On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:43:23 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

N#CVJ wrote:
Uh... Nooooo. Splatter is the result of a dirty

transmitter,

Bleed,,splatter,,,,you're wrong, ya' know..a dirty transmitter is but
ONE example.............once again you incorrectly claimed that skip
does not affect splatter, when it most certainly does.

It does not affect the amount of splatter a single signal has on it.

You really should stick to what it is you're actually good at
(Chumming perhaps?) and leave the discussion of RF theory to those of
us who DO know what we're talking about.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:43:23 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
N#CVJ wrote:
Uh... Nooooo. Splatter is the result of a dirty

transmitter,
Bleed,,splatter,,,,you're wrong, ya' know..a dirty transmitter is but
ONE example.............once again you incorrectly claimed that skip
does not affect splatter, when it most certainly does.

It does not affect the amount of splatter a

single signal has on it.


Skip affects splatter in he manner that if the skip isn't running, you
won't hear the splatter from a distant station across the country.

You really should stick to what it is you're

actually good at


Shoot, Davie,,I'm excellent at hanging you out to dry,,,your default
mode (making personal insults when you disagree) in your incredible
posting history removes any doubt.


(Chumming perhaps?) and leave the

discussion of RF theory to those of us who DO
know what we're talking about.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

Which would be fine, except your self-professed knowledge has proved
just the opposite. You are an extra class hammie who maintains roger
beeps are illegal and that doing over 70 mph makes one a federal
criminal, illustrating you have no freakin' clue *what* you talk about,
but that never stops you from sticking your foot in your mouth and
telegraphing such learned ignorance.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:57:17 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
that doing over 70 mph makes one a federal
criminal,

Not that I care or anything, but to avoid further embarrassment at
once again confusing me with another, I'd suggest you recheck your
obsession with personal searches. I never made that claim.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:57:17 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
=A0=A0that doing over 70 mph makes one a federal criminal,

Not that I care or anything,


g But of course not!!

but to avoid further embarrassment at once

again confusing me with another, I'd suggest

you recheck your obsession with personal

searches. I never made that claim.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

Sure you did. You said dxing is a federal rule and incorrectly
maintained breaking it makes one a "federal criminal. 70 MPH is also a
federal rule,,such an analogy really makes your ignorance come full
circle.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:23:08 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:57:17 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
**that doing over 70 mph makes one a federal criminal,

Not that I care or anything,


g But of course not!!

but to avoid further embarrassment at once

again confusing me with another, I'd suggest

you recheck your obsession with personal

searches. I never made that claim.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

Sure you did. You said dxing is a federal rule and incorrectly
maintained breaking it makes one a "federal criminal. 70 MPH is also a
federal rule,,such an analogy really makes your ignorance come full
circle.

I'll take that subtle redirect of calling the "70 MPH" comment as an
"analogy", as an admission that you were (once again) wrong when you
falsely attributed it as one of my quotes.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

I'll take that subtle redirect of calling the "70

MPH" comment as an "analogy", as an

admission that you were (once again) wrong

when you falsely attributed it as one of my

quotes.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

Of course you may "take it" any way you need after the fact. You said
the enacting of a rule enacted by the feds is "law" and you most
certainly said one who breaks federal rules makes on a "federal
criminal".
By all means, feel free to expound on how you misinterpret one who dxes
as a "federal criminal" from one going above 70 MPH
and you not considering them a federal criminal.
After all, they are both federally enacted rules...and the breaking of
such rules is the ONLY criteria submitted by yourself in mistakenly and
ignorantly referring to one who dxes as a federal criminal.