THE OFFICIAL 147.450 FLAMEBOOK! THEFLAMEBOOK.COM
W0RKF / AA0IN - THE RETARD Ron Foster
450 Sunday Night Trivia
With your host Sue KD6UVD
8PM Pacific
Listen to 147.450 LIVE:
22,994 Entries
Comments: To Hammy Sammy, I have read Part 1 and Part 2 repeatedly. Your posts are worthy of another read but I believe you have a Part 3 to unveil and it will bring it all together. The truth needs to be available and brought to the ham masses. You are that individual. Be the hero for those without the courage or strength to be heard. Awaiting patiently Flamebook Fan aka FF
Comments: Part 2 I, Hammy "Snitchboy" Sammy the self-imposed Judge, Jury, Jailor, and Jesus of the "Brotherhood of Licensed Legal Amateur Radio Operators", Anonymous Boot-Licker and Defender of KA6JMM, Trollish Spammer of Flamebook, generating a massively hypocritical harassment manifesto of Endless Undeserved or Excessive Criticisms with despicable commentary viciously bullying mocking and defaming LEGALLY licensed amateur radio operators (UZS,LYI, RJI, YDO etc.), Operating Wholly without offering a single shred of authoritative evidence, photographs, documents, links, or audio recordings let alone he's incapable of or unwilling to provide any evidence of his own possession of a valid Amateur Radio License but instead Hammy "SnitchBoy" Sammy endlessly repeats, retypes and regurgitates/reformats limitless mentally defective opinions, baseless accusations, shrill lies, relentless whining and petty half-truths as well as repetitively demanding documentation, evidence and other "proof" which he never, ever provides (notice that?) outside of asserting laughable "discussions with people in the know" without ever offering a statement that was attributed to a specific individual (nor will he respond to requests to do so) but instead doubles down on the childish validity of his own spam-like, generic, repetitive, unattributed, anecdotal claims while being incapable of offering a cogent explanation for his obsession with being the sole voice on Flamebook on all matters pertaining to KA6JMM who after five bans is no longer a welcomed individual in the brotherhood of licensed, legal amateur radio operators confining their activities to the guidelines, rules, FCC code and generally accepted behavior within the Amateur's Code. That's me, Hammy "SnitchBoy" Sammy in a nutshell ('cause I’m a delusional nut exhibiting exceedingly peculiar behavior via Flamebook) Here is all of my ridiculously and overly wordy spam defending the FCC Rules violating KA6JMM from just a couple a days of my recent posts– (not including what I spam under all of the other pseudonyms full of imgur images) Now you have to read my effluvia all over again… In reply to "SPARC Superiors" who said:"KA6JMM was banned outright after acting like a douche towards BB, next demanding an apology and then threatening BB. If you had any balls you would key up on SPARC and ask any of us, 'Hammy Sammy'."If by "acting like a douche" you mean he didn't just stand idly by and let someone blame him for the bad acts of others, then sure he was a "douche" to BB. Because, you know, it's kosher to blame a woman - rather than her rapist - for dressing "provocatively" when she gets raped, right?Again, I have it on good authority that this has actually all been worked out between the parties. Your unsubstantiated, hearsay comments mean nothing; audio or take a walk.I think I finally get what the "Hammy Sammy" spammer is going for... He's the next Roy Den Hollander or George Sodini, and the Flamebook is the venue for his "manifesto".What’s really funny is that it took the Hammy Sammy spammer longer to compile and dump all those links into one of his spam posts than it took me to write every comment of mine on the last two pages.I've had more discussions with people "in the know" who clarified that JMM was _extremely_ angry with BB for banning him from SPARC and that JMM has spent the last year plus calling BB a sociopath, and has even cryptically keyed up on SPARC without ID'ing and said "All he has to do is apologize". Based on these trustworthy members of SPARC's feedback and positive ID of JMM's voice (aided by Broadcastify playbacks), the testimony of these significantly trustworthy members of SPARC - who have the guts to ID their stations as opposed to JMM's unrelenting Baofeng harassment of SPARC (which violates all sort of sections of Part 97) I have to publicly reverse my earlier statement and affirm that JMM is no friend of BB's and is still banned from the SPARC repeater (as he is on CLARA, 450, 435 and god knows how many other repeaters now). I've also learned that PHX is more than unhappy with KA6JMM as he has read Flamebook and seen JMM's messages about jamming SPARC, laughing about the Baofeng sirens and demanding apologies from SPARC as well as falsely accusing PHX of driving by JMMs house which I've seen what a genuinely nice guy Johnny is so I know he is the last one to even think about stalking someone tha way JMM did when he repeatedly drove by BB's house, gave out false RDF bearings to BBs house and repeatedly gave out BB's full name and address on W6CDW (before Cliff Wallace permanently banned JMM from that repeater).In reply to the "Hammy Sammy" spammer appropriating my name who blathered: "I've had more discussions with people "in the know" who clarified that JMM was _extremely_ angry with BB for banning him from SPARC..."As anyone who was blamed for the poor behavior of others would be."...and that JMM has spent the last year plus calling BB a sociopath..."I don't know that sociopath is the right word for it, but it's pretty clear that SPARC and its userbase take themselves way too seriously and are highly cliquish, territorial and xenophobic and not very welcoming of people who aren't part of the "in" crowd and, at least in the case of JMM, very much of the "blame the victim" mentality as far as it concerns the harassment you've subjected JMM to.I won't discount the possibility that JMM might have been excessive in his criticism of persons within the SPARC userbase - I personally haven't heard it, nor have you provided actual evidence of it - but, given the circumstances, such could be understandable."...and has even cryptically keyed up on SPARC without ID'ing and said "All he has to do is apologize"."To the extent you can't provide actual audio of such, or that it can be proven that it's JMM making the transmission, your hearsay comments are worth less than spit."Based on these trustworthy members of SPARC's feedback and positive ID of JMM's voice (aided by Broadcastify playbacks)..."Assuming for the moment that it's actually his voice, that also doesn't mean he is responsible for the transmission - as you surely know, being the sort of lowlife that broadcasts such things."...the testimony of these significantly trustworthy members of SPARC..."Ha! Which ones?"...who have the guts to ID their stations as opposed to..."As opposed to the "Hammy Sammy" spammer and his one or two Dark Sleaze who are responsible for, among other acts of harassment, repeatedly broadcasting vulgar, homophobic comments over JMM and his correspondents on at least three amateur repeaters over less than a decade in an obsessively coordinated campaign of stalkerish behavior - that they've proudly chronicled here in the manner of a "manifesto" ala other sociopaths such as George Sodini, Roy Den Hollander et al."JMM's unrelenting Baofeng harassment of SPARC..."I'm aware of no evidence whatsoever, nor have you provided any evidence whatsoever, of JMM being responsible for any Part 97 violations with regard to the SPARC repeater. I have been and continue to be open to the examination of any such evidence that may exist or that you may at some point provide, but as of this moment, the only thing you've provided is a lot of nonsensical, unsubstantiated claims. Beyond lacking any foundation for your claims, to say nothing of your stalkerish, obsessive, creepy and, frankly, entirely ridiculous behavior, you've shown yourself to have zero credibility be an entirely dishonest individual by your appropriation of proper names, unique FCC-issued call signs, screen names and monikers of other people, your posting of phony warning letters, license cancellations and your defamatory - as well as easily dis-proven - claims of criminal activity on the part of JMM, up to and including the molestation of children."I have to publicly reverse my earlier statement and affirm that JMM is no friend of BB's and is still banned from the SPARC repeater, he knows those posts were authored by you or the one or two Dark Sleaze, and not JMM."...I know he is the last one to even think about stalking someone tha way..."You have by repeatedly trespassing on or adjacent to JMM's property, photographing it and repeatedly posting those pictures to the web, along with alleged phone numbers, eMail addresses and the addresses of other people whom he allegedly associates with?"...JMM did when he repeatedly drove by BB's house..."Forgetting for a moment that there is no actual proof that JMM has ever driven by BB's property, let alone "repeatedly", there is abundant evidence - posted here by you - that you have approached [and likely trespassed] on JMM's property numerous times; it's interesting - not to mention hypocritical - that you imagine such behavior constitutes stalking - except when you do it.I understand why you don't want to focus on that aspect of the matter."...repeatedly gave out BB's full name and address on W6CDW (before Cliff Wallace permanently banned JMM from that repeater)."You mean his full name that's on his publicly published FCC-issued amateur radio license? To say nothing of numerous social media websites whereupon BB himself has not only posted his name, but numerous pieces of information about himself, his likes/dislikes, hobbies, activities - even restaurants he frequents? Sites that are frequently brought up by him and discussed among the SPARC userbase on the 446.6400 repeater that can be heard across a wide swath of Southern California - and the entire world via Broadcastify?Also, it's not actually clear that JMM is "banned" from CDW. Yes, he was removed as a control operator and there was at some point bad blood between him, Cliff Wallace and one or two other operators - again, this primarily because of YOUR Part 97-violating behaviors - but my understanding is that JMM's current state of not using CDW is more because of his unhappiness with people he perceived to be his friends who, for whatever reason, ceased having his back under the pressure of your obsessive, creepy, stalkerish, FCC-rule-violating campaign of harassment that's gone on for more than five years and that you dreamed up in response to hurt feelings that could go back as far as twenty years.I can see why you're constantly pointing the finger elsewhere rather than discussing your own misdeeds. In reply to the "Hammy Sammy" spammer or one of his one or two Dark Sleaze posting as "not SPARC" who said:"It's quite evident Hammy Sammy will have no one collaborate his projections of SPARC or it's rank and file." With regard to the things I've heard from various people associated with the SPARC userbase, I never suggested that those things were authoritative as opposed to anecdotal. The purpose was to stir discussion which may lead to the discovery of authoritative evidence.AND, not to put to fine a point on it, you neither offered a statement that was attributed to a specific individual, nor did you respond to my request for you to do so. So, while whining about me offering an unattributed, anecdotal claim [which I never suggested was anything but], you yourself have offered unattributed, anecdotal claims - which, clearly, you imagine have more validity for no other reason than that they come from you.The lack of self-awareness on your part continues to be astounding."The endless obsessive posts by Hammy Sammy..."Actually, far from being "endless", you'll only see comments on this topic from me going back to March of this year - that, as contrasted against those of the "Hammy Sammy" spammer and his one or two anonymous boot-lickers that go back YEARS to nearly the beginning of this incarnation of the Flamebook."...appear petty and envy driven."So.... you think my relative few comments on the matter are "petty"... Compared to what? The significantly larger volume of posts on this subject that predated mine by at least five years?Do tell: are the large number of posts viciously mocking JMM's appearance "petty" in your view?How about the great number of posts referring to his former spouses or children - including the entirely inappropriate pictures of those people that have no business being posted here, as well as the despicable commentary on his alleged family issues; are those things "petty" in your view?How about the large volume of comments that, with no evidence whatsoever, accuse JMM of various nefarious activities with regard to amateur radio, including the phony warning letter, the phony license cancellation and the false allegation of being charged with various criminal acts in the "stalking" category; are these things "petty" in your view?What about the relentless whining of the "Hammy Sammy" spammer over having his identity allegedly compromised because he was careless in discarding a bit of personal information [which could have only been discovered because he was caught during one of his excursions to JMM's property that he's respassed on and photographed numerous times to post pictures here to no legitimate purpose whatsoever], when by that point he'd gleefully published the fruits of his own stalkerish behavior numerous times on this website? Is such behavior not entirely petty, not to mention hypocritical?If you imagine all those things that have been published here long before I ever commented on this topic are something other than "petty", please explain why - if you're intellectually capable."Hammy Sammy should look at the sum of SPARCs parts and their activities outside the actual repeater use itself."I have no quarrel with nor criticism of SPARC's activities aside from this relatively minor point, so I'm not sure why I should do that. I've subjected neither SPARC as a whole or its userbase to undeserved or xcessive criticism.I've legitimately questioned the behavior of a single member of that userbase with regard to how he treated his brother amateur when his brother amateur was subject to relentless harassment over the air by persons violating Part 97 rules.One wonders why YOU haven't done the same."Hammy Sammy the self imposed Judge, Jury, Jailor, and Jesus of the ham hobby..."That you, in your delusion, may imagine that I see myself that way does not make it so."...is not taking into account everything SPARC stands for..."Giving them the benefit of the doubt, one presumes that they stand for the advancement and the betterment of the amateur radio hobby through friendship and fellowship among the brotherhood of licensed, legal amateur radio operators within the guidelines of the Amateur's Code.Which is why it's hard to understand why they would blame their brother amateur for the activities of people who there is no good reason to believe are licensed amateurs who are very clearly violating FCC rules simply to harass an individual for no good reason other than that said individual might, at some time as far back as two decades ago, hurt the feelings of one of the people responsible for the rule-breaking [by standing up for himself and not allowing that person to subject him to bullying].If you're intellectually capable of offering a cogent explanation, I would enjoy hearing it."...which leads us to the former sentence about envy and petty"Hammy "Snitchboy" Sammy the self-imposed Judge, Jury, Jailor, and Jesus of the "Brotherhood of Licensed Legal Amateur Radio Operators","Yet again, that you or one of the possibly two anonymous blowhards who echos all your ridiculous talking points, characterizes me so does not make it so, nor does it mean that I have presented myself as such. I haven't.I've casually, cogently attempted to obtain information about your creepy and obsessive half-decade+ crusade of buffoonery and defamation on this website which, by your implication, is a result of things that went on as much as twenty years ago - and very likely weren't all that important then."Anonymous Boot-Licker and Defender of KA6JMM..."I'm merely asking questions about your unsubstantiated claims. You could have easily answered my questions and, in so doing, provided a legitimate basis for criticism of JMM.Only you know why you're so spun up by my legitimate quest for information."Trollish Spammer of Flamebook..."That my comments may be, occasionally, lengthy or wordy, doesn't make them spam.Even if I was engaged in "trolling" - I'm not - or if my comments could legitimately be described as "spam" - they can't - you'd be in no position to take issue with it, having legitimately spammed this website for over five years with ridiculous commentary and graphics."...generating a massively hypocritical harassment manifesto of Endless Undeserved or Excessive Criticisms..."I've subjected no person to "harassment" or to "endless" or "excessive" criticism."...with despicable commentary viciously bullying mocking and defaming LEGALLY licensed amateur radio operators (UZS,LYI, RJI, YDO etc.)"I have not "defamed" any of those people; to "defame" someone, you have to accuse them of something they're demonstrably not guilty of [generally, criminal activity or some gross sexual misconduct]. An example of such activity would be falsely accusing someone of molesting children - the way you have falsely accused people of molesting children. By contrast, I've accused no person at all - in particular those listed people - of any such thing.In point of fact, I have no idea who "LYI" is supposed to be.Beyond that, none of my commentary about any of the above could legitimately be characterized as "vicious" or "bullying".Mocking, sure - but always in way that is commiserate with their poor behavior."...Operating Wholly without offering a single shred of authoritative evidence, photographs, documents, links, or audio recordings..."The amount of evidence that exists online of the poor behavior of anyone I've ever been critical of here is literally overwhelming, and very much a matter of public record.One need only go to Youtube and type in the call-signs N6UZS, KE6YDO, KE6RJI, K6MWT, KD6CQS, etc., and you'll be treated to a veritable feast of ridiculousness that each and every one of those operators has engaged in gleefully.That's saying nothing of audio posted to websites like soundboard.com, clyp.com, Facebook and several private websites that host hours of content displaying the poor behavior of those operators and others associated with the 435 repeater.Here are just a few samples of some of the worst of those operators:N6UZS repeatedly using racial slurs in reference to KC6UBP: ...and these are just a few examples of things I've legitimately criticized those operators for."...let alone he's incapable of or unwilling to provide any evidence of his own possession of a valid Amateur Radio License...I'm perfectly capable of doing it, but why should I do what you're unwilling to?"...but instead Hammy "SnitchBoy" Sammy endlessly repeats, retypes and regurgitates/reformats limitless mentally defective opinions, baseless accusations, shrill lies, relentless whining and petty half-truths..."I'm not sure how an opinion in and of itself can be "mentally defective", but with regard to the rest of it, not one allegation I've raised has been "baseless", nothing I've said is false or "half-true". I suppose to the person whose commentary I'm critical of, it could be viewed as whining - but only for the fact that you can't deal with being criticized in a way that's entirely tame compared to your own despicable comments."...as well as repetitively demanding documentation, evidence and other "proof" which he never, ever provides (notice that?).."You mean like I just did above? Not that it was necessary because many of those videos have been linked to here before and the despicable behavior of all of those operators is widely known and discussed almost daily, and there is ample evidence of it on several places online.This, as contrast to your "evidence" of the poor character of JMM which simply doesn't exist anywhere aside from in a few short audio clips, none of which actually display any behavior equivalent to that which you've just seen evidence of from those people I'm critical of [along with many others who have posted those clips and many others long before I showed up], and none of which actually fits with your own description of the audio."...outside of asserting laughable "discussions with people in the know" without ever offering a statement that was attributed to a specific individual (nor will he respond to requests to do so)..."Again, I COULD do that, but doing so would betray a confidence. I know it's crazy but there are people out there who really don't like the idea of being smeared as child molesters simply for disagreeing with you.And why do you imagine you deserve to know the identities of people who aren't even part of this discussion when you, despite making many and serious allegations, refuse to reveal your own?"...but instead doubles down on the childish validity of his own spam-like, generic, repetitive, unattributed, anecdotal claims while being incapable of offering a cogent explanation..."None of your comments make sense, friend. You honestly come off as retarded. "...for his obsession with being the sole voice on Flamebook on all matters pertaining to KA6JMM..."Again, I'm merely seeking information about why you've chosen to dedicate at least half a decade of your life to making lame comments on this website about a person who, based on all available evidence, might be somewhat goofy in his activities as a ham radio operator but is otherwise harmless."...who after five bans..."Almost all of which can be credited to your illegal activities on the radio."...is no longer a welcomed individual in the brotherhood of licensed, legal amateur radio operators..."The brotherhood of amateur radio encompasses far more than either of the "renegade" repeaters, the largely unused "CLARA" repeater, the W6CDW repeater or the seemingly confused about it's identity - is it another "renegade" repeater or is it a "good buddy" repeater? - SPARC.With the exception of CLARA, the amateur community generally views the repeaters JMM has had problems on - due almost entirely to your illegal activities - are viewed as "problem" repeaters - sometimes unfairly - where only LIDS perate.Given the buffoonery you hear in the clips above, some of which comes from the owner of 435 and four of his "control operators" [among whom can be counted a person banned from 435 at least four times by four different repeater owners], that's not an entirely unfair characterization of things.So the bans you keep making a big deal about, which you caused to happen in large part - while operating illegally, mean very little. I hold out hope that at some point you'll have some reply that isn't nonsensical and that actually addresses the issue. In re: to "Not the FCC" - who SHOULD be with the FCC, but for the fact that the FCC doesn't generally employ people with common sense and critical thinking skills - who said: "Amateur radio is ONLY for communicating with other licensed amateur stations who clearly identify with their amateur service call sign. Any amateur displaying poor operating practices and even better yet who is _documented_ displaying such poor behavior is to be condemned. Wouldn't you agree?" Generally I would. That said, the criticism of RXZ for talking to an "unlicensed" station attached to that video may - MAY - have been a misstatement. In that specific instance, an argument could - COULD - be made that Joan should be classified as "third-party-traffic". Now, obviously, she herself did not specifically identify as third-party traffic, nor did any licensee ID and specifically refer to her as TPT operating via their station, or via a non-RF input to the repeater. But it's my understanding that she was getting in via a Roger Blight-approved medium. Now, we know that Roger Blight allows a great many things that are properly classified as rule violations to go on on his repeater, that he allows people who he likes to have "priority" access through VOIP, "private" RF inputs and phone patches, and he has no problem with them violating the rules - specifically not identifying - and that he even encourages his control operators [who are all unrepentant rulebreakers, persons who have boasted of being "bootleggers" (the way Roger has), persons who on a near daily basis jam stations they don't like or who they imagine are jamming them] to violate Part 97 with impunity under the doctrine of, "your repeater, your rules". I believe it's pretty clear that "your repeater, your rules" does not mean that you can violate Part 97, but it doesn't seem to be that Roger or his control operators understand that. So while it may be "approved" by Roger, and while it's clear that he fundamentally misunderstands the doctrine of "your repeater, your rules", AND while it doesn't appear that there was a legitimate operator exercising proper station control during that audio capture, I can see where the FCC's position would be that while there might have been a failure to ID, you're still - effectively - dealing with a person who is operating as third-party traffic. All other criticisms of Henry's poor behavior remain valid as a basis for criticism. And let me take this opportunity to thank you for your well-reasoned thoughts on the matter, and your gentlemanly way of conversing. You get bonus points for your choice of warning letters to cite as a reference. In reply to "Ham Sandwich" who said... honestly, I'm not sure what most of what you said is supposed to mean. "Casual conversation does not require justification of your motives or invasive inquiries of others." While what goes on here may in abstract be classified "casual" conversation, when you get to the point you're accusing people of, among other things, child molestation, when we know, if nothing else, that there is no sound basis for such an accusation, the motives of the defaming party are a legitimate subject for discussion. Also, the defaming party has dropped hints as to the reasons for his obsessive, creepy campaign of stalkerish harassment; attempting to discern if there is merit to those hints is hardly "invasive". When you stand up in the public square and you point the finger of blame for, among other things, ugly, despicable, criminal sex acts against others, you best be prepared to defend your claims, even if you do it while cowering behind a mask.If you imagine that these questions are "invasive" because the answers may in some way serve to identify the anonymous blowhard who has been spamming here for at least five years, you might consider that if there is, in fact, any legitimate basis for his claims, then KA6JMM already knows who he is.Beyond that, one of this person's claims is that JMM obtained personal information about him from something he carelessly discarded. If that claim is true, JMM not only knows who he is, but he knows that he is responsible, in part if not in total, for the harassment JMM has been subject to on multiple amateur radio repeaters, as well as for that person's stalkerish following of him and photographing of his property."Your purpose is not congruent with the truth". Huh? What's my purpose? What's "the truth"? Which truth? The objective, verifiable, unimpeachable truth based on fact, or subjective, unsubstantiated, unverifiable, unbelievable anecdotes that some people mistakenly label "truth"? "...you have sold nothing." If I were selling something, that might be a problem. I'm seeking knowledge on a particular subject. If you have any, please share. It would be much more interesting than your non-responses. In reply to "Not the FCC" with regard to the offerings of the so-called "Dark Fleas"... I would be cautious of giving too much legitimacy to anything presented by the "Dark Fleas", in particular the "Hammy Sammy" spammer who typically appropriates my handle, KA6JMM's call letters, the call letters of other amateur radio operators, the proper names of people who they aren't and all while spreading falsehoods, half-truths and spun truths. They're known for highly selective editing of their audio clips. That said, with what's been provided via the "JMM the Model Ham" Soundcloud page - which falsely asserts to be controlled by KA6JMM and which falsely portrays an innocent Youtuber by the moniker of "Boogie" [who also portrays a character called "Francis"] as though he is JMM to viciously and needlessly mock JMM [and, in effect, "Boogie"] for being overweight - is an example of poor operating practices. Indeed, persons who purport to be model hams should not engage with unidentified stations. In this instance their criticism of JMM is warranted. Unfortunately, this same "group" [of, at best, three people] who refer to themselves as "Dark Fleas" has also followed KA6JMM to multiple repeaters, harassing him with - often vulgar and obscene - recordings over a period of time much longer than the 22:00 minutes of that video, and they've done it while themselves failing to ID - I suspect this is because they don't actually have licenses - and while interfering with licensed operators engaged in legal QSOs. So, consider that when you determine how much weight to give to the ostensibly legitimate criticisms of people known for much more egregious rule violations across a much longer period of time - months, if not years - as compared to these entirely tame technical violations. In reply to the peculiar comments of "The Dark Fleas", who said: "Note that in all of what Hammy Sammy wrote he offered no evidence whatsoever that the recordings are incorrect or fake." I find it interest that you state that I pen "decent responses", which you seemingly neither read - or read with comprehension - nor, generally, respond to substantively. As far as it concerns whether or not these particular recordings were "fake", my previous response to "Not the FCC" did not assert that those particular recordings were fake. What I did say was that audio provided in the past by the "Hammy Sammy" spammer was selectively edited - which it is and was. As for being "incorrect", within the context of the conversations I've been attempting to have with your "team" since March, it's incorrect to assert that any of the audio provided - most at my request - has either been "evidence" of any great wrongdoing on the part of JMM, or that it's been even slightly "provocative". When I think of poor operators, I think of audio such as that that was illustrated in all of those video captures I put up links to in my last response to your alleged associate the "Hammy Sammy" spammer; nothing either of you have offered amounts to anything more than the mundane, frankly boring conversation of average "good buddy" hams; there is nothing provocative or even controversial in anything audio you've attributed to JMM. In fact, I believe only the last few minutes of your capture which allegedly includes Audio over seven different days - an average of just over three minutes per conversation - is JMM allegedly talking directly to a "squeaky", yet you only hear the squeaky in that conversation. So, not to put too fine a point on it, but for all you seem to believe that your alleged many hours of recordings of this obscure, seemingly harmless individual you're so obsessed with amounts to something, all I hear is relatively benign conversation of otherwise model hams who happen to occasionally address an unidentified operator for short a duration. Your work is the equivalent of a busybody neighbor standing outside with a camera watching his neighbor's grass grow, hoping to catch it at the point it grows beyond a certain height so you can bellow far and wide that your neighbor is violating an HOA rule, or perhaps some layabout with a stopwatch trying to catch people doing 40 MPH where it's marked 35, but behaving as though you have Epstein evidence. "All his efforts were directed at attacking our little team, calling names and other keyboard warrior tactics..." The only name which I referred to your "team" by in my previous post was your moniker, "the Dark Fleas". If you're complaining about my previous references to you as, "Dark Sleaze", do remember that members of your so-called "team" accuse people of, among other things, molesting children - falsely. You really are in no position to whine about name calling or these "keyboard warrior" tactics you're referring to; again I'll remind you that your "team" has spent more than half a decade using this site as a platform for defamation and harassment of a person who's greatest "sin" appears to be being highly boring. "The recordings are extremely solid samples of those four hams repeatedly violating part 97..." While exchanging with unidentified operators is a poor practice, the "solid" examples you've provided are, as I said, the equivalent of catching someone doing 40 in a 35 zone and are perhaps, the most ridiculous and petty things you could possibly complain about as far as it concerns violations of the rules or simply bad acting on a SoCal 2m/70cm repeater. When compared to the poor operating practices of, among others, those people singled out by callsign in the video captures I offered previously, these examples pale in comparison. "...and were chosen to show how a bad control operator can encourage others to ignore the rules. As a side note, the repeater owner first asked KA6JMM to step down as control operator. As JMM continued to talk to the squeakies as well as engage in other poor behavior the owner issued an edict that NO ONE was to communicate with the unidentified stations or they would be permanently banned. We have that recording too 😎." While we would find common ground on your initial point, if you're referring to the audio that was posted here recently at my request, then the edict not to communicate with unidentified stationed was issued NOT as a result of JMM or anyone else talking to a "squeaky", but to people on the W6CDW repeater - JMM mostly, but others as well - rightly having bad reactions to unidentified persons - persons who are a part of your "team" - maliciously interfering with the legal communications of licensed stations using vulgar, obscene recordings and whispering voices making homophobic comments about JMM. If you're attempting to assert that the problems on that repeater were due primarily to various operators there talking to "squeakies" while there was no other traffic on the repeater, as opposed to the activities of members of your "team" operating without benefit of call, maliciously interrupting the legal operations of all the legitimate users of that repeater during peak usage - specifically to harass and ridicule JMM - then you're simply being dishonest, and I suspect you know it. As for that final paragraph, there's not good reason to quote it; while you're correct in your assertions, you're also entirely hypocritical; you call out a minor infraction while, if not actively engaging in, support people and fail to call out people who have engaged in much more significant rule violations. There seems to be a lot of sarcasm in your couple of post so, again, I think you know that you're acting in a completely hypocritical way, and that you imagine you're somehow making a legitimate point against a person you have a highly irrational obsession with. In reply to "Miss Piggy" who said: "Why Hammy Sammy do you only fight for one person that has been supposedly slandered on Flamebook. There are many on this platform that could be eligible for your defense and truth services. Ham Sandwich, Jimmy Houghton, Roger Bly, and many more have been accused of many of these similar allegations..." First off, I don't know KA6JMM personally - not that I'm sure that would matter - so your previous correspondent is - can you imagine? - not telling the truth. In point of fact I have spoken up before when people have crossed-the-line in reference to others; while I did so holding my nose, I spoke out when someone made disgusting comments about Roger Blight's young non-combatant daughter that had no place in the conversation. I don't know what's allegedly been said about "Ham Sandwich" who, like JMM, I don't know, and I don't believe his true identity is known. I wonder whether or not either he or Jimmy Houghten have ever been falsely accused of gross criminal acts like child molestation the way the "Hammy Sammy" spammer has often accused JMM of such - falsely. I'd like to think that if I was aware of such things, I would speak up in those instances as well. In reply to "Miss Piggy" who said: "Child molesting accusations have been leveled against Jimmy, BB, Ham Sandwich, Roger, Perry, Johnny PHX, OG, the Martin's, etc." I can't specifically remember any instance of such an allegation here, but I will take your word for it. To my knowledge, NONE of those people have ever been legitimately suspected of, charged with or convicted of any such act. In point of fact, I'm only aware of two instances of an amateur radio operator being legitimately convicted of a sex crime against a child; one I can't remember the call-sign, but he actually had his license revoked due to outcry from the amateur radio community [a 7-call, if I remember correctly], and the other was a 4-call who'd last resided in FL who'd been convicted both there and in Arizona [and was listed in the FL sex offender registry], and he'd been suspected of criminal sex acts in the US Virgin Islands as well. He, thankfully, has been dead for a number of years. He was a 14.300/14.313 critter, and would have been right at home on 435. In more recent years, another 14.313 scumbag, known for gleefully talking about how he planned to move to Puerto Rico or Jamaica and hook up with a "little Latina girl" [he was in his mid-60s at the time] was also charged with molesting his own stepdaughter, though that never went to trial. Because he felt he'd been railroaded - he said the ex-wife put the daughter up to the claim - he liked to go around calling others molesters. He, too, is dead and, if there's any cosmic justice, frying as we speak, lowlife that he was. "It's almost a default move on the repeater or Flamebook if you don't agree with someone." It actually seems to be something of a default attack across amateur radio, honestly. Frankly, I'm amazed that someone hasn't been successfully sued for it. Yes, legally amateur radio operators are limited purpose public figures, but it seems like a hard case to make that there is any way you can - absent a credible allegation, a criminal charge or a conviction - argue that you're NOT recklessly disregarding the truth if you accuse someone of being a child molester. "I am not sure if repeater chat or Flamebook postings are taken that seriously." Generally, they're not. And, like you said, some of these other people have been so accused - but apparently so infrequently that I don't recall the comments. By contrast, the "Hammy Sammy" spammer et al have made that false allegation about JMM dozens of times on this website - very likely while commenting using a VPN, TOR or some other sort of proxy server which masks their true IP address - and, obviously, without using their real name. Anyone who would stoop to falsely accusing a person of that most vile of criminal acts over an amateur radio dispute is a lowlife of the highest order. Good grief the "Snitchboy" Spammer has been busy this AM... And wow, your list of nonsense is repetitive. Let's delve into some of these ridiculous whining points:"I thought I would share my tiresome and repetitive "Twenty Internet Debate Techniques For Defending KA6JMM" which I am sure of everyone on Flamebooke being so tired of:"I'm not sure how many people who use the FB actually care about this little back-and-forth between us, but if the alternative is your lame edited pictures of JMM with the homophobic commentary and obsession with gay sex acts or the disgusting pictures of obese bellies, I suspect they'll go with my comments - of which there has only been one this AM, despite your spam-posting with my name."1. It has to be a HUGE post!"As I've said before, it should be of sufficient length to respond to the "argument" - to the extent your spam constitutes a legitimate argument - and to sufficiently hit all the relevant points. And, of course, I use the word "relevant" loosely so far as it concerns your remarks."2. The post must total at least three screaming-for-attention screen scrolls and thousands of words." ."If there is anything petty about the current state of affairs - beyond the fact that there is ANYONE on the planet who is that much of a mentally defective person that this is the way they'd attempt to deal with a grudge over what amounts to little more than hurt feelings stemming from things that occurred as far back as the late 90s or early 2000s - it's pettiness in the way JMM has been treated by some people within the amateur radio community and EXTREME pettiness on the part of those who have and who continue to engage in harassment of that person."Hammy Sammy should meet SPARC face to face to convey his questions, comments, and concerns."Why? I don't believe the persons - yourself included - using the Flamebook as their harassment "manifesto" against JMM are truly affiliated with SPARC nor do I believe their peculiar behavior would be approved generally by members of that group. Further, I don't believe they follow this page. To the extent I've already spoken to certain people within that group in an attempt to find some answers that you seem incapable or unwilling to provide, they don't seem to think there is much value in what occurs here. In reply to the "Hammy Sammy" spammer - who seems to not understand the concept of paragraphs - who blathered:"For the record let's sum up Hammy "SnitchBoy" Sammy's obsessive Flamebook activities"I'm engaged in no "obsessive" activities. My commentary here is entirely casual. ..."I never suggested that JMM and YGC were "friends". I stated that I have heard from others who purport to be in a position to know and who are actually credible that they have "settled their differences" with regard to the legitimate bad blood between them caused by your stalkerish behavior and your violations of FCC rules. I also never suggested that JMM was welcome back on SPARC."...as he is on CLARA, 450..."I'm not aware of him being legitimately banned from either 450 or 435 under their current operators; he had been banned from 435 by a previous owner who banned numerous long-time 435ers for no specially good reason, including a current 435 control operator [who was, in fact, banned by two other 435 tewards prior to the current one]. It's perfectly evident that his state of not being welcome on either SPARC or CDW is entirely due to the coordinated, obsessive and stalkerish campaign of harassment you've subjected him to on those repeaters. While I have no specific evidence of the situation on CLARA - a very "good buddy", straight-laced system which is largely unused - actually was, but I have no reason to doubt it was any different than that which exists on CDW and SPARC."I've also learned that PHX is more than unhappy with KA6JMM as he has read Flamebook and seen JMM's messages about jamming SPARC..."And, if PHX is anything other than a complete retard….
Comments: Part 1 I, Hammy "Snitchboy" Sammy the self-imposed Judge, Jury, Jailor, and Jesus of the "Brotherhood of Licensed Legal Amateur Radio Operators", Anonymous Boot-Licker and Defender of KA6JMM, Trollish Spammer of Flamebook, generating a massively hypocritical harassment manifesto of Endless Undeserved or Excessive Criticisms with despicable commentary viciously bullying mocking and defaming LEGALLY licensed amateur radio operators (UZS,LYI, RJI, YDO etc.), Operating Wholly without offering a single shred of authoritative evidence, photographs, documents, links, or audio recordings let alone he's incapable of or unwilling to provide any evidence of his own possession of a valid Amateur Radio License but instead Hammy "SnitchBoy" Sammy endlessly repeats, retypes and regurgitates/reformats limitless mentally defective opinions, baseless accusations, shrill lies, relentless whining and petty half-truths as well as repetitively demanding documentation, evidence and other "proof" which he never, ever provides (notice that?) outside of asserting laughable "discussions with people in the know" without ever offering a statement that was attributed to a specific individual (nor will he respond to requests to do so) but instead doubles down on the childish validity of his own spam-like, generic, repetitive, unattributed, anecdotal claims while being incapable of offering a cogent explanation for his obsession with being the sole voice on Flamebook on all matters pertaining to KA6JMM who after five bans is no longer a welcomed individual in the brotherhood of licensed, legal amateur radio operators confining their activities to the guidelines, rules, FCC code and generally accepted behavior within the Amateur's Code. That's me, Hammy "SnitchBoy" Sammy in a nutshell ('cause I’m a delusional nut exhibiting exceedingly peculiar behavior via Flamebook) Here is all of my ridiculously and overly wordy spam defending the FCC Rules violating KA6JMM from just a couple a days of my recent posts– (not including what I spam under all of the other pseudonyms full of imgur images) Now you have to read my effluvia all over again… This from a person who has, over the past five years, spam-posted so great a volume of nonsense to this site that one can go pages seeing your own comments. Interestingly, but for maybe four comments on this page, and maybe one or two from others, this whole page and most of the last two are all your garbage.Oh, and perhaps one or two of the dark sleaze."I love to parse and quote a few words entirely out of context"For instance?"It needs to be twice as long as those Ascii Dick Pics I used to post all the time."I have no concrete proof you - the "Hammy Sammy" Spammer - were the ASCII spammer from a couple of years back, though it wouldn't surprise me."3. Deny, deny, deny! I get caught red handed but like any 3 year old I just deny over and over."I'm not sure exactly what you've caught me "red handed" doing. At least, in so far as you've actually proven anything you've claimed. It bears repeating that the only time you've ever made an attempt to prove something you've claimed - when you posted a few mundane audio clips at my request - they didn't come within an astronomical unit of proving any of your tall tales about JMM."4. Defend KA6JMM in the most suspicious and vigorous way possible"I'm not sure there's anything "suspicious" about me asking for proof that he's engaged in any misdeeds you've accused him of - and you've failed spectacularly to prove even your silliest claims about him, such as that it's a demonstrable fact that he was responsible for "jamming" SPARC on the various occasions you've claimed that he was."...yet at the same time I claim I don't know him and I don't live in the area, LOL!" I've been pretty clear in that I "know" him the exact same way you do - by reputation, and as a voice on the radio. I've never met him and I've never been in the same room as him. I wonder if he and I have ever actually been in the same State, though I suppose anything is possible.Also, the extent to which he and I "know" each other is entirely irrelevant as far as it concerns YOUR demonstrably false and unproven claims about him."Talk about a creepy obsession!"Well, to my credit I've merely authored a handful of comments asking why it is that he lives rent free in your head - as he clearly does. People can label things as they will, but how that's "creepy" compared to a person who, among other things, travels who knows how far on numerous occasion to photograph another person's property and post pictures of it on the web along with numerous unsubstantiated if not demonstrably false allegations of criminal acts, I'm sure I don't know.The only reasonable explanation is that mentally defective people - such as yourself - rarely acknowledge their own defects, and often engage in the same sort of finger-pointing you do in an attempt to talk around their poor behavior."People might think we are cyber lovers if I'm not careful." Careful, your displays of sexual dysfunction are becoming legion - much more than your dark sleaze. "5. I know KA6JMM SO WELL (but deny I know him in the same breath)"This sort of obfuscation borders on ridiculous."...that I can declare he does not need to use this website but he is all over "social media"." You insist on claiming that he's using his website, going so far as to state which screen names he's using. I've yet to see a shred of proof from you that he's using any of those names, and plenty which indicates not only is he not the author of posts from those names, but that those posts are coming from you - the same way you're using "Hammy Sammy" and "Model Ham" to post comments."6. Every Flamebook message from KA6JMM attacking BB & SPARC just can't be JMM so accuse someone else of authoring them."Please provide substantive proof that JMM is the author of any posts to this website.[That you say so doesn't constitute substantive proof]."7. KA6JMM is well known for harassment and defamation of other hams..."Then you should have no problem illustrating that with some sort of concrete, unimpeachable evidence. Who, specifically, has he "harassed"? "Defamed"? What actions can you prove he's engaged in that cross the line of typical amateur radio back-and-forth into "harassment", and where are the charges and convictions for this behavior? What statements has he made that constitute "defamation"? Where were these statements recorded? Who has he made these statements against? As defamation has a clear legal definition, it would bolster your case to illustrate where he's been taken to court and found liable for such behavior. Please provide evidence."...but declare any mocking of JMM as "cowardly"."I don't know about "any". Yours generally is."Because I claim I don't live in SoCal how would I know his history anyhow?"You've heard the phrase, "He [or she] who asserts must prove".You're the person making claims that another party has engaged in criminal acts - including serious criminal acts like child molestation, not me."Oh right, invoke the-"not on the Internet"-claim-makes-it-invalid even though the Internet does not truly encompass the sum of human experience and knowledge."I've never suggested that what you've alleged - with no proof whatsoever - couldn't be true simply because evidence of such can't be found on the internet. Go back to our earliest exchange; you'll find I said pretty much the exact opposite of that.The TRUE state of affairs is that you've provided NO PROOF WHATSOEVER of anything you've alleged against this man.That's saying nothing of how when you actually took the time to offer what in your mentally diseased mind was "proof" - a few meager, mundane sound clips - of your many and serious allegations, said "proof" didn't prove what you alleged.Not only that, when asked for proof, you not only take it as a personal insult, but you go out of your way to personally attack the person who dares you to ask."8. Never offer any proof but DEMAND it at every turn, because, well, that is my right."What exactly do you want me to offer proof of? That JMM isn't here? That's pretty obvious. You're the one insisting that he is, yet you've failed to prove it.You're the one insisting he's engaged in some huge amount of, "harassment" [do you even know the legal definition of the word?], yet can't even bother to state who specifically he's "harassed" or what he said/did that constitutes "harassment".And no, legally, bloviating about how a certain person likes a certain restaurant isn't, "harassment"."9. Deflect by claiming I don't deflect, LOL!"That's two "LOLs" so far for you; we'll come back to that near the end.Anyone who isn't mentally defective can clearly see that not only am I not deflecting, I'm going to great lengths to respond to each and every point you try to make, no matter how irrelevant."10. Create giant ridiculous posts..."Like the one I'm responding to? I understand it makes the post bigger, but about half of the post is me quoting you so that it can't be legitimately said that I'm ignoring or deflecting."...but accuse others of not using Proof & Logic. I mean, answering sentence-by-sentence is logical and not obsessively anal, right?"Actually, answering line-by-line is entirely logical.Whatever else you might want to say, I'm showing you at least enough respect to answer you completely.You might try doing the same.But of course, you imagine yourself to be some superior sort of life-form, and too good for the usual pleasantries. After all, you imagine people you're harassing and defaming have some how done you wrong because they don't simply roll over and take it. As the assuredly one and only Hammy Sammy I thought I would share my tiresome and repetitive "Twenty Internet Debate Techniques For Defending KA6JMM" which I am sure of everyone on Flamebooke being so tired of:1. It has to be a HUGE post! If I don't type a voluminous accusatory response to every part of every sentence I feel threatened that somebody somewhere will think I am not "winning" some super important cyber-argument. I must dominate Flamebook!2. The post must total at least three screaming-for-attention screen scrolls and thousands of words. I love to parse and quote a few words entirely out of context and concoct very long and very goofy paragraphs in response. It needs to be twice as long as those Ascii Dick Pics I used to post all the time.3. Deny, deny, deny! I get caught red handed but like any 3 year old I just deny over and over.4. Defend KA6JMM in the most suspicious and vigorous way possible yet at the same time I claim I don't know him and I don't live in the area, LOL! Talk about a creepy obsession! People might think we are cyber lovers if I'm not careful. 5. I know KA6JMM SO WELL (but deny I know him in the same breath) that I can declare he does not need to use this website but he is all over "social media".6. Every Flamebook message from KA6JMM attacking BB & SPARC just can't be JMM so accuse someone else of authoring them.7. KA6JMM is well known for harassment and defamation of other hams but declare any mocking of JMM as "cowardly". Because I claim I don't live in SoCal how would I know his history anyhow? Oh right, invoke the-"not on the Internet"-claim-makes-it-invalid even though the Internet does not truly encompass the sum of human experience and knowledge.8. Never offer any proof but DEMAND it at every turn, because, well, that is my right.9. Deflect by claiming I don't deflect, LOL!10. Create giant ridiculous posts but accuse others of not using Proof & Logic. I mean, answering sentence-by-sentence is logical and not obsessively anal, right?11. In the most ludicrous manner possible accuse others of not having a ham license, with no basis in fact, yet never ever offer up evidence of my own "call sign".12. Use a tenet of my favorite book Mein Kampf; repeat a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously"13. When anyone copies my technique I will label it as lame appropriation and unrepentant lying. Multisyllable false accusations are somehow more effective in my head.14. Keep trolling for information, throw out the same baseless accusations in every sentence: no license, no privileges, jamming various amateur radio repeaters without IDing, etc. In one breath say someone doesn't have a license and in the next infer it must be a lesser license while hoping for a corrective response. Lame to think it will work but keep trying!15. Repeatedly accuse others of "projecting" because, well, much like a cross-dressing Ham Radio Mary Poppins I am practically perfect in every way.16. Repetitively invoke "libel" yet falsely accuse others of all sorts of heinous crimes without any proof.17. Yet again, invoke gross defamation when I accuse others of jamming without a license (here I am projecting evidence of how often I jam with no ID on 20/40/80 meters as well as local repeaters)18. Spend hours and hours posting these giant screen wasters but accuse others of spending too much time withoutadmitting I am a decrepit dinosaur when it comes to Internet techniques.19. Be sure to liberally add "LOL" at the end of many sentences, LOL20. Embody the the classic techniques of the unrepentant liar and freely accuse others of being liars.Feel free to use these Solid Gold Debate Techniques over and over and look like a cyber-winner too! JMM is a lesser being too, right? HOW DARE HE object to being followed from repeater to repeater and jammed with homophobic nonsense by an unidentified whisperer, right? And, honestly, HOW DARE HE have a problem with a creep on the internet following him around, taking pictures of his house, posting them on the internet and calling him a child molester, right? He's such a lesser life-form, he exists to be mistreated by superior beings like you in such ways, right?/sarc on all that, since I'm sure you didn't get it."11. In the most ludicrous manner possible accuse others of not having a ham license, with no basis in fact"Right, clips of you doing it that you posted is, "no basis in fact".Oh, and where have you posted using your call? I must have missed it.I didn't miss you posting using OG's call, or JMMs."...yet never ever offer up evidence of my own "call sign"."I'm under no obligation to publish my own letters. We're not on the air, I'm not pretending to be people I'm not and I'm not on tape jamming without benefit of call."12. Use a tenet of my favorite book Mein Kampf..."It's interesting that you throw out appeals to emotion like that when the only person who attempted to throw out the word, "jewish" as an insult was you."...repeat a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously""Whatever else your lies about JMM et al may be, "colossal" is hardly the word I'd use.Well, at least they're not colossal to anyone else. You, personally, seem to allow him to occupy a colossal amount of real estate in your own mind."13. When anyone copies my technique I will label it as lame appropriation and unrepentant lying."It's a demonstrable fact that you've lied; it's been pointed out and well illustrated, and bears no immediate rehashing.That's saying nothing of the claims you've made that are simply unsubstantiated - as well as unable to be substantiated. Yet you repeat them so often and with such fervor, and are so vehement in your personal attacks against those that dare question you, that you've elevated your mere unsubstantiated claims to gross falsehoods by yourself."14. Keep trolling for information..."Ah, so we come to the heart of the matter; you really don't want anyone to know who you are. You're deathly afraid of it for some reason. Among other things that speaks to you not being a licensed amateur radio operator because they generally don't care if people know who they are. But that's a minor point. You've got some sort of secret that you just can't allow anyone to know, and whatever that secret is - it's very likely something no one would care about if they knew it, but it's REALLY important to you [another illustration of your overblown sense of self] - it's tightly wrapped up in this ridiculous vendetta. And you know that you can't prove ANYTHING you've said about JMM without giving up something that will expose you.Nevermind that JMM allegedly knows who you are, or so you've hinted at heavily, if not claimed outright.Is part of this whole nonsensical Flamebook-only grudge that he knows who you are, and doesn't consider you worthy of responding to even on this website few people take seriously?If so, I'm sure that's a huge blow to that ego."...throw out the same baseless accusations in every sentence: no license, no privileges, jamming various amateur radio repeaters without IDing, etc."There's nothing baseless in any of those allegations, and the one about you jamming while not IDing is supported by audio you posted!"In one breath say someone doesn't have a license and in the next infer it must be a lesser license while hoping for a corrective response."So you're saying you're a licensed amateur radio operator of at least General Class? If so, you're using a lot of words to tell me that you're not interested in having a voice QSO to talk about your many and serious allegations about JMM because doing so would expose your identity as you'd have to ID on 20 to talk to me."15. Repeatedly accuse others of "projecting" because, well, much like a cross-dressing Ham Radio Mary Poppins I am practically perfect in every way."The only cross-dresser in amateur radio that I'm aware of is Roger Blight, whom you defend constantly despite how poor of a steward he's been of 435 and how much of a dishonest, hypocritical individual he is. I suppose you see a kindred spirit in those traits.I wonder, are you kindred spirits in the cross dressing as well?"16. Repetitively invoke "libel"..."Right... because that's what it is when you falsely accuse people of child molestation."...yet falsely accuse others of all sorts of heinous crimes without any proof."Do tell: what "heinous" crime have I "falsely" accused anyone of?"17. Yet again, invoke gross defamation..."See response to item 16."...when I accuse others of jamming without a license..."Yet again, it bears repeating that you posted audio clips of yourself - wait for it - jamming without IDing your station.You also fail to discern that not only is it not "gross defamation" [it's not even defamation, seeing as how it's true] to state that a person is jamming without IDing when they posted audio of themselves jamming without IDing, there's a galaxy of difference between saying that someone is an unidentified jammer [even if it's not true which, in this case, it is] and accusing someone of molesting children.If you don't understand that very basic thing, you're even more of a mentally defective person than you've shown yourself to be with your ridiculous responses to me."18. Spend hours and hours posting these giant screen wasters..."Heh... okay. One more time for those who haven't gotten it yet: five years+ and literally hundreds [if not thousands] of posts of either demonstrably false or unsubstantiated claims about JMM, many of them making claims of serious criminal activity with no basis in fact, posts commenting on following JMM around Wildomar and even out of state, claiming JMM has engaged in "stalking" [whatever that's supposed to mean to the claimant] while posting numerous pictures of his house and giving out all sorts of PI about him, countless GB of doctored image files mocking JMM for being overweight and homophobic commentary, countless allegations of "jamming" with not even an FCC warning letter, LRDF report or near field intercept to back up the claim or even amateur t-hunting data that might make your case vs... not even a couple of dozen posts of mine merely asking for the slightest shred of proof of any of it."19. Be sure to liberally add "LOL" at the end of many sentences, LOL"Like you did three times in this bout of digital diarrhea?In response to the faux Hammy Sammy aka the "Hammy Sammy" Spammer, who said:"Thank you for (indirectly) verifying what we have suspected. Our advice is that you dive deeper into what your "source" has presented to you as facts about some of the topics we've touched upon here."The make-believe world you inhabit must surely be an odd place... In addition to authoring posts ostensibly from JMM so that you can pretend he's here engaging you on the Flamebook, you now have me consulting [or is it "conspiring"?] with some third-party "source" you've conjured. I'm not sure which "facts" you're referring to when you allege that this imaginary source of yours is providing me information because, as per your standard operating procedure, you don't actually engage substantively, you don't legitimately "discuss" things in a reasonable, rational and respectful way and - and this is most important - you never provide anything that comes close to resembling proof of your many extraordinary claims.It's clear from your non-response that I landed many a killshot in my responses to your numerically listed topics, the most damaging being those to items 7 & 14 - which, lets be honest, are the only ones that came close to the heart of the matter.Since it's clear that you have no intention of engaging me in a serious discussion of these topics we've touched upon here, I reiterate my earlier advice to you to seek professional counseling to deal with your obvious 0bsessiveness, paranoid delusions, bigotry and whatever other mental defects plague the actual person cowering behind his [or her?] keyboard and Baofeng before you suffer any more serious real-life consequences - to the extent your previous claims weren't lies like so many others you've published here - along the lines of those you've hinted at dealing with due to your entirely absurd vendetta with the obscure [and, according to all available tangible, verifiable evidence, entirely harmless] amateur radio operator KA6JMM.In response to the faux Hammy Sammy aka the "Hammy Sammy" Spammer, who said:"It saddens us greatly that you are upset with our eschewing your pseudo-reality known as Flamebook."If I had a half-decade+ history of posting hundreds, if not over a thousand comments, without countless bytes of modded graphical images, tall tales, half-truths, spun truths, outright lies and disgusting defamation, and that's not including all your comments pretending to be JMM so you could pretend you weren't talking to yourself, referring to this website as "my" pseudo-reality might have a crumb of validity.As it is, I have no such history while, in case it wasn't clear, you do. Clearly, JMM not only lives rent-free in your head, it's fair to say you've given him complete ownership. One wonders if there isn't a deed to your mental spaces in your county recorder of deeds office showing him as owner, lock, stock and barrel."Scrutinizing items 7-14 is not a high priority with us..."I'm more than aware that answering questions about your highly peculiar - and that's framing it such that it's presented in a light most favorable to you - and creepy obsession with JMM isn't a high priority with you. To answer questions regarding the matter, and to discuss it rationally would cause you a huge problem, for you'd have to acknowledge the ridiculousness of your own behavior.SERIOUS QUESTION:And this is for the general public of the Flamebook, not the very hard at work "Hammy Sammy" spammer [or the one or two "Dark Sleaze"]...IF you know, or if you believe you have a compelling opinion, please explain to me why the amateur radio operator known as "BB", licensee of amateur radio station KG6YGC, is supposed to be immune from criticism.I ask because it seems that the irrational and creepy obsession the "Hammy Sammy" spammer has with the rather obscure and, by all legitimate accounts, relatively harmless [if a bit goofy] operator licensed as KA6JMM seems to be grounded in the idea that anyone, KA6JMM in particular, who is critical of "BB", his management of the SPARC amateur radio repeater at 446.6400 MHz and his way of engaging the userbase of that repeater, no matter how much that criticism may be [and, admittedly, I don't know whether it is, which is why I'm asking] nor how innocuous that criticism might be is somehow deserving of being stalked, harassed, verbally abused and grossly defamed by being falsely accused of, among other crimes, child molestation.I look forward to any and all serious attempts by amateurs, SWLs and denizens of the Flamebook of upstanding character and goodwill to discuss the matter in an uplifting and respectful way such as befitting "fine business" operators who observe the principles of the Amateurs' Code and who are mindful of the rules of Part 97/the Commission's rules and the Basis and Purpose of the amateur radio service. Admin:He may or may not be. I don't think I know him well enough as simply an amateur radio operator to say whether he is or isn't. He does seem to take himself a little too seriously, and he seems to think the SPARC userbase is more high-brow than it actually is.That aside, he can still be a "model ham".Is he, in your opinion, immune from any and all criticism?In reply to "Some Ham" who said: "Who in the hell made Hammy Sammy the Judge, Jury, Jailor, and Jesus of the ham hobby and all of its satellites? Perhaps we regular users of Flamebook should post our opinions of Hammy Sammy and BB should go first."To answer your first question, sir, no one made me, "Judge, Jury, Jailor and Jesus of the ham hobby"... More to the point, I never declared that I was such I thing.I merely asked a question which for some reason has you very triggered.The Admin answered that question - sort of - in the spirit with which it was asked. You might try.Now, since you couldn't answer my first question, I'll try this: who and what is "BB" aka KG6YGC to you, that you seem to feel he is entirely above criticism regardless of whether or not one is a "model ham"?I look forward to your substantive reply!In response to "Another Hit Song":And, in fact, another masterpiece from Mr. Gobblecock et al, who continue to come up with stellar recordings. Well done!In response to "Ham Sandwich" who said:"I am not a SPARC member nor have I always agreed with BB..."So, fundamentally, you agree with the suggestion that he's not above criticism?"This half assed attack on BB is without merit."I have not "attacked" BB/KG6YGC. I have merely asked whether he is above criticism, and whether or not mere criticism warrants, among other things, false allegations of child molestation."Yes the SPARC repeater has an elevated level of technical talk and it may appear high brow to some."My use of the term "high brow" did not refer to conversation regarding the art and science underlying the amateur radio hobby, or conversation of its more technical aspects. My use of the term referred to the general attitude of many persons in that userbase who seem to think they're a better quality of person - as far as it concerns their behavior on the air and their engagement with others in the amateur radio hobby - merely because they hang out on the SPARC repeater and, perhaps, display a greater aptitude for the technical aspects of the hobby.In reply to "Some Ham" who said:You opened yourself up to replies and now you don't like the answers."Your "answers", such as they are, don't address the question. Of course you're under no obligation to answer, but you insist on chiming in and attacking me because I dare ask a harmless question. Obviously, you have nothing more to offer.But thank you for providing an illustration of the sort of behavior I was referring to regarding a number of persons in the "in crowd" of the SPARC userbase in my reply to "Ham Sandwich".In reply to Some Other[?] Goofy Ham calling himself "Judge, Jury" blah blah who said:"You spam us..."Who is "us"? We're all Flamebookers here, and there are no "cliques", unless you're one of the "Hammy Sammy" spammer's one or two Dark Sleaze."...with your wordy babble..."As opposed to the hundreds of posts and millions of words, GIFs and still images of nonsense published by others trashing an obscure and, based on all objective evidence, harmless operator in Lake Elsinore/Wildomar?"...until you believe you have dominated the topic."I'm not even sure we're "discussing" - to the extent you're actually engaging in discussion - a topic, or at least the topic I'm interested in discussing."You have no interests in any replies that don't support your ego-centric narrative."That makes no sense whatsoever. I'm asking a question, and a straightforward question at that, as part of a larger effort to determine why one to three blowhards on this website seem to think a largely obscure and, based on all objective evidence, harmless operator in Lake Elsinore/Wildomar deserves to be, among other things, accused of molesting children and harassed to the tune of hundreds, if not over a thousand comments on this forum from, if not a single individual, no more than three people over half of a decade, and all of that seemingly by persons who's only complaint with him is that he is critical of KG6YGC for - so far as I'm able to determine - treating him poorly because of the behavior of OTHER people.What, specifically, you imagine that has to do with me personally, I'm sure I have no idea.In closing, it seems like the "Hammy Sammy" spammer and his one or two Dark Sleaze would rather waste an incredible amount of time talking around a topic and attacking people who dare to question them on the matter rather than just addressing it in a straightforward fashion.I wonder why?On unhealthy "fixations"...To the frothing-at-the-digital-mouth individual who thinks his effluvia makes some kind of a point, please explain what whether or not a person graduated high school at any particular time has to do with the subject at handIn reply to Richard Francis "Buzz" Clark who said: "Not a shot-caller, just a shit talker."Very true, Buzz... both in the case of UBP, and in the case of these freaks out here who are so obsessed with other hams that they seem to record everything said by a person they have an irrational dislike for that they categorically refuse to explain in any detail so they can go back and find some seeming or alleged inconsistency to whine about. This, despite the fact that no one cares about trifles like whether or not a person graduated in a certain year or the year after.You're so much more profound on FB than on the air, Buzz... Why is that?In reply to "Did you know?" who hilariously said:"Buzz is a FAT FUCK and a GOBBLECOCK?Is it true that Buzz was arrested for pleasuring himself in the parking lot of a JC Penney in Orange?"You are correct sir... BUZ *IS* a fat-fuck AND a gobblecock.Whether or not he ever got caught pleasuring himself in a JC Penny parking lot back in Orange, I don't know.I can surely see BUZ being the sort of person who would do such a thing on a dare with money involved OR while drunk, but I doubt he ever just did it to do it.If he were arrested for such things, there'd surely be a public record.So... is he a fat-fuck? Yes.Is he a gobblecock? Yes.Is he the sort of person you can see publicly pleasuring himself in a JCP parking lot while drunk or on a $5.00 dare - which isn't to say he actually did it, only that you can picture him being the sort who would? Yes.But the REAL question is when did he graduate HS, and did he ever say he graduated the year before? It's questions like THAT that are serious business in hammy radio.n reply to "Did you know?" - who is actually someone other than the previous "Did you know?" poster [who was likely Mr. Gobblecock] and who is almost assuredly either the "Hammy Sammy" spammer who is known to appropriate the names, aliases and call signs of others or one of his possibly two "Dark Sleaze" - who said:"Richard "Buzz" Clark says: "Because Hammy Sammy writes this shit on Flamebook using my name and then replies to himself as Hammy Sammy. Duh."Actually, that's completely untrue. While I have in the past posted silly comments calling myself "Bitchard Francis 'Buzz' Clack", as have others, I was not the person who posted as "Richard 'Buzz' Clark" in recent comments.Perhaps of more import, I unlike the "Hammy Sammy" spammer or the two at most mental defectives who are his co-conspirators in blatantly violating Part 97 rules on various repeaters as part of his obsessive and creepy obsession with KA6JMM and posting nonsense and ridiculousness to the Flamebook, don't post as other people and then post as "Hammy Sammy" as though I'm having a conversation with myself.But I can point out to those who might be interested quite a few instances [including the one that seemed to kick off the last two years of high-volume posting on the part of "Hammy Sammy" which, interestingly, hasn't resulted in all that much discussion other than that I've tried to engage in over the past few months; I keep forgetting that I'm not the target of the obsessive spamming - kind of the way the person posting keeps forgetting that the person who's attention he's attempting to get isn't here] of "conversation" that is likely taking place in the head of that poor, obsessive, delusional soul and pouring out to the Flamebook via his keyboard.In reply to "Did you know?" - who it turns out is the same as the previous "Did you know?" poster that I created and who is almost assuredly one of many Flamebook characters meant to provide to me a wide variety of names, aliases and appropriated call signs of others.Actually, 99% of what I post is laughably and more to the point, completely untrue. While I will just barely admit to have posted silly comments calling myself "Bitchard Francis 'Buzz' Clack", I steadfastly refuse to admit to all of my other Flamebook characters that share telling characteristics, vocabulary and obsession with certain 435 hams.Perhaps of more import, I have direct knowledge of KA6JMM’s jamming activities and those of his SWL mental defectives who are his co-conspirators in blatantly violating Part 97 rules on SPARC as part of JMM's defective and creepy obsession with BB & SPARC and also JMM's posting threatening nonsense and ridiculousness to Flamebook such as demanding apologies from BB.But I can point out to those who are interested there are quite a few instances [including the one that seemed to kick off the last four years of high-volume posting on the part of me, "Hammy Sammy"] which, interestingly, hasn't resulted in all that much discussion which I've desperately tried to engage in over the past few months; I keep forgetting that I'm not actually getting anyone to give a damn about my opinions - kind of the way I keep forgetting that the person who's identity I’m attempting to get for JMM isn't offering me a clue. Who knows what is taking place in the head of that poor, obsessive, delusional KA6JMM and pouring out into Flamebook as well as the Baofeng jamming of SPARC.In reply to the "Hammy Sammy" spammer appropriating my screen name who said: "I steadfastly refuse to admit to all of my other Flamebook characters that share tellingcharacteristics, vocabulary and obsession with certain 435 hams."I told you very early on that I'd used other names on the forum, and I told you that I would be glad to own up to any instances where I actually did so. It just so happens that your claim that I was posting as BUZ earlier wasn't the truth - like most things you accuse people of.As for this "obsession" you imagine I have with certain lowlife 435ers who have been troublemakers for years or decades, I'm hardly the first person to have problems with those people. In fact I'm probably way in the back of the line. And, as it happens, ALL of my criticism of those persons are 100% legitimate and can be backed up by pointing to numerous unaltered bits of audio posted online or activity that occurs daily and which you can find easily in the Broadcastify archives. That, as differentiated from your claims about the obscure and by all legitimate accounts harmless ham in Wildomar/Lake Elsinore, none of which are backed up even by audio you've posted of that person.And, lastly, accusing others of being "obsessed" with this or that person simply because they've offered highly due and legitimate criticism of those people, is more of the same projection you typically engage in. At this point I'm sure it's not even something you're consciously doing, lost as you are in the obsession you have for that obscure ham who hurt your feelings sometime 5 or 10 years ago that you've never gotten over.But one more time, you come close to the heart of the matter when you said, "kind of the way I keep forgetting that the person who's identity I’m attempting to get for JMM isn't offering me a clue..."Of course you're saying nothing of value that proves any of your ridiculous claims nor are you providing any information that would explain why you're so vehemently and creepily obsessed with another man who, based on all available information, did nothing more to "harm" you other than not roll over and allow you to bully him. I'm well aware of that.It's still not clear who BB/KG6YGC is to you in that you're so eager to jump to his defense when he's legitimately criticized for taking out his frustration with the behavior of the "Dark Sleaze" on JMM, who isn't responsible for the jamming of people who follow him around from frequency to frequency, violating part 97 rules and failing to identify all to make trouble for someone they dislike. That said, it's understandable why a repeater owner wouldn't want to have to deal with those sorts of things; nevermind that SPARC has always been pretty good about finding out who is causing trouble for them.But on that point I've had a few discussions recently with people "in the know" who suggest that while JMM was annoyed with BB for asking him to leave SPARC that they've since settled their differences, that there is no real bad blood between them and that any feud between them over the matter as suggested by you is highly overblown. Whether that's true or not I haven't fully determined, but the testimony of people significantly more trustworthy than you - who have the guts to ID their stations - seems to point in that direction.As for this whole, "identity" thing... Well, you're just reaffirming what I've already deduced about you when I addressed your numerical list of points a while back - most of which were irrelevant chaff aside from points 7 & 14. I'm sure you don't care, lying blowhard that you are, that I am not personally acquainted with JMM, I've never conversed with him in person, on air or via any digital communications medium.More to the point, according to your blather he already knows who you are. Remember he "stalked" you. Or, more accurately, he caught you following him around and taking pictures of his property so you could post them online and harass him - for no legitimate reason at all - and then followed you and found personal information about you you carelessly discarded.Forget everything else, just tell me if you've taken my advice and looked into getting some help for your obvious mental defects? If you haven't, you really should. You've literally spent at least five years of your life whining on this website over a stupid ham radio feud that began with you not being able to deal with someone standing up to you for being a bully behind the microphone. That's extremely sad.In reply to "SPARC Superiors" And, if PHX is anything other than a complete retard….
Comments: Attention all: - N6OGM followed Yellowbelly out to Murietta - the “Buzz is a Gobblecock” guy has been tracked down - the “go fuck yourself guy” has been tracked down Next up: the “Oh Buzz, I’m gonna make a real man out of you” guy
Comments: Quit cyberbullying me!
Comments: I just wanted to congratulate Rick on his third marriage (re-marriage) to his second ex-wife Anita. Wait. Did I get that right? Let's see.. Ramona P.; married then divorced Anita B. ; married then divorced Anita B. : married, third mistake, divorce to be announced soon Yup, I got it right. Not bad for someone dead for 40 years! At least my second marriage lasted a long time. Both of my sons are losers but at least my daughter is a winner.
Comments: "YOUR NOT MAKING IT COCKSUCK"... I don't hear that that much anymore I wonder why. I know it was a recording but, "Break for the, "'YOUR NOT MAKING IT COCKSUCK"' jammer. Man that was a classic. LONG LIVE FUCKING 435 N 450
Comments: ZKZ is a model ham! Dear Mr. Gobblecock - Please keep tormenting Buzz.
Comments: My name is Steven I live in Northridge Zipcode 91343 I am a stupid fuck and spam stupid imgur shit on Flamebook. EXAMPLE: my name embedded in this image of the Amazon web page screenshot. I spam lots of stupid pictures from imgur under lots of fake names but I live in Northridge. 
Comments: Exit 25 If that lardass Hammy Sammy was a Boy Scout it is a sure thing he was diddled over and over by his scout master. All S-H does is go on and on and FUCKING ON about someone on Flamebook yapping about molestation. For Cristsake's...... go call those lawyers on TV who are suing BSA since you are so wound up about stupid shit on Flamebook. Fuuucccckkkk!
Comments: When will the next SPARC jam-boree be held? Who won the Baofeng contest?
Comments: Is a fat buck
Comments: Hammy Sammy must’ve been a Boy Scout. 😇
Comments: Is a flat truck...
Comments:
Comments: The pedo defenders popped their faggot heads out Cys fucks kids Pat sullivan fucks kids Brad knw fucks kids How do we know Theyre Democrats and democrats fuck kids If you dont believe that.. You probably fuck kids too
Comments: This is Francis buzz clark
Comments: In reply to "Miss Piggy" who said: "Child molesting accusations have been leveled against Jimmy, BB, Ham Sandwich, Roger, Perry, Johnny PHX, OG, the Martin's, etc." I can't specifically remember any instance of such an allegation here, but I will take your word for it. To my knowledge, NONE of those people have ever been legitimately suspected of, charged with or convicted of any such act. In point of fact, I'm only aware of two instances of an amateur radio operator being legitimately convicted of a sex crime against a child; one I can't remember the call-sign, but he actually had his license revoked due to outcry from the amateur radio community [a 7-call, if I remember correctly], and the other was a 4-call who'd last resided in FL who'd been convicted both there and in Arizona [and was listed in the FL sex offender registry], and he'd been suspected of criminal sex acts in the US Virgin Islands as well. He, thankfully, has been dead for a number of years. He was a 14.300/14.313 critter, and would have been right at home on 435. In more recent years, another 14.313 scumbag, known for gleefully talking about how he planned to move to Puerto Rico or Jamaica and hook up with a "little Latina girl" [he was in his mid-60s at the time] was also charged with molesting his own stepdaughter, though that never went to trial. Because he felt he'd been railroaded - he said the ex-wife put the daughter up to the claim - he liked to go around calling others molesters. He, too, is dead and, if there's any cosmic justice, frying as we speak, lowlife that he was. "It's almost a default move on the repeater or Flamebook if you don't agree with someone." It actually seems to be something of a default attack across amateur radio, honestly. Frankly, I'm amazed that someone hasn't been successfully sued for it. Yes, legally amateur radio operators are limited purpose public figures, but it seems like a hard case to make that there is any way you can - absent a credible allegation, a criminal charge or a conviction - argue that you're NOT recklessly disregarding the truth if you accuse someone of being a child molester. "I am not sure if repeater chat or Flamebook postings are taken that seriously." Generally, they're not. And, like you said, some of these other people have been so accused - but apparently so infrequently that I don't recall the comments. By contrast, the "Snitchboi" spammer et al have made that false allegation about JMM dozens of times on this website - very likely while commenting using a VPN, TOR or some other sort of proxy server which masks their true IP address - and, obviously, without using their real name. Anyone who would stoop to falsely accusing a person of that most vile of criminal acts over an amateur radio dispute is a lowlife of the highest order.
Comments: Instead of having a pet when he was a kid.. Pat chose to have a KID as a pet.. Pat the "pet" o phile Pat loves "pets" https://images.app.goo.gl/kBE8v9g6EXWExk9g9
Comments: Child molesting accusations have been leveled against Jimmy, BB, Ham Sandwich, Roger, Perry, Johnny PHX, OG, the Martin's, etc. It's almost a default move on the repeater or Flamebook if you don't agree with someone. I am not sure if repeater chat or Flamebook postings are taken that seriously. |
| < Previous 20 | Next 20 > |
Back to THE OFFICIAL 147.450 FLAMEBOOK!