|
On Mon, 24 May 2004 14:08:53 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: In , Dave Hall wrote: On Mon, 24 May 2004 05:50:31 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: In , Dave Hall wrote: snip .... The fact that you cannot provide anything other than your own words to validate the claim to others does not diminish its value as empirical data. Oh great. Now you've done it. You just gave Twisty enough fodder to last him another ten years of trolling. Imbicle. Excuse me? He's always ranting about how the only proof he needs is his 'word' because, as he says, "truth is my friend". Now whenever someone asks him for proof beyond his own warped opinions he will just quote your line above instead of wiggling away. If he attempts to rely on only his "word" as truth when justifying his position, while demanding irrefutable proof from others for the same, that is glaringly hypocritical. Dave "Sandbagger" -----= 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 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" |
On Tue, 25 May 2004 11:06:44 -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 the classic 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. You realy should try and drop other's personal lives from your posts and try attacking the post's view instead of the poster, but then again, such is the reason you suffer from such a communication deficit...you've never learned how to do so properly, and the hammie license only added to your low self-esteem as it brought you none of the respect you demand by sheer virtue of it Respect is earned as a person and must be given in order to be received,,another concept that is foreign to your lowl self due your deficits and learning disabilities.. One need only reflect on your views on roger beeps being illegal for an afternoon chuckle of monstrous but non-gregarious proportion. Wow! you are so beside yourself that you had to change nics. Enjoying your meltdown? I know I am........ It's not too late to call a mental health professional........... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv |
"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" Wrong again, Dave. Here's the link: http://www.galaxyradios.com/2547.html |
"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 |
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 .. . 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" 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 ============= 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! =----- |
In , Dave Hall
wrote: On Mon, 24 May 2004 14:08:53 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: In , Dave Hall wrote: On Mon, 24 May 2004 05:50:31 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: In , Dave Hall wrote: snip .... The fact that you cannot provide anything other than your own words to validate the claim to others does not diminish its value as empirical data. Oh great. Now you've done it. You just gave Twisty enough fodder to last him another ten years of trolling. Imbicle. Excuse me? He's always ranting about how the only proof he needs is his 'word' because, as he says, "truth is my friend". Now whenever someone asks him for proof beyond his own warped opinions he will just quote your line above instead of wiggling away. If he attempts to rely on only his "word" as truth when justifying his position, while demanding irrefutable proof from others for the same, that is glaringly hypocritical. Fret not, as he always has an excuse at the ready. ============= 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! =----- |
In , Dave Hall
wrote: On Tue, 25 May 2004 12:03:50 -0400, (Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: This also contradicts N3CVJ's recent claim that the repeater in question was shared and co-owned. In fact, this post, albeit a lie, confirms that he was attempting to portray the repeater using the Phelps was HIS. Note the words "MY repeater"..."MY Stationmaster". Total opposite of what he recently claimed. When you keep adding dirt to a glass of water, why should it surprise you that you end up with mud? You are going to base your position on the semantics of my posts? Yes the repeater is co owned, but I am one of the owners. Since I take care of all the technical issues, I tend to think of it as "mine" in the same vein that Scotty refers to the warp engines of the Starship Enterprise as "his". Now THAT'S something Twisty should be able to understand -- if it's been on TV he's probably seen it! ============= 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! =----- |
In , Frank Gilliland
wrote: 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 .. . 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" 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. -----= 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 Wed, 26 May 2004 06:05:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: He's always ranting about how the only proof he needs is his 'word' because, as he says, "truth is my friend". Now whenever someone asks him for proof beyond his own warped opinions he will just quote your line above instead of wiggling away. If he attempts to rely on only his "word" as truth when justifying his position, while demanding irrefutable proof from others for the same, that is glaringly hypocritical. Fret not, as he always has an excuse at the ready. I'm actually enjoying his latest meltdown. He even changed NICs, and he's spewing out even more frothy rhetoric and vitriol at an increased pace. Spin and obfuscation are Twisty's best friends, but will end up his ultimate demise. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Wed, 26 May 2004 11:41:02 GMT, "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 .. . 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" Wrong again, Dave. Here's the link: http://www.galaxyradios.com/2547.html Um, nowhere on that "link" is it stated that the radio is type accepted nor is there an FCC I.D. number listed. So I ask again, does anyone have it? Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Wed, 26 May 2004 06:54:51 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: In , Frank Gilliland wrote: 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 .. . 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" 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
... 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 .. . 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" 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 Hey, that's odd. My Uniden Grant XL didn't show up there either. ;-) 73 de Bert WA2SI |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 25 May 2004 12:03:50 -0400, (Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: This also contradicts N3CVJ's recent claim that the repeater in question was shared and co-owned. In fact, this post, albeit a lie, confirms that he was attempting to portray the repeater using the Phelps was HIS. Note the words "MY repeater"..."MY Stationmaster". Total opposite of what he recently claimed. When you keep adding dirt to a glass of water, You initiated such with your offtopic insults, Davie. You shouldn't be surprised or act offended when such behaior is returned. In fact, I have been quite polite by comparison. why should it surprise you that you end up with mud? You need something to wach down all that crow. You are going to base your position on the semantics of my posts? LOL..nope,,,merely on your words, which you maintain should be "proof." Again, and as usual, when illustrated your words show what a hypocrite you are, they become, according to you, a meaning other than what they actually are, or "semantics". No, Davie,,,you were quite clear with your words. "My" is not the same as "we". No semantics involved, whatsoever, each word is a very different meaning. Claiming to have meant "we" when you used the term "I" , even if true (but it's not), would only further that massive communication deficit from which you suffer, as you are struggling to convey just what you mean, effectively. Blaiming another because you can't properly express yourself is your problem. Claiming other people have faults because they can't "understand" you when you chose to use two very different words with two very different meanings and profess they mean the same thing when they do not,, illlustrates how remote you are in your beliefs compared to the masses. It's why you see maladies in others and balme them for your difficulties,,,classic projection/character flaw. Yes the repeater is co owned, but I am one of the owners. Since I take care of all the technical issues, I tend to think of it as "mine" in the same vein that Scotty refers to the warp engines of the Starship Enterprise as "his". I didn't watch star trek, as I was never a televison fan. I watch a couple shows on HBO and at times, certain public shows or news. Despite your attempts at trying to merge fantasy (television) with your reality and bur the lines of what separate the two in your world, the manner in which you "tend to think" is not consistent with the majority, nor does what you "think" have any effect on the definition of the words you selected. Dave N3CVJ "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj I'm interested in hearing more about this program (I own a repeater, and am involved with a few others). IS this available as a download, or is it something that is a high dollar purchase? Dave "Sandbagger" -- Still have the Phelps? What Phelps? I wish I had a Station Master........ Dave "Sandbagger" |
Group: rec.radio.cb Date: Wed, May 26, 2004, 6:59am From:
(Dave=A0Hall Yes the repeater is co owned, but I am one of the owners. _ From: (SANDBAGGER) Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb Subject: of Antennas and Urination Date: 5 Jan 1995 20:31 EST Organization: Villanova University Lines: 129 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: ucis.vill.edu News-Softwa VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41 In article , (Mark G. Salyzyn) writes... (Dave the SANDBAGGER) writes: And they don't hold a candle to my phelps Dodge Super Station Master, on my 220 repeater........ _ __ Message-ID: From: Dave Hall Organization: Spew Radio Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb Subject: Power drops - square of the distance - Is this true and what do... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 17 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:16:12 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.103.222.111 X-Complaints-To: X-Trace: newsfeed.slurp.net 1039710442 207.103.222.111 (Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:27:22 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:27:22 CST -- Still have the Phelps? What Phelps? I wish I had a Station Master........ Dave "Sandbagger" |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 25 May 2004 11:06:44 -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 the classic 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. You realy should try and drop other's personal lives from your posts and try attacking the post's view instead of the poster, but then again, such is the reason you suffer from such a communication deficit...you've never learned how to do so properly, and the hammie license only added to your low self-esteem as it brought you none of the respect you demand by sheer virtue of it Respect is earned as a person and must be given in order to be received,,another concept that is foreign to your lowl self due your deficits and learning disabilities.. One need only reflect on your views on roger beeps being illegal for an afternoon chuckle of monstrous but non-gregarious proportion. Wow! you are so beside yourself that you had to change nics. Umm,,,,no,,though you are graasping for words once again, the word you seek is "ecstatic". Enjoying your meltdown? I know I am........ I always enjoy myself. I'm not the one with low self-esteem and issues of low self-worth and esteem, coupled with self-hatred and projection. 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. Dave N3CVJ "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv |
From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
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. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D http://tinyurl.com/ytcah http://tinyurl.com/2yor7 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D "...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. -----=3D 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,,.. |
|
In , Dave Hall
wrote: On Wed, 26 May 2004 06:54:51 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: In , Frank Gilliland wrote: In , "AKC KennelMaster" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message m... 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" 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. 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. 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'. 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. Some of the handhelds have a low-power switch to save battery power. 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. 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? -----= 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 ,
(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 |
In ,
(Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) 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? 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, A professional journalist? _ Other than you that is....... You project that anger on me, and then accuse me of doing it. * LOL,,,,that's pretty good, but all the OT insults begin with yourself. *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? 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? _ He still demands his mommy's attention but she is too busy working to support his unemployed ass. 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*.. At least it is easy to recognize as an illusion. ..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. More projecting. Your defining characteristic is to pull a thread off-topic in order to avoid proving your claims then blame someone else for your inadequacies. The fact that you ASSumed the FCC holds a roger beep illegal is more professed ignorance. You apparently Nothing is apparent in your world of obfuscations. Noises that are intended to entertain and amuse are indeed illegal. 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****. More projection. You have failed to become educated on how to debate a topic and attack the topic as opposed to attacking the person, A practice which you continue to prove yourself incompetent at, as each time the attack on the topic is held firm you run for the hills. ,a deficit in communications, For you it's a deficit in attention. You can't stay focused on one issue long enough to resolve it, especially when irrefutable proof is provided by the other person. 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. At least he doesn't misquote well-respected dead people. _ Funny, I was just following your example of posting style. You;re lying, Davie, I don't selectively snip posts unless initiated. True, and you initiated the practice yourself. 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. Your character flaws are easily attributable to your parent's failure to teach you basic standards of moral hygiene and civil behavior. _ 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? _ The answer is patently obvious even to the most casual observer. But the participant is not a casual observer. 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, _ It's not a persona, it's his real personality. He's a real-life cartoon character! which makes you an accomplished actor and a liar. So which is it? * 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. Well, your ego is as big as a planet.... *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. 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, Accomplishments such as being a professional journalist, beating your dogs, stealing homes from little old ladies, espousing the virtues of violating federal laws? Or being a burden on society by leeching off the state welfare system and your poor old mother? _ You speak as if you've had extensive experience in those areas. He has. 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. Pluck the excrement from thine own eye. _ **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. 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. _ Or even better, leave it to the invisible shrink. (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. **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. 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. _ At least we could all focus on the issues of a topic instead of obfuscating them into rants about communication deficits. 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. Pre-emptive excuse. 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". Because that's what it is usually considered to be. Addressing your latter comment, I have never claimed I have no interest in hammie radio, That's why you whine about no-codes and presume anyone that criticizes your trolling must be a hammie. Ok, sure, whatever. 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. More projecting. You are a problem operator mostly for certain, Now there's a perfect example of a failed attempt by someone with a communication deficit to sound intelligent..."mostly for certain". as it is a great probability that most act on the air in the manner they conduct themselves in this forum http://tinyurl.com/ytcah http://tinyurl.com/2yor7 _ 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. So you claim, but every time we dive into that puddle you jump out whining to your mommy about how the water is too cold and blaming me for making you jump in. _ Hopefully Frank is wrong and you're not really a closet ham. * No, he's just a paranoid wannabe. He doesn't have the self-discipline to study for a test or learn code. 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. 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. And therein lies the beauty of conversing with you, Davie...what you "think" has never been in line with the masses. True, as the masses don't want to watch the electrolysis treatments on the palms of your hands. _ 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 ============= 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! =----- |
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 your insult comes freely with no anger, the character flaw of which you display is much worse than initial misonceptions of yourself. Other than you that is....... You project that anger on me, and then accuse me of doing it. =A0=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? Actually,, it is you that is self-consumed,,with ME. You made the thread from one of your many errors (claiming that roger beeps are illegal) to one of myself being your subject matter. To blame myself for your acts is a bonus. You think this is all about you? Not at all,,,,you do.I was speaking of your ignorcane holding a roger beep as illegal on cb and you made your topic one of me,,,as usual. You're obsessed. 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, focusing your attacks and insults on the person instead of a topic...you were never taught any better so you darn sure never learned how to debate. That goof about the roger beeps being illegal sure has you in a tizzy,,,,lol. 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? LOL...it has always been you. No matter how many times I redirect your childlike mannerisms and attention deficit, you are unable to maintain your original topic of erroneously claiming roger beeps are illegal on cb. Such an obsession and disorder has you unable to focus on anything but myself. 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......" You initiated such snipping of posts. Your rules,Davie, but your need for balming others for your actions has always been part of your depression. It's not too late to call a mentla 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 did by mentioning a mental health professional, but such would probably aid you in your dilemma in seeing nothing but the moral fabric of society crashing in on your depression-filled life and world. *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, I project nothing. Your interpretive skills are mildly retarded and you "see" things that no one else does, such as roger beeps being illegal on cb,,and socialism as the asnwer to our government, and privacy being a means for someone to get away with a criminal act....LOL...again,,the problem, as always, is within yourself. Blaming me, and society, and the FCC is not healthy or logical. in which case it makes you a sociopath, or you faked the whole "cartoon character" persona, Well, gee, davie,,not only have you sealed your reputation as an Extra who doesn't have a clues at all about rules and regulations pertaining to cb radio (based on your hysterical claim that roger beeps are illegal), but entertaining thoughts to yourself that my usenet name may somehow be a legal name and "real" to yourself to the point of wondering aloud if the persona was "faked" or not, illustrates just exactly how far over the edge you were pushed,,,,,,LOL. which makes you an accomplished actor and a liar. So which is it? =A0 The accomplished liar is yourself,,,your posts affirm such going all the way back into the archives,,you have lied about the Phelps, a cber being busted,,,you claimed the FCC maintains the roger beep is a sound effect device for amusement, but can not cite anything to back up any of your claims. Yet, somehow,,,,this is the fault of either myself or "society",,hyuk. The list goes on and on =A0Such illustrates your need for status to the point of creating it for yourself. I've created nothing. In proper context of contributions to the world and the betterment of society, such a statement is true, as you have been taught your rants about society and myself as one are reactive and no proactive. But in the context of that of what you present, it isn't anyone else on this group that recognizes your self-professed qualifications of judging others,,only you feel and claim yourself qualified to judge others by standards you set,,,such as the length of time one has spent in radio. This is called elitism and would be frowned upon if it weren't for the fact that watching you claim self-elevation is but one of the small gems that makes many of us feel so good about our lives. Whenever one of us that know how to treat people without insult need a pick-me-up, we merely tune in to one of your posts or one of Franks. On one of those rare occasions where we have a bad day at work or play, we have only to read what you have posted to remind us how screwed up others like yourself really are, and immediately feel good about our lives,as we thank God for our blessings and realize our problems in life our quite mundane when compared to those that you share on a daily basis with the world: blaming society, hating yourself, subconsciously chossing to see nothing but the bad in society and feeling comletely helpless and hapless about the diagnose,,,er,,,subject, and blaming others for your self-created hell. You're trying to assign it to me. You've assigned yourself these things. Again, no one else has ever made the mistake that you have and attributed such qualifications to yourself. You are now suffering from delusions of grandeur. Your bahavior is 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. All the regs, Davie, have been exposed to your many years of angry posts crying about society, seeing society as direct reflection of CB radio. _ Such 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. =A0 Not one person can come forward and claim I have wrongfully affronted them. I attack issues, not people, until initiated. If defending a position I present must encompass the attack of another by illustrating their initial attacks, so be it. I don't mind getting down in the mud once in awhile with swine not unlike yourself to illustrate what malicious liars and scumbag hypocrites those who defended N8's behavior (read: yourself) while attacking others for the "crime" of speaking about freebanding, actually are. _ =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. You should leave the diagnosis to me. Might as well, as no one else holds you as qualified except yourself. You fall far short of the mark in that area. _ enjoying yourself? I know I am I always enjoy myself No need to get THAT personal =A0 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. =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. I comment on the relevant (And I use the term loosely) points and discard the rest. You were the one that deemed "enjoying myself" as relevant. You're breaking down and self-contradcting yourself, Davie, as you're posts are so far removed from your assinine claim that the FCC had roger beeps as illegal and the more you snip them the further you remive yourself..but,,,that is the point, isn't it,,to remove yourlsef from such foolish claims, as it is quite embarrassing to see an Extra have his collective azz kicked in rules and regulations knowledge by a low life cber that freebands...lMAO! _ Such 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? You are. You are part of the problem, Elaborating will just cornfuse you further, I prefer to continue to use you as the example here on usenet. That you require detailed and further explanation is just another to add to your list of ever-growing personal problems. A hobby you have thus far rejected and claimed to have little to no interest in? I rejected no such thing at any time, but your desperation is much appreciated. So now you want us to believe that you are some sort of subject matter expert on the dynamics of the ham radio hobby? No more than you desperately want "us" to believe and accept your self-qualifications on the judging of others and what is good for them. 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. That you worry (putting it mildly) about all you can not control, producing extreme and profound inner feelings of impotence that manifest in your attacks on usenet as a means of venting your frustrations with myself and "society as a whole", has nothing to do with myself, actually. You build your world around me Hopefully Frank is wrong Frank has been wrong all 12 names he called me..even when he has "definitely" called me by name. and you're not really a closet ham. =A0 A shining example. I can say, when referring to "us", that my views are much more in line with the average cber than your own. You run, as always, when posed a question you are unable to provide for, such as "Who do YOU profess to speak for when utilizing the term "us"? (chuckle). Take your time,, Tell Ray I said hi........ Sure,,,tell me what channel he rides or what his handle is and I'll 10-5 anyhting you can't communicate effectively yourself. But then, of course, you must do something in return,,,tell Kimberly the penchant you have for inquiring into people's personal lives and making it your off-topic on usenet. She needs to understand when the crow comes home to roost that such rules were initiated by yourself. Dave N3CVJ "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv |
(Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote in message ...
From: nojunk (Dave Hall) On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:57:07 -0400, (Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: From: nojunk (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 (snip) Hey dave dont work to hard managing Twisty is like spinning a basketball on the tip of your finger just a little tweak every so often is all you need to keep it going |
On 1 Jun 2004 16:28:24 -0700, (I Am Not
George) wrote: (Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote in message ... From: nojunk (Dave Hall) On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:57:07 -0400, (Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: From: nojunk (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 (snip) Hey dave dont work to hard managing Twisty is like spinning a basketball on the tip of your finger just a little tweak every so often is all you need to keep it going Heh, I can see that even after a long weekend (Of which most of it was spent trying to come up with a clever comeback no doubt) he is still seething in his meltdown. The longer, more verbose and scatterbrained his posts become, the more obvious that this meltdown is occurring. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:21:11 -0400,
(Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: YOU went off-topic and entered insults to this thread. Where did I go off topic? LOL...it has always been you. No matter how many times I redirect your childlike mannerisms and attention deficit, you are unable to maintain your original topic of erroneously claiming roger beeps are illegal on cb. Such an obsession and disorder has you unable to focus on anything but myself. You are on those drugs again. Try adding to the topic instead of trying to insult me and maybe you will learn something. You did by mentioning a mental health professional, but such would probably aid you in your dilemma in seeing nothing but the moral fabric of society crashing in on your depression-filled life and world. So you categorically deny that the moral compass of our society has declined in the last few decades? Ask your buddy Jim in Rochester if he feels that his neighborhood is as good as it was 25 years ago. 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, but entertaining thoughts to yourself that my usenet name may somehow be a legal name and "real" to yourself to the point of wondering aloud if the persona was "faked" or not, illustrates just exactly how far over the edge you were pushed. You're kidding right? Do you really take every word so literally? Maybe that is the crux of your problem. Where did you get the idea that I would be so ridiculous as to consider the name "Twistedhed" as a legal name? No one said anything about that, only about the personality which you project while using that pseudonym. You've said time and time again that my diagnoses of your psychological issues is based on what "you allow us to see". The obvious conclusion one would draw from that statement is that you are deliberately modifying your behavior on this newsgroup. So I'll ask again, which are you a sociopath or a liar? Well, gee, davie,,not only have you sealed your reputation as an Extra who doesn't have a clues at all about rules and regulations pertaining to cb radio (based on your hysterical claim that roger beeps are illegal), A roger beep was classified as an "amusement device" by the FCC over 20 years ago. Sorry but there was no google then, so no, I don't have a "hard copy" to reference. If that has changed, that's news to me, but I'm not above admitting if I am wrong. So prove me wrong and provide me clarification that the FCC has re-thought its original declaration. The accomplished liar is yourself,,,your posts affirm such going all the way back into the archives,,you have lied about the Phelps, a cber being busted, You have never proved that those statements are anything but the truth. The fact that you accused me of lying about them does not prove anything. The fact that you cannot find any information about the CBer who got popped for disturbing the peace, merely reflects on your inability to access information. That you refuse to accept my explanation regarding an old repeater antenna is not proof either. ,,you claimed the FCC maintains the roger beep is a sound effect device for amusement, but can not cite anything to back up any of your claims. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The claim was made over 20 years ago. I read it back then. I can't remember where specifically. But because I can't bring it forth now, that makes me an automatic liar in your book. * Not one person can come forward and claim I have wrongfully affronted them. What? You're kidding again right? You can't make a post without attacking someone. I don't want to hear about "you're only giving it back". Two wrongs don't make a right, and the fact that someone might have been critical of your 5 years ago is not an excuse for you to leave your civility at the front door every time you post something now I attack issues, not people THAT is a crock. You can't separate the issues from the people. You attack them, accuse them of having "communications deficits" (Among other things), and then turn around and claim that you are only defending yourself. , until initiated. If defending a position I present must encompass the attack of another by illustrating their initial attacks, so be it. Your definition of an "initial attack" is somewhat incredulous. I don't mind getting down in the mud Of course not, that's been your intention from day one. You need it to feed your enormous appetite for attention. while attacking others for the "crime" of speaking about freebanding, actually are. Freebanding IS a crime. A federal crime. And it remains so, despite your 5 year attempt to deflect from that original topic. You are a practicing criminal. You can't deal with the reality of that claim so you deflect, obfuscate the truth, and go on the offensive by attacking the harbingers of that truth in an attempt to tarnish the message by knocking down the messengers. But, truth be told, even if you do manage to silence the speakers of truth, you are STILL a practicing criminal whether or not anyone else knows it or not. , as the need for insulting another merely for their opinions and views is highly indicative of a character flaw AND low self-esteem. I speak the truth. If the truth insults you, it's not my problem and further reflective of your own psychological issues. _ Such 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? You are. You are part of the problem, Elaborating will just cornfuse you further, Translation: "You have no clue, but it sounds good to make wild claims". If that is true, then you must be a real wing-ding on the air. That you worry (putting it mildly) about all you can not control, producing extreme and profound inner feelings of impotence that manifest in your attacks on usenet as a means of venting your frustrations with myself and "society as a whole", has nothing to do with myself, actually. That you felt this important enough to make yet a second response to indicates the depth of your obsession. A shining example. I can say, when referring to "us", that my views are much more in line with the average cber than your own. Once again, you cannot possible know what the "Average CBer's" views are. You a just a simpleton living in a make believe world. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
In , Dave Hall
wrote: On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:21:11 -0400, (Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: YOU went off-topic and entered insults to this thread. Where did I go off topic? snip He's playing you, Dave. And you have to admit that he's good at it. But that should come as no suprise when you consider that he has no job, no wife, no ambition, and no sense of responsibility to his family, his community, his country or himself. Before you start typing your next reply to one of his trolls, form an image in your mind of how he -really- is -- a fat, greasy-haired, pre-middle-aged couch-potato who clings to his mommy's apron-strings, and who uses the internet as a social surrogate for when his mommy is away working to support him because he's too lazy to support himself. It's a scary image to be sure, but it's far more believable than his claim of being a "professional journalist".....LOL! BTW, I don't try to reason with the unreasonable twit anymore -- I just keep him ranting to make sure that no unsuspecting bystander is fooled by his psuedo-logic. Without people like us to publically expose his sociopathic nature he would be busy trying to convince honest, hard-working people into becoming freeloading criminals like himself so he won't feel so alone in the world. And even though he is a truly pathetic individual, don't forget that he still serves a useful purpose by setting the ultimate example of a human failure! ============= 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! =----- |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:21:11 -0400, (Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: YOU went off-topic and entered insults to this thread. Where did I go off topic? Where didn't you go offtopic is the question. _ LOL...it has always been you. No matter how many times I redirect your childlike mannerisms and attention deficit, you are unable to maintain your original topic of erroneously claiming roger beeps are illegal on cb. Such an obsession and disorder has you unable to focus on anything but myself. You are on those drugs again. Don't do drugs, Davie, or smoke, or drink, but your repeat invocation of such illustrtates the fondness you have for such foreign substances. Try adding to the topic instead of trying to insult me and maybe you will learn something. I have learned you that your orignal calim of roger beeps being illegal on cb is wrong, and it contributed to your breakdown. Where did I go off-topic? You did by mentioning a mental health professional, but such would probably aid you in your dilemma in seeing nothing but the moral fabric of society crashing in on your depression-filled life and world. So you categorically deny that the moral compass of our society has declined in the last few decades? My opinion on your off-topic subjects is not pertinent to your gaffes. Try to remain on topic and stop running from your idiotic claim that roger beeps are illegal on cb. Were you able to manage to locate any passage among FCC rules that agrees with your clownish claim that the FCC holds roger beeps as "amusement devices"? No, you weren't. Were you able to find anything among the "old" FCC rules that illustrates they "used" to view roger beeps as illegal as you claimed? Again, NO, you were not. More bull****, more lies from N3CVJ. Pointing out your lies and bull**** has you on one hell of an angry personal attack,,,,,as is to be expected...such behavior shows a shining example of why your type is the scourge of hammie radio..no communication skill and when a salient point is made showing your claim is bull****, you can't handle it and something inside your little bruised ego goes "pop" and you begin to hurl insults and become personal. You're not an effective communicator, Davie-son, and you most certainly do not set an example or abide by the hammie creed. Ask your buddy Jim in Rochester He's not my buddy. I don't know anything about the man except that you can learn proper communication skills from such a person. if he feels that his neighborhood is as good as it was 25 years ago. There are exceptions to all rules, such as the single neighborhood you selected as your example. To listen to the president, domestic crime has actually decreased in the country. Assuming the president is telling the truth, such flies in the face of your claim that society has "declined". But let's keep with your goofy claim,,,,,since you reside in such a foul area, you should remove yourself from the problem instead of redundantly reacting all the time on usenet about your woes and blaming everyone else (society) for your problems. Of course, if you had the slightest clue about being "proactive" instead of reactive to your problesm you wouldn't need look to Frank for support in many of your childish threads. 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, Entertaining thoughts to yourself that my usenet name may somehow be a legal name and "real" to yourself to the point of wondering aloud if the persona was "faked" or not, illustrates just exactly how far over the edge you were pushed. You're kidding right? Do you really take every word so literally? I merely reply to the words you present. You must come to comprehend that it is not my fault nor socities fault that the words you choose to present are never adequate in retrospect in conveying properly just what you meant. You have this entertaining need to say what you posted isn't really what *you* meant,,,illustrating once again, have severe disabilities in conveying yourself clearly and properly,,,a deficit in communications. Maybe that is the crux of your problem. The problem, as has been satsifactory demonstrated time and time again, is inside your head and with your poor communicative skills. Blaming me or society for what ails you is a bonus. Where did you get the idea that I would be so r idiculous as to consider the name "Twistedhed" as a legal name? No one said anything about that, only about the personality which you project while using that pseudonym. Everything you interpret, including my persona, has been shown time after time to be in the extreme minority. You've said time and time again that my diagnoses of your psychological issues is based on what "you allow us to see". Not at all,,,,what I have said, is your self-imposed status that somehow has you suffering from delusions of qualification to judge others, is based on what I allow *you*,,,,no one else..there is no "us" when any other hammie speaks of you. There has never been a hammie that has included you in the word "us" on this group, and for good reason. The obvious conclusion one would draw from that statement is that you are deliberately modifying your behavior on this newsgroup. You're sinking faster than your twisted psyche can follow. So I'll ask again, which are you a sociopath or a liar? And I'll ask again,,,,please present the rules and regs showing the FCC holds a roger beep as illegal or as a means of amusement. First things first. _ Well, gee, davie,,not only have you sealed your reputation as an Extra who doesn't have a clues at all about rules and regulations pertaining to cb radio (based on your hysterical claim that roger beeps are illegal), A roger beep was classified as an "amusement device" by the FCC over 20 years ago. No dice, An Extra should know the current lawas and regulations, especially for a service he has used many times since the rules you speak of were enacted. Nevertheless, that was never the issue,,,the issue was that you maintain the FCC holds the device as a means of amusement and that such is illegal on cb,,,,,,,,,,only it isn't true,,its bull**** from an Extra that should know what he is talking about prior to embarrassing himself with ignorance. Sorry Indeed, but beside the point. but there was no google then, so no, I don't have a "hard copy" to reference. Of course you don't. If that has changed, that's news to me, but I'm not above admitting if I am wrong. You have been dancing around the subject. Allow me to remind you that when I told you such is NOT illegal, you made the statement that "only those who have a clear understanding of the rules and do not suffer from problems" know that a roger beep is illegal on cb. Indeed,your problems have always been illustrated Davie, but thise time, you presented them on a silver platter to the radio world. So prove me wrong and provide me clarification that the FCC has re-thought its original declaration. No need to prove you wrong, as EVERYONE except you is aware of the rules. The burden of proof is always on the claimant, not the inquirer, although, such is how you would prefer this country to be,,,it ranks right there with your admitted socialism and anti-privacy stances,,,as that isn't how things are done in this country. Your absence of proof of all your claims is most definitely absence of validity. So I'll ask again, which are you a sociopath or a liar? The accomplished liar is yourself,,,your posts affirm such going all the way back into the archives,,you have lied about the Phelps, a cber being busted, You have never proved that those statements are anything but the truth. The fact that you accused me of lying about them does not prove anything. But Davie,,,,the continual absence of you providing for proof in ANY of your claims is all the proof one needs. The fact that you cannot find any information about the CBer who got popped for disturbing the peace, merely reflects on your inability to access information. Sure, sure,,,lol,,,,,coupled with the fact that you beg to be taken at face value with no proof at any time, merely reflects on your inability to prove anything you have ever said regarding any of your claims, That you refuse to accept my explanation regarding an old repeater antenna is not proof either. Ahh,,but once again,most in radio, especially licensed hammies, have ever owned a certain antenna, especially a base antenna, they would remember it mostly all their lives. The fact that you claimed you had an antenna, and told another that his antenna "doesn't hold a candle" to your Phelps Staion master, then your mind goes blank and you reply "What Phelps" when asked about your Phelps a few years later, is all the proof one needs to realize you lie all the time. Begging to have your bull**** believed merely because you claim it true is not proof. _ ,,you claimed the FCC maintains the roger beep is a sound effect device for amusement, but can not cite anything to back up any of your claims. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You keep saying that, but absence of evidence is most certainly the standard by which an individual is judged in the United States but since you take issue with so many of the ways of which the US operates, you should move to a country that operates under your system of belief, as you are in the radical minority here and because society doesn't conform to your troubled beliefs, you claim the country is going down hill. You have issues. But then again, watching your socialistic mannerisms and elevating yourself to the position of one qualified to judge others on what you are given, is all the "evidence" one needs for a sound judgement of yourself. The claim was made over 20 years ago. I read it back then. I can't remember where specifically. But because I can't bring it forth now, that makes me an automatic liar in your book. Not at all,,,,that you can't bring forth ALL your unsubstantiated claims make you a liar in everyone's book. When one makes unfounded claims on a regular basis and has not once provided for any of them when asked, that person is viewed as a liar, a propagandist at best. =A0 Not one person can come forward and claim I have wrongfully affronted them. What? You're kidding again right? You can't make a post without attacking someone. I don't want to hear about "you're only giving it back". Two wrongs don't make a right, and the fact that someone might have been critical of your 5 years ago is not an excuse for you to leave your civility at the front door every time you post something now You're looking in a mirror. I attack issues, not people THAT is a crock. You can't separate the issues from the people. You attack them, accuse them of having "communications deficits" (Among other things), and then turn around and claim that you are only defending yourself. Not at all. Many times have I admitted giving back ten times what is received. _ , until initiated. If defending a position I present must encompass the attack of another by illustrating their initial attacks, so be it. Your definition of an "initial attack" is somewhat incredulous. And pales in comparison to your definition of self-interpretation, state of society, absence of proof, rules of the FCC, and self-annointed qualifications. _ I don't mind getting down in the mud Of course not, that's been your intention from day one. You need it to feed your enormous appetite for attention. You are the one making all the posts personal and about myself as opposed to an issue,,,it is what alerted the radio world to your communications deficit,,,in addition to your flip-flopping and lying about cbers and your position regarding such, depending on your mood for the day. _ You are the one defending N8's disgusitng felonious crimes while attacking others for the "crime" of speaking about freebanding. Freebanding IS a crime. Talking about it isn't, something your defict has yet to overcome. A federal crime. If that were so, all who have received an NAL would have a criminal rap sheet,,,lol,,but alas,,they don't. Care to elaborate,? Tell me genius, is a federal crime the same thing as a felony? g And it remains so, despite your 5 year attempt to deflect from that original topic. You are a practicing criminal. You can't deal with the reality of that claim so you deflect, obfuscate the truth, and go on the offensive by attacking the harbingers of that truth in an attempt to tarnish the message by knocking down the messengers. Message? LMAO,,,WHAT message? Misinterpreting your reactive calling of names is a message is more of waht ails you. That you choose to defend one who blatantly gets busted by the FCC for jamming a repeater and who was convicted of child abuse ( a FELONY) while railing against one who chooses to speak of a topic you can not only handle, but are unable to properly define, illustrates your ignorance, hypocrisy, and skewered radical view that are shared by none except yourself and N8WWM and KC8LDO. But, truth be told, even if you do manage to silence the speakers of truth, you are STILL a practicing criminal whether or not anyone else knows it or not. On the contrary,,I'm not the one that has made countless accusations based on nothing more than ignorance,,,you are. I speak the truth. If the truth insults you, it's not my problem and further reflective of your own psychological issues. If one speaks the truth, one has no problem providing for suc. You have provided for nothing, except more lipservice. _ Such 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? You are. You are part of the problem, Elaborating will just cornfuse you further, _ If that is true, then you must be a real wing-ding on the air. That you worry (putting it mildly) about all you can not control, producing extreme and profound inner feelings of impotence that manifest in your attacks on usenet as a means of venting your frustrations with myself and "society as a whole", has nothing to do with myself, actually. That you felt this important enough to make yet a second response to indicates the depth of your obsession. It wasn't a second response, it was a first response to a thread you have hacked. _ A shining example. I can say, when referring to "us", that my views are much more in line with the average cber than your own. Once again, you cannot possible know what the "Average CBer's" views are. Sure I can. The fact that I was a regular contributor for over a year to a subscription-only monthly Sporadic Waves whose topic was cb, illustrates just that. Publishers only print what is advantageous to their bottom line, especially with a for-profit 'zine such as Sporadic. If you need an education on how the business operates, that is no surprise, but feel free to profess more ignorance on that of which you do not know. You a just a simpleton living in a make believe world. I'm not the one that sees the sky falling or society failing me, or feels I am the lone voice in a society whose "moral fabric" is degenerating and against me, or one who blames others and society for all not comprehended ...*you* are. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
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 - _ From: Frank Gilliland Group: =A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 OT: Berg video Date: =A0=A0 Sun, May 16, 2004, 9:17pm (EDT-3) 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. -----=3D _ From: wrote in message: Frank Gilliland wrote: Race Warrior aka twistedhed - From: Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb Frank Gilliland wrote: Twisted's name is 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. _ IIlegal cb use affects me in my work - Frank Gilliland _ "I have admitted to lying in this newsgroup, and on several occasions" - Frank Gilliland |
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 06:35:40 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: In , Dave Hall wrote: On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:21:11 -0400, (Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: YOU went off-topic and entered insults to this thread. Where did I go off topic? snip He's playing you, Dave. And you have to admit that he's good at it. He thinks he is, but I've had his number for quite awhile now. I only let him play to the point where he reminds everyone just how absurd his thinking is. Once that point is reached, then I just cut him off and put him back in his box until the next time. But that should come as no suprise when you consider that he has no job, no wife, no ambition, and no sense of responsibility to his family, his community, his country or himself. I try to refrain from extrapolating things about his lifestyle which are not readily apparent from his behavior here. I can fairly accurately ascertain that he has psychological issues. But I don't know what his real age is, or other things about his personal life. Quite frankly (No pun intended) I'm not all that interested either. Before you start typing your next reply to one of his trolls, form an image in your mind of how he -really- is I already know based on his reactions. He is starved for attention. You have to walk a fine line between exposing him for what he is, and feeding his enormous craving. That's why he has fits when people cut the verbosity of his posts down. He likes reading his own words, and it's blasphemous for someone else to "edit" them. Classic narcissism. -- a fat, greasy-haired, pre-middle-aged couch-potato who clings to his mommy's apron-strings, and who uses the internet as a social surrogate for when his mommy is away working to support him because he's too lazy to support himself. It's a scary image to be sure, but it's far more believable than his claim of being a "professional journalist".....LOL! A "Professional Journalist" who's stuck with WebTV......... BTW, I don't try to reason with the unreasonable twit anymore No, that would be counterproductive. He's not interested in finding a resolution to a dispute. He wants the dispute to continue, for no other reason than it gives him more of that much sought after attention. -- I just keep him ranting to make sure that no unsuspecting bystander is fooled by his psuedo-logic. I think a judicious google search would set any unsuspecting bystander straight as to who they are dealing with. Without people like us to publically expose his sociopathic nature he would be busy trying to convince honest, hard-working people into becoming freeloading criminals like himself so he won't feel so alone in the world. Deflection of responsibility is a classic sign of a sociopath. And even though he is a truly pathetic individual, don't forget that he still serves a useful purpose by setting the ultimate example of a human failure! He is the newsgroup punch-clown..... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 12:23:35 -0400,
(Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: I have learned you that your orignal calim of roger beeps being illegal on cb is wrong, and it contributed to your breakdown. You have yet to provide a specific passage in FCC part 95 which permits a roger beep. Whether or not the FCC now considers a roger beep to be for amusement or entertainment purposes is a matter for speculation until the FCC rules specifically. I'm telling you what I saw 20 years ago, when the FCC lumped together a whole batch of birdies, echo's, "beeps", and other "toys" and declared that their use was deemed to be "for entertainment purposes" and as such were not allowed under part 95. Furthermore they also added that the addition of such devices to existing radios would void type acceptance. So you categorically deny that the moral compass of our society has declined in the last few decades? My opinion on your off-topic subjects is not pertinent to your gaffes. In other words, you plead the 5th. A wise choice. For if you were to disagree with me, it would prove beyond any doubt that you are truly oblivious to life outside your little fantasy world. And of course your ego would never allow you to agree with me, so you say nothing. Ask your buddy Jim in Rochester He's not my buddy. I guess there aren't too many who are..... if he feels that his neighborhood is as good as it was 25 years ago. There are exceptions to all rules, such as the single neighborhood you selected as your example. Look around. It's more the rule than the exception. To listen to the president, domestic crime has actually decreased in the country. Crime is only one facet of the whole picture. Lessening of the crime rate may also be indicative of better law enforcement activities. Look into how many people no longer consider other people's rights or who lack simply courtesy, and you'll see a bigger picture. Entertaining thoughts to yourself that my usenet name may somehow be a legal name and "real" to yourself to the point of wondering aloud if the persona was "faked" or not, illustrates just exactly how far over the edge you were pushed. You're kidding right? Do you really take every word so literally? I merely reply to the words you present. You must come to comprehend that it is not my fault nor socities fault that the words you choose to present are never adequate in retrospect in conveying properly just what you meant. I'm sure there was nobody else who is reading this thread who didn't understand what I was implying (And they are more than welcome to chime in if I'm wrong). That you again, are the lone standout underscores your inability to comprehend simple language. Everything you interpret, including my persona, has been shown time after time to be in the extreme minority. Shown by whom? There has yet to be a case where anyone has spoken up and supported you. You claim to speak for the "majority", but we have only your word as evidence. The obvious conclusion one would draw from that statement is that you are deliberately modifying your behavior on this newsgroup. You're sinking faster than your twisted psyche can follow. I'll take that as an admission of guilt. A little longer and you might be able to confront your problems. As they say, admitting you have a problem is the first step toward resolution. So I'll ask again, which are you a sociopath or a liar? A roger beep was classified as an "amusement device" by the FCC over 20 years ago. No dice, An Extra should know the current lawas and regulations, Of the amateur radio service. This is CB remember........ the FCC holds the device as a means of amusement and that such is illegal on cb,,,,,,,,,,only it isn't true,,its bull**** from an Extra that should know what he is talking about prior to embarrassing himself with ignorance. Prove it. So prove me wrong and provide me clarification that the FCC has re-thought its original declaration. No need to prove you wrong, as EVERYONE except you is aware of the rules. Nowhere in the rules does it say that roger beeps are legal. The fact that they are not included on the vast majority of legitimate radios further supports that notion. Specifically, 95.413 subpart a6 specifically addresses devices used for amusement or entertainment. A roger beep could be classified as such, since it is not addressed anywhere else. 95.412 subpart b also defines permissible tones, and defines them as "only when the signal is used to make contact or to continue communications". They further clarify the intent by mentioning selective call units. If there was a passage in the rules which read something like:" A single tone, signalling the end of transmission is permissible", then it would be a different story. But there isn't such a passage. So you have nothing to stand on when you make the claim that roger beeps are legal. The burden of proof is always on the claimant, not the inquirer And you claim that R.B.'s are legal without any evidence to back it up, so I'm waiting for you to prove it. it ranks right there with your admitted socialism Provide me the quote where I've admitted to being a socialist. You are so far off the mark on that one, that it's laughable, even for you. and anti-privacy stances, If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear........ So I'll ask again, which are you a sociopath or a liar? The accomplished liar is yourself Says you. You who have failed to prove any of your claims. And as you are ripe to say, the poof is on the claimant. You claim I'm a liar, but cannot prove it. What does that make you? You have never proved that those statements are anything but the truth. The fact that you accused me of lying about them does not prove anything. But Davie,,,,the continual absence of you providing for proof in ANY of your claims is all the proof one needs. I don't have to prove anything. You are the one who claims I am lying. Provide the evidence that I am lying. Because you simply refuse to believe it is not "proof" of a lie. The fact that you cannot find any information about the CBer who got popped for disturbing the peace, merely reflects on your inability to access information. Sure, sure,,,lol,,,,,coupled with the fact that you beg to be taken at face value with no proof at any time. Why not? You do it all the time. You have yet to substantiate any claim that you've made. Ahh,,but once again,most in radio, especially licensed hammies, have ever owned a certain antenna, especially a base antenna, they would remember it mostly all their lives. That is your assumption. A flawed one though. You base your proof on a flawed assumption. No wonder you'd never become a scientist. ,,you claimed the FCC maintains the roger beep is a sound effect device for amusement, but can not cite anything to back up any of your claims. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You keep saying that, but absence of evidence is most certainly the standard by which an individual is judged in the United States This is not a criminal trial. Although you should be sitting at the defendant's bench. Not at all,,,,that you can't bring forth ALL your unsubstantiated claims make you a liar in everyone's book. When one makes unfounded claims on a regular basis and has not once provided for any of them when asked, that person is viewed as a liar, a propagandist at best. Then by your own definition, you are a liar, since you have thus far failed to back up most of the claims that you have made in the past. Like the military group that you ran from when Frank called your bluff. Not at all. Many times have I admitted giving back ten times what is received. More signs of sociopathic behavior. And pales in comparison to your definition of self-interpretation, state of society, absence of proof, rules of the FCC, and self-annointed qualifications. Careful, you might blow a fuse. I don't mind getting down in the mud Of course not, that's been your intention from day one. You need it to feed your enormous appetite for attention. You are the one making all the posts personal and about myself as opposed to an issue, You started that. A long time ago. You are the one defending N8's disgusitng felonious crimes while attacking others for the "crime" of speaking about freebanding. When have I defended Doug's "criminal" activities? Freebanding IS a crime. Talking about it isn't, Why talk about something you aren't allowed to engage in? That's nothing more than doubletalk. A federal crime. If that were so, all who have received an NAL would have a criminal rap sheet,,,lol,,but alas,,they don't. They will once convicted. The rest are simply playing Russian Roulette with the time clock. . That you choose to defend one who blatantly gets busted by the FCC for jamming a repeater and who was convicted of child abuse ( a FELONY) When? while railing against one who chooses to speak of a topic you can not only handle, but are unable to properly define, illustrates your ignorance, hypocrisy, and skewered radical view that are shared by none except yourself and N8WWM and KC8LDO. Why should the crimes of one, excuse the crimes of another? On the contrary,,I'm not the one that has made countless accusations based on nothing more than ignorance. You mean like those countless claims that I'm a liar? I speak the truth. If the truth insults you, it's not my problem and further reflective of your own psychological issues. If one speaks the truth, one has no problem providing for suc. You have provided for nothing, except more lipservice. Much like you. You expect everyone here to take your word at face value, while demanding irrefutable proof from anyone else? There's a word for that......... Yea, that's it! Hypocrite That you felt this important enough to make yet a second response to indicates the depth of your obsession. It wasn't a second response, it was a first response to a thread you have hacked. That's funny coming from a WebTV used who hasn't even mastered the simplest of quoting techniques. Once again, you cannot possible know what the "Average CBer's" views are. Sure I can. The fact that I was a regular contributor for over a year to a subscription-only monthly Sporadic Waves whose topic was cb, illustrates just that. What, that you appeal to other bootlegger criminals? Is that supposed to legitimize your activities and your anti-social mindset? Publishers only print what is advantageous to their bottom line, especially with a for-profit 'zine such as Sporadic. Guy's who publish porn say the same thing. But is it something reflective of wholesome societal behavior? It's time to put you back in your box. I've fed your attention for far longer than you've deserved. I'm sure you'll want the last word, your ego demands it, but that's it from me. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com