|
NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Fri, Oct 1, 2004, 1:18pm (EDT-1) From: =A0=A0
Dave Hall Group: =A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 OT ping Jim Date: =A0=A0 Fri, Oct 1, 2004, 2:18pm Organization: =A0=A0 home.ptd.net/~n3cvj X-Trace: =A0=A0 sv3-gpQozuEV5CUuAOGbwIwpW40F+CAjqNQ3bz0HCwmdzqKlp42E7n KCbW1kqMB13wloOIJfkm= UIeEbSlNi!82OEgNQdiL4dBTsFXCsPMxWP2Rn5YttGlgF6eU2u HcXpEQk2E06crOKwk1JAb1VL= NiHugQhBdWi8!4TT+hLAVzfg=3D X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.3.17 On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:51:22 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: I'm just curious how you can upload pictures from a machine which can not handle file transfers (At least according to the literature I've read). Can't upload anything, not sure about what you mean by "file transfers". If you don't know, then it's a sure bet you can't do it. Is that why you mentioned it (file transfers)? To find something pc related of which I was not capable? For crying out loud, you are really feeling depressed there, Davie. No, just following up on a hunch...... Make up your mind,..a "sure bet" doesn't equal the bump on your back herein referred as "a hunch". _ Yes and no. Personally I don't have the hardware to do that. Webtv can most certainly upload pictures in the same manner you do, they just need more external components. Now this is nice. A civil discussion. Now why do you have to ruin it by resorting to personal affronts like you degenerated to below? I guess because over the years ninety nine point nine percent of your posts up until you were made aware of outside eyes watching, have been of an insultive and demeaning nature, especially when you disagreed with someone. Your longest running gag has been your calling of dxers "felons", using the convenient but oh-so-ignorantly wrong excuse of "Well, if the shoe fits" as means of illustrating YOUR ignorance of what constitutes a felon verses a civil infract. Moving on with your lies hypocrisy,and self-contradictions, you have whined and complained those who badger N8 about getting busted" are no better than he, yet you have badgered people and harassed them, unjustly and incorrectly calling them felons because you are ignorant and clueless as to what constitutes a felon. Wanna-be-physician, heal thy-self. _ allow yourself this simple explanation.... you and "Geo" are the ONLY ones to ever post regarding intimate knowledge of Lancaster (Amish Country).......example: speaking of the previous ownership of Zinn's on Route 30. If Landshark has already "proven to the masses" that "george" is really wa3moj, then why accuse me? By virtue the process of elimination. "Geo" denies he is Geo (forget his call sign for the moment)....that leaves ONLY you, exhibited by the fact you two are the only ones with any intimate knowledge of the area in question around Lancaster. The only 2 that YOU are aware of. No slithering permitted. The ONLY TWO THAT EVER made posts concerning the area in this group. Try again with another lie when you feel cornered and overwhelmed. Of course , you can always place an end to your self-tormented lies by merely citing the non-existent particiapnts in rec.radio.cb other than yourself and Geo that have intimate knowledge of the area as discussed. But then again, asking you to provide is often met with hostility and smoke. _ I'm sorry if you are unable to comprehend that there may be other people here who you are unaware of. I am quite satisfied with what you have presented. Let's analyze this statement for a second shall we? Sure,,but, of course, you understand, if there was no validity to it, it would have been tossed out the window...but your ego will not permit it, as what others think (right now, myself) dictates your behavior, for some odd and unsettled reason. You conclude that the person posting as "George" has to be either WA3MOJ or me, I didn't conclude it, I surmised it. Semantics. It's not. If I concluded it, I would have said so and said it was definite. I didn't. I said IF it wasn't Geo , it was you. Exactly, you said it was either MOJ or me. A definite conditional conclusion. What is this "condition" you speak of that only you can see?? Your quickness to jump and latch onto this tells me you probably have a hand in his dirty barrel of filth. How you derive that logic from my statements is curious to say the least. The only thing curious USED to be your self-contradictions, but even that has been shown by your willingness to lie and play two sides of the fence to harass others to be nothing more than an old game of which you are no longer adept. Your threat leaves me no doubt your involvement and harassment level of participation. A flawed based on paranoid and faulty logic. Your logic consists of saying those who continue to "speak" of Dogie's crimes are no better than he, yet you maliciously and incorrectly (via your ignorance of FCC law) continued to call others (cbers) felons for the mere act of dxing. Once again, I am perfectly satisfied of the position you continue to present of yourself. _ Your defending of N8WWM when he was busted jamming and your saying the FCC could be wrong and that Keith may have framed Dogie leaves little doubt to the rest of the world your agenda and position. Is your Alzheimers kicking in again? Hehehe,,,what were you saying of "personal affronts"? That's ok, Dave, if your self-esteem is dictating this is panic-mode again and you need invoke that part of you that soothes the ego by playing the part of Dr. Walter Mitty. You accused me of blaming Keith on the last go around. Finally after looking into it you reluctantly were forced to admit that I never used his name. Post it. Now you bring it up again? based solely on the basis of our geographical proximity to Lancaster Pa.? You saying Keith could have framed Dogie has nothing to do with Lancaster. Misinterpretations have always been your forte, Mr. dx-felon, man. I based it on you are the only two to have EVER posted here regarding information of Lancaster. What kind of logic is that? Do you think that, right now, MOJ and I are the ONLY people on this board who know anything about Lancaster Pa.? No,,,those were your words, pay attention, as I already said once what is fact...it doesn't matter what "I" think. Yet, has you worried and concerned to the point of you fretting and asking what I think. Fact: ONLY you and Geo have posted regarding intimate details of the area. ADd all the "ifs" and "mays" you wish. It doesn't change the fact that only you and Geo have posted of such. And that precludes anyone else from living here and knowing something about the area? Not at all, but there is no unknown factor here. The IP number is constant regardless what he chooses to refer himself and thiat IP number matches countless harassing posts, in addition to speaking on depth on several occasion of the area. Oh, now we're moving on to the IP number. Is it MY IP number? =A0 Since you asked, yes, many of them are. But we first must take your post where you explained in depth the routing process of why your posts can "be routed through the local college"..oh yea, Dave..and then when shown you posted from two seperate access accounts in thirty days (AFTER you said you have ALWAYS accessed this group in the same manner) you offered "I have no idea how my server routes my posts. I am not familiar with the particulars". I continue to be satisfied more than ever concerning what you offer. _ =A0ONLY you and "Geo" have ever exhibited knowledge of the area. Wait, I thought it was back to the IP number? Make up your mind. What you "think" has been demonstrated to be incorrect via your insistence at your right to retain ignorance when faced with truth and facts. Latest example: You saying roger beeps are illegal, you saying roger beeps are considered "entertainment devices" by the FCC, you saying many of the casual radio users here are felons for talking dx...hel, Dave,,your ignorance has no bounds. _ The probabilty factor is always a hurdle for you, The probability is very high that you will take unconnected incidences and attempt to make a connection through convoluted logic. You are only achieving to make yourself dizzy. Your offerings are not taken by the masses in the manner you believe. _ Davie, exhibited with certainty when you offered the pathetic near-zero probability that N8WWM was framed by someone prior to the FCC announcing he was busted for jamming the Toledo Amateur Radio Club members on multiple occasions. I merely offered a possible alternative. Again,,that you hold such a remote possibility a "possible alternative" reinforces the magnitude of your ignorance regarding the FCC's actions prior to making such a public statement as on the rain report. Here it is again, as you knew it was coming..it never ceases to amaze me, how some of those who are licensed in communications, such as yourself, can be so void of the information and laws regarding their chosen hobby. This is especially ironic when taken into context. your past stammerings claiming you are due respect by virtue your licensure. When one does not know all the facts, it's irresponsible to jump to conclusions. Especially when that person forgets (read:denies) what they say, and has to be led around by the noose to be shown. It's called reasonable doubt. In a court of law, yes, not in a civil matter regarding the FCC. This was before the rest of the ugly picture was drawn about Doug's "troubled" past. "Drawn"? You mean by himself? Agreed,,,but you appear to be blaming others for bringing this public information to attention. This is very hypocritical of you. You have always maintained in the past, regarding your incorrect (arrived via your ignorance of FCC law) calling of others "felons" that they should of thought of what they would be called before they committed the act. You also invoked the yellow cowardly "if the shoe fits wear it" principle, which you use as justification for your incorrect ignorance on calling dxers "felons". Yet, for some reason you have a separate standard for others when they speak of Dogie's actions. You claim the FCC may be incorrect in identifying Dogie as guilty on the Rain Report, yet you call others felons based on nothing more than your ignorance of FCC law. Very satisfactory, indeed. He has issues to be sure. But then so do you. Wannabe-physician, heal thyself. Of course, with a teacher in the family, you should know where to begin. Only we have no way of finding out what they might be, Who constitutes "we"? Only you continue to eat yourself up over my off-topic personal life. The others who I have had major disagreements with have managed to arrive, with myself, on a plateau that permits us to disagree without being disagreeable. this was not lost upon yoursefl, as you twice (via your sock) attempted to call yourself in the third person A) Once, Leland,,and B) Once, Frank. You have enough to keep you spinning for the rest of the year. and you are hell-bent to make sure it stays that way. It makes one wonder what it is you're hiding. No, it doesn't, as only socialists and those seeking to take away American birthright's subscribe to your oppressive "If one has nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear". This is America and you can't undermind that in any manner. The majority do not subscribe to such bull****. It has been proven throughout history the more one knows about an entity, the more control they can exercise over such. There are scores of reading on this subject, in case you are not aware the originations of subscribing to such radical and oppressive beliefs. Couple this with your never-ending search and pleas and begs for personal information, your status-starved azz rears its nasty head again. Hell, even you have made comments about this general area. Maybe YOU are the one posting as "George"? Spin and slither, spin and slither, make for a very nervous dither. _ As I said, you are really unnerved at this point, Davie. Lucidity is escaping you in increased increments. Insulting me does not deny the probability of what I stated. Pointing out your ignorance regarding radio law and your hypocrisy is not insultive davie. That's your problem, you take everything personal and make everything personal......unworthy of proper communication or debate. That would be the same sort of reckless accusation as if I were to "surmise" that since you live in Florida, you must be the same guy who used to go by the handle of "King Kong" some years back, that earned some sort of notoriety on the band. Only I would spend no time at all arguing with what you wish to believe. I don't "believe" anything, I was merely offering a flip side comparison, of just how reckless your assumptions are. Dither dither dither. Here's another possibility for you to consider. The person you speak of is neither wa3moj or anyone else who you know, but rather another anonymous twit who's been having a huge laugh at everyone's expense as they accuse other people of being responsible for the deeds. And the only way you know this for absolutely sure and without any doubt whatsoever, is you are either that person, or heavily involved with the harassment. I surmise both. I didn't conclude it, I surmised it. ;-) Actually, you didn't surmise it, you made a concise conclusion with a personal conviction of confirmation. Read again what you wrote. When you include the word "Possibility" it removes any idea of a conclusion. There is a BIG difference between claiming that some IS a certain way and postulating that it is possible for something to be a certain way. And you are correct. The only way that I WOULD know for sure is to have some direct involvement. You're a dollar late and a day short. Your confirmation means nothing. Such was common knowledge with or without your stated admission. But I'm not saying that this IS the case, only that it is a distinct possibility. Here is where the beauty lies,,,,you don't have to say anything regarding it, Davie,,you won't change anyone's mind. In fact, its not only a very distinct possibility, given the threat you made, your unyielding attempts at uncovering personal information on cbers who post on usenet, coupled with the probability factors that keep coming in to play, leave little doubt your involvement. In fact, such a direct threat is a picture perfect of your involved harassment actions. One thing that I DO know for sure is that I've never posted here in the last 9 years under any other alias but my own given name. I have no need to hide behind fictitious names. Dither dither dither,,you also said you only accesssed this group in ONE manner and was proved a liar, to which you offered "Well, I have no idea why my server does that". this took place not long after you agev a detailed explanation of exactly how servers propagate messages, Dither. It was shown you were posting under the same account as that VE was at Villanova, When this was illustrated and brought to the group's attention, your reply was something along the lines.."Yea, well I borrowed an account at that time." You ahve made several claims that are off the wall, Davie..the threats, Keith framing Dogie, Dogie is really innocent,,,,,,,you are delusional, and so is the "Geo" poster. _ I never accused Keith. Sure,,in the same manner you had to ask "who's Kim"..Do you really want to go there? Department of Licensure who regulates professionals is public information (DPR). I mean, I let it slide once, but if you ahev the need to get personal again, and if you have such confidence in your statements regarding my "research ability", let's see who is correct. Do you need to go through the trouble to find it out again? I also borrowed an account on the Villanova mainframe system over 9 years ago. It's old news. Since then I have ALWAYS used my real name on EVERY post that I've made. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Already have Davie,,but if you need those two posts presented side-byside where you claim in one you have no clue how your message propagates, then in another explain the detailed nuances of how your ISP propagates messages, I can accommodate. Of course, this was shown AFTER you claimed you have only one manner of access, but were shown to have two inside of thirty days. That's a hoot, as I am far more in line with what most moral, and respectful people see than you are evidently aware of. =A0 Moral folks don't make idle threats based on their inability to discuss things rationally....you do. Respectful people don't pull a name from their azz and say the FCC Rain report may be wrong because someone "MAY" have tried to frame Dogie and the ''possibility does exist"...you do. Again, you are reaching for something so remote, that NONE , hammie or cber have subscribed to your theory, so feel free to repeat you are "in line" with the majority over and over. It simply fuels your delusion. And just how do you know that none have "subscribed" to any of my "theories". Do you regularly poll everyone in the world as to what they are thinking. On this subject, I do. But just for your sympathy "Who believes the FCC was wrong and N8WWM is actually innocent?" Are you so presumptuous and arrogant as to feel that they owe you an explanation? This is your corner of the market,,,as your posts are chock full of you stomping your feet and holding your breath demanding freeebanders and dxers and amp users to give you an explanation of why they do what they do. No, that's the straight up truth. You are nothing more than a curiosity to me. Curiosities doesn't lead to threats like you make. It's much more than that for you, davie, adn if it's not, you ought to have yourself examined for allowing a "curiosity" to overcome your better sense and lead to such behavior that it leads to you making threats. =A0You went out of your way and became so enthralled in your frustration over this, you posted a direct threat that you would "spread my personal info around". When did I make this supposed "threat"? Please post the link. Only after you deny it a few more times. When did I do that? Certainly not recently. Sure you did, Davie, within the last couple of weeks. Prove it. Come out and deny it again, first. You have no intention of revealing yourself, As do the majority of internet users. Once again, that you shoe to ignore all ISP's and security experts advice does not give you any right whatsoever to demand others muck up as you did on the internet. as your anonymity is far more important to you than coming to some face to face reconciling. Excuse you, but anonymity on the net has nothing to dow with face-to-face meetings. You were shown as much with my several offers of accomodating your request for a face-to-face, but you want something for nothing, wishing to meet at my place of business. Tell ya' what..I'll accomodate that, Dave. I'll meet you at a prearranged pier near my davit on any day and time you want, except weekends. Should I look for the the person with short-man syndrome? _ I'm not anonymous to several on here. You were just told that in another thread, but you may continue professing whatever it is that makes you feel better about yourself. No one here knows who you are. Say it again, Davie,,,it serves up that loop you just can't manage to get in. It would be far too tempting for them to pass it on, LOL,,,,most aren't unworthy lids with low-self-esteem like you and aren't interested in the "spreading of personal information" the way you threatened and just now inferred. and you are far too paranoid to risk that happening. Paranoia won't take your credit card as a deposit for your trip. Tell ya' what...I'll sweeten the pot,,,,if our full day trip doesn't yield at LEAST 150 pounds of fish, you don't pay. Now, put your money where your mouth is. You might have spoken to a few over the radio, and you might have had a face-to-face meeting with a few others, but no one knows anything more about you. Except those who have been to my house, went fishing with me, and done business with me over the net. It's casual, Davie. I'll take your declination of accepting a day's trip as you have no actual desire to meet up for any pertinent reason but to make good on your threat. The booking of your trip with a cc protects ME, as well as you, which is the main reason you will not provide it. How would it protect you? If anything, it would give me the name of your "business" which, as you are painfully aware, is all one would need to find out more. Then what is preventing you? You offered me the choice of either finding you on the CB, which of course, I don't know what you go by or what channels you talk on, I would meet you on any channel/frequency you like and answer to whatever it is your curious azz wishes to call me. No more excuses about channels or handles, please. Like I said initially, I have no room to bring along radios and antennas. The best I could do would be a walkie-talkie, and I'm not going to do it. Waaaahh! which then gives you a convenient excuse to say that you weren't around when I came looking. I have that covered, too. A pic of the day's paper at the dockmaster's office where his clock (way up high) is very visible for all to see. You have no excuse. Or giving you MY cell phone number (Which I don't have), where again there is no guarantee that you'd call and you now would theoretically have a piece of my personal information. Only YOU are the one making threats with personal information, not I. I'm not threatening anything. You have yet to substantiate that claim. Deny it. Lose the lame excuse. It's no longer relevant. To the masses, threats are very relevant. Not if they aren't real. Denial ain't a river in Egypt. What a case of classic self-projection,,,,merely because you would stoop and lower yourself to harassing another via the "spreading of their private information" doesn't mean others would do it. In fact, the majority of regs here are not like you at all. Only a few scumbags are interested in harassment as you threatened. _ Really? Really "what"? Then what do you call the latest round of "intimidation" with Doug, Dogie says this never occurred. Next. As if you would take Doug at his word. Please...... Not about me,,it's about what you profess for Dogie. So do you take him at this word or not? and Steveo, and Leland, and the on-again, off again "meetings, Dogie initiated these meetings with threats of violence long ago. Two wrongs don't make a right. answering machine messages, I know nothing of any answering machine messages. That doesn't mean they didn't happen. Doesn't mean they did, either. Ask Leland about them. Why? Because YOU called it harassment? photo taking, Taking photos from a public right-of-way is not harassment. No, but using those photos as a public form of humiliation might be. The mere posting of Dogie's ugly mug constitutes public humiliation of him? Hehhe,..that's the first time I ever saw you insult Dogie. _ Mopar is gettting all the free legal advice he can handle regarding such media-like endeavors, In this case, you get what you pay for. Exactly. And my media advice comes from a very expensive retainment team that is at my disposal. Your protection of felons who harass this group on a regular basis, who have been busted by the feds, who have been found to be mentally unstable by a court of law you always invoke (all laws are to be obeyed, etc.) who have made countess posts containing homosexual preferences, connotations, and verbiage as insults, is much more offensive to the majority than the posting of public information of said felonious harassers that you ignorantly misinterpret as harassment. So harnessing someone who is a felon is acceptable? Try and remain lucid. While Dogie may be ugly as a yak, I wouldn't place a saddle around him. Once again, two wrongs don't make a right. I protect no one. Your posts contradcit this statement. I just don't jump on the bandwagon until the proof is forthcoming. The FCC is not "the bandwagon". I have said nothing in defense of Doug's activities since his convictions have become public. Please tell Geo this. He is choking on semantics concerning your term "convictions". But to force the truth from you, you took issue with the entire concept of Dogie being busted when I posted the Rain Report, which, I remind you, WAS public. THAT is when his lawbreaking hypocritical behaviors began to come to light. That being said, it does not excuse those who seek to harness him. Again, no one has sought to place a saddle or bridle on your pal Dogie you keep referring to as some type horse or other animal. No one has ever attacked people for presenting their legal status, either, but that hasn't stopped you from claiming it takes place all the time as an excuse for your hatred on this group, but when asked WHO you claim it is attacks others for their pro-legal stance, you get that stupid cuaght-in-the-headlights mentality and obfuscate in any manner you can, but never, ever provide for your claim : ) Even felons have rights in this liberal, politically correct society. Not many and they certainly don't override the rights of those innocents you call "felons" derived from your ignorance of what constitutes such status. I'd say that there are quite a few people on this board who are preoccupied with using others personal information against them. You're the main culprit. Prove it. Waa..na-na-na-nee-boo-boo! What a child. Already did prove that you are involved with your lies about your posting accesses. Just for laughs, go on and say how you only access the group through one access this year and I'll post the two separate posts that screams the obvious....that there exists only one reason why you felt the need to lie about something so innocuous. You'd better leave the psychological evaluations to those of us who are better equipped. Of course,,,I forgot I was dealing with the starved-for-status-wannabe-a-physician. My bad. Besides, you already know way more about me, than I do about you. That was your choice. Stop blaming me for your poor choices. It wasn't a poor choice as I have nothing to hide. You obviously do. Again, read your history on the oppressive technique which you subscribe. Perhaps when you haev a better comprehension of it, you may elect to move to the country of its origination. You're kidding right? Assuming for a second that I found out the name of your business, and posted it here, do you actually think you'd have some sort of legal case? I'd love to hear the legal grounds. Prove me wrong. Send me that credit card reservation and we'll go from there. Anything that is in the public venue can expect no protection of privacy. Except, of course, when it comes to others talking about Dogie's bust, which you said is wrong. Posting sensitive information like a credit card number would be a different matter, but not something like a name or business. It's PUBLIC INFORMATION. Only through your clandestine efforts have you managed to conceal it from the rest of us. There is no "us" anymore,,only you. I don't want to take a trip, I just want to say hello, shake hands and maybe talk a bit about the sandpile......... In other words, you want something for nothing. You want my personal information, and are asking me to hand it to you after you made a threat regarding this information. A rocket science you ain't. A harasser on rec.radio.cb, you most certainly are. I harass no one. You cant even comprehend FCC law regarding what constitutes a civil vs a felonious act and the legality of roger beeps. There is no way on earth you can comprehend your calling of innnocents "felons" is harassment based merely on the fact they admit to dxing. That is why you are in the minority on such issues...you are unable to learn regarding such, refusing to be taught, instead, insisting on attacking those who educate your ignorance. I do stand up against those who do however, especially those who harass others and then hide behind the cloak of anonymity. That cloak of anonymity is accepted by the majority of the users on the internet as basic common sense and security measures, doing exactly what all ISPs and security expers recommend. Because you were too stupid to follow directions on that front jibes prefectly with your ignorance concerning FCC laws and all which it encompasses. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv |
"Twistedhed" wrote in message ... -Snipped- Man, I think my index finger is gonna fall off from scrolling. But hell, it was interesting reading.... ;-) |
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:40:00 GMT, "U Know Who"
wrote: "Twistedhed" wrote in message ... -Snipped- Man, I think my index finger is gonna fall off from scrolling. But hell, it was interesting reading.... ;-) Interesting would not be my first word of choice. Unless, of course, you're talking from a clinical perspective. If verbosity were a virtue, Twist would be a saint...... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:40:00 GMT, "U Know Who" wrote: "Twistedhed" wrote in message ... -Snipped- Man, I think my index finger is gonna fall off from scrolling. But hell, it was interesting reading.... ;-) Interesting would not be my first word of choice. Only because you're hampered. Unless, of course, you're talking from a clinical perspective. Self-professed by ONLY yourself and N8wwm. But then again,that's the way it always is with you two. He gets taken to task, you defend him. He breaks the law, you bring up non-sensical odds of detailing delusions and hallucinations of why Dogie is innocent and undermind the FCC and ther Rain Report. His behavior gets pointed out, you justify it by pointing to others. You once claimed, under your own posting name "Dogie has enough motivation to stay here forever" and just posted and said the EXACT same thing about Geo the day before yesterday under your sock puppet. No agenda in those posts, of course. : ) If verbosity were a virtue, Twist would be a saint...... Since truth is a virtue, your reservation in Hades is etched in stone. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:16:08 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote: Interesting would not be my first word of choice. Only because you're hampered. I am not the laundry........ Unless, of course, you're talking from a clinical perspective. Self-professed by ONLY yourself and N8wwm. I know nothing of what Doug professes But then again,that's the way it always is with you two. He gets taken to task, you defend him. He breaks the law, you bring up non-sensical odds of detailing delusions and hallucinations of why Dogie is innocent and undermind the FCC and ther Rain Report. His behavior gets pointed out, you justify it by pointing to others. And that just burns you doesn't it? It's hypocritical to point out the wrongs of others when you yourself do not possess a clean sheet. As much as you want to spin it, no matter how you try to downplay the issue with semantics, the FACT is that when you operate on the freeband, you are breaking federal law, which makes you eligible to be called a criminal. You and Doug seem to have much in common. You once claimed, under your own posting name What other name would I use? "Dogie has enough motivation to stay here forever" and just posted and said the EXACT same thing about Geo the day before yesterday under your sock puppet. Which proves what exactly? That two different people have the same logical insight on human nature? I have no sock puppets. I have no need to hide. I'm who I am and have no need to deny it. Only people who are afraid to make themselves known need to hide behind sock puppets. Why would I need a sock puppet to say something that I am perfectly capable of saying using my real name? Once again logic escapes you. I'll wait here for you to prove otherwise. Which, you can't. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:40:00 GMT, "U Know Who" wrote: "Twistedhed" wrote in message ... -Snipped- (Man, I think my index finger is gonna fall off from scrolling. But hell, it was interesting reading.... ;-) ) Interesting would not be my first word of choice. Only because you're hampered. I am not the laundry. Taking into consideration how oft you have been hung out to dry, you're hard pressed to convince otherwise. Unless, of course, you're talking from a clinical perspective. Self-professed by ONLY yourself and N8wwm. But then again,that's the way it always is with you two. He gets taken to task, you defend him. He breaks the law, you bring up non-sensical odds of detailing delusions and hallucinations of why Dogie is innocent and undermind the FCC and ther Rain Report. His behavior gets pointed out, you justify it by pointing to others. You once claimed, under your own posting name "Dogie has enough motivation to stay here forever" and just posted and said the EXACT same thing about Geo the day before yesterday under your sock puppet. And that just burns you doesn't it? Stop making everything personal. Nothing burns me in this group. I don't take it serious like you do. the word that escapes you, is "entertainment". Watching someone that is a repeat felon take others to task for dxing illustrates how far removed this person is form reality. Your behavior, as illustrated, is identical and parallel in many ways to Dogie. It's hypocritical to point out the wrongs of others when you yourself do not possess a clean sheet. In the first manner, I never pointed out anyone's wrong doings until they began making noise about my dx activities and freebanding, which, as you correctly illustrate, is highly hypocritical for one to do when they are a convicted felon and only then did I "point out the wrongdoings" of those who were tossing stones my way while residing in section 8 glass houses. Keeping it closer to home, you, unprovoked and on many occasion, have called me and others, a criminal and a felon many times for nothing more than our *posting* topics discussing dx activities. Take into consideration your position just a few short years ago of using amps, illegal peaking and tweaking and converting of radios and claiming cbers are more fun and less uptight (than hammies) because they are "regular folk", and you are the shining epitome of hypocrisy. As much as you want to spin it, no matter how you try to downplay the issue with semantics, the FACT is that when you operate on the freeband, you are breaking federal law, which makes you eligible to be called a criminal. You and Doug seem to have much in common. This is the place where I tame your unbridled ignorance and arrogance concerning the United States and the laws regarding the conviction of a crime. Under the laws of this great country, one is only a criminal when found guilty in a court of law. I understand that you are status starved and would like nothing better than for your spouted ignorance to be true, but you mean nothing in the eyes of the court and people are not criminal merely because you refuse to educate yourself on what constitutes a felon. I note you have been forced to distance yourself from your claim that a dxer is a felon and you are now, albeit still incorrectly, attempting to call those who commit acts you disagree with (and that you have committed yourself on numerous occasion) a "criminal" as opposed to a felon. Dither dither dither. You are not the judge or the law you and you have much trouble comprehending the simplest of things regarding your self-destructive and ignorant claims. Everyone knows you are an angry, dejected hammie that claims society is reflected on the cb and that you sit around pining for the "lden days". Everyone knows you mislabeled many good, decent ops as "criminals" and "felons" without so much as an admittance you were wrong or apology, but alas, everyone kows what you are about. For the future, so you don't embarrasss yourself further, calling one a felon or criminal when they haven't been convicted of a crime by a court of law is about as valid as one accusing you of being a convicted pedophile. agenda in my posts, of course. : ) A continuation of my ongoing satisfaction. If verbosity were a virtue, Twist would be a saint...... Since truth is a virtue, your reservation in Hades is etched in stone. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
N3CVJ wrote:
I have no sock puppets. I have no need to hide. I'm who I am and have no need to deny it. Only people who are afraid to make themselves known need to hide behind sock puppets. Why would I need a sock puppet to say something that I am perfectly capable of saying using my real name? Hehe,,rhetorical dither...once again logic escapes you. I'll wait here for you to prove otherwise. Which, you can't. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj This isn't a court of law, I need prove nothing merely becuase you demand and fancy yourself a physician of psychiatry and doctor of jurisprudence with muffed definitions and posts and delusions of what constitutes communication law. Not only have you failed with your attempted obfsucation by changing your incorrectly chosen and much over-abused term of "felon" with "criminal", you are now attempting (yet, still failing) to the same with your claim of "sock puppets". A few months ago you claimed you never used more than one ACCESS to this group, except for the college, but it was shown you most certianly did, inside of thirty days. Now you modified your lie, er , claim, and eliminated the word "access" and replaced it with "name." In any event, as I said, this is not a court of law, and I am invoking probable cause,,,I am satisfied the contingency knows it is probable, based on your stated causes, you are much less than honest. |
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:23:20 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote: Taking into consideration how oft you have been hung out to dry, you're hard pressed to convince otherwise. You have yet to "hang me out to dry" with anything you've attempted to counter. Like the pitiful democratic presidential candidate, your only retort has been to distort the truth and then accuse your opponents of exactly what you do. And that just burns you doesn't it? Stop making everything personal. Nothing burns me in this group. I don't take it serious like you do. the word that escapes you, is "entertainment". Like I said to you many moons ago, I enjoy tweaking the mentally unstable. That is entertainment for me. You've provided many hours of enjoyment. If you believe that I am angry, you are so far off the mark, that you might as well be on the moon. It's hypocritical to point out the wrongs of others when you yourself do not possess a clean sheet. In the first manner, I never pointed out anyone's wrong doings until they began making noise about my dx activities and freebanding A lame excuse. Two wrongs do not make a right. And like in public school, it doesn't matter who started the fight, both parties are guilty of fighting and are punished accordingly. Keeping it closer to home, you, unprovoked and on many occasion, have called me and others, a criminal and a felon many times for nothing more than our *posting* topics discussing dx activities. I believe the term I used was "criminal". "Felon" was the term you juxtaposed with "criminal" and I suppose I might be partially to blame for not correcting you, and I left it go. Take into consideration your position just a few short years ago of using amps, illegal peaking and tweaking and converting of radios and claiming cbers are more fun and less uptight (than hammies) because they are "regular folk", and you are the shining epitome of hypocrisy. You still don't get it do you? I have tried to say it before but you just can't grasp the subtle differences between my personal feelings on a subject, and the facts on what the activity is in the eyes of the law. I, personally, have no problem with people who act responsibly and considerately toward other people, while they break the law and shoot a little skip or otherwise go beyond the law as stated in Part 95. I sided with the "Legal" crowd because, as a matter of fact, the behavior which you defend so vehemently (yet peculiarly cannot acknowledge the illegality of) is in fact illegal. I still maintain that the CB'ers I knew (and many of whom have been immortalized on my website) during the heyday of CB were orders of magnitude more fun than the sometimes humor challenged hams. That has never changed. But I've also stated that the quality of CB'ers has taken a sizeable plunge in the last 15 years. Back in the day, you could have fun without using obscenities. You didn't need hundreds of watts to talk 10 miles. You didn't have people picking fights with other people over the air. The few sociopaths were dealt with, and the problem was solved. As much as you want to spin it, no matter how you try to downplay the issue with semantics, the FACT is that when you operate on the freeband, you are breaking federal law, which makes you eligible to be called a criminal. You and Doug seem to have much in common. This is the place where I tame your unbridled ignorance and arrogance concerning the United States and the laws regarding the conviction of a crime. Under the laws of this great country, one is only a criminal when found guilty in a court of law. That is little more than an argument in semantics. It's nothing more than the flawed assertion that "it's not illegal 'till I'm caught". That is a flawed "I'm living in denial" defense. I'm sure there are murderers running around free on the street because they haven't been caught yet. But it doesn't excuse their behavior or change what it is. I note you have been forced to distance yourself from your claim that a dxer is a felon and you are now, albeit still incorrectly, attempting to call those who commit acts you disagree with (and that you have committed yourself on numerous occasion) a "criminal" as opposed to a felon. I have always maintained that anyone who breaks the law is a "criminal" The dictionary would agree with me. I've provided the logical progression in the past on what constitutes the law, crime, and a criminal. You added the term "felon" as synonymous with criminal. .. Everyone knows you are an angry, dejected hammie that claims society is reflected on the cb and that you sit around pining for the "lden days". No one but you thinks that. I told you before, you are little more than entertainment. It's fun watching you spin, obfuscate, deny, argue semantics, and get hung up on literal meanings. You should work for the democratic party, your tactics are just as disingenuous. Everyone knows you mislabeled many good, decent ops as "criminals" and "felons" without so much as an admittance you were wrong or apology, but alas, everyone kows what you are about. Why should I apologize for something which is factually correct? If you engage in freebanding, you ARE breaking the law. There are no if's and's or but's about it. Sorry if you don't like the feel of the shoes you chose to wear. But pretending that the emperor has no clothes, doesn't change the facts. Which operators are "good" or "bad" is a subjective matter of opinion. I don't consider the mental midgets who "squash mud ducks" to be "good" operators. They have little consideration for their fellow citizens. If you were a straight up real man, and would say something like "Yea, I operate illegally, so what?", I'd have more respect for you. But you won't even acknowledge that what you do is illegal, and (vainly) deny that you do anything wrong.. For the future, so you don't embarrasss yourself further, calling one a felon or criminal when they haven't been convicted of a crime by a court of law is about as valid as one accusing you of being a convicted pedophile. There's a big difference between someone who is guilty of an illegal activity who just hasn't been caught yet, and a groundless accusation. I have never partaken in any activity which could be remotely considered pedophilia. You, on the other hand, break federal law on the daily basis. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com