On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:25:36 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:


I think you should stay away from those magic
mushrooms.....

Dave

"Sandbagger"

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

You can deny it to your little black heart's content, but the fact
remains many cbers get licenses (especialy the no-codes) only to return
to the cb and freeband.

I won't try to argue that point as I agree that some people
conceivably do "return" (or never left in the first place) to the CB
and freeband. I'm still somewhat active on both to this day.


Some of those who obtained licenses can never go
back because their voices are too easily recognized and their hammie
"friends" will report their ass for freebanding.

I'm not so sure that this is as prevalent as you claim.


They end up being
****ed off (then issed upon) hammies.

You discount the possibility that while exposed to ham radio, that
many people find respect for the rules, and have a change of attitude.


The anger toward such freebanders can be seen in your own posts.

Despite your many claims, I harbor no "anger". Stating facts that
doesn't sit well with you, is not the same thing as "anger".

Several
years ago you were making posts chastising hammies as being too uptight
and uppity and technical who look down on cbers.

Because in many cases, it's true. There are hams who are stuffy and
uptight. But they are legal. The converse is also true. Many outlaw
CB'ers feel that they have a right to do just what (and where) they
please without due regard for the rights of anyone else. RFI, direct
interference, and public nuisance issues do not seem to affect them.

Either behavior is reprehensible, and I've defended each respective
group when on the receiving end of such stereotypical prejudice.
Lately it's the hams who are unfairly on the receiving end of this
prejudice.


During your admitted
freebanding and illegal operating years, not once will you find a post
by yourself calling others names or expressing nosey concern for other
people's business that does not affect you.

I still don't. I'm not the one trying desperately to find out personal
information (often incorrectly like the name of my wife) about other
people.

Also worthy of note is the time you spend reviewing my 10 year span of
messages to this newsgroup. One might consider that as bordering on
obsession.

However, after having your
clock cleaned in reec.radio.cb by cbers for your oft extended hypocrisy,

reec (reek?) a freudian slip?

You are not qualified to make that determination. Your ability to be
objective is compromised by your subjective bias.


you began to take on a different persona. That you attribute such
behavior (name calling, attacking those who merely dx or freeband) to
"growing up", illustrates the fact you were an incredible late bloomer
and extremely slow learner who hasn't fully matured yet, as your
behavior continued well in to your thirties.

Well, then if I'm still "growing up", then you have yet to start
because you are still engaged in that illegal behavior.

If you consider bringing reality into focus in the same manner as a
simple unfounded ad-hominem attack, then I can see your issue. But
they're not the same.


In fact, you still are
illegal and have no right to say anything to anyone,

I assume you have some proof of this? Yea I know, you have tons of
proof, but you're not about to post it.


as for starters, the address you provided the FCC is not your primary residence and the
fact that you fail to correct this matter with the FCC even after being
informed you are illegal, leaves you no credibility with anything you
may say regarding other's actions.

You really, REALLY need to go back to whatever source of information
gathering you use and either fire them, demand your money back, or
something. Because, quite frankly, you are embarrassing yourself every
time you make these erroneous claims. My listed address in the FCC
database is exactly my primary (only) residence. I am doing nothing
illegal.

So the real question is, Who do you think I really am (today)? What do
you think is my "real" address?

The only thing I can figure is that the commonality of my name (Next
after Smith and Jones), has you so confused, that you believe I'm
someone different than who I actually am (There are 3 Dave Hall's in
my company's phone directory, talk about confusion). The fact that my
phone number is unlisted removes me from many people searches. That
also explains why you keep insisting that my wife's name is "Kimberly
T. Hall", and that she's a "teacher". In conclusion, you continue to
trust unreliable sources which provide you erroneous information and
then accuse others of things which are incorrect. It is not my
credibility that is in question here, it's yours.

But wait? Wasn't it you who just accused ME of trying to obtain
people's personal information? And you call me hypocritical.
Sheesh.......



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