Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

bob7947

Root Admin
  • Content count

    1,485
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bob7947

  1. Joseph: This is the discussion board. Your blog entry was posted to the blog area. Please don't post blog entries here.
  2. U. S. Civil War Discussion Forum

    If anyone tried to register on my Civil War site and was not over the age of 55, you couldn't. I forgot that was there and eliminated it. There are no age restrictions now.
  3. I have rechristened http://lifebeginsat67.com/ as a U. S. Civil War discussion forum and I have started adding items to it. There are no age restrictions on membership. If you have an interest in this subject, please join.
  4. U. S. Civil War Discussion Forum

    Remember Ambrose's river crossing at Fredericksburg and his slaughter of his troops trying to reach Mayre's Heights. And then, his Mud March. But he did tell Congress he wasn't the General for the job. When my dog Ambrose, named after that Union general, was alive I never mentioned Fredericksburg in his presence. If anyone tried to post something before this morning, I didn't realize I had set the topics incorrectly. I fixed that and it is possible to post.
  5. Wifcon.com: My Legacy; My Albatross

    Last month, Wifcon.com entered its 19th year.
  6. U. S. Civil War Discussion Forum

    CO1559: Don't use the citations that Vern provided. Both are abridged versions of some part of the Official Records. They can only provide a hint of what to know. On the Civil War site, I have provided citations to the complete: War of the Rebellion, Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. (We all call them OR of the Armies or OR of the Navies.) In truth, you must search through the Official Records . . . of the Navies too to check if there was any participation from them. These 2 government publications are about 200 volumes of details. That's about 200,000 pages for a start. Go to my Civil War site and click Some Basic Documents. The first link provided is to the Official Records of the Army. Click it. You will see a bunch of links marked Serial. (The Offical Records require some practice to use them. I use the hard copies. They are much better than the digital copies.) You see the Serials. Click Serial 10 . Then look at the links at the bottom of that page. Click page 0093. That will get you to a list of 229 reports. Most of the reports are written by lower ranking officers or by the surviving officers-in-charge of the mangled regiments. Those are the most interesting and most revealing. Some are written by low ranking Generals too. Those reports stretch from page 93 to page 627. The OR groups Corinth with Shiloh, for good reason. You will learn why that is done, if you read the OR. Those are the reports. Likewise, Serial 11 covers the Correspondence. Start from the beginning. That is about another 700 pages--maybe a few hundred are pertinent. After nearly 1,000 pages of text, you will have a good feel for Shiloh. Maybe Grant's slaughter of his troops at Cold Harbor was worse. I don't know. Google "trees at Shiloh." There was so much gunfire at Shiloh that the trees were getting killed too. I probably need to give a primer on how to use those volumes. By the way, check the Atlas for the Shiloh map too. It should be on the first link I provided marked simply Atlas.
  7. U. S. Civil War Discussion Forum

    It's beautiful. If you want, you can add that image to the Civil War site. I just have to make a "Gallery" section named Weapons of War and you can add the image to it. If you need help, just let me know. If that doesn't work, you can add the above in a discussion. Have you read the reports in the Official Records . . . . covering Shiloh? I walked Antietam. I registered you and added discussion categories for Union and Confederate Weaponry and a Gallery section for Weaponry of War.
  8. PublicView

    We've had a recent post added with the past day. Because of that, I have reopened the Assistance Forum to the public in hopes that someone will use it again.
  9. I banned the orignal poster because I saw a clear violation of Forum Rules. No one asked me take any action.
  10. I believe I deleted all the offending information. I will not hide the topic at this point. If someone sees something I missed, please let me know.
  11. I upgraded the site as suggeted by the writer of the forum software. I don't have time to see what has been done but if it looks a little different, it is because of the upgrade.
  12. I apologize for not seeing this quickly. I banned the ex-member for life.
  13. You can change your alias. All of your posts should be given the new alais you choose. Just send me a PM and the alias you want and I can change it.
  14. Carl: I could not follow your post about COR certification. I only see Vern talking about COs in program offices. Could you elaborate?
  15. Some of you may remember that I created a website for seniors, who are over the age of 55, where they could discuss their achievements in sports, arts, travel, etc. It failed and I closed it. However, a discussion board that is very similar to this one exits and the site and domain are current until the end of 2017 or so. The site can be up and running quickly. I'm trying to get ideas about how I can use the site to assist people. If you have any ideas, please let me know. Thanks.
  16. Background

    Below in the quote box, is an excerpt from the May 2017, Section 809 Interim Report. Links are provided to the sections of the National Defense Authorization Acts that made this panel. The purpose of this discussion category is to collect any ideas that may assist the Panel in its work. Please feel freee to create your own topic and provide your comments. Others may expand upon comments in any topic created.
  17. Need Ideas for Empty Website

    The site could be about anything.
  18. This is for a member called Roma who posted this on the blogs. ------------------------------------------------------------- As a contracting person for the National Park Service my office supports the acquisition of real property for our Land program offices. In doing so, we procure title services (everything from title commitments to closing services) to officially transfer the ownership of the land to the NPS. Typically these procurements are of small value that could typically be procured via purchase cards, however, title companies do not tend to accept credit card payments so we end up writing a lot of small purchase orders for these services. In doing this I started to investigate if these title services qualify under the $2500 micro-purchase threshold for "services subject to 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, Service Contract Labor Standards" as stated in the definitions at FAR Part 2, or if it meets the exemption to SCA under FAR 22.1003-4(d)(1)(vi), therefore putting it under the $3500 micro-purchase threshold. Micro-purchase threshold as defined in FAR Part 2 reads as follows: “Micro-purchase threshold” means $3,500, except it means— (2) For acquisitions of services subject to 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, Service Contract Labor Standards, $2,500; and..." And the exemption shown in FAR 22.1003-4(d)(1)(vi) reads as follows: (d) Contracts for certain services.— (1) Exemption. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(5) of this subsection, the Secretary of Labor has exempted from the Service Contract Labor Standards statute contracts and subcontracts in which the primary purpose is to provide the following services, if the conditions in paragraph (d)(2) of this subsection are met: (vi) Real estate services, including real property appraisal services, related to housing Federal agencies or disposing of real property owned by the Government. I guess my real question here is... Does anyone have any supporting legal basis to define "related to housing Federal agencies" when used in the context of FAR 22.1003-4(d)(1)(vi)? Do you think the acquisition of title services to support the acquisition of real property by the NPS meets the "related to housing federal agencies" statement? Typically the real property is not acquired to provide living quarters for per se, however, the land being obtained by the NPS may include residential buildings where persons may, or may not have, lived at some time, historical or not. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
  19. In the past, if I needed to eliminate posts that were off-topic, I had to eliminate the entire topic. Of course, that eliminated some good information from the topic. In an unknown upgrade, the software was changed to hide individual posts. As a result, I can hide only the off-topic posts. These hidden posts are now available to the authors of the hidden posts.
  20. Three is a new blog entry entitled: When a source selection takes longer than World War II.
  21. Acquisition Reform ― It’s Soylent Green!

    I've added a new discussion category to discuss the work of the Section 809 Panel. You can find it in the discussion area.
  22. A writer using the alias of Emptor Cautus has written an article on Acquisition Reform. I provided a comment to the blog that states:
  23. Acquisition Reform ― It’s Soylent Green!

    Every now and then, we have the opportunity to enjoy writing that is well-crafted and about something that interests us. Here is such an opportunity. Take it!
  24. Sometime In Your Career . . .

    About 8 years ago, I wrote this entry. I was reading through some of my old entries this morning and this one stood out. Truthfully, I liked several others too. However, this one provides a lesson in life. At least 2 people thought it was of value and left a response. It is a universal lesson of life. At some point, a position you take will leave you feeling like you are standing alone in gail-force winds. Do you get blown over and fall in with the crowd? Or do you forge ahead alone because your position is correct? If you forge ahead, it may cost you your job or more.
×