| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
March 2nd 05, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:31:25 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) 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 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. He doesn't get it. He can't understand conditionals, and that's why he feels there's an apparent "contradiction" between paragraph 2 and 3 devices. There is,,,,and you are unable to comprehend it. There is not. If you had normal comprehensive skills you'd understand the difference. The more you talk about it, the more obvious your inabilities become. .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. 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. It then becomes a subjective matter as to whether a roger beep could be classified as an amusement or entertainment device. 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. At least I had the sense to go to the FCC and have it clarified once and for all. and it specifies the conditions by which a speed tolerance is required to be given, which is most of the time. See what you are iunable to comprehend.. I comprehend just fine. It is you who cannot understand the difference between a paragraph 2 and 3 device and why there are separate tolerances specified for each. The minimum tolerance is 5 MPH, Wrong,,, Right. Read it again. Or better yet, have your mommy read (and then explain) it to you. and in certain other situations (Below 55 MPH and using electronic devices OTHER than RADAR), they have to increase that tolerance to 10 MPH. It's not contradictory, it's in addition to. No,,it's not. Yes, it is. 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. 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. You have poor comprehensive abilities, and you continually prove it on a daily basis. I used to think you deliberately twisted words as a sort of mind game. Now I'm beginning to think that you actually don't understand written words, and your "twisting" is the result of your inability to accurately comprehend what you read. The real hoot is that you then have the gaul to accuse others of having "communication's deficits" when it is you who has the problem. If outlining this simple fact is "insulting" to you, then so be it. 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. The only thing you know about the law is how to make excuses for breaking it. Perhaps you can get your five year old to explain to you what everyone comprehends. Now you fall back on your old standby, how "everyone agrees with me" fallacy. You're alright, it's the rest of the world that's crazy........ It's no wonder he thinks the various laws mean something different than what they actually state, to those of us who CAN interpret and comprehend what we read. Too bad these reading skills you speak of have prevented you from finding the current law. I know the current law. What's your excuse? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#3
March 3rd 05, 05:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Chicago's super jock Larry Lujack inducted into Radio Hall of Fame | Broadcasting | |||
| Radio Hall of Fame Set To Induct 5 More Legends | Broadcasting | |||
| Twistedhed attacking Dave Hall AGAIN | CB | |||
| What Do Twistedhed and Dave Hall have in common? | CB | |||
| Twistednuts resumes his DAVE HALL OBSESSION again! | CB | |||
Hybrid Mode
