From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:34:54 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
No one understands your "dynamics" nor your "empiricle evdence" nor your
incorrect blathers about echo and roger beeps being illegal on cb.
No, only you have a problem with straight talk.
Try putting some forth,,,,you never have.

You prefer speaking with forked tongue.

That you are unable to find a rule expressly permitting roger beeps on
cb, is all the "dynamics" on needs to understanding your twisted world.

Already addressed.


And you're still incorrect.

Move on.

(You know all about paybacks right?).

If you are attempting to draw some type false analogy between my typed
words and your committed actions, you better dig a little deeper in your
desperation bag,,,,,whoops, nothing left.
See, you can comprehend things when you

really want to! It's funny that what you do here

today, is so similar to what I used to do in the

1970's.


No dave, in now way does what I "do" here have any comparison to your
actions that affected other people and infringed upon their right to use
their radio free of interference from yourself.


The thing is, in 1974 I was 14, so what's your

excuse for your immature and antisocial

behavior today?


Again, I knew enough at 14 not to act like you did.

Plus, I was a teenager then. That should

explain everything.

No, Dave, you weren't a teenager when you were making these posts, but
good luck on trying to get the contingency to believe your
frequent-flowing lies.

Are you caught in some form of dissociative

time warp? The internet didn't exist (at least

not in this form) when I was making noise on

the band.



Correct,,,so stop invoking that time period, ,,,i metioned nothing of
it, only of the time period when you made your posts concerning your
illegal radio activities.

The fact that I can tell stories from back then,

does not mean that I'm still doing the same

thing.


Nope,, but when you make a post that says "I still run an amp" in a
thread speaking of ...taa daa..."CB" in a CB group, it most certainly
does.

If I write a recollection of an event which

occurred 30 years ago, does that mean that

what I write about is still true?


If you wrote it, chances are, none of it is true.
_
I never splattered, never ran huge power, never was a jerk on the air,
even as a child, I not only knew better, I was taught better.

But you see nothing wrong with breaking

federal communications law as an adult? It

would seem that respect for the law was a

subject skipped over when you was "learned".

Respect for the law has abolutely nothing to do with selective
disregardment.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. How can

you claim to respect the law, when you feel

you have the right to ignore it when it suits

your purpose?



I never said I had the "right" to disregard it, which is why I (now pay
attention here) *selectively* disregard it.
Your agenda has been ilustrated, as has
your hypocrisy, contradictions, deliberate misattributions to others,
and lies, But then again, where would this group be without lids like
you to keep us ahead of your game...

It would be forced to deal with sociopath like

you, and your warped views on the way the

world is.



One who fancies themself qualified in multi-fields of discilinary
studies, but who isn't, is much more in line with a sociopath than any
claim you make concerning such.

It would seem that you still need to mature

enough to learn respect for the law...

I have incredible respect for the law.

And you prove it every day when you

disregard the law which prohibits you from

utilizing more than the 40 legal class D

channels.


The only thing proved here is your ignorance arrived via arrogance. As
illustrated, you have many delusions concerning yourself and your
qualifications, so it comes as no surprise when you foster delusions of
myself, such as disregarding the law "every day"..but such an approach
does justify your behavior to that inner twisted psyche.


_
In fact, there are two
sandbaggers in this group howling their azzes off watching you come
apart with such remote accusations. Someday, I may permit you to be
clued in.

Someday I may clue you in to just how a

psychological study of your posting habits was
included in someone I know's psychology

report on deviant behaviors.



That would be so rich, if you knew who the hell you were responding,
especially in lieu of the fact that you have falsely presented yourself
as qualified to make the impressions you now cite of another.
All the more curious, is the fact you are asking educated individuals in
this group to believe such an alleged professional would dare make a
determination based only on a cartoon character and the very carefully
crafted information you were tossed. The "deviant", has never been more
clear, and for that, I thank you.


Dave

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 02:41:05 GMT, Lancer wrote in
. com:

snip
Still up to your eyeballs in snow? Our weather has been really wierd,
it was 70 Wednesday morning, and 20 this morning.

You're down there in Texas, right? So what's this I hear about Houston
being declared the city with the fattest people in the US?

You are what you eat. How'z your belt size going Frank? Isn't -everything-
bigger in Texas?

From: (Steveo)
(Twistedhed) wrote:
N3CVJ wrote:
The reverse can be applied to Nader. He

appeals to the hard core left,

You continue to reaffirm you haven't the foggiest

How can you dispute Ralph's left wing appeal,

Twist?


Not the hard core left. He's not liberal enough.

From: (Steveo)
(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall) wrote:
So, you're telling me that you can't listen to a

channel and pick out who the most blatant

illegal operators are simply by the sound of

their rigs, and by the splatter they produce?
-

Donut matter. No one can tell me my S-Line

is over-driven..even on local ground wave.


That's what my post affirms.


That said, there -are- way yonder too many

splatter-masters on 11 meters.

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
Steveo wrote in
news:20050107163242.759$g1 @newsreader.com:

Lancer wrote:
Forget it, its not worth arguing over..

You are right you put words into my mouth that i didnt say.

Huh? I was talking to Lancer.

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Steveo)
(Twistedhed) wrote:
N3CVJ wrote:
The reverse can be applied to Nader. He

appeals to the hard core left,

You continue to reaffirm you haven't the foggiest

How can you dispute Ralph's left wing appeal,

Twist?

Not the hard core left. He's not liberal enough.

When is enough? Once I sign my entire paycheck over?

That'll be soon enough...to pay for GW's "War on Terror".

"U Know Who" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Steveo)
(Twistedhed) wrote:
N3CVJ wrote:
The reverse can be applied to Nader. He

appeals to the hard core left,

You continue to reaffirm you haven't the foggiest

How can you dispute Ralph's left wing appeal,

Twist?

Not the hard core left. He's not liberal enough.

When is enough? Once I sign my entire paycheck over?

That'll be soon enough...to pay for GW's "War on Terror".

Or not, and let the people that can afford it pay for everyone.

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 16:18:37 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote in :

From: (Dave*Hall)
snip
So which is it? If you are denying my claim

that there are illegal stations on channel 6,

then by simple inverse logic, you are claiming

that there are NO illegal stations on channel 6.

That isn't inverse logic, that's illogic invoked by yourself. Once
again, since you are displaying an uncanny sense of self-cornfusion, the
legality of stations on channel 6 was never the issue. The only issue
was the manner in which you claimed you could tell they were illegal.


That's Dave -- he grabs a logical fallacy that sounds good and won't
let go come hell or high water.