On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:04:47 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

The Hypocrite (N3CVJ) Hall wrote:
Why would you think that enforcement action

against hams has a place on a CB

newsgroup?

Same reason you feel it pertinent to present your hammie call in a CB
ng.


When have I EVER done that? YOU are the one who sees fit to paste it
in, when it suits you. I deliberately do not bring my ham status into
this group as a rule, since it is not relevant. The fact that my call
is part of my email address is incidental, not deliberate.

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

When have I EVER done that? YOU are the

one who sees fit to paste it in, when it suits

you. I deliberately do not bring my ham status

into this group as a rule, since it is not

relevant. The fact that my call is part of my

email address is incidental, not deliberate.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

_
Oh? Someone ELSE made your email for you, making it "incidental"
(definition: "Happening or likely to happen in an UNPLANNED
conjunction")?
And of course, the inclusion of your call in your email was "unplanned"
and completely accidental. Go fish. That roll you're on keeps on
growing....

On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:51:09 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

When have I EVER done that? YOU are the

one who sees fit to paste it in, when it suits

you. I deliberately do not bring my ham status

into this group as a rule, since it is not

relevant. The fact that my call is part of my

email address is incidental, not deliberate.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

_
Oh? Someone ELSE made your email for you, making it "incidental"
(definition: "Happening or likely to happen in an UNPLANNED
conjunction")?

Sigh. I should have known I'd have to explain it to you in the same
manner that I have to use when explaining things to my 4 year old.

*I* made up my email address. But its inclusion in any headers is not
a deliberate act on my part. It's a normal part of internet traffic. I
am hardly "flaunting" my ham status. You will not see me signing it in
the message body of any message posted on this group.

You need to dig some more. The only thing you're coming up with are
dirty hands.

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

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:51:09 -0400,
When have I EVER done that? YOU are the

one who sees fit to paste it in, when it suits

you. I deliberately do not bring my ham status

into this group as a rule, since it is not

relevant. The fact that my call is part of my

email address is incidental, not deliberate.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj
_
Oh? Someone ELSE made your email for you, making it "incidental"
(definition: "Happening or likely to happen in an UNPLANNED
conjunction")?

Sigh. I should have known I'd have to explain

it to you in the same manner that I have to use
when explaining things to my 4 year old.



Your 4 year old has been that age for years. Why is that child not
aging, Davie? Ah..never mind.


*I* made up my email address. But its

inclusion in any headers is not a deliberate act
on my part.






No one mentioned headers, Davie, except you. Let's look at what you said
again.




The fact that my call is part of my

email address is incidental, not deliberate.


No davie-son, the fact that your call is part of your email address is
NOT incidental...it is deliberate, as you created it.
_
It's a normal part of internet traffic.

I am hardly "flaunting" my ham status.




No one accused you of doing such. You're way too paranoid.

You will not see me signing it in the message

body of any message posted on this group.

You need to dig some more. The only thing

you're coming up with are dirty hands.


No need to dig. One merely needs to watch your posts full of
contradictions and lies.
Those "dirty hands" only come from handling
you and dragging you across the coals with your own lies.
..

Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:53:28 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:51:09 -0400,
When have I EVER done that? YOU are the

one who sees fit to paste it in, when it suits

you. I deliberately do not bring my ham status

into this group as a rule, since it is not

relevant. The fact that my call is part of my

email address is incidental, not deliberate.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj
_
Oh? Someone ELSE made your email for you, making it "incidental"
(definition: "Happening or likely to happen in an UNPLANNED
conjunction")?

Sigh. I should have known I'd have to explain

it to you in the same manner that I have to use
when explaining things to my 4 year old.



Your 4 year old has been that age for years. Why is that child not
aging, Davie? Ah..never mind.

My 4 year old has been a 4 year old since January. Before that, she
was a three year old.




*I* made up my email address. But its

inclusion in any headers is not a deliberate act
on my part.


No one mentioned headers, Davie, except you. Let's look at what you said
again.

No, let's keep what you said in context. You said:

"Same reason you feel it pertinent to present your hammie call in a CB
ng.

Which to anyone with normal comprehensive skills, would mean that I
deliberately sign my messages with it or otherwise include the fact
within the message body. Since you once again ran your fingers before
you had your brain fully engaged, you made that erroneous accusation,
and are now backpeddling.


I am hardly "flaunting" my ham status.

No one accused you of doing such. You're way too paranoid.

You did, see above.

You will not see me signing it in the message
body of any message posted on this group.
You need to dig some more. The only thing
you're coming up with are dirty hands.


No need to dig. One merely needs to watch your posts full of
contradictions and lies.

I made no such contradictions. Conversely, you make many accusations
which, when confronted with them, resort to obfuscation and spin
followed by the inevitable backpeddle.

Those "dirty hands" only come from handling
you and dragging you across the coals with your own lies.

You are the only one who lies here. And you're not even dead yet.....

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

NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Wed, May 12, 2004, 1:35pm (EDT-1) From: =A0=A0
Dave Hall Group: =A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject:
=A0=A0 Peaked and Tuned Date: =A0=A0 Wed, May 12, 2004, 2:35pm
Organization: =A0=A0 home.ptd.net/~n3cvj X-Trace: =A0=A0
sv3-hKhHBR7qn180T5Bu3dyEhmANPbUn5PvEOKrb7INWIBH9cpHchV 8p0Wejccc8rzdf5C88HZ=
Kdr9x6WrI!WlAbAVORPVohISeW6X0kKlZH+WhSYWjkUnA55eUJ 8TaQON6i/c4yK+MxxdSkePGx=
m8wY1xkVYq6R!8fNyTIrBRHg=3D
X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward a
copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be
unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.1 On
Wed, 12 May 2004 11:53:28 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:51:09 -0400,
When have I EVER done that? YOU are the

one who sees fit to paste it in, when it suits

you. I deliberately do not bring my ham status

into this group as a rule, since it is not

relevant. The fact that my call is part of my

email address is incidental, not deliberate.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj
_
Oh? Someone ELSE made your email for you, making it "incidental"
(definition: "Happening or likely to happen in an UNPLANNED
conjunction")?
_
Sigh. I should have known I'd have to explain

it to you in the same manner that I have to use
when explaining things to my 4 year old.
_
Your 4 year old has been that age for years. Why is that child not
aging, Davie? Ah..never mind.
_
My 4 year old has been a 4 year old since

January. Before that, she was a three year

old.
_
I said never mind, but you have exhibited an uncanny penchant for
invoking your child into this newsgroup on many occasion, but such is to
be expected from fathers who are separated from their child and only
permitted supervised visits. Your pain manifests in the strangest of
places, such as this group, but really, it isn't relevant, except to
illustrate you couldn't even maintain a successful relationship with the
mother of your child, let alone anyone else.
_

*I* made up my email address. But its

inclusion in any headers is not a deliberate act
on my part.
_
No one mentioned headers, Davie, except you. Let's look at what you said
again.
_
No, let's keep what you said in context.
_
LOL..of course you would say NO to looking at what you said, it presents
your idiocy and self-contradictions.
_
You said:
=A0
=A0"Same reason you feel it pertinent to present your hammie call in a
CB ng.
_
Which to anyone with normal comprehensive

skills, would mean that I deliberately sign my

messages with it or otherwise include the fact

within the message body.
_
Which has nothing to do with headers you are s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g to
invoke, Davie-son, just like I maintained and you refused to
acknowledge.
_
Since you once again ran your fingers before

you had your brain fully engaged, you made

that erroneous accusation, and are now

backpeddling.
_
The back pedal is all yours. To "peddle", is to sell your wares,
Davie-son. but since you again ran your mouth and fingers before you had
your brain engaged, you made that erroneous statement and are now being
force-fed the correction.
_
I am hardly "flaunting" my ham status.
_
No one accused you of doing such. You're way too paranoid.
_
You did, see above.
_
I did no such thing. I claimed you brought your call sign to this group
after you claimed you did not. Anyone with normal cognitive
comprehension skills that do not suffer such massive communication
deficits sees that you most certianly did bring your call here. To wit:
_
The fact that my call is part of my

email address is incidental, not deliberate.
_
Again,,the call is most certainly deliberate and NOT incidental. Sit
down and take a rest, as your are quite dizzy from all that spinning you
attempt.
_
You will not see me signing it in the message

body of any message posted on this group.
_
Never claimed such,,,,merely claimed that you indeed brought your call
to the group, and you did. Now you're angry once again because I
illustrated your goofy lies and you resorted to what you always do when
caught in lies,,,,,insults. You're a lowlife, davie-son.
_
You need to dig some more. The only thing

you're coming up with are dirty hands.
_
No need to dig. One merely needs to watch your posts full of
contradictions and lies.
_
I made no such contradictions. Conversely,

you make many accusations which, when

confronted with them, resort to obfuscation

and spin followed by the inevitable

backpeddle.

Like your lie concerning the Phelps, or the cber in "suburban"
philthadelphia (which you demonstrated you have no clue what constitutes
a "suburbia" of a town or city) that you claimed was convicted, except
no record exists.
Indidentally (hyuk), those "dirty hands" only come from handling you and
dragging you across the coals with your own lies.
_
You are the only one who lies here. And

you're not even dead yet.....
_
Sucks for you and Lelnad,,,,LOL..the both of you scumbag lids harass
cbers for behavior you both engaged,,I merely point such things out and
watch you go to pieces, insult, and cry about off-topics.

_
Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj
_
"The fact that my call is part of my
email address is incidental, not deliberate" N3CVJ - Dave "Hypocrite"
Hall

Steveo wrote:
Dave Hall wrote:
Like in the case of illegal CB use, it may seem that the guys
advocating legal operation are grossly outnumbered, but to ignore
it,
is giving your acceptance of it.

Hypocrite.

Dave Hall wrote:
Granted this turns a 800 watt peak amp into a 200 watt amp (Doesn't
sound so glamourous), but for my type of operating, this works the
best.

Watch out Dave, if you disagree with this guy he will have a tantrum
and drive to you're house and leave notes or take pictures, rotflmao.

(I Am Not George) wrote:
Steveo wrote:
Dave Hall wrote:
Like in the case of illegal CB use, it may seem that the guys
advocating legal operation are grossly outnumbered, but to ignore
it,
is giving your acceptance of it.

Hypocrite.

Dave Hall wrote:
Granted this turns a 800 watt peak amp into a 200 watt amp (Doesn't
sound so glamourous), but for my type of operating, this works the
best.

Watch out Dave, if you disagree with this guy he will have a tantrum
and drive to you're house and leave notes or take pictures, rotflmao.

Or send mail to your house........

--
I won't retire, but I might retread.

On 12 May 2004 12:42:14 -0700, (I Am Not
George) wrote:

Steveo wrote:
Dave Hall wrote:
Like in the case of illegal CB use, it may seem that the guys
advocating legal operation are grossly outnumbered, but to ignore
it,
is giving your acceptance of it.

Hypocrite.

Dave Hall wrote:
Granted this turns a 800 watt peak amp into a 200 watt amp (Doesn't
sound so glamourous), but for my type of operating, this works the
best.

Watch out Dave, if you disagree with this guy he will have a tantrum
and drive to you're house and leave notes or take pictures, rotflmao.

If he wants to drive all the way to my house, I'll at least have the
courtesy to buy him a beer and ask him why he's so angry.....

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

Dave Hall wrote:
On 12 May 2004 12:42:14 -0700, (I Am Not
George) wrote:

Steveo wrote:
Dave Hall wrote:
Like in the case of illegal CB use, it may seem that the guys
advocating legal operation are grossly outnumbered, but to ignore
it,
is giving your acceptance of it.

Hypocrite.

Dave Hall wrote:
Granted this turns a 800 watt peak amp into a 200 watt amp (Doesn't
sound so glamourous), but for my type of operating, this works the
best.

Watch out Dave, if you disagree with this guy he will have a tantrum
and drive to you're house and leave notes or take pictures, rotflmao.

If he wants to drive all the way to my house, I'll at least have the
courtesy to buy him a beer and ask him why he's so angry.....

While the beer sounds good Dave, please pay no attention to our resident
**** stir. I've done nothing that wasn't asked for by the two people
whom I visited.

--
I won't retire, but I might retread.