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

April 13th 05, 11:36 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
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.

Do not ask others what you refuse to provide yourself..it's called
hypocrisy and myself, Frank, Jim, Shark, Mopar, and now Lancer
(regarding your lack of knowledge of antennas) have illustrated such.

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.

AS opposed to you being wrong concerning the federal DOT (just to name a
single issue).

You want to eat crow again for something you

had to reluctantly back off from before?

You're the one choking on feathers in all your posts, especially since
you were instructed of the existsence of the DOT and the legaliyy of
roger beeps.

You really don't learn your lessons.

Until you can provide the proof, you're simply

spinning yarns.

..said the one who provides countless un-named, un-substantiated, and
unsolicitied claims to bolster your own position. No verifiable details
concerning your initiated and unsolicited claims makes your claims
unchallengeable giving way to classic demagoguery.

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!).

The topic wasn't Keith,,you invoked the off-topic.

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.

And you certainly made your share of forced errors...forensics, DOT, PA
State Law, Civil vs criminal law, roger beeps, empirical evidence,..

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.

You initiated this tactic with your running from your past claims that
were proved lies.

I'm forced to conclude that you don't know the

meaning of the word.

I force you to do plenty of things, but lately, it seems Frank has
forced you more than anyone.

So for your edification: hy=B7poc=B7ri=B7sy =A0 ( P )

Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)

n. pl. hy=B7poc=B7ri=B7sies

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.

Such is the nature if your actions. As has been illustrated by others,
you made more unsubstantiated claims than any.

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?

Memory impairment is responsible for your floundering. One more time, I
am whatever your ego needs and the one responsible for your -failures-.

That's a progressive sign.

Then perhaps your physician can lower your medication dosage. By the
way, how did that new med trial go? Thorazine, wasn't it?

Thank you for

answering my question. You did see the (?) at

the end of my question right?

What everyone else sees is way different than what you claim to see. The
light is blinding you.

You are not capable of educating anyone.

I educated you when you denied existence of a Federal DOT. I educated
you concerning your shouted ignorance (for a month) that roger beeps
were illegal. I educated you on your mistaken definition of "empirical"
evidence, Frank educated you on your mistaken..well, on a lot of your
mistaken claims regarding radio, but most recently, of your embarrassing
gaffe regarding the incorrect definition of "forensics", something you
erroneously claimed you use in addition to empirical evidence. In fact,
you have been educated on a host of things by a host of people. Now
Lancer is providing your education concerning what you do not know about
antennas. Yes, Dave, despite your denials, you most certainly have been
educated by several of us.

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.

Tut-tut,,when you have been reduced to wandering, you tend to make
invalid comparisons. What B-o-b does, and what I do (dx) are two very
different items,

The only difference

between the FM broadcast band and the

freeband is the frequency, and the visibility to

the public.
=A0=A0
Hehe..no, Dave, you are dead wrong,,there are plenty of differences,
especially regarding legalities, but I have learned to be content
watching you deny existence of the things of which you are not educated.

The FCC (a FEDERAL

agency)
=A0
=A0via the communications act of 1934 clearly

defines both civil AND criminal penalties for

violation of the law.

So does the Federal DOT.

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.

What you call technicalities is the basis and foundation for our
judicial system. It's not perfect, but it works much better than your
pronouncing one a guilty criminal based only on your ignorance.

Someone who murders someone is still guilty

of a criminal act regardless if he's been caught
yet.

Not if they haven't been convicted by a court of law. This is the ONLY
manner in which one can be "guilty" and called a criminal in the US. To
do so without the adjudication of guilt makes on guilty of slander or
libel, depending on the medium used.

Being pronounced guilty is only a formality.

Says you, but you are wrong. It is THE ONLY basis for guilt.

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.

Again, your problem is with your disagreeing of the US judicial system.
This is not MY idea, Dave, this is the way our system is designed and
you have a problem with it. Get past your personal problems that have
you misperceiving the law as a mentality instead of the reality you can
not grasp.

Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

Again, take it to your congressman.

There are no federal traffic cops.

Umm,,,there is. That is exactly what DOT officers are. In addition to
the usual laws they enforce regaridng commercial carriers and transit,
they are not LIMITED by them. A Federal officer may enforce ANY law in
this country. Keep talking, Dave, as you continue to be educated.

There is no federal speed limit.

This is your counter to your incorrect claim that there is no federal
DOT? Man, you are a glutton for punishment. Sure there is, David,
truckers must abide by it every day. As I said,,,keep talking.

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.

Stay focused, Dave. By now, everyone understands your need to become
personal when you are forced to learn, but it's off topic and serves
only to illustrate your incompetence and lack of communication skill.

You who claims to embrace the concepts of

anonymity. You want me to give you personal

information,

No Dave,,,you -chose- to give us personal info regarding this subject,
..your claim was unsolicited.

yet you can't even come from

behind that clock of gutless anonymity.
=A0
=A0Gutless is the threat you made about coming to "give you what you
want". Reviews of that thread show how yellow you are and what a coward
you have become, as well as the lies you made concerning your threats.

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.

Your education is always regarded as good,,,except, by yourself, and
this is only because it pains you to be proven wrong..I was going to say
"by myslef" and then considered saying"by cbers", but you have shown
that all who prove you wrong, bring you great pains.

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?

....asked the landlocked wannabe who gets maybe two, three months use
per year of his boat. Yes, David, again, your hands-on experience over
the years with your boats in Pennsylvania adds up to,,what...how many
months? LOL. Even if you multiplied 4 months per year of your experience
(and that's generous) for the last twenty five years, that gives you a
total of what,,,,,,100 months experience? That's less than 10 years
experience and it's not even consecutive.
You're still green and a lightweight, but your self-proclaimed
experience regarding such, is my brass ring. In fact, all areas which
you have professed unsolicited proficiency to the group, have been
decimated by others who do understand the subjects you fancy yourself
knowledgeable. That list is growing rapidly.

David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj