Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #122   Report Post  
Old January 5th 05, 04:21 PM
Twistedhed
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:32:37 -0500,
(Twistedhed)
wrote:
From:
(Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:57:55 -0500,
(Twistedhed)
wrote:
=A0=A0In some cases, the
repercussions can be severe, such as Dennis had in that bull**** when
Hall and Lelnad and Dogie all conspired to contact his employer.

Keep my name out of this.


Your name was netered by yourself and voluntarily on this subject.

No, you mentioned it erroneously.


What I did, was illustrate your double-speak and unending defense of N8
when he was popped by the FCC.


I had NOTHING to do with it.


Aw, come on, Dave...one doesn't need google to realize how many times
you not only defended vehemently, but aligned yourself with the jerkoff
that has posted here many times that he is responsible for people like
Dennis' departure from the group.

I don't know who was responsible for Dennis's


departure from this group,



You lobbied too hard in defense of N8wwm and his lawbreaking to make
such a claim at this point in time.


and I suspect that neither do you.


You only grasp at straws and make wild


guesses. It's no different than what your


detractors do to you, when they accuse you of
being Dave Mc Campbell et al.


I don't defend people, I defend principles.

..
Hehe..surely surely,,,,just like you claimed you don't attack people,
you attack their posts,,which was shown to be bull**** with your myriad
of personal woes and offtopic insults ladled throughout your posting
history..
No "principles" were defended when you redundantly insisted information
given the rainreport by the FCC is not proof of one breaking the law and
that those listed there should not be considered guilty of any
wrongdoings.

Ifthere is insufficient proof (and heresay


testimony from anonymous internet groupies


does not count as proof) to verify an


allegation, then I tend to remain skeptical.





Same thing you said concerning the rainreport when they busted your
buddy n8wwm.


Dennis was a friend,


Well, to be perfectly fair, this group was witness to how you treat your
"friends" on more than one occasion. Your comments concerning
your"business partner" is testament to such and a fine example.

How have I mistreated my friends, as if you


know of any examples?


See above.

and a welcome addition


to this usually technically challenged group,


who tended to believe "CB science" over


sound RF principles. Dennis was one of the


few who set people straight. I applaud and


respect him for that.


Unfortunately, you defended the jerkoff that attacked not only Dennis,
but just about everyone else on this group, also.

That does not mean, as you erroneously


claimed, that I took part in his departure from


the group.



In all probability, it does. You claimed in the past you had nothing to
do with N8WWM, and had to be shown you most certainly were playing his
games by reposting some of your more colorful and harssing posts. I am
now aware some of your extremely weird behavior has been attributed to
the medication to which you have been taking for some time, however, at
this point in time, you appear to forget the post to which you were
forced to admit "Yes, I admit I fell into Doug's bull****".
this was extracted from you only after your continued denials and only
after you were caught playing games with Dogie and harassinh good people
in this group.

_
In fact, you jumped
aboard the canine wagon with both paws, claiming the FCC and Rainreport
means nothing concerning enforcement.

I only claimed that there was no definitive


proof,



And you were dead wrong.

at the time, that the interference was being


caused by the person who was being


accused.




Once again, you are showing what little you know of the law governing
that of which you are you licensed. Protocol at the FCC dictates prior
to any offense being logged, an official FCC, assignee, or designee MUST
witness the infraction. Exceptions to this are when the FCC receives
calls from individuals not afiliated with the FCC, like k4kwh, who are
merely reporting infractions they allegedly witnessed. In such cases,
the FCC *may* contact the individual accused, but they (FCC) ALWAYS make
certain the individual is NOT accused by the FCC until they witness
infractions of violation of the law themselves. In these cases, the FCC
will release a statement to the effect of: "John Doe was notified by the
FCC that they received information he was in violation of ........ on
(insert date here)..." In these instances, a reply is requested
addressing the FCC's inquiry. In N8WWM's case, and others like it (where
the FCC already determines infractions occurred), the FCC simply
releases a statement to the effect of :"N8WWM was found to be in
violation" or "Enclosed are recordings of N8WWM's violations".



Knowing how this person had set himself up in
a despised position, it was easy to postulate


how someone looking for some sort of


"revenge" could have framed him for it.



You are the only one to continue to set forth this preposterous notion.

All I said was not to count all of your eggs


before they all hatch. Premature summary


judgements are irresponsible.




Only it wasn't a premature judgement nor an isolated incident. It was
several violations (according to the FCC) on several occasion, and the
FCC had ALREADY determined the violations occurred, yet, you undermind
their authority when it comes to N8WWM getting busted.

Like I said, I defend principles.



And like you were shown above, you're wrong.

Heck I'd even


defend you if the situation warranted it. I


believe that people should get what they


deserve, nothing more or less.



Hehe,,,erroneously seeing yourself as judge of what others deserve is
part of your problem, Dave, and quite the narcissistic.

_
Just more double talk from one who has been
shown to not only ride both sides of a debate with self-contradiction,
but also fosters and incites flames from all parties.

A skilled debater is able to assume either side


of an issue and argue it with equal


effectiveness.



Feeling compelled to always foster debate in a discuss room.....you
should be in a debate group, Dave, as this is labeled but a mere
discussion group. A skilled debater can handle and debate on both sides
of an issue equally effective. When you present your position of
underminding the FCC concerning their releaseed statement claiming N8WWM
was caught jamming, you do so out of personal opinion, not facts that
support your self-debate. Regardless the manner you see yourself, such
an approach is by no means effective nor skilled.


You may call it contradiction. I call it "Keeping


an open mind".....



When you call one a felon and a criminal for using the same illegal amps
you utilize and for talking skip on channel 6 like you, nothing about an
open mind exists. It's shameful hypocrisy and intentional malice.


Dave


"Sandbagger"


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

Dave


"Sandbagger"


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


  #123   Report Post  
Old January 5th 05, 04:36 PM
Dave Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:45:35 GMT, Lancer wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:39:12 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:57:55 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
In some cases, the
repercussions can be severe, such as Dennis had in that bull**** when
Hall and Lelnad and Dogie all conspired to contact his employer.


Keep my name out of this. I had NOTHING to do with it. Dennis was a
friend, and a welcome addition to this usually technically challenged
group, who tended to believe "CB science" over sound RF principles.
Dennis was one of the few who set people straight. I applaud and
respect him for that.

Dave

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


Wasn't it Mark Fuller that did that? Or was accused of it?


You might be right. He was in the middle of the fracas, IIRC. I don't
think Doug was even part of the group back then. But it's all in
Google for anyone who has an overwhelming need to see it.

But the next thing you know someone will accuse me of being him.......

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

  #124   Report Post  
Old January 5th 05, 09:34 PM
Dave Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 10:21:06 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:



I had NOTHING to do with it.


Aw, come on, Dave...one doesn't need google to realize how many times
you not only defended vehemently, but aligned yourself with the jerkoff
that has posted here many times that he is responsible for people like
Dennis' departure from the group.


I made a single defensive comment regarding the then sketchy
allegations of interference. Later information seemed to make the case
much plainer. But you can't judge my initial comment against later
information. And by making that single "defense" hardly qualifies as
"aligning" with him. You do have a flair for the over dramatic.


I don't know who was responsible for Dennis's
departure from this group,


You lobbied too hard in defense of N8wwm and his lawbreaking to make
such a claim at this point in time.


In one thread? That's too hard to you?

Same thing you said concerning the rainreport when they busted your
buddy n8wwm.


Doug is hardly "my buddy" I have never, to my knowledge ever
corresponded with him, outside of this public newsgroup.


Dennis was a friend,


Well, to be perfectly fair, this group was witness to how you treat your
"friends" on more than one occasion. Your comments concerning
your"business partner" is testament to such and a fine example.

How have I mistreated my friends, as if you
know of any examples?


See above.


Elaborate please (if you can).


and a welcome addition
to this usually technically challenged group,
who tended to believe "CB science" over
sound RF principles. Dennis was one of the
few who set people straight. I applaud and
respect him for that.


Unfortunately, you defended the jerkoff that attacked not only Dennis,
but just about everyone else on this group, also.


As brought to my attention in another post, Dennis' departure
pre-dated Doug's "activities". The person most likely to have had a
hand in it was Mark Fuller. You might want to sit and play Google
games again before making yet another false claim.


That does not mean, as you erroneously
claimed, that I took part in his departure from
the group.



In all probability, it does.


No, in all actuality, it doesn't.

You claimed in the past you had nothing to
do with N8WWM,


True. I have never had words with Doug.


and had to be shown you most certainly were playing his
games by reposting some of your more colorful and harssing posts.


What posts have I authored have been the least bit "harassing"?
Pointing out anti-social behavior is hardly harassing. If you can't
deal with the truth, it's not my fault.


I am
now aware some of your extremely weird behavior has been attributed to
the medication to which you have been taking for some time,


What? Now what are you smoking? For someone who claims to not care
about the personal activities of others, your are a virtual fountain
of information. Unfortunately, most of the time, it's wrong. I am
taking no medication other than occasional cholesterol and acid reflux
medication. That is certainly not something which would affect my
"behavior".

however, at
this point in time, you appear to forget the post to which you were
forced to admit "Yes, I admit I fell into Doug's bull****".


I freely admitted that. Like I said at the time, I agreed with Doug's
principle of advocating legal CB operation. I did not endorse or
condone his methods of spamming the newsgroup.


this was extracted from you only after your continued denials and only
after you were caught playing games with Dogie and harassinh good people
in this group.


That statement is a bold faced lie. I challenge you to prove
otherwise. Which, like in all other cases, you will be unable to.


When you call one a felon and a criminal for using the same illegal amps
you utilize and for talking skip on channel 6 like you, nothing about an
open mind exists. It's shameful hypocrisy and intentional malice.


I do not shoot skip. I don't LIKE skip. When I used to use an
amplifier, it was to GET OVER or chase it off the channel. That was
many years ago. I've since changed my attitude with respect to the
law. Like I said before, I have not used channel 6 since the late
70's. Once again, if you have any proof otherwise, I'd be glad to see
it.

You really need to seek help to deal with your habitual lying,
misrepresenting, and distorting of the truth.


Dave

"Sandbagger"

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



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BBC to air Beatles Christmas Radio Special Mike Terry Broadcasting 0 December 25th 04 02:40 AM
merry CHRISTmas Wbelsito Boatanchors 0 December 21st 04 05:32 AM
Merry Christmas Troy - VK2HXY Equipment 0 December 26th 03 06:06 AM
Merry Christmas Troy - VK2HXY Equipment 0 December 26th 03 06:06 AM
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! rob34 Homebrew 0 December 24th 03 08:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017