On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:55:58 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
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.

The only one who lies is you. Of course you can always use Bush's
excuse and claim that you were "misinformed"....


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.


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

The adjective was used to describe the nature of the conversation. The
age of the participants is irrelevant. Feel free to insert your own
adjective if you wish.


It reflects in no way how I personally reacted
to it.



No one claimed differently. in fact, you probably jacked off to it

No, in your own dirty little immature mind, you might think that. But
the "fact" is much different. Wasn't it Al Bundy who once said "Why go
out for milk when you have a cow at home?"

, but
not one tried claiming how you reacted to it. You invoked how you felt
about it. You found such talk "juicy".

So would anyone else who happened to hear it, so what?



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.

Trying to get you to comprehend is like teaching a pig to dance. A
fruitless prospect. But it is fun watching you apply your demented
mind to simple sentences.



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".

A few years ago, I posted about something that I did when I was 22. I
also post quite often about my experiences on CB back in the 70's.
Does that mean that I did it at the exact time I posted it?


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.

You said 1819 Gravers road in Norristown. There is NO Gravers road in
Norristown. Plain and simple. It does not show up in either Mapquest
or Google. Now had you been more accurate in your information, and
given me Plymouth Meeting (Which has it's own post office and is a
town in it's own right) then it might have worked. Don't blame me for
YOUR error.

My wife never lived there, nor does her middle name begin with "T".
You are wrong yet again (A pattern for you).



So what of it?

*Now, 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.

No, but I was when I actually partook in it.


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.

So you believe that a person cannot take two elements from different
times and compare them at a later date?

I can't talk about my 1967 Mustang in the same sentence as talking
about my current rides? I can compare the state of CB radio today to
what it was like 35 years ago?

Are you THAT mentally impaired?



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.

I'm not the one accusing other people of masturbation, of dressing in
drag, or talking about abhorrent sex acts with other men. That would
be reserved for you at various times and posts. So tell me again who
the "perv" is?



*
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.

Moral adults would not be operating unlicensed transmitters on
unauthorized frequencies, and then incorrectly use the term "civil
disobedience" in a vain attempt to ease what little conscience they
might have.


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.

You don't know me very well (after all this time) do you? Why do you
think I bother responding to you at all? Do you think I do it because
I feel that you are a person of influence, or that the things you say
have some intrinsic value? LMAO! If so, then you really are as
narcissistic as I've thought.

No, I do it for the psychological entertainment value that you
provide. I love watching you bend even the most straightforward
statements into convoluted fragments of the truth. I love watching you
lie, and then back pedal to cover it up. I love driving you to dig up
information about me, and end up getting much of it wrong, yet accuse
ME of seeking information about you. This is greater entertainment
than watching Homer Simpson say "Doh" for the hundred thousandth time.
I've always enjoyed watching the human experience. Who needs scripted
"reality" TV when the real world is your stage and regular people are
here to perform, and all without scripts (But maybe with a little
prodding). It also gives me insight into how people think and what
things are important to them. Just like Dr. Jane Goodall studies
primates in order to understand their social interaction, I do the
same for humans. Informally, but it's fun watching people react
predictably to programmed stimuli. On that note, you have never failed
yet.




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.

No, actually it hasn't. You are the only one who sees fit to mince
words, twist meanings, obfuscate the truth, make disingenuous
statements, and project your failings on to others. Nothing is more
laughable (To the point of tears sometimes) than to hear you go off on
other people and accuse them of having "communications deficits" when
it is clear to anyone who's been here for more than a few weeks that
it is YOU who can't seem to grasp the straight meaning.

It's no wonder you fall for liberal propaganda. In your convoluted
mind, their logic probably makes sense.


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.

I never use a word that I do not know the definition of. You have
tried to make an issue of my vernacular, or grammatical usage, but in
every case, I have provided the definitions of the words to support my
usage. Your predictable response has always been to attack my source.
Since I started using internet dictionaries, it becomes harder for you
to claim that I am "lying" about it as it is easily verifiable by
anyone who cares.



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.

There you go again, projecting your own faults onto me.

Google "Twistedhed" and "Lying" and see what you come up with.



as I have given many people good advice
from Radio, to practical matters.


Which does not excuse your deficit.

You mean YOUR deficit.


YOU are the only one who does not
understand me,


You told Frank he couldn't understand your politics.

People will argue politics until the cows come home. Both sides claim
to have the "facts", while accusing the other side of
"propagandizing". All I tried to do with Frank, is to show him that
his political beliefs were based on no more credible information than
mine were. Even after he hypocritically tried to discredit my sources
as "propaganda" while offering up his own propaganda (Which he claimed
to be "fact") as proof of such.

All he had to do was say that he believes what he wants to believe,
based on his own intrinsic core values. But instead he tried to walk
the intellectual high road. But all I have to do is hold up a mirror
to every claim he makes at me, and the same rules apply right back.


You said Shark
couldn't understand the laws in your state because he didn't live there

Well yea, how can someone who doesn't live here have any experience
with the process of the LEO's here? I admit quite readily that there
are many laws in California that I am not familiar with. I have no
reason to be. I don't live there. There are many similarities, but
there are also differences.

( 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.

What proof did he offer? He offered nothing but his own opinionated
claim that "a cop can write a ticket for anything if he wants", which
is a ridiculous statement to make. If the cop has any hope of having
that ticket stand up in court (Which he would have to appear at), then
it better be legitimate. All one would have to do is show up in court
with a copy of statute 3368, and the ticket goes away in most cases. I
posted the statutes that clearly define the speed tolerances that are
in effect in the Commonwealth of Pa. They clearly supported my claims
in the vast majority of cases, stopwatches and tailgating
notwithstanding.

So who are you going to believe, the opinion of an out of state
resident, professing a gut feeling, or the actual laws printed in
black and white?

You (and he) lost that one big time. Why you continue to bring it up
only shows the depths of your psychological problems.

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.

Name them. And in the proper context in which I used them.

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.

Your lying again. I have no trouble communicating with anyone. Anyone,
that is, who has normal mental faculties. But during the course of
communication, especially on technical issues, one often finds the
need for some additional information, or clarification. It is far
better, and much more polite, to ask for clarification than to assume
a meaning when it is not clear or forthcoming. But that's been one of
your primary problems, you jump to conclusions, often the wrong ones,
rather than getting that clarification. Don't worry, we won't (can't)
think any less of you if you can't understand what someone is trying
to say. We'll try to speak a little slower next time.


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.


The roger beep issue does not equate to, or bear any relevance to the
ECPA and cordless phone reception issue. Your attempt at deflection is
duly noted.


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.

Wrong. The first 49 Mhz (with 1.7 Mhz return) was on the market
earlier than 1986, because I was listening to them long before then. I
bought my Yaesu FT-757 in 1984 (I still have the receipt), and I used
it to catch the cordless phone base frequency, while the Bearcat
scanner was tuned to the initial 10 (Later upped to 25) 49 Mhz
frequencies. In fact, you've just given me the inspiration for another
article for my website. I'll provide all the details there.

It's a darn shame that the cordless phones came along when they did.
They pretty much ruined the 49 Mhz band as an unlicensed hobby band.
Prior to about 1982, there was a budding group of low power
experimenters running 100 mW (And in some cases modified 6 meter ham
gear) radios and trying to work DX there. When the phones and baby
monitors arrived, that was the death knell for that band for hobbyists
and experimenters. I still have my old Lafayette HA-240 on 49.860 Mhz.

The 46/49 Mhz phones (49 Mhz handset, 46 Mhz base) started around
1986. While I won't deny that the very first phones might have
actually been on 27 MHz, I was not into listening to them then (It
would have been a lot easier to do. Any modified CB could have done
it). I don't think those early phones sold all that well. I never saw
or heard one in my area.


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.

My knowledge was from direct personal experience. I know you're too
young to remember back that far, but the first truly legitimate
cordless phones used 49 Mhz for the handset and 1.7 Mhz (Just above
the AM broadcast band) for the base unit.

Find an old timer and ask them if you don't believe me.

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?

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

Which means what exactly? As usual, you are talking a bunch of
circular nonsense.

Someday, I hope to read a nice long E-mail from you outlining just how
your postings were all deliberate attempts at psychological tweaking.
I can far better respect you for being that, than a unconscious
dyslexic thinker. My faith in humanity is greatly lowered knowing that
such people exist and actually think they know something.


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..

Nope. There was no provision in any wiretap law at that time that
specifically addresses reception of cordless phones.

So by using your logic, if it isn't specifically called out as
illegal, assume that it is legal.


That was the glaring loophole in the wiretap
law.

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

Then I'm sure you will provide the exact verbiage to substantiate your
claim?

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.

It has a great deal to do with it.

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.

The only thing I have been wrong on was the roger beep issue. And you
didn't prove that. I had to get the info myself from the FCC. As for
anything else, you're just blowing smoke.

Now, I'll say this as directly and as succinctly as possible so that
you will (hopefully) understand it. Please provide the exact verbiage
in the federal wiretap law, as is was around 1984, that specifically
addresses reception of cordless phones.


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.

True, for the amateur bands where authority to operate is granted to a
properly licensed amateur (Which BTW, are you one?), and type
acceptance of radio gear is not required. However, the radio is not
authorized to operate anywhere other than the amateur bands except by
license or authorization (such as MARS or CAP). Certain other bands
require type acceptance of radio gear. The land mobile service (which
is what the freeband was once part of) does (As does the CB band). So
your Ten Tec is not type accepted to operate on the land mobile band,
and you are not licensed as an operator on that band. That's two
strikes.


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.

You are the one who doesn't understand radio law. No matter how many
time you spew your convoluted understanding of the law, it will not
make it right. You are not authorized to operate a transmitter on the
freeband without a license. It is not a band authorized by rule,
therefore the operator requires a station license. If you don't have
one, you are not authorized to run there, Period.

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