|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (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? 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. It has everything to with it. For the amount of times you professed to having talked skip on the freeband, followed by recent denials of you talking skip, you should know that on MANY occasion, a signal can be severely wavering from an S1 to an S9 (for but one of many examples),,,when that signal is coming in at an S9, the splatter may be intense if you changed the channel and went one up or down. When that signal is coming in on a wavering S1, you will hear absolutely nothing on your next channel. Once again, the wavering is a direct result of...taa daaa....skip. 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. You can qualify it away now, but your original claim is still bull****. _ 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, Absolutely. In fact, I have taught you many things regarding HF propagation and communication law of which you have no clue. totally disregarding the effects of R.F. .path loss. Never. That last part was added desperation. - 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. But only you continue to err and place such in that category. Your argument is with the FCC, not those of us who are able to correctly understand their law. 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. That isn't simple logic, that's but an openly biased albeit incorrect interpretation based on nothing more than your past stated disdain for such items and your ignorance of the law that governs your hobby. 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. Only by yourself. 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. Not only would I never make such an invalid comparison, I disagree with such a statement. Email the fcc and ask them about your claim, Dave. But the fact remains that they are prohibited by the rules. Insisting on remaining ignorant is your right at all cost. 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" This is quite simple, really....me: 100% correct..you: 100% wrong. |
Dave Hall wrote:
-major snipper- Back then "We the People" were mostly Christian people, with solid moral values and a greater sense of personal responsibility. I don't want to see this country degrade from it's former glory by forgetting that. Amen. I may be going to hell in a bucket, but at least I'm enjoying the ride. ($1-grateful) |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:08:37 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) 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. =A0=A0I 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. 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. 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? See above. 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 (N3CVJ)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. Pay attention, Dave, that claim was never opposed. I merely claimed your personal 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. Fine,,but the mere fact they exist, and (here we go Dave,,pay attention once again, only for a short while longer)...is NOT a "fact"attesting to their legality, nor is your original claim, which has been soundly defeated. .. How do you think I gathered the evidence that prompted me to make that claim? It was based on empirical observation. Neat. You went from obtaining what you mistakenly and erroneously referred "empirical evidence" to obtaining "empirical observation", afterwards (in retrospect). We follow your logic, Dave. Truly. 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? Not by you. Just like coming from Jerry, they are mere allegations and by no means considered "empirical observation". The FCC, or their assigned designee MUST witness an infraction prior to action be taken against individual, other than a mere warning. Tell me more about this tree that has you pizzing all over yourself with errors. The FCC is able to make a quantitative analysis by inspecting the physical station to determine just HOW illegal they are. Keep grabbing at other subjects. You;re bound to find one you know *sonething* about. But I don't need to be that precise. In order to determine if one is guilty and to be called a criminal, you most certainly do. Just knowing that they ARE illegal is all that matters. You can't make that judgement and it ****es you off. Only a court of law can determine one's guilt,,even if they *are* guilty, the referring to one as criminal without that person being convicted in a court of law can be both libel and slander. Because I can't follow through beyond the initial observation stage, you think that means that my observations are invalid? You already proved your observations are completely skewered because you base them on incorrect information. 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. Did you train yourself, Dave? What special training did you receive, regarding these observation skills you feel important enough to invoke? No,,,it can not. It is personal testimony to be taken into consideration. Look up "expert witness" for a clue. =A0 You are no expert. Referring to yourself as "expert" doesn't make it so. My gosh Dave, I have never seen you so starved for status. _ =A0It is intangible and can not be entered as evidence, only supporting testimony. This is not a court of law. And as such, you have no right calling another a criminal based on your (1) "empirical evidence". Such was shown to be nothing more than your personal opinion. You were made to acknowledge and change your plea concerning what you previously and erroneously referred. Your "empirical evidence" morphed into "empirical observations", which can actually be an oxymoron in itself, coming from you, but that's another story for anotther day. 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: =A0=A0Huge 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. You not only laughed at those you were bleeding and thumbed your nose with your operating habits, you were as verbally abusive on the air as you are in this group. You base your false allegations against others based on nothing more than your incorrect and flawed interpretation of the law. An example is you incorrectly holding one who violates the dx law as a "federal criminal." Your argument of *why* you consider such to be true (it isn''t),,,is the sidesplitting material. 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, it's not dubious at all Dave. It's cut and dry. email the fcc and ask them. You are the only one expressing such difficulty in interpretating their rules. but see nothing wrong with operating on clearly unauthorized frequencies, or running power beyond the legal limit. On target-specific frequencies, and I don't run but 100 watts, the exact wattage YOU claimed would not be a problem for freebanders if they were running a clean station, which I always have, unlike yourself. Your problem has always been your approach. The amount of time spent on the freeband is miniscule compared to where I usually spend my time, yet due to your overt concern with my personal world, you choose to focus only on illegal freeband activity. Nevermind I am in complete compliance with a past post of yours concerning how operators operate on the freeband, this is a new day and a new contadiction from yourself. Such is the nature of a sociopathic mind. Not only do you fancy yourself an expert witness and radio technical guru, you suffer from the Walter Mitty complex and fabcy yourself a physician. You have certainly illustrated how starved you are for status, Dave. I hope you gain some self-confidence some day and can be satisfied with who you are and not who your delusions dictate. _ 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. I know enough not to search for negatives. 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" A much more reasonable observation by yourself. |
|
(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? When the dx is running strong, Donut matter. No one can tell me my S-Line is over-driven..even on local ground wave. That said, there -are- way yonder too many splatter-masters on 11 meters. |
Lancer wrote:
Forget it, its not worth arguing over.. That would make a good sig file for this board, Lancer. :) |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:19:19 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: 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... in 1975, a Texas Star didn't exist. Next...... Gee Dave, I'll bet you talk yourself based on nothing more than your unique habit of typing to yourself... 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. You said you *never* liked it and *didn't* talk skip. It was shown you did. Your admission accepted. I used my amps to get over it from then on. (shrug) ,,what I wanted clarified, was indeed, _ 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. Nope, you sure aren't. You're the one that has such a damaged ego, you need foster the self-purported notion you hold various degrees, are an expert witness to the courts, and claim doing over 70 mph makes one a "federal criminal". _ 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? The idiot was self-explanatory in your posts. Yea, I'm guilty No doubt. . 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". One of them. I've done more to help other CB'ers than you could possibly imagine. You're right. I can't imagine one who was such an ass on the air at anytime in their life, has changed their ways, and I say this only in light of your actions and comments on this group. Granted, many of your comments were made out of ignorance, but ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the law you so often misquote ad misinterpret. Dave "Sandbagger" |
Lancer wrote:
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.. Yes. But we all know what a radio jones feels like for new gear. I like that idea for a gift. 10-4 |
Dave Hall wrote:
Someone who didn't take crap from idiots? Yea, I'm guilty. I used to like dropping a KW on them with my mark IV. Now it's not worth the electricity. |
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: 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. |
(Twistedhed) wrote:
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. 42. :) |
(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? |
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. |
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:26:33 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : 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. I said nothing of the sort. I simply question how much influence they had, and how that influence compares the the amount of voting fraud. 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? Not in my case. If I'm limited to those two choices (or even just one choice) I simply won't vote for that position, and that's exactly what I did with a couple races in this last election. But if you want to gaze into your crystal ball and divine the intentions of other voters then don't let me stop you. |
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:20:29 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip 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. Yeah, that's what I meant when I said, "A vote for anybody that isn't an ass or an elephant is a vote against both those parties." Thanks so much for clarifying my statement. 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? Where's your evidence that there was voting fraud? Your claim that the Democrats manufactured votes? 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"? ......what the heck is that supposed to mean? 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...... So you're suggesting that anyone who wants to vote for a third party shouldn't vote at all? 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. Times change. It wasn't always this way, and it won't be this way forever. There are people who like the status-quo and others who think we can do better. I happen to belong to the second group. Even if a third party candidate were to win the office of president, they'd be opposed by both sides of congress. That's assuming the congress is so dominated, which is not a given. 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? The lesser of two evils? Hey, I can't tell anyone how to vote. But people should realize that this isn't a football game, and just because your candidate didn't win doesn't mean you are a loser. You cast your ballot and, barring any fraud or supression, your voice is heard regardless of who wins the election. 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. Who says that voting for a third party has no influence? It causes a -great deal- of influence when there are a significant number of people voting third-party, and especially when all those third-party votes are greater than the margin of victory between the other two parties. If it didn't have any influence then neither party would have pushed this "don't waste your vote" bull**** propoganda when they were afraid of losing votes to that third party. But instead of listening to those votes and addressing their concerns, the two parties chose to shoot down the votes by propoganda and manipulation of the media. Even the ultra-liberal (so you so claim) Dan Rather and CBS almost -never- mentioned Nader or any of the other third-party candidates. I guess they aren't as liberal as you thought. |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
You are what you eat. How'z your belt size going Frank? Actually lost 35 lbs. last year. That's good man. It's tuff to shed pounds at your/my age. :) How'd you do it, not Atkins I hope. Isn't -everything- bigger in Texas? They would like to think so. I keep hoping that Texas (and Florida) will make good on their threats to secede from the Union -- it would boost the GNP by at least 10% because we wouldn't have to clean up their messes anymore. So now you're a conservative? |
On 08 Jan 2005 02:44:04 GMT, Steveo
wrote in : Frank Gilliland wrote: You are what you eat. How'z your belt size going Frank? Actually lost 35 lbs. last year. That's good man. It's tuff to shed pounds at your/my age. :) How'd you do it, not Atkins I hope. Heck no! I wouldn't even think about one of those fad diets. Those methods can cause more harm than good. Losing weight isn't hard at all. First, don't set goals or limits cause that's just setting yourself up for failure. Just be a little more aware of little things you can change. Like eating a little more fish and a little less beef, snacking on peanuts instead of pringles, using parking spaces further away from the door, etc. Little things like that can add up to a big difference over time. And don't try to make those changes all at once. It's kind of like a zen thing -- just having an awareness of things you -can- change will prompt the changes to come by themselves in their own good time. Isn't -everything- bigger in Texas? They would like to think so. I keep hoping that Texas (and Florida) will make good on their threats to secede from the Union -- it would boost the GNP by at least 10% because we wouldn't have to clean up their messes anymore. So now you're a conservative? No, I'm just a person that's really ****ed off because in six years I can't find an ISP that can provide reliable service (iow, expect my email to change again in the near future). |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 08 Jan 2005 02:44:04 GMT, Steveo wrote in : Frank Gilliland wrote: You are what you eat. How'z your belt size going Frank? Actually lost 35 lbs. last year. That's good man. It's tuff to shed pounds at your/my age. :) How'd you do it, not Atkins I hope. Heck no! I wouldn't even think about one of those fad diets. Those methods can cause more harm than good. Losing weight isn't hard at all. First, don't set goals or limits cause that's just setting yourself up for failure. Just be a little more aware of little things you can change. Like eating a little more fish and a little less beef, snacking on peanuts instead of pringles, using parking spaces further away from the door, etc. Little things like that can add up to a big difference over time. And don't try to make those changes all at once. It's kind of like a zen thing -- just having an awareness of things you -can- change will prompt the changes to come by themselves in their own good time. You're starting to sound like one of those info-mercials now, man. Shovel less groceries in your face, and do stuff that gets your heart rate up. Isn't -everything- bigger in Texas? They would like to think so. I keep hoping that Texas (and Florida) will make good on their threats to secede from the Union -- it would boost the GNP by at least 10% because we wouldn't have to clean up their messes anymore. So now you're a conservative? No, I'm just a person that's really ****ed off because in six years I can't find an ISP that can provide reliable service (iow, expect my email to change again in the near future). Hrm..dial-up, or broadband? |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: Steveo wrote in news:20050107184550.426 : 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. So was i that post was directed towards him. OIC. |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
Eating is more an issue of -what- you eat instead of how much you eat. Peanuts (and other nuts) are great because they fill you up fast and have some food value without any cholesterol. Sugar just stimulates the appetite and makes you want to eat more. And beef is a -very- fattening food -- just look at where it comes from! So I do a shrimp stir-fry a couple times a month instead of hamburgers. It still remains calories consumed against calories spent. I'm 40 pounds thicker from when I was 18. I eat anything I like, and I blame to 40 lbs on slower metabolism, and delegating. As for exercise, no need to clock your pulse at the gym -- those are things to do when you want to get your heart and muscles into better shape. The important thing is to expend energy that would otherwise become luggage, which you can do just a little bit at a time without working up a sweat. Just take advantage of the opportunities, like walking up a flight of stairs instead of taking the elevator..... heck, even grinding your own coffee beans would help. Any pinhole you can poke in the inner-tube will deflate it that much faster. Use the stairs? Heh, I walk 5 to 7 miles a day when it's not winter here. I'll use the elevator, thank you. Hrm..dial-up, or broadband? Dial-up. I'm trying to stay with local companies, but they all seem to be getting bought out by bigger outfits. They keep dropping their rates to be competitive but the service suffers. I would be perfectly willing to pay more for good service but they can't seem to figure that out. You need Usenet access with that? If not, what about that Netscape $9.95 deal I keep seeing on the boob tube? |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave Hall) wrote: 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. Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter. 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. We've gone over this before Dave, your wrong. same flaw. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in : "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave Hall) wrote: 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. Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter. He's right, Dave. You can receive more than one skip signal from the same transmission, and their phasing can cause intermodulation distortion in any RF stage of your receiver. All that's required is enough non-linearity in just one stage and the signals will modulate each other. The result is what appears to be splatter but is really a fault of the receiver. Happens all the time with cheap shortwave radios. And DX doesn't have to be up to get a good signal -- I have heard many clear DX signals from seemingly dead bands. |
"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge" wrote in message ... Frank Gilliland wrote in : 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. All of them are illegal Frank, you can't talk on the bowl barefoot unless it is to a guy around the corner. They are using 4cx10,000's pairs of em 4cx20,0000's get a clue Dave is right the bowl is nothing but illegal operators 99.99% of them, that is a fact and not opinion. Trained observation skills = Tarot cards. So I guess policemen who are trained to observe criminals are practicing tarot card reading...LOL sure frank 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"? because it is a statement he can't prove by just listening and observeing, but an over powered radio would be easy to spot. 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.\ Ill give you facts Frank, the bowl is not for the weak hearted, where is Icecold, hey smooth G tell these seersuckers about the bowl. Everyone and I mean all the regular talkers on the bowl are illegal operators running super high power. want facts? how do I know? I know alot of them Just because you say it doesn't make it so. |
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 09:40:14 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote in : Frank Gilliland wrote in : The fact is that there has never been a better source of false information than the mass media. The only question is where that false information is coming from. Well, that depends on who controls the media. In the US the people certainly don't control the media -- it's controlled by the huge corporations that own it and the government that regulates it. THAT'S the source of any misinformation you get from the allegedly "left-biased" or "liberal" media. That's a fact! No Frank these are not facts they are your opinion just like Dave has his opinion about illegal operator on channle 6. No, it's fact, and history is loaded with examples that prove it. The US government regularly uses mass media, both foreign and domestic, for disseminating misinformation. They can even do this even by their silence; i.e, by omission. Refusing to keep the US updated on the Ohio recounts sends the message that the issue is less important than Martha Stewart getting second prize in the prison bake-off. And the corporations that own the media outlets regularly use them to influence public opinion to favor their own agendas, the most blatant and recent example being the Sinclair group's push in the Bush campaign. And until Dave can provide an example where one of the allegedly illegal operators he allegedly heard was found guilty, got an NAL, or even admitted his guilt publically, then his allegations are nothing more than his opinions, not facts. ----== 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 Sat, 08 Jan 2005 14:32:03 GMT, Lancer wrote in
: snip Why not broadband Frank? When I figure out how to hook it up with Win 3.1 I might look into broadband or DSL. But the problem isn't the connection or the connection speed -- it's their outsourcing of newsgroup service and their server can't handle the load. The subscribed connections are either too few or have low priority. Cheap *******s. ----== 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 Sat, 08 Jan 2005 18:19:33 GMT, Lancer wrote in
5t80u0ptn685fbpq71gnt2tm0gfkj6b5gj@2355323778: On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:06:08 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: Frank Gilliland wrote in m: On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 14:32:03 GMT, Lancer wrote in : snip Why not broadband Frank? When I figure out how to hook it up with Win 3.1 I might look into broadband or DSL. But the problem isn't the connection or the connection speed -- it's their outsourcing of newsgroup service and their server can't handle the load. The subscribed connections are either too few or have low priority. Cheap *******s. Frank Talk about cheap *******s you are still using win 3.1?? hell you could have at least upgraded to Win 3.11 for workgroups ... LOL Nothing wrong with windows 3.1. Its a hassle to add networking to 3.1. At least it doesn't have all the BS that microcrap added to their later versions. And a hell of a lot more secure. ----== 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 Sat, 08 Jan 2005 17:52:55 GMT, Lancer wrote in
t170u0hj9ar0p1oc0ivsv1mhv5nfmc724n@2355323778: On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 09:34:58 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 14:32:03 GMT, Lancer wrote in : snip Why not broadband Frank? When I figure out how to hook it up with Win 3.1 I might look into broadband or DSL. But the problem isn't the connection or the connection speed -- it's their outsourcing of newsgroup service and their server can't handle the load. The subscribed connections are either too few or have low priority. Cheap *******s. . The operating system won't matter with DSL Frank. The only microcrap S/W that I run is win 3.11 or DOS. Most of newsgroup servers that ISP's provide suck... need a copy of 3.11, e-mail me.. I'm already running 3.11 (and ME if I flip a switch, but I only use that to log onto secure sites). So you figured out how to set up DSL and/or broadband on 3.11? ----== 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:
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? If you think that number of ice cream and pizza places, weather, and number of sporting goods stores are good ways to measure if a city is "fat" or not, then sure. This "study" by Men's Fitness Magazine -- basically the men's version of Cosmo -- is little more than junk science. On the other hand, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) did a more scientific study where BMIs from a sample size of the population were considered. I don't know why that one gets no publicity, while the junk science does. The top cities are a little different. http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/cities.shtml And here are a few comments from today's Houston Chroncle: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2979999 "One minute Mayor Bill White debunked Men's Fitness magazine's methodology for labeling Houston the nation's fattest city, and the next minute he announced a new wellness initiative to combat the label. 'It's calculated with voodoo and fraud,' White said of the rankings of 50 cities across the nation featured in the magazine's February issue. To determine the rankings, the magazine staff does not actually weigh anyone, but examines 14 elements of city life, including the number of fast food and pizza restaurants. 'The rankings themselves are flawed,' White said at a City Hall news conference Wednesday. He questioned the fairness of not counting delis as fast food places in New York or Chicago, but counting Smoothie Kings as fast food places in Houston. Results of the creative formula differ from the findings of more official medical research, such as that from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." So I would take the Men's Fitness rankings with a grain a salt. Well, maybe I wouldn't even give them that. It's just a marketing ploy to sell more magazines. |
On 8 Jan 2005 14:30:50 -0800, "JP" wrote in
.com: 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? If you think that number of ice cream and pizza places, weather, and number of sporting goods stores are good ways to measure if a city is "fat" or not, then sure. This "study" by Men's Fitness Magazine -- basically the men's version of Cosmo -- is little more than junk science. On the other hand, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) did a more scientific study where BMIs from a sample size of the population were considered. I don't know why that one gets no publicity, while the junk science does. The top cities are a little different. http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/cities.shtml And here are a few comments from today's Houston Chroncle: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2979999 "One minute Mayor Bill White debunked Men's Fitness magazine's methodology for labeling Houston the nation's fattest city, and the next minute he announced a new wellness initiative to combat the label. 'It's calculated with voodoo and fraud,' White said of the rankings of 50 cities across the nation featured in the magazine's February issue. To determine the rankings, the magazine staff does not actually weigh anyone, but examines 14 elements of city life, including the number of fast food and pizza restaurants. 'The rankings themselves are flawed,' White said at a City Hall news conference Wednesday. He questioned the fairness of not counting delis as fast food places in New York or Chicago, but counting Smoothie Kings as fast food places in Houston. Results of the creative formula differ from the findings of more official medical research, such as that from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." So I would take the Men's Fitness rankings with a grain a salt. Well, maybe I wouldn't even give them that. It's just a marketing ploy to sell more magazines. It's that darn left-wing media again, ignoring the facts and pushing their socialist agenda of selling magazines. So what pinko-liberal company owns Men's Fitness? |
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:19:41 GMT, Lancer wrote in
. com: snip Yes its easy. Hmmmm..... When you order your installation kit for DSL make sure you get the package with the older style modem in it. What do you mean by "older style"? Throw their installation software away. Buy a D-link DI-604, hook your modem to it, put your login and password in the PPOe of the router. Point your 3.11 system at the router. Thats it.. I'll give it a shot. ----== 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 Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:00:36 GMT, Lancer wrote in
. com: On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:40:55 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:19:41 GMT, Lancer wrote in s.com: snip Yes its easy. Hmmmm..... When you order your installation kit for DSL make sure you get the package with the older style modem in it. What do you mean by "older style"? I have seen some of the new self install kits with a USB modem. ......uh, ok. Throw their installation software away. Buy a D-link DI-604, hook your modem to it, put your login and password in the PPOe of the router. Point your 3.11 system at the router. Thats it.. I'll give it a shot. You have networking running on your 3.11 system now? Nope. I guess I'll have to if I want DSL, huh? |
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:19:28 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: 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. Tell me then Frank, where is the "falacy" in my logic? I stated that there are illegal stations on channel 6 based on my own empirical observations. Twist claimed that my statement is "bull****". So if my statement that there are illegal operators on channel 6 is invalid, then you are making the statement that there are no illegal operators on channel 6. If you are merely objecting to my method of determining the status of those stations, I would be glad to engage in a technical discussion with you as to these methods. Dave "Sandbagger" Dave "Sandbagger" |
On 07 Jan 2005 21:39:52 GMT, Steveo
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Someone who didn't take crap from idiots? Yea, I'm guilty. I used to like dropping a KW on them with my mark IV. Now it's not worth the electricity. Browning MK IV? Nice rig, although many people claimed that they had "problems". From what I remember, it was only the first production run that had the problems. You know the people for whom I speak of. Maybe you could tell twist, since he obviously doesn't seem to believe me. BTW, I agree, tweaking idiots used to be fun "back then". But today, it's hardly worth the time. Sometimes it's more fun tweaking the idiots here........ Dave "Sandbagger" |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com