NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Fri, Oct 1, 2004, 1:18pm (EDT-1) From: =A0=A0
Dave Hall Group: =A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject:
=A0=A0 OT ping Jim Date: =A0=A0 Fri, Oct 1, 2004, 2:18pm
Organization: =A0=A0 home.ptd.net/~n3cvj X-Trace: =A0=A0
sv3-gpQozuEV5CUuAOGbwIwpW40F+CAjqNQ3bz0HCwmdzqKlp42E7n KCbW1kqMB13wloOIJfkm=
UIeEbSlNi!82OEgNQdiL4dBTsFXCsPMxWP2Rn5YttGlgF6eU2u HcXpEQk2E06crOKwk1JAb1VL=
NiHugQhBdWi8!4TT+hLAVzfg=3D
X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward a
copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be
unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.3.17
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......


Make up your mind,..a "sure bet" doesn't equal the bump on your back
herein referred as "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?



I guess because over the years ninety nine point nine percent of your
posts up until you were made aware of outside eyes watching, have been
of an insultive and demeaning nature, especially when you disagreed with
someone. Your longest running gag has been your calling of dxers
"felons", using the convenient but oh-so-ignorantly wrong excuse of
"Well, if the shoe fits" as means of illustrating YOUR ignorance of what
constitutes a felon verses a civil infract. Moving on with your lies
hypocrisy,and self-contradictions, you have whined and complained those
who badger N8 about getting busted" are no better than he, yet you have
badgered people and harassed them, unjustly and incorrectly calling them
felons because you are ignorant and clueless as to what constitutes a
felon. Wanna-be-physician, heal thy-self.


_
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.


No slithering permitted. The ONLY TWO THAT EVER made posts concerning
the area in this group. Try again with another lie when you feel
cornered and overwhelmed. Of course , you can always place an end to
your self-tormented lies by merely citing the non-existent particiapnts
in rec.radio.cb other than yourself and Geo that have intimate knowledge
of the area as discussed. But then again, asking you to provide is often
met with hostility and smoke.
_
I'm sorry if you are unable to comprehend that

there may be other people here who you are

unaware of.


I am quite satisfied with what you have presented.


Let's analyze this statement for a second shall
we?


Sure,,but, of course, you understand, if there was no validity to it, it
would have been tossed out the window...but your ego will not permit it,
as what others think (right now, myself) dictates your behavior, for
some odd and unsettled reason.



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.

What is this "condition" you speak of that only you can see??
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.


The only thing curious USED to be your self-contradictions, but even
that has been shown by your willingness to lie and play two sides of the
fence to harass others to be nothing more than an old game of which you
are no longer adept.
Your threat leaves me no doubt your involvement and harassment level of
participation.

A flawed based on paranoid and faulty logic.


Your logic consists of saying those who continue to "speak" of Dogie's
crimes are no better than he, yet you maliciously and incorrectly (via
your ignorance of FCC law) continued to call others (cbers) felons for
the mere act of dxing.
Once again, I am perfectly satisfied of the position you continue to
present of yourself.


_
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?


Hehehe,,,what were you saying of "personal affronts"? That's ok, Dave,
if your self-esteem is dictating this is panic-mode again and you need
invoke that part of you that soothes the ego by playing the part of Dr.
Walter Mitty.



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.


Post it.


Now you bring it up again?

based solely on the basis of our geographical

proximity to Lancaster Pa.?


You saying Keith could have framed Dogie has nothing to do with
Lancaster. Misinterpretations have always been your forte, Mr. dx-felon,
man.
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.?


No,,,those were your words, pay attention, as I already said once what
is fact...it doesn't matter what "I" think. Yet, has you worried and
concerned to the point of you fretting and asking what I think.
Fact: ONLY you and Geo have posted regarding intimate details of the
area. ADd all the "ifs" and "mays" you wish. It doesn't change the fact
that only you and Geo have posted of such.


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?
=A0

Since you asked, yes, many of them are. But we first must take your post
where you explained in depth the routing process of why your posts can
"be routed through the local college"..oh yea, Dave..and then when shown
you posted from two seperate access accounts
in thirty days (AFTER you said you have ALWAYS accessed this group in
the same manner) you offered "I have no idea how my server routes my
posts. I am not familiar with the particulars".
I continue to be satisfied more than ever concerning what you offer.


_
=A0ONLY you and "Geo" have ever exhibited
knowledge of the area.

Wait, I thought it was back to the IP number?

Make up your mind.


What you "think" has been demonstrated to be incorrect via your
insistence at your right to retain ignorance when faced with truth and
facts. Latest example: You saying roger beeps are illegal, you saying
roger beeps are considered "entertainment devices" by the FCC, you
saying many of the casual radio users here are felons for talking
dx...hel, Dave,,your ignorance has no bounds.

_
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.



You are only achieving to make yourself dizzy. Your offerings are not
taken by the masses in the manner you believe.



_
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.



Again,,that you hold such a remote possibility a "possible alternative"
reinforces the magnitude of your ignorance regarding the FCC's actions
prior to making such a public statement as on the rain report. Here it
is again, as you knew it was coming..it never ceases to amaze me, how
some of those who are licensed in communications, such as yourself, can
be so void of the information and laws regarding their chosen hobby.
This is especially ironic when taken into context. your past stammerings
claiming you are due respect by virtue your licensure.


When one does not know all the facts, it's

irresponsible to jump to conclusions.



Especially when that person forgets (read:denies) what they say, and has
to be led around by the noose to be shown.

It's called reasonable doubt.


In a court of law, yes, not in a civil matter regarding the FCC.


This was before the rest of the ugly picture

was drawn about Doug's "troubled" past.




"Drawn"? You mean by himself? Agreed,,,but you appear to be blaming
others for bringing this public information to attention. This is very
hypocritical of you. You have always maintained in the past, regarding
your incorrect (arrived via your ignorance of FCC law) calling of others
"felons" that they should of thought of what they would be called before
they committed the act. You also invoked the yellow cowardly "if the
shoe fits wear it" principle, which you use as justification for your
incorrect ignorance on calling dxers "felons".
Yet, for some reason you have a separate standard for others when they
speak of Dogie's actions.
You claim the FCC may be incorrect in identifying Dogie as guilty on the
Rain Report, yet you call others felons based on nothing more than your
ignorance of FCC law. Very satisfactory, indeed.



He has issues to be sure. But then so do you.


Wannabe-physician, heal thyself. Of course, with a teacher in the
family, you should know where to begin.


Only we have no way of finding out what they

might be,



Who constitutes "we"?
Only you continue to eat yourself up over my off-topic personal life.
The others who I have had major disagreements with have managed to
arrive, with myself, on a plateau that permits us to disagree without
being disagreeable. this was not lost upon yoursefl, as you twice (via
your sock) attempted to call yourself in the third person A) Once,
Leland,,and B) Once, Frank.
You have enough to keep you spinning for the rest of the year.


and you are hell-bent to make sure it

stays that way. It makes one wonder what it is

you're hiding.



No, it doesn't, as only socialists and those seeking to take away
American birthright's subscribe to your oppressive "If one has nothing
to hide, they have nothing to fear". This is America and you can't
undermind that in any manner. The majority do not subscribe to such
bull****. It has been proven throughout history the more one knows about
an entity, the more control they can exercise over such. There are
scores of reading on this subject, in case you are not aware the
originations of subscribing to such radical and oppressive beliefs.
Couple this with your never-ending search and pleas and begs for
personal information, your status-starved azz rears its nasty head
again.


Hell, even you have made comments about

this general area. Maybe YOU are the one

posting as "George"?



Spin and slither, spin and slither, make for a very nervous dither.


_
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.



Pointing out your ignorance regarding radio law and your hypocrisy is
not insultive davie. That's your problem, you take everything personal
and make everything personal......unworthy of proper communication or
debate.




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.



Dither dither dither.




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.




You're a dollar late and a day short. Your confirmation means nothing.
Such was common knowledge with or without your stated
admission.




But I'm not saying that this IS the case, only

that it is a distinct possibility.



Here is where the beauty lies,,,,you don't have to say anything
regarding it, Davie,,you won't change anyone's mind.
In fact, its not only a very distinct possibility, 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.



Dither dither dither,,you also said you only accesssed this group in ONE
manner and was proved a liar, to which you offered "Well, I have no idea
why my server does that". this took place not long after you agev a
detailed explanation of exactly how servers propagate messages, Dither.
It was shown 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.


Sure,,in the same manner you had to ask "who's Kim"..Do you really want
to go there? Department of Licensure who regulates professionals is
public information (DPR).
I mean, I let it slide once, but if you ahev the need to get personal
again, and if you have such confidence in your statements regarding my
"research ability", let's see who is correct.



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.



Already have Davie,,but if you need those two posts presented
side-byside where you claim in one you have no clue how your message
propagates, then in another explain the detailed nuances of how your ISP
propagates messages, I can accommodate. Of course, this was shown AFTER
you claimed you have only one manner of access, but were shown to have
two inside of thirty days.



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.
=A0
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 and say the FCC Rain report may be wrong because someone "MAY"
have tried to frame Dogie and the ''possibility does exist"...you do.
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.


On this subject, I do. But just for your sympathy "Who believes the FCC
was wrong and N8WWM is actually innocent?"






Are you so presumptuous

and arrogant as to feel that they owe you an

explanation?




This is your corner of the market,,,as your posts are chock full of you
stomping your feet and holding your breath demanding freeebanders and
dxers and amp users to give you an explanation of why they do what they
do.






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. =A0You 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.


Only after you deny it a few more times.


When did I do that? Certainly not recently.


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

Prove it.

Come out and deny it again, first.


You have no intention of revealing yourself,



As do the majority of internet users. Once again, that you shoe to
ignore all ISP's and security experts advice does not give you any right
whatsoever to demand others muck up as you did on the internet.



as

your anonymity is far more important to you

than coming to some face to face reconciling.




Excuse you, but anonymity on the net has nothing to dow with
face-to-face meetings. You were shown as much with my several offers of
accomodating your request for a face-to-face, but you want something for
nothing, wishing to meet at my place of business. Tell ya' what..I'll
accomodate that, Dave. I'll meet you at a prearranged pier near my davit
on any day and time you want, except weekends. Should I look for the
the person with short-man syndrome?

_
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.



Say it again, Davie,,,it serves up that loop you just can't manage to
get in.


It would be far too tempting for them to pass it

on,



LOL,,,,most aren't unworthy lids with low-self-esteem like you and
aren't interested in the "spreading of personal information" the way you
threatened and just now inferred.



and you are far too paranoid to risk that

happening.



Paranoia won't take your credit card as a deposit for your trip. Tell
ya' what...I'll sweeten the pot,,,,if our full day trip doesn't yield at
LEAST 150 pounds of fish, you don't pay. Now, put your money where your
mouth is.


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.





Except those who have been to my house, went fishing with me, and done
business with me over the net.
It's casual, Davie. 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.



Then what is preventing you?


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.


Waaaahh!


which then gives you a convenient excuse to

say that you weren't around when I came

looking.




I have that covered, too. A pic of the day's paper at the dockmaster's
office where his clock (way up high) is very visible for all to see.
You have no excuse.


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.


Deny it.

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

To the masses, threats are very relevant.

Not if they aren't real.


Denial ain't a river in Egypt.
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?


Really "what"?


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......


Not about me,,it's about what you profess for Dogie. So do you take him
at this word or not?



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.


Doesn't mean they did, either.

Ask Leland about them.


Why? Because YOU called it harassment?


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.



The mere posting of Dogie's ugly mug constitutes public humiliation of
him? Hehhe,..that's the first time I ever saw you insult Dogie.


_
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.


Exactly. And my media advice comes from a very expensive retainment team
that is at my disposal.


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?


Try and remain lucid. While Dogie may be ugly as a yak, I wouldn't place
a saddle around him.
Once again, two wrongs don't make a right.


I protect no one.


Your posts contradcit this statement.

I just don't jump on the bandwagon until the

proof is forthcoming.


The FCC is not "the bandwagon".

I have said nothing in defense of Doug's

activities since his convictions have become

public.


Please tell Geo this. He is choking on semantics concerning your term
"convictions". But to force the truth from you, you took issue with the
entire concept of Dogie being busted when I posted the Rain Report,
which, I remind you, WAS public. THAT is when his lawbreaking
hypocritical behaviors began to come to light.




That being said, it does not excuse those who
seek to harness him.


Again, no one has sought to place a saddle or bridle on your pal Dogie
you keep referring to as some type horse or other animal. No one has
ever attacked people for presenting their legal status, either, but that
hasn't stopped you from claiming it takes place all the time as an
excuse for your hatred on this group, but when asked WHO you claim it is
attacks others for their pro-legal stance, you get that stupid
cuaght-in-the-headlights mentality and obfuscate in any manner you can,
but never, ever provide for your claim : )


Even felons have rights in this liberal,

politically correct society.




Not many and they certainly don't override the rights of those innocents
you call "felons" derived from your ignorance of what constitutes such
status.



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.


Waa..na-na-na-nee-boo-boo!
What a child.
Already did prove that you are involved with your lies about your
posting accesses. Just for laughs, go on and say how you only access the
group through one access this year and I'll post the two separate posts
that screams the obvious....that there exists only one reason why you
felt the need to lie about something so innocuous.


You'd better leave the psychological

evaluations to those of us who are better

equipped.





Of course,,,I forgot I was dealing with the
starved-for-status-wannabe-a-physician. My bad.


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.


Again, read your history on the oppressive technique which you
subscribe. Perhaps when you haev a better comprehension of it, you may
elect to move to the country of its origination.


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.



Prove me wrong. Send me that credit card reservation and we'll go from
there.


Anything that is in the public venue can expect
no protection of privacy.



Except, of course, when it comes to others talking about Dogie's bust,
which you said is wrong.


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.




There is no "us" anymore,,only you.


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.



You cant even comprehend FCC law regarding what constitutes a civil vs a
felonious act and the legality of roger beeps. There is no way on earth
you can comprehend your calling of innnocents "felons" is harassment
based merely on the fact they admit to dxing. That is why you are in the
minority on such issues...you are unable to learn regarding such,
refusing to be taught, instead, insisting on attacking those who educate
your ignorance.


I do stand up against those who do however,

especially those who harass others and then

hide behind the cloak of anonymity.



That cloak of anonymity is accepted by the majority of the users on the
internet as basic common sense and security measures, doing exactly what
all ISPs and security expers recommend. Because you were too stupid to
follow directions on that front jibes prefectly with your ignorance
concerning FCC laws and all which it encompasses.


Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv