In ,
(Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy
Azz) wrote:

From: (Frank*Gilliland)
In , "AKC KennelMaster"
wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 24 May 2004 22:57:29 GMT, "Bert Craig"
wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
There are no current equipment authorizations
for any Galaxy CB radio. Search the database
yourself if you want:

https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/report

s/GenericSearch.cfm



LOL,,,man, Frank, whatever I did to pizz you off really screwed you up
big time,,,,,what on earth did I write that affected tyou to the point
of coming into this thread about legalities and ranting about (chuckle)
memmemmemmee.I mean, dude,,you made a string of posts about your
inability to cope...hehehe...nevermind,,,let's get back to the issue at
hand so you can be fed that ornithological diet from which you were
given..

Your search automotically ASSumes the belief that if a radio has not yet
been entered into an FCC database, such is illegal.
Not true, as such also makes the non-lucid assumption that the FCC's
database must be up to date, and if it isn't, faith that the bureau
would do so in a timely fashion...another snaffu in your lurid attempted
defense of N3CVJ's profession of his ignorance concerning radio, rules,
regulations, and laws pertaining. But hey,,,,jump on in, you kinda
remind me of a bloated Glen Campbell from the late seventies, with the
temper to match.




=============
http://tinyurl.com/ytcah

http://tinyurl.com/2yor7
=============
"...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a
problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both
__

Hehe,,,
It is the citizen's job to enforce the law - Frank Gilliland


I work for an organization that is legally authorized to use the
freeband" - Frank Gilliland


Frank Gilliland wrote: Somebody should inform
Landshark that there is more than one person in this world named Scott.
Scott A. Gilbert, aka Race Warrior, aka SAPguru, aka etc, etc, etc.


Frank Gilliland wrote: that's either Twisty
or Timmy. -----=



From: wrote in message:
Frank Gilliland
wrote:
Race Warrior aka twistedhed
-


From:
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Frank Gilliland wrote: Twited is actually Mike
from south Florida.
_


From:
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject:
Frank wrote: "twisty is Richard Cranium"
_


Frank Gilliland wrote: His name is definitely
Dave McCampbell and he is an Extra.
_


From: (Frank Gilliland)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject: Week old, Spark? (sigh) Ok..
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 05:33:18 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID:
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235
X-Complaints-To:
Lines: 25
What's even funnier is that your headers show the same path as KC8JBO,
Mr. K, Foghorn, and twisties real ISP.
_


_
"I have admitted to lying in this newsgroup, and on several occasions" -
Frank Gilliland




LOL..what a sad obsessed sack,,..


Where's that military group, Twist?




=============

http://tinyurl.com/ytcah
http://tinyurl.com/2yor7

=============

"...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM
have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and
are both too small to admit it."
---- Twistedhed ----

=============


-----= 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! =-----

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
. net...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 May 2004 22:57:29 GMT, "Bert Craig"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
Riddle me this then Batman, why are there no type accepted LEGAL CB
radios produced with a roger beep or an echo?

Sorry Dave, my old Galaxy DX-949 came stock woith a roger beep...and
was/is
FCC type accepted.

http://www.galaxyradios.com/cb/949.html

Would you happen to to have the FCC I.D. number of that radio? That
radio, other than the roger beep, also has variable power, something
else no other legal CB has. I have my doubts that this radio is
entirely legal.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Saved me a trip, here's another rig I also had the pleasure of owning.

http://www.galaxyradios.com/2547.html

http://cbworldinformer.com/200107/ga...2547_photo.htm

More specifically: (The rear panel "money" shot.)

http://cbworldinformer.com/200107/dx...anel_clsup.htm

73 de Bert
WA2SI



Thanks, Bert. It clearly has the requested FCC ID listing.

On Wed, 26 May 2004 15:54:34 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Would you happen to to have the FCC I.D. number of that radio? That
radio, other than the roger beep, also has variable power, something
else no other legal CB has. I have my doubts that this radio is
entirely legal.

Dave
"Sandbagger"



Wrong again, Dave. Here's the link: http://www.galaxyradios.com/2547.html



There are no current equipment authorizations for any Galaxy CB radio.
Search the database yourself if you want:

https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/c...ericSearch.cfm


Well, by golly, I goofed again. The FCC ID number is C2R-DX-2547, it's
a Ranger, and it is legal for CB. But what I didn't see on the Galaxy
website was a built-in roger-beep -- instead the board is available as
an accessory.


Galaxy and Ranger are basically one in the same. They are notorious
for "pushing the limit" as far as legality is concerned. I've never
liked Galaxy radios. They're basically knock-offs of Uniden designs,
many of which were not the most reliable.


"Fragile" is the word I have heard most often used to describe all
three makes.

Among other less flattering adjectives......



What I don't understand is your last statement. Which Galaxy website
did you see the roger beep listed as an add-on accessory? The link
provided above lists the roger beep as a standard feature.


You are right, it's in the list. I just missed it the first time.

Ok.



I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong, but I'm curious when
the FCC changed its opinion on roger beeps from their earlier
proclamation that they were considered "amusement" devices and
therefore not legal. This happened about 20-some years ago when roger
beeps first started springing up.


They might justify it's use under 95.412(b) "You may use your CB
station to transmit a tone signal only when the signal is used to make
contact or to continue communications." The reason might be that a
beep at the end of a transmission is useful to indicate when the
person is finished transmitting, and not to 'amuse or entertain'.

Then there is a really fine line here. A single tone might be
acceptable under that clause. But those multi-tone "roger beeps",
"farts", tarzan yells, and other such devices clearly cross the line
into the "amusement" category.



I'm also curious why they now allow variable power. Not since the
60's, when some radios had 100 mW low power positions, have I seen a
radio with user adjustable power (Other than walkie-talkies).


There have been CBs in the past that have had power switches.

I haven't seen them since the 60's when Lafayette used to have a 100
mW position, which was done supposedly so that you could "legally"
operate your radio while waiting for your license application to be
processed. The FCC later clarified that in order to qualify for part
15 no license status that not only did the power need to be 100 mW or
less, that the antenna must also be self contained. The power switch
soon vanished shortly afterward.

Some of
the handhelds have a low-power switch to save battery power.

Yes! But I have not seen selectable or variable power on a base or
mobile "CB".


But the
variable-power feature on Galaxys/Rangers is obviously intended to
trim the power fed to an amplifier, and I'm sure that is one reason
why the FCC doesn't like them.

I'm sure that is the intended use. But if the FCC allows switchable
power on walkie-talkies, then I don't understand why this feature has
not been used on standard radios. I'll have to peruse the updated
technical specs again. Sometimes the FCC can be less than crystal
clear.


Common sense would tell me that if these things were clearly legal,
that the manufacturers would rush to include them en-masse as
"features". These all enhance the perceived value of a radio, and
gives the manufacturers a reason to charge more for things that cost
little to add at the factory. Most CBers are mesmerized by bells and
whistles, so this would clearly be a marketing plus.


Who makes CBs anymore besides Galaxy/Ranger and Uniden?

Admittedly, I am not as "up" on this stuff as I was when I was heavily
involved in radio repair. It does seem that the number of
manufacturers has diminished to a few sweat shops in China and
Malaysia. I don't know if Cybernet is still active or not.


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

On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:20:02 -0400,
(Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote:

You typify theclassic projectionist and search for more insults as you angrily post
along,,,,,,,. It all makes sense when taken into consideration all but
the most supervised of visits were taken from you involving your child.

Projecting?


I'm not the one with low self-esteem and issues
of low self-worth and esteem, coupled with self-hatred and projection.

You seem to bring it up an awful lot. Along the lines of "thou doth
protest too much".



It's not too late to call a mental health
professional...........



If such would aid in your supervised-only visits with your daughter and
assist in maintaining a civil relationship with her mother instead of
one of hostility with all you come in to contact, I say go for it.

So now who's the one projecting?


I always enjoy myself.

No need to get THAT personal....... Besides, that leads to blindness.

You should try it with other people.


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 May 2004 15:54:34 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Would you happen to to have the FCC I.D. number of that radio? That
radio, other than the roger beep, also has variable power,
something
else no other legal CB has. I have my doubts that this radio is
entirely legal.

Dave
"Sandbagger"



Wrong again, Dave. Here's the link:
http://www.galaxyradios.com/2547.html



There are no current equipment authorizations for any Galaxy CB radio.
Search the database yourself if you want:

https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/c...ericSearch.cfm


Well, by golly, I goofed again. The FCC ID number is C2R-DX-2547, it's
a Ranger, and it is legal for CB. But what I didn't see on the Galaxy
website was a built-in roger-beep -- instead the board is available as
an accessory.


Galaxy and Ranger are basically one in the same. They are notorious
for "pushing the limit" as far as legality is concerned. I've never
liked Galaxy radios. They're basically knock-offs of Uniden designs,
many of which were not the most reliable.


"Fragile" is the word I have heard most often used to describe all
three makes.

Among other less flattering adjectives......



What I don't understand is your last statement. Which Galaxy website
did you see the roger beep listed as an add-on accessory? The link
provided above lists the roger beep as a standard feature.


You are right, it's in the list. I just missed it the first time.

Ok.



I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong, but I'm curious when
the FCC changed its opinion on roger beeps from their earlier
proclamation that they were considered "amusement" devices and
therefore not legal. This happened about 20-some years ago when roger
beeps first started springing up.


They might justify it's use under 95.412(b) "You may use your CB
station to transmit a tone signal only when the signal is used to make
contact or to continue communications." The reason might be that a
beep at the end of a transmission is useful to indicate when the
person is finished transmitting, and not to 'amuse or entertain'.

Then there is a really fine line here. A single tone might be
acceptable under that clause. But those multi-tone "roger beeps",
"farts", tarzan yells, and other such devices clearly cross the line
into the "amusement" category.



The Galaxy has none of those.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:20:02 -0400,
(Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote:
It has come to my attention that all the manias you toss about as insult
are the ones from which you more than likely suffer.
You typify theclassic projectionist and search for more insults as you
angrily post along,,,,,,,. It all makes sense when taken into
consideration all but the most supervised of
visits were taken from you involving your child.

Projecting?


Certainly.The angrier you get, the more insults you post as you go
along. YOU went off-topic and began ranting about mememememe as opposed
to the FCC rule you were unable to debate absent of insult and
off-topics,,,,lol,,you are the one with a deficit in communications,
unable to separate a post from a person. You never learned the basic
debate or communication skill of how to attack a post (subject) without
attacking the poster (pperson),,,if you do it intentionally, it is borne
of your character flaw.
YOU went off-topic and entered insults to this thread. I'm not the one
selectively editing the thread and posts to create an illusion of
righteousness for myself..*you*....I'm not the one with issues of low
self-worth and self-esteem, coupled with self-hatred and projection of
personal issues.....*you* are.


You seem to bring it up an awful lot.


*You* "bring it up" in each and every instance..lol. I merely point out
your hypocrisy and return it.


Along the

lines of "thou doth protest too much".



Which is why you snip the posts....you always distort truth,,,coupled
with outright lying and attempting to project a post out of context as a
manner in which it was not originally presented....you're a malicious
lowlife, Davie.



It's not too late to call a mental health

professional...........


If such would aid in your supervised-only visits with your daughter and
assist in maintaining a civil relationship with her mother instead of
one of hostility with all you come in to contact, I say go for it.


So now who's the one projecting?


You are. *You* brought up your off-topic, obsession fancying yourself
somehow qualified to judge another merely by what they permit you in a
post.
Number one, such illustrates your need for status to the point of
creating it for yourself..sign of a low self-esteem and one not
satsified with their personal life and accomplishments,,,this gives way
to your behavior that demands the need for insulting
others,,"projection".
Number two, it illlustrates your self-hatred and dis-satisfaction with
your personal self and a bruised ego, as the need for insulting another
merely for their opinions and views is highly indicative of a character
flaw AND low self-esteem. It is also a picture perfect example of one
not capable of adult conversation and debate,,IE: proper communication
skills.


Enjoying yourself?

I know I am.


I always enjoy myself.


No need to get THAT personal.......



You are having expressive problems again, Davie. If you were not
interested in my self-enjoyment, you should not have inquired of such
and entered it into the thread.
I must grin,,,,,, you attempted to give the impression you did not
inquire of such by selectively editing your inquiry in your orginal post
and leaving only my reply to your inquiry...LOL..that is the second time
you attempted to do such in as many days, yet have failed,,,,,Lol..you
certainly have a ways with reducing yourself, Davie,,it's what makes you
a lid and a detriment to hammie radio. You're part of what is strangling
the hobby. You are a problem operator mostly for certain, as it is a
great probability that most act on the air in the manner they conduct
themselves in this forum,,,as it is all communication with nothing but
the most basic communicative skills, something you have yet to graps and
employ, necessary. Only the medium is different.



Besides,

that leads to blindness.



You're out in left field again, Davie. Better unwrap that tinfoil hat
you need wear when posting and clear your failed attempts at making
yourself clear to the masses.



You should try it with other people.


Does Kim have a problem with your incredible wit and know you're out
here initiating posts concerned with other's personal lives? Ah, in
fact, never mind,,,forget I asked that question,,it's not really
relevant or all that important.



Dave

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv

In , Dave Hall
wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2004 15:54:34 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
snip
There have been CBs in the past that have had power switches.

I haven't seen them since the 60's when Lafayette used to have a 100
mW position, which was done supposedly so that you could "legally"
operate your radio while waiting for your license application to be
processed. The FCC later clarified that in order to qualify for part
15 no license status that not only did the power need to be 100 mW or
less, that the antenna must also be self contained. The power switch
soon vanished shortly afterward.


I don't think the FCC requires the power to be 'fixed', but rather
that it cannot exceed the prescribed maximum.


Some of
the handhelds have a low-power switch to save battery power.

Yes! But I have not seen selectable or variable power on a base or
mobile "CB".


I have an old Utac on the shelf that has a 1/5 watt power switch. I
have seen a similar switch on a couple other radios but I couldn't
tell you what they were.


But the
variable-power feature on Galaxys/Rangers is obviously intended to
trim the power fed to an amplifier, and I'm sure that is one reason
why the FCC doesn't like them.

I'm sure that is the intended use. But if the FCC allows switchable
power on walkie-talkies, then I don't understand why this feature has
not been used on standard radios. I'll have to peruse the updated
technical specs again. Sometimes the FCC can be less than crystal
clear.


Well, my first guess why power-pots are not standard features on most
CB radios is probably because the 4 watt max isn't much power to begin
with. Or maybe because the radios were designed to load antennas
instead of splatter-boxes. Either way, not all CBers have a craving
for radios loaded with knobs, buttons, switches, lights, meters, and a
host of redundant and generally useless features -- those radios are
for artless ham-wannabe's who want to impress others of their kind.




=============

http://tinyurl.com/ytcah
http://tinyurl.com/2yor7

=============

"...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM
have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and
are both too small to admit it."
---- Twistedhed ----

=============


-----= 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! =-----

On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:57:07 -0400,
(Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:20:02 -0400,
(Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote:
It has come to my attention that all the manias you toss about as insult
are the ones from which you more than likely suffer.
You typify theclassic projectionist and search for more insults as you
angrily post along,,,,,,,. It all makes sense when taken into
consideration all but the most supervised of
visits were taken from you involving your child.

Projecting?


Certainly.The angrier you get, the more insults you post as you go
along.

Who's angry? Other than you that is....... You project that anger on
me, and then accuse me of doing it.

YOU went off-topic and began ranting about mememememe as opposed
to the FCC rule you were unable to debate absent of insult and
off-topics

You certainly are self absorbed aren't you? You think this is all
about you? What's the matter, didn't mommy give you the attention you
craved as a child, which you now demand from this newsgroup instead?


,,,,lol,,you are the one with a deficit in communications,

The more you say it (And you're up to practically every post now) the
less it means to anyone other than yourself.

YOU went off-topic and entered insults to this thread. I'm not the one
selectively editing the thread and posts to create an illusion of
righteousness for myself..*you*....I'm not the one with issues of low
self-worth and self-esteem, coupled with self-hatred and projection of
personal issues.....*you* are.

Who's the one obsessing now? Yep, I'm your worst nightmare.....



Which is why you snip the posts....you always distort truth,,,coupled
with outright lying and attempting to project a post out of context as a
manner in which it was not originally presented....you're a malicious
lowlife, Davie.

Funny, I was just following your example of posting style. Don't like
it when your own rules and tactics are employed against you eh? As
they say in my parts, "What's good for the goose......"


If such would aid in your supervised-only visits with your daughter and
assist in maintaining a civil relationship with her mother instead of
one of hostility with all you come in to contact, I say go for it.


So now who's the one projecting?


You are. *You* brought up your off-topic, obsession fancying yourself
somehow qualified to judge another merely by what they permit you in a
post.

Ok then, which are you? a liar or a mental case? Either you are what
you project, in which case it makes you a sociopath, or you faked the
whole "cartoon character" persona, which makes you an accomplished
actor and a liar. So which is it?

Number one, such illustrates your need for status to the point of
creating it for yourself.

I've created nothing. You're trying to assign it to me.


sign of a low self-esteem and one not
satsified with their personal life and accomplishments,

You speak as if you've had extensive experience in those areas.

this gives way
to your behavior that demands the need for insulting
others,,"projection".

Funny, the same thing neatly applies to you. You are merely the flip
side of the same coin that you accuse others of being.


Number two, it illlustrates your self-hatred and dis-satisfaction with
your personal self and a bruised ego, as the need for insulting another
merely for their opinions and views is highly indicative of a character
flaw AND low self-esteem.

It would be if it were true. You should leave the diagnosis to me. You
fall far short of the mark in that area.


I must grin,,,,,, you attempted to give the impression you did not
inquire of such by selectively editing your inquiry in your orginal post
and leaving only my reply to your inquiry.

Unlike you, I am not self absorbed and interested in reading my own
words, high fiving myself, and adding to the length of posts. I
comment on the relevant (And I use the term loosely) points and
discard the rest. Perhaps that comes from the old days on dial-up
BBS'es when bandwidth cost money, and we all leaned more toward
brevity.

Davie,,it's what makes you
a lid and a detriment to hammie radio. You're part of what is strangling
the hobby.

Care to elaborate on just what is "strangling" the ham radio hobby? A
hobby you have thus far rejected and claimed to have little to no
interest in?

So now you want us to believe that you are some sort of subject matter
expert on the dynamics of the ham radio hobby?

You are a problem operator mostly for certain, as it is a
great probability that most act on the air in the manner they conduct
themselves in this forum

If that is true, then you must be a real wing-ding on the air.
Hopefully Frank is wrong and you're not really a closet ham.

Besides,
that leads to blindness.

You're out in left field again, Davie. Better unwrap that tinfoil hat
you need wear when posting and clear your failed attempts at making
yourself clear to the masses.

I think "the masses" caught the humor (at your expense, of course) in
that comment.

Tell Ray I said hi........


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv

On Thu, 27 May 2004 23:16:03 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , Dave Hall
wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2004 15:54:34 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
snip
There have been CBs in the past that have had power switches.

I haven't seen them since the 60's when Lafayette used to have a 100
mW position, which was done supposedly so that you could "legally"
operate your radio while waiting for your license application to be
processed. The FCC later clarified that in order to qualify for part
15 no license status that not only did the power need to be 100 mW or
less, that the antenna must also be self contained. The power switch
soon vanished shortly afterward.


I don't think the FCC requires the power to be 'fixed', but rather
that it cannot exceed the prescribed maximum.

You may be right. If so, I'm curious why CB radios didn't avail
themselves of "Hi/Low" switches or variable power. Not that today's
CBer is interested in reducing their power, but it does reduce
interference when you are only talking to local people. And it is
another knob to "feature".


Some of
the handhelds have a low-power switch to save battery power.

Yes! But I have not seen selectable or variable power on a base or
mobile "CB".


I have an old Utac on the shelf that has a 1/5 watt power switch. I
have seen a similar switch on a couple other radios but I couldn't
tell you what they were.


But the
variable-power feature on Galaxys/Rangers is obviously intended to
trim the power fed to an amplifier, and I'm sure that is one reason
why the FCC doesn't like them.

I'm sure that is the intended use. But if the FCC allows switchable
power on walkie-talkies, then I don't understand why this feature has
not been used on standard radios. I'll have to peruse the updated
technical specs again. Sometimes the FCC can be less than crystal
clear.


Well, my first guess why power-pots are not standard features on most
CB radios is probably because the 4 watt max isn't much power to begin
with.

Good point. You'd have to drop the power down to .5 watts or less to
make a significant difference.


Or maybe because the radios were designed to load antennas
instead of splatter-boxes. Either way, not all CBers have a craving
for radios loaded with knobs, buttons, switches, lights, meters, and a
host of redundant and generally useless features -- those radios are
for artless ham-wannabe's who want to impress others of their kind.

We don't know anyone who fits that description do we? ;-)

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

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:57:07 -0400,
(Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:20:02 -0400,
(Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: It has come to my attention
that all the manias you toss about as insult are the ones from which you
more than likely suffer. You typify theclassic projectionist and search
for more insults as you angrily post along,,,,,,,. It all makes sense
when taken into consideration all but the most supervised of visits were
taken from you involving your child.

Projecting?

Certainly.The angrier you get, the more insults you post as you go
along.

Who's angry?


If you;re not angry, then you have even more character flaws than you
have projected,,,insult for no reason is something that should be looked
into by a professional,

Other than you that is....... You project that

anger on

me, and then accuse me of doing it.
=A0



LOL,,,,that's pretty good, but all the OT insults begin with yourself.
=A0YOU went off-topic and began ranting about mememememe as opposed to
the FCC rule you were unable to debate absent of insult and off-topics

You certainly are self absorbed aren't you?


Isn't about me, Davie, even though you stress at every failed attempt to
make all your posts about me.


You think this is all about you?


All your p[osts go off topic and become one of mememem.

What's the matter, didn't mommy give you the

attention you craved as a child, which you now
demand from this newsgroup instead?


Aww,Davie,,Kim hasn't been informed of your actions, yet?

,,,,lol,,you are the one with a deficit in communications,

The more you say it (And you're up to

practically every post now) the less it means

to anyone other than yourself.

YOU went off-topic and entered insults to this thread. I'm not the one
selectively editing the thread and posts to create an illusion of
righteousness for myself..*you are*....I'm not the one with issues of
low self-worth and self-esteem, coupled with self-hatred and projection
of personal issues.....*you* are.

Who's the one obsessing now?


You are Davie,,,all your posts are off-topic and of a personal nature
because you laughingly failed to produce anything to back any of your
bul**** claims. The fact that you ASSumed the FCC holds a roger beep
illegal is more professed ignorance. You apparently were corrected by
one who took pity on your ignorant rants, so instead of admitting you
were wrong, you do what you always do,,,run offtopic and attack the
person that illustrtated you are wrong and unable to produce anything
that bakcs your bul****.
You have failed to become educated on how to debate a topic and attack
the topic as opposed to attacking the person,,a deficit in
communications, no matter how much it pains you to be forced to see
yourself as the masses do.

Yep, I'm your

worst nightmare.....


Coupled with your assumed status and hallucinatory position of power
over cbers and otehr hammies by virtue of your ignorance, such a
statement is worth permmitting you to believe.
_
Which is why you snip the posts....you always distort truth,,,coupled
with outright lying and attempting to project a post out of context as a
manner in which it was not originally presented....you're a malicious
lowlife, Davie.

Funny, I was just following your example of

posting style.



You;re lying, Davie, I don't selectively snip posts unless initiated.
Trying to convince anyone otherwise is only telegraphing the strings to
which you are attached. Once again, blaming another for your behavior is
a character flaw.


Don't like it when your own rules and tactics

are employed against you eh? As they say in

my parts, "What's good for the goose......"



Agreed,,,and doing such has you so far off-topic and beside yourself
that you are unable to foucs on anything but myself,
_
If such would aid in your supervised-only visits with your daughter and
assist in maintaining a civil relationship with her mother instead of
one of hostility with all you come in to contact, I say go for it.

So now who's the one projecting?

You are. *You* brought up your off-topic, obsession fancying yourself
somehow qualified to judge another merely by what they permit you in a
post.


Ok then, which are you? a liar or a mental

case?


Merely one that illustrates your communication problems, Davie. Your
personal problems are illustrated quite effectively by yourself.


Either you are what you project, in which case

it makes you a sociopath, or you faked the

whole "cartoon character" persona, which

makes you an accomplished actor and a liar.

So which is it?
=A0

You stil are inable to grasp the larger picture here. What I am or do is
of no concern to you, but somehow, you made me your world.
=A0Number one, such illustrates your need for status to the point of
creating it for yourself.

I've created nothing. You're trying to assign it

to me.



LOL,,,I do nothing of the sort,,,you have positioned yourself on many
occasion as an authorative with grandiose delusions somehow qualified to
judge others based on what they allow you. Blaming me has always been
your worse nightmare.
_
sign of a low self-esteem and one not
satsified with their personal life and
accomplishments,

You speak as if you've had extensive

experience in those areas.



Five years of watching you come apart at the seams in usenet and blame
everything from society to cb to myslef for your personal woes.

_
this gives way
to your behavior that demands the need for insulting
others,,"projection".

Funny, the same thing neatly applies to you.


But davie,,you are the one continually going off topic and making each
and every post personl, not I, so no, it applies to you, not I.

You are merely the flip side of the same coin

that you accuse others of being.




Oh, I most certainly admitted that I give back what is received very
well. It most definitely is circular, but the fecal prouction always
originates with your posts.


_
=A0=A0Number two, it illlustrates your self-hatred and dis-satisfaction
with your personal self and a bruised ego, as the need for insulting
another merely for their opinions and views is highly indicative of a
character flaw AND low self-esteem.

It would be if it were true.


LOL...you are the only one in this group incapable of seeing yourself as
others do. Denial that you begin hurling insults and running off topic
is but a small portion of your woes.


You should leave the diagnosis to me.



(snicker),,,,Oh, but I do permit you to elevate yourself every now and
then to an imagined position of status you need so very badly...it is
what reminds the rest of the world of radio all that is broken among bad
hammies and their callous behavior and need for something more in their
long list of non-accomplisments.

You fall far short of the mark in that area.

=A0=A0I must grin,,,,,, you attempted to give the impression you did not
inquire of such by selectively editing your inquiry in your orginal post
and leaving only my reply to your inquiry.

Unlike you, I am not self absorbed and

interested in reading my own words, high

fiving myself, and adding to the length of

posts. I comment on the relevant (And I use

the term loosely) points and discard the rest.



Your off-topic rants are not relevant. That you asked if I enjoy myself,
then when replied to, snipped your inquiry to give the impression you
never inquired of such, is not "relevant" but a deliberate, malicious
action, based on your latter comment concerning the reply...LOL....you
reduce yourself at my merest whim.

Perhaps that comes from the old days on

dial-up BBS'es when bandwidth cost money,

and we all leaned more toward brevity.

Davie,,it's what makes you
a lid and a detriment to hammie radio. You're part of what is strangling
the hobby.

Care to elaborate on just what is "strangling"

the ham radio hobby? A hobby you have thus

far rejected and claimed to have little to no

interest in?

Sure,,I could elaborate, but you have proved you cant follow a topic.
You can always attempt to redeem yourself,,,begin with quoting where the
FCC holds a roger beep as illegal and the passage where you claim they
hold a roger beep as a device of "amusement".
Addressing your latter comment, I have never claimed I have no interest
in hammie radio, but all can understand by now your incredible failed
attempts at attributing such lies to another.Yes, Davie,,you have world
of problems.



So now you want us to believe that you are

some sort of subject matter expert on the

dynamics of the ham radio hobby?




LOL,,that's almost as entertaining as you redundantly self-professing
status as some sort of expert on sociology qualified to "diagnose" based
only what you are permitted...hehehe.
You are a problem operator mostly for certain, as it is a great
probability that most act on the air in the manner they conduct
themselves in this forum

If that is true, then you must be a real

wing-ding on the air.


I am. In fact, I have met many, many great friends through radio over
the years. I also have conducted myself as I do here, giving people
respect and the benefit of doubt until they prove themselves not worthy,
not unlike yourself and N8 and Lelnad and Frank.


Hopefully Frank is wrong and you're not really
a closet ham.
=A0


Frank is always wrong,,,its' why you and he are two peas in a 3 way
pod,,,as another op said,,,..such misery sticks together.

=A0Besides,

that leads to blindness.

You're out in left field again, Davie. Better unwrap that tinfoil hat
you need wear when posting and clear your failed attempts at making
yourself clear to the masses.

I think "the masses" caught the humor (at your
expense, of course) in that comment.


And therein lies the beauty of conversing with you, Davie...what you
"think" has never been in
line with the masses.


Tell Ray I said hi........


I most certainly will if you tell me who he is and I can reach him on my
radio.
Does Kim know that you are out here initiating off-topic personal posts
on usenet concerning internet strangers you blame for your personal
woes?


Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv