On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:54:14 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:

(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:13636-4225DC4D-
:



but it does not say that you can't
be stopped and ticketed between 5 and 10
MPH over in a radar zone.

This part of the statue begs to differ with your communication deficit.


No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained
through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and
(3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour
in excess of the legal speed limit.


Maybe if you use crayon drawings to illustrate this, he'll finally
understand.....

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:31:25 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:21:05 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:9507-42249354-37
@storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net: The line you posted above is in direct
contradiction with the previous line you posted. For instance, above,
your passage claims 55 MPH as the determining factor and speed, yet your
previous passage gives no speed at all, and makes only reference to a
speed recorded in excess of 6 MPH over the limit as the determining
factor. Both sentences cite the same law, same paragraph applications,
yet have two separate conclusions. They both can't be right.

I'm tired of wasting my time on this issue.

That's because of your stubborn refusal to learn and ignorance insisting
no one else can be right besides you, despite the number of people that
continually correct you.

I am more than willing to admit a mistake (ala

the roger beep issue) when I am actually

wrong.


But you didn't,,admitting you aer wrong is like an apology,,it is to be
issued unconditionally or it's worthless. And you conditionalized your
gaffe by claiming the rest of the group that actually knew the law,
didn't really know the law, but were "speculating" that roger beeps were
legal,and just coincidentally ahppened to be right. That was the biggest
load of **** I have seen from you to date, but it does continue to
loudly telegraph your increasing dilemma regarding you being wrong.



But in this case, you can "correct" me all you

want, and the only thing you'll accomplish is to
illustrate just how poorly your comprehensive

skills are, and how ignorant you are of

Pennsylvania law.



The law is not in contention, your claim is. You incorrectly claimed one
can not be cited per the law in Pa. UNLESS they are speeding more than 5
MPH over the limit. You were wrong and Shark proved it. You are
suffering over this issue and you simply aren't up to date on it,
despite your cries and whines about how it's your state and you know
about the law.

But I'm right and you're not. Plain and simple.

As on the roger beep issue,,,you are alone in your position. Despite a
growing number of group members telling you that you are wrong again
regarding your interpretations of the law, you insist everyone else is
wrong.
Same thing you
said regarding the law about your hobby that you know nothing of and
have to be shown, such as your claim that roger beeps were illegal based
on your inability to find a law specifically permitting them.

There is no rule specifically permitting them.


Haha,,,

It then becomes a subjective matter as to

whether a roger beep could be classified as

an amusement or entertainment device


Subjective only to those who struggle with comprehensive and cognitive
communication abilities, such as yourself.

Absent a specific rule either way, it becomes

little more than speculation as to whether they

are legal or not. You ASSUMED they were.

without anything authoritative to go on.



So everyone that agreed with me and told you they were legal "assumed"
it? My gosh, Davie,, you really have issues when you are shown to be
wrong. Now you are claiming the entire group is wrong and you are right,
but when the group's position is proved true to you, you claim such
knowledge was an assumption. How ver wrong of you, David. This is called
education and being familair and up to date concerning the laws that
govern your chosen hobby. You have illustrated that as an extra, you
don't know **** about communications law.


At least I had the sense to go to the FCC and

have it clarified once and for all.

That was ignorance, not sense. Sense is what everyone else had when they
took pity on you and informed you that you were wrong. "Sense" was the
actions of those others newsgroupies that informed you of your
ignorance, who then sat back and watched as you jumped up and down with
insult after insult insisting that roger beeps were illegal because only
you subscribe to the notion that negatives must be proved.


The minimum tolerance is 5 MPH,

Wrong,,,

Right. Read it again. Or better yet, have your

mommy read (and then explain) it to you.


The mommy fixation again,,,I imagine if yours didn't kick of lung
cancer, you wouldn't be so fixated on the mother issues and non related
topics. The again, with your wife Kimberly T. Hall smoking like a
chimney only to give it up during her pregnancy and to resume again
right afterwards, one can't be too hard on you when you go rambling
about such things. Your demons control your bizarre emotive outbursts
and off-topic rants. BTW, are you aware what second hand smoke does to
children?

and in certain other situations


You made no claim about "certain other situations". Your original claim
that one can not be cited in Pa for speeding 1 mph over the limit was
bull****. End of story, but feel free to continue to torture yourself
over your continual goofs borne of learned ignorance.
_
Your amended statutes also illustrate that no points are to be assigned
until 10 MPH or more over, but it does not say that you can't be stopped
and ticketed between 5 and 10 MPH over in a radar zone.

Twisty's interpretive skills are not much better

than my 5 year old's.

Then perhaps you should get your five year old to interpret everything
you are ignorant on.
_
Although your need to be insultive is based upon your own incompetence
and ignorance, ithere is no excuse for such when you are taught better
each day by cber's who do know the law better than yourself.

it is you who has the problem.


No Dave, it is you and you have been told that you were wrong by a good
number of this group on several issues. Your responses are all the same
to each person,,,classic paranoia, accusing them of personal issues and
vendettas against yourself.

If outlining this simple fact is "insulting" to you,

then so be it.


Gee Dave,,,you are the one claiming the group is against you adn
plotting with conspiracies. You need a vacation Dave, and not to
Florida, as it appears you were unable to relax when you were down
here,,,,,I can not imagine why or what or who you may have thought was
going to ruin your vacation, but that much is evident and you need a
real vacation where you can relax and come back refreshed and not accuse
everyone that gently points out your errors of taking up sides against
you...(snicker)

Like I said many time over the years, I don't

pull punches or mollycoddle people. If you

can't handle the harsh reality, then I suggest

you find someone else to "play" with.



Again, David, your attacks on everyone who dares cite your goofs are
very predictable adn all the same,,change the subject, attack them..lol.

The only thing you know about the law is how

to make excuses for breaking it.


I'm more legal than you David, since th dx has gone away, and it is just
another needle in your eye that causes you great pain, as you have no
legality issue to attempt
to hide behind., illustrating your personal problems are not at all what
you claim them to be.
Too bad these reading skills you speak of have prevented you from
finding the current law.

I know the current law.

Umm...no you don;t and you had to find it out for yourself because your
ignorance will not permit your ego to believe anyone else, such as the
list of regs that told you that you were wrong.

What's your excuse?

Watching you claim everyone else merely made correct assumptions
regarding their correct interpretations of the law, in order to soothe
your wounded ego. In a nutshell,,,,I enjoy watching you super freak when
you're wrong. It results in fine, upstanding amateur/cb related topics
you invoke, such as mothers.

David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
Maybe if you use crayon drawings to illustrate

this, he'll finally understand.....

David T. Hall Jr.

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"


He's not the one in therapy, you are.

Steveo wrote:
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
-snip-
Going to Dayton, or skeered?

Well George, gonna make the 8 hour jaunt or is that more than you bargained
for when you emailed that threat to me?