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

April 14th 05, 01:43 PM

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:36:27 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

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.

Translation: You're lying again.

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).

There are no federal police. You can claim the opposite until the cows
come home. But until you can prove it, you're lying again.

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.

I admitted to my error with regard to the roger beep issue. As to the
rest of them, because you offer a dissenting opinion is not the same
as proving me wrong.

You were challenged to provide proof, and you continually fall back on
the same tired excuse that since I didn't prove one or two of my
allegations to your satisfaction, that you have no responsibility to
prove any of yours. That's such an obvious cop-out, but all too
typical for you.

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

I've run nowhere. I maintain that that only "defense" that I ever
offered was the possibility that he may have been framed. The stuff
about me claiming that the charge was withdrawn or that I blamed Keith
for something is all coming from the bowels of your warped mind.

Google me and prove me wrong if you can (You can't), but you won't and
will still babble on about not having to prove anything.

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

With the exception of the roger beep issue, all of my other usages
were consistent with standard definitions as provided by established
resources. Try again.

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.

Proved how? Because you disagreed with them? You have yet to prove
anything you claim. You aren't even man enough to use your real name.
Don't even talk to me a about providing proof until you get over your
own hypocrisy.

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.

Frank is proving to be almost as mentally unstable as you are. No
wonder you've found so much in common.

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.

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

No I haven't, and you can't prove otherwise.

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.

Ah, so you don't know what a (?) is. That explains much. Perhaps a
remedial reading course is in order. Then you can work on that GED.

You are not capable of educating anyone.

I educated you when you denied existence of a Federal DOT.

You provided nothing but your own unsubstantiated claims. You
hypocritically take me to task for offering my experience as evidence,
yet you provide nothing to back your self up.

I educated
you concerning your shouted ignorance (for a month) that roger beeps
were illegal.

You provided no proof to back up what you said. I had to get it myself
from the FCC.

I educated you on your mistaken definition of "empirical"
evidence,

Which was wrong (as usual). Look up the definition (I'll be glad to
provide it again for you so you can then claim that my dictionary is
"wrong")

Frank educated you on your mistaken..well, on a lot of your
mistaken claims regarding radio

Frank has his own issues, most notably a glaring lack of hands-on
experience with CB and ham 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.

My usage of the word "forensics" was consistent with the definition.
Frank had a problem with that. But his beef is not with me, it's with
those who write the dictionaries. But such illustrates Frank's pompous
arrogance in that he feels that he knows more than those who define
these terms.

In fact,
you have been educated on a host of things by a host of people.

I've had people who have disagreed with me. None have provided any
proof otherwise.

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.

None of you have provided any proof to back yourselves up. What does
that say?

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,

No, they're basically not. Both of you are running illegal
transmitters on frequencies that you are not licensed for.

The only difference
between the FM broadcast band and the
freeband is the frequency, and the visibility to
the public.
**
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.

Translation: You can't prove it, but if you repeat it enough maybe
someone will believe you.

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.

Denying the criminal nature of your acts simply because you have not
been officially convicted is disingenuous.

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.

So it's your position that no crime was committed until the verdict is
in? That's sure comforting to the families and friends of the victims.

Being pronounced guilty is only a formality.

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

Officially yes. But if you did the crime, you are technically guilty
whether the law recognizes it or not.

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.

I'm not the one twisting the law in some vain attempt at justifying
illegal behavior. "You're only guilty if you're caught" doesn't wash
with me.

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.

Until you provide the proof, you are simply babbling a bunch of
nonsense.

There is no federal speed limit.

This is your counter to your incorrect claim that there is no federal
DOT?

I never said there was no federal DOT. I said that there are no
federal traffic cops. Once again you attempt to twist words.

Man, you are a glutton for punishment. Sure there is, David,
truckers must abide by it every day. As I said,,,keep talking.

As I said, put up the proof, or shut up. The federal 55 MPH speed
limit was repealed. There has been no new limit to replace it.

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..

What difference would it make if I gave you his name? You would then
claim that I simply made it up. Speaking of names, what's yours?

You found it important enough to claim you have a
friend who was busted by the fcc, but will not provide for the claim.

I gave the particulars of the situation. Because you could find
nothing (assuming you actually looked) doesn't mean that it didn't
happen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This is the exact tactic you played with me regarding the Roger Beep
issue. How come you don't like the shoe when it's on the other foot?

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.

I've provided PA statute 3368, which substantiates my claim in the
vast majority of cases.

You find it important enough to claim you went to
a tech school, but will not provide for any claims.

I went to far more than that. But until you tell everyone who you are,
you are the epitome of hypocrisy to demand accountability from other
people when you won't even identify yourself.

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.

No it focuses attention on your true hypocrisy. You who demand that
others provide for their claims, while you yourself hide like a
sniveling child behind a cloak of anonymity. You haven't earned the
right to demand accountability from anyone as long as you are too
yellow to reveal yourself.

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.
*
*Gutless is the threat you made about coming to "give you what you
want".

That was no threat, it was a challenge. Something a real man would not
back away from. You are simply too afraid to reveal yourself. Which
then begs the question of what you are hiding.

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.

I gave you the chance to meet face to face like a man, and you came up
with all sorts of unreasonable conditions (Like demanding my credit
card number) and excuses. I'm not the one who backed down.

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.

Which you have yet to do. You word alone does not constitute "proof".

.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.

You psychologically challenged few have tried, but keep missing the
mark. And that is what frustrates you.

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.

That was not the claim. You made a specific claim about *MY* boat.

Besides, you learned to walk what, at 13 months or so? Does every year
that you walk beyond those first few make you any more proficient at
walking?

You're still green and a lightweight, but your self-proclaimed
experience regarding such, is my brass ring.

What "self proclaimed" experience are you talking about?

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.

Not hardly. The fact that you try and fail miserably just makes me
smile. Even with the emotionally troubled Frank in your corner, you
still miss the mark.

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