RadioBanter - View Single Post - While we're on the subject of funny and entertaining websites.....

April 12th 05, 06:30 PM

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

The only thing "bizarre" is your inability to
comprehend simple concepts.

You accused me of stating that someone
withdrew the complaint. I made no such
statement. That's a lie on your part,
predicated, no doubt, from your inability to
remember who said what over the years.

Nah,,,you said it.

Then provide the google link as proof.

You once tried to claim that I accused Keith of
something. When pressed on the issue,
(While you scrambled through google) you f
finally had to back off when you realized that
you make a mistake. But true to form, you
would never be a man and admit it.

Go on then and ask Keith, since you brought it up. You most certianly
blamed him.

You want to eat crow again for something you had to reluctantly back
off from before? You really don't learn your lessons.

Until you can provide the proof, you're simply spinning yarns.

Are you man enough to apologize now, or will

you just spin this some more to lay down even
more smoke?

Look how far you ran from your initial denial of
defending Dogie.

Look how far you go to deflect the topic (again!).

You made a specific accusation, and cannot back it up. Not you try to
change the subject.

You always default to denial mode when other people tell you your
behavior is hypocritical. It's called denial.

No, it's called correcting an error. You still

cannot demonstrate anything hypocritical that

I've posted.

You ask others to provide for their claims after you make unsolicited
claims you felt important enough to invoke, but not provide (proof)
yourself.

Translation: You are unable to provide the needed proof, so you resort
to your predictable deflection tactic.

I'm forced to conclude that you don't know the
meaning of the word. So for your edification:
hy·poc·ri·sy * ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings,
or virtues that one does not hold or possess;
falseness.

You asking for anyone to provide for any of their claims is hypocrisy,
David, because you refuse to provide for for the majority fo your own.
You can deny all you like. It's my pleasure.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Such is the circular nature
of your reasoning.

Guilty conscience?

Sociopaths do not have consciences. Reversing your uneducated opinions
at your whim serves to illustrate only your ineptness regarding the area
you fancy yourself educated.

Ah, so you now admit to being a sociopath? That's a progressive sign.
Thank you for answering my question. You did see the (?) at the end of
my question right?

You are not capable of educating anyone.
Your legal and political views are akin to the
malcontents and subversive slackers of the
1960's.

The definition of the term has not changed, your personal feelings and
bleeding from the gums, not withstanding.
You fecklessly insist such an act
(such as dxing) makes one a federal criminal.

It does and it is.

It doesn't. An inability to distinguish between federal, criminal, and
civil acts displayed by yourself is not shared by anyone else, only you.
You are assuming all rules and laws governed by a federal agency are
criminal and this simply isn't so. Your error, is you mistakenly believe
the term "federal" can be interchanged with the term "criminal" wehn
relating to the rules and laws they govern. This is your bad, Dave, not
anyone elses.

The real joke is that you don't even bother to read the links your
posted to the stories about your boy "Bob Noxious". In them they state
that it's a criminal violation to operate an unlicensed transmitter.
The only difference between the FM broadcast band and the freeband is
the frequency, and the visibility to the public.

The FCC (a FEDERAL
agency)
via the communications act of 1934 clearly
defines both civil AND criminal penalties for
violation of the law. The fact that you haven't
been caught yet does not change that.

Yet, the fact one hasn't been convicted of such DOES change -your-
mistaken position. The fact that you disagree with the US laws and
justice system that does not allow anyone to refer to another as a
criminal unless they are found guilty and pronounced as such in a court
of law, is irrelevant, as it again is your ignorance responsible for
your mistaken belief.

Once again you base your mistaken opinion on technicalities and
semantics. Someone who murders someone is still guilty of a criminal
act regardless if he's been caught yet. Being pronounced guilty is
only a formality. The same holds true for the FCC rules.

Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.

Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "it's only guilty if
you're caught" mentality. Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

The Federal DOT enforces many rules and
laws, and they are all not of a criminal nature, despite your inability
to comprehend such. If you need more examples, you may indicate such and
they will be provided.

There are no federal traffic cops. There is no federal speed limit.

Besides, they are not the FCC.

I have a cousin who's a lawyer

Hehehe,,,as I said,,,off you go now.
You find it important enough you feel you must mention you have a cousin
who is a lawyer, but no identification, resutling in you not providing
for your claim.. You found it important enough to claim you have a
friend who was busted by the fcc, but will not provide for the claim.
You feel it important enough to claim you have cops who are friends who
gave you the wrong definition of Pa law, but of course you will not
provide for the claim. You find it important enough to claim you went to
a tech school, but will not provide for any claims. It's your pattern,
David.

Far be it for you to chastise anyone for not providing for their
claims when you can't even reveal your own name. You who claims to
embrace the concepts of anonymity. You want me to give you personal
information, yet you can't even come from behind that clock of gutless
anonymity.

Stick to fishing. It's probably the only subject

you know anything about.

I also know boats, and that you were seen coming a mile away when you
bought yours.

Oh, this should be good. Another subject where I'll clean your clock
and not even break a sweat. What could you possibly know about my boat
or any boat in general?

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