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"

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.

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 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"

I stated that there are illegal stations on

channel 6 based on my own empirical

observations.


No. That is what you added and REstated after your first claim was
proved bull****.

Twist claimed that my statement is "bull****".


And you proved it.

So if my statement that there are illegal

operators on channel 6 is invalid,


That was not your claim, although you are very desperate to try and sell
it that way.
Your claim, whcih you continue to snip, was that all the "evidence" you
needed was the reputation of channel as the "dregs of the society" to
know they are illegal. Move on, Dave. Your beck-pedal failed.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:00:52 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

I stated that there are illegal stations on

channel 6 based on my own empirical

observations.


No. That is what you added and REstated after your first claim was
proved bull****.

Twist claimed that my statement is "bull****".


And you proved it.

So if my statement that there are illegal

operators on channel 6 is invalid,


That was not your claim, although you are very desperate to try and sell
it that way.
Your claim, whcih you continue to snip, was that all the "evidence" you
needed was the reputation of channel as the "dregs of the society" to
know they are illegal. Move on, Dave. Your beck-pedal failed.

As usual, your penchant for misunderstanding the written word is
glaringly apparent.

So eat your crow in peace.

Dave
"Sandbagger"