RadioBanter - View Single Post - More Truckers Busted Using Modified CB's on Ham 10m Band

May 21st 04, 10:04 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:20:47 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 21 May 2004 00:57:24 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:
The point is that making a statement that 99% of cb'rs operate illegally
is false, just as 99% of hams get busted for operating illegally.

I try to avoid making specific number

comparisons

Since when? This morning? You have presented such specific number
"comparisons"
on several occasions in order to shore up a claim of yours, with nothing
to back it up except your "claim"..

When?

On several occasions. Even in this post, unless you snipped it. Are you
denying doing such?

Put up or shut up.

I have several times and it most certainly "shut you up." Again....are
you denying producing such claims with number comparisons, Davie?

But I would hope that you'd agree that a

definite majority of CB'ers are running illegally

in one form or another.

Majority? Hahha,,that would equal exactly what you said you do not
do,,,,more than 51%...LOL....your hypocrisy radiates bull****.

You evidently have absolutely no idea of the

difference between general conclusions and

specific numbers.

The word "majority" IS most certainly specific Davie,,,it defines
exactly more than 50% or half.
You evidently have no concept of the difference between,,,,ah hell, we
all know what your problem is, Davie,,,,,you can't help slinging
bull**** everytime you open that mouth of yours.

Then again judging by your past performance

and lack of comprehensive ability, this should

not surprise me.

Me either, since it is your interpretive and intellect skills that are
so skewered.

I have certainly seen enough empirical data in

my many years of the hobby to make that

claim.

But of course, you can point to or illustrate *none* of this "empirical"
(snicker) data,,,you want only to be taken at your word,,,something you
ruined long ago, but I will give you another benefit of doubt,,,present
something of this "empirical" data, as "empirical" means "provable or
verifiable by experience or experiment".

And it's been my experience after 30+ years of
CBing that the majority of CB operators

operate illegally to one degree or another. Just
turn the radio on any given day and you can

hear it for yourself.

Your hearsay and personal experience is not empirical data, regardless
of how severe you misappropriate and misdefine the term. Empirical data
is PROOF derived from your personal experiences. Merely claiming such
and assuming is not "empirical".

Every time someone hits

that roger beep, every time you hear an echo

box,

Incorrect. roger beeps and echo is not illegal on cb. No wonder you left
it,,,you couldn't comprehend the rules,,,,say it with me
now,,,altogether,,,"deficit in communications", Davie, is your dilemma.

every time you see someone's signal

"swinging" wildly, every yahoo on 27.555, and

every time you hear some low-life cuss out

someone else.

_

Merely claiming somehting is
empirical does not make it so. Do something you have never been able to
do for the masses, Davie,,prove your bull**** claim.

How does one "prove" a claim that is based on
empirical observation?

That's your problem,,,in addition to the fact that you are now doing the
backwards shuffle and claiming "empirical observation" as opposed to
your former claim of "empirical DATA". Data is arived at via
observation. Look up the word "empirical" and try placing that term
again in front of the laughable term you coined "empirical observation"
and you may (on the other hand, you may not) comprhend how redundant and
"double-speak" your newly coined phrase is.
End of story.

I have not claimed to have rock solid proof of

anything.

But you DID. Again, look up the word "empirical",,,,it means PROOF
supplied via your own experiments, however, one's word is NOT proof, no
matter how you try to postulate such. In the world of science, one's
mere word without proof positive is "a theory" and the word "experiment"
is a means of arriving at "proof" and disproving a theory and making it
fact. When a theory is proven via fact, (IE: proof) it is no longer a
theory It denotes a scientific arrival at a belief (theory) arrived at
and based upon by,,taa daa-- "proof",,not ones word based upon their own
experiences and assumptions.

But if you are going to take the position that

unless someone has such proof, that

everything they say is automatically a lie, you

are the one with issues.

Not "someone" Davie,,,just you,,,,as you ahve been unable to present
proof for any of your wild assed claims I have ever called you on,,just
more lipservice and angry posts directed at personal issues and not the
topic at hand. Once again, such behavior, I will surmise, most would
feel is indicative of a chronic liar,,,,or one with "issues".

A tough and somewhat duplicitous position

for someone who claims to believe in God.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

My personal faith and believing in God has absolutely nothing to do with
not believing one who has failed to produce anything concerning any of
his claims, except angry diatribes, off-topic obsessions, hearsay, and
personal opinion..

Why do you feel the need to add my call? This
.is a CB newsgroup remember?

Because I am of the personal opinion the people should know who attempts
to sling and perpetuate bull**** against them on a regular basis and you
are known by your call.
Don't be so ashamed of your call, davie, it will trigger those
incredible feelings of no self-worth you have expressed in needing to
"move on" and disassociate yourself from your past and your past
actions.

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj