Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
BBC to air Beatles Christmas Radio Special | Broadcasting | |||
merry CHRISTmas | Boatanchors | |||
Merry Christmas | Equipment | |||
Merry Christmas | Equipment | |||
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! | Homebrew |