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

June 7th 05, 03:07 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:55:58 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
=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.

The adjective was used to describe the nature
of the conversation.

Only by perverts.

The age of the participants is irrelevant.

Only to perverts. The mere fact that you feel normal moral adults would
find sex talk by minor underaged girls as "juicy" like you do, is way
off base.

Feel free to insert your own adjective if you

wish.

Perverted.

=A0=A0It 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,

LOL,,,you are the one finding sex talk by undeaged girls "juicy" David.
The dirty litle immature mind is all yours. Stop projecting your
deficiencies unto others.

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?"

The "fact" is you found sex talk of minors "juicy" and normal moral
adults do not agree with you. Normal moral adults find such behavior
troubling and of deviant behavior..

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?

You didn't "happen" upon it David, you went out of your way to obtain
the conversation. And again, you're wrong. "Anyone else" would not
describe sex talk between minor underaged children as "juicy". Only
perverts like yourself.

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.

Demented is a choice term to apply to an adult of your age who continues
to refer to talk by children of sex as "juicy". Freak.
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.

And you called it "juicy" a few years ago, and here you are now
defending the term you used and reiterating that you indeed found such
talk as "juicy". You appear to need another vocabulary lesson. The
manner in which you used the term can have only two meanings: 1)
Appealing; satisfying or 2) Interesting or colorful especially when
slightly scandalous.
You're a freak who shouldn't be permitted around children unless other
adults are present.

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?

That whine is getting redundant.

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.

I said to -enter- "1819 Gravers Road Norristown" into google, but then
again, your deficit is in full gear right now, brought on by your
self-created stress and gaffes.

There is NO Gravers road in Norristown. Plain
and simple. It does not show up in either

Mapquest or Google.

You are still having problems, David. I told you to enter the info into
google, you said you did do that and that "nada" was returned. Now you
are experiencing that great familiar pain that ails you when you fail
with semantics.

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.

Norristown has its own PO also, yet, you insisted it was a "suburb" of
Philly. In fact, you have confused yourself twice in the past by giving
contraindicated information concerning what you mistakenly feel
constitutes a suburb.
Sef-contradiction is a by=3Dproduct of your incompetence. 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?

Most people grow up and those who would find such behavior involving
minors speaking of sex would not find the talk "juicy" when they were in
their forties, but you not only defend your interpretation of this
behavior, you continue to insist talk of sex by minors in "juicy" to
you. You have problems, David.

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?

Mentally impaired are those like yourself who find sex talk of minors
"juicy". In fact, the majority of normal moral adults find your talk of
such acts as quite disturbing.
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,

When one of your age comes out here and invokes unsolicited claims to
the world that you find talk between minors talking of sex as "juicy",
what others accuse you of is the least of your problems.

or talking

about abhorrent sex acts with other men.

Ahhh,,,you and Dogie are the --only-- ones on this board who are
preoccupied with queers and gays, as only you two consistently enter
such into your conversations.

That would be reserved for you at various

times and posts. So tell me again who the

"perv" is?
=A0

Adults who find talk of sex by minors as "juicy".

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.

It's always been you who has problems with other's consciences. But
there is no comparison to dxing and freebading David, when it comes to
your sexual deviances. BBTW, you need to look up the term civil
disobedience again, as you have no clue what the term entails, despite
being informed on numerous occasions.