David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
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?



I don't know you at all, David, but your claims of where you find your
fun, such as eavesdropping on minors speak of sex, are quite bizarre,
especially when you are in your forties and continue to defend such
practices and refer to the emotions you experience as "juicy" when
speaking of the act.

Why do you think I bother responding to you

at all?


You're my command performance, David. The "whys" are irrelevant except
only to yourself, which has been reiterated, solidified and illustrated
by yourself on numerous occasion by expressing your concerns over
internet stranger's behavior off-line.


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.

The world knows how you think, David, and it's quite troubling and
upsetting to those of us who are concerned for the welfare of our
children. Anyone who is mixed up with confused emotions and finds talk
of sex by minors as "juicy", well, it doesn't matter at all what people
like that (you) think. You're on the bottom rung of the evolutionary
ladder.


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.


As Frank alluded, you look to the inorrect mediums for your information.
Homer Simpson is not real, David, but watching you cling to desperation
and refer to such as "human expereince" tells all.

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,


You mean uneducated.

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.


Since you admitted incompetence with google, I suggest you get some
assistance by someone you trust and feel isn't against you all the time.
Try it again,,,,google, enter "Sandbagger" and "You mean" and you will
indeed find your behavior began -long- before I entered your world
illustrate your impotence and ignorance.

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.



Tell the world what "juicy" means to you, David.

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.


Wow,,you really are on the offensive today, David. Truth always sets you
on the attack, but you can not distance yourself from your problems,
they follow you everywhere, but please, feel free to continue to blame
everyone who disagrees with you.

It's no wonder you fall for liberal propaganda.

In your convoluted mind, their logic probably

makes sense.


That's what you said to Frank. Once again, your idiocy is always the
other person's fault.

Otherwise you garner meanings that do not

exist and assume something that was not

expressly conveyed.


"Juicy". So go ahead...'splain! LMAO!
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.



You have also been properly taught the use of "forensics" when you
misapplied it and claimed your work with radios is much like forensics.
You needed taught the term connotates a legal relation. So go ahead and
explain, how even in the most remote manner, your radio work is even
remotely "like" forensics.
Your predictable response has always been
to attack the source.

internet dictionaries, it becomes harder for you
to claim that I am "lying" about it as it is easily

verifiable by anyone who cares.


Believe whatever your damaged ego needs, David. Watching you talk smack
about nothing you understand is extremely "verifiable" to most, as most
don't need internet dictionaries, only you. The athetic part is, you
still **** up the definitions and need to come out and apply your own
definitions and tell the masses what you "really meant".(snicker). You
have always had the greatest difficulties in conveying exactly what you
mean, and as I said, google confirms your problems with this long before
I ever tweaked your already problematic psyche.

_
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.

I'm not in the majority of those posts, David. There are tons of posts
of you expressing communication difficulties, begging ALL you disagree
"just what they mean".

Google "Twistedhed" and "Lying" and see

what you come up with.


Now THAT statement illustrates perfectly just how short the string is
you are attached and how clueless you are.Not only is your deficit
rampant, you are unable to keep track with just who you blame for your
misery.

as I have given many people good advice

from Radio, to practical matters.

Which does not excuse your deficit.

You mean YOUR deficit.


I'm not the one whose posts are peppered with beg after beg seeking
validation and clarification..those are all yours.

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.


There is the pattern that affects you. Most everyone walks the
"intellectual high road" compared to you. This is where your
self-degradation comes in to play, as other's intellect has always been
deeemed a threat by yourself, especially when you disagree with a poster
and it is shown you are wrong. You have always expressed a great
difficulty in accepting you are wrong. If you knew half of what you
think you do, this would be a catalyst for you,,a wakeup call, but as
one in their forties who continues to call sex talk among underaged
girls as "juicy", what you say is on the level of sexual deviants.

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.


It's not about rules, David, as you have never practiced the golden
rule. You can not select which rules apply to others and that has always
been one of your major malfunctions. You seek status and were denied it
among these pages, even after you demanded respect by virtue of your
hammie license....such clamoring for respect turned to foot stomping and
demands
and you have never been the same.
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?



David, the laws in Pa are a separate subject than those charged with
adminstering them. Shark said nothing of the LEO's process, those were
-your- unsolicited, unproved, and steadfast refusals to substantiate
anything you invoked. One can most certainly understand the laws in your
state with education. Shark educated himself and -you- concerning the
laws in your state that -you- said were explained to you by LEOS you
refuse to name or substantiate, yet you beg others to substantiate for
their claims. In fact, you always invoke unsolicited claims of grandeure
when referring to yourself. Steadfast refusal to provide for all your
unsolicited claims while you beg others for the same, well, ...anyone
can see that your refusals to provide for your claims to all who ask is
another in a lng line of failures you present.


I admit quite readily that there are many laws

in California that I am not familiar with.



and Shark showed there are laws in your own state of which you are not
familiar, and neiher are your phony LEOS.


I have no reason to be. I don't live there.

There are many similarities, but there are also

differences.



No one mentioned California law, David, except you.
Shark 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?


Work on that retainment value, David. You are the only one that can take
self-denial and morph it into a belief system to protect your already
fragile psyche.

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.



No one ever took issue with the "majority" of cases in Pa. only the one
of which you were wrong. You said a cop can not issuea ticket for going
less than 5 MPH,,,you were wrong.

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?


Certainly not you, David, You have more excuses that Carter had liver
pills regarding your unsolicited claims. You invoke LEOS on your own
free will, to the extent of claiming them as personal friends of yours.
When it was shown they gave you erroneous information, you attacked the
poster, not the information. You invoked schooling, as you felt it
important enough as to lend credibility of which you lack, yet when you
are asked to provide for all your claims, all you do is attack those who
illustrate your lies and bull****. You pattern has never changed David.
You are full of ****, you are a habitual liar, and you have no formal
education in anything you claim. In other words, the majority of your
claims have been decimated and found to be lies utilizing -your-
unsolicited yet often invoked "statistical probaility" factor.


You (and he) lost that one big time.



No David, there is jo win or lose on usenet David, and as Frank atutely
illustrrated, your life is so incomplete, you need to tune in here for
your challenges,as you take them where you find them.

Why you continue to bring it up only shows

the depths of your psychological problems.
=A0

Gee David, if you managed to provide for any of your claims, your
self-delusions of grandeur
and selfqualifications may have had an air of validity, but
self-validation is only done by those who have self-image and confidence
problems, whihc would explain your need for redundant and unsolicited
claims concerning yourself.
One reason for that is in your inability to
comprehend simple sentences or apply proper definitions to words.
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.


Already named several.

And in the proper context in which I used

them.
=A0
There was no proper context in which you used them..that's the gist of
your problems.
=A0This 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.


Yea, well, denial ain't a river in Egypt and only you have admitted to
being confused and not
knowing how to use google.


I have no trouble

communicating with anyone. Anyone, that is,

who has normal mental faculties.



But of course,,,all those people you disagreed with in google and beg
clarification have the problems, not you.

But during the course of communication,

especially on technical issues, one often finds

the need for some additional information, or

clarification.



No David, not "one",,-you-. You are the -only- one among this group
whose posts are rife with posts begging people to explain what they
really "mean" as you have a most difficult time communicating with all
those you disagree. It's your character flaw, David, and you are unable
to get a grip on it.

It is far better, and much more polite, to ask

for clarification than to assume a meaning

when it is not clear or forthcoming.


It's clear to all in the google history except you, as -you- are the
-only- one beggin people to clarify what they said, as -you- have a most
extreme difficulty in comprehending the majority of people with who you
disagree.

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.

It stands with the familiar theme of you not knowing the laws.