Then
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2001/August/Pages/GAO_Report4215.aspx
Now
http://www.hstoday.us/focused-topics/information-technology/single-article-page/gao-coast-guard-deepwater-goals-are-unattainable/8de7c46ad0c2a9b1c165a5a646620fad.html
“This approach, even by GAO’s own admission, is innovative, but the GAO also pointed out the potential that reliance on one contractor for 20 or more years could create inflated prices, schedule delays or both.
But the Coast Guard recognizes this and has a solution. The service intends to enter into an initial five-year contract with the “systems integrator,” as the contract winner will be called. If the contractor’s performance is satisfactory, the Coast Guard plans to renew the contract, again for five years, after renegotiating prices. The contract may be renewed up to five times, giving the service a good way to hold the systems integrator accountable.
The GAO report all but throws down the gauntlet between the Coast Guard and Congress, urging the Coast Guard to develop an alternative procurement strategy and plans that will lower costs without sacrificing capability.”
The Coast Guard is considering this advice. The service must be able to adapt if it is to keep the program afloat.”
And the Coast Guard is still giving ICGS a pass. There was a (fraudulent) program wide performance guaranty and it was a performance based contract with ICGS in charge as the LSI
Definition of Guaranty – A formal pledge to pay another person’s debt or to perform another person’s obligation in the case of default.
Mike:
What went on between you and military.com’s Coast Guard forum?
R/
YLBDR
I assume you meant his last time?
Surface Force came at me with the same tactics used by some here. And I don’t mean just disagreeing with me. He attacked me. I found out he was actually posting as separate people and actually talking with himself. I posted that and as a moderator he banned me. For all I know he is on this site doing the same now.
Mike:
Did you threaten to out him?
R/
YLBDR
Yes. I did more than that. I asked him to back off and operate as a moderator ethically. He refused so I actually posted what he was doing and who he was posting as. He deleted that and banned me. No regrets here. When people have to resort to stuff like that they demonstrate they have no objective argument and lash out in desperation and only attack. And for a moderator to pull those tactics is just wrong and cowardly. (All of his names were anon). Stand in there an be a man. That doesn’t mean not making mistakes, not be frustrated or pushing hard sometimes. But orchestrated and repeated nonsense like that is not to be tolerated especially with an important issue like this. Same as me handling the WWII comments tonight. No regrets at all.
I want to thank you for handling things the way you do. I have no issue with you. Seems to me you reason and ask questions or push a viewpoint based on that. Keeping poking. I have a responsibility to stand in there and address the questions and pushing. I have made some very direct and serious allegations over the years. As such I believe I have an obligation to respond and not avoid objective and fair probing.
Follow-up:
Do you have a link or reference to the attack?
R/
YLBDR
I only edited the email address
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: MD
To: Surface Force
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:37 PM
Subject: Now the ban? I have a proposal
So we went through all of that and I don’t get banned until I post that moderators shouldn’t be able to have multiple anonymous identities? Really?
I guess the kitchen got too close and hot? I actually had no intention of posting your real name
I would like you to reconsider unless of course you want to prove to me that I am wrong about who you are and post as? I used your emails to establish this. Is the data below wrong?
Should we not find an agreement I will post the information below on another blog that I believe others in the Coast Guard read. I will expose the behavior of your site’s lead moderator as being unfair, fraudulent and not in keeping with the values of the service it supports. Now let’s be clear this isn’t because you disagreed with me or even came after me. It is because this is a very important issue and should not be treated as you are treating it. You are a hypocrite and you are following a path that hurts the Coast Guard and the country. You sir are the one being devious, misleading others and supporting and spreading untruths.
I will wait 24hrs for your response before I post. Should we agree to step back from the ban I will not post on it nor will I divulge your real name. I will also let the anonymous posting thing go. What I want from you is to stop using multiple names with me and stop attacking me unless some new information comes up. I don’t want to run from a thing but your approach – completely ignoring the merits of the case, the effect it would have on the Coast Guard and how the Coast Guard is treating this case is unbalanced and unfair. Disagree if you will but don’t ignore data that objectively counters your point. Said differently – fight like a man. Fight like an officer. As it is you are a moderator and use multiple names. Let’s not unbalance the scales too much. They can stay in your favor but let’s no get ridiculous.
Oh and use spellchecker in official notes like the one below. It would add a nice professional touch
– Account Suspended: Your account has been suspended for the following reason:
Repeatdly posting lies and untrue assertions (violation of TOS Section 6viii) about CG Forums Moderator of a disruptive nature (violation of TOS Section 6i). You were tenatively reinstated under your pledge you would abide by the rules of the board and would refrain from disobeying the owners rules. You disregarded our trust that you would abide by your word, thetefore you are now banned one again.
From your emails
Respectfully,
Surface Force aka 1110
Lead CG Forums Moderator
military.com Forums
Mike:
OK, I see where you’re threatening him. So where’s the attack he made on you?
R/
YLBDR
Best I can do is show my response to what he did. The rest is on the site, I can’t get to it and I didn’t Jing the pages.
And yes I did threaten him. Meant it and have no issue with doing so now. This is an important issue. Sometimes that means fighting BS head on.
Mike:
Surface Force explains why you were banned in that email. As I’ve posted here, the owner of a website can run his or her website however he or she decides. I’ve stood up for Coast Guar Report on this point several times.
And your response was to threaten him because he enforced the published rules of his website?
He doesn’t have to give you a platform nor be a mouthpiece for your cause. You seem to assume that everyone has some duty to back you up. Do you think this attitude might be why your reception is less than friendly sometimes?
R/
YLBDR
That explanation was not accurate. He hid behind that to ban me. I did not do the things he said I did when he banned me. He used the rules to ban me because I exposed him. All was well until he posted as several people and had conversations with them (himself) in an effort to attack me. And again these were personal attacks not that I was wrong or even a liar or financial opportunist. (You can tell all of this from my response.) He played unfairly and unethically as a moderator, I posted proof and he misappropriated the rules to ban me.
And you are correct they do not have to give me a forum. All of the bannings were because I called out the CG leadership, called out people who attacked me personally or for acting in a devious or unethical manner (as a moderator).
Look at what I APPROVE here. I own these threads and I approve the vast majority of what is said especially where people disagree with me and challenge me directly and forcefully. That is not personal attacking. Let me give you my departure point. People say I only do it for the money and lied in my case. While I disagree with that and it bothers me to have people think that way about me I understand where it is coming from and that given what has occurred it is plausible. So I approve those things and deal with them. But saying I stalked CG personnel at their homes and should commit suicide is over the top. And not just over the top. These are important topics and should be handled with a little respect. And individuals who post, no matter what their opinion, deserve a little respect. I asked those people to post proof, they did not so I edited their posted AND note the edits when I do it. When all they do is say those things I do not approve the post. Lastly the WWII references are extremely out of bounds and I have not only edited some posts but have not and will not approve them.
I actually don’t think anyone has a duty to back me – Michael DeKort – up. Not at all. What I do think they have a duty to do as a citizen and probable USCG officer is to objectively evaluate all of it (which includes challenging me) and come down on the side of what is objective and in line with USCG and patriotic values.
I understand I am confrontational. Most of that is just how I write. When I go to a new place to work I have learned to tell people right off the bat to please not see my direct and short emails as me being terse. If I am aggravated I will say so. Over time on this issue I have also become weary and frustrated with the unbelievable BS. And again I do not mean disagreeing with me. I have made mistakes in my case, on these blogs etc and I have made some very serious allegations about leadership. I understand all of that puts people a bit on edge. That is unfortunate. (If you talked to me you would see how I write is not an entirely accurate reflection of me.)
I converse with several senior CG personnel who read the articles and most of my posts and think for the most part I am dead on. I check with them on these things from time to time because I don’t want to be wrong or unfair. On occasion my errors have been pointed out, I see the errors, admit I was wrong, say so, sometimes apologize and fix it. I have even done that on these threads in response to you and others. I also admit I am now conditioned to confront right off the bat. When I see posts from people who only deal with me and not the issues I assume they are one of the bad people. Here’s an example. Why won’t anyone deal with the guaranty? Why doesn’t anyone ask me to prove that? Why can’t anyone, you included, say that IF I am right about certain things then that would be something that should be looked in to and dealt with? Most people who disagree with me rarely if ever deal with ICGS or the CG leadership in relation to the issues. The importance of this issue demands a full look. Fine challenge or even attack me to a degree but try to have the courage, objectivity and patriotism to at least try to discuss or deal with the actual subject matter and IF it is at least possible I am right. And I am not even saying you should agree. For example I do not believe that anyone has said that if my claim relative to the guaranty is correct and my allegations of CG obstruction are correct the CG would be wrong in their handling of this and that I or someone should try to fix it. Why can’t people take me on AND the issue at the same time and at least posit on the allegations being correct? I see the avoidance as unethical cowardice. I then build up a little contempt and confront. It’s unfortunate but that is what it is.
Man, you are off your meds.
Please have someone fix the format. I grow weary of reading replies 1 word per line down the page.
I don’t have the ability to fix it. But will mention it.
He has been banned from every possible CG discussion board but this one. Roddy used him hete as a useful idiot.
You are correct. I have been banned from the others.
So you now do the same thing to anyone who challenges you under the guise that they are “attacking” you. OK, got it.
Nope. Many question and push at me pretty hard. It is fair game when it is topical and not a blatant attack or something libelous.
Dekort ignores his own culpability in Deepwater and as a contractor. He was fine screwing over the taxpayers for years until they fired him. Then he suddenly finds Jesus…
That’s just silly.
So I did bad things then I went to the DHS IG, did YouTube, filed the FCA etc.
What did I do that makes me culpable?
Maybe it was simply working for a contractor?
Before that I worked for the US State Department including in Counter Terrorism and before that the US Navy. I assume by your logic I went from the light to the dark side just by virtue of switching employer types? I got the IEEE Barus Ethics Award, presented to me by Rep Cummings, because I did bad things against the government?
These ridiculous things don’t help your argument a bit. But don’t let that stop you. Keep going.
Nothing different from the Nazi death camp guards who cooperated with the Allies at the end of WW2 in hopes of saving their own necks.
I am going to let that one stand all on its own.
Personally I think bringing the atrocities of WWII in to most discussions, including this one, is insensitive, ignorant and shows an IMMENSE lack of understanding about the severity of those issues compared to topics at hand – including this one. Nothing about that horror and this issue are even remotely comparable. I think this issue is important but isn’t within a million miles of that one.
I disagree, as evidenced by your behavior and propensity to lie and throw even those who tried to help you under the bus, you are no different.
I tried to throw who under the bus? And you avoided answering my challenge on exactly what I did wrong against the government.
Nothing I did, or anyone in this issue, including the senior CG leadership I have criticized has done anything even remotely similar to what people did in committing atrocities in WWII.
Bullshit. You are a perfect brownshirt speciman. The only thing you are sorry about is that you got canned, not anything you did while being a part of the problem.
No one here cares if you were with State (doesn’t get you much cred in my book) or that you were in the Navy (not impressing anyone here).
Not sure what brownshirt means.
I guess you think all contractors are bad. I do not. Usually organizations or companies are not bad – people are.
Yes I am sorry I am no longer a defense contractor.
Meanwhile you protect ICGS? Please list for me what the contractors did wrong on Deepwater and who did what wrong.
All of you are wrong, the fact that the Waffen SS threw you out of their organization and now you accuse them of not being so nice does not make any of those you sent to the gas chambers feel any better nor absolve you of the guilt and shame you should feel.
Not sure who you are talking about.
OK the comparisons to WWII atrocities are done. Next one I edit edit out. I will leave this one in because people should see how out of line you are. Gas chamber references are way out of line. No more. I will edit out any from here.
Why the censorship? I guess transparacy hurts at this (edited by imispgh) style blog.
I explained the reason for the censorship. And I censored you.
Cummings supported ADM Allen and the contractors against your charges throughout. The award was a bone he threw you while everyone dined on steak. You are obviously stupid enough to think you earned it. Yeah just like Reichsfuhrer Himmler earned all his medals Hitler awarded him.
Again you are incorrect. Rep Cummings asked for the DoJ to look into our allegations at the hearing. And if you were right why volunteer to present me the award? Again – silly.
Keep digging the misplaced comparison hole to events during WWII.
I would imagine you are making the CG leadership cringe every time you do it. And I include those who are not happy with me.
Volunteer to throw you a bone. You were stupid enough to think you actually earned too. LOL!
Yes I think I earned it.