From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:35:51 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
(Most of your usual babble snipped)

Truth is always snipped, David, especially when your lies about cellular
phones are brought to light with proof.

I never made any such

claim.
=A0
=A0You claimed listening to underaged girls on cordless phones speaking
of sex was "juicy".

An adjective used to describe the nature of the
conversation.


Wrong,,,an adjective chosen by -you- to convey -your- interpretations of
sex talk by minors.


It reflects in no way how I personally reacted

to it.



No one claimed differently. in fact, you probably jacked off to it, but
not one tried claiming how you reacted to it. You invoked how you felt
about it. You found such talk "juicy".

Once again you read more meanings in words
than are actually conveyed.


But of course, David. This is your pattern. This is the part where you
redefine what you really meant with the term "juicy" when eavesdropping
on minors talk about sex.
You were not a minor when you spoke of such acts being "juicy".

No, but I was no more than about 22.



You lie. You made the post a few years ago and called the act "juicy".

The age difference between a 22 year old and
an 18 year old is not even worth talking about.

That's right, except you called it "juicy" just a few short years ago.


In fact, my wife is 3 years younger than me.


And her middle name begins with T and she lived at 1819 Gravers Road in
Plymouth Meeting, a (according to your definition) suburb of Norristown
that appears when plugged into google maps,,remember,,,,,it was that
thing you said you tried but it gave you "nada" results.

So what of it?

=A0Now, the moral -majority- of people would find it disgustingly
perverted that a man of your age


22?

You weren't 22 when you described the act you performed. You said it in
your post only a few short years ago, and I quote, that their "talk of
sex was "juicier" than Melrose Place", which came on in the nineties,
when you were well into your thirties. Just for the record, you did not
claim the act of eavesdropping on these minors was "juicy" when you did
the act, you said it a few short years ago. Yet, you entertainingly
think yourself as part of some imagined moral majority. Any majority of
moral people would not describe the act of eavesdropping on minors
speaking of sex as "juicy" at your age. Get over it, David. You're a
perv and your problems are all over these pages.


=A0=A0
Again, the word describes the tone of the

conversations.




Normal moral adults would disagree with you, David. Normal moral adults
would not find such "tones" of minors as "juicy". And again, the term
denotes -your- interpretation of sex talk by minors as such.

At no time did I claim that it "got me off" or

affected me in any other way other than

psychological curiosity.



Of course you did, you caled it "juicy". Please do not embarrass
yourself again by misleading yourself that anyone at all would believe a
young man of the age you speak would consider any psychological factor
concerning such talk.

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.


Which you have demonstrated throughout your posting history with all you
disagree, David. Your errant behavior began long before I came along and
tweaked you with your own offensive acts.

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"


Sure you have, David, You do it in the manner of attempting to explain
away "just what you really meant" after manking a post using words you
have no clue their definition. For countless examples of you not
understanding the majority of people you disagree, one merely needs
google "sandbagger" and the words "you mean". Cripes, there is enough
reading for even the most remote layperson to get a handle on your
communication deficits.

as I have given many people good advice

from Radio, to practical matters.



Which does not excuse your deficit.

YOU are the only one who does not

understand me,


You told Frank he couldn't understand your politics. You said Shark
couldn't understand the laws in your state because he didn't live there
( a most ludicrous comment coming from the end we expect it most) after
he produced proof that one can indeed et a speeding ticket in your state
for going less than 5 MPH under the posted limit, despite your
objections claiming otherwise.

and the reason for that is in you inability to

comprehend simple sentences.


Actually David, and I'm not the only one who has pointed this out to
you, it's because you misuse words of which you have no clue their
definition. This is probably why there are so many posts with you not
comprehending what others say to you. LOL..again try the google with
your words "Do you mean" or "did you mean". The number of posts made by
you seeking clarification to other's words are numerable, yet, your knee
jerk reaction is to blame another. Do the search David, it's not the
"other", it's you all throughout your posting history who can ot
comprehend what others tell you. Despite your paranoia, it's not just me
David, there are many many others in those returns which have you
expressing difficulties. The ony common theme in ALL the posts, is you
disagreed with each and every one of those of which you needed to seek
clarification. This holds with your need for validation.

I also listened to people making drug deals.

But that doesn't make me a druggie.
=A0
It also doesn't disqualify your remarks just a few short years ago
calling sex talk between minor girls "juicy". =A0In this example, you
not only had to be madeaware 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.

You've been proved wrong, such as on the roger beep issue, and most
-have- laughed at you, David.

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 same type idiot that comes out here pretending he knows all kinds of
things about all kinds of things, but knows jack **** intimately.

www.affordablephones.net/HistoryCordless.htm


LMAO,,the feds did it, genius. They most certainly WERE on 27 in their
beginning.
The 1st 49 MHZ came about in or around 1986. Talk that smack, David.


generation cordless phone was on 49 Mhz

(Snip)

As usual, your lack of knowledge of the subject was illustrated
perfectly. Such lack of knowldge of the subject prevents you from
discussing it further.



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.

=A0=A0How?

The method was your idea. The fact that you once again speak before
thinking is illustrated by no one better than yourself.
_
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.



It was still considered a telephone and as such was subject to the rules
and regulations governing telpephones..

That was the glaring loophole in the wiretap

law.

No loophole at all, just another wrong claim from you.


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).

One's expectations of privacy has nothing to do with the law, David.


Again, prove me wrong if you can (But I won't

hold my breath).

I've proved you wrong so many times with radio law that it's downright
dandy giving you the cord and watching you so eagerly jump to wrap it
around your neck. You are so quick to jump these days that you rant on
about things you have no clue.
Please tell us more of what you do not know, David. You get real funny
in these episodes of which you are made to perform and demand.

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.....


My Ten-Tec needs no license or acceptance. See, this is another example
of your **** poor retainment skills, as you have been informed on
repeated occasion that as an extra, you ought know such things, but then
again you are the deviant exception to hammie ops, not the norm.

David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

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