RadioBanter - View Single Post

October 1st 04, 07:18 PM

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:51:22 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

I'm just curious how you can upload pictures
from a machine which can not handle file
transfers (At least according to the literature
I've read).

Can't upload anything, not sure about what you mean by "file transfers".

If you don't know, then it's a sure bet you can't
do it.

Is that why you mentioned it (file transfers)? To find something pc
related of which I was not capable? For crying out loud, you are really
feeling depressed there, Davie.

No, just following up on a hunch......

Yes and no. Personally I don't have the hardware to do that. Webtv can
most certainly upload pictures in the same manner you do, they just need
more external components.

Now this is nice. A civil discussion. Now why do you have to ruin it
by resorting to personal affronts like you degenerated to below?

,
allow yourself this simple explanation.... you and "Geo" are the ONLY
ones to ever post regarding intimate knowledge of Lancaster (Amish
Country).......example: speaking of the previous ownership of Zinn's on
Route 30.

If Landshark has already "proven to the
masses" that "george" is really wa3moj, then
why accuse me?

By virtue the process of elimination. "Geo" denies he is Geo (forget his
call sign for the moment)....that leaves ONLY you, exhibited by the fact
you two are the only ones with any intimate knowledge of the area in
question around Lancaster.

The only 2 that YOU are aware of. I'm sorry if you are unable to
comprehend that there may be other people here who you are unaware of.

Let's analyze this statement for a second shall
we? You conclude that the person posting as
"George" has to be either WA3MOJ or me,

I didn't conclude it, I surmised it.

Semantics.

It's not. If I concluded it, I would have said so and said it was
definite. I didn't. I said IF it wasn't Geo , it was you.

Exactly, you said it was either MOJ or me. A definite conditional
conclusion.

Your quickness
to jump and latch onto this tells me you probably have a hand in his
dirty barrel of filth.

How you derive that logic from my statements is curious to say the
least.

Your threat leaves me no doubt your involvement
and harasment level of participation.

A flawed conclusion based on paranoid and faulty logic.

Your defending of N8WWM when he
was busted jamming and your saying the FCC could be wrong and that Keith
may have framed Dogie leaves little doubt to the rest of the world your
agenda and position.

Is your Alzheimers kicking in again? You accused me of blaming Keith
on the last go around. Finally after looking into it you reluctantly
were forced to admit that I never used his name. Now you bring it up
again?

based solely on the basis of our geographical
proximity to Lancaster Pa.?

Not at all,,I based it on you are the only two to have EVER posted here
regarding information of Lancaster.

What kind of logic is that? Do you think that, right now, MOJ and I
are the ONLY people on this board who know anything about Lancaster
Pa.?

And that precludes anyone else from living
here and knowing something about the area?

Not at all, but there is no unknown factor here. The IP number is
constant regardless what he chooses to refer himself and thiat IP number
matches countless harassing posts, in addition to speaking on depth on
several occasion of the area.

Oh, now we're moving on to the IP number. Is it MY IP number?

ONLY you and "Geo" have ever exhibited
knowledge of the area.

Wait, I thought it was back to the IP number? Make up your mind.

The probabilty factor is always a hurdle for you,

The probability is very high that you will take unconnected incidences
and attempt to make a connection through convoluted logic.

Davie, exhibited with certainty when you offered the pathetic near-zero
probability that N8WWM was framed by someone prior to the FCC announcing
he was busted for jamming the Toledo Amateur Radio Club members on
multiple occasions.

I merely offered a possible alternative. When one does not know all
the facts, it's irresponsible to jump to conclusions. It's called
reasonable doubt. This was before the rest of the ugly picture was
drawn about Doug's "troubled" past. He has issues to be sure. But then
so do you. Only we have no way of finding out what they might be, and
you are hell-bent to make sure it stays that way. It makes one wonder
what it is you're hiding.

Hell, even you have made comments about
this general area. Maybe YOU are the one
posting as "George"?

As I said, you are really unnerved at this point, Davie. Lucidity is
escaping you in increased increments.

Insulting me does not deny the probability of what I stated.

That would be the same sort of reckless
accusation as if I were to "surmise" that since
you live in Florida, you must be the same guy
who used to go by the handle of "King Kong"
some years back, that earned some sort of
notoriety on the band.

Only I would spend no time at all arguing with what you wish to believe.

I don't "believe" anything, I was merely offering a flip side
comparison, of just how reckless your assumptions are.

Here's another possibility for you to consider.
The person you speak of is neither wa3moj or
anyone else who you know, but rather another
anonymous twit who's been having a huge
laugh at everyone's expense as they accuse
other people of being responsible for the
deeds.

And the only way you know this for absolutely sure and without any doubt
whatsoever, is you are either that person, or heavily involved with the
harassment. I surmise both.

I didn't conclude it, I surmised it. ;-)

Actually, you didn't surmise it, you made a concise conclusion with a
personal conviction of confirmation. Read again what you wrote.

When you include the word "Possibility" it removes any idea of a
conclusion. There is a BIG difference between claiming that some IS a
certain way and postulating that it is possible for something to be a
certain way.

And you are correct. The only way that I
WOULD know for sure is to have some direct
involvement. But I'm not saying that this IS the
case, only that it is a distinct possibility.

A very distinct possibility, In fact, given the threat you made, your
unyielding attempts at uncovering personal information on cbers who post
on usenet, coupled with the probability factors that keep coming in to
play, leave little doubt your involvement. In fact, such a direct threat
is a picture perfect of your involved harassment actions.

One thing that I DO know for sure is that I've
never posted here in the last 9 years under
any other alias but my own given name. I have
no need to hide behind fictitious names.

Yea, well we showed that wasn't true either, as you were posting under
the same account as that VE was at Villanova, When this was illustrated
and brought to the group's attention, your reply was something along the
lines.."Yea, well I borrowed an account at that time." You ahve made
several claims that are off the wall, Davie..the threats, Keith framing
Dogie, Dogie is really innocent,,,,,,,you are delusional, and so is the
"Geo" poster.

I never accused Keith. Do you need to go through the trouble to find
it out again? I also borrowed an account on the Villanova mainframe
system over 9 years ago. It's old news. Since then I have ALWAYS used
my real name on EVERY post that I've made. I challenge you to prove
otherwise.

Exactly,,,like our last exchange concerning your involuntary feelings of
need to meet "Twistedhed".
Since you don't see things the way the majority of the world does, it is
of little concern.

That's a hoot, as I am far more in line with
what most moral, and respectful people see
than you are evidently aware of.
*

Moral folks don't make idle threats based on their inability to discuss
things rationally....you do. Respectful people don't pull a name from
their azz (Keith) and say the FCC Rain report may be wrong because Keith
"MAY" have tried to frame Dogie and the ''possibility does exist"...you
did. Again, you are reaching for something so remote, that NONE , hammie
or cber have subscribed to your theory, so feel free to repeat you are
"in line" with the majority over and over. It simply fuels your
delusion.

And just how do you know that none have "subscribed" to any of my
"theories". Do you regularly poll everyone in the world as to what
they are thinking. Are you so presumptuous and arrogant as to feel
that they owe you an explanation?

No, that's the straight up truth. You are
nothing more than a curiosity to me.

Curiosities doesn't lead to threats like you make. It's much more than
that for you, davie, adn if it's not, you ought to have yourself
examined for allowing a "curiosity" to overcome your better sense and
lead to such behavior that it leads to you making threats.
*You went out of your way and became so enthralled in your frustration
over this, you posted a direct threat that you would "spread my personal
info around".

When did I make this supposed "threat"? Please post the link.

When did I do that? Certainly not recently.

Sure you did, Davie, within the last couple of weeks.

Prove it.

You have no intention of revealing yourself, as
your anonymity is far more important to you
than coming to some face to face reconciling.

Only I'm not anonymous to several on here. You were just told that in
another thread, but you may continue professing whatever it is that
makes you feel better about yourself.

No one here knows who you are. It would be far too tempting for them
to pass it on, and you are far too paranoid to risk that happening.
You might have spoken to a few over the radio, and you might have had
a face-to-face meeting with a few others, but no one knows anything
more about you.

I'll take your declination of accepting a day's trip as you have no
actual desire to meet up for any pertinent reason but to make good on
your threat. The booking of your trip with a cc protects ME, as well as
you, which is the main reason you will not provide it.

How would it protect you? If anything, it would give me the name of
your "business" which, as you are painfully aware, is all one would
need to find out more.

You offered me the choice of either finding
you on the CB, which of course, I don't know
what you go by or what channels you talk on,

I would meet you on any channel/frequency you like and answer to
whatever it is your curious azz wishes to call me. No more excuses about
channels or handles, please.

Like I said initially, I have no room to bring along radios and
antennas. The best I could do would be a walkie-talkie, and I'm not
going to do it.

which then gives you a convenient excuse to
say that you weren't around when I came
looking. Or giving you MY cell phone number
(Which I don't have), where again there is no
guarantee that you'd call and you now would
theoretically have a piece of my personal
information.

Only YOU are the one making threats with personal information, not I.

I'm not threatening anything. You have yet to substantiate that claim.

Lose the lame excuse. It's no longer relevant.

To the masses, threats are very relevant.

Not if they aren't real.

What a case of classic self-projection,,,,merely because you would stoop
and lower yourself to harassing another via the "spreading of their
private information" doesn't mean others would do it. In fact, the
majority of regs here are not like you at all. Only a few scumbags are
interested in harassment as you threatened.
_
Really? Then what do you call the latest round
of "intimidation" with Doug,

Dogie says this never occurred. Next.

As if you would take Doug at his word. Please......

and Steveo, and
Leland, and the on-again, off again "meetings,

Dogie initiated these meetings with threats of violence long ago.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

answering machine messages,

I know nothing of any answering machine messages.

That doesn't mean they didn't happen. Ask Leland about them.

photo taking,

Taking photos from a public right-of-way is not harassment.

No, but using those photos as a public form of humiliation might be.

Mopar is
gettting all the free legal advice he can handle regarding such
media-like endeavors,

In this case, you get what you pay for.

and harassment of significant others then?

Your protection of felons who harass this group on a regular basis, who
have been busted by the feds, who have been found to be mentally
unstable by a court of law you always invoke (all laws are to be obeyed,
etc.) who have made countess posts containing homosexual preferences,
connotations, and verbiage as insults, is much more offensive to the
majority
than the posting of public information of said felonious harassers that
you ignorantly misinterpret as harassment.

So harnessing someone who is a felon is acceptable? Once again, two
wrongs don't make a right. I protect no one. I just don't jump on the
bandwagon until the proof is forthcoming. I have said nothing in
defense of Doug's activities since his convictions have become public.
That being said, it does not excuse those who seek to harness him.
Even felons have rights in this liberal, politically correct society.

I'd say that there are quite a few people on
this board who are preoccupied with using
others personal information against them.

You're the main culprit.

Prove it.

Apparently. You are unable to get another to conform to what you want
(that starved-for-status thing rearing its ugly head again in your
low-self esteem) . The inner power/impotence struggle you exhibit isn't
anyone elses quandry.

You'd better leave the psychological evaluations to those of us who
are better equipped.

Sure,,your hotel. In this manner, you have no personal information of
mine (my work, my place of business), and I none of yours

You'd drive all the way to Kissimee?

Maybe. Kissimmee is worse than Orlando for kitsch. But then again, there
are a ton of lakes and rivers around there..make for some good
freshwater fishing.

Besides, you already know way more about
me, than I do about you.

That was your choice. Stop blaming me for your poor choices.

It wasn't a poor choice as I have nothing to hide. You obviously do.

Same can be said to you regarding meeting at my place of business after
you threatened me with the "spreading of your personal information". If
I was a suit-seeker, I'd permit you to hang yourself with this. Your
threat, when made good after meeting at my place of business would most
definitely render you a pauper for the rest of your life, but such is
illustrated only for your education. It may prevent a costly mistake
when you fool with someone that takes you serious.

You're kidding right? Assuming for a second that I found out the name
of your business, and posted it here, do you actually think you'd have
some sort of legal case? I'd love to hear the legal grounds. Anything
that is in the public venue can expect no protection of privacy.
Posting sensitive information like a credit card number would be a
different matter, but not something like a name or business. It's
PUBLIC INFORMATION. Only through your clandestine efforts have you
managed to conceal it from the rest of us.

I don't want to take a trip, I just want to say
hello, shake hands and maybe talk a bit about
the sandpile.........

In other words, you want something for nothing. You want my personal
information, and are asking me to hand it to you after you made a threat
regarding this information. A rocket science you ain't. A harasser on
rec.radio.cb, you most certainly are.

I harass no one. I do stand up against those who do however,
especially those who harass others and then hide behind the cloak of
anonymity.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj