|
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:09:05 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:24:15 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:02:28 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Since when would facts make any difference to your version of the "truth"? Well, maybe there's hope for you yet, so here's the best place to start: http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/1057 http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1064 Freepress.org is a leftist propaganda organization, Enough with the labels. If the shoe fits...... You have also labeled the mainstream media as being heavily biased to the left, yet it is the mainstream media that refuses to cover the Ohio recount or release the raw exit poll data. Because even the mainstream media realizes that this story is more fluff than substance, despite their left leaning slant. That still doesn't explain why they won't release the raw exit poll data. And you fail to realize the simple fact that 'mainstream media' is predominately owned and operated by huge corporations that strongly favor the Republicans. If they slant in any direction it's going to be towards the conservatives. Unlike unaccountable rags like "freepress.org" the mainstream media has accountability to the masses. Especially after "Rathergate" they are especially leary of stories which cannot be verified with some degree of accuracy. It would seem that your "standards" for what passes as "truth" is much less. I knew you wouldn't read it. Your labels don't reconcile with the facts. What you perceive as "fact" is the at the core of the issue. Unless you personally had a hand in the investigation, you are getting your information from a 2nd, 3rd or 4th party. Any one of which can "modify" the facts by adding a degree of bias to the point that the message has skewed. But, for some reason, you can't seem to see that. You mean like the story about Kerry not receiving an honorable discharge until 2001? As for freepress.org, I suggest you read their "About" page which describes the organization and chronicles it's history. I'm sure Adolf Hitler wrote a glowing review about himself as well. What "freepress.org" says about itself is meaningless. What other groups, who track the political agendas of these rogue "news" services, says is what tells the real story. ......oh brother. I'm sure that these "other groups" are mostly conservative organizations, right? I doubt you will read it because people like you are too afraid to face facts that might conflict with your biased opinions. Frank, when are you going to realize that you "facts" are nothing more than YOUR biased opinions. Telling me that my bias is wrong based on your bias is laughable. "..........Ohio's GOP Supreme Court Chief Justice, Thomas Moyer, has refused to recuse himself, even though allegations of vote switching – where votes cast for one candidate are assigned to another in the computerized tabulation stage – involve his own re-election campaign. ............ Ohio's official recount was conducted by GOP Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, despite widespread protests that his role as co-chair of the state's Bush-Cheney campaign constituted an serious conflict of interest. Blackwell has refused to testify in the election challenge lawsuit alleging massive voter fraud, as have a number of GOP county election supervisors. Blackwell also refuses to explain why he has left more than 106,000 machine-rejected and provisional ballots entirely uncounted. ............ The final recount tested roughly 3% of the roughly 5.7 million votes cast in the state. But contrary to the law governing the recount, many precincts tested were selected not at random, but by Blackwell's personal designation. Experts with the election challenge suit have noted many of the precincts selected were mostly free of the irregularities they are seeking to investigate, while many contested precincts were left unrecounted. ............. In other precincts, impossibly high voter turnout figures -- nearly all of them adding to Bush's official margin -- remain unexplained. In the heavily Republican southern county of Perry, Blackwell certified one precinct with 221 more votes than registered voters. Two precincts -- Reading S and W. Lexington G -- were let stand in the officially certified final vote count with voter turnouts of roughly 124% each. In Miami County's Concord South West precinct, Blackwell certified a voter turnout of 98.55 percent, requiring that all but 10 voters in the precinct cast ballots. But a freepress.org canvas easily found 25 voters who said they did not vote. In the nearby Concord South precinct, Blackwell certified an apparently impossible voter turnout of 94.27 percent. Both Concord precincts went heavily for Bush. ............. In Warren County, Bush was credited with 68,035 votes to Kerry’s 26,043 votes. But just as the county's votes were about to be counted after the polls closed on November 2, the Board of Elections claimed a Homeland Security alert authorized them to throw out all Democratic and independent observers, including the media. The vote count was thus conducted entirely by Republicans.........." Those are facts, Dave. Not left-wing propoganda, "editorial opinions" or "MY biased opinions". Facts. You would rather slap labels on others instead of admitting that there is a possibility you are wrong. There is always a possibility that I am wrong. But not this time. I've been around the block to know how this all works. Republicans are not angels by any stretch of the imagination. But just like you telling me I'm wrong based on your own bias, democrats screaming "foul" at an election that they lost, and pointing at republicans for cheating, while they cross their fingers behind their backs is equally ridiculous. They BOTH cheat. They always have. Gee, seems I've heard this somewhere before..... by golly I did! A couple months ago it was ME that was telling YOU about how both sides cheat! At least -something- finally sunk in. But I am incensed that democrats have the balls to be so blatantly hypocritical. Once again, Dave, I'm not a Democrat. How many times do I need to repeat it? But you really -should- read it because people with open minds don't share your fear, My FEAR? What "fear" is that? Losing. and they are the people you will be arguing with until you wake up and smell the sheep-dung. Until *I* wake up? You'd better pinch yourself man, because it is not I who is sleeping..... so it does not surprise me that they hype the negative issues to make it seem worse than it is. But you seem to have a problem differentiating between real hard irrefutable FACTS with biased editorial opinion. Are you suggesting that a 124% voter turnout is just an "editorial opinion"? Are you equally concerned that the overturning of a clear republican victory in Washington State after not just one, but a few recounts, and by a similar "bloat" in voter turnout? First off, it was -HARDLY- a "clear republican victory". The first count was done by machine and gave Rossi a lead so slim that it triggered an -automatic- recount. That recount narrowed the lead to a few dozen votes. It would have been foolish of any opponent -not- to request a hand recount, which put Gregoire in the lead by 139 votes. The rules were followed and Gregoire won. Now the Republicans are whining up a storm and begging for a second election. Also, there have been allegations that King County counted unconfirmed provisional ballots. If that's true then it would be foolish for Rossi -not- to contest the election. So far he hasn't. But overall, Washington seems to be accomplishing what Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and several other states cannot: conduct an election with a transparent process. And for the record, I didn't vote for either of them -- again I voted third-party. Pay attention, Dave: It doesn't matter who won or lost the election. Sure it does. Would all these P.E.S.T. victims be screaming for a recount in Ohio if Kerry had won? That was my whole point. There were all sorts of allegations of voter fraud in Pennsylvania, particularly in heavily democratic strongholds like Philadelphia. But nobody cares because Kerry won the state, even if by less of a margin than Bush won Ohio. Read the transcript I cited. These are the same organizations that cried foul when Gore tried to manipulate the recounts in Florida, criticized the Clinton victories, and have members that are official election observers for this and other countries. Yet you try and paint them as hired guns for the Democrats. Like I said, if the shoe fits. The sheer intensity of the protests and the unwillingness for so many people to accept the outcome of the election is more telling as to the driving force behind this brouhaha. People would probably be more willing to accept the results if they could see that the election was conducted fairly and LEGALLY. That's why you don't see such protests in Washington. As you have demonstrated many times before, your perspective is so slanted you are falling over. I don't have to worry about falling over, as your equally slanted perspective in the other direction will balance me out. I don't like Bush and I don't like Kerry. Which way am I slanted? Kerry conceeded -- end of story. No, it's not. There are all sorts of sore loser groups trying everything from trying to throw out the electoral vote, to impeaching Bush. They just can't deal with the fact that THEY LOST. Crying voter fraud is just another attempt to deny the fact that THEY LOST. Denial is the first step. I wasn't happy when Clinton won, but I didn't accuse every state where he won of fraud (Even though, in all likelihood, there was probably some). "They" is not "me". Whether the current president makes you whine or dine, voting fraud is the issue. The "Kerry-lost-get-over-it" routine is getting old and you are sounding like a broken record. But that is the basic point. Hell, these people now protesting Bush's second victory are the very same people who were claiming for the last 4 years that Gore REALLY won and that Bush was "selected, not elected". They haven't gotten over 2000, they just changed the loser's name. Like I said before, "they" is not "me". Whether Gore won or lost, his conduct during the recounts was reprehensible. The most important issue right now is voting fraud. Why now? How does that proverb go..... "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today". They tried to repair the faults of the 2000 election with band-aids and it didn't work; the wound got bigger. If we don't fix it now the same problems will be bigger and more widespread in 2008, or perhaps even sooner. Address the issue at hand. Some day later we can address how your wool got sheared by Bush's propoganda machine. By providing me more leftist propaganda that you believe as fact? No thanks Frank. I can spot snake oil at quite a distance. Official military records are "leftist propoganda"? Tell me Frank, do you believe that there has always been voter fraud, or do you think that this is suddenly something new? Voting fraud has been around ever since voting was invented. So why is it such an issue for you now? Where were you in '92? But there has never been fraud on a scale like what was seen Nov. 2. By what factual (not op-ed opinion) information do you base this claim? How do you determine total voter fraud? When the race is so close that voting fraud could have been the determining factor. Nor to the extent that, if left unchecked, could directly affect the government of the most powerful country in the world. Mayor Daily of Chicago certainly knew that....... I don't live in Chicago. You aren't suggesting that voting fraud should be ignored because it's going to occur no matter what, are you? Certainly not. I am for tightening the rules that regulate voting, including several measure which make many democrats very "uneasy". How about requiring a paper trail? But I don't think that voter fraud is any worse now than it had been in the past. Surely you haven't forgotten about the bus loads of illegal immigrants, the jailed felons, and the buying of votes with cartons of cigarettes in days past? The key phrase is "days past". Those problems have been addressed, have they not? We have -new- problems that need to be addressed, such as a corporation that wrote the software for the voting machines and whose CEO promised to deliver the state's electoral votes to Bush; election officials (i.e, the Secretary of State) who is also the campaign manager for that state; the shorting of voting machines in selected precincts; etc, etc. This problem threatens the very core of this democracy, and if presidential elections can be rigged then we might as well throw in the towel. Future elections will be meaningless and open to any power-monger with enough money to buy the election, Like George Soros? maybe even someone as diabolical as Hitler or Stalin. Or Ted Kennedy? Gee, I don't know..... did Ted Kennedy kill millions of people? No, only one. But killing people is not the only form of "diabolical". Is that the secret ambition which convinced him to enter the political arena? I'm asking because the facts don't indicate anything of the sort, but -you- know the -real- truth, don't you Dave? So polish your lamp, gaze into your crystal ball, call the psychic friends network, or do whatever it is you do to gain such pervasive insight into the truth..... and tell me, what -are- Ted's secret ambitions? I really don't know, but his interests in the direction of this country are diametrically opposed to what a free capitalist society would want. Really? Care to elaborate? But I suppose you wouldn't mind such a 'leader' or how he comes to power just as long as you agree with his publically stated moral principles and objectives..... but wasn't it you that said, "politically motivated people have incentive to lie"? Yes No kidding. , but you seem to think the whole issue of fraud is one sided. You scream with righteous indignation because your guy lost, not because you have a genuine concern over the voting process. Id be willing to bet that had Kerry won, you wouldn't care if allegations of voter fraud surfaced. You'd be saying to me, the same thing I'm saying to you. Did you come to those conclusions after reading tea leaves or throwing bones? The same way that I know how people think. The same way that I diagnosed Twisty's sociopathic tendencies. Maybe you should read some of my previous posts regarding Bush, how I defended him in the past. The past is just that. Ok, I see how this works..... the past is relevent only when it favors your argument, such as previous accounts of voting fraud. Right? Don't even try to tell me that you favored Bush, because that would be a lie. So it's beyond my capability for me to open my eyes and see my own mistake of supporting Bush? That's pretty hypocritical, Dave. And pretty ignorant: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2?dmode=source Maybe you missed my criticizms of Gore for trying to manufacture votes by selective recounts. Maybe you missed my many posts where I clearly stated that I only vote for independents and/or third party candidates, and voted for Nader in this election. Or maybe you just aren't paying attention to the facts. When have you ever spoken about politics on this newsgroup before Frank? Until this past election, this newsgroup pretty much stayed the course on radio related issues. Yeah, right. And I've been on Usenet a lot longer than I've been in this newsgroup. I do recall you saying that you voted for Nader, even though you were at the same time, defending Kerry and his policies with more vigor than one of his lackey political pundits. I find it hard to believe that someone could be behind one candidate yet espouse the "good" points of his opponent. It's duplicitous. I defended Kerry against your bull**** propoganda. I'll re-restate what I posted previously on the subject: "I have stated before that I didn't think Kerry was a strong enough leader to be president. He doesn't have the connections, his communication skills aren't quite up to snuff (but not as bad as Bush), and he doesn't command a presence in Congress (which would be necessary for a president, especially if his party doesn't hold the majority)." And anyone can see that Bush has some good qualities. He has a certain charisma that he uses to great advantage. Like Time magazine notes, he sticks to his guns (even if they are pointed in the wrong direction). And just because he got mixed up with the wrong crowd (the Vulcans) that doesn't mean he's a bad guy. A moron perhaps, but not necessarily evil as some people claim. It's far from duplicitous. It's simply a matter of looking at the facts without bias. It's so much easier for you to comprehend if you tell yourself that I voted for Kerry and that I'm a sore loser, isn't it? Well, as usual, you're wrong. I voted for Nader. But you defended Kerry as if you were married to him. I defended Communism in a debate in high-school. That doesn't mean I'm a communist (or married to a communist). And I didn't defend Kerry so much as I disproved the lies and conjecture you ignorantly chose to believe without regard to the facts. And even though he lost the election, I didn't have any expectations that he would win. But he and other third party candidates -did- make a strong showing, which was my intent with my vote, and for that reason I am -very- happy with the outcome of the election. Strong showing? Nader got what 2% of the vote? You call that "strong"? Ross Perot made a better showing. Nader and other third-party candidates got more recognition in this election than in any previous election, with the exception of Perot. I call that a strong showing. But I am glad for Nader. He at least syphoned the most idealistic utopian liberal voters away from Kerry, which may have allowed Bush to win again. For that I thank him. If Kerry had won it would be the Bush supporters whining about how the third-party candidates siphoned away -their- votes. Except for the fraud. I also find it curious that those who seem the most opposed to putting policies in place to lessen the chance of fraud are mostly democrats. Mandatory voter ID, and a more secure voting environment have all been shouted down by democrats. They used the lame "disenfranchised" and "racism" arguments to hide their real worry that a truly fair election would hurt them. No more buying votes with cartons of cigarettes, or bottles of ripple. Both Republicans and Democrats oppose those issues equally. And it wasn't the Democrats who initiated the recount in Ohio; Who was it then who filed suit in Ohio because there were claims of insufficient voting machines in heavily democratic voting places? it was the Greens and the Libertarians with cooperation from voting rights organizations. Bull**** Frank, plain and simple. If you can't see through that, you are more blind than I thought. What incentive would there be, and what gain would be had for those odd-ball independents to bring about this action? It doesn't pass the smell test Frank. Have you ever thought for one moment that there may be people that actually care about fundamental issues such as voting rights? Or is that dish too liberal for your table? Once again you have showed how skewed your perspective is towards the Republicans. I am a conservative, and I lean toward republicans because they best represent my interests. That's no great secret. But you have yet to admit your political slant, and the accompanied bias. You're in denial Frank. My political "slant" is towards the Constitution. That's my political party, that's my religion, and that's my first concern whenever I step into the voting booth. The Republicans may represent -your- interests (whatever they may be, and I don't think I want to know), but -my- interest happens to be preserving a democratic form of government. Get a clue, Dave. I would think that you need one as well. What you think about me carries no weight since you have yet to demonstrate that you are capable of thought that is independent and rational; i.e, above the level of domesticated livestock. If you truly believed that you would not waste your time trying to "show" me how "wrong" I am. The fact that you are unable to back up anything you stand for with anything other than your own form of propaganda, Keep saying it and maybe it will come true. LOL! and have failed ant every attempt to discredit my position Oh, really? You still think that Kerry didn't get his honorable discharge until 2001 despite the official military records? Or do you prefer to believe someone else's misinformed interpretation of documents that are available for you to read any time you want? Or have you dismissed the facts in favor of some conspiricy to forge those records and cover up some deep, dark secret that exists only in your imagination? Or maybe you are a card-carrying member of the Bush propaganda machine and intentionally spout this garbage because the party serves your interests? is what keeps you coming back for more. In a way, you're acting just like Twisty, when he can't "prove" the lies he spews about other people. yawn. This country was built by people..... Yes it was. "We The People", not "We the Republicans" or "We the Christian traditionalists". Get that through your head. |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:38:10 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:16:33 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: So you are denying that the majority of the "big radios" on Channel 6 are running any sort of high power? Apparently, that is a an argument you are having with yourself. No, you are trying to claim that there are no illegal operators on 6, based on your rejection to my claim that what I can hear on almost a daily basis is in fact illegal. I'm sure some of them are illegal, but my surity is not fact. Your personal feelings are not "facts". No but my trained observations skills can be considered as strong evidence to the positive. Trained observation skills = Tarot cards. Making a personal opinion that "channel 6 harbors the dregs of society" Yes, that part is my personal opinion. Why is -this- your personal opinion and not fact? What happened to your "trained observation skills"? and claiming it is nothing short of empiracle evidence that illegalities occur is jovial. That you once again think that you can somehow claim that these illegal operators do not exist is ludicrous. Nobody suggested that illegal operators don't exist. The question is your standard of proof, that what you claim to be illegal transmissions are illegal IN FACT, not in your opinion or belief. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:52:39 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:25:10 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: N3CVJ wrote: I no longer partake in those activities. I grew up Twist, plain and simple. Now, when will you? That's a good thing you don't partake in those activities anymore, Dave...as I NEVER took part in those activities cited by you,,bragging about your radio that caused severe bleed,,,laughing about the intentional intereference the bleed caused,,telling people to buy a bandaid when you were bleeding,,,.. I don't expect you to understand the dynamics of the local CB population back then, but any interference that I deliberately did to anyone back then was to those who were asking for it, Dave = judge, jury and executioner. in the form of a payback (You know all about paybacks right?). Plus, I was a teenager then. That should explain everything. I knew way more about radio back then than my maturity level could control. And I thought -I- was arrogant. snip It would seem that you still need to mature enough to learn respect for the law... Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much. You voted for him too, Frank. Any vote for Nader, was one less vote for the waffle king. The best part is, you knew Ralphie had a snow balls chance in hell of being elected. Was Nader even on the ballot, or did you have to write him in? |
On 06 Jan 2005 22:14:13 GMT, Steveo
wrote in : Frank Gilliland wrote: Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much. You voted for him too, Frank. No I didn't. Not in 2000 and not in 2004. I did support him after the first election mainly because I was supporting his office. I still support the office, just not the man. Any vote for Nader, was one less vote for the waffle king. That's a propaganda tactic first used by both sides when Perot was an unknown variable. Let me make this perfectly clear: A vote for anybody that isn't an ass or an elephant is a vote against both those parties. And to lay blame on people who voted third-party is a pretentious crock of ****. Don't believe me? Just wait until the next election for WA governor, when the Republicans are going to use the same bull**** excuse claiming it was the third-party candidates that stole their victory. The best part is, you knew Ralphie had a snow balls chance in hell of being elected. Was Nader even on the ballot, or did you have to write him in? He was most certainly on the ballot, as were the candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties, and a few others. This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win. As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit and curse the darkness". |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 06 Jan 2005 22:14:13 GMT, Steveo wrote in : Frank Gilliland wrote: Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much. You voted for him too, Frank. No I didn't. Not in 2000 and not in 2004. I did support him after the first election mainly because I was supporting his office. I still support the office, just not the man. Any vote for Nader, was one less vote for the waffle king. That's a propaganda tactic first used by both sides when Perot was an unknown variable. Let me make this perfectly clear: A vote for anybody that isn't an ass or an elephant is a vote against both those parties. And to lay blame on people who voted third-party is a pretentious crock of ****. Don't believe me? Just wait until the next election for WA governor, when the Republicans are going to use the same bull**** excuse claiming it was the third-party candidates that stole their victory. The best part is, you knew Ralphie had a snow balls chance in hell of being elected. Was Nader even on the ballot, or did you have to write him in? He was most certainly on the ballot, as were the candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties, and a few others. This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win. As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit and curse the darkness". That's what the Republicans said when they sued to make sure Ralph got on the ballot. Odd that. g http://www.freep.com/news/politics/n...e_20040826.htm |
On 06 Jan 2005 23:57:14 GMT, Steveo
wrote in : Frank Gilliland wrote: On 06 Jan 2005 22:14:13 GMT, Steveo wrote in : Frank Gilliland wrote: Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much. You voted for him too, Frank. No I didn't. Not in 2000 and not in 2004. I did support him after the first election mainly because I was supporting his office. I still support the office, just not the man. Any vote for Nader, was one less vote for the waffle king. That's a propaganda tactic first used by both sides when Perot was an unknown variable. Let me make this perfectly clear: A vote for anybody that isn't an ass or an elephant is a vote against both those parties. And to lay blame on people who voted third-party is a pretentious crock of ****. Don't believe me? Just wait until the next election for WA governor, when the Republicans are going to use the same bull**** excuse claiming it was the third-party candidates that stole their victory. The best part is, you knew Ralphie had a snow balls chance in hell of being elected. Was Nader even on the ballot, or did you have to write him in? He was most certainly on the ballot, as were the candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties, and a few others. This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win. As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit and curse the darkness". That's what the Republicans said when they sued to make sure Ralph got on the ballot. Odd that. g http://www.freep.com/news/politics/n...e_20040826.htm If a third-party candidate was expected to take votes from the Republicans you can bet that the roles would be reversed. The two big parties will do whatever they think will get them the votes, even if it means supressing a vote for a third-party candidate. The only thing this proves is that neither one of the parties have any interest in free and open elections, which is what I have been saying all along, and also why I don't vote for either of them. Also, notice that the article states that Nader had his own petition to run under the Reform Party ticket. So which petition won? |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 06 Jan 2005 23:57:14 GMT, Steveo wrote in : This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win. As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit and curse the darkness". That's what the Republicans said when they sued to make sure Ralph got on the ballot. Odd that. g http://www.freep.com/news/politics/n...e_20040826.htm If a third-party candidate was expected to take votes from the Republicans you can bet that the roles would be reversed. Exactly my point. Nader helped get Bush elected. |
On 07 Jan 2005 00:31:35 GMT, Steveo
wrote in : snip If a third-party candidate was expected to take votes from the Republicans you can bet that the roles would be reversed. Exactly my point. Nader helped get Bush elected. You are a living testament to Milton's biography of an enigmatic young man who said, "I ate what?" |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 07 Jan 2005 00:31:35 GMT, Steveo wrote in : snip If a third-party candidate was expected to take votes from the Republicans you can bet that the roles would be reversed. Exactly my point. Nader helped get Bush elected. You are a living testament to Milton's biography of an enigmatic young man who said, "I ate what?" Grapes sour? |
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 02:05:47 GMT, Lancer wrote in
. com: On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:06:56 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: snip Exactly dave you just added ab-1 bias to the am which certainly would clean it up, but what would the spoiled kid in Tampa know he doesnt even solder his mike plugs on. What is the difference between a Class AB1 transistor amp, and a class AB2? Or better yet, what is the difference between the bias on an AB1 and an AB2? (transistor amp) LOL! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
On 07 Jan 2005 02:17:19 GMT, Steveo
wrote in : Frank Gilliland wrote: On 07 Jan 2005 00:31:35 GMT, Steveo wrote in : snip If a third-party candidate was expected to take votes from the Republicans you can bet that the roles would be reversed. Exactly my point. Nader helped get Bush elected. You are a living testament to Milton's biography of an enigmatic young man who said, "I ate what?" Grapes sour? No, I believe the "sour grapes" story was told by Grimm and involved a nutritionally-challenged fox. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Lancer wrote:
On 07 Jan 2005 00:31:35 GMT, Steveo wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote: On 06 Jan 2005 23:57:14 GMT, Steveo wrote in : This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win. As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit and curse the darkness". That's what the Republicans said when they sued to make sure Ralph got on the ballot. Odd that. g http://www.freep.com/news/politics/n...e_20040826.htm If a third-party candidate was expected to take votes from the Republicans you can bet that the roles would be reversed. Exactly my point. Nader helped get Bush elected. You really think that Nader made that much of a difference? Well it was a fairly close election, and it's no secret the Dems didn't want Ralph taking votes that might otherwise go to JK. I don't know how many votes RN garnered in the end. |
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 02:30:14 GMT, Lancer wrote in
. com: On 07 Jan 2005 00:31:35 GMT, Steveo wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote: On 06 Jan 2005 23:57:14 GMT, Steveo wrote in : This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win. As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit and curse the darkness". That's what the Republicans said when they sued to make sure Ralph got on the ballot. Odd that. g http://www.freep.com/news/politics/n...e_20040826.htm If a third-party candidate was expected to take votes from the Republicans you can bet that the roles would be reversed. Exactly my point. Nader helped get Bush elected. You really think that Nader made that much of a difference? That's a question which can't be answered because there's no way to tell how many Nader votes would have been Kerry votes if Nader hadn't run. My question is if Nader had more influence on the election than voting fraud. That -can- be answered if there were more fraudulent Bush votes than the total votes for Nader, which may indeed be the case. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 11:57:44 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote in : On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:09:05 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Are you equally concerned that the overturning of a clear republican victory in Washington State after not just one, but a few recounts, and by a similar "bloat" in voter turnout? First off, it was -HARDLY- a "clear republican victory". The first count was done by machine and gave Rossi a lead so slim that it triggered an -automatic- recount. That recount narrowed the lead to a few dozen votes. It would have been foolish of any opponent -not- to request a hand recount, which put Gregoire in the lead by 139 votes. The rules were followed and Gregoire won. Now the Republicans are whining up a storm and begging for a second election. Also, there have been allegations that King County counted unconfirmed provisional ballots. If that's true then it would be foolish for Rossi -not- to contest the election. So far he hasn't. But overall, Washington seems to be accomplishing what Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and several other states cannot: conduct an election with a transparent process. Turns out that somebody just filed a contest of the WA gov. election claiming that the margin of victory was smaller than the margin of error. That's a perfectly legitimate argument. The election continues. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
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? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Lancer wrote:
Still up to your eyeballs in snow? Our weather has been really wierd, it was 70 Wednesday morning, and 20 this morning. Nah, we've had warmer weather and rain/sleet/slush lately. Did plow from midnight till 9 this morning tho..needed a big azz'd squeegee instead of a plow.. You're right, very strange weather patterns. How did your SW radio Christmas present go over? |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:50:47 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote in : 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? http://www.thedenverchannel.com/heal...05/detail.html ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:20:16 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:52:39 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:25:10 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: N3CVJ wrote: I no longer partake in those activities. I grew up Twist, plain and simple. Now, when will you? That's a good thing you don't partake in those activities anymore, Dave...as I NEVER took part in those activities cited by you,,bragging about your radio that caused severe bleed,,,laughing about the intentional intereference the bleed caused,,telling people to buy a bandaid when you were bleeding,,,.. I don't expect you to understand the dynamics of the local CB population back then, but any interference that I deliberately did to anyone back then was to those who were asking for it, Dave = judge, jury and executioner. No different than anyone else on the band back then. in the form of a payback (You know all about paybacks right?). Plus, I was a teenager then. That should explain everything. I knew way more about radio back then than my maturity level could control. And I thought -I- was arrogant. And you would be correct. snip It would seem that you still need to mature enough to learn respect for the law... Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much. C'mon now Frank, you're letting your sour grapes partisanship cloud your objectivity...... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:41:27 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On 06 Jan 2005 22:14:13 GMT, Steveo wrote in : Frank Gilliland wrote: Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much. You voted for him too, Frank. No I didn't. Not in 2000 and not in 2004. I did support him after the first election mainly because I was supporting his office. I still support the office, just not the man. Any vote for Nader, was one less vote for the waffle king. That's a propaganda tactic first used by both sides when Perot was an unknown variable. Actually there was a lot of truth in it. Perot syphoned quite a few votes away from Bush 1. Heck I almost voted for him. His straight up non-nonsense business approach to the economy was refreshing and resonated with fiscal conservatives. The reverse can be applied to Nader. He appeals to the hard core left, who, for whatever reason don't think the democratic party has gotten liberal enough (Chilling thought). It's a fairly safe bet that if Nader had not been on the ticket that MOST of his votes would have probably gone to Kerry. Since Nader did not make as big of a splash as Perot did, his total effect on the eventual election outcome is speculative. But to deny that there was any effect is myopic. Let me make this perfectly clear: A vote for anybody that isn't an ass or an elephant is a vote against both those parties. One party more than the other depending on which political ideology of the third party who manages to rise up out of the noise floor of write in status. And to lay blame on people who voted third-party is a pretentious crock of ****. To deny the influence of those third party vote syphoners is equally ludicrous. Don't believe me? Just wait until the next election for WA governor, when the Republicans are going to use the same bull**** excuse claiming it was the third-party candidates that stole their victory. No, it was clever democratic operatives who (after a few recounts) managed to manufacture enough extra votes to swing the election their way. Where's your cry of voter fraud there Frank? The best part is, you knew Ralphie had a snow balls chance in hell of being elected. Was Nader even on the ballot, or did you have to write him in? He was most certainly on the ballot, as were the candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties, and a few others. Nader was denied a place on the ballot in Pa. He didn't have enough legitimate petitioners. Although the Libertarian candidate, Badnarick, managed to make it.... This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win. So you are the "anti-voter"? As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit and curse the darkness". There's also a saying about standing in the middle of a crowded highway...... Don't get me wrong, the whole principle of a democratic government should embrace as many political candidates as they can. Third (and 4th) parties are a good thing. But in all practicality, they are alone in a sea of red and blue. Even if a third party candidate were to win the office of president, they'd be opposed by both sides of congress. And that's really the catch 22. Many people contemplate their votes. They may like what a 3rd party candidates says, but realizes that they stand little chance of winning. So the question becomes, should they vote for someone who they ideologically agree with the most, or the candidate who somewhat agrees with you, but who has a better chance of actually winning? Is it better to completely lose your chance to influence the direction of this country or is it better to at least get SOME of your political views represented? That is the voter conundrum. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:25:08 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win. As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit and curse the darkness". That's what the Republicans said when they sued to make sure Ralph got on the ballot. Odd that. g http://www.freep.com/news/politics/n...e_20040826.htm If a third-party candidate was expected to take votes from the Republicans you can bet that the roles would be reversed. And they were in '92......... The two big parties will do whatever they think will get them the votes, even if it means supressing a vote for a third-party candidate. You acknowledge this, yet you tried to deny that third party candidates had any effect on the outcome of the election. The only thing this proves is that neither one of the parties have any interest in free and open elections, which is what I have been saying all along, and also why I don't vote for either of them. So which is it then Frank? Do third party candidates shift votes away from "the big 2" or not? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:07:25 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:38:10 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:16:33 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: So you are denying that the majority of the "big radios" on Channel 6 are running any sort of high power? Apparently, that is a an argument you are having with yourself. No, you are trying to claim that there are no illegal operators on 6, based on your rejection to my claim that what I can hear on almost a daily basis is in fact illegal. I'm sure some of them are illegal, but my surity is not fact. Why not? Are you claiming that empirical observation is not sufficient? Are you now promoting the concept that if you are not "right there" and personally witnessed an illegal transmission that you can't factually determine that it was what it was? Is your zeal to trounce me over my opposing political views blinding your objectivity with regard to radio issues, which you have far better knowledge of? Your personal feelings are not "facts". No but my trained observations skills can be considered as strong evidence to the positive. Trained observation skills = Tarot cards. 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? Would it help you to know that a spectrum analyzer connected to the I.F. of a receiver confirmed my initial observation? I never claimed to be able to make a quantitative evaluation, only a determination that the transmissions were illegal. Making a personal opinion that "channel 6 harbors the dregs of society" Yes, that part is my personal opinion. Why is -this- your personal opinion and not fact? Because it is simply my opinion. What constitutes a "dreg" is subjective. What happened to your "trained observation skills"? They are limited to technical evaluations of radio signals, which is NOT subjective. and claiming it is nothing short of empiracle evidence that illegalities occur is jovial. That you once again think that you can somehow claim that these illegal operators do not exist is ludicrous. Nobody suggested that illegal operators don't exist. The question is your standard of proof, that what you claim to be illegal transmissions are illegal IN FACT, not in your opinion or belief. If you hear a loud noise and turn around to see a souped up car buzzing down the road at a high rate of speed, far above the posted speed limit for that road, would you not be able to determine as a fact that the car was being operated illegally? No, you could not determine just how fast the car was traveling, but you could easily tell from the excessive noise, and the rate of speed as compared to the other (legal) cars, that this one was illegal. If you are attempting to discount empirical observation as an invalid method to determining facts, then there are a whole lot of scientists who will be sorely disappointed. Starting with paleontologists all the way to astronomers. We don't agree politically Frank. That much is true. But don't let that one facet taint your objectivity in other subjects. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:46:41 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote in : what is the difference between the bias on an AB1 and an AB2 Class ab2 an amplifier with higher bias than the class ab1 amplifier. Or better yet, what is the difference between the bias on an AB1 and an AB2? (transistor amp) No such animal those numbers are for tube use only 1 indicating that the tube does not draw any grid current, and 2 indicates that the grid voltage is above 0 volts and a positive grid voltage, causes the grid to draw current. Why did you snip the original post apart where you told Dave to bias his transistor amp bias to .6 volts to run class AB1? |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:50:47 -0800, 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? Didn't see that, I know it would suck to be overweight in Houston. the summer heat and humidity in Houston is terrible... |
On 07 Jan 2005 02:52:34 GMT, Steveo
wrote: Lancer wrote: Still up to your eyeballs in snow? Our weather has been really wierd, it was 70 Wednesday morning, and 20 this morning. Nah, we've had warmer weather and rain/sleet/slush lately. Did plow from midnight till 9 this morning tho..needed a big azz'd squeegee instead of a plow.. You're right, very strange weather patterns. How did your SW radio Christmas present go over? I gave it to him, but didn't notice someone had soldered the contacts shut on the mode switch. It still works, I just need to track down a new switch for it. He's having a ball with it, likes it even better than the videos games he got.. |
Lancer wrote:
On 07 Jan 2005 02:52:34 GMT, Steveo wrote: Lancer wrote: Still up to your eyeballs in snow? Our weather has been really wierd, it was 70 Wednesday morning, and 20 this morning. Nah, we've had warmer weather and rain/sleet/slush lately. Did plow from midnight till 9 this morning tho..needed a big azz'd squeegee instead of a plow.. You're right, very strange weather patterns. How did your SW radio Christmas present go over? I gave it to him, but didn't notice someone had soldered the contacts shut on the mode switch. It still works, I just need to track down a new switch for it. He's having a ball with it, likes it even better than the videos games he got.. Cool..now you've created a monster! :D |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:10:13 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: My "point" was illustrated yesterday when you said this: _ N3CVJ wrote: 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 But this next post was made when you were using that amplifier... After talking skip internationally on the freeband channels, on SSB, I gradually lose interest in skip _ Different time periods. Right, the claim about when you USED to use an amp it wasn't to talk skip, was made the other day. The claim about you talking skip with your amplifier was made long ago. It illustrates your statement the other day was bull****.....but a mere lie in another of your long list of self-perjuries. I've been in CB for 35 years now. God, you really do have to be spoon fed everything in order to understand it.......... Dave "Sandbagger" That's pretty funny considering only you are having difficulty with your communication skills at this level and are madly trying to misattribute things that were never said to others. Besides, it doesn;t take a rocket scientist to understand the kind of operator you are,,,you already admitted to being the worse kind of operator that exists.The adage that "a leopard does not change his spots" is confirmed by your self-contradictions and lies which you find yourself always caught up in. |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:25:10 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: N3CVJ wrote: I no longer partake in those activities. I grew up Twist, plain and simple. Now, when will you? That's a good thing you don't partake in those activities anymore, Dave...as I NEVER took part in those activities cited by you,,bragging about your radio that caused severe bleed,,,laughing about the intentional intereference the bleed caused,,telling people to buy a bandaid when you were bleeding,,,.. I don't expect you to understand the dynamics of the local CB population back then, but any interference that I deliberately did to anyone back then was to those who were asking for it, in the form of a payback No one understands your "dynamics" nor your "empiricle evdence" nor your incorrect blathers about echo and roger beeps being illegal on cb. 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. (You know all about paybacks right?). f 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 : ). 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. I knew way more about radio back then than my maturity level could control. I guess some of us (me) were light years ahead of others (you) in radio mannerisms and operating procedure. Yet, you operate on illegal frequencies and see nothing wrong with breaking federal law? How is that any better than what you lambast me for? 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. Until you can distinguish between such, you are forced to remain captive to your own ignorance reagrding your service. You have illustrated this time and time again with your attempted non-valid comparisons between my words and your actions. Glad you "grew up" and joined those of us who have been waiting for idiots like you to stop being part of the problem. I'm not the one operating on illegal frequencies or using above legal power limits. But you do, Dave. Your lies come to fast and furious for there to be any truth in your statements, In fact, you have become one of the most unreliable posters in this group when it comes to anything at all. All your posts are suspect, at best. 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... _ Although, just for the record, you have claimed you haven't operated illegally since the seventies or eighties, but that little gem you cited about running the AB amp in your vehicle was made in '98, not that long ago, and was referring to your cb use. No, that was in reference to 10 meter operation. =A0 No,,it wasn't. Read the thread. It was about cb and 10 meter wasn't even mentioned until just now, by yourself, years later. _ =A0But if you grew up since then, I'm happy to say, I was indeed a part of it, since that is when we first exchanged pleasantries and you began crying about technical legalities, You had nothing to do with it. Sure I did. Chec the time frame. You were lying and screaming about legalities, aligning yourself with n8WWM, when I entered this group back in the late ninetes,,,,the same time you were running your amp on cb. Had I not grown up, I'd be singing right along side of you with the "screw everyone else, I'm going to talk where I want" attitude. Gee Dave, just because you were never taught better and you had to learn on your own and figure out a little bit of common sense and proper radio communication technique, doesn;t give you the right to use nothing but your personal feelings and falsely accuse others of the "screw everyone else" attitude you pioneered in this group along with n8wwm. It would seem that you still need to mature enough to learn respect for the law... Dave "Sandbagger" I have incredible respect for the law. 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. |
|
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. |
|
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) 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? When the dx is running strong, that is exactly what people are trying to tell you. The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample of any particular transmission could not be made. I find it absoutely astounding this is lost upon you That's not surprising considering you once tried to tell me (and the group) that a 4 watt skip station 1000 miles away could potentially walk on top of a 4 watt station a half mile away, totally disregarding the effects of R.F. path loss. of your recent comments self-professing an incredible amount of adept and technical radio knowledge. Coupled with your claim concerning roger beeps and echo on cb being illegal (they're not) merely because you were unable to locate a rule specifically permitting their use, and it merits There are specific rules which specifically prohibit devices used for "entertainment" and "amusement" purposes. There is also a specific rule which outlines permitted tone signals. A Roger Beep is not listed under permissible tone signals. Following simple logic, since there is no valid rule which permits a particular device, then the device defaults to one of "amusement or entertainment" status and is prohibited. So therefore it can be assumed that a roger beep and (even more definite) an echo box could be considered "entertainment" or "amusement" devices and, as such, are specifically prohibited. You can make the point that the FCC doesn't care enough to make a case about these things, and I would probably agree with you. But the fact remains that they are prohibited by the rules. Irony: When some of those licensed for communications know the least about their chosen endeavor. Bigger Irony: Someone with obvious comprehensive issues chastising others for the same flaw. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:29:04 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: Lancer wrote in news:41de891b.990875 : On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:46:41 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote in : what is the difference between the bias on an AB1 and an AB2 Class ab2 an amplifier with higher bias than the class ab1 amplifier. Or better yet, what is the difference between the bias on an AB1 and an AB2? (transistor amp) No such animal those numbers are for tube use only 1 indicating that the tube does not draw any grid current, and 2 indicates that the grid voltage is above 0 volts and a positive grid voltage, causes the grid to draw current. Why did you snip the original post apart where you told Dave to bias his transistor amp bias to .6 volts to run class AB1? Why did you lie? i never said that, this is my reply to dave "Exactly dave you just added ab-1 bias to the am which certainly would clean it up, but what would the spoiled kid in Tampa know he doesnt even solder his mike plugs on. " Forget it, its not worth arguing over.. |
On 07 Jan 2005 13:30:14 GMT, Steveo
wrote: Lancer wrote: On 07 Jan 2005 02:52:34 GMT, Steveo wrote: Lancer wrote: Still up to your eyeballs in snow? Our weather has been really wierd, it was 70 Wednesday morning, and 20 this morning. Nah, we've had warmer weather and rain/sleet/slush lately. Did plow from midnight till 9 this morning tho..needed a big azz'd squeegee instead of a plow.. You're right, very strange weather patterns. How did your SW radio Christmas present go over? I gave it to him, but didn't notice someone had soldered the contacts shut on the mode switch. It still works, I just need to track down a new switch for it. He's having a ball with it, likes it even better than the videos games he got.. Cool..now you've created a monster! :D Hopefully the right kind.. get him away from the computers and video games and into radio.. |
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:08:37 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:16:33 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: So you are denying that the majority of the "big radios" on Channel 6 are running any sort of high power? Apparently, that is a an argument you are having with yourself. No, you are trying to claim that there are no illegal operators on 6, based on your rejection to my claim that what I can hear on almost a daily basis is in fact illegal. I claimed nothing of the sort. I claimed only that your claim is bull****, which it is. 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. If, you acknowledge that there are, in fact, illegal stations on channels 6, then my claim cannot be false. You REALLY need a course in logic. Or will you try to weasel out of it by claiming that the term "high power" is ambiguous? Your personal feelings are not facts, despite how many times you invoke them as such. Let's look at it again since you still can not grasp it. You said `channel 6, which is notorious for harboring the dregs of society, who regularly run high power, is all the "evidence" I need, to determine that the station in question is in fact, llegal." Once again, your personal feelings are not facts. That illegal operation occurs on such a channel was never contested by myself Then you have to agree with my statement that the majority of big radio stations are running illegally. , despite your deperate attempt at trying to say it was. I merely claimed your ersonal feelings cited above are in no manner "evidence". The fact that these stations exist and are illegal are a matter of record for anyone who's ever spent any time there. My "personal feelings" notwithstanding. How do you think I gathered the evidence that prompted me to make that claim? It was based on empirical observation. The FCC knows the reputation of channel 6 also, only they have protocol to determine if someone is breaking the law, not personal feelings they refer to as "empirical evidence" as you do. You are up a tree now. How do you think the FCC makes the determination that a specific high powered station is worthy of further investigation? Do you think a little empirical observation just MIGHT be a clue? The FCC is able to make a quantitative analysis by inspecting the physical station to determine just HOW illegal they are. But I don't need to be that precise. Just knowing that they ARE illegal is all that matters. Because I can't follow through beyond the initial observation stage, you think that means that my observations are invalid? Boy are you naive and devoid of comprehensive abilities. Your personal feelings are not "facts". No but my trained observations skills can be considered as strong evidence to the positive. No,,,it can not. It is personal testimony to be taken into consideration. Look up "expert witness" for a clue. It is intangible and can not be entered as evidence, only supporting testimony. This is not a court of law. I need to convince no one. And you aren't denying it either. You just want to argue the point because *I* made it. The deeper you go in the "debate", the wackier and off the wall your retorts become. Such as your next statement: Huge difference where the law is concerned, but with your demonstrated hate and disdain for the law and your fellow hammie and cb operators This is absolutely side splitting, coming from an admitted federal law breaker, to accuse ME of harboring hate and disdain for the law. , it's crystal clear you have no clue of the law that pertains and governs your chosen hobby. What IS clear is that you twist and obfuscate the law to fit into what you think it is, and not what it truly says. You will defend the dubious legality of an obvious "entertainment" device, but see nothing wrong with operating on clearly unauthorized frequencies, or running power beyond the legal limit. Such is the nature of a sociopathic mind. You demonstrated this when you held roger beeps and echo illegal on cb because you "couldn't find a rule that permitted them". Because there aren't any. Otherwise you would have posted it. But there ARE rules which specifically prohibit devices used for "amusement or entertainment". Yes, that part is my personal opinion. See what you can learn when you are force fed? At the beginning of this thread, you claimed it was fact, now, after proper instruction, you admit it is "personal opinion". Good show. Only the first part is. The second part was empirical observation Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:19:19 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:10:13 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: My "point" was illustrated yesterday when you said this: _ N3CVJ wrote: 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 But this next post was made when you were using that amplifier... in 1975, a Texas Star didn't exist. Next...... After talking skip internationally on the freeband channels, on SSB, I gradually lose interest in skip _ Different time periods. Right, the claim about when you USED to use an amp it wasn't to talk skip, was made the other day. The claim about you talking skip with your amplifier was made long ago. It illustrates your statement the other day was bull****.....but a mere lie in another of your long list of self-perjuries. Once again for the perpetually comprehensively inhibited: I talked skip in the middle 70's. I used my amps to get over it from then on. That's pretty funny considering only you are having difficulty with your communication skills at this level and are madly trying to misattribute things that were never said to others. No that's what you're doing. I'm not the one who cut and pasted a quote from ICECOLDNYC and erroneously claimed it was mine. Besides, it doesn;t take a rocket scientist to understand the kind of operator you are,,,you already admitted to being the worse kind of operator that exists. Someone who didn't take crap from idiots? Yea, I'm guilty. But unless you're one of those idiots, you can hardly make a valid claim that my "style" is the "worst kind of operator that exists". I've done more to help other CB'ers than you could possibly imagine. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com