NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0Thu, Apr 14, 2005, 7:43am (EDT-1)
From: =A0Dave Hall Group: rec.radio.cb
Subject:=A0 While we're on the subject of funny and entertaining
websites.....
Date: =A0=A0 Thu, Apr 14, 2005, 8:43am Organization: =A0=A0
home.ptd.net/~n3cvj X-Trace: =A0=A0
sv3-QyzEc9a3sv6vzMbHKyl1V33sWVXxUm0AMsawVG9/dTaYxKQOCW28tOcpt23bNlCN/+zlWS=
V3T6cduu4!aA6nJcTjuI1wSG1ts3upWFOk2MfXuHECajAGOP5G jBU4e6//Hwc9vgJ6WOdF/u8t=
OIeeqVu7NFiH!ZfmT4YOQpyQ=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 1.3.32
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.
And everyone else mentioned above who illustrated your hypocrisy is
lying, too?
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 were taught by myself, after you inquired "What federal agency
enforces traffic laws?". I taught you the FEderal DOT does just that,
and you are busy digesting feathers while playing semantics via
invoking the term "federal police". Now, DOT officers do exist, but you
keep on providing these jewels for your daughter to read in the future.
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.
My "dissenting opinion" has nothing to do with you not being aware of a
federal agency's existence which enforces traffic laws.
You were challenged to provide proof,
You were asking the educated contingency to prove a negative, one that
existed only in your mind, concerning the roger beep issue,,,that's
whacked, Dave.
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,
Tut-tut,,you have proved unsolicited your claims to no one's
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.
I don't think there is a single presence on this group that hasn't
proved you wrong at one time or another.
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.
Wrong, One is not a criminal for a civil matter, yet you continue to
fail to comprehen
You still
cannot demonstrate anything hypocritical that
I've posted.
Hehe,,,in the last 2 weeks, check the names mentioned above..they ALL
noted your hypocrisy.
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
(snip)
Not about me, Dave...-you- asked forexamples, were given them, and the
first thing out of your mouth is " ...YOU"....... You're not even worthy
of dialog these days, David.
You initiated this tactic with your running from
your past claims that were proved lies.
Proved how? Because you disagreed with
them?
Because you are consistently wrong.
You have yet to prove anything you claim.
Truth needs no proof, such as the roger beep issue you needed educated
on because of your ignorance of the law and invoked excuses of -why- you
profess such ignorance. Hint: no one cares why you believe the things
you do...all that matters is you were brought in to the educated arena
in whcih the rest of us dwell concerning the law.
You aren't even man enough to use your real
name.
Aww David, did I hurt your feelings again?
Don't even talk to me a about providing proof
until you get over your own hypocrisy.
Your personal issues regarding the identity of cbers is a monkey on
-your- back, no one elses. CB is handle-driven, not personal identity.
The problem , as always, originates within yourself.
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.
Said the one with numerous unsolicited claims invoking fairies of
self-support, such as friends who are cops that give you incorrect
information regarding the law, cousins who are lawyers : ) and all other
kinds of self-conjured support to lend your trampled psyche and ego.
No wonder you've found so much in common.
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 of 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.
Proof is irrelevant, according to you, when we have "statistical
probablities"(that you like to invoke), such as the FACT that "anarchy"
and similar terms are used exclusively by yourself and the most
malicious sock posters on the group. Indeed.
Thank you for
answering my question.
You continue to learn, so I have reason for continuing to answer.
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.
Yep,,you're well shaken.
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.
Again,,you ignorantly inquired "What federal agency enforces traffic
laws?" When you were taught the DOT does this, you ranted and began
smoldering about what to call this entity of which you were not
familiar, and embarassed yourself with "There are no federal police".
Well, yes there are David,,the DOT employees in those cop looking cars
are called DOT OFFICERS (more education for your half-wit) and the FBI,
other agencies are certainly what you deny exists at all: Federal
Officers.
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.
=A0
Everyone else, including myself, had this "experience" you continually
defend on our side regarding the law and evidently made it our business
to be educated and informed on the law. This was due our experience and
familiarity with the law. You, on the other hand, was not only NOT
familiar with the law, but hypocritically hold such personal experience
as "no proof" when offered by others. LOL. What a card you are, but not
a very bright one, despite Frank's initial assessment concerning your
intellect. His reformed dissertation is very close to that of your
shrink's.
-
=A0I 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")
=A0
You claimed "empirical observations" derived from your personal
experience constituted proof. You then invoked your personal experiments
confirmed your positions. It was then you were properly instructed that
once experiments were undertaken by yourself, your position was no
longer derived from "empirical evidence" and voided your original use of
the word. But hey,,,off you go now to provide it for "me" (chuckle).....
again! LMAO!
=A0Frank 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.
No David, that would be your knowledge of the law governing your chosen
hobby.
_
Most recently, 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.
The difference wasn't with the dictionary, only your incorrect useage.
But such illustrates Frank's pompous
arrogance in that he feels that he knows more
than those who define these terms.
Or those who actually know the law and try to teach it your arrogant and
pompous self.
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.
It's more fun to watch you run around huffing and puffing with your
lactating chest protruding for a few days and finding out your were
ignorant all by your lonesome. Brass RING!
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?
It says no can tell David Hall Jr. anything because he believes he knows
better than everyone else, even when a number of people are telling him
the same thing. Wait till your daughter and Kimberly reads all this ****
you post one day....they will be like "damn,,,and we thought he was just
like that with 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,
No, they're basically not. Both of you are
running illegal transmitters on frequencies that
you are not licensed for.
When ever your head is in the sand or up another's ass and you are
stinging from being wrong so often, you lob bull**** you pull from your
ass and hope it sticks. My Ten-tec is more legal than your Dave made.
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.
In fact, that statement serves as a reminder that some jackasses who are
licensed for communications, such as yourself, know the least of it.
Translation: You can't prove it, but if you
repeat it enough maybe
someone will believe you.
=A0
=A0The 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.
No,,that's you desperately treading in your own fecal matter trying to
find a way out of the darkness you conjured with the claim that there
are no federal police officers when you had to be taught that the
FEDERAL DOT enforces traffic laws..
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.
......and only the basis for innocent until proven and found guilty.
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.
You're wandering.
Being pronounced guilty is only a formality.
Says you, but you are wrong. It is THE ONLY basis for guilt.
Officially yes.
Which is what we are discussing,,the law. Your opinion to disagree with
it means ****.
But if you did the crime, you are technically
guilty whether the law recognizes it or not.
Only in the eyes of those who do not embrace the US justice system.
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.
Nope..you're the one using your ignorcane of the law as a basis for
claiming things are illegal (roger beeps) and do not exist (FEDERAL DOT
AKA and "federal police" AKA..(insert any number of federal agencies
here).
"You're only guilty if you're caught" doesn't
wash with me.
Watching you wander, it's apparent you don't wash at all.
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.
More ignorance from one who knows little to nothing of the laws and
agencies in this country.
There is no federal speed limit.
This is, countrary 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.
No, that's not what you originally said,,,you originally said there is
no federal agency that enforces treaffic laws. When you were taught
otherwise, you spun words with your invocation of "federal police". Now
you change it again to "federal traffic cop", yet, that is exactly what
a DOT officer is...a federal traffic cop.
=A0Man, you are a glutton for punishment. And there is mandatory speeds,
truckers must abide by them every day. As I said,,,keep talking.
As I said, put up the proof, or shut up.
I'm content watching you suffer.
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?
The same difference of importance you apparently felt compelled to
invoke such.
You would then claim that I simply made it up.
made it up.
Somebody else would have beat me to it.
Speaking of names, what's yours?
You had your chance.
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.
You should have applied this principle to yourself when you claimed
because -you- were unable to find a law specifically permitting roger
beeps, you were "forced" to consider them illegal. Your ignorance knows
no bounds.
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.
Yet, according to you, this cop gave you incorrect information regarding
the law of the state he and you reside.
=A0You 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.
I ask no one for accountability. That is reserved for jackasses like you
who see themselves as some sort of person who others need answer or
explain their ways, too. All I ask of you is to provide for your claims,
and again, as always, the first thing out of your fecal filled mouth is
"but..YOU". LOL.
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,
Not others, David, only you. as only you have been illustrated by no
less than ahndful of regular posters as being hypocritical.
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,,you tossed it out there.
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".
That was no threat, it was a challenge.
Something a real man would not back away
from.
So why did you, then? I see we need revisit that thread, eh?
You are simply too afraid to reveal yourself.
Whcih is why when faced with no other out, you chose to stick your
yellow tail between your legs and run from your "challenge". You claimed
I asked for your credit card (only to secure a commercial trip) as our
last exchange, but you lie. Our last exchange was when I offered to meet
you at a specific location, and you claimed I wouldn't show. When I
claimed I would take a picture of the day's paper (illustrating the
date) under the clock tower where we were to meet, and post the pic
online that day to probe I was there,,,you ran. You ran like the yellow
cowardly cur you are and droped the thread. Need see it again?
Which then begs the question of what you are
.hiding.
You're the one who continues to provide the FCC with a bogus address,
even after being informed such behavior was illegal.
_
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".
Based on experience, and my familiarity with law confirms it (when
compared to you), it most certainly does constitute proof,,at least,
according to you,,but then again, everyone knows you dont play by the
rules you spat.
You psychologically challenged few have t
ried, but keep missing the mark. And that is
what frustrates you.
Frustrated? My goodness jr..I'm not the one crying and moaning like a
bitch in heat about cbers personal identities,,,,that's reserved for
losers like yourself.
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.
And you answered including "any boat in general.
"Besides, you learned to walk what, at 13
months or so?
Just because Kimberly's inability to stop smoking was responsible for
your child's abnormal development, please don't take anymore of your
personal frustrations out on the group.
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?
All of them. Heck, everyone in this group has proved you wrong on a
panoply of subjects.
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.
I'm not the one getting personal, or at least I wasn't until you did.
Hell , you denying Kimberly T. as your wife alone makes you a
scumbag..then again, it holds perfectly with your fears,,,such as
continuing to provide the FCC with a bogus address.
David Hall Jr.
"Sandbagger"
n3cvj
|