RadioBanter - View Single Post - N3CVJ denies failures, while Presidential Commission admitsfailures.

June 6th 05, 08:29 PM

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:35:51 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

(Most of your usual babble snipped)

I never made any such
claim.
*
*You claimed listening to underaged girls on cordless phones speaking
of sex was "juicy".

An adjective used to describe the nature of the conversation. It
reflects in no way how I personally reacted to it. Once again you read
more meanings in words than are actually conveyed.

You were not a minor when you spoke of such acts
being "juicy".

No, but I was no more than about 22. The age difference between a 22
year old and an 18 year old is not even worth talking about. In fact,
my wife is 3 years younger than me. So what of it?

Now, the moral -majority- of people would find it
disgustingly perverted that a man of your age

22?

finds sex talk of minors
"juicy".

Again, the word describes the tone of the conversations. At no time
did I claim that it "got me off" or affected me in any other way other
than psychological curiosity. Anything other than what I have just
said, is purely your imagination running amuck.

Your words and actions speak loud and clear to the world,
David, as only you have this incredible belief only you can see yourself
as you really are and that you are misunderstood to the point that you
need reiterate and explain yourself to each and every person you
disagree.

If someone is a thick and with the incredible comprehensively
challenged as you are, I guess I do have to explain everything in
simple basic terms. Otherwise you garner meanings that do not exist
and assume something that was not expressly conveyed.

You plead and plead that everyone misunderstands you David,

I have never claimed that "everyone misunderstands me" as I have given
many people good advice from Radio, to practical matters. YOU are the
only one who does not understand me, and the reason for that is in you
inability to comprehend simple sentences.

I also listened to people making drug deals.
But that doesn't make me a druggie.
*
It also doesn't disqualify your remarks just a few short years ago
calling sex talk between minor girls "juicy".
In this example, you not only had to be made aware that intentional
eavesdropping of private conversations is illegal

It was not illegal at the time I was engaged in
listening.

It was. This is another area concernig the law of which you are
extremely ignorant.

There was NO law preventing interception of cordless phones in the
1980's. None, nada, zilch. Prove me wrong if you can. And I'll laugh
at your attempts.

Any scanner user could do it.

No David,,the last time this was brought up, you tried and failed with
this excuse. When it was illustrated what a pervert you are, you come
back with the defense that the incident occurred years and years ago,
when you were a younger man. It appears you can remember vividly the
details of such an incident that many years ago, but can not recal a
simple Phelps antenna when inquired of a comment you made a few year's
previous alluding to such. Nevertheless, back when you were that young,
the scanners were not digital, but crystals, and contrary to your claim
"any scanner user could do it", that simply was not the case back then.
In fact, cordless phones came on the market in 1980 and were ALL 27 MHZ
phones, a specific crystal that did NOT come imbedded in "any scanner".
All of this coupled together with your oft-invoked "statistical
probablility" factor, makes you to be one big freegin' liar! LMAO!

Your lack of age and experience is glaringly apparent in this
statement. First off, the first programmable scanners came out in the
late 70's. Look into the Bearcat 101, the SBE Optiscan, the Regency
"Whamo 10" and the Tenelec.

My Bearcat 210xl was purchased in 1980 or 81, and you can clearly see
it in the pictures of my station in 1985 and 1990 as shown on my
website.

Secondly cordless phones were not on 27 MHz (What idiot would put
cordless phones on the already crowded CB band?). The 1st generation
cordless phone was on 49 Mhz for the handset and 1.7 Mhz for the base
unit. The second generation phones were 49 Mhz and 46 MHz. Later
models dropped down as low as 44 Mhz. Then the 900 MHz phones came out
sometime in the 90's.

If the FCC or the phone lobby doesn't want
people listening in, they need to block out
those frequencies or scramble the
transmissions.

Then the same logic can be applied to use of the freeband.

How?

It was always
a crime to eavesdrop on one's private telephone conversation using
electronic equipment, David. It violates federal wiretap law, but your
position of "thinking like a criminal" (your words) is interesting.

Wire tapping did not apply to radio devices at that time. That was the
glaring loophole in the wiretap law. There could be no reasonable
expectation of privacy when you run unencrypted analog FM signals over
a band that is generally easy to receive by "common" radio receivers
(Such as a scanner).

Again, prove me wrong if you can (But I won't hold my breath).

I am more than willing to post the links to the
ECPA, showing the date that it became
.effective and what it covers.

Try reading what applied to your situation, not what you think gave you
permission to violate the law.

The ECPA is what specifically addresses wireless phone devices.

Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the
law. If you are going to break the law, you should at least be educated
about the law you break and penalties you face.

Remember that each time you run your unlicensed transmitter on the
freeband.....

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