On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:32:37 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:57:55 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
**In some cases, the
repercussions can be severe, such as Dennis had in that bull**** when
Hall and Lelnad and Dogie all conspired to contact his employer.

Keep my name out of this.

Your name was netered by yourself and voluntarily on this subject.

No, you mentioned it erroneously.


I had NOTHING to do with it.


Aw, come on, Dave...one doesn't need google to realize how many times
you not only defended vehemently, but aligned yourself with the jerkoff
that has posted here many times that he is responsible for people like
Dennis' departure from the group.


I don't know who was responsible for Dennis's departure from this
group, and I suspect that neither do you. You only grasp at straws and
make wild guesses. It's no different than what your detractors do to
you, when they accuse you of being Dave Mc Campbell et al.

I don't defend people, I defend principles. If there is insufficient
proof (and heresay testimony from anonymous internet groupies does not
count as proof) to verify an allegation, then I tend to remain
skeptical.


Dennis was a friend,


Well, to be perfectly fair, this group was witness to how you treat your
"friends" on more than one occasion. Your comments concerning
your"business partner" is testament to such and a fine example.

How have I mistreated my friends, as if you know of any examples?


and a welcome addition
to this usually technically challenged group,
who tended to believe "CB science" over
sound RF principles. Dennis was one of the
few who set people straight. I applaud and
respect him for that.


Unfortunately, you defended the jerkoff that attacked not only Dennis,
but just about everyone else on this group, also.

That does not mean, as you erroneously claimed, that I took part in
his departure from the group.


In fact, you jumped
aboard the canine wagon with both paws, claiming the FCC and Rainreport
means nothing concerning enforcement.


I only claimed that there was no definitive proof, at the time, that
the interference was being caused by the person who was being accused.
Knowing how this person had set himself up in a despised position, it
was easy to postulate how someone looking for some sort of "revenge"
could have framed him for it. All I said was not to count all of your
eggs before they all hatch. Premature summary judgements are
irresponsible.

Like I said, I defend principles. Heck I'd even defend you if the
situation warranted it. I believe that people should get what they
deserve, nothing more or less.


Just more double talk from one who has been shown to not only ride both
sides of a debate with self-contradiction, but also fosters and incites
flames from all parties.

A skilled debater is able to assume either side of an issue and argue
it with equal effectiveness. You may call it contradiction. I call it
"Keeping an open mind".....

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


Dave

"Sandbagger"

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