Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
When I was a kid, that kind of stuff was considered a prank, along the same lines as tossing someone into the "bradley" wash basin, or stuffing someone in a locker. Times change and you are no longer a kid. Laws change. Living in the past and longing for the way it "was" is nice, but not realistic. Twas a time many never had to lock their doors.....and so it goes. I was shocked when I saw the headline, thinking initially that the kid was "crucified". But after I found out that the nails only went through his clothes, I filed it under the "no big deal" category. It was against the law. For many obvious reasons. This sort of stuff is what builds character Disagree. There is nothing "character-builiding" concerning a forced physical act against one's will. Forcibly placing your hands upon an unwilling participant teaches character alright,,,,,of the criminal element. Such acts of physical aggression are against the law and for good reason. (boys will be boys). And some will be criminals. This is what I mean,,this is the mindest of Philthydelphia,,,,this kind of stuff is not only taught but avidly defended. Children do not take to violence as a natural act. They are a product of their environment. The act was against the law. As long as it doesn't get taken to the extreme level The courts determined long ago this "level" you speak of, and they have distinguished such behavior as illegal and in violation of the law for good reason. Forcibly intruding and imposing your will against an unconsenting individual IS taking it to the "extreme level." Try that on an educated adult and see where it lands you,,,,,,in the most fortunate scenario, one may need a physician. In an unfortunate scenario, one may require an undertaker. Then again, most educated adults know better than to forcibly place their unwanted hands on another's person. such as what happened at Columbine or No comparison when a death is involved. what happened at the football camp sodomy hazing case. No comparison to rape, either. The court recognizes such, which is why the laws and sentencing guidelines differ between the examples you offer. The acts can not be compared. They broke the law with their acts, despite you disagreeing with the law. Many times in the past, condoning the breaking of selective laws has been vehemently attacked by yourself. Dave "Sandbagger" |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:15:04 -0500 (EST), (Twistedhed) wrote: And some will be criminals. This is what I mean,,this is the mindest of Philthydelphia,,,,this kind of stuff is not only taught but avidly defended. Children do not take to violence as a natural act. They are a product of their environment. The act was against the law. So is operating a CB radio on unauthorized frequencies, No comparison. One act includes physical violence and forced physical impositio against another's will. yet you vehemently attempt to justify your decision to ignore federal law. Post it. Ahh,,that's right,,you can't,,as I have never "justified" my decision to selectively ignore the law regarding to DX and freeband...on the contrary,,,lids like yourself constantly look to me for validation, seeking "justification' for what I do,,,that I fail to provide a satisfactory answer for yourself is paramount to your communication deficit and hypocitical behavior. As it has always been, I need not offer any explanation or 'justify" my behavior to you or anyone else present, but the fact that you need some type validation from myself has you hallucinating that I offer some sort of explanation to yourself,,,,,LOL. _ As long as it doesn't get taken to the extreme level The courts determined long ago this "level" you speak of, and they have distinguished such behavior as illegal and in violation of the law for good reason. Forcibly intruding and imposing your will against an unconsenting individual IS taking it to the "extreme level." Try that on an educated adult and see where it lands you,,,,,,in the most fortunate scenario, one may need a physician. In an unfortunate scenario, one may require an undertaker. Then again, most educated adults know better than to forcibly place their unwanted hands on another's person. Most educated adults realize the importance of R.F. spectrum management and the importance of following the federal rules which govern them. Again,,no comparison. The fact that you condone the breaking of a law including physical violence against another while you stand there and fondle yourself sheepishly and cry about another breaking a law is entertainment money can't buy. _ No comparison to rape, either. The court recognizes such, which is why the laws and sentencing guidelines differ between the examples you offer. The acts can not be compared. =A0=A0They broke the law with their acts, despite you disagreeing with the law. Many times in the past, condoning the breaking of selective laws has been vehemently attacked by yourself. I find it ironic that you would be so quick to uphold the letter of the law in this case, yet so easily ignore the law with respect to radio. This is just another shining example of your hypocrisy. Oh, I'm not upholding any law, as I'm no leo and am not status-starved like yourself. See Dave, your hypocrisy has you blinded and flailing, looking to me (self-validation) for something to deflect your blatant hypocrisy regarding your behavior,,,not mine. The thread wasn't about me or radio beahvior,,,,in fact, it was clearly marked "OT",,,,yet, the magic I worlk has you misinterpretating, failing to remain on subject, and failing in your commmunication attempts. In case you were wondering, yes, you took the bait and sprung the trap..... Dave "Sandbagger" LOL..it was my post you responded to, not the ohter way around,,of course, with a deficit as massive as yours, I wouldn't expect anything else.,,,,,,shore up that deficit,,,fix that and you may gain some respect for yourself and not need look to others for validation of yourself. The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|