RadioBanter - N3CVJ talking about children again..

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- CB (https://www.radiobanter.com/cb/)

- - N3CVJ talking about children again.. (https://www.radiobanter.com/cb/29680-re-n3cvj-talking-about-children-again.html)

N3CVJ talking about children again..

Look! Davie-son, N3CVJ! Just because YOU posted in this group that YOU
get off listening
to children talk about sex by illegally monitoring their private
cordless telephone calls on your scanner, and that YOU have a twistedhed
obsession, deosn not make me a child. If I was a child, I'd call the
cops, 'cause it's a good bet you aren't allowed near them, let alone
talk to them.

LMAo,,,keep dumpster diving in google, Frankie,,,,,,LOL,,,,,,you'll need
resort to the same thing KC8LDO does if you continue to let yourself
down as frequently as he does searching the internet for anything you
can find on me.........forging,,,,,,,,,,the scumbag KC8LDO needs to
forge me because he isn't adult enough to carry on a debate without
letting his ego get involved and rule his ignorance..he screwed up so
bad that he's now ****ed at the ARRL (told you there were REAL reps in
the room that have the leagues interest at heart) and using their sig as
a dig toward them........LOL.

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Out of context? LOL...his statement admitting breaking federal
communication law stands alone.

Yes it does. You brag about breaking federal communication law yourself. I guess
that makes him no better than you, huh? So what are you complaining about?

I wonder just what federal law, I am supposedly breaking (and in the mid
80's)? If it's transmitted over the air, and I can receive it with
common radio gear, then there can be no expectation of privacy. It's no
different than listening to police or fire calls. A far different
situation than deliberately attempting to break an encryption code, or
attempting unconventional methods to receive these calls, beyond
"common" radio receivers.

it doesn't sound like pedophilia to me

No surprise there. You two are quite alike.

Are you an expert on pedophiles? Or are you renewing your accusation that I'm a
child molester?

The only thing he is expert at is dragging out a moot point, and beating
a dead horse. All for the purposes of attention. It's futile to attempt
to logically debate with him. He does not acknowlege logic. When his
point has been soundly trounced, he'll just spin it into a tangent, and
start down another path. As long as you keep coming back at him, he's
getting his fill of attention. You've become his cyber-mommy.

Since you have no brain, I guess I have to do all the thinking around here.
Let's start with his own words -- he said he heard "teenaged girls talking about
their first time with sex". When you listen to two or more people talking, you
don't know what they are talking about until you listen; and after you listen,
and therefore discover the nature of the conversation, you can't return it for a
refund. Did he say that he sat there and jacked off to the conversation? No. All
he said was that he heard the conversation. He didn't even describe the details
of the conversation. He didn't say if the girls were saying, "It was SO big and
hard, and it hurt so BAD", or if it was more like, "...and when I woke him up he
copped an attitude, drove me home and didn't even open my door! I don't think he
respects me AT ALL!" Well, I grew up with two older sisters, and let me tell you
that the latter is more like what two girls talk about when they are talking
about boys. Yet you automatically assume that the conversation he heard was not
just sexually explicit, but pornographic in nature. And you know what else,
Twist? He also said that he heard other conversations, such as people making a
drug deal. Does that make him a drug addict? Of course not, but according to
your "logic" it does.

He knows no logic, he only exploits a point which he feels can give him
some attention mileage. I was not about to "debate" the issue with him,
for that very reason. You're only feeding his ego, by doing it for me.

So I'm not being hypocritical here. The problem is that you can't get past your
obsessions long enough to have a civilized conversation, or to understand
another person's point of view, or even to let someone listen to your opinions
with a sincere interest. IOW, your opinions don't carry much weight when you are
the newsgroup punch-clown.

Amen to that!

Dave
"Sandbagger"

In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote:

From: (Frank*Gilliland)
In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Frank*Gilliland)
In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote: snip
Yep. Post it.
_
Sure,,,,,here we have N3CVJ not only intentionally, wanton, willful,
breaking of federal communication law as set forth and defined by the
FCC (shouldn't a hammie of his status know better?) but committing
behavior that is construed by many LEOs to be of pedophilia-like nature,
of which ALL experts believe there is NO cure, only a time span until
they approach another child.
I mean, Frankie,,you just claimed in another thread that there is NO
excuse for breaking the law pertaining to the airwaves....according to
Hall himself, you condone this type behavior he commits...hmmmm,,,but
you have a problem with DX and freebanding.LOL....your priorities are
whacked, Frankie, and I am certain beyond any doubt whatsoever, not one
person in this group would want either of you near any children.

_
From: Dave Hall
Subject: WhAt FrEqUeNcEy DoEs A mObLiE pHoNe OpPeRaTe On? Date:
1999/12/16
Message-ID: #1/1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References:

Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: tw12.nn.bcandid.com 945352043 207.224.84.38 (Thu, 16 Dec 1999
06:47:23 MST) Organization: Spew Radio Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 06:47:23 MST Newsgroups:
rec.radio.cb
Who needs "Melrose Place" when you have a scanner? My neighborhood phone
traffic was no less juicy at times. Teenaged girls talking about their
first time with sex
_
Hmmm.... seems that there is more to that

post than what you quoted... let's put

it in context by adding the rest of his post,

shall we?

Certainly. editing it for brevity doesn't alter his beahvior one bit,
nor his violation of the law.
_
....., wife talking to newly found lover while
hubby watched Monday Night Football in the
next room, guys making drug buys, and even
caught one neighbor bitching about ME and all my "radio stuff" to
another.
It's fun to try to figure out who all those voices
belong to. Sometimes more entertaining than
TV, becasue it's REAL......
*
Dave
"Sandbagger"
_
When not taken out of context,

Out of context? LOL...his statement admitting breaking federal
communication law stands alone.

Yes it does. You brag about breaking federal

communication law yourself.

I don't. That you misconstrue and misinterpret talking about skip and
freebanding as bragging is your problem.

You can play semantics with the verb all you want, the context is the same.

I guess that makes him no better than you,

huh?

See what type truth you are capable of when forced.

Except that what he did wasn't illegal, and what you do is. My question was
rhetorical, and you would have known that if you didn't have that communication
deficit.

So what are you complaining about?

LOL,,,,once again, replying to your directives and inquiries isn't
contrued as complaining except by those with deficits in communication..

Refocusing your tactics to dwell on semantics for a while, huh?

it doesn't sound like pedophilia to me

No surprise there. You two are quite alike.

Are you an expert on pedophiles?

I'm not the issue.

I didn't say you were. I asked a question. Are you an expert on pedophiles?

Or are you renewing your accusation that I'm

a child molester?

Poor Frankie..in such great agonizing pain..LOL..really pains you that
you have nothing to back you these days,,no posts, no headers, no
nothing. Just like KC8LDO forging me,,nothing in any archives, no
headers. Liars hang tough together.

Keep begging for them and I'll keep posting them:

http://www.aimcomm.net/sparky/twisted_forgeries.txt
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...yant.webtv.net

_
or to any other reasonable person, which is

clearly why you have pulled it out of context

and interpreted it as such.

Feel free to ask anyone at all that you cite, or feel is "reasonable" if
they feel listening to minor children talk of their sexual liasons is
"juicy" let alone healthy, conducive behavior of one that continually
spoouts off about other folk's morals,,go on now, do as your told.

Since you have no brain,

Temper-temper, Frankie,,,,my brain is much more tangible than your
claims. Nevertheless, I am not the subject. Keep trying

I guess I have to do all the thinking around

here.

Internet Lawyering? Hoo-boy! (chuckle) I think not,,,,,

Did he say that he sat there and jacked off to

the conversation? No. All he said was that he

heard the conversation. He didn't even

describe the details of the conversation.

Sure he did. Your communication deficit prevents you from interpreting
it correctly.
Sex. Their first time. Children. What more do you want?

I suppose that in your socially isolated mind you might have conditioned
yourself to assume that such a conversation must be an explicit play-by-play,
and that it is either unlikely or absolutely impossible for it to consist of
anything else. But that raises suspicions about -your- behavior, not Hall's.

He didn't say if the girls were saying, "It was

SO big and hard, and it hurt so BAD", or if it

was more like, "...and when I woke him up he

copped an attitude, drove me home and didn't

even open my door! I don't think he respects

me AT ALL!"

No,,that's not in his post anywhere,,LOL.
In fact, he even claimed that listening to the children speak of their
first time of sex was "juicy".

Gossip is "juicy". Gossip is not necessarily pornographic or sexually explicit.
The word "juicy" implies pedophilia only in -your- mind, Twist.

He's a pervert, and so are you for
attempting to claim listening to children talk of sex on a private
telephone is somehow innocent.

Well, I grew up with two older sisters, and let

me tell you

No Frankie,,tell someone who cares what yout think about such matters.

Gee Twist, after all that whining about me snipping your posts, then you go and
snip mine, even after I made a point not to snip any more of yours? One would
think that your mind was closed to what I had to say, regardless of it's
validity or truth (your friend, remember?) But that's ok, Twisty, we all
understand that you just can't admit when you are wrong and will snip, lie,
obfuscate, distort, misquote and forge just to avoid admitting your mistakes.
But hey, that's our Twistedhed!!!

He also said that he heard other

conversations, such as people making a drug

deal.

He didn't say it was "juicy".

Read his post again, dimwit. He said, in a sentence that was both seperate and
prior to the list of conversations, that it was the "neighborhood phone traffic"
that was "juicy". Go read it yourself. Then go schedule an appointment with your
imaginary shrink to deal with your communication deficit.

Does that make him a drug addict? Of course

not, but according to your "logic" it does.

Not my logic, Frankie mah boy,,Davie's OWN logic. He is the one that
claimed that since I DX and freeband, it's a good chance I break other
laws pertaining to society.

He's absolutely right. Pick up any Psych 101 book and you will find a bunch of
references that support his statement -- i.e, your self-admitted ideals and
deliberate lawbreaking, when taken in context with your behavior and writings in
this newsgroup, is indicative of a major malfunction, something along the lines
of an antisocial, histrionic and/or narcissistic personality disorder. Take your
pick, because with any combination it's a fair bet that you can't restrain
yourself to the behavioral standards of the rest of society.

His hypocrisy bull**** is how this entire
matter with him began. Why didn't you shed some light on his bull****
when he said it instead of waiting until I used his logic?

Because it wasn't his logic that equated his observations with such a gross and
perverted social deviation. The only person that still accuses people of
pedophilia in this newsgroup is you, Twist. I think you need to see a REAL
psychologist, not just your imaginary shrink.

Now go finish your chores before your hubby

comes home.

LOL,,,,always in search of a a bit of power, no matter how slight...

I'm sure you are, and you could probably find that power if you didn't give it
up to him so easily. Play hard-to-get once in a while, even if he -is- your
husband. After all, this is the 21st Century, and marriage doesn't give him some
kind of legal right to sex even if you don't want it.

_
While there is no doubt that eavesdropping on
private conversations is illegal (and if you

have ever read my website

LOL...there it is again,,,,that ego,,,,I'm not interested in anything a
confirmed and self-admitted liar sets forth.

Yet you continue to respond to my posts, proving yet again that it is -you- that
is the liar. Even your "I'll respond to any post directed towards me" excuse
doesn't work when you express your lack of interest with such a small part of my
post.

Which is worse -- a person that can admit his

lies, or one that continues to stack lie upon lie

upon lie?

A liar is a liar is a liar, frankie, all your spin in the world won't
change the fact that you are a confirmed liar, lid, and hypocrite, just
like Davie and Nad.

Oh, I forgot, truth is your friend, and

everything you say is the truth.

Everything I post is the truth.

Wrong. You have posted many falsehoods (lies), and on many occasions. You
continue to do so every time you claim that I'm N7VCF (the fifth ham you have
accused me of being).

I don't suppose you have told a lie in your

entire life, have you, Twist?

Try to follow, Frankie,,,I'm not the issue..I'm merely *your* issue.

You didn't answer the question: Have you ever told a lie?

_
Iyou would know that I'm not a big fan of

cordless or cell phones for just that reason), it

doesn't interfere with the conversation or

cause any harm or inconvenience.

Nevertheless,,,you're intentionally glossing over Davie-son's wanton,
illegal behavior. He has called several others here a criminal for no
less than freebanding. By your own words, he is "selecting what rules to
disregard" and, man, have you posted a ton of ignorance concerning how
you feel about such behavior. Not only is Hall's behavior hypocritical,
but your selective whining about WHO breaks laws is laughable in the
face of your ire.

I'm "glossing over" nothing.

Denial ain't a river in Egypt.

Freebanding is necessarily illegal.

So is monitoring private phone conversations.

Yes it is. But in your ignorance you don't realize that, under the law, cordless
phone conversations are no more private than CB or ham conversations.

Using a

scanner isn't.

Neither is using a cb. See above : )~

It is if it's being used on unauthorized channels, or with unauthorized power or
modes.

I really don't care if someone spends their time
listening to their neighbor's telephone

conversations,

Illustrating your blatant hypocrisy and lies you told about how laws are
there for the good of all and selective obeying of laws is of the
criminal element....LOL,,,sure, Frankie.

That statement is based on your ignorance of the law.

just as long as they don't have any intention of
cleaning out bank accounts, or using the info

to hurt someone.

Only,,,(and herein lies your malfunction) it's not up to *you* what is
ok and permissable..LOL.

.........

In the same vein, I don't have a problem with

CB DXing, just as long as the power and

splatter is kept to a minimum so as not to

muck up the rest of the band.

Again,,,your ego is in your way,,,it's not about you Frankie, or me, no
matter how much your ego demands it. You have issues, dude, and you
really need someone to teach and instruct you on the finer merits of
internet communication,,,

Someone like you? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

,,your ego is way too involved and dictates and
demand everything relates to you personally, somehow,,,,,,you ain't
right.

You are projecting again, Twist.

_
On the contrary, I would like to see the 250km

limit lifted. The only problem with that is as

soon as it's lifted (if it's ever lifted), there is

going to be a subsequent surge in freebanding
and amps.

Conjecture. Pure speculation and *personal* opinion.

MacroEconomics. It's called a complimentary market.

And no, I don't choose which laws I obey or

ignore.

With your lies, you're tough to find a believer.

Right. Sure. What happened to all your cheerleaders, Twist?

See, you choose who to harass on usenet for their choice of topic. You
also hypocritically choose which law you feel you have the right to
enforce (that pathetic ego need for power).

Whatever.

But I DO choose which people I vote for office,

Along with every other registered voter.

and I DO choose to voice my opinion to those

people when I think a law is unfair or useless.

And you DO choose to become personal and insultive to those who voice
their opinion against laws you DO feel are fair and useful,.

Only to those who use ignorance to justify their lawbreaking.

You also have told those who hae voiced their opinion to stop "whining"
about it and change the law. Take your own advice and you won't be a
hypocrite,,,,,at least to the extent you appear now.

Gee, I don't recall whining about the 250km limit. In fact, I don't think I have
even mentioned it more than a half-dozen times in the past three years. Not like
I am you, constantly on the rag about the government being oppressive, the laws
being unfair, and the legal activists forming a conspiracy against you. No,
Twist, I think that you -should- take my advice -- quit yer bitchin, unhitch yer
horse and hit the trail with a do-something attitude and a saddlebag full of
sticktuitiveness. Even if you fail, you will still have accomplished more than
what you accomplish around here -- sitting on your fat ass, complaining about
everything and anything, lying about everyone you don't like and generally
making yourself a nuisance.

_
A couple of the issues I'm working on now

happen to be the current mess regarding local
broadcast station ownership, and the ban on

new Class D station licenses.

And you callously and ignorantly assume that no others work on any
issues because they choose not to inform you, therefore, you
hypocritically tell them "Stop whining and do something to change the
law."

Maybe your communication deficit is acting up -- where are my thousands of post
of me whining about those issues? They don't exist. OTOH, where are your
thousands of posts whining about the government, unfair laws, and all your
favorite "lids" in this newsgroup? Google.com

_

LPFM might have been an issue if it wasn't so

poorly implemented.

What's the matter with LPFM? It has plenty of great uses...oh, that's
right,,,perhaps if you were educated in the manners of which it applies
in the flatlands, you wouldn't be so apt to toss the baby out with the
bathwater based merely on your looking at the water and trying to guess
it's temperature.

The regs were poorly constructed, there is no procedure for upgrading the
station, the selection process hasn't been exactly objective, and the whole
service is subject to elimination with just a nod from the fat-cats of the
broadcast industry. As far as I'm concerned, it's a lost cause. I would be more
interested in an amateur broadcast service. Not a bad idea as the VHF-lo band
opens up in the coming years. After all, that's where the FM BC band started
originally.

But none of that justifies ignoring the laws in

favor of illegal operation.

So I'm not being hypocritical here.

Sure you are..good thing you had me to point them out.

You tried, but failed yet again. Too bad you will never realize that you can't
win with your Twistedhed tactics.

The problem is that you can't get past your

obsessions long enough to have a civilized

conversation,

Yea,,sure,,you go on trying to convince another of that,,LOL.

I don't have to convince anyone -- they already know. Oh, that's right, your
communication deficit prevents you from reading all the posts in the newsgroup
that tell you what an ass you really are.

I'm not the one with the compelling desire to jump into another's
personal life like you do, Frankie,,,even when you offered..LOL..

So is that why I have been five different hams? Because you have no interest in
my personal life?

perhaps
this is what is chapping your myopic tail at this point.

? or to understand another person's point of

view, or even to let someone listen to your

opinions with a sincere interest. IOW, your

opinions don't carry much weight when you

are the newsgroup punch-clown.

LOL....only you and KC8LDO have the need to make all your posts
personal, insultive, and of MEMMEMEMMEMMEMEMEMMEMEME! Now, go
on,,,resume telling us about my obsession, Frankie.

No need. You did a fine job all by yourself.

_
Unless someone is listening for purposes

other than a morbid curiousity, I really don't

have a problem with scanners. I do -not-

condone eavesdropping on private

conversations. But the fact is that it does

happen,
HAhhahah..so does freebanding.

and I -do- warn people about using

cordless phones.

Not here you haven't.

Oh yes I have. I have mentioned the issue a

few times before, and on other newsgroups as
well.

Post it...

Maybe tomorrow.

right after yiou post your angry accusations claiming I made
false claims about you....come on now,,,,you don't want to become the
punch-clown you fear, do you, Frankie? Whoops...too late..hehe!

You have that job locked down, Twist. You have even refined the art to the point
where your name is synonymous with such personality disorders.

_
And I have also posted my website addy.

Ego.

I would probably have posted it more often if

the name of this newsgroup was

rec.radio.scanners or alt.telephone.cordless.
*
*But go ahead and do it now and use N3CVJ as an example.

http://www.aimcomm.com/sparky/hi-tech.htm

Pacification is a temporary thing with one that has his ego so heavily
bruised as yourself.

You keep speaking of my ego... I thought you didn't care about my personal life,
Twist. Was that a lie? If not, why are you so concerned with my ego?

_
Despite all that,

Despite your hypocrisy? No, Frankie,,,IN ADDITION, to your hypocrisy,,,,

the FCC has recognized the issue of

eavesdropping on cordless phones and has

taken steps in order to impede the efforts of

those that would listen to private

conversations for personal gain or the

commission of a crime.

Umm,,hey Frankie,,,intentionally monitoring private telephone calls IS a
crime, just as you hold freebanding is.
_
No it isn't. 18USC2511(2)(g)(v). Even though

they should probably find a less intrusive

hobby, it's perfectly legal for anyone to listen

to unencrypted cordless phone conversations.

HAHHAHAHHA! No it's not Frankie. Don't tell me you need 'ol Twist to
cite the passage where it is illegal to INTENTIONALLY monitor any
telephone conversation that is intended for private use without explicit
permission? LOL,,,poor Frankie..you fall more each day. That ego must
really be smarting about now,,hahhahah!

The only ego that will be bruised is yours when you finally read the law I
cited. In fact, read the entire section. You might learn something (assuming
your communication deficit doesn't interfere).

_
Not my idea of a fun evening,

Well, Davie thinks it's "juicy."

but hell,

I'm wasting my time replying

(snicker) You know your ego is getting bashed and can take no more when
you resort to what you know...lying. Once again, you initiated the posts
and threads to myself , Frankie, Your communication defict once again
has you misinterpreting my replies as initiating conversation. You're
way off, Frankie.

More projections.

to your posts. I don't know which is worse....

You or Dave? So far, Dave denies lying. He hates to be wrong and told
no. ANother destroyed ego by a lowly cber.

As the older, unsecure phones find their way

to the trash heaps, the issue is gradually

becoming moot.
*
_
*Not moot at all. I merely use you and Hall's oft-repeated mantra that
it's the "BEHAVIOR" that makes such criminal acts so bad,,,,the blatant
disregarding of federal rules for personal satisfaction...try not to
lose site of what you selectively hold others to, Frankie.

Blah, blah, blah. Read the law.

Idiot.

Yea,,I figured you'd be pained by rubbing your nose in your mess.

_
Oh, wait a second, youre still tripping over your hairlipped lie looking
for that post you claimed I said the same thing about you in,,,,,,still
waiting, Frankie,,,you mean you lied? Again? Gee... "I have admitted to
lying in this ng and on
more than
one occasion." Frank
Gilliland )
_
BTW,,,what happened to that Vancouver
feed?

Never had one.

LOL...hokay!
Your Time Warner (TWTelecom) is in Vancouver, Frankie.

My ISP is in Spokane, Twisty.

Your Time Warner (TWTelecom) is in Vancouver, Frankie, the "feed" you
just lied and denied.

My "feed" comes from my ice-box and pantry.

My ISP is in Spokane. Where it goes from

there I don't know and I don't care, just as long
as it ends up at it's intended destination. If it

goes through Vancouver, so be it.

Ahahahha..you and Davoe are the same pathetic lids. He claimed the same
thing,,claimed he was a network admin in one post, then claimed he
didn't know how or why his email originated from Villanova U....LOL.
Lids in a pod.

One small problem with that theory, Twist: I never claimed to know how packets
are routed. But I -do- know that not everyone who subscribes to AOL lives in the
urban hubs that are indicated by their IP numbers, as would be the case if your
theory held water. I also know that no other webtv subscriber has posted from
the same IP number set/server name that showed up in your headers last year, the
same ones that are in the headers of some of those forgeries you claim you
didn't post. So keep crying about lids, Twist, and I'll keep that page of your
forgeries on my site. Fair enough?

It might also go through Tacoma, Fargo,

DesMoines, or even Tampa, I couldn't care

less, but that doesn't mean I live in or around

any of those urbs.

But it doesnt.It goes throgh Vancouver.
"Nuff said (smirk).

I don't live in or around Vancouver, either. Want proof?

"I have admitted to lying in this ng, and on
more than one occasion"

_
Ah never mind,,,,one thing
at a time,,,,,now, about those RF pirates that you claimed affected your
daily work...

Do you want to know the names of the most

obnoxious offenders in this area?
Not at all. I'm not interested in anything about you.

Then why bother even bringing up the

subject? Or did you write it just to read it

yourself?

You brought it up. I asked the questions that are too painful for a
hypocitical liar like yourself
years to entertain.

....huh? Better make that appointment soon, cause your communication deficit is
getting worse.

_
I am being polite,

ROTFLMMFAO!!!

to you, that is all. Your ego misinterprets such simple acts as much
more than they are.

Your incessant hounding on the subject

No hounding , frank, Just redirecting

That's what you do best.

your failed obfuscation and lies,
You claimed I wouldnt answer your questions,,I indeed claimed I would
answer any question you like after you answer the original questions
posed to yourself based on your claims you made and thought important
enough to share.

It seems that any answer must meet your expectations, truth or not. Regardless,
I have answered it in the other post. Now you need to get busy and answer my
questions -- like I said, you have a lot of them pending.

_
(sigh) Direct a post to myself, I shall respond,

Respond to this: If I want you to know

anything about me, just ask. If I don't tell you

what you want to hear, deal with it on your

own terms,

My, the hypocrisy is radiant today, Frankie,,absolutely beaming. Take
your own advice, instead of attacking another with all kinds of pathetic
wounded cries about how your questions are being ignored..LOL.

or consult your imaginary shrink.

Once again, and right on cue, only you, Nad, adnd the lid Hall mention
such novelties..the lids of the pod,,the lids and
troublemakers,,,LOL,,,,deal with it on your own terms.

Or keep begging for another year and a half if

you really want, I couldn't care less.

When one makes a post on usenet, they are asking the one they directed
the post toward for attention in the form of a reply. That you can not
grasp the simple fashion in which usenet works,

Do you mean
snip

There you go snipping again.

I mean what I said, That you need far-flung analogies

No, just asking for clarifications.

for all your lack
of intellect is your problem, no one elses.

I understand proper newsgroup quoting. You don't.

I suggest you deal with it
on your own terms.

Ok, but I'm just going to be laughing as you start responding to your own
quotes!

l Fix your own communication deficits, then I'll
listen to you whine about mine.

I don't address yours, Frankie, except when your deficit acts up and you
direct posts toward myself and then try and claim otherwise.

You might want to fix them soon, because in

order to keep you from whining about me

See above.

I wonder if webtv has enough bandwidth to

compensate for your communication deficit....

Your compulsions have you worrying about all that you are impotent
over...LOL..no wonder you're a disheveled mess.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In , Dave Hall wrote:

snip
While there is no doubt that eavesdropping on private conversations is illegal

Actually, that's not entirely true. First off, when this "incident"
occured, it was before the passage of the ECPA....

Eavesdropping on private conversations is indeed illegal. The difference is that
because older cordless phones didn't use any encryption, any conversation using
them cannot be legally defined as private. The cordless phone freqs were, in
effect, party lines. The owner's manuals emphasized this fact, and it's too bad
that people didn't read those things (then or now).

snip
But some people's stupidity, are other people's entertainment..... ;-)

Twisty's stupidity is my entertainment!!!

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Frank Gilliland wrote:

In , Dave Hall wrote:

snip
While there is no doubt that eavesdropping on private conversations is illegal

Actually, that's not entirely true. First off, when this "incident"
occured, it was before the passage of the ECPA....

Eavesdropping on private conversations is indeed illegal. The difference is that
because older cordless phones didn't use any encryption, any conversation using
them cannot be legally defined as private.

Exactly! There can be no expectation of privacy or the protection that
comes from it, due to the "open" nature of unencrypted radio
transmissions. It's no more private than CB radio.

But some people's stupidity, are other people's entertainment..... ;-)

Twisty's stupidity is my entertainment!!!

Unfortunately, to Twisty's way of thinking, you are his entertainment.
Such is the reason why it will never be settled.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Randy wrote:

So is monitoring private phone conversations.

Using a

scanner isn't.

Using a scanner to listen to phones on the old 46/49 analog band is not
illegal. You are confusing it with cell reception, which is illegal.

Right. And the only reason that listening to cellular has been
reclassified as illegal, came as a result of powerful lobbies by the
cellular companies. At the time of the ECPA, digital technology was not
quite "there" yet, and the cell companies die not have a technological
means to prevent people from listening. So they lobbied the FCC, to
remove the cell "chunk" from the 800 - 900 Mhz bands included with most
scanners. Since this frequency range was no longer considered a "common"
radio band, it could therefore be argued that listening to it, could be
viewed as deliberate eavesdropping.

But as far as anything else, if you can receive it, you can listen to
it. The only stipulation (And the only way that the law can prove you
actually did it, other than catching you in the act) is that you can't
devulge any specific information that you heard, or use it to your
advantage.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Gee Davie,,the more you blow smoke out your ass, the more ignorant you
become, but I don't mind educating lids like yourself and
Gillinad,,,now, before you react and go to pieces, try educating
yourself on the law of communication,,,you know,,,the thing in which you
hold a license but still seem unable to learn anything concerning
it.....
_
9th Circuit Decides Wiretap Act Case
8/14.
=A0=A0The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in
Price v. Turner, a civil suit alleging violation of the Wiretap Act in
connection with the monitoring of cordless phone conversations. However,
since the events giving rise to this case occurred ten years ago, this
appeal was decided according to state of federal law prior to the 1994
amendments to the Wiretap Act.
Frank Turner used a radio scanner to listen to and record conversations
of his neighbors who used cordless telephones. These phones used analog
radio signals at fixed frequencies, and hence, were easy to monitor. He
heard discussions of criminal activities. Turner also informed the El
Dorado County Sheriff's Department, which told him to continue, and
provided him assistance. All of the intercepted phone communications at
issue in this case took place prior to the 1994 amendments to the
Wiretap Act. One person whose conversations he monitored was Leora
Price.
Price filed a civil complaint against Frank Turner and El Dorado County
alleging, among other things, violation of the Wiretap Act, invasion of
privacy, and a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. =A7 1983. The District
Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all of Price's federal
claims. Price appealed.
The Appeals Court wrote that "At the time of its original enactment in
1968, the Wiretap Act did not expressly refer to the monitoring of radio
transmissions. When Congress enlarged the Act's coverage in 1986,
Congress explicitly excepted protection for the 'radio portion of a
cordless telephone communication.' ... It was not until 1994 that
Congress amended the Act to prohibit the interception of cordless
telephone communications." The Appeals Court affirmed.
_
Gee.....(caw.......caw........caw)
Delivered-To: =A0=A0 From: =A0=A0
(Twistedhed) Date: =A0=A0 Sun, Sep 7, 2003, 8:17pm
To: =A0=A0 Subject: =A0=A0 Cordless Phone law
Cordless Phone Conversations Can Be Private. Eavesdropping Can Be
Prosecuted!
_
Gee Davie-son,,,and here we have one but of MANY examples of a state
upholding the federal law. There's more but this is enough t illustrate
you, a hammie operator, know jack about communication law in the US as
it pertains to your illegal behavior that constitutes a felony that you
and Gilliland claim is legal.
=A0 _
=A0=A0The Michigan Supreme Court held this year that cordless phone
conversations may be considered "private conversations."=A0 In People v.
Stone, the Court approved a criminal prosecution against a husband who
had intercepted and recorded the cordless phone conversations of his
estranged wife.=A0 The Court decided, in a unanimous decision, that even
though a person may know that technology makes it possible to overhear
cordless phone conversations, that person can also presume that others
will obey the criminal law.
The Court ruled that such interception is a violation of the Michigan
eavesdropping statutes, and is also a felony under federal law.=A0 A
person therefore has what is known as a "reasonable expectation of
privacy" as to such communications.=A0 To what extent a "reasonable
expectation of privacy" may apply to a given case is a question of
fact.=A0 Cordless telephones apply; party lines do not.=A0 The inquiring
husband in Stone, therefore, was properly prosecuted under Michigan law.
COUPE, VAN ALLSBURG & PATER, P.C.
774 S. Washington Ave.
P.O. Box 1408
Holland MI 49422-1408
(616) 396-8883 ext 103
FAX (616) 396-8536

-
Gee, let's see again an active communication's law firm interpretation:

"and is also a felony under federal law.=A0"
=A0
=A0Hmmm,,,but we should believe Frankie and Hall, NOT the lawyers who
have been involved with such cases.
So, we now have Hall, who admitted to committing this FELONY, and
Gillinad who claims it isn't illegal to intentionally monitor a private
phone conversation.
Keep entertaining us, Frankie,, with the felonious N3CVJ..
You're quite welcome.
You guys really shouldn't shoot your mouths off about things you know
nothing of,,,like communication and communication law.

Exactly! There can be no expectation of

privacy or the protection that comes from it,

due to the "open" nature of unencrypted radio

transmissions. It's no more private than CB

radio.

Because of your ignorance with acts passed by Congress, you are shouting
your ignrance to the world,,,,all because of little old
MEMEMMEMMEMMEMEM!

But some people's stupidity, are other people's
entertainment..... ;-)

LOL,,you got that right!

Twisty's stupidity is my entertainment!!!

LOL,,,,,talk about a mass-projection. Twisty isn't the one committing
felonies and claming they are legal. N8wwm jams repeaters and gets
busted byt he feds and Nad says he's innocent. N3CVJ intercepts children
talking of sex on a telephone and claims he has a right to do it. Frank
Gilliland, in his complete lack of intellect, claims such behavior is
legal..LOL.

Unfortunately, to Twisty's way of thinking, you

are his entertainment. Such is the reason why

it will never be settled.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

One wouldn't have expected a sexual
deviant who gets off listening to children talk of sex (as you have
claimed in this group) to know a damn thing about communication law, And
guess what, Davie? You KEEP proving "one" right..LOL. Now spit out the
feathers, admit you were wrong, kick up an apology, or do something akin
to beahvior of a man, not a cowardly liar who needs turn persoanl when
they were showed the ignorance and voo-doo bull**** they were atemtping
to ply. Ahh, never mind, you lids have a problem with being proved
wrong,,,,it's why you al have communication deficits,,,your egos are too
heavly involved and now,,,destroyed...LOL...but N3CVJ can continue to
make all his posts ABOUT MEMEMEMMEMMEMEMMEM as it has been proved time
and time again, when engaged in debate or discussion of communication
law, he knows less than the lowl cb'er. Poor davie.

Oh yea,,,,I forgot to give thanks to the hammie in
Miichigan..............Thanks for the info.

Twistedhed wrote:

_
9th Circuit Decides Wiretap Act Case
8/14.
The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in
Price v. Turner, a civil suit alleging violation of the Wiretap Act in
connection with the monitoring of cordless phone conversations. However,
since the events giving rise to this case occurred ten years ago, this
appeal was decided according to state of federal law prior to the 1994
amendments to the Wiretap Act.
Frank Turner used a radio scanner to listen to and record conversations
of his neighbors who used cordless telephones. These phones used analog
radio signals at fixed frequencies, and hence, were easy to monitor. He
heard discussions of criminal activities. Turner also informed the El
Dorado County Sheriff's Department, which told him to continue, and
provided him assistance. All of the intercepted phone communications at
issue in this case took place prior to the 1994 amendments to the
Wiretap Act. One person whose conversations he monitored was Leora
Price.
Price filed a civil complaint against Frank Turner and El Dorado County
alleging, among other things, violation of the Wiretap Act, invasion of
privacy, and a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District
Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all of Price's federal
claims. Price appealed.
The Appeals Court wrote that "At the time of its original enactment in
1968, the Wiretap Act did not expressly refer to the monitoring of radio
transmissions. When Congress enlarged the Act's coverage in 1986,
Congress explicitly excepted protection for the 'radio portion of a
cordless telephone communication.' ... It was not until 1994 that
Congress amended the Act to prohibit the interception of cordless
telephone communications." The Appeals Court affirmed.

Maybe you should read the things you cut and paste before offering them
up as a some sort of confirmation for your deficits in comprehension.
You should note that this case was thrown out because at the time of the
alleged infraction, that the defendant's actions were NOT illegal. Since
in my own case, the conversations which I overheard, that you are so
fond of convoluting, occured in 1984, which is also before the passage
of the ECPA, therfore like in the case above, I am guilty of nothing
illegal. Also note that wiretap laws vary from state to state, and
what's true in one state, may not be in another.

Legislation which attempts to give the illusion of the expectation of
privacy over unencrypted wireless phones, is equally ludicrious, as it
is basically unenforcable, unless one reveals the content that they
intercepted. The only true expectation of privacy comes with a
technological solution to the problem.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Read the entre thing, Davie. It's now a felony and against the
law,,,just like it was when YOU did it,,,,,,,,,eat crow!

HAhaha..Davie,,,you liar,you had a scanner capable of listening to the
cordless phones in 1984? Name it.

N3CVJ wrote:
Also note that wiretap laws vary from state to

state, and what's true in one state, may not be
in another.

_

Not true. Congress broadened the act, Davie,,,,,you're wrong, incorrect,
and hostile over yourself, Get over it...LOL.

Twistedhed wrote:

HAhaha..Davie,,,you liar,you had a scanner capable of listening to the
cordless phones in 1984? Name it.

Bearcat 210xl

Dave
"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ wrote: You can still tune cordless phones on a scanner, and you're
free to listen to anything you want (How could they ever catch you?).
The kicker is that you are not allowed to devulge details of what you've
heard, or use information to your advantage. Anyone who uses a cordless
phone needs to be aware of the potential security risks, and buy the
most advanced digital phone.
_
N3CVJ wrote: There can be no expectation of privacy or the protection
that comes from it, due to the "open" nature of unencrypted radio
transmissions. It's no more private than CB radio.
_
N3CVJ wrote:
But as far as anything else, if you can receive it, you can listen to
it. The only stipulation (And the only way that the law can prove you
actually did it, other than catching you in the act) is that you can't
devulge any specific information that you heard, or use it to your
advantage.
__
And Davie,,you made these posts in the last week. You're *wrong* and
incorrect. Such acts are NOT legal despite your professed ignorance
claiming they are. Congress broadened the act long ago.
One who has been a hammie as long as you should know better ( but you
suffer from a communication deficit as bad as Gillinad which prevents
such acquisition of knowledge), especially when you throw stones at
others for their topic of choice you claim makes them a criminal.
Hammies are recognizing davie,,you're a mess...a self-made lying
mess,,but a mess no, less g.

Retell your story about a cber getting popped that none know about
except you. Maybe invent a town name along with an imaginary kangaroo
court. Fiction agrees with you.

In , Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote:

snip
And Davie,,you made these posts in the last week. You're *wrong* and
incorrect. Such acts are NOT legal despite your professed ignorance
claiming they are. Congress broadened the act long ago.
One who has been a hammie as long as you should know better ( but you
suffer from a communication deficit as bad as Gillinad which prevents
such acquisition of knowledge), especially when you throw stones at
others for their topic of choice you claim makes them a criminal.
Hammies are recognizing davie,,you're a mess...a self-made lying
mess,,but a mess no, less g.

I cited federal law. You ignored it. I cited it again, provided a link, and
quoted the part that permits the monitoring of electronic communication that is
"readily accessible to the general public". You ignored it. Do you want to talk
about Michigan? I don't, since Michigan doesn't write federal law. Regardless,
if the courts of Michigan have determined that a cordless phone conversation is
private....

....DESPITE the fact that almost all owner manuals for cordless phones warn that
they are NOT private....

....DESPITE the fact that the news media has covered the issue of cordless
phones and scanners ever since they were first built....

....DESPITE the fact that the FCC, the federal agency responsible for the laws
permitting cordless phones, has acknowledged that unencrypted cordless phones
are -not- private, and has recently instituted regulations which require newer
phones to be built with privacy systems....

....DESPITE the fact that the Michigan court failed to recognize that if their
state law declares conversations over cordless phones are to be considered
private, then they have effectively outlawed cordless phones, since EVERY user
of a cordless phone in Michigan would be violating the Federal Wiretap Act (and
possibly even Michigan law) by using the cordless phone to transmit private
conversations....

....then that's an issue for the people and government of Michigan to take up
with the FCC, since it's not the job of the FCC to make sure state laws are not
in conflict with federal laws. But one thing I have to say about lawyers -- most
of them are not technically competent enough to handle such a case; and that, I
suspect, is the reason for the bogus decision in Michigan.

Now, whether you ignore this post, or respond with your usual mumbo-jumbo about
lids and communication deficits, you simply don't have an argument here, Twist.
But that's nothing new...

BTW, now that I have provided the answer for which you have been begging for a
year and a half, it's time you started answering some: Most recently, have you
been able to guess which two presidents I quoted? Do you really need ANOTHER
clue? How about if I do it like on that game show -- I'll just put up the
consonants....

#1 -- This president increased the military well beyond the limits of the law,
spent millions without appropriations, and for a time suspended the right of
habeas corpus -- and did it all without congressional approval. Here is what he
said: "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by
becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the
preservation of the nation."

The name of this president was "_BR_H_M L_NC_LN".

#2 -- This president meddled in foreign affairs, encouraging a civil war that
resulted in the creation of a new country with a puppet government. And like the
other president, he did so without congressional approval. When congress passed
a resolution forming a commission to investigate the legality of his acts as
president, he refused to cooperate and ignored the resolution. This is his
excuse: "I declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for
the nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific
authorization to do it... Under this interpretation of the executive power I did
and caused to be done many things not previously done by the President and the
heads of departments. I did not usurp power but I did greatly broaden the use of
executive power."

The name of this president was "TH__D_R_ R__S_V_LT".

So can you guess them NOW, Twist?

Well?

I hope so, because there are several hundred
more questions you have left unanswered....

Now where do you want to start? How about with another recent inquiry prompted
by your insinuations -- are you an expert on pedophilia?

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Frank Gilliland wrote:
are you an expert on pedophilia?

Are you an expert on AKC? Let a sleeping dog alone.

--
http://NewsReader.Com/
50 GB/Month

Frank Gilliland wrote:
I'll make you a deal, Mope: If you agree, I won't mention Twisty at
all.
I won't refer to him directly or indirectly, or even imply that he even
exists. If he can do the same, great. But if he can't control himself
enough to do the same (and we all know he can't), my silence ends, and
you never complain about any anti-Twisty posts ever again. Deal?

Can you build me a 6 meter amp? (deal) ;)

Now if I was -really- ambitious
I would be searching Google to see if anybody in
rec.fishing.special_olympics was missing during the same time Twisty
was gone....

Would it be worth it? ;)

Not to me. I -like- the fact that he is an anonymous troll!

Lot's of those on Usernet.

--
http://NewsReader.Com/
50 GB/Month

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Maybe you don't know this, but Spokane is the pothole capitol of the US.

Ughh, that's ruff on the tubes.

25 watts in, portable.

I still need a figure for power out and mode (AM? FM? SSB? CW?).

Well, CW can take a back seat. ;)

--
http://NewsReader.Com/
50 GB/Month