|
How would you improve your CB?
prozac 625 wrote: | What improvements would you like to have done to your CB? | Would you want more range? Buy a Dave Made! You jackoff while staring at your dave made. |
not that its anybodys business....but lancer jacks himself off while i lick
his ass.after he ****s in my mouth i roll him over and screw his assjuicy **** pussy 'till i explode in his love hole. "Lancer" wrote in message news:4b3ks0t668l5v33ehhkb8tqplijdobfdo1@2355323778 ... On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:24:21 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: wrote in news:1103747873.158463.38030 : You jackoff while staring at your dave made. you jackoff steveo while staring AT PICS OF MEN. What, no denial of his claim? Got a thing for those Dave mades? _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
This is WA3MOJ forging CBer's. Nice way to spend the holidays, George.
"Steveo" wrote: not that its anybodys business....but lancer jacks himself off while i lick his ass.after he ****s in my mouth i roll him over and screw his assjuicy **** pussy 'till i explode in his love hole. "Lancer" wrote in message news:4b3ks0t668l5v33ehhkb8tqplijdobfdo1@2355323778 ... On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:24:21 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: wrote in news:1103747873.158463.38030 : You jackoff while staring at your dave made. you jackoff steveo while staring AT PICS OF MEN. What, no denial of his claim? Got a thing for those Dave mades? _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 120,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote:
Steveo wrote in news:20041224072007.086 : This is WA3MOJ forging CBer's. Nice way to spend the holidays, George. Don't flatter yourself Steveo, your not worth the effort. You are the forger of this NG, now thats a ****ing fact. How's your day Geo? All ready for Christmas? |
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 11:25:20 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: Lancer wrote in : 68.114.111.208 Nice IP Very familiar. LOL I am almost ready need to get a few last items. Had to pick a few things at the grocey store, talk about a zoo.. Glad there is no trips planned to Wal-Mart today, can't imagine what that would be like.. |
Lancer wrote:
Had to pick a few things at the grocey store, talk about a zoo.. Glad there is no trips planned to Wal-Mart today, can't imagine what that would be like.. Don't say that - I am going to go to Sam's Club for groceries...... |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/6bpue 68.114.111.209 Do you even know how to use the internet? Interestingly, racist homosexual; your link is dead. You sure you know how to use the internet either? Not Found The requested message, , could not be found. |
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:20:51 GMT, "Grim-Reaper"
wrote: Lancer wrote: Had to pick a few things at the grocey store, talk about a zoo.. Glad there is no trips planned to Wal-Mart today, can't imagine what that would be like.. Don't say that - I am going to go to Sam's Club for groceries...... LOL!!! You fool...You will be sorry... |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote:
Lancer wrote in : 68.114.111.208 Landshark om: Lancer Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb Subject: Jamming on the air: why? Organization: WWW Message-ID: . com References: et talnq05e4ph3legqreughcoenvpfk36u3j@2355323778 g9Yqd.4368$6K5.3550 @newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net Xns95B160EC284501234567890@ 216.196.97.136 Xns95B1BDCBBF7A61234567890@ 216.196.97.136 . com . com X-Newsreader: Illudium 2000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 33 X-Complaints-To: X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly. Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:37:44 GMT Lancer wrote in ynews.com: No dick for brains, try this one: 68.114.111.209 Thats where his posts where coming from 68.114.111.209 traces to sli.la.charter.com Slidell, Lousiana. It most certainly is jerkoff: Check this dick for brains: http://tinyurl.com/6bpue 68.114.111.209 Do you even know how to use the internet? Ok, what am I supposed to be looking for? |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote:
Lancer wrote in : itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: Lancer wrote in : 68.114.111.208 Landshark om: Lancer Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb Subject: Jamming on the air: why? Organization: WWW Message-ID: . com References: et talnq05e4ph3legqreughcoenvpfk36u3j@2355323778 g9Yqd.4368$6K5.3550 @newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net Xns95B160EC284501234567890@ 216.196.97.136 Xns95B1BDCBBF7A61234567890@ 216.196.97.136 . com . com X-Newsreader: Illudium 2000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 33 X-Complaints-To: X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly. Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:37:44 GMT Lancer wrote in asynews.com: No dick for brains, try this one: 68.114.111.209 Thats where his posts where coming from 68.114.111.209 traces to sli.la.charter.com Slidell, Lousiana. It most certainly is jerkoff: Check this dick for brains: http://tinyurl.com/6bpue 68.114.111.209 Do you even know how to use the internet? Ok, what am I supposed to be looking for? Now you want to play stupud huh Message-ID: From: Lancer Subject: How would you improve your CB? Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb Lines: 13 Organization: WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-: NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.114.111.208 You mean this---------------^ Thats a LA. address isn't it? Are you sure that was in my header? |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: Lancer wrote in : 68.114.111.208 Landshark om: Lancer Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb Subject: Jamming on the air: why? Organization: WWW Message-ID: . com References: et talnq05e4ph3legqreughcoenvpfk36u3j@2355323778 g9Yqd.4368$6K5.3550 @newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net Xns95B160EC284501234567890@ 216.196.97.136 Xns95B1BDCBBF7A61234567890@ 216.196.97.136 . com . com X-Newsreader: Illudium 2000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 33 X-Complaints-To: X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly. Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:37:44 GMT Lancer wrote in news.com: No dick for brains, try this one: 68.114.111.209 Thats where his posts where coming from 68.114.111.209 traces to sli.la.charter.com Slidell, Lousiana. It most certainly is jerkoff: Check this dick for brains: http://tinyurl.com/6bpue Not Found |
"Grim-Reaper" wrote:
Lancer wrote: Had to pick a few things at the grocey store, talk about a zoo.. Glad there is no trips planned to Wal-Mart today, can't imagine what that would be like.. Don't say that - I am going to go to Sam's Club for groceries...... Could you pick a worst day to go grocery shopping? Do you also go to the mall on the day after Thanksgiving? :) |
Steveo wrote:
Could you pick a worst day to go grocery shopping? I blame it on the kids. The use the last of stuff, and don't tell a soul. Then when you are looking for something, it's not there. As it turns out, Sam's Club was dead. We were in and out quicker than any other time I can remember. But we were out of too many staples to wait any longer (milk, eggs, sugar, juices, etc.). Tomorrow we will do a big X-mas dinner, for about 15 or so. Non-Jewish stuff like spiral ham, etc. |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:35:16 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: prozac 625 wrote: | What improvements would you like to have done to your CB? | Would you want more range? (Buy a Dave Made!) _ Haha,,I don't need a Davemade. I've dropped the maul on poor Geo's head more than once without even knowing he was out there and completely on accident. What I find funny, is Lelnad's and Hall's illegal cb use is becoming general knowledge. I have a new radio friend in Chi town.....: ) I don't live in "Chi Town"......... No one said you did. What "illegal CB use" are you referring to? Texas Star. Please, be specific. Channels, Channel 6. modes, AM antics? That's all for now. These answers were provided out of my continuing extended courtesy, good nature, and friendliness. Any more answers you seek from me grasshoppah, must first be atoned by answering those first directed to yourself. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Did you check out Michael Savage lately? He's slamming Bush, saying we are hated by all in Indonesia because of his policies and that is the new terrorist breeding ground. |
|
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:23:02 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:35:16 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: prozac 625 wrote: | What improvements would you like to have done to your CB? | Would you want more range? (Buy a Dave Made!) _ Haha,,I don't need a Davemade. I've dropped the maul on poor Geo's head more than once without even knowing he was out there and completely on accident. What I find funny, is Lelnad's and Hall's illegal cb use is becoming general knowledge. I have a new radio friend in Chi town.....: ) I don't live in "Chi Town"......... No one said you did. What "illegal CB use" are you referring to? Texas Star. What about it? Please, be specific. Channels, Channel 6. I haven't used Channel 6 since I was in a CB club that used that channel in the 1970's, and I only had a Lafayette HA-250 amplifier in the car then. modes, AM antics? That's all for now. These answers were provided out of my continuing extended courtesy, good nature, and friendliness. Any more answers you seek from me grasshoppah, must first be atoned by answering those first directed to yourself. There is no way you could reliably know whether I am operating on any particular frequency. You are too far away to hear me, and any "tidbit" of info that you might hear, is of questionable credibility. Did you check out Michael Savage lately? He's slamming Bush, saying we are hated by all in Indonesia because of his policies and that is the new terrorist breeding ground. Savage is an idiot. But there is no pleasing the liberals. First they accuse us of not responding fast enough, or with enough money. Now I hear that we are starting to supply so much more money, that we are making India look bad. It would seem that no matter what we do, it's never the right thing...... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:01:47 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:23:02 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote in : snip Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Dave is still here? I thought he ran away to rec.boats after I trampled on his propoganda-induced delusions about Kerry's service record. Guess he was still lurking. Frank, You only managed to prove that you're as biased and open to propaganda, on the left, as you accused me of being to the right. Kerry has many big secrets to hide, and it may have saved him to lose the election, as the quest to reveal them has lost much of it's appeal. I saw no further point in playing the "my website can beat up your website" games with you. You want to believe the lie, then go right ahead. I know better....... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 13:41:45 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:01:47 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:23:02 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote in : snip Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Dave is still here? I thought he ran away to rec.boats after I trampled on his propoganda-induced delusions about Kerry's service record. Guess he was still lurking. Frank, You only managed to prove that you're as biased and open to propaganda, on the left, as you accused me of being to the right. What left-wing propoganda? I presented a -BIG- list of documented FACTS that you shruged off as mere speculation. On the contrary, you provided nothing -but- conjecture, most of which was contradicted by the FACTS. And the FACTS don't care which side you are on. Kerry has many big secrets to hide, and it may have saved him to lose the election, as the quest to reveal them has lost much of it's appeal. I saw no further point in playing the "my website can beat up your website" games with you. Gee, and here I thought it was the "official military records can beat up your website" game. You want to believe the lie, then go right ahead. I know better....... Yeah, I suppose you're right -- those pesky facts are just a nuisance when you know what the truth -really- is, right Dave? |
From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:23:02 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote in : snip Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Dave is still here? I thought he ran away to rec.boats after I trampled on his propoganda-induced delusions about Kerry's service record. Guess he was still lurking. Speaking of,,,check this out from truthout.org....... _ Ohio Recount Steeped in Fraud =A0=A0=A0=A0Democracy Week | Commentary =A0=A0=A0=A0Saturday 01 January 2005 There is something you can do. =A0=A0=A0=A0The presidential vote recount in Ohio is over - or is it? The Green and Libertarian Party candidates who paid for the recount may have a claim of fraud against election officials and at least one voting machine company. If they can't get a new recount, they ought to at least get their money back. =A0=A0=A0=A0Here's what happened. =A0=A0=A0=A0Any Ohio county did not have to do a full hand recount if a random sample of three percent of the ballots in their county matched the original count. =A0=A0=A0=A0The first fraud count: Not all the counties, if any, pulled the test precincts at random, nor did they allow the trained observers to see how the test precincts were selected. =A0=A0=A0=A0Rep. John Conyers, ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to all the presidential candidates, in which he he stated: "At least one precinct in Medina County that would not have voting anomalies was both carefully pre-selected and pre-counted, so that the initial 3% recount that is mandated by the Ohio Secretary of State would not return a mismatch between the initial tally and the recount." [Read Rep. Conyers' Letter] =A0=A0=A0=A0Once they selected the test precincts, some counties shared that information with the voting machine technicians, who then made adjustments on the machines and gave advice on how to create an exact match. That would be the second fraud count. Technicians from Triad, the company operating many of the counting machines, visited 41 of the 88 county election offices. =A0=A0=A0=A0Triad technicians admitted that they helped the counties avoid the full recount by faking the match on the three percent count. [Read a transcript of the admissions]. =A0=A0=A0=A0When all else failed, election officials changed ballots to make the count come out right. An election official stated that she "did not want the hand count and the machine count to be different because they did not want to do a complete hand count," according to a trained observer quoted in Rep. Conyers=E2=80=99 letter. That would be fraud count number three. =A0=A0=A0=A0Mr. Conyers also wrote to Triad, asking them to provide information regarding the company's ability to control the machines remotely, which a Triad representative admitted. [Read Rep. Conyers' Letter to Triad] =A0=A0=A0=A0Fraud count number four would be that the Secretary of State, who also served as Mr. Bush=E2=80=99s state campaign chairman, refused to issue guidelines to the counties for the handling of undervotes, overvotes and other issues, a clear violation of the =E2=80=9Cequal protection=E2=80=9D ruling of Bush v. Gore. Counties used wildly different rules during the count and the recount, depriving the recount parties of true value for their investment. =A0=A0=A0=A0The same Secretary Blackwell may have been a party to the systematic violation of equal voting rights by shorting minority precincts of voting machines, while over seventy extra machines languished in a truck. The day-long lines in many minority neighborhoods cost Mr. Kerry thousands of votes, by some estimates. =A0=A0=A0=A0This article scratches the surface of what was done in Ohio to suppress and subvert the vote and render the recount meaningless. For in depth reporting, your best source is The Columbus Free Press. =A0=A0=A0=A0What Can You Do? =A0=A0=A0=A0Rep. Conyers has said that he will stand to object to the acceptance of the Electoral College vote when it arrives at a joint session of Congress at 1pm on January 6. Other House members will join him. One Senator is needed to stand with them. =A0=A0=A0=A0Senators don't want to look like lunatics. They need support from home. The most effective thing Americans can do THIS MONDAY AND TUESDAY is to print out the Conyers' letters from the links in this article, write a quick letter to the editor as a cover letter, and hand carry them to local newspaper editorial writers. =A0=A0=A0=A0If a Senator with a concern for democracy can be found, then the Ohio mess will become a major story as committees investigate and the mainstream press piles on. The chance of it overturning the presidential election is miniscule, but it will set the stage for election reforms and for the punishment of criminals in high places, and it will dissolve the notion of a present mandate. =A0=A0=A0=A0A useful cover letter would state that, regardless of party, Americans must insist on the fair and non-partisan administration of elections, and that our Senators should stand with Rep. Conyers to demand an investigation and a pledge of reform before this year=E2=80=99s election is accepted by Congress. We are too great a country to accept damaged goods instead of a reliably honest election result, or else our claims of spreading democracy to other lands is a sham. Your letter could remind the editors of how many people have sacrificed and died for our freedoms, the emblem of which is, more than our flag, our ballot. =A0=A0=A0=A0After you hand deliver the letter to your newspaper, take a copy to the field offices of your two Senators, if you live within distance. _ Also, what is going on with Nethercutt, now? |
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:25:48 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Frank*Gilliland) On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:23:02 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote in : snip Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Dave is still here? I thought he ran away to rec.boats after I trampled on his propoganda-induced delusions about Kerry's service record. Guess he was still lurking. Speaking of,,,check this out from truthout.org....... _ Ohio Recount Steeped in Fraud That's a wonderful story, if it's true. Is there any solid proof other than these allegations and he said-she said testimony to back it up? The paper never refuses ink, and politically motivated people have incentive to lie. Perhaps they should do a recount in Pa.. There were all sorts of allegations of fraud in Philthy. Perhaps they may find that Bush really won Pa. as well. Then Ohio becomes a moot point. Are you sure you really want to go there? Your guy lost. Get over it..... Dave "Sandbagger" |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:23:02 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:35:16 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: prozac 625 wrote: I don't live in "Chi Town"......... No one said you did. What "illegal CB use" are you referring to? Texas Star. What about it? Please, be specific. Channels, Channel 6. I haven't used Channel 6 since I was in a CB club that used that channel in the 1970's, (snip) Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj _ On 10/09/1998, among dozens of other posts attesting to your tuning in to channel 6 and channel 11, you wrote: I know how it is on the superbowl (channel 6) and as with others on this newsgroup and on the band, when it gets too much for me I leave. |
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:25:48 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote in : snip Also, what is going on with Nethercutt, now? Beats me. He suffered a disgraceful defeat. He's probably off pouting at some retreat for Republican losers, and Dino Rossi is headed there soon. But I have a feeling both will resurface when the 2006 campaigns get started. |
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 10:31:16 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:25:48 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Frank*Gilliland) On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:23:02 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote in : snip Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Dave is still here? I thought he ran away to rec.boats after I trampled on his propoganda-induced delusions about Kerry's service record. Guess he was still lurking. Speaking of,,,check this out from truthout.org....... _ Ohio Recount Steeped in Fraud That's a wonderful story, if it's true. Is there any solid proof other than these allegations and he said-she said testimony to back it up? 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 The paper never refuses ink, and politically motivated people have incentive to lie. That's the point. Perhaps they should do a recount in Pa.. There were all sorts of allegations of fraud in Philthy. Perhaps they may find that Bush really won Pa. as well. Then Ohio becomes a moot point. Are you sure you really want to go there? Your guy lost. Get over it..... Pay attention, Dave: It doesn't matter who won or lost the election. Kerry conceeded -- end of story. So quit invoking his name to distract from the -REAL- issue which is the huge scale of the voting fraud that happened during the election. 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, maybe even someone as diabolical as Hitler or Stalin. 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"? Get a clue, Dave. |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 09:54:02 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: Ohio Recount Steeped in Fraud That's a wonderful story, if it's true. Is there any solid proof other than these allegations and he said-she said testimony to back it up? 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, 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. The paper never refuses ink, and politically motivated people have incentive to lie. That's the point. Perhaps they should do a recount in Pa.. There were all sorts of allegations of fraud in Philthy. Perhaps they may find that Bush really won Pa. as well. Then Ohio becomes a moot point. Are you sure you really want to go there? Your guy lost. Get over it..... 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. 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). So quit invoking his name to distract from the -REAL- issue which is the huge scale of the voting fraud that happened during the election. Tell me Frank, do you believe that there has always been voter fraud, or do you think that this is suddenly something new? 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? 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, 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. 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. Get a clue, Dave. I would think that you need one as well. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 10:43:44 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:23:02 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:35:16 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: prozac 625 wrote: I don't live in "Chi Town"......... No one said you did. What "illegal CB use" are you referring to? Texas Star. What about it? Please, be specific. Channels, Channel 6. I haven't used Channel 6 since I was in a CB club that used that channel in the 1970's, (snip) Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj _ On 10/09/1998, among dozens of other posts attesting to your tuning in to channel 6 and channel 11, you wrote: I know how it is on the superbowl (channel 6) and as with others on this newsgroup and on the band, when it gets too much for me I leave. Exact post please, not a passage taken out of context. That doesn't sound like me. I usually refer to the current state of channel 6 as the "toilet bowl". The fact that I am aware of what goes on there (my radio does have ALL 40 channels), does not mean that I USE it. Try again. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
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. 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. Your labels don't reconcile with the facts. As for freepress.org, I suggest you read their "About" page which describes the organization and chronicles it's history. I doubt you will read it because people like you are too afraid to face facts that might conflict with your biased opinions. You would rather slap labels on others instead of admitting that there is a possibility you are wrong. But you really -should- read it because people with open minds don't share your fear, and they are the people you will be arguing with until you wake up and smell the sheep-dung. 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"? snip 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. As you have demonstrated many times before, your perspective is so slanted you are falling over. 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. The most important issue right now is voting fraud. Address the issue at hand. Some day later we can address how your wool got sheared by Bush's propoganda machine. So quit invoking his name to distract from the -REAL- issue which is the huge scale of the voting fraud that happened during the election. 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. But there has never been fraud on a scale like what was seen Nov. 2. Nor to the extent that, if left unchecked, could directly affect the government of the most powerful country in the world. You aren't suggesting that voting fraud should be ignored because it's going to occur no matter what, are you? Because that's the same kind of excuse illegal CBers use to justify their operation..... 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? 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? 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? Maybe you should read some of my previous posts regarding Bush, how I defended him in the past. 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. 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. 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. 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; it was the Greens and the Libertarians with cooperation from voting rights organizations. Once again you have showed how skewed your perspective is towards the Republicans. 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. |
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. But I am incensed that democrats have the balls to be so blatantly hypocritical. But you really -should- read it because people with open minds don't share your fear, My FEAR? What "fear" is that? 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? 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. 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. 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. The most important issue right now is voting fraud. Why now? 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. 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? 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....... 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". 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? 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. 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. Don't even try to tell me that you favored Bush, because that would be a lie. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, and have failed ant every attempt to discredit my position 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. This country was built by people who held strong traditions and believed in putting in a full day's work, for a full day's pay, wanted the government to protect our interests abroad, but wanted them out of our personal lives. They also did not need or want a social "safety net" to help the slackers of society avoid the consequences of natural selection, and paid for by the sweat of the productive people. No matter how idealistic and utopian left thinking liberals might believe, there will never be a natural "classless society", because all people are different in how they prioritize their lives and how they achieve (or not). It's not the government's place to "provide" for people, or to "equalize" the country's wealth. To the victor, go the spoils. Try to be a victor Frank...... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
For crying out loud, Dave, you scream about "facts" when another tries
to educate you, but when it comes to you, you employ those second set of rules and double-standards which you have for yourself. Your fact-finding goes right out the window with all logic and you hypocritically set forth bull**** like: "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, See Dave, your personal feelings are not "facts" nor "evidence", but of interest, is the fact you consider them such. |
|
|
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:22:22 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) Try again Twist...... Dave "Sandbagger" No need. I'm quite pacified with what has been illustrated by yoursefl,,,lies, denials, double-standards, etc. They're only lies and double talk to you, since you have trouble comprehending the meaning of words. But since you asked so niceley,,,, Hell Dave,,, back in 94 you claimed you were a radio technician for "over 15 years", but to date, still become bewildered when one asks exactly how you made your "DaveMade M-80 spectrally pure". Of course, you make the claims, but fail to provide for them as always,,this was your initiated game, not anyone elses I have hardly been "bewildered". I told you and everyone else how it was done. It was done by utilizing a 7805 regulator to create a steady 5V for the bias supply. The 5V was then dropped through a resistor and applied to the base of each of the 2290 devices. The bias voltage was limited to .6V by utilizing a forward biased diode on each transistor, which was placed on top of each "pill" for heat tracking and stability. It's not rocket science, for someone who knows what they're doing. You know, I might just take a some pictures of the project and put them on my website just to squash your incessant babble. Concerning your lawbreaking activities, this little gem was written in '98..and if you care to check the thread, you will see you were indeed speaking of cb and NOT hammie radio. * "*In the mobile I still run an amp, but it is a class AB, and it is driven so that it can develop its maximum modulation percentage" I was probably talking to Dennis at the time. I've made no secret that I used to run illegally in the past. The key phrase is "in the past". I no longer partake in those activities. I grew up Twist, plain and simple. Now, when will you? Of course, we can always look at: The hustler Trumpet was a good antenna in its day. Its major limitation was that it was coil matched, and therefore its power handling capability was not that high (I ran 300+ watts though mine, but I doubt if it would take a KW). Yep, that was also based on empirical observation and experimentation. The 70's were good to me......... Damn Dave,,you weren't licensed back when you had this antenna. Was this the point in your life when you told people to "buy a bandaid" when they complained of you bleeding them? That's probably about right. Are you now suggesting that someone can't change their habits, or opinions with time? Like a 10 year old kid who makes farting noises with his armpit will never progress beyond that? Is someone who smokes 2 packs of cancer sticks a day, destined to remain a chain smoker, and can never quit? From N3CVJ's autobiography: I "crystal up" my Midland and Comstat, to work on the "new" channels. I also added up to 27.455 for a little "privacy". Pick up a D&A Hornet amplifier Skip had been running for the last few years. After talking skip internationally on the freeband channels, on SSB, I gradually lose interest in skip, and it become more of a nusance, with S9 or better noise levels, which block out many of the weaker locals, which force us to move out of band to escape. 1984- Sell Yaesu 101 and buy Yaesu FT-757 and President Jackson. Group starts on 26.675 FM. This group will be the last group until 1993. Factually accurate. Again, what's your point? BTW there's a more detailed version of that he http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj/davehistory.htm And lastly, since you asked niceley adn politely, egarding your channel 6 visits, you said this last summer: I can hear more rule violations after listening to 5 minutes on CB channel 6 than I can hear in a week's worth of ham radio But you go on and spin, er,,I mean lie,,,umm, I mean tell the world how you haven't visited channel 6 (acknowledged via dozens and dozens of your posts) since the 70's. I said that I hadn't USED channel 6 since the 70's. That means talking on it. That does not preclude an occasional listen when spinning the dial. Since I have seen no evidence to suggest that the channel isn't still the "toilet bowl", I don't stay. You sure love to make issues out of semantics...... Keep trying. I love to watch you jump through hoops. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
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 You and Jerry are both on a roll. |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:06:14 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: For crying out loud, Dave, you scream about "facts" when another tries to educate you, but when it comes to you, you employ those second set of rules and double-standards which you have for yourself. Your fact-finding goes right out the window with all logic and you hypocritically set forth bull**** like: "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, See Dave, your personal feelings are not "facts" nor "evidence", but of interest, is the fact you consider them such. 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. Your personal feelings are not "facts". Making a personal opinion that "channel 6 harbors the dregs of society" and claiming it is nothing short of empiracle evidence that illegalities occur is jovial. Referring to your statement as "fact" that illegalities are occurring, is about as far from common sense and factuality that one can achieve. |
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 guess some of us (me) were light years ahead of others (you) in radio mannerisms and operating procedure. 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. Glad you "grew up" and joined those of us who have been waiting for idiots like you to stop being part of the problem. 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. But 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, Keep it rolling,,,, |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com