Debunking Global Warming Misconceptions Part I --The Real Deniers Deny Global Cooling

Al Gore refuses to debate his position with climate realist scholars and scientists. 

The sun is behaving the way it behaved during the beginning of the Maunder and Dalton Minimums. This is the period known as the Mini Ice Age. Solar sunspot activity numbers, and solar sunspot flaring numbers, are decreasing. This decrease continues over the long run. 

Many record colds are beating 100 to 200 year old cold records. This is in contrast to warm records defeating decades old records. Winter behavior in both hemispheres indicate an earlier start, colder run, more aggressive play, and a later end.

Although evidence is increasing towards global cooling, people continue to express global warming myths. They attack those, who disagree with the man-made global warming theory, as being in denial. 

Reality? The so-called "climate deniers" are actually "climate realists."

Myth: Those who disagree with man-made global warming are climate deniers.

Those who disagree with global warming are not "climate deniers," they are "climate realists." They study actual observations as well as actual data. They study these as they occur all over the world. 

They base their conclusions on data gathered over a period of time.

Climate realists are noticing that summers are shorter and less hot than they used to be. They're noticing that winters are colder and are longer than they used to be. They're noting that the Antarctic ice sheet has been setting records recently.

These observations make it hard to accept the man-made global warming theory. 

Myth: Those who disagree with man-made global warming disagree with science.

Climate realists' disagreement with man-made global warming is based on science. Raw thermometer and satellite surface temperature measurements indicate a cooling trend. 

The physics involved with interacting air masses, where the polar air masses are progressively colder, explains current weather phenomena. This includes violent weather activity and weather extremes.

A look at history, as well as "forensic" examination of ice core samples, underwater sediments, tree ring data, etc., argue in favor of climate change being a natural process. Not a man-made one.

Myth: Overall average temperatures of the world is increasing.

The raw thermometer data over the past 80 years show an overall declining trend. 

Actual weather measurements, both ground and satellite, indicated a peak in natural global warming in the mid-to-late '90s. They show that average global temperatures stabilized in the first part of the first decade of the 21st century. 

Since the middle of that decade, there has been an overall declining trend in temperatures.

Certain groups have tried to average up the recent temperature measurements. They also attempted to average down the older temperature measurements. This provides a misleading graph showing an "increase" in temperatures into the present.

Actual raw data contradicts that conclusion.

Even many global warming scientists admit that there's a recent pause in a rise in temperatures... meaning, average global temperatures haven't risen in the past few years. 

Debunking Global Warming Misconceptions Part II -- Actual Temperature Data Shows Long Term Cooling Trend

Myth: Climate realists look at a single cold winter's day and use that to dismiss global warming.

When climate realists say, "So much for global warming," they're saying it based on long term trends. They're not basing it on single incidents during a specific season... unless they're talking about those incidents collectively over time.

For example, we've had two cool snaps in North America during the summer of 2014. The polar air mass made the height of summer feel like late fall. This normally doesn't happen. Those cool snaps dropped average summer temperatures. 

This appeared to be a continuation of the cold snap events of the previous winter. The following winter also set records.

Many of those, that advance this myth, take a single record hot event as "proof positive" of man-made global warming. 

Many pro-global warming debaters tend to emphasize the impacts of summer heat waves in relation to the climate debate. Many of the same groups attempt to isolate cold snap events from the climate debate.

A few years ago, I saw a statement on a weather website. 

During the time, half the country was under a warm air mass. The other half was under a cool air mass. Records were being set under those air masses. However, they reported it something like this, "record heat set in ____ wintry weather in ___." 

That wasn't balanced reporting. They could've stated something like record heat in one area and record cold in another area. Or, they could've said "summer like" in one area and "winter like" in another area.

The bias toward the man-made global warming argument was evident in that headline.

In reality, records favoring the cold and warm ends of the temperature extremes are set each year. This includes record highs, record lows, record low highs, and record high lows. The momentum is shifting more in favor of record cool and cold temperatures throughout the year.

There are those who will take the record highs and try to use that as an argument that the world is getting "warmer." This same group ignores the more impressive record cold/record cool temperatures and weather.

Myth: Increased storms and droughts are a sign of man-made global warming

Climate change has always been around, at least since the atmosphere facilitated climate change. It's not restricted to Earth. Evidence of climate change has been observed on Mars. 

Unfortunately, the term "climate change" has been hijacked as an alternative term for "global warming." Momentum for this term change accelerated as evidence contradicted man-made global warming.

The increasing volume of evidence makes it easier to debunk global warming. Those that advance the man-made global warming theory attempt to shield themselves from "being wrong."

After all, when "the majority of the masses" see that the pro-global warming debaters are wrong, the latter could say that the climate did, in fact, change.

Increasing storm intensity, and increased temperature contrasts, are symptoms of a mini ice age. The larger the difference between meeting air masses, the better the chances of violent storm reaction.

Air masses headed south, to meet warmer air, have trended towards being cooler/colder each year. This increases the temperature difference compared to the air mass flowing north from the Caribbean. This contributes to more energetic and violent storm activity each year.

Myth: Climate realists just use recent years to argue global cooling; they "ignore" the graph that started in the 1970s and earlier.

When climate realists use a graph, they use one that spans decades, even centuries. They also use the one that resulted from the ice core samples pulled from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. This spans approximately 400,000 years.

The global warming group emphasize the graph running from the 1970s to present. Or, they use one where the data was manipulated. This manipulation increased temperatures in the present while suppressing temperatures prior to 1970.

This provides a phony image of temperatures rising in conjunction with human industrial activity.

Climate realists utilize raw data graphs. These raw data graphs indicate natural rises and decreases in temperatures that follow a pattern.

Raw data indicates a declining overall trend in temperature starting in the 1920s. With the 19th century's climate included, these graphs show an increase in global temperatures from the mid-19th century until the 1930s.

Temperature trends declined from the 1940s to the 1970s. They increased from the 1970s to the 1990s. Since then, it has been getting cooler.

Both long-term, and short-term, trends show a world that's cooling down, not warming up.

Debunking Global Warming Misconceptions Part III -- Actually Much Warmer Before Modern Times

Average temperature graphs covering 400,000 years to the present disagree with the man-made global warming theory. Scientists constructed these graphs using data from ice core, tree rings, underwater sediments, etc. 

It has been warmer, over the past 10,000 years, then it has been during our lifetimes. We are long overdue for major glaciation. Human activity will not stop a process that started before 1 million years ago.

Myth: Temperatures and CO2 levels have historically been low. As human industrial activity increased, CO2 levels increased and so have temperatures.

Actual, raw, data shows increases and decrease in temperatures. In the past 2,000 years, there was the Roman Warm Period, The Medieval Warm Period, and the 20th Century Warm Period. 

This graph, of natural data, tells a different story from what most people are being told. 

It shows that the Roman Warm Period was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th Century Warm Period. Warm periods that happened before the Roman Warm Period were generally warmer than the Roman Warm Period.

In the same graph, there are mini ice ages. The most recent one taking place from the 1600s to the 1800s.

Even among these Warm Periods, the trend is towards declining average temperatures.

Myth: Most of the hottest years occurred this century...

Raw temperature data disagrees with this. They actually indicate that the hottest years occurred in the previous century. Global warming peaked in the 1930s and again in the 1990s. 

Many record-breaking cold temperatures are defeating 100 + year old cold records. Contrast this with record hot temperatures defeating records set within the last three or four decades.  

Most of the global warming that took place before the 21st Century took place from the late 19th century through the 1930s. This reversed from the 1940s to the 1970s. Average temperatures rose again from the 1970s to the 1990s. From the late 1990s until present, average global temperatures have been sinking. 

It's getting colder.

Despite that up-and-down temperature trend, human industrial activity continued to increase. CO2 emissions continue to go up. Even with the current "pause" in "global warming", CO2 levels are going up.

Raw temperature data this century leans toward record cold/record cool temperatures. Announcements, declaring that we just set a record hot year, were based on averaged-up data. 

Actual, raw, thermometer measurements for each year consistently didn't support that conclusion. Average temperature trend is downward.

Myth: Climate realists do not factor in satellite data.

Climate realists utilize raw data from both ground thermometer and satellite temperature measurements. 

They do this not only in real time, but across a longer period of time. When you take both into consideration, you see true temperature on the ground away from urban hot pocket areas. You'll also see true temperature trends throughout the world... across time.

Both long-term ground based thermometers, and long-term satellite measurements, indicate a current cooling trend.

Myth: In addition to "rising" temperatures, sea levels are rising, warming, and expanding at an alarming rate.

There are studies, of sea levels, that are producing conflicting conclusions. There are studies that indicate that the sea levels are rising. However, many of these studies indicate that the rate of sea level rise is declining.

This is significant. 

From a physics and mathematics standpoint, declining rates of sea level rise indicate something else. If that trend continues, we will reach a point of sea level decline.

Other studies indicate that sea levels are actually declining. 

This is natural. The Arctic Ice Sheet is regaining its lost ice. The Antarctic Ice Sheet is setting size/extent records. Most glaciers are actually growing, and not decreasing.

If this trend continues, more studies will show a declining sea level trend.

Debunking Global Warming Misconceptions Part IV -- Polar Ice Caps Volumes Actually Increasing

Solar Dynamics Observatory photo of the Sun. Increasing evidence points to the sun as the driver behind climate change. 

Myth: Ice in Antarctica and Greenland are melting at an unprecedented rate... and Arctic Sea Ice continues to decline....

First, the Arctic Sea Ice has regained 50% of the average ice volume it lost during its record ice loss year. The Antarctic Ice Sheet set records two years in a row. It's currently set to match those previous two years.

Most people, biased towards global warming, zero in on the part of Antarctica that is melting. That melt is caused by an active volcano underneath that ice. That ice sheet, containing the volcano, is a small percent of the total ice sheet. The ice sheet on the rest of the continent is increasing in volume.

This contributed to the record sea ice increases surrounding Antarctica.

Second, the Arctic Ice Sheet will melt as we progress from winter, through spring, to summer. This melt stops sometime in the fall. This is when the ice sheet grows back. This also happens in the Antarctic.

Third, the Danish Meteorological Institute discovered that the Greenland Ice Sheet is actually growing. This growth has outpaced growth in the previous years. This is consistent with the performance of the ice volume from the rest of the world.

Myth: Climate realists just look at the past 3 to 5 years, they ignore the overall trend.

That's getting into semantics. Something happened in recent years that set the conditions for ice recovery on both poles. Obviously, there's a new baseline by which to measure both ice sheets. 

Second, some of our Antarctic stations have stilts. This has been the case since at least the last decade. One reason they have stilts is that the "ground" keeps "rising." This wouldn't be happening if the ice volume wasn't increasing. 

Third, longer trends indicate increasing ice volume.

Myth: The sun was brighter in the '30s. Since the '50s; however, it has been getting dimmer, but temperatures continue to rise...

Long-term global climate/weather matches solar activity. The sun was more active than normal in the 1930s and the 1990s. These happen to be the global warming heights of the last century.

Historically, declines in solar sunspot activities led to declines in average global temperatures. Absence of sunspots correspond to brutally cold conditions. As solar sunspot flaring activities increased, so did average global temperatures.

The sun's effect on the climate has been observed in nature. It has been replicated in the lab. A decrease in sunspot flaring activities is related to a decrease in solar winds. 

Solar winds are our "first line of defense" against cosmic rays. Our second line of defense is our magnetic field. As of the generation of this post, both solar wind and the Earth's magnetic field are weakening.

Cosmic rays facilitate droplet and cloud formation. This facilitates cooling trends and increased precipitation.

A satellite launched to study the sun, in the early 1990s, indicate a rapid decline in solar winds. This decline matches the decline in average global temperatures. The information that the satellite gained, from its orbit around the sun, has contributed to a new theory. 

It provides a better explanation of what could be happening in the sun, solar system, galaxy, and surrounding areas. In fact, it does a good job explaining the events happening throughout the universe.

This new theory better explains the sun's behavior, as well as its impact on our climate. It better explains the sun-to-climate relationship than the earth's inclination or the Milankovich Orbital Cycle. 

This is the electromagnetic sun theory. It also falls under the electromagnetic cosmos theory, or the electromagnetic universe theory.

This electromagnetic sun theory proposes that the sun operates electrically. This is both by itself, and in conjunction with the solar system, and neighboring stars. This theory posits that the sun is fed from an outside source. By extension, when this "outside source" stops feeding the sun, our star dims and runs on residual power.

This dimming makes it hard to sustain agriculture in temperate areas of the world. These are many of the same areas in the world that were covered by ice sheets during the mega Ice Age. 

It's becoming more and more evident that our star, not humans, is to "blame" for climate change. The sun drives short-term and long-term global weather.

Debunking Global Warming Misconceptions Part V -- Temperatures Going Down, CO2 Going Up

Man-made global warming folks point to Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as the greenhouse gas playing a role in "man-made global warming." However, actual data does not support that. Carbon Dioxide, or increasing amounts of it, is not causing global warming. 

In fact, even the United Nations has admitted to a "pause" in "man-made" global warming. Despite this fact, the volume of CO2 in our atmosphere keeps increasing.

Myth: Before human activity, the CO2 system was in balance, with the oceans absorbing that same amount as was emitted.

The Ocean has released and absorbed CO2 at different amounts throughout our history. It's a cycle. The oceans continue to do both, absorb and release CO2 at the same time. It alternates between absorbing more, and releasing more. The net release, or absorption, has nothing to do with human CO2 emissions.

Many man-made global warming articles show CO2 being released from industrial activity. That's not CO2, but CO, or carbon monoxide, and one or more of the other major pollutants. Other pictures show factories releasing water vapor in the form of steam. This picture accompanies an article talking about CO2 increase milestones.

They also show other elements, but not a massive collection of CO2. 

Myth: The natural CO2 emission and absorption rate allowed for 180 to 200 ppm CO2 prior to human industrial activity. Industrial activity contributed to an increase in CO2 volume above 200 ppm.

There were times, before the first humans walked on this planet, when CO2 existed in higher concentrations than today. Neither humans, nor human industrial activity, existed during those times. The rise or fall of CO2 concentration is a natural process. Humans will not be able to stop it.

Myth: Human industrial activity is the reason to our blowing over 300 PPM CO2.

The Vostok Ice Core graph shows that whenever we exceeded a certain volume of CO2 in the atmosphere, we entered a mega ice age. This happened like clockwork. We have already passed that point.

This has happened multiple times over the past 400,000 years. 

Myth: Humans are the biggest CO2 release culprits.

Most of our CO2 comes from the oceans, from forests, from animals, and from other natural sources. This has not changed because of our existence. When humans cut down forests or vegetation, this contributes to the release of the CO2 contained in the vegetation. 

Humans also release CO2 when they exhale. Does this make humans guilty of pollution every time they exhale? 

Myth: CO2 is the predominant greenhouse gas.

Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas. That comes from natural sources. CO2 is one of the minor greenhouse gases, most of which comes from natural sources.

Myth: CO2 is a pollutant.

CO2 is a natural gas that exists mainly from natural sources. CO2 is a natural fertilizer. Plants need CO2. With all other things being equal, the more CO2 a plant gets, the better it generally does.

Human industrial activity, and vehicle activity, tend to release carbon monoxide, or CO, and other pollutants. Those biased towards global warming try to get CO2 confused with CO. 

Carbon Monoxide is a pollutant, it's released by human activity. By itself, it's not being accused of causing global warming. Something that humans exhale gets blamed instead.

Myth: Unlike human CO2 activity, volcanic eruptions do not impact climate.

There's a strong argument for volcanic eruption impact on weather, compared to human activity. There are studies that suggest that their impact tends to cool climate down temporarily. Decreases in temperatures early in the 1990s pointed to a single eruption of a Filipino volcano as a possible cause.

Contrast this with the alleged impact of human industrial activity.

Most of the modern global warming happened before World War II. It ran from the late 19th century until the 1930s. Temperatures declined from the 1940s to the 1970s, despite increasing industrial activity.

The second warming run, from the 1970s to the 1990s, stopped in the late 1990s. Temperatures have been trending downwards since then. 

Human emissions continue to increase despite that natural up and down cycle.

Even the United Nations has acknowledged a "pause in global warming." Despite this "pause", CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is still going up. If temperatures paused despite rising CO2 concentrations, then what is causing CO2 increase?

Responsible science would reject the assumption that CO2 is causing temperature rise.

An increasing amount of volcanoes are active, both on land and underwater. These can have more of an impact on the climate than human industrial activity.

CO2 is a natural fertilizer that plants need. It's a naturally occurring gas. Human contribution to greenhouse gases is insignificant compared to that of the oceans, forests, volcanoes, and other natural sources.

Myth: "Man-Made" global warming is causing these recent floods and increased precipitation.

Cosmic rays facilitate water vapor and water droplet formation. As solar sunspot flaring activity decreases, solar wind activity decreases. With a decrease in solar wind, cosmic rays into our atmosphere increase.

Cosmic rays contribute to water droplet and cloud formation.

This leads to an increase in moisture and water vapor in the atmosphere. This contributes to increased precipitation as average global temperatures decline. This concept has been observed in nature, and has been successfully replicated in the lab.

Myth: An increase in CO2 leads to an increase in temperatures.

Actual ice core data shows that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, not the other way around. The Vostok Ice graphs show that CO2 continued to climb well into a mega ice age before dropping off. 

Myth: In actuality, most of the weather/climate observations matches the computer model global warming predictions.

Computer forecasting based global warming predictions have failed. These models made predictions over the past 14 years. Mother Nature has proven those models wrong. The further into the future the projection, the bigger the deviation.

Actual temperature measurements indicate a cooling trend.

Deception: If you rerun computer global warming models with 3 degrees of warming, the predictions match exactly the warming that we've observed.

This is an arbitrary increase at the input end.

Computer models are an example of "garbage in garbage out." It's impossible to fit every variable, impacting climate and weather in the real world, into a computer model. Computer models run on artificial variables and constructs.

With their not running on the actual variables, their forecasts are largely unreliable. Computer models cannot accurately predict weather in the next two days. They can't be relied upon to predict climate over the long run.

There has been no increase in average temperatures since the end of the 20th Century. So, if computer modeling still shows an "exact" matching to the "warming" that has "happened" since then, then the projections, and computer modeling, are still wrong.

Myth: Initial CO2 release amplifies the warming...

Again, initial temperature increases led to CO2 increase. This means that when temperatures rise, they cause a chain reaction that causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. When the weather gets cold, as in major glaciation, a chain reaction happens that tends to pull CO2 from the atmosphere.

Raw data proves this.

Deception: Over 90% of the warming happens after the CO2 starts to rise...

That's a play on words. That's trying to give credit to the subsequent temperature rise... due to solar activity... to the initial CO2 volume increase. The graphs show that temperature rise consistently leads to CO2 rise. They also show that temperature declines consistently lead to CO2 level declines...

Myth: ... More intense storms, more intense droughts, more acidic oceans, rising oceans, are happening because of man-made global warming.

You get more intense storms when meeting air masses show a larger difference in temperatures. Intense storms, increased droughts, etc, are a symptom of the planet's entering a mini ice age. 

For example, droughts that hit the beginning of the last mini ice age led to thousands of people dying via starvation and sickness. 

The oceans becoming more "acidic" are doing so due to natural causes.

Myth: Reductions in human industrial emissions will lead to reductions in temperature.

If we reduced our emissions now, CO2 will still go up. Water vapor is the major gas. Out of the total carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, the vast majority are from natural sources. 

Mother Nature contributes 95% to 97% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere. Humans contribute the remainder of the CO2 released. Water vapor contributes 95% to 97% of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. CO2, along with "other gases" constitute the remainder.

Human industrial contribution of CO2 is a small fraction of 1% of the total greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

This figure alone indicates that Mother Nature will increase or decrease our temperature without our help. She has done this long before our existence. She will continue to do this long after our existence.

Those biased in favor of global warming confuse pollutants with greenhouse gases in their argument. Carbon Monoxide, a pollutant, is being hidden in this case by the mention of Carbon Dioxide, a natural gas. 

Bruce Dignan, Anger Management Problem Issues, Prone to Hurt Himself or Others

A guy with anger management problems with his booger hook on the trigger... bad combination... his weapons may be his only friends. Here's his comment about the VA at Roseburg, he meant to say, "anger issues":

"I am hoping me and them can come to an understanding later, one that doesn't include me ever being accused of having 'angier issues'" - Bruce Dignan 

Bruce Dignan: Took ya a couple days to muster the strength and thought to respond, I mean, I figured you were working up the steam to reply,

No, it doesn't take me long to come up with a reply to your nonsense. In fact, I had a reply to your nonsense almost immediately after I saw your reply. Understand that I do not do things the way you do things.

I'm a freelance writer. I generate my articles, and my other writings, on Microsoft Word. I say "generate", because I'm using Dragon Naturally Speaking dictation software. 

I generate my replies on Microsoft Word before I post them on Facebook. 

When replying to you, I generated my replies on Microsoft Word. Then, I waited a couple days before I copied and paste them to my reply to you. Between that time? I was engaged in other constructive activities, including the writing related to my job. 

So, when I sit down and actually address your replies, it doesn't take me long. You, as a simpleminded person, advance arguments that are easily refuted.

Bruce Dignan: I mean, I wasn't kidding, you are like a hop, skip, and a jump from either hurting yourself or hurting someone else, I can tell,

There you go again, accusing me of having the traits that you have. I would not be surprised if you react to my replies by yelling and screaming at your computer or at some point in your room.

I won't be surprised that if people know you, and they see my replies to you, they start anticipating your angry reactions.

I have fun taking your arguments apart and replying to you this way. There's no anger at all in me when I'm doing this. I'm cool, calm, and relaxed, as I dictate my replies to you through my microphone.

I'm nowhere near being in position to where I would "hurt" someone physically. The only "hurting" that I'm doing is hurting your argument, your views of yourself, and your feelings.

Bruce Dignan:  likely cause I am way older than you are and have seen it all before.

Let's do the math. At one point in here, you stated that you were in your late 40s. I'm in my middle 40s. We're not that much different in age.

You're not seeing things based on your experiences. You're seeing things based on your emotion and your biases. You're finding ways to try to insult me for generating replies to get under your skin... and to force you to see how wrong you are.

Bruce Dignan: I would say that you are maybe gonna end up hurting someone else before hurting yourself,

If what you say about me were anything like your marksmanship, I'd hate to be the person standing behind you as you try to shoot the target in front of you. That's how far off you are.

I'm in no way shape, or form, in the mental condition to want to hurt someone. In fact, I'm having fun. Replying to you this way, and hammering you consistently, is enjoyable. I'm in a positive mood while generating my replies to you.

Again, the only "hurting" that I'm doing is hurting your argument and hurting your feelings.

Bruce Dignan:  but the smart play is to make it look like you are strong when in fact you are weak,

Says the guy that looks like he would be out of breath before he walks a block. Again, I run on a regular basis between 4 and 6 miles each run. I swim between 1 to 2 miles whenever I swim. 

How would I be able to do these things if I were "weak"?

The only "weak" that I see here is your argument, your reading comprehension, and you. I'm not doing this because of any sense of "strength." I'm doing this because I get joy at destroying your arguments and seeing your reaction to that destruction.

I'm also doing this to force you to see how wrong you are. I'm also doing this to show you that you actually do have issues.

Bruce Dignan: and in fact want to hurt yourself, and probably not in any inventive way, either through stress or substance abuse,

No, I don't want to hurt anybody else or myself physically. You're assuming that I have the kind of mental rage that you're displaying with your replies.

You have a lot of pride, over excessive pride, in your replies. This pride refuses to let you see yourself for what you actually are. Your replies amount to you setting up stress shields. 

Your reading my replies to you forces you to see yourself the way you are. Your intellect is seeing that, your ego refuses to acknowledge it.

My putting you in the position makes you boil with anger. 

You're consumed with rage as you reply to my posts. Your ego completely drives your replies to me. Instead of coming to terms with what my reason is forcing you to see, you're trying to paint me in a negative light. This, in turn, allows you to dismiss what I say. 

I see those ploys for what they are, defense mechanisms set up by your rage and ego.

Again, Bruce, get help for your anger management issues. Make the call before you end up hurting someone.

Admit it. You are the very things that you describe of me here. I would not be surprised that if I were to talk to those that know you, they would describe you using the same descriptions that you're using to describe me.

You're guilty of deflecting your traits onto me.

Bruce Dignan: you will likely do the deed eventually,

Bruce, this is you using deflection to deflect your very traits onto me. What you're really saying is that you intend to do that deed eventually.

The rage and anger that you're demonstrating in your replies hints at that.

Do yourself, and your family, a favor and get help for your rage. Get help for your anger management problems, your stress management problems, and your control issue problems.

Me? I'm enjoying life too much to do what you assume I will do. In fact, I enjoy destroying your debate and watching your reactions.

Bruce Dignan: I mean, you are a professional internet troll,

I guess it's easier to "dismiss" me as on "Internet troll" than it is to see that you are the very things that I describe you as. But, if you think that I am an "Internet troll," why are you feeding the "troll"? You do know that saying, do you? About feeding the troll?

You feed the troll because you take sadistic pleasure in getting destroyed in debate like this. You relish the humiliation that you get from here. This puts you in a point of contradiction. You want me to stop forcing you to see yourself for what you really are. My replies are forcing you to see you for what you actually are. You don't like what you see. 

Bruce Dignan Destroyed in Debate, Accuses Victor of Being a Traitor

"you war veteran, you needy councelling/ptsd, where I declined, punished about fifteen minutes later with a second drug test, and a bogus trip up to portland supposedly for a heart stress test and talk to doctor concerning my new catscan, only it turns out to be a psych test" - Bruce Dignan

"now folks are wondering if I am a 'danger to society', or 'deranged'," - Bruce Dignan

Bruce Dignan: probably getting paid to do so, errrrr, with a monthly paycheck from the federal government, either in VA pay or other. Oh yeah, I still hold the fact that you are a VA employee, "WASTING GOVERNMENT MONEY TO HECKLE VETERANS".

This statement proves that you never made an effort to find out who I was. This also proves that you did not have some kind of friend that did some research into who I am. If you did, you'd know for a fact that I do not work for the VA.

I'm a freelance writer, I work for myself. I do not take any "employee pay" from the VA. I don't work for the VA.

I do get disability pay; however, that is for my service-connected disabilities. They're not for anything else that I currently do elsewhere.

I work for myself from my home office. I hammer you here as a distraction from my normal job. So, if you want to report me to "my boss" because of this thread, you're speaking to him.

I'm hammering you on my own free will, not in somebody else's orders. I waste no money, and no time, when I hammer you. 

In fact, prior to generating these replies, I worked on articles that I eventually forwarded to a website for publishing. I worked on a couple other articles that have already been forwarded to another website for publishing.

I have other activities in addition to coming here to hammer you.

Bruce Dignan: Which makes you a traitor, against the united states of america.

How does my hammering you, on this thread, make me a "traitor" to the United States of America? It doesn't.

You're the one that got banned temporarily from the VA services. Your temporary ban was due to anger management problems. 

There's a good chance that you displayed aggressive verbal assaults against those around you. You were this way when dealing with the VA employees. This attitude is what put you against the United States.

Chances are great that you verbally assaulted those people working for the United States. Your anger management problems makes puts you against US interests. You displayed anger management issues to the VA. 

My hammering you doesn't put me in that situation.

Bruce Dignan: Call the suicide/psychotic hotline, joseph, do it, do it soon.

Sorry, I'm not going to take up the time, or the resources, that the VA has in place for people like you.

If anything, this is your subconscious talking to your consciousness. My replies to you are putting you in a position to where you have lost a lot of control. Consequently, you're thinking about harming other people or yourself.

You're wanting to do that is a way for you to "regain" control. You have a need to gain that control. My hammering you on this thread is making you feel like you have lost control.

It is this need for control that's contributing to you having anger management and stress management problems.

Bruce, you're deflecting your traits in this debate. You're the one that needs to call that hotline in order for you to get that help.

Bruce Dignan: Speaking again of Josephs violent/self destructive internet raging,

Explain to me how my replies to you are consistently being "physically violent" to myself or to anybody else? Do you stress out so easily, that mere words will hurt your feelings? That they'll do so to the point that has you thinking that I am being "self-destructive"? And that I am "engaging" in Internet raging?

There's no violence, of self-destructive intents, in my replies to you. My chuckling and laughing at your replies temporarily delayed my generating my replies. But not by much.

You are doing the very things that you are accusing me of doing on this thread.

Bruce Dignan: originally in the name of god almighty

I'm hammering you so hard in this debate that you feel like the wrath of God is coming down hard on you.

In reality, I'm doing this for fun. Also, I could tell that I'm forcing you to see yourself for what you actually are. You don't like what you see. That's another side benefit of doing this.

Bruce Dignan:  and glorious ptsd monies, this is a prime example I am even more against the expanding of ptsd monies or programs,

So, you're actually opposed to allotting funds to help veterans with Post Traumatic Stress (PTS)? You froth at the mouth about how you, as a veteran, are being treated by another veteran. Yet, here you are showing that you do not care about veterans in need of the funds you don't care for?

These are veterans who actually need more help than you do.

Bruce Dignan: it serves as a self serving platform for some of the more incompetents of the VA and folks like this Joseph ptsd,

I do not have PTS, and I'm not receiving any kind of funding or assistance related to PTSD. This is typical of other people that I have destroyed in debate. You folks like to accuse me of having one sort of psychological issue or another.

You guys tend to react this way when you lose a debate and you lose control.

I do not work at the VA. So, my hammering you here has nothing to do with creating a "self-serving" platform.

Bruce Dignan: obviously unhinged by 100% ptsd rating for justing being simply bully or a-hole,

This statement proves that you did not do research to find out who I am. This also proves that you do not have a friend that's able to do this. This means that you lied about what that friend allegedly found out about me.

But again, you're a chronic liar. If you truly had a friend that did the research, you know that what you said is a lie. If anything, I'm a cool guy. I'm not a bully.

I just enjoy picking your argument and your post apart point by point. I also love seeing your reaction. This last post of yours had me laughing for a few minutes before I could focus on generating the remainder of my reply.

Your attitude, in your last reply, shows that you are not used to this. You're used to people leaving you alone when you get bellicose with them. Instead, I persistently hammer you and take you apart. You're not used to this. You're used to people ignoring you when you get hostile, aggressive, and angry with them.

They tend to ignore you, I don't. When I keep hammering you no matter what you do, you resort to calling me names and accusing me of having one psychological issue or another.

Look at your reactions to the other people on that thread. You'd see who the real bully or a -- hole is. It's not the people that replied to you. It's you due to the fact that you have anger management and stress management problems. You refuse to get help for your anger management problem. 

Bruce Dignan: and most likely addicted to all sort of psychotropics,

I'm not taking any psychotropic medication. But, given your conduct on this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if you have been prescribed psychotropic medications... and if you're cheeking those medications. 

Bruce Dignan, Out Of Breath Before Reaching the Garbage Bin?

 Bruce Dignan demonstrated plenty of anger issues on a recent thread debate. Here he is sending a message to the viewer with his weapons. Playing into the media stereotype of the veteran in order to scare people to stop "picking" on him?   

Bruce Dignan: I mean, so crazy and dangerious either on or off his ptsd meds,

"Crazy" and "dangerous" when it comes to your false persona. My replies to you challenges your false image of yourself. They force you to see yourself for what you actually are. Not as you wish you were.

My refusal to stop hammering you is making you feel like you lost control. You're panicking. Others ignore you when you get belligerent. I hammer you back. This is an anomaly to you, thus you think that I'm "unhinged".

However, as I've stated repeatedly on this thread, you are deflecting your own traits onto the person that you're replying to. Other people see in you the very things that you're seeing in me. Read your replies in order to see a true picture of yourself.

Bruce Dignan: I'll always have to worry about taking the garbage at night or such like that,

You're worried about what? That the garbage bin, on your apartment parking lot, is too far from your apartment? Worried about running out of breath before you get to that bin? Worse, you're worried that you'll run out of breath, then fall asleep where you're at. 

I can picture that, you crumbled and sleeping by a garbage bag. In the middle of the parking lot facing the garbage bin. People laughing at you.

You look like that you are out of shape, so that seems to be a reasonable worry.

Bruce Dignan: manufactured and turned out by the VA in the thousands every month, I've been around them before, suddenly they get told they should have ptsd to get medical treatment, then they start taking meds, then they get like really violent and angry all the time,

First, statements like this is one of the reasons why people have doubted your claims of being a veteran. Why?

None of the real veterans, who have utilized the VA services, came out with that conclusion. In fact they, along with the most of the veterans in the veteran community, don't think that way. They know that PTS doesn't turn people into what you describe them.

Medication doesn't make them that way either. You're regurgitating myths that you heard from other people.

If people with PTS have chronic anger and other issues, chances are they had those issues before they served.

Many phony veterans advance the "PTS made them do angry and violent things" canard. There are a lot of people with PTS that are laid back, quiet, calm, productive citizens, etc.

However, your attitude about those with PTS reflects the attitude of those who are outside the veteran community. 

Second, let me remind you of your own statement:

"you war veteran, you needy councelling/ptsd, where I declined, punished about fifteen minutes later with a second drug test, and a bogus trip up to portland supposedly for a heart stress test and talk to doctor concerning my new catscan, only it turns out to be a psych test." - Bruce Dignan

Bruce Dignan: and look at this joseph ptsd, he is like his life, apart from his VA job,

Again, if you, or your "veteran friend" allegedly researched me, you would not have that opinion. You'd know that I do not work at the VA. You'd also know that I have not been diagnosed with PTS or with any other psychological issues.

I work from my home office. I'm not hammering you on behalf of the VA or anybody else. I'm hammering you because it's fun. Your responses make me laugh, this is entertaining. Your failure to manage your stress and anger make your replies funny.  

Bruce Dignan: having to bully around old veterans like myself, I mean, in the real world, a young feller in his twenties who pushes around older fellers like me bout fifty years old are engaging in "elder abuse", and that means "criminal behavior", apart fro the traitorous pursuit of bullying around veterans of the usa for dollars.

First, I'm in my mid-40s. If you are "about 50 years old," we would not be that much different in age. I'm not a "young feller" by your standards. I do not see you as an "old person" nor do I see you as an "elderly person."

Second, the fact that you see me as "pushing you around" is proof that even you see that I'm destroying you in this exchange.

Third, Oregon law identifies on elderly person as someone that is 65 years old or older. You have quite a way to go before you reach that category. Also, according to Oregon law, your description would require a "physical" act.

My replies to you are not physical. Your sensitivity makes it seem that way to you. You're simply getting destroyed in this exchange. You can't handle it, so you cry "elder abuse." 

There is no bullying, elder abuse, or criminal behavior going on. I'm simply being persistent against you. I'm also replying to you in a way that's knocking you off your own pedestal. My replies force you to see yourself as you actually are, not for what you think you are. 

Bruce Dignan: I decided to do the right thing, by blocking joseph and reporting to facebook, if that could help him in anyway, he is sick.

Facebook took no action against me. Not even a message. Why? Because as usual, you are wrong.

You didn't do the right thing. You proved yourself to be a coward.

First, you proved that you are not man enough to take what's coming. You get verbally abusive to other people in the thread that disagree with you. Yet, when someone hammers you, you have an aneurysm.

You could dish it, but you can't take it.

Second, you resorted back to when you were a kid. As I mentioned earlier, you must have been picked on when you were a kid. Your attitude, and the way you reacted under stress, made people want to make fun of you.

I would not be surprised if you ran to a teacher, or to your parent, and demanded that those teasing you stop.

Third, you blocked me, because you cannot handle the truth. That's like what I've been saying all along, you have control issues. You're not able to control my actions, so you blocked me. That was your way of "regaining" control.

The only person, that was helped, was you. You made that "mean guy" disappear.

Big mistake. As you can see, by this series of blog replies, that a reply from me is almost as guaranteed as death and taxes. Now I get to make a fool out of you in front of an international audience.

Bruce Dignan's Anger Issues 01-Getting Defensive when Asked about his Military Background

Bruce, I asked you for information on your military background. This includes your duty position, the unit you deployed with (company and field level), where you served, and other basic information. These are questions that veterans would easily be able answer.

For example, if you didn't deploy, you'd simply be able to state that you didn't deploy. However, you stated that you deployed during the Gulf War. It doesn't matter what branch of the military you were in, you'd be able tell me the company and field level unit that you deployed with.

You provided me an initial response about your military service. However, when I probed deeper, you provided me with anger management problem responses. You should be able to easily answer all those questions without going into all sorts of directions. You dodged questions that veterans would easily answer.

This tells me one of two things.

One, it tells me that you served, but your service was lackluster. You may have gotten busted in rank. You may have gotten busted a few ranks. Chances are, you may have been discharged for behavior related reasons.

Two, if it's not that, then the chances are strong that you didn't serve.

One other person accused me of being "gay" as a result of questions I asked that person. I busted him for being a phony Navy SEAL veteran. That person never was a Navy SEAL. Your response and reactions to my asking you those questions demonstrate lack of comfort on your part.

Why the lack of comfort?

I sense that you're not being truthful with us on this thread. Either you served a lackluster term in service, or you may not have served... and you're just here to get attention.

I didn't ask you for your Social Security number. Nor did I ask you to provide me money via a "gofundme page." I don't have one.

You mention that you're almost 50 years old. You subsequently reference me as part of a collective group of "young folk."

I only talked about a part of my military service. The reality is that I'm in my mid-40s and have somewhere between a fifth of a century to a quarter of a century of military service under my belt.

You're not that much older than me.

Okay, you have high blood pressure. Nobody's telling you to read my replies. Nobody's telling you to read this thread. However, you choose to do so knowing full well that you cannot handle disagreement.

You can't handle it when things don't go your way.

Your responses on this thread, and in your PMs to me, indicate a need for you to get help. You need to attend a couple classes: anger management and stress management.

As for my advice for you to obtain your medical records.

You need these to apply for VA disability. You complain that you're not getting compensation and VA care. If you could prove to the VA, via your medical records, that you have service-connected disability, you'd make headway.

Based on your recent replies, to this thread and to my inbox, I highly recommend that you get help. Your inability to handle your stress and your anger is cause for worry.

Your avatar picture with your weapon, plus your anger management issues, is cause for worry.

You could help yourself, and help God help you, by getting help for your anger and stress issues. I also recommend that you attend nutrition classes. You should also start an exercise program. Proper eating and exercising will help you manage stress.

You could take the first step by acknowledging that you're the one with the issues. It's not with those of us that replied to this thread. I'm not the one that needs the prayer from you for the reasons that you stated.

Pray for yourself, then take the above two classes. 

Bruce Dignan's Anger Issues 02 - Thought Facebook Edited My Post

Bruce, I asked you a series of simple questions that veterans would be able to easily answer. All you had to do was answer these simple questions. If you're a veteran, that wouldn't be a problem.

No, I'm not trying to steal your identity and I'm not trying the make you mad. After your conduct on this thread, who would want to steal your identity? People will probably pay you to keep your identity.

You seem to be putting a lot of efforts into dodging my questions, why?

Having your congressman's office look into this? Please make the call. Have his staff look at this thread. I don't see anything illegal being done in this thread. All I'm doing is trying to hold a "veteran to veteran" conversation with you. This includes asking you questions about your military service.

Unfortunately, it seems to be a one-sided conversation. You don't come across as being a veteran.

You're putting excessive efforts to dodge questions about your military service.

This speaks volumes about your service, if you served. In fact, the ploys that you use here are similar to the ploys used by people that claim one type of military service or another... but who end up getting called out.

Getting the police to look into this thread? Please do get them to read this thread. Phony veteran/veteran embellishers love to threaten, those calling them out, with legal action or jail time.

If you're not reading my response, how'd you know whether or not I'm telling the truth or lying? If I were "lying", you should be able to answer my questions without dodging them or tap dancing.

Again, nowhere on this thread have I asked you for any money. Also, I'm not lying. I'm telling it like it is. I stand by my statements on this thread, including those calling your claims out.

The reason you're dodging my questions is because you know that you're making things up. You could only pretend so much; hence, your refusal to answer my questions. You know that if you tried to pretend even more, I'll call you out on it.

Your responses amount to "deflection." This is where you accuse me of having the very traits that you're displaying.

Again, do invite the police to look into this thread. Do invite the other authorities to take a look at this thread. Don't forget to contact your representative's office. Have them look at this thread.

They could use the laughter. You do realize that I'm laughing at your posts, do you? I would've replied a lot sooner had it not been for me laughing really hard.

If you want to know the reason for the "edit" on my last post, why don't you go back there and read it to find out? See what Facebook "says" regarding you before you insinuate that "they're lying."

Bruce Dignan's Anger Issues 03 -- Clueless About Facebook Profile Privacy Settings

"No one is calling u stupid or accusing u of being stupid. U handle that quite nicely on ur own." -- Kent Oakley' response to Bruce Dignan

Te wit:

Bruce Dignan: you have a shady facebook page WITH NOTHING ON IT

That's because we could set our Facebook profiles up with high privacy settings. This option is available to prevent the public from seeing what we have in our profiles. Your Facebook profile is very similar to the profiles that you complain about. 

Bruce Dignan: I don't even have a cellphone, but I wished I did, I'd be able to tell the police more of what I know for them to look into.

Why don't you use your telephone then? You could do that over a regular land line. You could also borrow your friend's phones, if you have any friends.

Bruce Dignan: I wished facebook had the ability to edit postings properly.

There is a way. I'd tell you, but you'd say something like this:

"...haha, ah man, you must think you are like so smart and like I might have a lightbulb light up in my head with some sort of unknown keen insight from one of the smarter ones of the VA," - Bruce Dignan's response to Joseph as the latter gave him advice about his records.

Bruce Dignan: "you war veteran, you needy councelling/ptsd, where I declined, punished about fifteen minutes later with a second drug test, and a bogus trip up to portland supposedly for a heart stress test and talk to doctor concerning my new catscan, only it turns out to be a psych test

Many people have the misconception that those with anger management issues must be that way "because of combat." Your reactions to her suggested that you got belligerent with her, just like you got belligerent on this thread. Your outbursts, and reactions, made them reasonably suspect that you were doing narcotics. 

That's a misguided notion, in reference to Posttraumatic Stress (PTS). People with anger problems generally had them before military service. 

Bruce Dignan: now folks are wondering if I am a "danger to society", or "deranged",

Hmmm, anger issues on this thread, anger issues as observed per your anecdotes. Also, we have your line of reasoning, plus the photo of you holding a weapon. Hmmm, I "wonder" why they'd come to that conclusion. 

Bruce Dignan: ummm, with some sort of anger I can't get my head around they got that from, maybe the cross I wear(or did till lately since I no longer go to church), or my views on peace and love to mankind and my support for other veterans for instance more deserving than myself,,

I won't be surprised that if you did serve in the military. You displayed the kind of attitude that would've sunk your military career. 

You refuse to acknowledge that you have anger and stress management issues. What you rationalize yourself to be, and what the rest of us see, are two different things.

Bruce Dignan: I just listened to a message from the VA, wonderful and on the ball apparently, like they said they would do, I am back in the VA healthcare.

What you said in December: 

"Actually, I rate a "0" star for them. I left the VA health care system in December." - Bruce Dignan

This is one of your contradictions. Based on your latest comment, do they get more than 1 star? You got back in with the VA. That's proof that the VA is not the monster that you paint it out to be. Your recent statement indicates that. 

No, I'm not associated with the VA. I go to them for healthcare, and my compensation comes from the VA. I'm with another region as well, not your Oregon one. 

I'm not a Nigerian either. They try to sucker people into believing something involving money. I "sucker punch" people like you with the facts. Big difference.

If you calmed down and read my posts as you demand of others: 

"folks refuse to read posts, they see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear." - Bruce Dignan

This is precisely what the other people here see of you. You refuse to read our posts to see what we're actually saying. You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. You reply according to that.

Bruce Dignan: I am hoping me and them can come to an understanding later, one that doesn't include me ever being accused of having "angier issues".

I recommend that you listen to what they're actually saying. Grow a thick skin, quit taking offense to things said that you perceive attack you. Recognize that you have stress and anger issues. You need help with those issues. Get that help.

Once you do that, you'll improve your chances of them and you coming to an understanding. This would be one that doesn't include you having anger issues. 

Your performance on the VA thread showed that you have anger issues.

Burce Dignan: Do you have any idea what society does to people accused of having anger issues, any idea at all?

Yes, you described it in your posts. Read this thread with a calm mind to see what society does with people that have anger issues. You have anger and stress issues. I came to this conclusion by reading your posts. 

I have no working relationship with the VA employees that you interacted with. 

Bruce Dignan: It doesn't take but a few movies or talk among veterans groups to figure out what exactly happens.

Veterans groups, and veterans individually, don't reference movies for what'll happen in real life.

Bruce Dignan's Anger Issues 04 -- Possibly Banned Temporarily From the VA due to Anger Problems

Bruce Dignan: Ha, what a loser pecker this feller is in my opinion,

I'm not the one that got temporarily banned from utilizing Veterans Administration medical services due to anger management problems. 

Also, I'm not the guy that's posing with weapons in a profile photo to make up for failures in life.

Bruce Dignan: a weak filthy poser posing as someone who goes after posers,

I run 4 to 6 miles on a regular basis. When I swim, I swim from 1 to 2 miles. What kind of physical fitness have you done? Other than doing your hunt and peck on your computer keyboard?

Your behavior on this thread makes people, who have served, suspicious of your military veteran claims. However, the fact that you got banned from using the VA services in December... and have recently been allowed back... indicates that there's a chance that you are a veteran.

That's just me giving you the benefit of the doubt.

The Veterans Administration hospital, and the outpatient clinics, have signs posted in strategic areas. They'll inform veterans to not to raise their voices and to not get belligerent. Based on what I have seen, you demonstrate poor anger management. Included in the sanctions, against a veteran that has anger issues, is temporary banning from using Veteran and Administration facilities.

"Actually, I rate a "0" star for them. I left the VA health care system in December." - Bruce Dignan

"I just listened to a message from the VA, wonderful and on the ball apparently, like they said they would do, I am back in the VA healthcare." -- Bruce Dignan

This seems to fit your case. You didn't leave the VA system. 

The VA system shut you out after you demonstrated poor anger management. Your conduct here makes it easy for people to doubt that you served. This could simply be a case of you being easily angered. 

Your actions indicate that of somebody that replies completely from anger... Without giving his brain a chance to think about what to say first.

There is an easier way for you to show that you're a veteran. You first have to properly manage your anger, stress, and control issues. 

Bruce Dignan: and the psych talk, straight out of something I'd have expected to hear from the ptsd band wagon at the VA,

Again, I have no working association with the doctors and nurses that you met at your VA hospital or outpatient clinic. They have not seen me face-to-face, nor have they interacted with me online.

If what I'm saying to you is very similar to what they're saying to you, then my assessment of you is accurate. Realize that they and I have come to the same conclusion, independent of each other, just by observing what you do on this thread. 

My observations of your reactions on this thread justify their observations of you in a face-to-face encounter.

You need to quit making this as if the whole world is against you. You need to accept reality. What you think of yourself, and how the rest the world sees you, are two different things. You're seeing yourself through rose colored lenses. Everybody else is seeing you as you are, with no filters.

Different people, not in contact with each other, who don't know each other, see you as having anger issues. Instead of trying to rationalize this, quit trying to make this as if we are "way out there." Quit acting like the world is out to get you.

I'm describing you as you are, not how you want to see yourself.

You have anger management, stress management, control, etc. issues. You need to get help for these issues. The Veterans Administration hospital, and outpatient clinics, have resources to help you with this. You should embrace the help that they're willing to give you.

Your long-term health depends on it.

Bruce Dignan: and its easy for someone to harass other folks when they like joseph don't have his real name, address, and nothing else, I mean, I could do it to if I wanted to.

Actually, I have my settings set to restrict what's seen on my profile. I'm restricting as much information as possible, about me, to the outside world. Consequently, this is why my profile looks like it has "nothing." It's meant to be that way for privacy purposes.

All I'm doing is pointing out to you things about yourself that you refuse to see. Things that you're blinding yourself to. My pointing out to you that you have anger, control, stress, etc. issues, is not harassment. It's me telling it like it is.

Bruce Dignan: I mean, how do you know I haven't tracked you down for a personal one on one conversation?

You see, this is the reason to why I have my information restricted to those who are not friends. 

This is an indication that you have anger, control, and stress issues. You're wanting to have a "one-on-one conversation" with me is an example of this. It's your trying to regain control in an exchange you feel that you have lost control.

Want to physically pay me a visit for a "one-on-one" conversation? You're not going to accomplish it by simply sitting in front your computer. You have to get moving. Get into your car, I live on the East Coast. If you're in Oregon, you have quite a trip in front of you.

Bruce Dignan: I mean, you use facebook and could be tracked down by anyone.

Okay, why don't you prove it? Mosey over to the Facebook open group, The Troops Are Welfare Whores. Try tracking down the "Mac" character that runs that and other sites. If you could isolate and identify who Mac is, and where he lives, then you prove your point.

If not, you're simply trying to regain control by implying a threat.

Bruce Dignan's Anger Issues 05 -- His Anger in Overdrive

Bruce Dignan: Whoa, it is refreshing to see you outright lying instead of misinforming, I have never been "temprarily banned from service" from the VA, I left them for five months volanterily, as I've said.

The only person in this exchange that's lying is you. So far, what I've said has been dead accurate when it comes to your behavior. Likewise, how the VA or others would react to your anger management problems is very consistent.

The VA has a policy against people that get belligerent, argumentative, aggressive, and hostile. 

You fit the profile of the person that loses his temper easily. One way that the VA deals with that is by administering sanctions against a belligerent veteran. This includes temporary banning from use of VA medical facilities.

This doesn't indicate a voluntary departure:

"I just listened to a message from the VA, wonderful and on the ball apparently, like they said they would do, I am back in the VA healthcare." -- Bruce Dignan

That message indicates that you were let back in. Your statement indicates such as well. You didn't say, "I returned to the VA healthcare."

Also, your stating that you don't have anger management problems is either a flat out lie or you being in denial.

The only person that's engaged in a misinformation campaign is you.

Bruce Dignan: I find it interesting you took only two days from my post to seeing this after two weeks of no activity, I don't believe you receive alerts from facebook about me posting, but I believe the roseburg va does,

Those two weeks of inactivity, when it comes responding to you, resulted in you not replying to me back then. You're the one that had almost 2 weeks of non-activity. It didn't take long for me to reply.

Yes, I receive feedback on this thread whenever you or anybody else replies after me. 

You don't have to be the thread starter to receive feedback if anybody replies to your thread. Anybody that replies to a thread, after you, will receive an email notification if someone replies after them... Unless you turn that option off.

I leave that option on, I read your replies in my email inbox, they're entertaining.

Bruce Dignan: so I sort of am 50/50 on the fence as to whether or not I have been able to ferret you out as to who you are.

I'm 100% sure that you do not have a clue as to who I am. None of your attempts, to figure out who I am, or what I do, came close to what I actually do. But again, you don't have a clue about who you are. 

You think that you're this guy, an average guy, that's a "victim" of the system. You're so blinded by your opinion of yourself. You don't see that your anger management problem is what causes you heart aches when it comes to dealing with the VA or with other people.

I won't be surprised if people distanced themselves from you both on Facebook and in real life.

Bruce Dignan: And no, I still have a problem even reading you stuff, I don't want to, it started out with a lie, so I decided no use in wasting my time.

You have a problem reading my stuff because I'm not saying the things that you want me to say. I'm saying things to you that you don't want to hear. So, your arrogance sets up stress shields. These stress shields prevent you from seeing what I'm actually saying.

You don't seem to understand anything that I'm saying. This stems from you reading my replies with anger. My responses hold you accountable. This contributes to you having heart aches on this thread.

Bruce Dignan:  So, how long have you worked in healthcare for the veterans administration, and how much do they pay you?

I don't work for the VA healthcare, or for any other healthcare industry. The only thing I get paid from the VA is my disability compensation. I have no work experience with them. I don't even have healthcare related experience, or certification, to work in the VA healthcare system.

If you walk the walk, and put the money where your mouth is at, and you do come over to the East Coast, you'd see that. Heck, if you are able to get information on me, you'd know that. But you don't. More on that later.

Bruce Dignan: AS for myself, I'm back in va care, getting medicines, and even met up with a wonderful caring professional doctor, a temporary one unfortunately,

I won't be surprised if that doctor specializes in dealing with people with anger management problems. Yes, you're "back" with the VA healthcare as opposed to you "returning on your own free will".

Your behavior suggests that you've been temporarily banned from going to the VA. The period of banning may have ended. Perhaps this is close to reality, and my making this suggestion makes you think that I "work" with the VA healthcare system.

If you are insisting that I "work" there, then something, somewhere behind your mind, is telling you something. Naturally, you assume that someone "in the know of your banning" is posting. This isn't the case.

Bruce Dignan: see, people like me who care about veterans and spoke up about problems brought about "change", which is more doctors and nurse practitioners at my local clinic and other improvements,

No, you don't care about other veterans. You just care about yourself. Your anger management problem indicates that. You have this excessive pride about you that, if you don't get what you want, you become belligerent.

When you get slighted, either at the VA system or elsewhere, you find a way to make it as if the entire veteran community was slighted. If you advocated for improvements at your local clinic, it was done for yourself. You didn't do this for other veterans. 

You associate yourself with other veterans. You associate slights against you as attacking other veterans, because your pride is running in overdrive.

There's an excellent chance that people who are more levelheaded, mature, and better able to manage anger, brought about those changes. They probably ignored your anger outbursts and continued to go on their own path. It took the professional efforts of others to cause that change.

Bruce Dignan: errrrrr, if you work for the va for instance, ummmmm, you might be mighty upset about having to be accountable for your va work instead of collecting a paycheck.

But, I do not work for the VA. This does not apply to me.

However, my arguments against you is forcing you to be accountable for your own actions. You know that you have anger management problems. Your arrogance is going to argue against that. You, reading my posts, are starting to doubt your own high opinion of yourself.

Bruce Dignan:  Its real interesting how I got a heckler on just being a veteran talking about va issues,

Here you go again, refusing to see what others see in you. Instead, you try to find problems in others.

No, you don't find it interesting. 

You find me annoying don't you? You simply want me to go away. When I don't, when I keep coming back, you get even more annoyed.

I indicated, in my last post, that there's a good possibility that you're a veteran. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I simply stated that your attitude makes it hard for people to believe that you're a veteran. 

If you simply restrain your anger, address people here based on what they say, and not on what you think they said, you might gain more credibility.

I'm not the only one on this thread that doubted your service. I won't be surprised if others have asked you for credentials when you claimed to be a veteran. 

Bruce Dignan's Anger Issues 06 -- Possible That He was Picked on as a Kid

Bruce Dignan: it doesn't bother me,

Actually, it bothers you. You're used to being in control. When you go into one of your anger outbursts against other Facebook users, most of them simply ignore you. You interpret that as a "victory." 

Then I jump on this thread. I keep hammering you instead of leaving in response to your hostility. I do this no matter what you do.

That bothers the hell out of you.

Bruce Dignan: and gives me entertainment.

No, the only one in this interaction that's getting entertainment for this is me. I laugh every time I see your replies. In fact, I look forward to reading them. They're a form of entertainment. 

When you reply to me the way you have replied to me, I know that I've gotten under skin.

Herein lies your problem. This problem resulted in many frustrations in many of your interactions. It's easy to get under your skin. You react in a way that's entertaining when people get under your skin. 

Therefore, people make you react a certain way because they're entertained by your reaction. 

Throughout your life, people have spun you like a top. During your outbursts, whether that was verbal or in writing, you reacted in a way that you thought would stop people. Instead, you reacted in a way that made people laugh.

You come across as someone that has been picked on when he was growing up.

Bruce Dignan: You on the other hand, you should think seriously about what you are doing,

I think seriously about what I'm doing. I'm having a lot of fun taking your arguments apart. You have control issues. When I reply to you, and take your reply apart like this, I put you in a condition where you feel like you have lost control.

Every statement I made, every word, every paragraph, etc., has a purpose. With you, they served those purposes wonderfully.

Bruce Dignan: I mean, I aint the only one with problems with the va,

Nobody's arguing about whether people are having issues with the VA or not. As a consumer using VA health services, I'm a satisfied customer. Like what I indicated earlier, the issues are taking place at the regional level. Some regions have good quality VA care, others don't.

But, our interaction isn't about those issues. It's about you.

Bruce Dignan:  and you are like sort of defending an agency that has made national news, scandalous news over the past several years,

No Bruce, I'm not defending the VA as a whole. I'm not denying that those events happened. 

This exchange between the two of us is not about the VA scandals. It's about you. You didn't take it well when I started asking you questions about your military service. You did not take that very well when I indicated that you have anger management issues. 

Apparently, others have told you that you have anger problems. I'm not defending the VA. I'm simply informing you that you have anger management problems. You have control, stress, and other issues.

Bruce Dignan: like a brainwashed democrat liberal grass roots activist who is paid to do such, or an employee of the va as stated.

No, nobody is paying me to post on these threads. I'm doing it on my own free will. I'm not associated with the local VA in your area in any way, shape, or form.

But again, you have no defense against me accurately pointing you out as someone with anger, control, stress, and other types of issues. Instead of arguing against that, you "clump" me with other groups of people.

It's easier in your mind, and it gives you a sense of control, even if it means you abandon the argument.

Bruce Dignan: go ahead, keep on posting, I think I will continue to post as well, you liar, I can say that as proof you are a liar, since you claimed I was temporarily banned, a lie.

You got mad when I said that, just as I expected you would. This theme keeps showing up throughout your reply. That got a little deeper under your skin, didn't it?

I won't be surprised if this was close to the truth. Your reaction shows how one would react when they lose control. Do continue to demonstrate that you have the inability to control your anger.

You have an anger and stress management problem. I recommend that you get help for them.

Bruce Dignan: Technically, one of my veteran friends,

You state "one of my veteran friends." I sense a Freudian slip with referring to the group of veterans as a set independent of you. So, you say "veteran friends" as opposed to something like, "One of my fellow veteran friends," or, "A friend of mine who is also a veteran." 

You're speaking from a mindset of somebody that is "outside the veteran group".

I would not be surprised if you are a veteran who got temporarily banned from the VA for anger issues.

Bruce Dignan: one who has done research on the net and skilled,  gave me some interesting information about "you", a few people are concerned about this, as well they should be, but it aint important for me to talk about your race, marriage status, kids, and where all this is coming from, and a few other things,

That's because you're lying and none of that happened. You have no clue about me or my family. 

First, I'm calling your bluff. Why don't you tell me here what your "veteran friend" told you about me? This is a change in direction from what you said earlier:

"I mean, how do you know I haven't tracked you down for a personal one on one conversation?" - Bruce Dignan

You talk about how you would do something. When I called your bluff, you replied with a statement about one of your "veteran friends" who allegedly does these things.

Second, go for it, tell me here, or via PM, what your friend told you about me. If you can't do that, you will have proved to others reading this that you're a habitual liar.

Bruce Dignan: you already made a big mistake in your new opening line, a pure lie, unbelievable, I expected more.

Here you go again, going in overdrive. You're arguing against the concept of you being banned from going to the VA for your anger issues. The only person here, that's making mistakes, is you.

Bruce Dignan: Ya see, I want everyone else who reads these to read this, talking to you personally through your bogus facebook page wasn't productive, you'd come straight to here.

I originally replied to this thread. You responded both, on this thread and via PM. I replied to you both via PM and on here. You sent the PM to me in hopes that this exchange would remain private and not be in the open.