On Thu, 26 May 2005 12:06:14 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

I don't need your permission to ask what is in the public domain.

The why did you ask in the first place?

I asked for your explicit and implied permission to post related
information. Do I have it?

Why ask, you claimed to not need permission.

For what is public domain, I don't.

My former address is not in the public domain, yet you posted it.


As you seem to, like my wife's name.

Dead on with it.

Dead on wrong with it. That's the breaks when you have a common name.


I said nothing of the sort. Pay attention.
The address you reside is not the address you supplied the FCC as your
primary residence.

See, you make no sense. If you finally acknowledge that Stony Creek is
not my current address, then the one that's on my license IS the
correct one. I've only lived in two places in my entire life.


and accuse me of not changing it (back) in the
FCC database.

Said nothing of the sort.

That is exactly what you said.

You may have some skills at

cyber stalking


Stalking? My goodness Dave, you always feel victimized.

What would you call it? Digging up information (Admittedly not in the
public domain) about other newsgroup posters. If that isn't stalking,
then what is?


Well, I can tell you this much, I pay for nothing except my internet
access. I told you once before, those services are for suckers like you
who are wrapped up in other people's worlds but are too stupid to manage
the info on their own.

Yet I am not the one searching into other people's personal lives, and
here you are doing exactly that. You say one thing, but your actions
say something totally different. Something you can't lie your way out
of.


I accept (once again) your apology. No one claimed the Stony Creek was
your current address, Davie.

That exactly what you claimed when you
accused me of having an incorrect address on
my FCC license.



It is incorrect. But that has nothing to do with the Stony Creek
address..that was YOUR inference to take the heat off yourself.

Ok then. If you admit that Stony Creek is not my current address, and
you still claim that the address on my Amateur license is not the
correct one, then that leaves only one other possibility, and that is
that there is yet another address that I am supposedly living at. Ok,
you have my permission to post this elusive address that is supposed
to be my primary address. Heck, maybe someone left me some property
that I don't know about.

More likely though you probably stumbled across the address of another
David Hall (My phone book has at least a whole page full of them), and
crossed it with mine. His wife is probably the Kimberly T. Hall who
you insist is my wife and is a teacher (My wife is/was actually an
accounting professional)


No, your cyber spy site got it wrong.


I have no cyber spy, Dave, but you -need- me to have one in order to
shore up your excuse.

Whatever spy you have, it's wrong, and you should ask for your money
back.

In fact, she
used to reside on Gravers Road, but you go on denying she is your wife
because of the shame you rained down upon yourself.

Well, unless you know her maiden name, you
can't trace her roots before we were married,
and I never lived on "Graver's road", like I
said, I never even heard of it.
I never even heard of Gravers road.

Really? You grew up near there and never heard of it? Need the exact
address on Gravers Road and then you can use the mapblast, eh? Ok,,she
was born in 1963 and lived at 1819 Gravers Road in Norristown.

.Oh, this is just too easy.....


http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp...te=PA&zipcode=

There is no such address in the mapquest
database, as the link shows. Once again,
you're wrong, and I proved it.


You proved nothing. Go to google maps and try it again.

Been there, done that. Nada. Besides, you can't use google maps. It
required a java version that I'm sure WebTV doesn't support. I had to
upgrade my IE to version 6 to access it properly.

Want to try again Sherlock?





(We must be up to a

dozen things you've been wrong about now).

Cripes...this talk from you sounds just like it did when it was shown
you lied about having a Phelps Stationmaster antenna.

How was that shown? You have nothing but
your own misguided opinion.


And the memory of every other radio freak that reads these pages. When
one has ever owned a specific base antenna, no matter how many years
ago, it can always be recalled.

An assumption on several counts.

If one owned a moonraker in their day,
one would recall it. Hell, even the antenna gurus on these pages that
owned hundreds, perhaps thousands of antennas over their lifetime, would
recall a specific antenna, at least the brand..yet, when you were
questioned only a year or two after you made a comment about owning one,
you had no clue what I meant when I asked about your "Phelps
Stationmaster".

Sorry Charlie, the original comment about the Stationmaster was made
in 1995, and you only showed up on the scene in 1999 or 2000, not a
"year or two later".

In fact, you responded with "What Phelps stationmaster?

No, the correct quote was "What Phelps?".


The statistical probablility factor you love to employ works good here,
as does your often invoked "majority rule" clause. The majority would
remember their antenna, likewise, the majority would believe,
corrrectly, that one who claimed they owned a certain antenna yet could
not recall it when asked a few short years after their original claim,
is a liar.

Not when one considers that the antenna was for a repeater, and the
comment was made 4 or 5 years prior.

I never personally had a Stationmaster on my house. But I do have part
ownership of a 220 Mhz repeater, which makes the antenna technically
part "mine".


Does that type software give that information? How about birthdates and
applications for marriage on file with the state,,,including addresses?

Sure, for a fee. I find it funny that you spent
money to try find out my personal information.

Of course you do, as you need such a scenario in order to soothe
yourself. You're way beyond your element, realize it, and this is your
familiar mechanism of defense to stop your psyche from further
cracking: conjured explanations for all you can not explain and do not
know.

I know far more about information that you think. I know who
generally has access to it, and how much is costs the average person
to gain access to it, assuming you have authorization. Certain medical
or financial records for instance, are generally not available to
unauthorized people




Most of which was either outdated or just plain
wrong. Yet you hypocritically accuse ME of

seeking your personal information. I have not
posted one bit of information about you.


Because you are incompetent and unable to do so,

No, because I don't care enough to do so.



You are just a newsgroup distraction, the

Jar-Jar Binks of rec.radio.cb.


Whose posts not even directed to you,so affected you, you were reduced
to threats.
_
It's not what I think, it's what more and more regs are conveying to you
on a regualr basis.

Name them.

Well, sure,,,Frank taugh you better regarding radio technical
competency,

Frank has some issues as well.


Tut-tut, mah boy, you asked, now listen up.



Shark taught you better regarding your own

state's driving laws,

Shark basically helped me prove my point that
you are basically guilty until you prove your

innocence in traffic court.



Your incorrect point was that one could not get a ticket for going less
than 5 MPH over the speed limit in Pa.

In most cases. I do not argue absolutes. It's too easy to prove wrong.
All it takes is one example.


...shark proved you wrong with one
post and a single example of an exception proving you wrong.

Shark does not live in PA so he cannot "prove" me wrong in matters not
endemic to Pa. The law in PA, as of statute 3368, explicitly calls for
those tolerance speeds. A cop will not give a ticket , in most cases,
for any speed less than 5 MPH over the posted limit, as it is sure to
get thrown out.

You can play your word games, and Frank can dig up his stopwatch, but
the law is there in black and white, and it was actually fun watching
you guys, in your desperation to prove me wrong, argue against the
written law, and trying to find the smallest exceptions in order to
invalidate the law in the vast majority of cases.


BTW, where is "Geo" these days? : )

I wouldn't know.


but hey, what I think means nothing. : )

Hey, you can learn! Wow, I'm shocked.


But I thought "George" was now actually

"Chris".



That was never my claim.

No, it came from other sock puppets.


_
Our British friend across the pond taught you
about cb radios that come type accepted with what are legal roger beeps,
but you denied that as well, screamed and begged for proof, was given
it, and humbled.


Yea well, first off, it was Bert Craig who set me
straight.

No,,Bert simply offered you an example and confirmed what everyone was
telling you from jump regrading roger beeps.
Many people set you straight.
_
Jim
tried talking to you about foreign news sources, and you called him
naive.

If someone truly thinks that a foreign news
service is any less likely to be affected by
political bias, then they are naive.
*

That was never Jim's claim,

You're wrong (again) but I'll let Jim explain it too you, since you
can't understand the written word.

and you trying to deliberately misattribute
things to others when you get your foot stuck in your mouth is getting
old. You're lucky I still take you out and play with you. As you see,
most ignore you except for your sock.

As do you. No one pays any serious mind to you Jar-Jar. Your whole
purpose here is comic relief.


*No Davie,,as is always the pattern, you blame everyone else when the
problem is yourself.

That's why you spent money to find out my

information.


Your need to believe your conjured hallucinations is secondary only to
your manias.

You are fixated and obsessed with me.

I am simply much more talented than yourself in giving back what is
received.

You might think so. But when I put you back in your box, you go away.


....that's just the way it is. Some things will never change.
_
Google hypocrite and your name, and you will find those who taught you
better.

.You mean those hypocrites who hypocritically
call other people hypocrites?


Now you're on to something,,,google sandbagger and "you mean" and you
will see exaactly what I "mean". It will show you have on bitch of a
comprehension problem going back way before I ever came along.

I deal with confused people like you on a daily basis, who have
trouble arranging their thoughts into a coherent statement. I want
them to make sure they know exactly what they are saying before I
render my answers. It's far better to do that than jump to erroneous
conclusions like you are fond of doing, after making an incorrect
assumption.

Nice dodge But I drive a Ford.

A blue one whose license plates do not match the address given to the
FCC as provided by law.

.No, actually the color is teal, but it shows up
more blue in pictures. Pictures that anyone
can freely see on my web site. But there are
no license plates showing on my truck, so you're
lying again.


Tell ya' what...since you claim the plates aren;t visible, do I have
your permission to post the plate, since, you know, you claim it isn't
visible. You know what,,,I'm going to post my little paparazzi pic on my
website, then others can go there and see if your plates weren't
visible. Lying clown.

So you now claim to have someone (A "paparazzi") taking pictures of
my vehicles? So are you a liar or a stalker?



Tell you what, since you can't figure out a
simple problem of determining which of my
two addresses is my correct one, why don't
you call the FCC and complain. I'm sure they
will get right to the bottom of the issue.


I've contacted the FCC on many occasion. In fact, I'm a regular, but I
couldn't care less about your law breaking.

Yea, sure. More lies.

Three plus me, plus moped that already told you of hypocrisy,,,four regs
out of what,,you, Lelnad, and Dogie? Yea,,I'd say that's a majority of
regs.

So you think this group is made up of only 7 people?


You are the only one who expressed that others have to "chime in" in
order to express they somehow care. The fact that they are
reading.....hell, many are sandbaggers. I told you before, you have no
clue how many sandbaggers there are. I know for a fact the FCC was
reading this group a few year ago, adn I also know for a fact Riley used
to check the group, but he's so washed up and up to his ears with
bureaucratic bull****, he no longer has time for Oxendine.

No argument. But if people are "lurking" or sandbagging, and they
don't post, how do you know how many are there, and how do you know
what they are thinking about any given topic?



Yes, and I could claim to be George W. Bush.

Doesn't make it the truth though.


It's folly how you make a false claim, are shown you are full of ****,
then proceed to make excuses or attack the other's claim.

No, it just proves that what you say isn't necessarily the truth, and
in your case, is likely a lie.


You are too paranoid to provide verifiable
.information.



You said you didn't care.

I don't, but you seem to.


I truly believe that if someone ever "outs" you
and posts your name address and other
.personal info, that you'd self destruct.


Already been done, you're just too stupid to realize it.

You mean Frank was right when he called you Dave McCampbell?

It's far easier when you're up front about who you are from the
beginning. I could have just as easily invented a cartoon character,
hid behind it, and kept totally anonymous. But I have nothing to
hide.

The funniest part is that when you reveal truthful information about
me, I don't deny it, since I don't care. But when you lie (or are
misinformed), it makes me laugh to see you defend your methods so
vehemently. If and when you finally get the name of my wife correct,
I'll admit it. Like I said, I have nothing to hide.

Keep digging.

Dave
"Sandbagger"