior wealth brags notwithstanding, $150 exceeds
his 0.01%.
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on right
now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream Router 7; you may recall that I had been looking at it (well, the prior version) back
during CoVid, but it was constantly out of stock. Figured I'd try it
out, along with their G5 Pro 4K UHD webcam.
-hh
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on right
now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream Router 7; you may
recall that I had been looking at it (well, the prior version) back
during CoVid, but it was constantly out of stock. Figured I'd try it
out, along with their G5 Pro 4K UHD webcam.
-hh
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem to be on
sale there.
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black
Friday...
Hope you had a great holiday...
On 11/26/25 13:35, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-26 09:39, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/26/2025 11:09 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 21:12, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity >>>>>>>>> from the very start without even needing to do any
math...because I understood the basic data apparently much
better than you did (and still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that
calling a simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has >>>>>>>> to be embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of
consulting time in total. What you would get for that is a
summary overview of what you've missed, as validated by your
'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of the >>>>>>> work to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic &
disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's determined to
never be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what I >>>>>> missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material
model improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and not >>>>>> call for additional data that is not available or does not even
exist. If your advice calls for a statistical model beyond Excel's >>>>>> capability I can rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for a >>>>>> PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
And already anticipated:
"Of course you'll not like that answer... the sign of a bad customer
who's determined to never be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my
time."
Tommy has now confirmed that he 100% intends to welsh.
-hh
I will pay if you give me useful information.
"No true Scotsman".
As I've said, Tommy's intent is to welsh.
You have had weeks to think about this. You have stated several times
that you can help improve the model. It should take no more than 10
minutes to type in your ideas and hit the send arrow. That's actually
$900 an hour.
I do not think you have anything useful. I think you want $150 up
front for nothing. After all, you are the same person who told me I
would need to travel to England to see a friend of yours who could
validate my pilot logbook.
Quote please, Liarboy.
He's whining again about an offer I made to see about asking an old
friend of mine to review his flight logs. At the time, that friend was
a senior FAA official working & living in UK...
...and why UK you may ask? Because non-US airlines with trans-Atlantic flights to the US have to meet FAA regulations to land here, so there's
been at times FAA staff located there (D'uh!).
You are the same person who called a simple data plot a statistical
model.
Quote please, Liarboy.
Doesn't matter either: Tommy represented that plot as his work product.
He later backtracked, claiming that there was more. There was, but
that revision doesn't change his first claim from being a
misrepresentation.
-hh
On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on right
now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream Router 7; you
may recall that I had been looking at it (well, the prior version)
back during CoVid, but it was constantly out of stock. Figured I'd
try it out, along with their G5 Pro 4K UHD webcam.
-hh
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem to be on
sale there.
Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale, Asshole?
For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing research...
...you seem to be utterly clueless.
<https://store.ui.com/us/en/tags/black-friday?c=US>
Took me 30 seconds to find.
Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a "gotcha"
moment, Asshole?
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black
Friday...
Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.
Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.
You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own assumption as "proof" that it's correct.
Hope you had a great holiday...
Hypocritical little Asshole.
On 11/27/2025 10:27 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/26/25 13:35, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-26 09:39, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/26/2025 11:09 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 21:12, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the nonlinearity >>>>>>>>>> from the very start without even needing to do any
math...because I understood the basic data apparently much >>>>>>>>>> better than you did (and still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that
calling a simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has >>>>>>>>> to be embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of
consulting time in total. What you would get for that is a
summary overview of what you've missed, as validated by your
'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of >>>>>>>> the work to be also done for that one hour, which is unrealistic >>>>>>>> & disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's determined to >>>>>>>> never be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time.
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what I >>>>>>> missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material
model improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and
not call for additional data that is not available or does not
even exist. If your advice calls for a statistical model beyond >>>>>>> Excel's capability I can rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for >>>>>>> a PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
And already anticipated:
"Of course you'll not like that answer... the sign of a bad
customer who's determined to never be satisfied. Thus, you're not
worth my time."
Tommy has now confirmed that he 100% intends to welsh.
-hh
I will pay if you give me useful information.
"No true Scotsman".
As I've said, Tommy's intent is to welsh.
You have had weeks to think about this. You have stated several
times that you can help improve the model. It should take no more
than 10 minutes to type in your ideas and hit the send arrow. That's
actually $900 an hour.
I do not think you have anything useful. I think you want $150 up
front for nothing. After all, you are the same person who told me I
would need to travel to England to see a friend of yours who could
validate my pilot logbook.
Quote please, Liarboy.
He's whining again about an offer I made to see about asking an old
friend of mine to review his flight logs. At the time, that friend
was a senior FAA official working & living in UK...
It was more than that. You suggested that since I was rich I could just
pop over with my logbook to show your "friend". You later backtracked
and said that had I actually planned to go you would tell me there was
no such friend there at that time.
Liar.
On 11/28/2025 5:49 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on
right now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream Router 7;
you may recall that I had been looking at it (well, the prior
version) back during CoVid, but it was constantly out of stock.
Figured I'd try it out, along with their G5 Pro 4K UHD webcam.
-hh
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem to be
on sale there.
Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale, Asshole?
For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing research...
...you seem to be utterly clueless.
<https://store.ui.com/us/en/tags/black-friday?c=US>
Took me 30 seconds to find.
Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a "gotcha"
moment, Asshole?
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black
Friday...
Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.
Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.
You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own assumption
as "proof" that it's correct.
Hope you had a great holiday...
Hypocritical little Asshole.
Which is exactly why "they don't seem to be on sale there" That is true. BUT, Amazon's listing also suggested numerous other sources, none were
lower priced.
Hugh said that he saw it on sale and and jumped on it. I put my twist on that.
You are the hypocrite. Just a washed up hockey player, ski instructor, golfer and FF driver who is now asking for gig work on LinkedIn.
"Start date
Immediately, I am actively applying
Employment types
Part-time · Contract"
The profile also claims you have a full-time job.
"Digital Financial
Full-time
Feb 2018 - Present"
One of these is a lie. Or, Digital Financial is paying you a pittance
you cannot live on. Vancouver est un endroit cher pour vivre, n'est-ce pas?
Just a washed up hockey player, ski instructor, golfer and FF driver...
On 2025-11-28 15:08, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 5:49 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on
right now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream Router
7; you may recall that I had been looking at it (well, the prior
version) back during CoVid, but it was constantly out of stock.
Figured I'd try it out, along with their G5 Pro 4K UHD webcam.
-hh
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem to be
on sale there.
Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale, Asshole?
For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing research...
...you seem to be utterly clueless.
<https://store.ui.com/us/en/tags/black-friday?c=US>
Took me 30 seconds to find.
Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a "gotcha"
moment, Asshole?
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black
Friday...
Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.
Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.
You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own assumption
as "proof" that it's correct.
Hope you had a great holiday...
Hypocritical little Asshole.
Which is exactly why "they don't seem to be on sale there" That is
true. BUT, Amazon's listing also suggested numerous other sources,
none were lower priced.
But the only reason to say that is to imply that Hugh was lying somehow.
Hugh said that he saw it on sale and and jumped on it. I put my twist
on that.
Exactly: your twist.
You are the hypocrite. Just a washed up hockey player, ski instructor,
golfer and FF driver who is now asking for gig work on LinkedIn.
"Start date
Immediately, I am actively applying
Employment types
Part-time · Contract"
The profile also claims you have a full-time job.
"Digital Financial
Full-time
Feb 2018 - Present"
One of these is a lie. Or, Digital Financial is paying you a pittance
you cannot live on. Vancouver est un endroit cher pour vivre, n'est-ce
pas?
You keep posting my personal information on here, and I'm going to fly
to Carmel and drop you.
On 2025-11-28 15:08, Tom Elam wrote:
Just a washed up hockey player, ski instructor, golfer and FF driver...
For the record, "washed up" implies things that aren't there.
I took up hockey at age 30.
As for ski instructor, it was a fun way to get a free season pass, and
I'd be doing it still, but the local mountains have made it contingent
on being willing to work through the entire Christmas season...
...and I'm not willing to do that.
Golfer: I was self-taught, single-digit handicap with a swing lauded by better golfers than myself.
And FF driver: well I'm as fast as a guy who had decades of high-level professional racing experience...
...so I'm definitely not "washed up" there.
On 11/28/2025 6:35 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 15:08, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 5:49 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on
right now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream Router >>>>>> 7; you may recall that I had been looking at it (well, the prior
version) back during CoVid, but it was constantly out of stock.
Figured I'd try it out, along with their G5 Pro 4K UHD webcam.
-hh
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem to be >>>>> on sale there.
Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale, Asshole?
For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing research...
...you seem to be utterly clueless.
<https://store.ui.com/us/en/tags/black-friday?c=US>
Took me 30 seconds to find.
Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a "gotcha"
moment, Asshole?
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black
Friday...
Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.
Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.
You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own
assumption as "proof" that it's correct.
Hope you had a great holiday...
Hypocritical little Asshole.
Which is exactly why "they don't seem to be on sale there" That is
true. BUT, Amazon's listing also suggested numerous other sources,
none were lower priced.
But the only reason to say that is to imply that Hugh was lying somehow.
Hugh said that he saw it on sale and and jumped on it. I put my twist
on that.
Exactly: your twist.
You are the hypocrite. Just a washed up hockey player, ski
instructor, golfer and FF driver who is now asking for gig work on
LinkedIn.
"Start date
Immediately, I am actively applying
Employment types
Part-time · Contract"
The profile also claims you have a full-time job.
"Digital Financial
Full-time
Feb 2018 - Present"
One of these is a lie. Or, Digital Financial is paying you a pittance
you cannot live on. Vancouver est un endroit cher pour vivre, n'est-
ce pas?
You keep posting my personal information on here, and I'm going to fly
to Carmel and drop you.
Now you are threatening physical harm?
Are you aware that LinkedIn is on
the WWW and accessible via search engines and to anyone on LinkedIn?
This info may be personal but it is most certainly not private. Those
who will read this post are far from likely to be prospective employers,
but those who see your LinkedIn profile are.
You might want to save yourself the cost of a plane ticket and bail
money and put it toward the 2026 race season. I'll be saving this conversation, just in case.
Anyway, I wanted to point out that any prospective employer/client who
sees that page is likely to be put off. Why is a person who claims to be
a full-time at a company since 2018 now asking for gig work, and
available immediately on flexible terms? Look at that through a
prospect's eyes. There are no answers that reflect positively on that combination. There are a lot of questions raised, none of them that you would want to have asked. You might want to mull that over.
Your negative reaction indicates to me that you are somewhat blind to negative consequences of your own behavior.
On 2025-11-29 05:37, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 6:35 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 15:08, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 5:49 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on >>>>>>> right now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream Router >>>>>>> 7; you may recall that I had been looking at it (well, the prior >>>>>>> version) back during CoVid, but it was constantly out of stock. >>>>>>> Figured I'd try it out, along with their G5 Pro 4K UHD webcam.
-hh
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem to
be on sale there.
Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale, Asshole? >>>>>
For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing research... >>>>>
...you seem to be utterly clueless.
<https://store.ui.com/us/en/tags/black-friday?c=US>
Took me 30 seconds to find.
Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a "gotcha" >>>>> moment, Asshole?
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black >>>>>> Friday...
Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.
Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.
You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own
assumption as "proof" that it's correct.
Hope you had a great holiday...
Hypocritical little Asshole.
Which is exactly why "they don't seem to be on sale there" That is
true. BUT, Amazon's listing also suggested numerous other sources,
none were lower priced.
But the only reason to say that is to imply that Hugh was lying somehow. >>>
Hugh said that he saw it on sale and and jumped on it. I put my
twist on that.
Exactly: your twist.
You are the hypocrite. Just a washed up hockey player, ski
instructor, golfer and FF driver who is now asking for gig work on
LinkedIn.
"Start date
Immediately, I am actively applying
Employment types
Part-time · Contract"
The profile also claims you have a full-time job.
"Digital Financial
Full-time
Feb 2018 - Present"
One of these is a lie. Or, Digital Financial is paying you a
pittance you cannot live on. Vancouver est un endroit cher pour
vivre, n'est- ce pas?
You keep posting my personal information on here, and I'm going to
fly to Carmel and drop you.
Now you are threatening physical harm?
Am I?
Are you aware that LinkedIn is on the WWW and accessible via search
engines and to anyone on LinkedIn? This info may be personal but it is
most certainly not private. Those who will read this post are far from
likely to be prospective employers, but those who see your LinkedIn
profile are.
Are you aware that Facebook is on the WWW?
You might want to save yourself the cost of a plane ticket and bail
money and put it toward the 2026 race season. I'll be saving this
conversation, just in case.
Anyway, I wanted to point out that any prospective employer/client who
sees that page is likely to be put off. Why is a person who claims to
be a full-time at a company since 2018 now asking for gig work, and
available immediately on flexible terms? Look at that through a
prospect's eyes. There are no answers that reflect positively on that
combination. There are a lot of questions raised, none of them that
you would want to have asked. You might want to mull that over.
Your negative reaction indicates to me that you are somewhat blind to
negative consequences of your own behavior.
Your wife's name is on the WWW. Your address is on the WWW.
On 11/29/2025 12:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-29 05:37, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 6:35 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 15:08, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 5:49 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on >>>>>>>> right now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream Router >>>>>>>> 7; you may recall that I had been looking at it (well, the prior >>>>>>>> version) back during CoVid, but it was constantly out of stock. >>>>>>>> Figured I'd try it out, along with their G5 Pro 4K UHD webcam. >>>>>>>>
-hh
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem to >>>>>>> be on sale there.
Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale, Asshole? >>>>>>
For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing research... >>>>>>
...you seem to be utterly clueless.
<https://store.ui.com/us/en/tags/black-friday?c=US>
Took me 30 seconds to find.
Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a "gotcha" >>>>>> moment, Asshole?
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black >>>>>>> Friday...
Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.
Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.
You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own
assumption as "proof" that it's correct.
Hope you had a great holiday...
Hypocritical little Asshole.
Which is exactly why "they don't seem to be on sale there" That is
true. BUT, Amazon's listing also suggested numerous other sources,
none were lower priced.
But the only reason to say that is to imply that Hugh was lying somehow. >>>>
Hugh said that he saw it on sale and and jumped on it. I put my
twist on that.
Exactly: your twist.
You are the hypocrite. Just a washed up hockey player, ski
instructor, golfer and FF driver who is now asking for gig work on
LinkedIn.
"Start date
Immediately, I am actively applying
Employment types
Part-time · Contract"
The profile also claims you have a full-time job.
"Digital Financial
Full-time
Feb 2018 - Present"
One of these is a lie. Or, Digital Financial is paying you a
pittance you cannot live on. Vancouver est un endroit cher pour
vivre, n'est- ce pas?
You keep posting my personal information on here, and I'm going to
fly to Carmel and drop you.
Now you are threatening physical harm?
Am I?
Yep.
Yep, but I don't post much.
Are you aware that LinkedIn is on the WWW and accessible via search
engines and to anyone on LinkedIn? This info may be personal but it is
most certainly not private. Those who will read this post are far from
likely to be prospective employers, but those who see your LinkedIn
profile are.
Are you aware that Facebook is on the WWW?
Yep, so is your Facebook profile, home address, employer with full
You might want to save yourself the cost of a plane ticket and bail
money and put it toward the 2026 race season. I'll be saving this
conversation, just in case.
Anyway, I wanted to point out that any prospective employer/client who
sees that page is likely to be put off. Why is a person who claims to
be a full-time at a company since 2018 now asking for gig work, and
available immediately on flexible terms? Look at that through a
prospect's eyes. There are no answers that reflect positively on that
combination. There are a lot of questions raised, none of them that
you would want to have asked. You might want to mull that over.
Your negative reaction indicates to me that you are somewhat blind to
negative consequences of your own behavior.
Your wife's name is on the WWW. Your address is on the WWW.
contact info, and this lie in the last sentence:
https://www.alignable.com/vancouver-bc/bakermedia
"My business grew out of a long-time career working with computers;
using them (desktop publishing and printing) and selling them. As time
went on, I discovered I liked helping others make their systems work
better for them more than anything else."
"Recently, bakerMEDIA has added personnel to allow us to offer website creation and support."
Interesting that I have also found on the WWW that in 2013 you ran in a
BHCMR MRP Modern Ford event. You registered your sponsor as "My
inheritance". So has that pot of money finally run out 12 years later?
Oh my, the footprints we leave in this day and age!
https://www.bchmr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FFord-FVee-Race-1-Results.pdf
On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on right
now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream Router 7; you
may recall that I had been looking at it (well, the prior version)
back during CoVid, but it was constantly out of stock. Figured I'd
try it out, along with their G5 Pro 4K UHD webcam.
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem to be on
sale there.
Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale, Asshole?
For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing research...
...you seem to be utterly clueless.
<https://store.ui.com/us/en/tags/black-friday?c=US>
Took me 30 seconds to find.
Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a "gotcha"
moment, Asshole?
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black
Friday...
Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.
Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.
You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own assumption
as "proof" that it's correct.
On 11/28/25 17:49, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on
right now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream Router 7;
you may recall that I had been looking at it (well, the prior
version) back during CoVid, but it was constantly out of stock.
Figured I'd try it out, along with their G5 Pro 4K UHD webcam.
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem to be
on sale there.
Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale, Asshole?
For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing research...
...you seem to be utterly clueless.
<https://store.ui.com/us/en/tags/black-friday?c=US>
Took me 30 seconds to find.
Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a "gotcha"
moment, Asshole?
Ding, ding, ding!
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black
Friday...
Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.
Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.
Pretty much, despite Tommy guessing correctly that Black Friday sale advertisements were involved. The problem with his narrative attempt is that I wasn't the one reading the ads: they were mentioned to me. These were a Wirecutter article for a $80 TP-Link which prompted a "do you
need a new router?" question. Similarly, a Wyze BF email for a <$20 security cam was: "need more cameras?" question. Even though
everything's been okay, I took a look for opportunity's sake.
You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own assumption
as "proof" that it's correct.
Well noted, for if there were money concerns like what Tommy always
tries to allude, the problem with that narrative attempt is why weren't
the above TP-Link & Wyze gear selected, since their cost is ~$400 less
than the UI stuff?
BTW, card inbound ..
-hh
On 2025-11-28 15:08, Tom Elam wrote:
Just a washed up hockey player, ski instructor, golfer and FF driver...
For the record, "washed up" implies things that aren't there.
I took up hockey at age 30.
As for ski instructor, it was a fun way to get a free season pass, and
I'd be doing it still, but the local mountains have made it contingent
on being willing to work through the entire Christmas season...
...and I'm not willing to do that.
Golfer: I was self-taught, single-digit handicap with a swing lauded by better golfers than myself.
And FF driver: well I'm as fast as a guy who had decades of high-level professional racing experience...
...so I'm definitely not "washed up" there.
On 2025-11-28 14:55, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/27/2025 10:27 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/26/25 13:35, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-26 09:39, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/26/2025 11:09 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 21:12, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-25 17:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/25/2025 3:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/25/25 14:52, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/17/2025 1:44 PM, -hh wrote:
Yeah, so? Recall that I eyeballed it & noted the
nonlinearity from the very start without even needing to do >>>>>>>>>>> any math...because I understood the basic data apparently >>>>>>>>>>> much better than you did (and still do).
You have not responded for several days. I'm thinking that >>>>>>>>>> calling a simple scatter plot a statistical "work product" has >>>>>>>>>> to be embarrassing.
Nope.
You've claimed to have offered just one hour's worth of
consulting time in total. What you would get for that is a >>>>>>>>> summary overview of what you've missed, as validated by your >>>>>>>>> 'full' spreadsheet.
Of course you'll not like that answer because you want all of >>>>>>>>> the work to be also done for that one hour, which is
unrealistic & disingenuous: the sign of a bad customer who's >>>>>>>>> determined to never be satisfied. Thus, you're not worth my time. >>>>>>>>>
[snipped, without reading]
-hh
OK, I'll take you up on the one hour. $150 for finding out what >>>>>>>> I missed. I'm always willing to learn.
Of course, the advice must be useful as measured by a material >>>>>>>> model improvement, not duplicate what I have already done, and >>>>>>>> not call for additional data that is not available or does not >>>>>>>> even exist. If your advice calls for a statistical model beyond >>>>>>>> Excel's capability I can rent something else.
All I need from you if the work is useful is sufficient info for >>>>>>>> a PayPal, Venmo or Zelle transfer.
So you'll get to decide afterward if the "work is useful"...
...and then you'll pay?
LOL!
And already anticipated:
"Of course you'll not like that answer... the sign of a bad
customer who's determined to never be satisfied. Thus, you're not >>>>>> worth my time."
Tommy has now confirmed that he 100% intends to welsh.
-hh
I will pay if you give me useful information.
"No true Scotsman".
As I've said, Tommy's intent is to welsh.
You have had weeks to think about this. You have stated several
times that you can help improve the model. It should take no more
than 10 minutes to type in your ideas and hit the send arrow.
That's actually $900 an hour.
I do not think you have anything useful. I think you want $150 up
front for nothing. After all, you are the same person who told me I >>>>> would need to travel to England to see a friend of yours who could
validate my pilot logbook.
Quote please, Liarboy.
He's whining again about an offer I made to see about asking an old
friend of mine to review his flight logs. At the time, that friend
was a senior FAA official working & living in UK...
It was more than that. You suggested that since I was rich I could
just pop over with my logbook to show your "friend". You later
backtracked and said that had I actually planned to go you would tell
me there was no such friend there at that time.
QUOTE IT, Asshole.
Liar.
Asshole.
On 11/29/2025 4:20 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/28/25 17:49, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on
right now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream Router
7; you may recall that I had been looking at it (well, the prior
version) back during CoVid, but it was constantly out of stock.
Figured I'd try it out, along with their G5 Pro 4K UHD webcam.
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem to be
on sale there.
Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale, Asshole?
For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing research...
...you seem to be utterly clueless.
<https://store.ui.com/us/en/tags/black-friday?c=US>
Took me 30 seconds to find.
Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a "gotcha"
moment, Asshole?
Ding, ding, ding!
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black
Friday...
Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.
Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.
Pretty much, despite Tommy guessing correctly that Black Friday sale
advertisements were involved. The problem with his narrative attempt
is that I wasn't the one reading the ads: they were mentioned to me.
These were a Wirecutter article for a $80 TP-Link which prompted a "do
you need a new router?" question. Similarly, a Wyze BF email for a
<$20 security cam was: "need more cameras?" question. Even though
everything's been okay, I took a look for opportunity's sake.
You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own assumption
as "proof" that it's correct.
Well noted, for if there were money concerns like what Tommy always
tries to allude, the problem with that narrative attempt is why
weren't the above TP-Link & Wyze gear selected, since their cost is
~$400 less than the UI stuff?
BTW, card inbound ..
-hh
Hugh, I'm pretty sure you do not have money issues.
But I am sick and tired of you implying I do.
Tit-for-tat that was.
On 11/28/2025 6:33 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 14:55, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/27/2025 10:27 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/26/25 13:35, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-26 09:39, Tom Elam wrote:
...
I do not think you have anything useful. I think you want $150 up >>>>>> front for nothing. After all, you are the same person who told me >>>>>> I would need to travel to England to see a friend of yours who
could validate my pilot logbook.
Quote please, Liarboy.
He's whining again about an offer I made to see about asking an old
friend of mine to review his flight logs. At the time, that friend
was a senior FAA official working & living in UK...
It was more than that. You suggested that since I was rich I could
just pop over with my logbook to show your "friend". You later
backtracked and said that had I actually planned to go you would tell
me there was no such friend there at that time.
QUOTE IT, Asshole.
No need to quote anything. Hugh admits he baited me with that story
about a FAA "friend" in England.
On 11/30/25 08:42, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 6:33 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 14:55, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/27/2025 10:27 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/26/25 13:35, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-26 09:39, Tom Elam wrote:
...
I do not think you have anything useful. I think you want $150 up >>>>>>> front for nothing. After all, you are the same person who told me >>>>>>> I would need to travel to England to see a friend of yours who
could validate my pilot logbook.
Quote please, Liarboy.
He's whining again about an offer I made to see about asking an old >>>>> friend of mine to review his flight logs. At the time, that friend >>>>> was a senior FAA official working & living in UK...
It was more than that. You suggested that since I was rich I could
just pop over with my logbook to show your "friend". You later
backtracked and said that had I actually planned to go you would
tell me there was no such friend there at that time.
QUOTE IT, Asshole.
No need to quote anything. Hugh admits he baited me with that story
about a FAA "friend" in England.
Another false allegation from Tommy, as I had simply stated facts.
To further debunk Tommy, here's a personal photo of mine taken during
one of my visits to his UK countryside home...FYI, I've piped through
TinEye to show that it is unique and not stolen off of the internet like MuahMan used to do:
<https://tineye.com/search/b47681166c569d1f8e7b5b50735db072c6a43205? tags=&sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1>
-hh
On 11/29/25 16:41, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/29/2025 4:20 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/28/25 17:49, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on
right now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream Router >>>>>> 7; you may recall that I had been looking at it (well, the prior
version) back during CoVid, but it was constantly out of stock.
Figured I'd try it out, along with their G5 Pro 4K UHD webcam.
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem to be >>>>> on sale there.
Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale, Asshole?
For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing research...
...you seem to be utterly clueless.
<https://store.ui.com/us/en/tags/black-friday?c=US>
Took me 30 seconds to find.
Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a "gotcha"
moment, Asshole?
Ding, ding, ding!
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black
Friday...
Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.
Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.
Pretty much, despite Tommy guessing correctly that Black Friday sale
advertisements were involved. The problem with his narrative attempt
is that I wasn't the one reading the ads: they were mentioned to me.
These were a Wirecutter article for a $80 TP-Link which prompted a
"do you need a new router?" question. Similarly, a Wyze BF email for
a <$20 security cam was: "need more cameras?" question. Even though
everything's been okay, I took a look for opportunity's sake.
You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own
assumption as "proof" that it's correct.
Well noted, for if there were money concerns like what Tommy always
tries to allude, the problem with that narrative attempt is why
weren't the above TP-Link & Wyze gear selected, since their cost is
~$400 less than the UI stuff?
BTW, card inbound ..
-hh
Hugh, I'm pretty sure you do not have money issues.
Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40: "But since you seem
to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."
Likewise, same piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58: "Followup #2 ... My take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very important to YOU.
Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?"
But I am sick and tired of you implying I do.
If you're so sick & tired of discussing wealth, why is it that you're invariably who brings it up?
You're always desperately trying to make you look good, and often in comparison to Alan, who's ~2 decades younger than you and has had ~half
as many years of wealth accumulation.
Tit-for-tat that was.
Except that your 'revenge' is invalid.
When you've pulled these dick-measuring brag attempts before, I've specifically noted that your comparisons were invalid because of your
age difference. You've been asked for what level of net worth would be appropriate for someone who's a fraction of your age. Did you ever
answer to that? Nope.
So until you do, you're at risk of being reminded of your systematic dishonesty whenever you start to try to brag about money.
-hh
On 11/30/2025 10:20 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/30/25 08:42, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 6:33 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 14:55, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/27/2025 10:27 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/26/25 13:35, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-26 09:39, Tom Elam wrote:
...
I do not think you have anything useful. I think you want $150 >>>>>>>> up front for nothing. After all, you are the same person who
told me I would need to travel to England to see a friend of
yours who could validate my pilot logbook.
Quote please, Liarboy.
He's whining again about an offer I made to see about asking an
old friend of mine to review his flight logs. At the time, that >>>>>> friend was a senior FAA official working & living in UK...
It was more than that. You suggested that since I was rich I could
just pop over with my logbook to show your "friend". You later
backtracked and said that had I actually planned to go you would
tell me there was no such friend there at that time.
QUOTE IT, Asshole.
No need to quote anything. Hugh admits he baited me with that story
about a FAA "friend" in England.
Another false allegation from Tommy, as I had simply stated facts.
To further debunk Tommy, here's a personal photo of mine taken during
one of my visits to his UK countryside home...FYI, I've piped through
TinEye to show that it is unique and not stolen off of the internet
like MuahMan used to do:
<https://tineye.com/search/b47681166c569d1f8e7b5b50735db072c6a43205?
tags=&sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1>
-hh
That is not exactly what I meant by baiting.
The "baiting" for me was
that you inferred FAA routinely examines pilot logbooks to validate
entries.
Not true. If it was true, and it is not, there is a local FAA
office. No need to go to England.
On 11/30/2025 10:20 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/29/25 16:41, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/29/2025 4:20 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/28/25 17:49, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on >>>>>>> right now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream Router >>>>>>> 7; you may recall that I had been looking at it (well, the prior >>>>>>> version) back during CoVid, but it was constantly out of stock. >>>>>>> Figured I'd try it out, along with their G5 Pro 4K UHD webcam.
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem to
be on sale there.
Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale, Asshole? >>>>>
For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing research... >>>>>
...you seem to be utterly clueless.
<https://store.ui.com/us/en/tags/black-friday?c=US>
Took me 30 seconds to find.
Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a "gotcha" >>>>> moment, Asshole?
Ding, ding, ding!
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black >>>>>> Friday...
Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.
Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.
Pretty much, despite Tommy guessing correctly that Black Friday sale
advertisements were involved. The problem with his narrative
attempt is that I wasn't the one reading the ads: they were
mentioned to me. These were a Wirecutter article for a $80 TP-Link
which prompted a "do you need a new router?" question. Similarly, a >>>> Wyze BF email for a <$20 security cam was: "need more cameras?"
question. Even though everything's been okay, I took a look for
opportunity's sake.
You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own
assumption as "proof" that it's correct.
Well noted, for if there were money concerns like what Tommy always
tries to allude, the problem with that narrative attempt is why
weren't the above TP-Link & Wyze gear selected, since their cost is
~$400 less than the UI stuff?
BTW, card inbound ..
-hh
Hugh, I'm pretty sure you do not have money issues.
Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40: "But since you seem
to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."
Likewise, same piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58: "Followup #2 ... My take
is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very important to YOU.
Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?"
But I am sick and tired of you implying I do.
If you're so sick & tired of discussing wealth, why is it that you're
invariably who brings it up?
You're always desperately trying to make you look good, and often in
comparison to Alan, who's ~2 decades younger than you and has had
~half as many years of wealth accumulation.
Tit-for-tat that was.
Except that your 'revenge' is invalid.
When you've pulled these dick-measuring brag attempts before, I've
specifically noted that your comparisons were invalid because of your
age difference. You've been asked for what level of net worth would
be appropriate for someone who's a fraction of your age. Did you ever
answer to that? Nope.
So until you do, you're at risk of being reminded of your systematic
dishonesty whenever you start to try to brag about money.
-hh
LOL. Wow, your numbers are SO wrong.
Alan's ... [all snipped due to invalid termination date]
On 11/30/25 12:55, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/30/2025 10:20 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/29/25 16:41, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/29/2025 4:20 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/28/25 17:49, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on >>>>>>>> right now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream
Router 7; you may recall that I had been looking at it (well, >>>>>>>> the prior version) back during CoVid, but it was constantly out >>>>>>>> of stock. Figured I'd try it out, along with their G5 Pro 4K UHD >>>>>>>> webcam.
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem to >>>>>>> be on sale there.
Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale, Asshole? >>>>>>
For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing research... >>>>>>
...you seem to be utterly clueless.
<https://store.ui.com/us/en/tags/black-friday?c=US>
Took me 30 seconds to find.
Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a
"gotcha" moment, Asshole?
Ding, ding, ding!
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for
Black Friday...
Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.
Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.
Pretty much, despite Tommy guessing correctly that Black Friday
sale advertisements were involved. The problem with his narrative >>>>> attempt is that I wasn't the one reading the ads: they were
mentioned to me. These were a Wirecutter article for a $80 TP-Link
which prompted a "do you need a new router?" question. Similarly, >>>>> a Wyze BF email for a <$20 security cam was: "need more cameras?"
question. Even though everything's been okay, I took a look for
opportunity's sake.
You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own
assumption as "proof" that it's correct.
Well noted, for if there were money concerns like what Tommy always >>>>> tries to allude, the problem with that narrative attempt is why
weren't the above TP-Link & Wyze gear selected, since their cost is >>>>> ~$400 less than the UI stuff?
BTW, card inbound ..
-hh
Hugh, I'm pretty sure you do not have money issues.
Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40: "But since you
seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."
Likewise, same piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58: "Followup #2 ... My take
is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very important to
YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?"
But I am sick and tired of you implying I do.
If you're so sick & tired of discussing wealth, why is it that you're
invariably who brings it up?
You're always desperately trying to make you look good, and often in
comparison to Alan, who's ~2 decades younger than you and has had
~half as many years of wealth accumulation.
Tit-for-tat that was.
Except that your 'revenge' is invalid.
When you've pulled these dick-measuring brag attempts before, I've
specifically noted that your comparisons were invalid because of your
age difference. You've been asked for what level of net worth would
be appropriate for someone who's a fraction of your age. Did you
ever answer to that? Nope.
So until you do, you're at risk of being reminded of your systematic
dishonesty whenever you start to try to brag about money.
-hh
LOL. Wow, your numbers are SO wrong.
Nope, just dated to when your trolling started which was years ago.
Alan's ... [all snipped due to invalid termination date]
Go back to the year when you first started your trolling and see how
those numbers work out to then, not 2025.
For as I said, you never answered the question back then.
-hh
comparison to Alan, who's ~2 decades younger than you and has had
~half as many years of wealth accumulation."
On 11/30/2025 4:33 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/30/25 12:55, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/30/2025 10:20 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/29/25 16:41, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/29/2025 4:20 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/28/25 17:49, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on >>>>>>>>> right now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream
Router 7; you may recall that I had been looking at it (well, >>>>>>>>> the prior version) back during CoVid, but it was constantly out >>>>>>>>> of stock. Figured I'd try it out, along with their G5 Pro 4K >>>>>>>>> UHD webcam.
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem to >>>>>>>> be on sale there.
Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale, Asshole? >>>>>>>
For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing research... >>>>>>>
...you seem to be utterly clueless.
<https://store.ui.com/us/en/tags/black-friday?c=US>
Took me 30 seconds to find.
Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a
"gotcha" moment, Asshole?
Ding, ding, ding!
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for
Black Friday...
Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.
Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.
Pretty much, despite Tommy guessing correctly that Black Friday
sale advertisements were involved. The problem with his narrative >>>>>> attempt is that I wasn't the one reading the ads: they were
mentioned to me. These were a Wirecutter article for a $80 TP-Link >>>>>> which prompted a "do you need a new router?" question. Similarly, >>>>>> a Wyze BF email for a <$20 security cam was: "need more cameras?" >>>>>> question. Even though everything's been okay, I took a look for >>>>>> opportunity's sake.
You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own
assumption as "proof" that it's correct.
Well noted, for if there were money concerns like what Tommy
always tries to allude, the problem with that narrative attempt is >>>>>> why weren't the above TP-Link & Wyze gear selected, since their
cost is ~$400 less than the UI stuff?
BTW, card inbound ..
-hh
Hugh, I'm pretty sure you do not have money issues.
Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40: "But since you
seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."
Likewise, same piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58: "Followup #2 ... My take >>>> is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very important to
YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?"
But I am sick and tired of you implying I do.
If you're so sick & tired of discussing wealth, why is it that
you're invariably who brings it up?
You're always desperately trying to make you look good, and often in
comparison to Alan, who's ~2 decades younger than you and has had
~half as many years of wealth accumulation.
Tit-for-tat that was.
Except that your 'revenge' is invalid.
When you've pulled these dick-measuring brag attempts before, I've
specifically noted that your comparisons were invalid because of
your age difference. You've been asked for what level of net worth
would be appropriate for someone who's a fraction of your age. Did
you ever answer to that? Nope.
So until you do, you're at risk of being reminded of your systematic
dishonesty whenever you start to try to brag about money.
-hh
LOL. Wow, your numbers are SO wrong.
Nope, just dated to when your trolling started which was years ago.
Alan's ... [all snipped due to invalid termination date]
Go back to the year when you first started your trolling and see how
those numbers work out to then, not 2025.
For as I said, you never answered the question back then.
-hh
Total BS excuse. Read your own post.
No brag here, only facts.
"You're always desperately trying to make you look good, and often in
comparison to Alan, who's ~2 decades younger than you and has had
~half as many years of wealth accumulation."
Back then? That is all PRESENT tense, not PAST tense. But it does not matter. You are still VERY wrong.
Alan has NEVER been 20 years younger, more like 10 or 11.
The difference in workforce entry is only 9 years. In 1992 Alan had
11 years of work to my 20.
On 12/1/25 09:22, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/30/2025 4:33 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/30/25 12:55, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/30/2025 10:20 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/29/25 16:41, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/29/2025 4:20 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/28/25 17:49, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going >>>>>>>>>> on right now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream >>>>>>>>>> Router 7; you may recall that I had been looking at it (well, >>>>>>>>>> the prior version) back during CoVid, but it was constantly >>>>>>>>>> out of stock. Figured I'd try it out, along with their G5 Pro >>>>>>>>>> 4K UHD webcam.
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem >>>>>>>>> to be on sale there.
Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale,
Asshole?
For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing
research...
...you seem to be utterly clueless.
<https://store.ui.com/us/en/tags/black-friday?c=US>
Took me 30 seconds to find.
Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a
"gotcha" moment, Asshole?
Ding, ding, ding!
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for >>>>>>>>> Black Friday...
Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.
Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.
Pretty much, despite Tommy guessing correctly that Black Friday >>>>>>> sale advertisements were involved. The problem with his
narrative attempt is that I wasn't the one reading the ads: they >>>>>>> were mentioned to me. These were a Wirecutter article for a $80 >>>>>>> TP-Link which prompted a "do you need a new router?" question. >>>>>>> Similarly, a Wyze BF email for a <$20 security cam was: "need
more cameras?" question. Even though everything's been okay, I >>>>>>> took a look for opportunity's sake.
You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own
assumption as "proof" that it's correct.
Well noted, for if there were money concerns like what Tommy
always tries to allude, the problem with that narrative attempt >>>>>>> is why weren't the above TP-Link & Wyze gear selected, since
their cost is ~$400 less than the UI stuff?
BTW, card inbound ..
-hh
Hugh, I'm pretty sure you do not have money issues.
Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40: "But since you
seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."
Likewise, same piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58: "Followup #2 ... My
take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very important >>>>> to YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?"
But I am sick and tired of you implying I do.
If you're so sick & tired of discussing wealth, why is it that
you're invariably who brings it up?
You're always desperately trying to make you look good, and often
in comparison to Alan, who's ~2 decades younger than you and has
had ~half as many years of wealth accumulation.
Tit-for-tat that was.
Except that your 'revenge' is invalid.
When you've pulled these dick-measuring brag attempts before, I've
specifically noted that your comparisons were invalid because of
your age difference. You've been asked for what level of net worth >>>>> would be appropriate for someone who's a fraction of your age. Did >>>>> you ever answer to that? Nope.
So until you do, you're at risk of being reminded of your
systematic dishonesty whenever you start to try to brag about money. >>>>>
-hh
LOL. Wow, your numbers are SO wrong.
Nope, just dated to when your trolling started which was years ago.
Alan's ... [all snipped due to invalid termination date]
Go back to the year when you first started your trolling and see how
those numbers work out to then, not 2025.
For as I said, you never answered the question back then.
-hh
Total BS excuse. Read your own post.
No brag here, only facts.
"You're always desperately trying to make you look good, and often in
comparison to Alan, who's ~2 decades younger than you and has had
~half as many years of wealth accumulation."
Back then? That is all PRESENT tense, not PAST tense. But it does not
matter. You are still VERY wrong.
No, it was your clue to check your math.:
"Alan's LinkedIn profile says he started high school in 1975. If 18
then, he was born in 1957, ..."
Oh, so how many people **START** high school at age 18, hmmmm?
In the US, a freshman starting 9th grade is typically age 14 or 15, and gradates 4.5 years later, usually at age 18.
As such, a 1975 start nominally means born in 1960-61, not your 1957.
Plus this assumes similarity to US education, which isn't necessarily
so: in Canada, most Provinces consider secondary education to start in
8th (some, 7th) grade: so it nominally means born in 1961-63. Not 1957.
Alan has NEVER been 20 years younger, more like 10 or 11.
More like 1946 to 1962 = 16 years.
The difference in workforce entry is only 9 years. In 1992 Alan had 11
years of work to my 20.
Only if you totally ignore your pre-PhD jobs...right?
[quote]
1960-64 - delivered newspapers, Junior High and High School
1965-1966 - Part time grocery store clerk during undergrad school, left
for better pay and better job
1966-1969 - Part time technician, City Planning Department (and
undergrad school) left to go to grad school. This was a GREAT job, loved
the work and it paid 4x minimum wage.
1969-1972 - Grad school on NSF Fellowship, UT Knoxville, MS/PhD Ag Economics.
1972-1975 - Assistant Prof Economics, No. KY State U, left due to
contract termination...
[/quote]
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/h48mmyD0_-I/ m/2qp5Ptgap1gJ>
So by your above 1992 benchmark date, you'd already had various jobs for
a period of 32 years (vs allegedly 11): a 21 year delta & a ~3:1 ratio.
Plus even if we take off your high school gig, its still 27 years for a
16 year delta & 2.5:1 ratio.
It doesn't drop to 2:1 until 1997...but just how far back does your CSMA
bit on this topic go back? Got its start date figured out yet?
Point here is that very few PhD's have zero work experience prior to
getting their terminal degree, including you.
By your methodology of "counting", I can figuratively drop quite a few
years of earnings done prior to my highest degree, which by comparison
makes your wealth brag attempts even more wanting ;-)
-hh
On 12/1/2025 11:59 AM, -hh wrote:
On 12/1/25 09:22, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/30/2025 4:33 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/30/25 12:55, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/30/2025 10:20 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/29/25 16:41, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/29/2025 4:20 PM, -hh wrote:
On 11/28/25 17:49, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:
BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going >>>>>>>>>>> on right now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream >>>>>>>>>>> Router 7; you may recall that I had been looking at it (well, >>>>>>>>>>> the prior version) back during CoVid, but it was constantly >>>>>>>>>>> out of stock. Figured I'd try it out, along with their G5 Pro >>>>>>>>>>> 4K UHD webcam.
Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem >>>>>>>>>> to be on sale there.
Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale, >>>>>>>>> Asshole?
For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing
research...
...you seem to be utterly clueless.
<https://store.ui.com/us/en/tags/black-friday?c=US>
Took me 30 seconds to find.
Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a
"gotcha" moment, Asshole?
Ding, ding, ding!
But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for >>>>>>>>>> Black Friday...
Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.
Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.
Pretty much, despite Tommy guessing correctly that Black Friday >>>>>>>> sale advertisements were involved. The problem with his
narrative attempt is that I wasn't the one reading the ads: they >>>>>>>> were mentioned to me. These were a Wirecutter article for a $80 >>>>>>>> TP-Link which prompted a "do you need a new router?" question. >>>>>>>> Similarly, a Wyze BF email for a <$20 security cam was: "need >>>>>>>> more cameras?" question. Even though everything's been okay, I >>>>>>>> took a look for opportunity's sake.
You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own
assumption as "proof" that it's correct.
Well noted, for if there were money concerns like what Tommy
always tries to allude, the problem with that narrative attempt >>>>>>>> is why weren't the above TP-Link & Wyze gear selected, since
their cost is ~$400 less than the UI stuff?
BTW, card inbound ..
-hh
Hugh, I'm pretty sure you do not have money issues.
Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40: "But since you >>>>>> seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."
Likewise, same piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58: "Followup #2 ... My
take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very
important to YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are >>>>>> you?"
But I am sick and tired of you implying I do.
If you're so sick & tired of discussing wealth, why is it that
you're invariably who brings it up?
You're always desperately trying to make you look good, and often >>>>>> in comparison to Alan, who's ~2 decades younger than you and has
had ~half as many years of wealth accumulation.
Tit-for-tat that was.
Except that your 'revenge' is invalid.
When you've pulled these dick-measuring brag attempts before, I've >>>>>> specifically noted that your comparisons were invalid because of
your age difference. You've been asked for what level of net
worth would be appropriate for someone who's a fraction of your
age. Did you ever answer to that? Nope.
So until you do, you're at risk of being reminded of your
systematic dishonesty whenever you start to try to brag about money. >>>>>>
-hh
LOL. Wow, your numbers are SO wrong.
Nope, just dated to when your trolling started which was years ago.
Alan's ... [all snipped due to invalid termination date]
Go back to the year when you first started your trolling and see how
those numbers work out to then, not 2025.
For as I said, you never answered the question back then.
-hh
Total BS excuse. Read your own post.
No brag here, only facts.
"You're always desperately trying to make you look good, and often in
comparison to Alan, who's ~2 decades younger than you and has had
~half as many years of wealth accumulation."
Back then? That is all PRESENT tense, not PAST tense. But it does not
matter. You are still VERY wrong.
No, it was your clue to check your math.:
"Alan's LinkedIn profile says he started high school in 1975. If 18
then, he was born in 1957, ..."
Oh, so how many people **START** high school at age 18, hmmmm?
In the US, a freshman starting 9th grade is typically age 14 or 15,
and gradates 4.5 years later, usually at age 18.
As such, a 1975 start nominally means born in 1960-61, not your 1957.
Plus this assumes similarity to US education, which isn't necessarily
so: in Canada, most Provinces consider secondary education to start
in 8th (some, 7th) grade: so it nominally means born in 1961-63. Not
1957.
Alan has NEVER been 20 years younger, more like 10 or 11.
More like 1946 to 1962 = 16 years.
The difference in workforce entry is only 9 years. In 1992 Alan had
11 years of work to my 20.
Only if you totally ignore your pre-PhD jobs...right?
[quote]
1960-64 - delivered newspapers, Junior High and High School
1965-1966 - Part time grocery store clerk during undergrad school,
left for better pay and better job
1966-1969 - Part time technician, City Planning Department (and
undergrad school) left to go to grad school. This was a GREAT job,
loved the work and it paid 4x minimum wage.
1969-1972 - Grad school on NSF Fellowship, UT Knoxville, MS/PhD Ag
Economics.
1972-1975 - Assistant Prof Economics, No. KY State U, left due to
contract termination...
[/quote]
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/h48mmyD0_-I/
m/2qp5Ptgap1gJ>
So by your above 1992 benchmark date, you'd already had various jobs
for a period of 32 years (vs allegedly 11): a 21 year delta & a ~3:1
ratio.
Plus even if we take off your high school gig, its still 27 years for
a 16 year delta & 2.5:1 ratio.
It doesn't drop to 2:1 until 1997...but just how far back does your
CSMA bit on this topic go back? Got its start date figured out yet?
Point here is that very few PhD's have zero work experience prior to
getting their terminal degree, including you.
By your methodology of "counting", I can figuratively drop quite a few
years of earnings done prior to my highest degree, which by comparison
makes your wealth brag attempts even more wanting ;-)
-hh
My work experience prior to 1972 contributed zero to my savings, ...
... AND we do not have Alan's pre-college work record. Thus no way to
compare based on this flaw in your timeline. We can compare post-college.
My math is consistent with available data and correct.
I don't don't have a clue when it all started. According to the Google Groups archive My first post was in 1997 and over 6000 posts through 2/22/24. You know, so tell me.
I do not doubt for one second that like millions of other people you may have done better than me over a similar timeline. Heck, there are 30ish
year old tech billionaires out there. But that is not the comparison in question.
I have posted recent images of SOME of my account balances.
All we have is your word for yours. Not a bit of documentation.
Given your history of deflection and deception your brag is
worthless until proven.
On 11/30/25 12:05, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/30/2025 10:20 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/30/25 08:42, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/28/2025 6:33 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-28 14:55, Tom Elam wrote:
On 11/27/2025 10:27 AM, -hh wrote:
On 11/26/25 13:35, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-26 09:39, Tom Elam wrote:
...
I do not think you have anything useful. I think you want $150 >>>>>>>>> up front for nothing. After all, you are the same person who >>>>>>>>> told me I would need to travel to England to see a friend of >>>>>>>>> yours who could validate my pilot logbook.
Quote please, Liarboy.
He's whining again about an offer I made to see about asking an >>>>>>> old friend of mine to review his flight logs. At the time, that >>>>>>> friend was a senior FAA official working & living in UK...
It was more than that. You suggested that since I was rich I could >>>>>> just pop over with my logbook to show your "friend". You later
backtracked and said that had I actually planned to go you would
tell me there was no such friend there at that time.
QUOTE IT, Asshole.
No need to quote anything. Hugh admits he baited me with that story
about a FAA "friend" in England.
Another false allegation from Tommy, as I had simply stated facts.
To further debunk Tommy, here's a personal photo of mine taken during
one of my visits to his UK countryside home...FYI, I've piped through
TinEye to show that it is unique and not stolen off of the internet
like MuahMan used to do:
<https://tineye.com/search/b47681166c569d1f8e7b5b50735db072c6a43205?
tags=&sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1>
-hh
That is not exactly what I meant by baiting.
No, that's a backpedal from you saying "friend" in scare quotes:
once again you failed to realize that I have no need to lie since the
truth is more devastating to you.
The "baiting" for me was that you inferred FAA routinely examines
pilot logbooks to validate entries.
Nope. It was for an unofficial, off-the-record review. As Alan said, "Quote it": go find & provide the original with a Google Groups URL
link for us all to read, in full context.
Not true. If it was true, and it is not, there is a local FAA office.
No need to go to England.
Nope, because I had offered to call in a personal favor; its not my
fault or problem that they didn't happen to live in your backyard.
And had it gone down, you too might have been shanghaied into learning
how to do horsehair plastering for his office conversion (one of those
small headaches of having a historic register home worth over £1M).
-hh
Except for how Alan entered high school as an 18 year old freshman? /s
I don't don't have a clue when it all started. According to the Google
Groups archive My first post was in 1997 and over 6000 posts through
2/22/24. You know, so tell me.
I do not doubt for one second that like millions of other people you
may have done better than me over a similar timeline. Heck, there are
30ish year old tech billionaires out there. But that is not the
comparison in question.
I have posted recent images of SOME of my account balances.
Which also showed your total liquid net worth as $2,511,932.38 .. oops!
All we have is your word for yours. Not a bit of documentation.
Because your own 'screencap' couldn't be faked? Try again.
Given your history of deflection and deception your brag is worthless
until proven.
Nah, you just didn't understand the point in that statement:
"By your methodology of 'counting', I can figuratively drop quite a few years of earnings done prior to my highest degree, which by comparison
makes your wealth brag attempts even more wanting".
The first part is a cut in the years of accumulation prior to the
terminal degree, just as you did. You probably don't know how many (or few) years that is.
The second part is an implied net worth comparable to your's (eg. your
above value), but its not stated if it is under, equal, or over.
The third part was something you've been reminded of it again in this thread: age-based differences in accumulation opportunities. That age difference is a handicap of many, many fewer years of accumulation as
you've had at your age of 79, so even getting close to catching up is
well "ahead of Tommy's schedule". That's where you very well may
realized that your brag attempts have been found to be ... wanting.
FYI, if more than merely catching up, that makes it even worse for you.
So am I really bragging? Or just pointing out that maybe your total accumulation that you try to be so proud of is perhaps actually due to
other factors, such as working a decade longer than the average American man, into your mid-70s.
Nevertheless, I'll afford you a little peek at a lower limit, but only because I've already shared it with RSG's "the other Tom" six years ago:That image says nothing. No row labels and many ######'d data cells.
On 2025-11-13, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 11/12/25 17:30, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-12 06:19, Tom Elam wrote:
You have, in great detail, criticized my statistical modeling skills.
Yet, you have offered no advice on how to improve the model I built
for my home's 16 year history of electric use.
It's time to put up or shut up. How would you construct such a model
given that the only use data are monthly?
I want a detailed specification of variables and functional form.
Better yet, build your model for your house and publish it below.
You're quite the whiny little asshole, aren't you?
He absolutely is...
...for he's trying to hope that readers have forgotten that I did offer
my consulting services, but he would have to pay (IRL $$) for them.
-hh
Consulting services?
LAME.
Even for you.
A 3 line reply rather than your usual "War And Peace" rambling, boring post says it all hh.
On 12/1/2025 4:31 PM, -hh wrote:
Except for how Alan entered high school as an 18 year old freshman? /s
I don't don't have a clue when it all started. According to the
Google Groups archive My first post was in 1997 and over 6000 posts
through 2/22/24. You know, so tell me.
I do not doubt for one second that like millions of other people you
may have done better than me over a similar timeline. Heck, there are
30ish year old tech billionaires out there. But that is not the
comparison in question.
I have posted recent images of SOME of my account balances.
Which also showed your total liquid net worth as $2,511,932.38 .. oops!
That was some of the accounts, not all.
All we have is your word for yours. Not a bit of documentation.
Because your own 'screencap' couldn't be faked? Try again.
Really? Faked? That would be a lot of trouble. What do you want, my
logon credentials?
Prove they were faked. You cannot of course. But, you can say they are.
That is what you do, ask for ever more evidence until the other party
gives up.
Given your history of deflection and deception your brag is worthless
until proven.
Nah, you just didn't understand the point in that statement:
"By your methodology of 'counting', I can figuratively drop quite a
few years of earnings done prior to my highest degree, which by
comparison makes your wealth brag attempts even more wanting".
Like I said, I'm not comparing to you....
The first part is a cut in the years of accumulation prior to the
terminal degree, just as you did. You probably don't know how many
(or few) years that is.
I do not for you, but for Alan I made a 5 year error yesterday or day before. Alan is actually about 63, not 68. Discovered that yesterday
when I double-checked the arithmetic.
The age difference is 16 years, not 11.
In 1989 I was 18 years into full-time work, Alan was 9 years.
for gig work too - Per LinkedIn. Bad optic.
The second part is an implied net worth comparable to your's (eg. your
above value), but its not stated if it is under, equal, or over.
The number above is not the whole picture, by quite a bit.
The third part was something you've been reminded of it again in this
thread: age-based differences in accumulation opportunities. That
age difference is a handicap of many, many fewer years of accumulation
as you've had at your age of 79, so even getting close to catching up
is well "ahead of Tommy's schedule". That's where you very well may
realized that your brag attempts have been found to be ... wanting.
FYI, if more than merely catching up, that makes it even worse for you.
My working post graduation working years were 1972-2002/3.
Nevertheless, I'll afford you a little peek at a lower limit, but only
because I've already shared it with RSG's "the other Tom" six years ago:
That image says nothing. No row labels and many ######'d data cells.
This image is junk, and maybe you faked it anyway.
Except that you've already been reminded that I don't need to lie
because the truth is invariably more devastating to you.
Because what Tommy's trying to do is that despite how he's repeatedly mentioned his use of MS-Excel that he's somehow never learned that when
a value is too large for a column's width, Excel uses ####'s to indicate
a display overflow. Here, it means that that value is more than five digits, so its a lower limit paramaterization.
On 12/2/2025 5:17 PM, -hh wrote:
Except that you've already been reminded that I don't need to lie
because the truth is invariably more devastating to you.
Because what Tommy's trying to do is that despite how he's repeatedly
mentioned his use of MS-Excel that he's somehow never learned that
when a value is too large for a column's width, Excel uses ####'s to
indicate a display overflow. Here, it means that that value is more
than five digits, so its a lower limit paramaterization.
I'll skip the BS about claiming I might not have posted real jpg's from brokerage account.
Yes, I know all about how Excel columns work. The point is that I chose
to show actual balances in actual accounts. You continue to make claims without any numerical evidence.
So show us your numbers, with some details on where they are, with 7
digits on the left of the decimal point.
I did.
I do not recall ever saying I have done better than you financially.
So how do we compare?
Who cares. I don't.
Nah, because your numbers show $1,704,517.51 to be missing.
On 12/3/2025 8:05 PM, -hh wrote:
Nah, because your numbers show $1,704,517.51 to be missing.
LOL, it was just a partial picture. Just like yours.
That makes me bad and you virtuous? Not.
I do not recall ever saying I have done better than you financially.
So how do we compare?
Who cares. I don't.
LOL, it was just a partial picture. Just like yours.
Except that it clearly says "all accounts" with a total of $2.51M.
On 12/5/2025 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
LOL, it was just a partial picture. Just like yours.
Except that it clearly says "all accounts" with a total of $2.51M.
Here again you jump to a bogus conclusion.
That was all accounts at that
one company. There are 4 of them. We have investments with other
companies (and cash not shown) too. Imagine that! Apparently you cannot.
To make you happy here are all of our investment accounts:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UevoIJ1SUe26Zq0XadMqEpgldjtJEq3B/view? usp=sharing
As of today, formatted just for you.
On 12/6/25 09:47, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/5/2025 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
LOL, it was just a partial picture. Just like yours.
Except that it clearly says "all accounts" with a total of $2.51M.
Here again you jump to a bogus conclusion.
Nope, for I'm not who posted a pic which said "All accounts".
That was all accounts at that one company. There are 4 of them. We
have investments with other companies (and cash not shown) too.
Imagine that! Apparently you cannot.
That claim doesn't square with what your own image displayed, because
your image shows five accounts, not four. There's the four obvious
ones, with claimed balances of $5.5K, $10.8K, $39K and $0.4K, plus
there's also "Individual Brokerage-2955" wtih $751.6K.
Plus as I've said before, there's ~$1.7M unaccounted for because the
above five accounts sum to $807.4K, but the "All Accounts" line claims
four accounts for $2.5M: $1,704,519 is not accounted for/undocumented.
Hmmm...maybe there was a Photoshop job done here, eh? /s
To make you happy here are all of our investment accounts:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UevoIJ1SUe26Zq0XadMqEpgldjtJEq3B/
view? usp=sharing
As of today, formatted just for you.
Funny how none of the balances are even close to what you posted as your balances on just seven days ago.
Funny how you're guilty of YA "do as I say, not as I do"...
...because you showed five digits, contrary to your own instructions:
"So show us your numbers, with some details on where they are, with 7
digits on the left of the decimal point. I did."
Plus the second brag attempt is fishy smelling too, as some lines look
like subtotals, possibly as a deception to try to encourage double- counting. For example, $14,186.87 is the exact sum of $7,048.54 + $7,138.33 values listed immediately below it, as is also $54,223.21 ($26,945.97 + $27,227.24).
Plus despite being allegedly of the same accounts, the two brags
attempts don't appear to align well: where is the former's $39.1K HYSA
in the latter? Did it drop by ~$12K in value in just one week?
-hh
On 12/6/2025 9:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/6/25 09:47, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/5/2025 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
LOL, it was just a partial picture. Just like yours.
Except that it clearly says "all accounts" with a total of $2.51M.
Here again you jump to a bogus conclusion.
Nope, for I'm not who posted a pic which said "All accounts".
That was all accounts at that one company. There are 4 of them. We
have investments with other companies (and cash not shown) too.
Imagine that! Apparently you cannot.
That claim doesn't square with what your own image displayed, because
your image shows five accounts, not four. There's the four obvious
ones, with claimed balances of $5.5K, $10.8K, $39K and $0.4K, plus
there's also "Individual Brokerage-2955" wtih $751.6K.
Plus as I've said before, there's ~$1.7M unaccounted for because the
above five accounts sum to $807.4K, but the "All Accounts" line claims
four accounts for $2.5M: $1,704,519 is not accounted for/undocumented.
Hmmm...maybe there was a Photoshop job done here, eh? /s
To make you happy here are all of our investment accounts:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UevoIJ1SUe26Zq0XadMqEpgldjtJEq3B/
view? usp=sharing
As of today, formatted just for you.
Funny how none of the balances are even close to what you posted as
your balances on just seven days ago.
Funny how you're guilty of YA "do as I say, not as I do"...
...because you showed five digits, contrary to your own instructions:
"So show us your numbers, with some details on where they are, with 7
digits on the left of the decimal point. I did."
Plus the second brag attempt is fishy smelling too, as some lines look
like subtotals, possibly as a deception to try to encourage double-
counting. For example, $14,186.87 is the exact sum of $7,048.54 +
$7,138.33 values listed immediately below it, as is also $54,223.21
($26,945.97 + $27,227.24).
Plus despite being allegedly of the same accounts, the two brags
attempts don't appear to align well: where is the former's $39.1K
HYSA in the latter? Did it drop by ~$12K in value in just one week?
-hh
LOL! You are totally confused. Score!
You will never see all details, > but look at this again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/145PxsEKUioG_HkUEKF8mzkUZQx_wsZqB/view? usp=sharing
The first image is a brokerage with 4 accounts. The second is a credit
union snapshot with 4 accounts.
There are other brokerage and cash accounts.
Stop trying to put is all
together when you do not, and never will see, the total picture.
Yes, the carefully redacted Excel version I downloaded from Quicken has different numbers. That is because it is investments only, not any
banking numbers.
What you are saying is a major change in amounts is actually VERY
VERY different accounts, investments not cash, with the names
hidden from you. There subtotals in the Excel image. Of course you
are confused. The intent was not to inform.
The only way this ever go started in the first place was you baiting
with claims that I am bragging about my financial status. Honest person
that I am I tried to show I'm not lying.
I could care less that you are among the many who have accumulated
more in less time that we have.
Your amateurish attempts to reconcile incomplete and seemingly
inconsistent data, all of which are accurate by themselves, are
hilarious, never ending, and fruitless. I'm going to stop this here. You need to give it up too. You are being made a fool.
On 12/7/25 12:06, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/6/2025 9:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/6/25 09:47, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/5/2025 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
LOL, it was just a partial picture. Just like yours.
Except that it clearly says "all accounts" with a total of $2.51M.
Here again you jump to a bogus conclusion.
Nope, for I'm not who posted a pic which said "All accounts".
That was all accounts at that one company. There are 4 of them. We
have investments with other companies (and cash not shown) too.
Imagine that! Apparently you cannot.
That claim doesn't square with what your own image displayed, because
your image shows five accounts, not four. There's the four obvious
ones, with claimed balances of $5.5K, $10.8K, $39K and $0.4K, plus
there's also "Individual Brokerage-2955" wtih $751.6K.
Plus as I've said before, there's ~$1.7M unaccounted for because the
above five accounts sum to $807.4K, but the "All Accounts" line
claims four accounts for $2.5M: $1,704,519 is not accounted for/
undocumented.
Hmmm...maybe there was a Photoshop job done here, eh? /s
To make you happy here are all of our investment accounts:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UevoIJ1SUe26Zq0XadMqEpgldjtJEq3B/
view? usp=sharing
As of today, formatted just for you.
Funny how none of the balances are even close to what you posted as
your balances on just seven days ago.
Funny how you're guilty of YA "do as I say, not as I do"...
...because you showed five digits, contrary to your own instructions:
"So show us your numbers, with some details on where they are, with 7
digits on the left of the decimal point. I did."
Plus the second brag attempt is fishy smelling too, as some lines
look like subtotals, possibly as a deception to try to encourage
double- counting. For example, $14,186.87 is the exact sum of
$7,048.54 + $7,138.33 values listed immediately below it, as is also
$54,223.21 ($26,945.97 + $27,227.24).
Plus despite being allegedly of the same accounts, the two brags
attempts don't appear to align well: where is the former's $39.1K
HYSA in the latter? Did it drop by ~$12K in value in just one week?
-hh
LOL! You are totally confused. Score!
Tommy confesses that deception was actually his goal.
You will never see all details, > but look at this again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/145PxsEKUioG_HkUEKF8mzkUZQx_wsZqB/
view? usp=sharing
The first image is a brokerage with 4 accounts. The second is a credit
union snapshot with 4 accounts.
Incorrect, for you provided only one image.
That you Photoshopped multiple images together doesn't change that the
first says that its total is $2.511M
Nor that we can sum the four CU accounts to get $55.8K, so even if your latest attempted explanation is accepted that these are in addition to
the prior, its a "so what?" because adding the CU's $55.8K is just a
minor +2% change.
There are other brokerage and cash accounts.
To which we're expected to believe that while Tommy's trying to make a maximal brag about himself that he chose to not include? Does not fly.
Stop trying to put is all together when you do not, and never will
see, the total picture.
Yet that didn't stop you from trying to demand the total picture of others...hypocrite much?
Yes, the carefully redacted Excel version I downloaded from Quicken
has different numbers. That is because it is investments only, not any
banking numbers.
Since you've already provided what you claimed were four credit union banking accounts, what sense does it make to do that?
What you are saying is a major change in amounts is actually VERY
VERY different accounts, investments not cash, with the names hidden
from you. There subtotals in the Excel image. Of course you are
confused. The intent was not to inform.
Of course the intent was not to inform: it is to try to deceive. Notice how Tommy avoided acknowledging that at least two of his numbers were subtotals?
The only way this ever go started in the first place was you baiting
with claims that I am bragging about my financial status. Honest
person that I am I tried to show I'm not lying.
Just merely two deceptive documents (so far) & lying through omission:
"Throwing out misleading and irreverent numbers to impress others.
Bad, very bad."
- Tom Elam, on 12/5/25 10:10
I could care less that you are among the many who have accumulated
more in less time that we have.
Gosh, what a quick 180 turn, from just over a week ago, when Tommy was claiming the opposite (still!):
Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40: "But since you seem
to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."
Likewise, same arrogant piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58: "Followup #2 ... My take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very important to
YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?"
Your amateurish attempts to reconcile incomplete and seemingly
inconsistent data, all of which are accurate by themselves, are
hilarious, never ending, and fruitless. I'm going to stop this here.
You need to give it up too. You are being made a fool.
Translation:
Tommy knows that he's been caught (again) with his deception attempt, so instead of being honest & accountable, he's going to run away (again),
in a futile effort to try to save face (again). Who's the fool again?
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's provided
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated a
bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of course,
the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has made some
pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart & dumb alike.
-hh
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's providedNo again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated a
bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of course,
the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has made some
pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart & dumb alike.
-hh
On 12/7/2025 5:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/7/25 12:06, Tom Elam wrote:No again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
On 12/6/2025 9:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/6/25 09:47, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/5/2025 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
LOL, it was just a partial picture. Just like yours.
Except that it clearly says "all accounts" with a total of $2.51M.
Here again you jump to a bogus conclusion.
Nope, for I'm not who posted a pic which said "All accounts".
That was all accounts at that one company. There are 4 of them. We
have investments with other companies (and cash not shown) too.
Imagine that! Apparently you cannot.
That claim doesn't square with what your own image displayed,
because your image shows five accounts, not four. There's the four
obvious ones, with claimed balances of $5.5K, $10.8K, $39K and
$0.4K, plus there's also "Individual Brokerage-2955" wtih $751.6K.
Plus as I've said before, there's ~$1.7M unaccounted for because the
above five accounts sum to $807.4K, but the "All Accounts" line
claims four accounts for $2.5M: $1,704,519 is not accounted for/
undocumented.
Hmmm...maybe there was a Photoshop job done here, eh? /s
To make you happy here are all of our investment accounts:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UevoIJ1SUe26Zq0XadMqEpgldjtJEq3B/
view? usp=sharing
As of today, formatted just for you.
Funny how none of the balances are even close to what you posted as
your balances on just seven days ago.
Funny how you're guilty of YA "do as I say, not as I do"...
...because you showed five digits, contrary to your own instructions:
"So show us your numbers, with some details on where they are, with
7 digits on the left of the decimal point. I did."
Plus the second brag attempt is fishy smelling too, as some lines
look like subtotals, possibly as a deception to try to encourage
double- counting. For example, $14,186.87 is the exact sum of
$7,048.54 + $7,138.33 values listed immediately below it, as is also
$54,223.21 ($26,945.97 + $27,227.24).
Plus despite being allegedly of the same accounts, the two brags
attempts don't appear to align well: where is the former's $39.1K
HYSA in the latter? Did it drop by ~$12K in value in just one week?
-hh
LOL! You are totally confused. Score!
Tommy confesses that deception was actually his goal.
You will never see all details, > but look at this again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/145PxsEKUioG_HkUEKF8mzkUZQx_wsZqB/
view? usp=sharing
The first image is a brokerage with 4 accounts. The second is a
credit union snapshot with 4 accounts.
Incorrect, for you provided only one image.
That you Photoshopped multiple images together doesn't change that the
first says that its total is $2.511M
Nor that we can sum the four CU accounts to get $55.8K, so even if
your latest attempted explanation is accepted that these are in
addition to the prior, its a "so what?" because adding the CU's $55.8K
is just a minor +2% change.
There are other brokerage and cash accounts.
To which we're expected to believe that while Tommy's trying to make a
maximal brag about himself that he chose to not include? Does not fly.
Stop trying to put is all together when you do not, and never will
see, the total picture.
Yet that didn't stop you from trying to demand the total picture of
others...hypocrite much?
Yes, the carefully redacted Excel version I downloaded from Quicken
has different numbers. That is because it is investments only, not
any banking numbers.
Since you've already provided what you claimed were four credit union
banking accounts, what sense does it make to do that?
What you are saying is a major change in amounts is actually VERY
VERY different accounts, investments not cash, with the names hidden
from you. There subtotals in the Excel image. Of course you are
confused. The intent was not to inform.
Of course the intent was not to inform: it is to try to deceive.
Notice how Tommy avoided acknowledging that at least two of his
numbers were subtotals?
The only way this ever go started in the first place was you baiting
with claims that I am bragging about my financial status. Honest
person that I am I tried to show I'm not lying.
Just merely two deceptive documents (so far) & lying through omission:
"Throwing out misleading and irreverent numbers to impress others.
Bad, very bad."
- Tom Elam, on 12/5/25 10:10
I could care less that you are among the many who have accumulated
more in less time that we have.
Gosh, what a quick 180 turn, from just over a week ago, when Tommy was
claiming the opposite (still!):
Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40: "But since you seem
to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."
Likewise, same arrogant piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58: "Followup #2 ...
My take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very important
to YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?"
Your amateurish attempts to reconcile incomplete and seemingly
inconsistent data, all of which are accurate by themselves, are
hilarious, never ending, and fruitless. I'm going to stop this here.
You need to give it up too. You are being made a fool.
Translation:
Tommy knows that he's been caught (again) with his deception attempt,
so instead of being honest & accountable, he's going to run away
(again), in a futile effort to try to save face (again). Who's the
fool again?
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's provided
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated a
bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of course,
the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has made some
pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart & dumb alike.
-hh
So here is the reality.
For years I have baited you with partial and confusing information that
you continue to misinterpret in lengthy great detail as not being true.
Indeed...which is that it is always about bringing attention
back to Tommy, lest anyone else ever get any credit where credit is
due. ;-)
Jealous?
Every piece of data provided has been true as of the date and time
posted.
You have never seen the whole picture and never will. You have
spent hours trying to figure it out, and never will. All your time on "analysis" has been pointless. LOL
The only "brag" is not the dollars, it's that I have enticed you to
spending all this time trying to get me to expose the entire package.
No one other than my estate attorney, broker and wife have ever seen
that total picture. You certainly never will. LOL
I absolutely do not care what anyone in the tiny CSMA community thinks
about me.
That includes you. Or Liarboy Alan. In Quicken on the screen to my
left is the total picture on the laptop screen. Just a screenshot,
upload to Google Drive and posted here via a shared link away.
And, a big thank you to my broker and the equities markets!
ROTFLMAF!!!!!
On 2025-12-08 12:12, Tom Elam wrote:
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's providedNo again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated a
bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of
course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has
made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart &
dumb alike.
-hh
You should quit while you're behind, Asshole.
On 2025-12-08 12:12, Tom Elam wrote:
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's providedNo again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated a
bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of
course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has
made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart &
dumb alike.
-hh
You should quit while you're behind, Asshole.
On 12/8/25 15:12, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/7/2025 5:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/7/25 12:06, Tom Elam wrote:No again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
On 12/6/2025 9:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/6/25 09:47, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/5/2025 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
Here again you jump to a bogus conclusion.LOL, it was just a partial picture. Just like yours.
Except that it clearly says "all accounts" with a total of $2.51M. >>>>>>
Nope, for I'm not who posted a pic which said "All accounts".
That was all accounts at that one company. There are 4 of them. We >>>>>> have investments with other companies (and cash not shown) too.
Imagine that! Apparently you cannot.
That claim doesn't square with what your own image displayed,
because your image shows five accounts, not four. There's the four >>>>> obvious ones, with claimed balances of $5.5K, $10.8K, $39K and
$0.4K, plus there's also "Individual Brokerage-2955" wtih $751.6K.
Plus as I've said before, there's ~$1.7M unaccounted for because
the above five accounts sum to $807.4K, but the "All Accounts" line >>>>> claims four accounts for $2.5M: $1,704,519 is not accounted for/
undocumented.
Hmmm...maybe there was a Photoshop job done here, eh? /s
To make you happy here are all of our investment accounts:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UevoIJ1SUe26Zq0XadMqEpgldjtJEq3B/ >>>>>> view? usp=sharing
As of today, formatted just for you.
Funny how none of the balances are even close to what you posted as >>>>> your balances on just seven days ago.
Funny how you're guilty of YA "do as I say, not as I do"...
...because you showed five digits, contrary to your own instructions: >>>>>
"So show us your numbers, with some details on where they are, with >>>>> 7 digits on the left of the decimal point. I did."
Plus the second brag attempt is fishy smelling too, as some lines
look like subtotals, possibly as a deception to try to encourage
double- counting. For example, $14,186.87 is the exact sum of
$7,048.54 + $7,138.33 values listed immediately below it, as is
also $54,223.21 ($26,945.97 + $27,227.24).
Plus despite being allegedly of the same accounts, the two brags
attempts don't appear to align well: where is the former's $39.1K >>>>> HYSA in the latter? Did it drop by ~$12K in value in just one week? >>>>>
-hh
LOL! You are totally confused. Score!
Tommy confesses that deception was actually his goal.
You will never see all details, > but look at this again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/145PxsEKUioG_HkUEKF8mzkUZQx_wsZqB/
view? usp=sharing
The first image is a brokerage with 4 accounts. The second is a
credit union snapshot with 4 accounts.
Incorrect, for you provided only one image.
That you Photoshopped multiple images together doesn't change that
the first says that its total is $2.511M
Nor that we can sum the four CU accounts to get $55.8K, so even if
your latest attempted explanation is accepted that these are in
addition to the prior, its a "so what?" because adding the CU's
$55.8K is just a minor +2% change.
There are other brokerage and cash accounts.
To which we're expected to believe that while Tommy's trying to make
a maximal brag about himself that he chose to not include? Does not
fly.
Stop trying to put is all together when you do not, and never will
see, the total picture.
Yet that didn't stop you from trying to demand the total picture of
others...hypocrite much?
Yes, the carefully redacted Excel version I downloaded from Quicken
has different numbers. That is because it is investments only, not
any banking numbers.
Since you've already provided what you claimed were four credit union
banking accounts, what sense does it make to do that?
What you are saying is a major change in amounts is actually VERY
VERY different accounts, investments not cash, with the names hidden
from you. There subtotals in the Excel image. Of course you are
confused. The intent was not to inform.
Of course the intent was not to inform: it is to try to deceive.
Notice how Tommy avoided acknowledging that at least two of his
numbers were subtotals?
The only way this ever go started in the first place was you baiting
with claims that I am bragging about my financial status. Honest
person that I am I tried to show I'm not lying.
Just merely two deceptive documents (so far) & lying through omission:
"Throwing out misleading and irreverent numbers to impress others.
Bad, very bad."
- Tom Elam, on 12/5/25 10:10
I could care less that you are among the many who have accumulated
more in less time that we have.
Gosh, what a quick 180 turn, from just over a week ago, when Tommy
was claiming the opposite (still!):
Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40: "But since you
seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."
Likewise, same arrogant piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58: "Followup #2 ...
My take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very
important to YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?" >>>
Your amateurish attempts to reconcile incomplete and seemingly
inconsistent data, all of which are accurate by themselves, are
hilarious, never ending, and fruitless. I'm going to stop this here.
You need to give it up too. You are being made a fool.
Translation:
Tommy knows that he's been caught (again) with his deception attempt,
so instead of being honest & accountable, he's going to run away
(again), in a futile effort to try to save face (again). Who's the
fool again?
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's provided
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated a
bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of
course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has
made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart &
dumb alike.
-hh
Which you still deliberately misrepresented.
So here is the reality.
For years I have baited you with partial and confusing information
that you continue to misinterpret in lengthy great detail as not being
true.
Oh, we all know that you've posted many times your attempts to draw envious attention to yourself.
Which has been pointed out by others, not just me:
[quote]
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:20:53 AM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
...
Indeed...which is that it is always about bringing attention
back to Tommy, lest anyone else ever get any credit where credit is
due. ;-)
Jealous?
c'mon now tom. you're bragging about making close to 6 figures. based
on hh's comments on travel and his pictures, and what he's posted on
cars, once can reasonable guess that he likely is making a decent
chunk more than you.
[/quote]
- ed, on Aug 23, 2016, 12:19:30 PM <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/9zaLEn2qC4Q/ m/5iJH9xywDQAJ>
Another example was your travel brag attempts, where you were trying to insinuate that your travel = your wealth, but was cut off at the knees.
Every piece of data provided has been true as of the date and time
posted.
But also selectively cherry-picked to put you in best possible light.
You have never seen the whole picture and never will. You have spent
hours trying to figure it out, and never will. All your time on
"analysis" has been pointless. LOL
Nah, your cries for attention have shown how desperate you are. And
even with your selectively chosen claims, you've built limits around
what the 'whole' truth may be, which I've noted as paramaterizations.
They hardly take much time at all, and is good practice for when my day
job has called upon dissecting other less slimy contractors/consultants.
The only "brag" is not the dollars, it's that I have enticed you to
spending all this time trying to get me to expose the entire package.
No one other than my estate attorney, broker and wife have ever seen
that total picture. You certainly never will. LOL
Nope, & irrelevant: I've merely noted you trying to demand the 'entire package' of others while you don't do the same yourself = hypocrite.
I absolutely do not care what anyone in the tiny CSMA community thinks
about me.
But if that was actually true, then why are you posting ... yet again?
That includes you. Or Liarboy Alan. In Quicken on the screen to my
left is the total picture on the laptop screen. Just a screenshot,
upload to Google Drive and posted here via a shared link away.
Because you've repeatedly devalued your own reputation, your brag
attempts are weaker & weaker, and less & less credible.
This past week's example was your Excel ####'s where you repeatedly
avoided admitting that some of your listed values were subtotals. So
even if you were to post something more, what makes it any more credible than your prior deception attempts? Nothing.
And, a big thank you to my broker and the equities markets!
ROTFLMAF!!!!!
That's profoundly missing the point I made, still quoted above:
"Of course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has
made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart &
dumb alike."
-hh
On 12/8/2025 4:07 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-08 12:12, Tom Elam wrote:
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's providedNo again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated
a bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of
course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has
made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart &
dumb alike.
-hh
You should quit while you're behind, Asshole.
I have proof that you have been behind on something. Want that revealed?
On 12/8/2025 4:37 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/8/25 15:12, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/7/2025 5:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/7/25 12:06, Tom Elam wrote:No again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
On 12/6/2025 9:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/6/25 09:47, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/5/2025 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
Here again you jump to a bogus conclusion.LOL, it was just a partial picture. Just like yours.
Except that it clearly says "all accounts" with a total of $2.51M. >>>>>>>
Nope, for I'm not who posted a pic which said "All accounts".
That was all accounts at that one company. There are 4 of them. >>>>>>> We have investments with other companies (and cash not shown)
too. Imagine that! Apparently you cannot.
That claim doesn't square with what your own image displayed,
because your image shows five accounts, not four. There's the
four obvious ones, with claimed balances of $5.5K, $10.8K, $39K
and $0.4K, plus there's also "Individual Brokerage-2955" wtih
$751.6K.
Plus as I've said before, there's ~$1.7M unaccounted for because
the above five accounts sum to $807.4K, but the "All Accounts"
line claims four accounts for $2.5M: $1,704,519 is not accounted >>>>>> for/ undocumented.
Hmmm...maybe there was a Photoshop job done here, eh? /s
To make you happy here are all of our investment accounts:
https://drive.google.com/file/
d/1UevoIJ1SUe26Zq0XadMqEpgldjtJEq3B/ view? usp=sharing
As of today, formatted just for you.
Funny how none of the balances are even close to what you posted
as your balances on just seven days ago.
Funny how you're guilty of YA "do as I say, not as I do"...
...because you showed five digits, contrary to your own instructions: >>>>>>
"So show us your numbers, with some details on where they are,
with 7 digits on the left of the decimal point. I did."
Plus the second brag attempt is fishy smelling too, as some lines >>>>>> look like subtotals, possibly as a deception to try to encourage
double- counting. For example, $14,186.87 is the exact sum of
$7,048.54 + $7,138.33 values listed immediately below it, as is
also $54,223.21 ($26,945.97 + $27,227.24).
Plus despite being allegedly of the same accounts, the two brags
attempts don't appear to align well: where is the former's $39.1K >>>>>> HYSA in the latter? Did it drop by ~$12K in value in just one week? >>>>>>
-hh
LOL! You are totally confused. Score!
Tommy confesses that deception was actually his goal.
You will never see all details, > but look at this again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/145PxsEKUioG_HkUEKF8mzkUZQx_wsZqB/
view? usp=sharing
The first image is a brokerage with 4 accounts. The second is a
credit union snapshot with 4 accounts.
Incorrect, for you provided only one image.
That you Photoshopped multiple images together doesn't change that
the first says that its total is $2.511M
Nor that we can sum the four CU accounts to get $55.8K, so even if
your latest attempted explanation is accepted that these are in
addition to the prior, its a "so what?" because adding the CU's
$55.8K is just a minor +2% change.
There are other brokerage and cash accounts.
To which we're expected to believe that while Tommy's trying to make
a maximal brag about himself that he chose to not include? Does not >>>> fly.
Stop trying to put is all together when you do not, and never will
see, the total picture.
Yet that didn't stop you from trying to demand the total picture of
others...hypocrite much?
Yes, the carefully redacted Excel version I downloaded from Quicken >>>>> has different numbers. That is because it is investments only, not
any banking numbers.
Since you've already provided what you claimed were four credit
union banking accounts, what sense does it make to do that?
What you are saying is a major change in amounts is actually VERY
VERY different accounts, investments not cash, with the names
hidden from you. There subtotals in the Excel image. Of course you >>>>> are confused. The intent was not to inform.
Of course the intent was not to inform: it is to try to deceive.
Notice how Tommy avoided acknowledging that at least two of his
numbers were subtotals?
The only way this ever go started in the first place was you
baiting with claims that I am bragging about my financial status.
Honest person that I am I tried to show I'm not lying.
Just merely two deceptive documents (so far) & lying through omission: >>>>
"Throwing out misleading and irreverent numbers to impress others.
Bad, very bad."
- Tom Elam, on 12/5/25 10:10
I could care less that you are among the many who have accumulated
more in less time that we have.
Gosh, what a quick 180 turn, from just over a week ago, when Tommy
was claiming the opposite (still!):
Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40: "But since you
seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."
Likewise, same arrogant piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58: "Followup
#2 ... My take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very
important to YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are
you?"
Your amateurish attempts to reconcile incomplete and seemingly
inconsistent data, all of which are accurate by themselves, are
hilarious, never ending, and fruitless. I'm going to stop this
here. You need to give it up too. You are being made a fool.
Translation:
Tommy knows that he's been caught (again) with his deception
attempt, so instead of being honest & accountable, he's going to run
away (again), in a futile effort to try to save face (again). Who's >>>> the fool again?
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's provided
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated
a bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of
course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has
made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart &
dumb alike.
-hh
Which you still deliberately misrepresented.
So here is the reality.
For years I have baited you with partial and confusing information
that you continue to misinterpret in lengthy great detail as not
being true.
Oh, we all know that you've posted many times your attempts to draw
envious attention to yourself.
Which has been pointed out by others, not just me:
[quote]
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:20:53 AM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
...
is >> due. ;-)Indeed...which is that it is always about bringing attention
back to Tommy, lest anyone else ever get any credit where credit
;
Jealous?
c'mon now tom. you're bragging about making close to 6 figures. based
on hh's comments on travel and his pictures, and what he's posted on
cars, once can reasonable guess that he likely is making a decent
chunk more than you.
[/quote]
- ed, on Aug 23, 2016, 12:19:30 PM
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/9zaLEn2qC4Q/
m/5iJH9xywDQAJ>
Another example was your travel brag attempts, where you were trying
to insinuate that your travel = your wealth, but was cut off at the
knees.
Every piece of data provided has been true as of the date and time
posted.
But also selectively cherry-picked to put you in best possible light.
You have never seen the whole picture and never will. You have spent
hours trying to figure it out, and never will. All your time on
"analysis" has been pointless. LOL
Nah, your cries for attention have shown how desperate you are. And
even with your selectively chosen claims, you've built limits around
what the 'whole' truth may be, which I've noted as paramaterizations.
They hardly take much time at all, and is good practice for when my
day job has called upon dissecting other less slimy contractors/
consultants.
The only "brag" is not the dollars, it's that I have enticed you to
spending all this time trying to get me to expose the entire package.
No one other than my estate attorney, broker and wife have ever seen
that total picture. You certainly never will. LOL
Nope, & irrelevant: I've merely noted you trying to demand the
'entire package' of others while you don't do the same yourself =
hypocrite.
I absolutely do not care what anyone in the tiny CSMA community
thinks about me.
But if that was actually true, then why are you posting ... yet again?
That includes you. Or Liarboy Alan. In Quicken on the screen to my
left is the total picture on the laptop screen. Just a screenshot,
upload to Google Drive and posted here via a shared link away.
Because you've repeatedly devalued your own reputation, your brag
attempts are weaker & weaker, and less & less credible.
This past week's example was your Excel ####'s where you repeatedly
avoided admitting that some of your listed values were subtotals. So
even if you were to post something more, what makes it any more
credible than your prior deception attempts? Nothing.
And, a big thank you to my broker and the equities markets!
ROTFLMAF!!!!!
That's profoundly missing the point I made, still quoted above:
"Of course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+
has made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart
& dumb alike."
-hh
I don't owe you anything.
I never deceived anybody. Everything I posted
on this topic is true, but incomplete.
Even if I did show it all you
would claim it is falsified. Can't win, can I?
I never deceived anybody. Everything I posted on this topic is true,
but incomplete.
You've already admitted in this thread that you've deliberately "baited" with your selective cherry-picking. That's deliberate deception.
Even if I did show it all you would claim it is falsified. Can't win,
can I?
One succeeds by knowing better: not bragging about their income, net worth, car they drive, trophy house(s), etc.
On 12/9/25 06:44, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/8/2025 4:07 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-08 12:12, Tom Elam wrote:
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's provided >>>>> about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated >>>>> a bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. OfNo again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has >>>>> made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart
& dumb alike.
-hh
You should quit while you're behind, Asshole.
I have proof that you have been behind on something. Want that revealed?
No other way to put it:
Tom Elam tries to make a blackmail threat.
FWIW, I can recall years ago in a different newsgroup where a poster similarly started to irrationally lash out, including falsely accusing another poster of raping their own daughter.
That was when those newsgroup decided to contact that poster's wife.
Wife revoked his internet access for the rest of his life.
-hh
On 12/9/2025 9:41 AM, -hh wrote:
I never deceived anybody. Everything I posted on this topic is true,
but incomplete.
You've already admitted in this thread that you've deliberately
"baited" with your selective cherry-picking. That's deliberate
deception.
LOL, it was all true.
This started out with your criticism of my regression model.
Even if I did show it all you would claim it is falsified. Can't win,
can I?
So next you deflect with the answer below. The person who would never
admit that scuba and snorkel both have to involve diving would never
admit that anything I showed in this context is accurate.
One succeeds by knowing better: not bragging about their income, net
worth, car they drive, trophy house(s), etc.
My income and net worth details are not known to anyone outside my wife,
a lawyer and a broker/investment advisor. You are the only person on
this planet who has ever even inquired.
You are the one who, when informed I bought a Subaru said it
could have been a Porsche.
You are
the one who labeled my house as a tract home, now it's a trophy home.
Tract home is correct. Nothing special in a part of Carmel full of $1+ million mansions. Compared to Alan's 500 sq ft Vancouver condo you might
be right, but in this area!
Hypocrite!
"...your 'results' speaking was evident in the first graph you provide:
it had quite a bit of scatter from factors you weren't bothering to
control for. Since you've not improved the dataset, all you've done is
to massage the existing datapoints into masking all of that variance."
You are the one who labeled my house as a tract home, now it's atrophy home. Tract home is correct. Nothing special in a part of Carmel
On 12/10/2025 3:24 PM, -hh wrote:
"...your 'results' speaking was evident in the first graph you
provide: it had quite a bit of scatter from factors you weren't
bothering to control for. Since you've not improved the dataset, all
you've done is to massage the existing datapoints into masking all of
that variance."
Yes, but that scatter was only 1 variable, OAT, that affects kWh used.
A major part of that apparent scatter was that there were other
independent variables in hand at the time but not controlled in the
scatter plot. When the additional independent variables are introduced
the kWh variance was significantly reduced.
The main ones are changes we
made in the house that reduced energy lost rate and thus energy required
to maintain temperature. Those changes are documented by date and expense.
No data were "massaged" other than ...
I'm doubting if you every built a regression model.
Inquired? Nope.
Called you out on the holes in your lame brag attempts? Yup!
Which is the same as asking for more to fill in the "holes".
You are the one who labeled my house as a tract home, now it's a
trophy home. Tract home is correct. Nothing special in a part of Carmel
full of $1+ million mansions. Compared to Alan's 500 sq ft Vancouver
condo you might be right, but in this area!
If it really is so humble, then you wouldn't be trying to compare
yourself to an urban condo...right? /s
Wrong. In the Vancouver market my home is a "trophy" worth well over $1 million. Not here, where housing is much more affordable.
We traveled a record number of days this year, almost 3 months. Not
because of you, because of some great opportunities.
Already planned 2 weeks in France next year, 2 weeks at Beaver creek
and some time in Florida. More to come.
Travel has to compete for time doing other things, after all.
On 12/10/25 17:22, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/10/2025 3:24 PM, -hh wrote:
"...your 'results' speaking was evident in the first graph you
provide: it had quite a bit of scatter from factors you weren't
bothering to control for. Since you've not improved the dataset, all
you've done is to massage the existing datapoints into masking all of
that variance."
Yes, but that scatter was only 1 variable, OAT, that affects kWh used.
Which you represented as your work product, not your starting point.
Cherry-picking again, with what you choose to lie through omissions.
A major part of that apparent scatter was that there were other
independent variables in hand at the time but not controlled in the
scatter plot. When the additional independent variables are introduced
the kWh variance was significantly reduced.
Not documented then, and adding in additional variables can help to
tighten up a correlation, but it depends on how the weighing factors are tweaked...but that doesn't mean that there's solid scientific principles which justify the weighting factor values: over time, one learns who's
the better cheat by if the factors are based on optimizing the
correlation versus having solid scientific principles for their value.
The main ones are changes we made in the house that reduced energy
lost rate and thus energy required to maintain temperature. Those
changes are documented by date and expense.
Just because you used some obvious potential variables isn't proof that
you couldn't have missed others which were less obvious/easy.
The statistics joke is that you're searching for your lost quarter under
the streetlight, not where the quarter was actually dropped.
I'm doubting if you every built a regression model.
Whereas I'm seeing better why you had to work into your upper 70s.
Wrong. In the Vancouver market my home is a "trophy" worth well over
$1 million. Not here, where housing is much more affordable.
Oh, so what you actually meant to say was that your "$1M" claim actually
was how much it could be worth in Vancouver if it got teleported there.
Of course, considering Tommy's history & style of cherry-picking and stretching of things like what's "almost", a brag attempt of "almost 3 months" could be as modest as just (2 months + 1 day) = 61 days.
Already planned 2 weeks in France next year, 2 weeks at Beaver creek
and some time in Florida. More to come.
So 2026's looking to be another cheap year, at least so far.
Travel has to compete for time doing other things, after all.
Unfortunately the case. Disruptions from unexpected health issues are
an increasingly common factor as one gets older, for example. And some folk will be tempted to count days in the hospital as "vacation away" /s
-hh
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,089 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 155:08:19 |
| Calls: | 13,921 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 187,021 |
| D/L today: |
3,912 files (989M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,457,192 |
