| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 43:15:00 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 175,377 |
On 9/2/2025 3:17 PM, -hh wrote:
On 9/2/25 09:32, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/1/2025 1:09 PM, -hh wrote:
On 9/1/25 10:58, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/1/2025 9:57 AM, -hh wrote:
On 8/31/25 22:16, Tom Elam wrote:
On 8/24/2025 11:23 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 20:11, Tom Elam wrote:
Alan Baker no-show.
Not interested, Asshole.
So, lost interest in racing, eh? Thought so, actions speak louder >>>>>>> than words. Asshole.
Of course, Elam has actual *proof* that the only reason is
disinterest...right?
I've not bothered being a stalker, but the last I recall in public >>>>>> comments was there was a need to obtain a new medical clearance.
What proof does Tommy have that that requirement's been checked off? >>>>>>
-hh
Let's look at evidence from SCCBC points-earning racing dates:
https://www.sccbc.net/racers/club-championship/
Does that website detail which drivers are qualified to drive?
Because when not, citing it is irreverent.
I don't think the claimed but not proven health issue is real
or if true the only cause of this 2021-2025 record.
Did anyone claim that it was the *only* factor?-a Cite, please.
Plus you've claimed to be worth over $2M without proof...right?
So how are your claims any different in terms of credibility?
As I recall the health issue was claimed in 2024, and he entered on >>>>> one weekend. Alan has not refuted my claim that he has lost
interest, or it's personal financial issues.
Because as we all know, one never can get sick twice!-a /s
On the financial angle I note that Alan's LinkedIn page still shows >>>>> that he is "Full Time" at Digital Financial BUT is also actively
soliciting part-time contract work. His head shot is even tagged
"Open to Work".
So what? You've had out-of-date webpages online yourself.
So just what date-stamp proof do you have that this webpage is still
current, and therefore of any relevance?
(Alan, you put this out there. Anyone on LinkedIn can see it. You
are pretty desperate for work even though you have a "Full Time" job.) >>>>>
I also have in the past seen public evidence that Alan was severely >>>>> behind on certain debts, but promised Alan I would never disclose
the details.
Oh, so you've never had any debt yourself?-a Merely making the
suggestion means you've stooped into the unethical in your trolling
attempts.
This is not out of date info.
But how do you actually know that?
You don't.-a You've failed ... again.
Due to lack of funds I was a month overdue on a Sears credit card
about 60 years ago. Since then paid a little interest on credit cards
when I let the pay date slip by. Happy?
Net worth is ... Happy?
Still unsubstantiated, which was my point:-a readers have no idea by
how much you're lying.
You can log onto LinkedIn and see for yourself. But don't waste yourNope, because I was noting that the actual publication date of the
time. The file name on the posted image is "Screenshot 2025-09-01
105121.jpg", the default name given by Windows Snipping Tool. Happy?
page is what's important to know if it is close to current or not, not
when you happened to stalk by and screen-capp'ed it.
The lesson is that the web is full of old, stale pages, so just
because a webpage is online today doesn't mean that it was also
published today. -a-aFor temporal relevance, you need *publication*
date, not today's date.
Plus in the meantime, you've still not determined anything on if
medical clearances have been satisfied either.
-hh
Hugh, the date on the lead ABC news article screen shot is an event that happened the day before. This is not a stale page, and neither is the
LinkIn page.
Readers also have no idea how much you might be lying.
Until Alan is willing to post proof that there is a medical issue
stopping him from driving the last 3 years he is also subject to the
same criticism.
On 2025-09-02 10:05, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/1/2025 1:09 PM, -hh wrote:
So just what date-stamp proof do you have that this webpage is still
current, and therefore of any relevance?
Think I faked this? Check the Windows and news article dates and times.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d0jeKCt6uuVtUEvf0IGRk339oDl36-v_/
view? usp=sharing
For clarity, Asshole.
You're the one who claimed a LinkedIn page was "[my] company website":
"Yes, your company does have a website, or at least I think it's the
same Alan Baker from Vancouver. If not you have a twin.
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?..."
Remember that?
On 9/3/2025 2:25 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-02 10:05, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/1/2025 1:09 PM, -hh wrote:
So just what date-stamp proof do you have that this webpage is still
current, and therefore of any relevance?
Think I faked this? Check the Windows and news article dates and times.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d0jeKCt6uuVtUEvf0IGRk339oDl36-v_/
view? usp=sharing
For clarity, Asshole.
You're the one who claimed a LinkedIn page was "[my] company website":
"Yes, your company does have a website, or at least I think it's the
same Alan Baker from Vancouver. If not you have a twin.
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?..."
Remember that?
Yes I remember, and this is just another attempt to not answer a direct question. What was how I labeled your LinkedIn information have to do
with the current content, including hashtag #opentowork, at
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-baker-b970127/?originalSubdomain=ca
?
<quote> Details:
Location types
On-site -+ Hybrid -+ Remote
Locations (on-site)
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Locations (remote)
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Start date
Immediately, I am actively applying
Employment types
Part-time -+ Contract <end quote>
Did you write this? Is this true "Immediately, I am actively applying"?
Are you saying I am lying about what is on LinkedIn at this time? Be
careful here, I have a screenshot that shows the truth, including the details above. It includes this reply, your latest on LinkedIn, and a
news article with today's date.
Semantics aside, LinkedIn is used by yourself to promote your bakerMEDIA company and your skills. The latest LinkedIn rendition (whatever you
want to label it) where you openly advertise yourself as available for part-time gig work is even more blatant self-promotion. Also claimed
there is a claim to be a full time Digital Financial employee and show
your own bakerMEDIA as a current company affiliation. If bakerMEDIA and Digital Financial are so financially successful for you why are you
pleading for gig work?
When I was employed full-time since 1973 I never had financial
incentives, time, or energy to look for additional work.
What gives here? This is not making sense, at least in my considerable experience. Please supply an honest answer for a change, no more lies
and deflections please.
Here is an offer. Be honest about this issue and I'll stop posting on
here about it.
On 9/2/2025 3:17 PM, -hh wrote:
On 9/2/25 09:32, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/1/2025 1:09 PM, -hh wrote:
...
So what? You've had out-of-date webpages online yourself.
So just what date-stamp proof do you have that this webpage is still
current, and therefore of any relevance?
...
This is not out of date info.
But how do you actually know that?
You don't.-a You've failed ... again.
...
You can log onto LinkedIn and see for yourself. But don't waste your
time. The file name on the posted image is "Screenshot 2025-09-01
105121.jpg", the default name given by Windows Snipping Tool. Happy?
Nope, because I was noting that the actual publication date of the
page is what's important to know if it is close to current or not, not
when you happened to stalk by and screen-capp'ed it.
The lesson is that the web is full of old, stale pages, so just
because a webpage is online today doesn't mean that it was also
published today. -a-aFor temporal relevance, you need *publication*
date, not today's date.
Hugh, the date on the lead ABC news article screen shot is an event that happened the day before. This is not a stale page, ...
... and neither is the LinkIn page.
Readers also have no idea how much you might be lying.
Until Alan is willing to post proof that there is a medical issueNope, he's under no obligation to play by your game of rubber ruler.
stopping him from driving the last 3 years he is also subject to the
same criticism.
On 2025-09-04 11:57, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/3/2025 2:25 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-02 10:05, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/1/2025 1:09 PM, -hh wrote:
So just what date-stamp proof do you have that this webpage is
still current, and therefore of any relevance?
Think I faked this? Check the Windows and news article dates and times. >>>>
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d0jeKCt6uuVtUEvf0IGRk339oDl36-v_/
view? usp=sharing
For clarity, Asshole.
You're the one who claimed a LinkedIn page was "[my] company website":
"Yes, your company does have a website, or at least I think it's the
same Alan Baker from Vancouver. If not you have a twin.
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?..."
Remember that?
Yes I remember, and this is just another attempt to not answer a
direct question. What was how I labeled your LinkedIn information have
to do with the current content, including hashtag #opentowork, at
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-baker-b970127/?originalSubdomain=ca
?
<quote> Details:
Location types
On-site -+ Hybrid -+ Remote
Locations (on-site)
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Locations (remote)
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Start date
Immediately, I am actively applying
Employment types
Part-time -+ Contract <end quote>
Did you write this? Is this true "Immediately, I am actively applying"?
Are you saying I am lying about what is on LinkedIn at this time? Be
careful here, I have a screenshot that shows the truth, including the
details above. It includes this reply, your latest on LinkedIn, and a
news article with today's date.
Semantics aside, LinkedIn is used by yourself to promote your
bakerMEDIA company and your skills. The latest LinkedIn rendition
(whatever you want to label it) where you openly advertise yourself as
available for part-time gig work is even more blatant self-promotion.
Also claimed there is a claim to be a full time Digital Financial
employee and show your own bakerMEDIA as a current company
affiliation. If bakerMEDIA and Digital Financial are so financially
successful for you why are you pleading for gig work?
When I was employed full-time since 1973 I never had financial
incentives, time, or energy to look for additional work.
What gives here? This is not making sense, at least in my considerable
experience. Please supply an honest answer for a change, no more lies
and deflections please.
Here is an offer. Be honest about this issue and I'll stop posting on
here about it.
Here's my counter-offer.
You ask me in person...
...and I'll make everything clear.
On 9/4/2025 3:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 11:57, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/3/2025 2:25 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-02 10:05, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/1/2025 1:09 PM, -hh wrote:
So just what date-stamp proof do you have that this webpage is
still current, and therefore of any relevance?
Think I faked this? Check the Windows and news article dates and
times.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d0jeKCt6uuVtUEvf0IGRk339oDl36-v_/
view? usp=sharing
For clarity, Asshole.
You're the one who claimed a LinkedIn page was "[my] company website": >>>>
"Yes, your company does have a website, or at least I think it's the
same Alan Baker from Vancouver. If not you have a twin.
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?..."
Remember that?
Yes I remember, and this is just another attempt to not answer a
direct question. What was how I labeled your LinkedIn information
have to do with the current content, including hashtag #opentowork, at
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-baker-b970127/?originalSubdomain=ca
?
<quote> Details:
Location types
On-site -+ Hybrid -+ Remote
Locations (on-site)
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Locations (remote)
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Start date
Immediately, I am actively applying
Employment types
Part-time -+ Contract <end quote>
Did you write this? Is this true "Immediately, I am actively applying"?
Are you saying I am lying about what is on LinkedIn at this time? Be
careful here, I have a screenshot that shows the truth, including the
details above. It includes this reply, your latest on LinkedIn, and a
news article with today's date.
Semantics aside, LinkedIn is used by yourself to promote your
bakerMEDIA company and your skills. The latest LinkedIn rendition
(whatever you want to label it) where you openly advertise yourself
as available for part-time gig work is even more blatant self-
promotion. Also claimed there is a claim to be a full time Digital
Financial employee and show your own bakerMEDIA as a current company
affiliation. If bakerMEDIA and Digital Financial are so financially
successful for you why are you pleading for gig work?
When I was employed full-time since 1973 I never had financial
incentives, time, or energy to look for additional work.
What gives here? This is not making sense, at least in my
considerable experience. Please supply an honest answer for a change,
no more lies and deflections please.
Here is an offer. Be honest about this issue and I'll stop posting on
here about it.
Here's my counter-offer.
You ask me in person...
...and I'll make everything clear.
OK, my offer, call me at 317 414 7026.
On 2025-09-02 13:14, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/2/2025 10:05 AM, Alan wrote:
It's bullshit that an allegedly grown man is spending his time
stalking me.
Stalking?
Yes. Precisely.
No, just trying to show what an asshole liar you are. If I was really
stalking I would have an Air Tag on your car, checking credit ratings,
have a remote camera on your condo, and have a PI in my employ.
Ummmmmmm...no.
It's still stalking.
Wow. And you think checking out my Facebook isn't "stalking"?
My favorite was when you accepted Facebook adulation for your 2020
race SCCBC FF wins when no championship points were awarded. You
forgot to mention that it was only 3 races and competition was limited
by COVID restrictions.
On 9/2/2025 8:03 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-02 13:14, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/2/2025 10:05 AM, Alan wrote:
It's bullshit that an allegedly grown man is spending his time
stalking me.
Stalking?
Yes. Precisely.
No, just trying to show what an asshole liar you are. If I was really
stalking I would have an Air Tag on your car, checking credit
ratings, have a remote camera on your condo, and have a PI in my employ.
Ummmmmmm...no.
It's still stalking.
Wow. And you think checking out my Facebook isn't "stalking"?
My favorite was when you accepted Facebook adulation for your 2020
race SCCBC FF wins when no championship points were awarded. You
forgot to mention that it was only 3 races and competition was
limited by COVID restrictions.
It's not, any more than your friends checking your Facebook account. If
you don't want it "out there" do not post it on the internet.
On 9/4/25 14:18, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/2/2025 3:17 PM, -hh wrote:
On 9/2/25 09:32, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/1/2025 1:09 PM, -hh wrote:
...
So what? You've had out-of-date webpages online yourself.
So just what date-stamp proof do you have that this webpage is
still current, and therefore of any relevance?
...
This is not out of date info.
But how do you actually know that?
You don't.-a You've failed ... again.
...
You can log onto LinkedIn and see for yourself. But don't waste your
time. The file name on the posted image is "Screenshot 2025-09-01
105121.jpg", the default name given by Windows Snipping Tool. Happy?
Nope, because I was noting that the actual publication date of the
page is what's important to know if it is close to current or not,
not when you happened to stalk by and screen-capp'ed it.
The lesson is that the web is full of old, stale pages, so just
because a webpage is online today doesn't mean that it was also
published today. -a-aFor temporal relevance, you need *publication*
date, not today's date.
Hugh, the date on the lead ABC news article screen shot is an event
that happened the day before. This is not a stale page, ...
Which we know it isn't stale because it reports a recent news event.
... and neither is the LinkIn page.
You know it isn't stale because of ... what?-a Be specific.
That it is online for you to take a screencap does . not . prove .
when . it . was . originally . published.
Case in point what is the page's most "recent news event"?
I looked; it appears that it was from **more than two (2) years ago**.
And to illustrate, my domain's top page's "newest" date is its copyright notice which is from 2008.-a That shows readers that that page hasn't
been updated for 17 years, even though it is still "LIVE" for someone
who wants to screencap it.
Readers also have no idea how much you might be lying.
Of course!-a That's why I tell people to not hesitate to check out my
claims themselves.
Until Alan is willing to post proof that there is a medical issue
stopping him from driving the last 3 years he is also subject to the
same criticism.
Nope, he's under no obligation to play by your game of rubber ruler.
Even before noting that his online reputation is better than your's.
-hh
On 2025-09-05 12:11, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/4/2025 3:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 11:57, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/3/2025 2:25 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-02 10:05, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/1/2025 1:09 PM, -hh wrote:
So just what date-stamp proof do you have that this webpage is
still current, and therefore of any relevance?
Think I faked this? Check the Windows and news article dates and
times.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d0jeKCt6uuVtUEvf0IGRk339oDl36-v_/ >>>>>> view? usp=sharing
For clarity, Asshole.
You're the one who claimed a LinkedIn page was "[my] company website": >>>>>
"Yes, your company does have a website, or at least I think it's
the same Alan Baker from Vancouver. If not you have a twin.
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?..."
Remember that?
Yes I remember, and this is just another attempt to not answer a
direct question. What was how I labeled your LinkedIn information
have to do with the current content, including hashtag #opentowork, at >>>>
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-baker-b970127/?originalSubdomain=ca
?
<quote> Details:
Location types
On-site -+ Hybrid -+ Remote
Locations (on-site)
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Locations (remote)
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Start date
Immediately, I am actively applying
Employment types
Part-time -+ Contract <end quote>
Did you write this? Is this true "Immediately, I am actively applying"? >>>>
Are you saying I am lying about what is on LinkedIn at this time? Be
careful here, I have a screenshot that shows the truth, including
the details above. It includes this reply, your latest on LinkedIn,
and a news article with today's date.
Semantics aside, LinkedIn is used by yourself to promote your
bakerMEDIA company and your skills. The latest LinkedIn rendition
(whatever you want to label it) where you openly advertise yourself
as available for part-time gig work is even more blatant self-
promotion. Also claimed there is a claim to be a full time Digital
Financial employee and show your own bakerMEDIA as a current company
affiliation. If bakerMEDIA and Digital Financial are so financially
successful for you why are you pleading for gig work?
When I was employed full-time since 1973 I never had financial
incentives, time, or energy to look for additional work.
What gives here? This is not making sense, at least in my
considerable experience. Please supply an honest answer for a
change, no more lies and deflections please.
Here is an offer. Be honest about this issue and I'll stop posting
on here about it.
Here's my counter-offer.
You ask me in person...
...and I'll make everything clear.
OK, my offer, call me at 317 414 7026.
Nope.
In person.
On 9/5/2025 3:28 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-05 12:11, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/4/2025 3:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 11:57, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/3/2025 2:25 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-02 10:05, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/1/2025 1:09 PM, -hh wrote:
So just what date-stamp proof do you have that this webpage is >>>>>>>> still current, and therefore of any relevance?
Think I faked this? Check the Windows and news article dates and >>>>>>> times.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d0jeKCt6uuVtUEvf0IGRk339oDl36- >>>>>>> v_/ view? usp=sharing
For clarity, Asshole.
You're the one who claimed a LinkedIn page was "[my] company
website":
"Yes, your company does have a website, or at least I think it's
the same Alan Baker from Vancouver. If not you have a twin.
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?..."
Remember that?
Yes I remember, and this is just another attempt to not answer a
direct question. What was how I labeled your LinkedIn information
have to do with the current content, including hashtag #opentowork, at >>>>>
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-baker-b970127/?originalSubdomain=ca >>>>>
?
<quote> Details:
Location types
On-site -+ Hybrid -+ Remote
Locations (on-site)
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Locations (remote)
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Start date
Immediately, I am actively applying
Employment types
Part-time -+ Contract <end quote>
Did you write this? Is this true "Immediately, I am actively
applying"?
Are you saying I am lying about what is on LinkedIn at this time?
Be careful here, I have a screenshot that shows the truth,
including the details above. It includes this reply, your latest on >>>>> LinkedIn, and a news article with today's date.
Semantics aside, LinkedIn is used by yourself to promote your
bakerMEDIA company and your skills. The latest LinkedIn rendition
(whatever you want to label it) where you openly advertise yourself >>>>> as available for part-time gig work is even more blatant self-
promotion. Also claimed there is a claim to be a full time Digital
Financial employee and show your own bakerMEDIA as a current
company affiliation. If bakerMEDIA and Digital Financial are so
financially successful for you why are you pleading for gig work?
When I was employed full-time since 1973 I never had financial
incentives, time, or energy to look for additional work.
What gives here? This is not making sense, at least in my
considerable experience. Please supply an honest answer for a
change, no more lies and deflections please.
Here is an offer. Be honest about this issue and I'll stop posting
on here about it.
Here's my counter-offer.
You ask me in person...
...and I'll make everything clear.
OK, my offer, call me at 317 414 7026.
Nope.
In person.
No way. You are an angry and dangerous person.
Nope, because I was noting that the actual publication date of the page
is what's important to know if it is close to current or not, not when
you happened to stalk by and screen-capp'ed it.
The lesson is that the web is full of old, stale pages, so just because
a webpage is online today doesn't mean that it was also published today.
-a-aFor temporal relevance, you need *publication* date, not today's date.
On 9/6/2025 7:47 PM, -hh wrote:
Nope, because I was noting that the actual publication date of the
page is what's important to know if it is close to current or not, not
when you happened to stalk by and screen-capp'ed it.
The lesson is that the web is full of old, stale pages, so just
because a webpage is online today doesn't mean that it was also
published today. -a-a-aFor temporal relevance, you need *publication*
date, not today's date.
If you look closely you will see under Activity a post made by Alan from
a month ago. So it is not "stale".
I look at this site occasionally to see if anything has changed. It's
not stale.
Why not ask Alan?
bakerMedia.ca site is, as of today, out-of-service.
On 9/6/2025 7:47 PM, -hh wrote:
Nope, because I was noting that the actual publication date of the
page is what's important to know if it is close to current or not, not
when you happened to stalk by and screen-capp'ed it.
The lesson is that the web is full of old, stale pages, so just
because a webpage is online today doesn't mean that it was also
published today. -a-a-aFor temporal relevance, you need *publication*
date, not today's date.
If you look closely you will see under Activity a post made by Alan from
a month ago. So it is not "stale".
I look at this site occasionally to see if anything has changed. It's
not stale.
On 2025-09-06 12:45, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/2/2025 8:03 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-02 13:14, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/2/2025 10:05 AM, Alan wrote:
It's bullshit that an allegedly grown man is spending his time
stalking me.
Stalking?
Yes. Precisely.
No, just trying to show what an asshole liar you are. If I was
really stalking I would have an Air Tag on your car, checking credit
ratings, have a remote camera on your condo, and have a PI in my
employ.
Ummmmmmm...no.
It's still stalking.
Wow. And you think checking out my Facebook isn't "stalking"?
My favorite was when you accepted Facebook adulation for your 2020
race SCCBC FF wins when no championship points were awarded. You
forgot to mention that it was only 3 races and competition was
limited by COVID restrictions.
It's not, any more than your friends checking your Facebook account.
If you don't want it "out there" do not post it on the internet.
So I'm free to put all your Facebook info on here?
And your wife's?
And anyone else...
(I see 6 other relations in your Facebook friends).
...who's put information "out there"?
And tell me:
When you post about things going on in your life on Facebook...
...do you call that "accepting adulation"...
...or just letting friends know what's going on in your life?
:-)
On 9/7/25 12:27, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/6/2025 7:47 PM, -hh wrote:
Nope, because I was noting that the actual publication date of the
page is what's important to know if it is close to current or not,
not when you happened to stalk by and screen-capp'ed it.
The lesson is that the web is full of old, stale pages, so just
because a webpage is online today doesn't mean that it was also
published today. -a-a-aFor temporal relevance, you need *publication*
date, not today's date.
If you look closely you will see under Activity a post made by Alan
from a month ago. So it is not "stale".
So what?-a All you're doing is admitting that you don't really know how
the LinkedIn website works.
I look at this site occasionally to see if anything has changed. It's
not stale.
Then show us what's the most recent date within the CV.
Why not ask Alan?
Because he's not made a claim either way, whereas you have.
bakerMedia.ca site is, as of today, out-of-service.
Again, so what?
I've noticed that you've avoided commenting on my websites' currency,
for if you had, you may find that some out of date and perhaps some out
of service too.-a That stems from a provider change which I consider to
have been done recently, although what I consider to be 'recent' won't
be aligned with what others may claim/try to accuse thereof.-a Tough!
Once again, Tommy's Rubber Ruler raises its rugly red.
On 9/7/25 15:47, -hh wrote:
On 9/7/25 12:27, Tom Elam wrote:
On 9/6/2025 7:47 PM, -hh wrote:
Nope, because I was noting that the actual publication date of the
page is what's important to know if it is close to current or not,
not when you happened to stalk by and screen-capp'ed it.
The lesson is that the web is full of old, stale pages, so just
because a webpage is online today doesn't mean that it was also
published today. -a-a-aFor temporal relevance, you need *publication* >>>> date, not today's date.
If you look closely you will see under Activity a post made by Alan
from a month ago. So it is not "stale".
So what?-a All you're doing is admitting that you don't really know how
the LinkedIn website works.
I look at this site occasionally to see if anything has changed. It's
not stale.
Then show us what's the most recent date within the CV.
Why not ask Alan?
Because he's not made a claim either way, whereas you have.
bakerMedia.ca site is, as of today, out-of-service.
Again, so what?
I've noticed that you've avoided commenting on my websites' currency,
for if you had, you may find that some out of date and perhaps some
out of service too.-a That stems from a provider change which I
consider to have been done recently, although what I consider to be
'recent' won't be aligned with what others may claim/try to accuse
thereof.-a Tough!
Once again, Tommy's Rubber Ruler raises its rugly red.
Four days later & at least twice, Tommy's been trolling on otherWhat a double-standard he has...
threads, which leads us to the inevitable conclusion that he's in
deflection & avoidance mode. Again.
Tommy shows he's incapable of answering questions honestly. Again.