"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:35:44 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 04:03:02 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in :


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
m...
snip
I have chosen neither side. I am merely making an observation.


OK, This is just an observation, so please don't take offence.


You're kidding, right? You actually believe that Dave Hall is walking
the line in the middle of the road? Come on, Shark..... did you turn
into a pussy?


Nope, but you didn't read the rest of the post before responding
to that statement, did ya ;)


Yes, but I misread the quotes. I thought you wrote that ".....please
don't take offence" line. My bad.


Eh, don't worry about it, no bigge.

snip
Like I said to Landshark, it takes two to tango. That was not meant as
a criticism, just a neutral observation.


Of course, if you stopped responding to Twist & Frank this
political crap would stop, but that was not meant as criticism,
just a neutral observation ;)


Ain't gonna happen. Not until the Rove/Bush regime leaves office.
Check out Frontline next week. I don't even have to watch it and
already I'm ready to freeband and run a linear in protest of the
current renegade administration. Yes.... ME, the most vocal antagonist
against illegals since Mark-whats-his-name. You think Twisty was bad?
Just wait and see who is "elected" as the next president......

LOL!!!! That would be a real cold day in Hell
for you to start freebanding & running power, but I do
believe your political convictions, just like Twist &
Dave's. My point for Dave was, he makes the statement
"two to tango" and yet when Jim asks him when he's
going to stop posting his political diatribes, Dave says
"You must have me confused with someone else. I
don't post political diatribes".


Just another shining example of Dave's hypocrisy.


Politics & Religion are a never ending debate, that's
why I am going to stay out of that subject.


Interesting perspective..... so any argument about religion or
politics can never be won because the argument will live longer than
ourselves?


Sure, you know better than that. More wars have
been started over religion than anything, so that will
be the case for decades, if not centuries to come, long
after you and I are long gone.

Landshark


--
My bad..the camera is mightier than the blowhard(s)..in most respects.

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 04:03:02 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
Yet another example of someone who had their feelings hurt and who
is now on a personal vendetta. It's childish in any case.

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

Agreed. Do you think Doug's & Geo's attacks on
Mopar & I as childish?

Landshark

Yes. And it takes two to tango.

Dave


Agreed, in the case of right vs. left it takes three to tango.

Usually a lot more.



Good. If you are implying that I am egging him
on, your wrong.

You are not the only one on the other side.

We see the side you've chosen to be on. Fine company you keep.

I have chosen neither side. I am merely making an observation.


OK, This is just an observation, so please don't take offence.

I never do.


Remember Dave, were talking about sic individuals
that send you virus, threatening emails & posts, foul vulgar
language, create web pages with all sorts of false images
& accusations.

Hmm, some could argue the same for the other side, with the posting of
pictures of certain individuals and their antennas and such.


Again, remember that Geo & Doug for YEARS have been
making websites dedicated to Mopar & I, so where does the
fact that in just a year Mopar posted pics of Dougs antenna
say that he's started all this mess?

Where did I ever say that you guys started it? I never made any such
insinuation. But at this point it really doesn't matter who started
it. But truth be told, it won't ever stop as long as BOTH sides
continue to pour gas on the fire. That's what I meant when I said "it
takes two to tango". I agree with you that the whole thing is
childish. I can't believe that Stevo would actually go to the trouble
of driving over to "Doug's" over an internet issue. He risked a
potential trespassing or assault charge all over an internet dispute.
That reminds me of the arguments and challenges to fights that used to
happen over the CB years back. I learned back then that if a hobby got
that serious, that it was time to take a break from it. The cyber
world and the real world should never cross unless it's on mutually
good terms.

You guys should just resolve to conclude that the guys hassling you
are not worth your trouble. You guys are better than that.


Most here would say he deserves what gets as a consequence of his own
actions. Or maybe he shouldn't **** with someone like me that lives so
close to him.

That goes both ways. Perhaps if you didn't put on the appearance of
being somewhat bothered by those guys, they wouldn't be so quick to
hassle you. Remember, they didn't come looking for you.


You sure about that Dave? They've posted numerous peoples
address's, phone #'s, job info, yup they didn't come looking for
us.

I don't recall anyone's correct addresses and phone numbers being
posted. There was a lot of speculation and accusations IIRC. But that
alone is not worth a grain of salt. But hell, my address is in the
FCC license database, as is "Doug's" and "George's", assuming they
really are who you claim.


Like I said to Landshark, it takes two to tango. That was not meant as
a criticism, just a neutral observation.


Of course, if you stopped responding to Twist & Frank this
political crap would stop, but that was not meant as criticism,
just a neutral observation ;)

So you contend that I am the only reason those guys post political
crap on this board? Do you really think I'm that important?

But assuming you are correct, I'm not complaining about Twist and
Frank posting political stuff, as off the wall and conspiracy laden as
it might be. If the day comes that I do complain, you are cordially
invited to remind me that it takes two (or three in this case) to
tango. ;-)

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

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:28:05 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 04:03:02 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in :


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
snip
I have chosen neither side. I am merely making an observation.


OK, This is just an observation, so please don't take offence.


You're kidding, right? You actually believe that Dave Hall is walking
the line in the middle of the road?


Why not? One can be capable of taking multiple sides on multiple
different issues, including no side at all. Surely you are not so
binary oriented to understand that


Check out Frontline next week. I don't even have to watch it and
already I'm ready to freeband and run a linear in protest of the
current renegade administration. Yes.... ME, the most vocal antagonist
against illegals since Mark-whats-his-name. You think Twisty was bad?
Just wait and see who is "elected" as the next president......


This should be good. What sort of leftist propaganda are you now
buying into?

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

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:35:44 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:

LOL!!!! That would be a real cold day in Hell
for you to start freebanding & running power, but I do
believe your political convictions, just like Twist &
Dave's. My point for Dave was, he makes the statement
"two to tango" and yet when Jim asks him when he's
going to stop posting his political diatribes, Dave says
"You must have me confused with someone else. I
don't post political diatribes".

Ah, I see you didn't understand the subtle differences. I told Jim
that I don't post political diatribes. That is factually accurate, as
I have never yet started a thread which was politically oriented. I
do, however RESPOND to other's posts on political matters.


Politics & Religion are a never ending debate, that's
why I am going to stay out of that subject.

Probably a wise decision, unless you're like me and enjoy watching the
other side dance.

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

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:40:23 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


LOL!!!! That would be a real cold day in Hell
for you to start freebanding & running power, but I do
believe your political convictions, just like Twist &
Dave's. My point for Dave was, he makes the statement
"two to tango" and yet when Jim asks him when he's
going to stop posting his political diatribes, Dave says
"You must have me confused with someone else. I
don't post political diatribes".


Just another shining example of Dave's hypocrisy.

I think it's time for a refresher course for you people who throw that
word out so indiscriminately.

hy·poc·ri·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one
does not hold or possess; falseness.

2. An act or instance of such falseness.


When have I been hypocritical?



Politics & Religion are a never ending debate, that's
why I am going to stay out of that subject.


Interesting perspective..... so any argument about religion or
politics can never be won because the argument will live longer than
ourselves?

Interesting response. When I made a similar statement, about the folly
in arguing religion and politics, you scoffed at it.


Perhaps some of us just enjoy sparring, knowing all too well that the
issue will never be resolved.

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

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:11:51 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

That was not meant as a criticism, just a
neutral observation.

Sure, sure,,a "neutral" observation whose first knee jerk reaction when
Dogie was busted was to jump to his defense and lie and say someone
someone withdrew the complaint against him to the FCC.

You're lying again. I never made any such claim.



See Dave, when
the FCC places a hammie on the Rain Report and informs the world they
have evidence before them that indicates he was in violation of FCC law,
and you come along and attempt to say otherwise and that the FCC could
be wrong, is in no manner "neutral", It's simply another case (of many)
where you are not in any remote sense of the word "neutral".

I simply offered that based on Doug's "notoriety", that it was
potentially possible that he could have been framed. Nothing more. Yet
you zizz and drip over this as if I shot and killed the Pope, further
illustrating you obsessiveness.


The contingency....

.....of one (you).


recognizes this fact and several have illustrated and
commented on your position and hypocrisy.

You don't know the meaning of the word.

The again, it is your right to
insist on remaining detached from reality and refusing to view yourself
as you really are, such as how others and the majority view you.

Ah yes, the majority of people who you base support by the number of
magazines that sell which contain your fishing articles.

You
claiming the majority misunderstands you

No, you are claiming there's a "majority" (Which has been strangely
silent), the truth is there is only you.


, via explaining what you
"really" meant (usually accompanied by you applying incorrect
definitions of words and terms) adds to the joke.

Provide even ONE example of my misuse of any term.

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

Dave Hall wrote:
I can't believe that Stevo would actually go to the trouble
of driving over to "Doug's" over an internet issue.

You don't know me very well then. I enjoy schooling keyboard tuff guys..or
anyone who's bark is bigger than their bite. It's how my Dad brought me up.

On 07 Apr 2005 12:44:42 GMT, Steveo wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
I can't believe that Stevo would actually go to the trouble
of driving over to "Doug's" over an internet issue.

You don't know me very well then. I enjoy schooling keyboard tuff guys..or
anyone who's bark is bigger than their bite. It's how my Dad brought me up.

Fair enough. But is a guy like Doug really worth all your effort?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Dave Hall wrote:
On 07 Apr 2005 12:44:42 GMT, Steveo wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
I can't believe that Stevo would actually go to the trouble
of driving over to "Doug's" over an internet issue.

You don't know me very well then. I enjoy schooling keyboard tuff
guys..or anyone who's bark is bigger than their bite. It's how my Dad
brought me up.

Fair enough. But is a guy like Doug really worth all your effort?

There's really not been much extra effort so far. I had to go to
Flat Rock Michigan for some Mopar parts from a friend of mine up
there the last time I visited the felon. I'm going to do some radio
gear shopping in Dayton in May, so once again I'll be in the neighborhood.

A guy like Doug needs mental help real bad, I almost feel sorry for him.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 04:03:02 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Yet another example of someone who had their feelings hurt and who is
now on a personal vendetta. It's childish in any case.
Dave
"Sandbagger"

(=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Remember Dave, were talking about sic
individuals that send you virus, threatening emails & posts, foul vulgar
language, create web pages with all sorts of false images & accusations.
)

Hmm, some could argue the same for the

other side, with the posting of pictures of

certain individuals and their antennas and

such.


The acts you describe will not support "some" who would argue such a
position.


(Again, remember that Geo & Doug for YEARS have been making websites
dedicated to Mopar & I, so where does the fact that in just a year Mopar
posted pics of Dougs antenna say that he's started all this mess? )

Where did I ever say that you guys started it?

Umm,,this is where your failed memory comes into play, Davie. Go
ahead,,for the record and enjoyment benefit of those who may have missed
your claim,,,,,..deny you never claimed that illegal cbers started the
mess with Dogie by what you claimed was "flaunting" their illegal
actions. Off you go, now.

I never made any such insinuation.

TYVM. You came right out and said it,,there was no "insinuation".

But at this

point it really doesn't matter who started it.


Not to you, because you support those who began it. This was illustrated
when the FCC busted Dogie and told the world via the Rain Report he was
breaking FCC rules by jamming. YOU, came on here and offered incompetent
armchair lawyering on Dogie's behalf, conjuring and lamenting to the
group that someone withdrew the complaint against Dogie....all AFTER the
fact the FCC reported him as jamming repeaters.


But

truth be told, it won't ever stop as long as

BOTH sides continue to pour gas on the fire.

That's what I meant when I said "it takes two

to tango". I agree with you that the whole thing
is childish. I can't believe that Stevo would

actually go to the trouble of driving over to

"Doug's" over an internet issue.



LOL..and many others can not believe an extra class hammie such as
yourself, who continually self-qualifies himself as some type of
knowledegable person regrading the laws that govern his hobby, would
erroneously continue to claim dxers and freebanders are federal
criminals, and not be able to comprehend the definition of civil
disobedience verses criminal disobedience and all that pertain to such.
Nevertheless, your education has been completed on this subject, as you
were reduced and forced to admitting your views holding dxers as federal
criminals all comes down to matter of perception (yours), which happens
to be wrong (as illustrated by the US judicial system as to what
differentiates civil verses criminal courts, actions, and penalties.)


He risked a potential trespassing or assault

charge all over an internet dispute.


He risked no assault charge. He was invited. If you need scholling on
the legality of this issue as well, say the word.



zzThat reminds me of the arguments and

challenges to fights that used to happen over

the CB years back.



Yearn for the past, live in the past,,,it's not relevant.

(Most here would say he deserves what gets
as a consequence of his own actions. Or
maybe he shouldn't **** with someone like me that lives so close to
him.)

That goes both ways. Perhaps if you didn't put
on the appearance of being somewhat

bothered by those guys, they wouldn't be so

quick to hassle you. Remember, they didn't

come looking for you.


(You sure about that Dave? They've posted numerous peoples address's,
phone #'s, job info, yup they didn't come looking for us. )


I don't recall anyone's correct addresses and

phone numbers being posted.



Only because you impossibly hold yourself as some sort deity who thinks
what is deemed correct and incorrect can only be judged by yourself.


There was a lot of speculation and

accusations IIRC. But that alone is not worth a
grain of salt.


My electronic logs most certainly are, and it got several isp's yanked.

But hell, my address is in the

FCC license database, as is "Doug's" and

"George's", assuming they really are who you

claim.



You address is wrong, Dave. You have yet to provide the FCC with the
correct address of where you lay your head at night.


Like I said to Landshark, it takes two to tango.

That was not meant as a criticism, just a

neutral observation.




A "neutral" observation is not possible from one who claimed Dogie's FCC
bust was recanted by a complainant who turned him in. This, in addition
to the rest of your mess, shows you know **** about the law. When the
FCC tells the world a hammie is guilty, their evidence regarding the
hammie breaking the law is practically iron-clad.


(Of course, if you stopped responding to Twist & Frank this political
crap would stop, but that was not meant as criticism, just a neutral
observation ;)

So you contend that I am the only reason

those guys post political crap on this board?

Do you really think I'm that important?



Only you exhibit an unquenchable thirst for status you are denied among
us. The rest have been educated.


But assuming you are correct, I'm not

complaining about Twist and Frank posting

political stuff, as off the wall and conspiracy

laden as it might be.


Not everyone takes your personal complaining of Frank and myself as "off
the wall" and "conspiracy laden"....that's your paranoia acting up..it
just seems like everyone thinks that of you.



If the day comes that I do complain, you are

cordially invited to remind me that it takes two

(or three in this case) to tango. ;-)



It doesn't really matter what is responsible for your years and years of
complaints concerning illegal radio activity, as you are in denial it
ever occurred. I will admit one thing, you have left one hell of a
legacy for your child to read some day. Better hope you're dead and gone
long before she finds it.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

Ah, I see you didn't understand the subtle

differences. I told Jim that I don't post political

diatribes. That is factually accurate, as I have

never yet started a thread which was politically
oriented.


Hello, Dave. How's it been going? No one accused you of starting
anything relating to politics. You seem unduly paranoid lately.

I do, however RESPOND to other's

posts on political matters.


And you accomplish this with telepathy? No, you ~post~ your responses.


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(Politics & Religion are a never ending

debate, that's why I am going to stay out of

that subject.)




Probably a wise decision, unless you're like

me and enjoy watching the other side dance.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj


Still waging imaginary wars and taking up "sides". Will wonders never
cease?

N3CVJ asked:
When have I ever been hypocritical?

you wrote all of the following


And who would they report them to? The FCC has already shown time and
time again that they have better things to do than worry about
out-of-band CBers. I was involved in the DFing of a local 2 meter
repeater jammer a few years back. We found him in short order, even
though he was using a HT. He was reported to the FCC, and they sat on
their laurels. Not until the SAME GUY was found causing malicious
interference to the local police and fire frequencies, did the FCC
finally get off of their collective butts and do something. After it was
all said and done, the guy got what amounted to a wrist slapping. The
point is, don't expect the feds to help rid the airwaves of Freebanders.
And any ham that tries to "take the law into his own hands" will most
likely
end up full of lead......
_

I want to put this to rest once and for all. It seems that many of our
ham friends here, have used the excuse that "I can work the world with 1
watt, so YOU don't need an amplifier". Well, lets set the record
straight:
Misleading statement: " I can work the world with 1 watt". Facts: You
can work the world with 1 watt, IF the ionospheric conditions are proper
AND you are on a suitable frequency band. You CANNOT do it anytime you
want, you are at the mercy of mother nature. Secondly, what most of
these QRP guys have also failed to meantion, is that their "working of
the world" was most likely via the CW mode. CW, because of its narrow
bandwidth, offers excellent signal to noise ratios, easily 10 db better
than a typical CB. If a CW contact were running 1 watt, and they were at
your noise threshold, they would need to jump to 10 watts to make the
same contact on AM. These "fantastic" claims aren't worth a nickel on
the CB band, where most of us just wand RELIABLE (Meaning at ANY time)
communications with other LOCAL stations.

_
I take offense to the "holer than thou" attitude displayed by many hams
toward Cbers. They flaunt their "superior equipment" and tell the CBers,
to get ham licenses, and then are the first to complain to their ham
buddies, that the reason the ham bands are going to pot, is because of
all the CBers that are moving up there.
Ham radio and CB radio are both communications services. Both offer
their respective users with a forum for enjoyment. Each service has it's
own unique appeal that is not duplicated on the other.
-
Ham radio is full of serious discussions and one can learn alot from
just listening. On the other hand though, a constant diet of
technobabble gets VERY boring fairly quickly. CBers are less technical,
and as a result, are more like talking to "regular" people. Topics are
more varied, and you can "fool around" without fear of upsetting the
"kilocycle kops", and have more fun.
Dave
C & W Communications
CB Sales and Service
(610)272-8709/(610)539-8709

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:11:51 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
That was not meant as a criticism, just a

neutral observation.

Sure, sure,,a "neutral" observation whose first knee jerk reaction when
Dogie was busted was to jump to his defense and lie and say someone
someone withdrew the complaint against him to the FCC.

You're lying again. I never made any such

claim.


See Dave, when
the FCC places a hammie on the Rain Report and informs the world they
have evidence before them that indicates he was in violation of FCC law,
and you come along and attempt to say otherwise and that the FCC could
be wrong, is in no manner "neutral", It's simply another case (of many)
where you are not in any remote sense of the word "neutral".

I simply offered that based on Doug's

"notoriety",


Your reasoning for your bizarre behavior means something only to
yourself.
Your first instinct was to deny it took place, call me a liar, then turn
around in your next sentence and attempt to explain WHY you made such a
claim. Very bizarre, David.

_
The contingency recognizes this fact and several have illustrated and
commented on your position and hypocrisy.

....of one (you).

Despite your paranoia, I am not Frank, Jim, Shark, or anyone else that
has commented on your bizarre hypocrisy.
=A0=A0

You don't know the meaning of the word.


Then again, it is your right to
insist on remaining detached from reality and refusing to view yourself
as you really are, such as how others and the majority view you.

Ah yes, the majority of people who you base

support by the number of magazines that sell

which contain your fishing articles.



Such was your gaffe, not mine.
You
claiming the majority misunderstands you via explaining what you
"really" meant after the fact (usually accompanied by you misapplying
definitions of words and terms) adds to the joke.

No, you are claiming there's a "majority"


Yes, I did claim there was a majority on man occasion.

(Which has been strangely silent),


You always default to denial mode when other people tell you your
behavior is hypocritical. It's called denial.

the truth is there is only you.


Classic denial. I wasn't the one telling you about your hypocritical
political diatribes, despite your need to believe I am now posting as
Jim, or anyone else.

Provide even ONE example of my misuse of

any term.


Empirical evidence, for one.
But you outdone yourself concerning your knowledge of the laws governing
your hobby regarding Civil Disobedience. Despite being taught and
educated on this matter several times, you fecklessly insist such an act
(such as dxing) makes one a federal criminal. You very clearly are
suffering some sort of massive block, some type of learning disability
that prevents you from comprehending the differences between what
constitutes civil and criminal penalties, despite being properly
instructed each time you shout your ignorance concerning this subject.
You erroneously claimed, "it is perception" (yours, albeit wrong) that
distinguishes between such.


David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj


Have yourself a good weekend, old man.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:48:24 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

N3CVJ asked:
When have I ever been hypocritical?

you wrote all of the following


And who would they report them to? The FCC has already shown time and
time again that they have better things to do than worry about
out-of-band CBers. I was involved in the DFing of a local 2 meter
repeater jammer a few years back. We found him in short order, even
though he was using a HT. He was reported to the FCC, and they sat on
their laurels. Not until the SAME GUY was found causing malicious
interference to the local police and fire frequencies, did the FCC
finally get off of their collective butts and do something. After it was
all said and done, the guy got what amounted to a wrist slapping. The
point is, don't expect the feds to help rid the airwaves of Freebanders.
And any ham that tries to "take the law into his own hands" will most
likely
end up full of lead......

And this is wrong how?


I want to put this to rest once and for all. It seems that many of our
ham friends here, have used the excuse that "I can work the world with 1
watt, so YOU don't need an amplifier". Well, lets set the record
straight:
Misleading statement: " I can work the world with 1 watt". Facts: You
can work the world with 1 watt, IF the ionospheric conditions are proper
AND you are on a suitable frequency band. You CANNOT do it anytime you
want, you are at the mercy of mother nature. Secondly, what most of
these QRP guys have also failed to meantion, is that their "working of
the world" was most likely via the CW mode. CW, because of its narrow
bandwidth, offers excellent signal to noise ratios, easily 10 db better
than a typical CB. If a CW contact were running 1 watt, and they were at
your noise threshold, they would need to jump to 10 watts to make the
same contact on AM. These "fantastic" claims aren't worth a nickel on
the CB band, where most of us just wand RELIABLE (Meaning at ANY time)
communications with other LOCAL stations.

And this is hypocritical how?


_
I take offense to the "holer than thou" attitude displayed by many hams
toward Cbers. They flaunt their "superior equipment" and tell the CBers,
to get ham licenses, and then are the first to complain to their ham
buddies, that the reason the ham bands are going to pot, is because of
all the CBers that are moving up there.
Ham radio and CB radio are both communications services. Both offer
their respective users with a forum for enjoyment. Each service has it's
own unique appeal that is not duplicated on the other.

Again?


-
Ham radio is full of serious discussions and one can learn alot from
just listening. On the other hand though, a constant diet of
technobabble gets VERY boring fairly quickly. CBers are less technical,
and as a result, are more like talking to "regular" people. Topics are
more varied, and you can "fool around" without fear of upsetting the
"kilocycle kops", and have more fun.


Did you like me better back then?

But how is that hypocritical? I still PERSONALLY feel that way. But I
also recognize the letter of the law, and the penalties that go with
violating it.

You like to accuse me of confusing civil and criminal issues. But you
still can't seem to differentiate someone's personal opinion, from a
matter of fact and law.

Both of these statements are true:

If you freeband you are a federal lawbreaker.

I personally don't care if you do.

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

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:11:30 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

Ah, I see you didn't understand the subtle
differences. I told Jim that I don't post political
diatribes. That is factually accurate, as I have
never yet started a thread which was politically
oriented.


Hello, Dave. How's it been going? No one accused you of starting
anything relating to politics. You seem unduly paranoid lately.

What happened, the other sock get dirty so you changed back to this
one?


I do, however RESPOND to other's
posts on political matters.


And you accomplish this with telepathy? No, you ~post~ your responses.


No, I enter them.



*******(Politics & Religion are a never ending
debate, that's why I am going to stay out of
that subject.)




Probably a wise decision, unless you're like
me and enjoy watching the other side dance.


Still waging imaginary wars and taking up "sides". Will wonders never
cease?


So you deny that there are"sides" to political and religious debates?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:57:39 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:11:51 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
That was not meant as a criticism, just a
neutral observation.

Sure, sure,,a "neutral" observation whose first knee jerk reaction when
Dogie was busted was to jump to his defense and lie and say someone
someone withdrew the complaint against him to the FCC.

You're lying again. I never made any such
claim.


I simply offered that based on Doug's
"notoriety", that he MIGHT have been framed.
Are you stating that this scenario is impossible?


Your reasoning for your bizarre behavior means something only to
yourself.
Your first instinct was to deny it took place, call me a liar, then turn
around in your next sentence and attempt to explain WHY you made such a
claim. Very bizarre, David.

The only thing "bizarre" is your inability to comprehend simple
concepts. You accused me of stating that someone withdrew the
complaint. I made no such statement. That's a lie on your part,
predicated, no doubt, from your inability to remember who said what
over the years. You once tried to claim that I accused Keith of
something. When pressed on the issue, (While you scrambled through
google) you finally had to back off when you realized that you make a
mistake. But true to form, you would never be a man and admit it.

Are you man enough to apologize now, or will you just spin this some
more to lay down even more smoke?

The contingency recognizes this fact and several have illustrated and
commented on your position and hypocrisy.

....of one (you).

Despite your paranoia, I am not Frank, Jim, Shark, or anyone else that
has commented on your bizarre hypocrisy.

Despite your obvious paranoia, I never said you were.

I am no more hypocritical than any of those who have claimed the same
of me.


You
claiming the majority misunderstands you via explaining what you
"really" meant after the fact (usually accompanied by you misapplying
definitions of words and terms) adds to the joke.

No, you are claiming there's a "majority"


Yes, I did claim there was a majority on man occasion.

(Which has been strangely silent),


You always default to denial mode when other people tell you your
behavior is hypocritical. It's called denial.

No, it's called correcting an error. You still cannot demonstrate
anything hypocritical that I've posted. I'm forced to conclude that
you don't know the meaning of the word. So for your edification:


hy·poc·ri·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one
does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Now, where have I ever professed a belief, virtue, or feeling that I
don't possess?



the truth is there is only you.


Classic denial. I wasn't the one telling you about your hypocritical
political diatribes, despite your need to believe I am now posting as
Jim, or anyone else.

I never mentioned that. Guilty conscience?


Provide even ONE example of my misuse of

any term.


Empirical evidence, for one.
But you outdone yourself concerning your knowledge of the laws governing
your hobby regarding Civil Disobedience.

You have absolutely no idea what the concept of civil disobedience is
do you? You think it's your "get out of jail free card". You are so
far off, it's not even funny.

Despite being taught and
educated on this matter several times,

You are not capable of educating anyone. Your legal and political
views are akin to the malcontents and subversive slackers of the
1960's.

you fecklessly insist such an act
(such as dxing) makes one a federal criminal.

It does and it is. The FCC (a FEDERAL agency) via the communications
act of 1934 clearly defines both civil AND criminal penalties for
violation of the law. The fact that you haven't been caught yet does
not change that.


You very clearly are
suffering some sort of massive block, some type of learning disability
that prevents you from comprehending the differences between what
constitutes civil and criminal penalties, despite being properly
instructed each time you shout your ignorance concerning this subject.
You erroneously claimed, "it is perception" (yours, albeit wrong) that
distinguishes between such.

Your problem is that in your narcissistic mind, that you believe that
you know what's "proper". Someone can't be "educated" when the
"teacher" is further off the rails than the "student". Your knowledge
of the law is the worst that I've ever seen anywhere. I have a cousin
who's a lawyer and he just shakes his head at your ignorance.

Stick to fishing. It's probably the only subject you know anything
about.

You really should take some remedial education courses, including a
course on reading comprehension. That way you wouldn't be so quick to
accuse others of saying things they never said.


Have yourself a good weekend, old man.

Same to you. See you on Monday....

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

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:57:39 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:11:51 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
That was not meant as a criticism, just a

neutral observation.

Sure, sure,,a "neutral" observation whose first knee jerk reaction when
Dogie was busted was to jump to his defense and lie and say someone
someone withdrew the complaint against him to the FCC.

You're lying again. I never made any such

claim.

I simply offered that based on Doug's

"notoriety", that he MIGHT have been framed.

Are you stating that this scenario is

impossible?





Your reasoning for your bizarre behavior means something only to
yourself.
Your first instinct was to deny it took place, call me a liar, then turn
around in your next sentence and attempt to explain WHY you made such a
claim. Very bizarre, David.

The only thing "bizarre" is your inability to

comprehend simple concepts.


Such as you saying.."I never made any such claim",,followed by "I only
offered that based on Dogie's notoriety." The market of any such
"inability" has been cornred by yourself, as you remove all doubt.

You accused me of stating that someone

withdrew the complaint. I made no such

statement. That's a lie on your part,

predicated, no doubt, from your inability to

remember who said what over the years.


Nah,,,you said it.

You once tried to claim that I accused Keith of

something. When pressed on the issue,

(While you scrambled through google) you f

finally had to back off when you realized that

you make a mistake. But true to form, you

would never be a man and admit it.



Go on then and ask Keith, since you brought it up. You most certianly
blamed him. And while you are invoking such past discussions, it would
serve proper at this time if you were held to your own espoused standard
that what took place in the past is irrelevant, as you just told
another. Then again, you have a set of rules for everyone else, not
adhered by yourself..aka, another glaring example of your hypocrisy.

Are you man enough to apologize now, or will

you just spin this some more to lay down even
more smoke?



Look how far you ran from your initial denial of
defending Dogie. Off you go now, with all the smoke you can muster (a
little puffy whiff).
The contingency recognizes this fact and several have illustrated and
commented on your position and hypocrisy.

....of one (you).

Despite your paranoia, I am not Frank, Jim, Shark, or anyone else that
has commented on your bizarre hypocrisy.

Despite your obvious paranoia, I never said

you were.


As Frank, Jim, and Shark have all illustrated your hypocrisy AND
commented on it, yet, for some perplexing reason known only to yourself,
you acknowledge only myself as recognizing it and commenting of it.

I am no more hypocritical than any of those

who have claimed the same of me.


You
claiming the majority misunderstands you via
explaining what you "really" meant after the fact (usually accompanied
by you misapplying definitions of words and terms) adds to the joke.

No, you are claiming there's a "majority"

Yes, I did claim there was a majority on many occasion.

(Which has been strangely silent),

You always default to denial mode when other people tell you your
behavior is hypocritical. It's called denial.

No, it's called correcting an error. You still

cannot demonstrate anything hypocritical that

I've posted.



You ask others to provide for their claims after you make unsolicited
claims you felt important enough to invoke, but not provide (proof)
yourself.


I'm forced to conclude that you don't know the

meaning of the word. So for your edification:

hy=B7poc=B7ri=B7sy =A0 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)

n. pl. hy=B7poc=B7ri=B7sies

1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings,

or virtues that one does not hold or possess;

falseness.


You asking for anyone to provide for any of their claims is hypocrisy,
David, because you refuse to provide for for the majority fo your own.
You can deny all you like. It's my pleasure.

2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Now, where have I ever professed a belief,

virtue, or feeling that I don't possess?

See above.

the truth is there is only you.

Classic denial. I wasn't the one telling you about your hypocritical
political diatribes, despite your need to believe I am now posting as
Jim, or anyone else.

I never mentioned that.


LOL..exactly at what point does one recognize their daftness? Is it
before, during, or after you claimed no one but myself illustrated or
mentioned your hypocrisy?


Guilty conscience?


Sociopaths do not have consciences. Reversing your uneducated opinions
at your whim serves to illustrate only your ineptness regarding the area
you fancy yourself educated.

Provide even ONE example of my misuse of

any term.

Empirical evidence, for one.
But you outdone yourself concerning your knowledge of the laws governing
your hobby regarding Civil Disobedience.

You have absolutely no idea what the concept
of civil disobedience is do you? You think it's

your "get out of jail free card". You are so far

off, it's not even funny.
=A0
=A0Despite being taught and
educated on this matter several times, you are unable to comprehend
such.


You are not capable of educating anyone.

Your legal and political views are akin to the

malcontents and subversive slackers of the

1960's.


The definition of the term has not changed, your personal feelings and
bleeding from the gums, not withstanding.
You fecklessly insist such an act
(such as dxing) makes one a federal criminal.

It does and it is.



It doesn't. An inability to distinguish between federal, criminal, and
civil acts displayed by yourself is not shared by anyone else, only you.
You are assuming all rules and laws governed by a federal agency are
criminal and this simply isn't so. Your error, is you mistakenly believe
the term "federal" can be interchanged with the term "criminal" wehn
relating to the rules and laws they govern. This is your bad, Dave, not
anyone elses.


The FCC (a FEDERAL

agency)

via the communications act of 1934 clearly

defines both civil AND criminal penalties for

violation of the law. The fact that you haven't

been caught yet does not change that.


Yet, the fact one hasn't been convicted of such DOES change -your-
mistaken position. The fact that you disagree with the US laws and
justice system that does not allow anyone to refer to another as a
criminal unless they are found guilty and pronounced as such in a court
of law, is irrelevant, as it again is your ignorance responsible for
your mistaken belief.
Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.
_
You very clearly are
suffering some sort of massive block, some type of learning disability
that prevents you from comprehending the differences between what
constitutes civil and criminal penalties, despite being properly
instructed each time you shout your ignorance concerning this subject.
You erroneously claimed, "it is perception" (yours, albeit wrong) that
distinguishes between such.

Your problem is that in your narcissistic mind,

(snip)

Try and not permit my education of you to allow yourself to become
angry, as when you become angry, you get off topic and personal and must
be corrected and brought back in to the fold. AS much as your need
dictates, such is not about me, it's about your inability to properly
distinguish the differences between civil and criminal penalties, and
the fact that a federal agency governs such, does not make it a federal
crime, as you mistakenly and repeatedly maintain. You should have
realized such when you were informed about the Federal DOT's existence
(you denied their existence). The Federal DOT enforces many rules and
laws, and they are all not of a criminal nature, despite your inability
to comprehend such. If you need more examples, you may indicate such and
they will be provided.


Someone can't be "educated" when the "

teacher" is further off the rails than the

"student". Your knowledge of the law is the

worst that I've ever seen anywhere.

Yet, it was I who taught you roger beeps were legal for cb (you had to
confirm it with the FCC), after you cried for months that they were
illegal.
Your reasons for doing so, are irrelevant, it merely illustrates whose
knowledge of the law is compromised.
You are the only one taking issue, Dave. Ask anyone on ths group, anyone
at all, if they agree with you regarding your claim of what constitutes
a federal criminal. Off you go now...

I have a cousin who's a lawyer



Hehehe,,,as I said,,,off you go now.
You find it important enough you feel you must mention you have a cousin
who is a lawyer, but no identification, resutling in you not providing
for your claim.. You found it important enough to claim you have a
friend who was busted by the fcc, but will not provide for the claim.
You feel it important enough to claim you have cops who are friends who
gave you the wrong definition of Pa law, but of course you will not
provide for the claim. You find it important enough to claim you went to
a tech school, but will not provide for any claims. It's your pattern,
David. "Statistical probablities" as you like to call it,,,,,,same as
googling "anarchy". Socks and only your name comes up.



Stick to fishing. It's probably the only subject

you know anything about.


I also know boats, and that you were seen coming a mile away when you
bought yours.


You really should take some remedial

education courses, including a course on

reading comprehension. That way you

wouldn't be so quick to accuse others of

saying things they never said.


That's pretty funny, considering the source, but let's remain focused.
Your gaffe of using "criminal", "civil" and "federal" as similes when
referring to the dx law just because such is administered by a federal
agency, is wrong. That's all there is to it.


Have yourself a good weekend, old man.

Same to you. See you on Monday....

David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

The only thing "bizarre" is your inability to
comprehend simple concepts.

You accused me of stating that someone
withdrew the complaint. I made no such
statement. That's a lie on your part,
predicated, no doubt, from your inability to
remember who said what over the years.


Nah,,,you said it.

Then provide the google link as proof.


You once tried to claim that I accused Keith of
something. When pressed on the issue,
(While you scrambled through google) you f
finally had to back off when you realized that
you make a mistake. But true to form, you
would never be a man and admit it.



Go on then and ask Keith, since you brought it up. You most certianly
blamed him.

You want to eat crow again for something you had to reluctantly back
off from before? You really don't learn your lessons.

Until you can provide the proof, you're simply spinning yarns.

Are you man enough to apologize now, or will

you just spin this some more to lay down even
more smoke?



Look how far you ran from your initial denial of
defending Dogie.

Look how far you go to deflect the topic (again!).

You made a specific accusation, and cannot back it up. Not you try to
change the subject.




You always default to denial mode when other people tell you your
behavior is hypocritical. It's called denial.

No, it's called correcting an error. You still

cannot demonstrate anything hypocritical that

I've posted.



You ask others to provide for their claims after you make unsolicited
claims you felt important enough to invoke, but not provide (proof)
yourself.

Translation: You are unable to provide the needed proof, so you resort
to your predictable deflection tactic.



I'm forced to conclude that you don't know the
meaning of the word. So for your edification:
hy·poc·ri·sy * ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings,
or virtues that one does not hold or possess;
falseness.


You asking for anyone to provide for any of their claims is hypocrisy,
David, because you refuse to provide for for the majority fo your own.
You can deny all you like. It's my pleasure.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Such is the circular nature
of your reasoning.


Guilty conscience?


Sociopaths do not have consciences. Reversing your uneducated opinions
at your whim serves to illustrate only your ineptness regarding the area
you fancy yourself educated.


Ah, so you now admit to being a sociopath? That's a progressive sign.
Thank you for answering my question. You did see the (?) at the end of
my question right?



You are not capable of educating anyone.
Your legal and political views are akin to the
malcontents and subversive slackers of the
1960's.


The definition of the term has not changed, your personal feelings and
bleeding from the gums, not withstanding.
You fecklessly insist such an act
(such as dxing) makes one a federal criminal.

It does and it is.



It doesn't. An inability to distinguish between federal, criminal, and
civil acts displayed by yourself is not shared by anyone else, only you.
You are assuming all rules and laws governed by a federal agency are
criminal and this simply isn't so. Your error, is you mistakenly believe
the term "federal" can be interchanged with the term "criminal" wehn
relating to the rules and laws they govern. This is your bad, Dave, not
anyone elses.

The real joke is that you don't even bother to read the links your
posted to the stories about your boy "Bob Noxious". In them they state
that it's a criminal violation to operate an unlicensed transmitter.
The only difference between the FM broadcast band and the freeband is
the frequency, and the visibility to the public.



The FCC (a FEDERAL
agency)
via the communications act of 1934 clearly
defines both civil AND criminal penalties for
violation of the law. The fact that you haven't
been caught yet does not change that.


Yet, the fact one hasn't been convicted of such DOES change -your-
mistaken position. The fact that you disagree with the US laws and
justice system that does not allow anyone to refer to another as a
criminal unless they are found guilty and pronounced as such in a court
of law, is irrelevant, as it again is your ignorance responsible for
your mistaken belief.

Once again you base your mistaken opinion on technicalities and
semantics. Someone who murders someone is still guilty of a criminal
act regardless if he's been caught yet. Being pronounced guilty is
only a formality. The same holds true for the FCC rules.


Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.

Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "it's only guilty if
you're caught" mentality. Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

The Federal DOT enforces many rules and
laws, and they are all not of a criminal nature, despite your inability
to comprehend such. If you need more examples, you may indicate such and
they will be provided.

There are no federal traffic cops. There is no federal speed limit.

Besides, they are not the FCC.


I have a cousin who's a lawyer



Hehehe,,,as I said,,,off you go now.
You find it important enough you feel you must mention you have a cousin
who is a lawyer, but no identification, resutling in you not providing
for your claim.. You found it important enough to claim you have a
friend who was busted by the fcc, but will not provide for the claim.
You feel it important enough to claim you have cops who are friends who
gave you the wrong definition of Pa law, but of course you will not
provide for the claim. You find it important enough to claim you went to
a tech school, but will not provide for any claims. It's your pattern,
David.

Far be it for you to chastise anyone for not providing for their
claims when you can't even reveal your own name. You who claims to
embrace the concepts of anonymity. You want me to give you personal
information, yet you can't even come from behind that clock of gutless
anonymity.



Stick to fishing. It's probably the only subject

you know anything about.


I also know boats, and that you were seen coming a mile away when you
bought yours.

Oh, this should be good. Another subject where I'll clean your clock
and not even break a sweat. What could you possibly know about my boat
or any boat in general?

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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400,

Once again you base your mistaken opinion on technicalities and
semantics. Someone who murders someone is still guilty of a criminal
act regardless if he's been caught yet. Being pronounced guilty is
only a formality. The same holds true for the FCC rules.


Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty?
Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in
the jury box? listening to the testimony? following
the judges orders concerning what type of evidence
you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion
until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are
deliberating the case? Of course not, so how can
you say because someone here is running a 1000
watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal?
You can't, you are not a sheriff, judge & jury, to
which is the only way someone can be classified
a criminal, after being convicted, before that they
are only a suspect.



Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.

Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "it's only guilty if
you're caught" mentality. Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

Nope, it's called a guilty conscience, to which you can only
be called guilty in front of the lord all-mighty, everything
else has to be done through a court of law.

Dave


Landshark


--
Courage is what it takes to stand up
and speak; courage is also what it
takes to sit down and listen.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:47:24 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400,

Once again you base your mistaken opinion on technicalities and
semantics. Someone who murders someone is still guilty of a criminal
act regardless if he's been caught yet. Being pronounced guilty is
only a formality. The same holds true for the FCC rules.


Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty?

I don't know. But whether or not the court pronounced him as such
doesn't change the acts that he may or may not have done.


Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in
the jury box? listening to the testimony? following
the judges orders concerning what type of evidence
you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion
until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are
deliberating the case? Of course not, so how can
you say because someone here is running a 1000
watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal?

If you witness someone killing another, do you need a jury verdict
before you know that that person is a murderer?

If the law defines a particular act as criminal, then if you engage in
that act, you are engaging in a criminal activity. Being labeled as
such by a court is only a formality and a convenient excuse for people
who want to thumb their nose at the law, and wish to ease their guilty
conscience, by trying to convince themselves that their activities
aren't really criminal because they haven't been caught yet..


You can't, you are not a sheriff, judge & jury, to
which is the only way someone can be classified
a criminal, after being convicted, before that they
are only a suspect.

Maybe in a legal sense, but that's a poor justification for engaging
in criminal behavior, and saying; "you can't call me a criminal
because a jury didn't convict me yet".


Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.

Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "it's only guilty if
you're caught" mentality. Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

Nope, it's called a guilty conscience, to which you can only
be called guilty in front of the lord all-mighty

Isn't that enough?

, everything
else has to be done through a court of law.

You can't serve time and be branded a "criminal" until found guilty in
a court of law. But the fact that you might get away with a crime,
doesn't lessen what you truly are.

Playing word games doesn't hide that fact.


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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:47:24 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400,

Once again you base your mistaken opinion on technicalities and
semantics. Someone who murders someone is still guilty of a criminal
act regardless if he's been caught yet. Being pronounced guilty is
only a formality. The same holds true for the FCC rules.


Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty?

I don't know. But whether or not the court pronounced him as such
doesn't change the acts that he may or may not have done.

Doesn't change the acts he may or may not done? If he's
done something wrong, found guilty then he's a criminal.
If he done nothing wrong, went to court and was found
not guilty, he should still be labeled a criminal because
he's being accused?



Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in
the jury box? listening to the testimony? following
the judges orders concerning what type of evidence
you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion
until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are
deliberating the case? Of course not, so how can
you say because someone here is running a 1000
watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal?

If you witness someone killing another, do you need a jury verdict
before you know that that person is a murderer?

I heard someone on 2 meteres last night, swearing, threating
people, is he guilty of violating FCC rules?


If the law defines a particular act as criminal, then if you engage in
that act, you are engaging in a criminal activity. Being labeled as
such by a court is only a formality and a convenient excuse for people
who want to thumb their nose at the law, and wish to ease their guilty
conscience, by trying to convince themselves that their activities
aren't really criminal because they haven't been caught yet..

No, it's a fact. Going around chasing speeders, j-walkers,
litterbugs etc etc and calling them criminals will change
nothing. You'll have to start calling 4 out of 10 people
you know criminals then, because by a national survey
that's the percentage that speed.



You can't, you are not a sheriff, judge & jury, to
which is the only way someone can be classified
a criminal, after being convicted, before that they
are only a suspect.

Maybe in a legal sense, but that's a poor justification for engaging
in criminal behavior, and saying; "you can't call me a criminal
because a jury didn't convict me yet".

A well known business man is accused by his ex-wife of
being a child molester. DA says that he won't prosecute
because lack of evidence and it doesn't look like he
really did anything. You start calling him a child molester
and criminal to friends and people that you know, that will
leave you open for a slander lawsuit, that's why you don't
run around accusing people of being criminals.




Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.

Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "it's only guilty if
you're caught" mentality. Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

Nope, it's called a guilty conscience, to which you can only
be called guilty in front of the lord all-mighty

Isn't that enough?

If you conscience bothers you, yes.


, everything
else has to be done through a court of law.

You can't serve time and be branded a "criminal" until found guilty in
a court of law. But the fact that you might get away with a crime,
doesn't lessen what you truly are.

Playing word games doesn't hide that fact.


Playing with meanings doesn't hide the fact either Dave,
that's why they are called suspects, not criminals.
Oh, by the way, that ham operator using the foul language
and threating people, his callsign he was using was N3CVJ.
By you're logic, that alone should brand you a criminal.

Dave


Landshark


--
My bad..the camera is mightier than the blowhard(s)..in most respects.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:40:48 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:47:24 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400,

Once again you base your mistaken opinion on technicalities and
semantics. Someone who murders someone is still guilty of a criminal
act regardless if he's been caught yet. Being pronounced guilty is
only a formality. The same holds true for the FCC rules.


Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty?

I don't know. But whether or not the court pronounced him as such
doesn't change the acts that he may or may not have done.

Doesn't change the acts he may or may not done? If he's
done something wrong, found guilty then he's a criminal.
If he done nothing wrong, went to court and was found
not guilty, he should still be labeled a criminal because
he's being accused?

What if he's done the acts he was accused of, but because of an
inability for the state to prove it, or the credibility of the
witnesses becomes cloudy and he walks, what does THAT make him?


Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in
the jury box? listening to the testimony? following
the judges orders concerning what type of evidence
you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion
until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are
deliberating the case? Of course not, so how can
you say because someone here is running a 1000
watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal?

If you witness someone killing another, do you need a jury verdict
before you know that that person is a murderer?

I heard someone on 2 meters last night, swearing, threating
people, is he guilty of violating FCC rules?

Absolutely!


If the law defines a particular act as criminal, then if you engage in
that act, you are engaging in a criminal activity. Being labeled as
such by a court is only a formality and a convenient excuse for people
who want to thumb their nose at the law, and wish to ease their guilty
conscience, by trying to convince themselves that their activities
aren't really criminal because they haven't been caught yet..

No, it's a fact. Going around chasing speeders, j-walkers,
litterbugs etc etc and calling them criminals will change
nothing.

Nor will stating that a person clearly engaging in a particular
criminal activity isn't really a criminal because they haven't been
caught or convicted of it yet.


You'll have to start calling 4 out of 10 people
you know criminals then, because by a national survey
that's the percentage that speed.

Speeding is not considered a criminal offense. Operating a radio
transmitter without a license is. Interesting that you lump illegally
operating a radio transmitter in with such trivial summary offenses as
jay-walking, speeding and simple littering. Those summary offenses do
not carry criminal penalties. Violation of certain FCC rules, on the
other hand, does. Some people used to think the same thing about
theft of cable TV service. Until the law changed and got some teeth.
Now people who sell cable theft devices face serious jail time.


You can't, you are not a sheriff, judge & jury, to
which is the only way someone can be classified
a criminal, after being convicted, before that they
are only a suspect.

Maybe in a legal sense, but that's a poor justification for engaging
in criminal behavior, and saying; "you can't call me a criminal
because a jury didn't convict me yet".

A well known business man is accused by his ex-wife of
being a child molester. DA says that he won't prosecute
because lack of evidence and it doesn't look like he
really did anything. You start calling him a child molester
and criminal to friends and people that you know, that will
leave you open for a slander lawsuit, that's why you don't
run around accusing people of being criminals.

Ah, but there is a fine difference. A person accused is presumed
innocent until proven guilty. But you know as well as I do that the
system is flawed, and many times guilty people walk for various
reasons. Conversely, some innocent people are wrongly convicted. But
if I witness a crime, I don't need a jury to tell me that the perp is
a criminal.

Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a bunch of people on an
internet forum that he did indeed molest children? Admitting to an
unlawful activity is the same thing in principle to pleading guilty in
a trial. It may be "unofficial" but that's all I need to see to make
up my mind.


If I arbitrarily call you a federal lawbreaking criminal for violation
of FCC rules on freebanding or power levels, and I can't prove it, it
becomes libel (Assuming you really aren't doing it).

If, on the other hand, I monitor you doing it, or you brag to other
people that you do it, then you are engaging in a criminal activity.


Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.

Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "it's only guilty if
you're caught" mentality. Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

Nope, it's called a guilty conscience, to which you can only
be called guilty in front of the lord all-mighty

Isn't that enough?

If you conscience bothers you, yes.

If you are of sound moral principles, then it should. If not, then you
start bordering on sociopathic tendencies.


, everything
else has to be done through a court of law.

You can't serve time and be branded a "criminal" until found guilty in
a court of law. But the fact that you might get away with a crime,
doesn't lessen what you truly are.

Playing word games doesn't hide that fact.


Playing with meanings doesn't hide the fact either Dave,
that's why they are called suspects, not criminals.

Once again, this is to accommodate a person's presumption of innocence
in the course of due process . And once again, if you witness a crime,
you don't need a jury to tell you what your senses already did.


Oh, by the way, that ham operator using the foul language
and threating people, his callsign he was using was N3CVJ.
By you're logic, that alone should brand you a criminal.

No, since I did not do it, and the distance between us makes it very
unlikely that you heard me. Now, if I stated that I did it and/or you
witnessed ME doing it, and you could positively identify me, then you
could factually make that statement.

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

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:40:48 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Wed, 13 Apr 2005
04:47:24 GMT, "Landshark" wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Tue, 12 Apr 2005
11:41:29 -0400,
Once again you base your mistaken opinion

on technicalities and semantics. Someone

who murders someone is still guilty of a

criminal act regardless if he's been caught yet.
Being pronounced guilty is only a formality.

The same holds true for the FCC rules.

(Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty? )

I don't know. But whether or not the court

pronounced him as such doesn't change the

acts that he may or may not have done.

Once one is found not guilty in the US by a court of law and/or a jury
of their peers, you can not claim he is guilty, regardless of what he
may have done as relating to his case. Do so and you'll be broke after
being sued for defamation of character along with anything else
concerning libel or slander laws.
-
(Doesn't change the acts he may or may not done? If he's done something
wrong, found guilty then he's a criminal. If he done nothing wrong, went
to court and was found not guilty, he should still be labeled a criminal
because he's being accused? )

What if he's done the acts he was accused of,

.but because of an inability for the state to

prove it, or the credibility of the witnesses

becomes cloudy and he walks, what does

THAT make him?

Depends on the verdict. There are only three possibilities,,,,,innocent,
not guilty, and guilty.

(Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in the jury box?
listening to the testimony? following the judges orders concerning what
type of evidence you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion
until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are deliberating the case?
Of course not, so how can you say because someone here is running a 1000
watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal? )

If you witness someone killing another, do you
need a jury verdict before you know that that

person is a murderer?

You can "know" (translated in your case to being a simile for "believe")
anything you wish, but even if you witnessed such an act, you are not
permitted to publicly call him such IF he was tried and found other than
guilty. Your belief is irrelevent.
-
(I heard someone on 2 meters last night, swearing, threating people, is
he guilty of violating FCC rules? )

Absolutely!

If the law defines a particular act as criminal,

then if you engage in that act, you are

engaging in a criminal activity. Being labeled

as such by a court is only a formality and a

convenient excuse for people who want to

thumb their nose at the law, and wish to ease

their guilty conscience, by trying to convince

themselves that their activities aren't really

criminal because they haven't been caught

yet..

(chuckle),,you go on trying to convince *yourself" you have the right to
call one a criminal for what you perceive constitutes such. If you were
to publicly refer to one with their proper name as as a criminal, based
only what you present here and erroneously believe constitutes such
criminal activity (such as maintaining, on more than one occasion, that
one's posts in this group you -think- may belong to a certain identity,
is "proof" enough (for you) to refer to the person as a criminal), a
small filing fee would be paid (AFTER your criminal charges) and you
would be buried in civil court by someone versed in what you mistakenly
perceive as the law. After the criminal charges were applied you, the
civil matter would be only a formality, based on your guilt from the
outcome of the criminal trial based on your libel/slander/defamatory
comments, which are in turn based on -your- erroenous beliefs.

-
(No, it's a fact. Going around chasing speeders, j-walkers, litterbugs
etc etc and calling them criminals will change nothing. )

Nor will stating that a person clearly engaging


in a particular criminal activity isn't really a

criminal because they haven't been caught or

convicted of it yet.
=A0
On the contrary,,that IS the law, David, and it does change things..
_
(=A0You'll have to start calling 4 out of 10 people you know criminals
then, because by a national survey that's the percentage that speed. )

Speeding is not considered a criminal offense.
Neither is dxing

Operating a radio transmitter without a license
is.

CB.

Interesting that you lump illegally operating

a radio transmitter in with such trivial summary
offenses as jay-walking, speeding and simple

littering.

Yet, here you squat to ****, lumping in civil infractions with criminal
infractions. Another case of you selectively doing so only when you
agree with the premise.

Those summary offenses do not carry criminal
penalties. Violation of certain FCC rules, on

the other hand, does.


Not dx.

Some people used to

think the same thing about theft of cable TV

service.


The you should have no problem citing an example where one of these
mystery people you are always invoking claimed they thought stealing
from a cable TV service was legal/acceptable/non-criminal.

Until the law changed and got some

teeth. Now people who sell cable theft devices
face serious jail time.

But not dxers.
Anyways, those who sell illegal cable boxes are a much different
scenario than the first you invoked. Selling illegal converters carries
a much harsher charge than merely using one, but it does illustrate how
far off topic you are wliling to run.


(You can't, you are not a sheriff, judge & jury, to which is the only
way someone can be classified a criminal, after being convicted, before
that they are only a suspect. )

Maybe in a legal sense,

LOL,,as opposed to what? The legal sense is the only manner in which you
may legally refer to one a criminal. Do it ay other way and you are
opening yourself to penalties. Using your own warped logic (admitting
something on the internet is the same as a guilty plea in a court of
law) concerning what is said among internet babble, the mere fact that
you were informed of the law on many occasion, yet continue to refer to
certain proper names as a criminal, can enhance your penalties because
you continued to break said laws. Even though you may correctly plead
ignorance, such is never held in a court of law as a valid excuse for
one breaking the law.

but that's a poor justification for engaging in

criminal behavior, and saying; "you can't call

me a criminal because a jury didn't convict me
yet".

(A well known business man is accused by his ex-wife of being a child
molester. DA says that he won't prosecute because lack of evidence
and it doesn't look like he really did anything. You start calling him a
child molester and criminal to friends and people that you know, that
will leave you open for a slander lawsuit, that's why you don't run
around accusing people of being criminals. )

Ah, but there is a fine difference.

Only in your mind.

A person accused is presumed innocent until

proven guilty.



And only a court of law can determine such proof, not you, not your
observational skills, not your "knowing" based on beliefs, and certainly
not your (mis)interpretations of the law.



But you know as well as I do

that the system is flawed, and many times

guilty people walk for various reasons.



Irrelevant.
You continue to express extreme difficulty in comprehending that you
may not refer to these people as criminals.

Conversely, some innocent people are

wrongly convicted. But if I witness a crime, I

don't need a jury to tell me that the perp is a

criminal.

You most certainly do if you wish to say it publicly or to another.

Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a

bunch of people on an internet forum that he

did indeed molest children?

More of your ignorance. I can say I shot Kennedy....it means ****,
except to you.

Admitting to an unlawful activity is the same

thing in principle to pleading guilty in a trial.

Good gawd oh mighty. Here's where you get schooled again. not only do
you have no clue who one is on the internet, you are incompetently and
incorrectly claiming hearsay is the same thing as pleading guilty. Your
ignorance of the law has no bounds,

It may be "unofficial" but that's all I need to see
to make up my mind.


Of course, you do. You have been mispronouncing people on the internet
as "federal criminals" as long as you have been spoon-fed carefully
scripted information. Now that you shout to the world your mistaken
belief that what one posts on the internet is tantamount to an admission
of guilt in a US court of law, all one can do is laugh at you or feel
pity.
Besides, your position can get you sued, should you exercise it as you
claim,

If I arbitrarily call you a federal lawbreaking

criminal for violation of FCC rules on

freebanding or power levels, and I can't prove

.it, it becomes libel (Assuming you really aren't
doing it).


You have no way of knowing what someone, such as myself, does or
doesn't. Because you mistakenly believe everyone that posts from webtv
is the twisted who rang your bell and a sock puppet, doesn't make it so.
Because you weren't aware roger beeps were legal, did not make them
illegal, as you ignorantly maintained. Because you denied the existence
of a federal DOT, didnt alter the reality of it.

If, on the other hand, I monitor you doing it, or

you brag to other people that you do it,

Wrong again. I can sit here and tell you I robbed banks, killed Kennedy,
was single-handedly responsible for the theft of the Star of India, and
broker counterfeit Monets,,,it means ****,,,,,,of course,,,except to
you, who has these warped beliefs regarding legalities responsible for
so many errors in your comments.

then you are engaging in a criminal activity. _

Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.

Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "

it's only guilty if you're caught" mentality.


Actually, the fact that one is only guilty when assessed by a court of
law, is not a mentality, David, it's US law reality. This mentality you
speak of, is all yours. The law,,,, is reality.

Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.


And your comments are typical of those consumed with hate and those of
little tolerance for all but your own beliefs.


(Nope, it's called a guilty conscience, to which you can only be called
guilty in front of the lord all-mighty)

Isn't that enough?


(If you conscience bothers you, yes.)

If you are of sound moral principles, then it

should.


What you profess as sound moral principles, ranks right there with your
denial the legality of roger beeps, the denial the existence of the
federal DOT, and your claim there is no federal speed limit (there is,
and it governs all commercial vehicles).


If not, then you start bordering on

.sociopathic tendencies.

The law disagrees with you.

(You can't serve time and be branded a
"criminal" until found guilty in a court of law. )

But the fact that you might get away with a

crime, doesn't lessen what you truly are.



But the fact that you claim internet babble is the same thing as a
guilty plea in a court of law, most certainly governs when you may or
may not publicly refer one as a criminal.
Referring to a person proper as a criminal based on what -you- believe
is one's internet identity and what they may have posted, illustrates,
no,,,"screams" ignorance regarding your knowledge of the law.

Playing word games doesn't hide that fact.

(Playing with meanings doesn't hide the fact either Dave, that's why
they are called suspects, not criminals. )
Once again, this is to accommodate a
person's presumption of innocence in the
course of due process .

And once again, if you

witness a crime, you don't need a jury to tell

you what your senses already did.

And once again, -your- (non)senses alone are not proof by any
definition, and are irrelevent except/unless directed by a court of law.

(Oh, by the way, that ham operator using the foul language and threating
people, his callsign he was using was N3CVJ. By you're logic, that alone
should brand you a criminal. )

No, since I did not do it,

Holding with your logic, if one posts here with your call sign and spoke
of such activity, it would make them a criminal. You haven't a clue,
David, despite more and more people educating you each day.

and the distance between us makes it very

unlikely that you heard me. Now, if I stated

that I did it and/or you witnessed ME doing it,

and you could positively identify me, then you

.could factually make that statement.

Wrong. Especially concerning radio laws. The FCC can NOT prosecute
unless one of their agents witness the act. You can cry all day in your
spilled, spoiled milk about it, but it will not change the facts of the
law, of which you are unable to learn. The bottom line responsible for
maiming your psyche, is that you can not refer to one as a criminal
unless they were convicted in a court of law. It's comical watching you
attempt to explain the opposite of what our laws hold, and hypocritical
for one who invokes the law so much,,,except, of course, in instances
such as this where you disagree with the law, then it suddenly becomes
about -your- perceptions and beliefs and no longer about the law. Not
only do you epitomize the now widely-accepted "some of those licensed in
communications seem to know the least about it and express the most
difficulties", but serve
as a perfect example of those who like to fancy themselves skilled in a
certain area, but are completely lost and inept regarding the subject
that mesmerizes them so...in this case, the law and its components.


David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

.n3cvj

"Landshark" wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:47:24 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400,

Once again you base your mistaken opinion on technicalities and
semantics. Someone who murders someone is still guilty of a criminal
act regardless if he's been caught yet. Being pronounced guilty is
only a formality. The same holds true for the FCC rules.


Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty?

I don't know. But whether or not the court pronounced him as such
doesn't change the acts that he may or may not have done.

Doesn't change the acts he may or may not done? If he's
done something wrong, found guilty then he's a criminal.
If he done nothing wrong, went to court and was found
not guilty, he should still be labeled a criminal because
he's being accused?

I heard Jackson will literally cry if you don't let your pre-pubescent
son sleep in the same bed with him.

****er needs a bullet to separate him from his sick habit. The parents
need a bullet too for allowing their children to accommodate him.

Dave Hall wrote:
Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a bunch of people on an
internet forum that he did indeed molest children?

What do you think about a dog that is making a living but refuses to
feed his children, to the point of getting tagged with a felony for it?

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
You accused me of stating that someone

withdrew the complaint. I made no such

statement. That's a lie on your part,

predicated, no doubt, from your inability to

remember who said what over the years.

Nah,,,you said it.

Then provide the google link as proof.

Do not ask others what you refuse to provide yourself..it's called
hypocrisy and myself, Frank, Jim, Shark, Mopar, and now Lancer
(regarding your lack of knowledge of antennas) have illustrated such.

You once tried to claim that I accused Keith of

something. When pressed on the issue,

(While you scrambled through google) you f

finally had to back off when you realized that

you make a mistake. But true to form, you

would never be a man and admit it.

AS opposed to you being wrong concerning the federal DOT (just to name a
single issue).

You want to eat crow again for something you

had to reluctantly back off from before?

You're the one choking on feathers in all your posts, especially since
you were instructed of the existsence of the DOT and the legaliyy of
roger beeps.

You really don't learn your lessons.

Until you can provide the proof, you're simply

spinning yarns.

..said the one who provides countless un-named, un-substantiated, and
unsolicitied claims to bolster your own position. No verifiable details
concerning your initiated and unsolicited claims makes your claims
unchallengeable giving way to classic demagoguery.

Are you man enough to apologize now, or will

you just spin this some more to lay down even
more smoke?

Look how far you ran from your initial denial of defending Dogie.

Look how far you go to deflect the topic

(again!).

The topic wasn't Keith,,you invoked the off-topic.

You made a specific accusation, and cannot

back it up. Not you try to change the subject.

You always default to denial mode when other people tell you your
behavior is hypocritical. It's called denial.

No, it's called correcting an error.


And you certainly made your share of forced errors...forensics, DOT, PA
State Law, Civil vs criminal law, roger beeps, empirical evidence,..

You still

cannot demonstrate anything hypocritical that

I've posted.

You ask others to provide for their claims after you make unsolicited
claims you felt important enough to invoke, but not provide (proof)
yourself.

Translation: You


are unable to provide the

.needed proof, so you resort

to your predictable deflection tactic.

You initiated this tactic with your running from your past claims that
were proved lies.

I'm forced to conclude that you don't know the

meaning of the word.

I force you to do plenty of things, but lately, it seems Frank has
forced you more than anyone.

So for your edification: hy=B7poc=B7ri=B7sy =A0 ( P )

Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)

n. pl. hy=B7poc=B7ri=B7sies

1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings,

or virtues that one does not hold or possess;

falseness.

You asking for anyone to provide for any of their claims is hypocrisy,
David, because you refuse to provide for for the majority fo your own.
You can deny all you like. It's my pleasure.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Such is the circular nature of your reasoning.

Such is the nature if your actions. As has been illustrated by others,
you made more unsubstantiated claims than any.

Guilty conscience?

Sociopaths do not have consciences.
Reversing your uneducated opinions at your whim serves to illustrate
only your ineptness regarding the area you fancy yourself educated.
Ah, so you now admit to being a sociopath?

Memory impairment is responsible for your floundering. One more time, I
am whatever your ego needs and the one responsible for your -failures-.

That's a progressive sign.

Then perhaps your physician can lower your medication dosage. By the
way, how did that new med trial go? Thorazine, wasn't it?

Thank you for

answering my question. You did see the (?) at

the end of my question right?

What everyone else sees is way different than what you claim to see. The
light is blinding you.

You are not capable of educating anyone.

I educated you when you denied existence of a Federal DOT. I educated
you concerning your shouted ignorance (for a month) that roger beeps
were illegal. I educated you on your mistaken definition of "empirical"
evidence, Frank educated you on your mistaken..well, on a lot of your
mistaken claims regarding radio, but most recently, of your embarrassing
gaffe regarding the incorrect definition of "forensics", something you
erroneously claimed you use in addition to empirical evidence. In fact,
you have been educated on a host of things by a host of people. Now
Lancer is providing your education concerning what you do not know about
antennas. Yes, Dave, despite your denials, you most certainly have been
educated by several of us.

Your legal and political views are akin to the

malcontents and subversive slackers of the

1960's.

The definition of the term has not changed, your personal feelings and
bleeding from the gums, not withstanding.
You fecklessly insist such an act
(such as dxing) makes one a federal criminal.

It does and it is.

It doesn't. An inability to distinguish between federal, criminal, and
civil acts displayed by yourself is not shared by anyone else, only you.
You are assuming all rules and laws governed by a federal agency are
criminal and this simply isn't so. Your error, is you mistakenly believe
the term "federal" can be interchanged with the term "criminal" wehn
relating to the rules and laws they govern. This is your bad, Dave, not
anyone elses.

The real joke is that you don't even bother to

read the links your posted to the stories about

your boy "Bob Noxious". In them they state

that it's a criminal violation to operate an

unlicensed transmitter.


Tut-tut,,when you have been reduced to wandering, you tend to make
invalid comparisons. What B-o-b does, and what I do (dx) are two very
different items,

The only difference

between the FM broadcast band and the

freeband is the frequency, and the visibility to

the public.
=A0=A0
Hehe..no, Dave, you are dead wrong,,there are plenty of differences,
especially regarding legalities, but I have learned to be content
watching you deny existence of the things of which you are not educated.

The FCC (a FEDERAL

agency)
=A0
=A0via the communications act of 1934 clearly

defines both civil AND criminal penalties for

violation of the law.


So does the Federal DOT.

The fact that you haven't

.been caught yet does not change that.

Yet, the fact one hasn't been convicted of such DOES change -your-
mistaken position. The fact that you disagree with the US laws and
justice system that does not allow anyone to refer to another as a
criminal unless they are found guilty and pronounced as such in a court
of law, is irrelevant, as it again is your ignorance responsible for
your mistaken belief.

Once again you base your mistaken opinion

on technicalities and semantics.

What you call technicalities is the basis and foundation for our
judicial system. It's not perfect, but it works much better than your
pronouncing one a guilty criminal based only on your ignorance.

Someone who murders someone is still guilty

of a criminal act regardless if he's been caught
yet.

Not if they haven't been convicted by a court of law. This is the ONLY
manner in which one can be "guilty" and called a criminal in the US. To
do so without the adjudication of guilt makes on guilty of slander or
libel, depending on the medium used.

Being pronounced guilty is only a formality.

Says you, but you are wrong. It is THE ONLY basis for guilt.

The same holds true for the FCC rules.

Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.

Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that

."it's only guilty if you're caught" mentality.

Again, your problem is with your disagreeing of the US judicial system.
This is not MY idea, Dave, this is the way our system is designed and
you have a problem with it. Get past your personal problems that have
you misperceiving the law as a mentality instead of the reality you can
not grasp.

Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

Again, take it to your congressman.

There are no federal traffic cops.

Umm,,,there is. That is exactly what DOT officers are. In addition to
the usual laws they enforce regaridng commercial carriers and transit,
they are not LIMITED by them. A Federal officer may enforce ANY law in
this country. Keep talking, Dave, as you continue to be educated.

There is no federal speed limit.

This is your counter to your incorrect claim that there is no federal
DOT? Man, you are a glutton for punishment. Sure there is, David,
truckers must abide by it every day. As I said,,,keep talking.


I have a cousin who's a lawyer

Hehehe,,,as I said,,,off you go now.
You find it important enough you feel you must mention you have a cousin
who is a lawyer, but no identification, resutling in you not providing
for your claim.. You found it important enough to claim you have a
friend who was busted by the fcc, but will not provide for the claim.
You feel it important enough to claim you have cops who are friends who
gave you the wrong definition of Pa law, but of course you will not
provide for the claim. You find it important enough to claim you went to
a tech school, but will not provide for any claims. It's your pattern,
David.

Far be it for you to chastise anyone for not

providing for their claims when you can't even

reveal your own name.

Stay focused, Dave. By now, everyone understands your need to become
personal when you are forced to learn, but it's off topic and serves
only to illustrate your incompetence and lack of communication skill.

You who claims to embrace the concepts of

anonymity. You want me to give you personal

information,

No Dave,,,you -chose- to give us personal info regarding this subject,
..your claim was unsolicited.

yet you can't even come from

behind that clock of gutless anonymity.
=A0
=A0Gutless is the threat you made about coming to "give you what you
want". Reviews of that thread show how yellow you are and what a coward
you have become, as well as the lies you made concerning your threats.

Stick to fishing. It's probably the only subject

you know anything about.

I also know boats, and that you were seen coming a mile away when you
bought yours.

Oh, this should be good.


Your education is always regarded as good,,,except, by yourself, and
this is only because it pains you to be proven wrong..I was going to say
"by myslef" and then considered saying"by cbers", but you have shown
that all who prove you wrong, bring you great pains.

Another subject

where I'll clean your clock and not even break

a sweat. What could you possibly know about

my boat or any boat in general?




....asked the landlocked wannabe who gets maybe two, three months use
per year of his boat. Yes, David, again, your hands-on experience over
the years with your boats in Pennsylvania adds up to,,what...how many
months? LOL. Even if you multiplied 4 months per year of your experience
(and that's generous) for the last twenty five years, that gives you a
total of what,,,,,,100 months experience? That's less than 10 years
experience and it's not even consecutive.
You're still green and a lightweight, but your self-proclaimed
experience regarding such, is my brass ring. In fact, all areas which
you have professed unsolicited proficiency to the group, have been
decimated by others who do understand the subjects you fancy yourself
knowledgeable. That list is growing rapidly.


David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:40:48 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:47:24 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400,

Once again you base your mistaken opinion on technicalities and
semantics. Someone who murders someone is still guilty of a criminal
act regardless if he's been caught yet. Being pronounced guilty is
only a formality. The same holds true for the FCC rules.


Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty?

I don't know. But whether or not the court pronounced him as such
doesn't change the acts that he may or may not have done.

Doesn't change the acts he may or may not done? If he's
done something wrong, found guilty then he's a criminal.
If he done nothing wrong, went to court and was found
not guilty, he should still be labeled a criminal because
he's being accused?

What if he's done the acts he was accused of, but because of an
inability for the state to prove it, or the credibility of the
witnesses becomes cloudy and he walks, what does THAT make him?


It make's him not guilty in a criminal court of law, sucks
but that the law.


Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in
the jury box? listening to the testimony? following
the judges orders concerning what type of evidence
you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion
until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are
deliberating the case? Of course not, so how can
you say because someone here is running a 1000
watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal?

If you witness someone killing another, do you need a jury verdict
before you know that that person is a murderer?

Yup, right now he's only a killer, but after the court
rules he's guilty, then he's a murderer.


I heard someone on 2 meters last night, swearing, threating
people, is he guilty of violating FCC rules?

Absolutely!


If the law defines a particular act as criminal, then if you engage in
that act, you are engaging in a criminal activity. Being labeled as
such by a court is only a formality and a convenient excuse for people
who want to thumb their nose at the law, and wish to ease their guilty
conscience, by trying to convince themselves that their activities
aren't really criminal because they haven't been caught yet..

No, it's a fact. Going around chasing speeders, j-walkers,
litterbugs etc etc and calling them criminals will change
nothing.

Nor will stating that a person clearly engaging in a particular
criminal activity isn't really a criminal because they haven't been
caught or convicted of it yet.


???, so you are saying that they are a suspect, good.
Cause they can't be a criminal unless they have been
convicted of doing that criminal act.


You'll have to start calling 4 out of 10 people
you know criminals then, because by a national survey
that's the percentage that speed.

Speeding is not considered a criminal offense.

Sure it is, going 100 mph is construed as a misdemeanor,
thus punishable by up to 1 year in the county jail and/or
fine.

Operating a radio
transmitter without a license is. Interesting that you lump illegally
operating a radio transmitter in with such trivial summary offenses as
jay-walking, speeding and simple littering.

You consider 1 year in jail and $1000.00 fine as trivial?


Those summary offenses do
not carry criminal penalties.

Both excessive speed and litter are misdemeanors and carry severe penalties

Violation of certain FCC rules, on the
other hand, does. Some people used to think the same thing about
theft of cable TV service. Until the law changed and got some teeth.
Now people who sell cable theft devices face serious jail time.


You can't, you are not a sheriff, judge & jury, to
which is the only way someone can be classified
a criminal, after being convicted, before that they
are only a suspect.

Maybe in a legal sense, but that's a poor justification for engaging
in criminal behavior, and saying; "you can't call me a criminal
because a jury didn't convict me yet".

Might be, but is correct.



A well known business man is accused by his ex-wife of
being a child molester. DA says that he won't prosecute
because lack of evidence and it doesn't look like he
really did anything. You start calling him a child molester
and criminal to friends and people that you know, that will
leave you open for a slander lawsuit, that's why you don't
run around accusing people of being criminals.

Ah, but there is a fine difference. A person accused is presumed
innocent until proven guilty.

Correct and you still go on defending calling people
criminals that haven't had their day in court? Doesn't
make sense.

But you know as well as I do that the
system is flawed, and many times guilty people walk for various
reasons.

Correct, and they can then be sued in civil court, but they
still won't be construed as a criminal.

Conversely, some innocent people are wrongly convicted. But
if I witness a crime, I don't need a jury to tell me that the perp is a
criminal

Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a bunch of people on an
internet forum that he did indeed molest children? Admitting to an
unlawful activity is the same thing in principle to pleading guilty in
a trial. It may be "unofficial" but that's all I need to see to make
up my mind.

He might be one of those people that confess about everything,
it makes them fell important. That still doesn't make them a
criminal.


If I arbitrarily call you a federal lawbreaking criminal for violation
of FCC rules on freebanding or power levels, and I can't prove it, it
becomes libel (Assuming you really aren't doing it).

If, on the other hand, I monitor you doing it, or you brag to other
people that you do it, then you are engaging in a criminal activity.

To which I am just a suspect, not a criminal.


Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.

Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "it's only guilty if
you're caught" mentality. Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

Nope, it's called a guilty conscience, to which you can only
be called guilty in front of the lord all-mighty

Isn't that enough?

If you conscience bothers you, yes.

If you are of sound moral principles, then it should. If not, then you
start bordering on sociopathic tendencies.

Oh please Dave, that's crazy talk, sociopath tendencies.



, everything
else has to be done through a court of law.

You can't serve time and be branded a "criminal" until found guilty in
a court of law. But the fact that you might get away with a crime,
doesn't lessen what you truly are.

Playing word games doesn't hide that fact.


Playing with meanings doesn't hide the fact either Dave,
that's why they are called suspects, not criminals.

Once again, this is to accommodate a person's presumption of innocence
in the course of due process . And once again, if you witness a crime,
you don't need a jury to tell you what your senses already did.


Why is it that when a records check is done on a person,
they an arrest record & criminal record? why not just one?
Because it is just that, one is different from the other.


Oh, by the way, that ham operator using the foul language
and threating people, his callsign he was using was N3CVJ.
By you're logic, that alone should brand you a criminal.

No, since I did not do it, and the distance between us makes it very
unlikely that you heard me. Now, if I stated that I did it and/or you
witnessed ME doing it, and you could positively identify me, then you
could factually make that statement.


Gheez Dave, exactly what I've been saying with the exception
of the record of conviction.

Dave


Landshark


--
My bad..the camera is mightier than the blowhard(s)..in most respects.

"Steveo" wrote in message

****er needs a bullet to separate him from his sick habit. The parents
need a bullet too for allowing their children to accommodate him.

Man you got that right, especially the parents for letting him
have the kid. They are nothing better than pimps.

Landshark


--
Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder?
Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder.
I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.''
This game that we animals play is a winner.

On 13 Apr 2005 21:56:43 GMT, Steveo wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a bunch of people on an
internet forum that he did indeed molest children?

What do you think about a dog that is making a living but refuses to
feed his children, to the point of getting tagged with a felony for it?

As a parent, I am particularly offended by it. Anyone who is found to
have been deliberately negligent to his children deserves far more
than my scorn though.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:36:29 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:

Doesn't change the acts he may or may not done? If he's
done something wrong, found guilty then he's a criminal.
If he done nothing wrong, went to court and was found
not guilty, he should still be labeled a criminal because
he's being accused?

What if he's done the acts he was accused of, but because of an
inability for the state to prove it, or the credibility of the
witnesses becomes cloudy and he walks, what does THAT make him?


It make's him not guilty in a criminal court of law, sucks
but that the law.

In this case, I am not concerned with the determination of the law,
but with the truth. A criminal who beats the rap, is still a criminal
in my eyes. Note that I'm not talking about a truly innocent person
here, but one that I know is guilty and who beat the rap due to a
technicality or some other mitigating circumstance.

A criminal might fool the flawed legal system, but he still has to
face his maker one day.


Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in
the jury box? listening to the testimony? following
the judges orders concerning what type of evidence
you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion
until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are
deliberating the case? Of course not, so how can
you say because someone here is running a 1000
watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal?

If you witness someone killing another, do you need a jury verdict
before you know that that person is a murderer?

Yup, right now he's only a killer, but after the court
rules he's guilty, then he's a murderer.

What? Are you really going to play these word games?


I heard someone on 2 meters last night, swearing, threating
people, is he guilty of violating FCC rules?

Absolutely!


If the law defines a particular act as criminal, then if you engage in
that act, you are engaging in a criminal activity. Being labeled as
such by a court is only a formality and a convenient excuse for people
who want to thumb their nose at the law, and wish to ease their guilty
conscience, by trying to convince themselves that their activities
aren't really criminal because they haven't been caught yet..

No, it's a fact. Going around chasing speeders, j-walkers,
litterbugs etc etc and calling them criminals will change
nothing.

Nor will stating that a person clearly engaging in a particular
criminal activity isn't really a criminal because they haven't been
caught or convicted of it yet.


???, so you are saying that they are a suspect, good.
Cause they can't be a criminal unless they have been
convicted of doing that criminal act.

Again, you are wrapping yourself in the semantics of the law and
lulling yourself into a false sense of security. If you do the crime,
but don't get caught, you are still technically a criminal, whether or
not that "badge" can be legally applied to you.


You'll have to start calling 4 out of 10 people
you know criminals then, because by a national survey
that's the percentage that speed.

Speeding is not considered a criminal offense.

Sure it is, going 100 mph is construed as a misdemeanor,
thus punishable by up to 1 year in the county jail and/or
fine.

I'm not sure that's the law in every state. Even if it is though, your
earlier ratio of 4 out of 10 people no longer applies since most
speeders don't exceed the speed limit by more than 20 MPH


Operating a radio
transmitter without a license is. Interesting that you lump illegally
operating a radio transmitter in with such trivial summary offenses as
jay-walking, speeding and simple littering.

You consider 1 year in jail and $1000.00 fine as trivial?

I've never known anyone who went to jail for simple speeding,
jay-walking or littering. Now if the speeding charge was in
conjunction with something else like a DUI or a vehicular homicide,
well, that's a different story.


Those summary offenses do
not carry criminal penalties.

Both excessive speed and litter are misdemeanors and carry severe penalties

Not in my state. Littering carries a $300 max fine, and no jail time.


Maybe in a legal sense, but that's a poor justification for engaging
in criminal behavior, and saying; "you can't call me a criminal
because a jury didn't convict me yet".

Might be, but is correct.



A well known business man is accused by his ex-wife of
being a child molester. DA says that he won't prosecute
because lack of evidence and it doesn't look like he
really did anything. You start calling him a child molester
and criminal to friends and people that you know, that will
leave you open for a slander lawsuit, that's why you don't
run around accusing people of being criminals.

Ah, but there is a fine difference. A person accused is presumed
innocent until proven guilty.

Correct and you still go on defending calling people
criminals that haven't had their day in court? Doesn't
make sense.

If you are willingly engaging in a criminal activity, then you are
technically a criminal regardless whether you've been caught yet.
Again, you are arguing semantics. A conviction only makes it official
in the eyes of the law. Conversely, not being caught does not diminish
the severity of the criminal activity you have chosen to undertake.


But you know as well as I do that the
system is flawed, and many times guilty people walk for various
reasons.

Correct, and they can then be sued in civil court, but they
still won't be construed as a criminal.

I don't want to get side tracked by the seeming conflict in the
evidentiary methods to determine civil liability versus criminal
liability. If one is cleared of a criminal charge, then they should
not be liable civilly either. But we both know that this is not the
case. In the O.J Simpson case, he was criminally found not guilty, but
in a civil court he was found to be responsible for the "wrongful
death" of Ron Goldman and Nicole. So here we have a guy who's not a
criminal, but still responsible for the death of 2 people. Logically
that just doesn't make sense.


Conversely, some innocent people are wrongly convicted. But
if I witness a crime, I don't need a jury to tell me that the perp is a
criminal

Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a bunch of people on an
internet forum that he did indeed molest children? Admitting to an
unlawful activity is the same thing in principle to pleading guilty in
a trial. It may be "unofficial" but that's all I need to see to make
up my mind.

He might be one of those people that confess about everything,
it makes them fell important. That still doesn't make them a
criminal.

It does if he was telling the truth.


If I arbitrarily call you a federal lawbreaking criminal for violation
of FCC rules on freebanding or power levels, and I can't prove it, it
becomes libel (Assuming you really aren't doing it).

If, on the other hand, I monitor you doing it, or you brag to other
people that you do it, then you are engaging in a criminal activity.

To which I am just a suspect, not a criminal.

You would be clearly committing a criminal act. Again, I don't need a
jury verdict to convince me.

If you conscience bothers you, yes.

If you are of sound moral principles, then it should. If not, then you
start bordering on sociopathic tendencies.

Oh please Dave, that's crazy talk, sociopath tendencies.

What's crazy about it? Sociopaths exhibit a clear lack of conscience.
That is well documented. But like most things in life, human
psychology is not a black and white issue. Most of us have varying
degrees of personality traits which fall on a scale somewhere. We are
considered "normal" if those traits fall into line with established
norms. A sociopath has little remorse, or guilt for the things that
they do. Other people are troubled by the simplest transgression that
they may inadvertently do. Someone who falls closer to the sociopath
on the conscience scale (Sociopathic tendencies) would be less
troubled by transgressions against society.

Once again, this is to accommodate a person's presumption of innocence
in the course of due process . And once again, if you witness a crime,
you don't need a jury to tell you what your senses already did.


Why is it that when a records check is done on a person,
they an arrest record & criminal record? why not just one?
Because it is just that, one is different from the other.

Exactly. Any time a police officer is called to your house, an
incident report is filed. Every time a person is arrested a report is
filed. That is just SOP.

I think you are still missing the point a bit. I'm not talking about
accusing an innocent person of a crime. I'm talking about people who
are clearly and willingly engaging in criminal activity, who try to
justify their criminal behavior by claiming that they're not really
criminals because they've managed to evade prosecution. As if that
makes it ok. But the act is the same whether they're caught or not.


Oh, by the way, that ham operator using the foul language
and threating people, his callsign he was using was N3CVJ.
By you're logic, that alone should brand you a criminal.

No, since I did not do it, and the distance between us makes it very
unlikely that you heard me. Now, if I stated that I did it and/or you
witnessed ME doing it, and you could positively identify me, then you
could factually make that statement.


Gheez Dave, exactly what I've been saying with the exception
of the record of conviction.

But the difference is that I'm not here bragging about all the people
I jam on a nightly basis on ham radio. I'm not involved in criminal
activities. The people I make reference to as "federal criminals" are
those who admit to running in violation of FCC rules. I have never
accused anyone who hasn't claimed the same.

Yes, it's deliberately done with a bit of a shock value. It's to
counter the rampant mindset that someone isn't really doing anything
wrong simply because the FCC is too incompetent and understaffed to
catch them yet.

Dave

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:36:34 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Steveo" wrote in message

****er needs a bullet to separate him from his sick habit. The parents
need a bullet too for allowing their children to accommodate him.

Man you got that right, especially the parents for letting him
have the kid. They are nothing better than pimps.


Being around money and celebrity does some strange things to people's
judgement. Also some people are really dense when it comes to the true
potential ugliness in the world.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:36:27 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:


Then provide the google link as proof.

Do not ask others what you refuse to provide yourself..it's called
hypocrisy and myself, Frank, Jim, Shark, Mopar, and now Lancer
(regarding your lack of knowledge of antennas) have illustrated such.


Translation: You're lying again.


You once tried to claim that I accused Keith of
something. When pressed on the issue,
(While you scrambled through google) you f
finally had to back off when you realized that
you make a mistake. But true to form, you
would never be a man and admit it.

AS opposed to you being wrong concerning the federal DOT (just to name a
single issue).

There are no federal police. You can claim the opposite until the cows
come home. But until you can prove it, you're lying again.

You want to eat crow again for something you

had to reluctantly back off from before?

You're the one choking on feathers in all your posts, especially since
you were instructed of the existsence of the DOT and the legaliyy of
roger beeps.

I admitted to my error with regard to the roger beep issue. As to the
rest of them, because you offer a dissenting opinion is not the same
as proving me wrong.

You were challenged to provide proof, and you continually fall back on
the same tired excuse that since I didn't prove one or two of my
allegations to your satisfaction, that you have no responsibility to
prove any of yours. That's such an obvious cop-out, but all too
typical for you.


Look how far you ran from your initial denial of defending Dogie.

I've run nowhere. I maintain that that only "defense" that I ever
offered was the possibility that he may have been framed. The stuff
about me claiming that the charge was withdrawn or that I blamed Keith
for something is all coming from the bowels of your warped mind.

Google me and prove me wrong if you can (You can't), but you won't and
will still babble on about not having to prove anything.


And you certainly made your share of forced errors...forensics, DOT, PA
State Law, Civil vs criminal law, roger beeps, empirical evidence,..

With the exception of the roger beep issue, all of my other usages
were consistent with standard definitions as provided by established
resources. Try again.


You still
cannot demonstrate anything hypocritical that
I've posted.

You ask others to provide for their claims after you make unsolicited
claims you felt important enough to invoke, but not provide (proof)
yourself.


Translation: You
are unable to provide the
.needed proof, so you resort
to your predictable deflection tactic.

You initiated this tactic with your running from your past claims that
were proved lies.

Proved how? Because you disagreed with them? You have yet to prove
anything you claim. You aren't even man enough to use your real name.
Don't even talk to me a about providing proof until you get over your
own hypocrisy.



I'm forced to conclude that you don't know the

meaning of the word.

I force you to do plenty of things, but lately, it seems Frank has
forced you more than anyone.

Frank is proving to be almost as mentally unstable as you are. No
wonder you've found so much in common.


So for your edification: hy·poc·ri·sy * ( P )
Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings,
or virtues that one does not hold or possess;
falseness.

You asking for anyone to provide for any of their claims is hypocrisy,
David, because you refuse to provide for for the majority fo your own.
You can deny all you like. It's my pleasure.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Such is the circular nature of your reasoning.

Such is the nature if your actions. As has been illustrated by others,
you made more unsubstantiated claims than any.


No I haven't, and you can't prove otherwise.


Thank you for
answering my question. You did see the (?) at
the end of my question right?

What everyone else sees is way different than what you claim to see. The
light is blinding you.

Ah, so you don't know what a (?) is. That explains much. Perhaps a
remedial reading course is in order. Then you can work on that GED.


You are not capable of educating anyone.

I educated you when you denied existence of a Federal DOT.

You provided nothing but your own unsubstantiated claims. You
hypocritically take me to task for offering my experience as evidence,
yet you provide nothing to back your self up.


I educated
you concerning your shouted ignorance (for a month) that roger beeps
were illegal.

You provided no proof to back up what you said. I had to get it myself
from the FCC.


I educated you on your mistaken definition of "empirical"
evidence,

Which was wrong (as usual). Look up the definition (I'll be glad to
provide it again for you so you can then claim that my dictionary is
"wrong")



Frank educated you on your mistaken..well, on a lot of your
mistaken claims regarding radio

Frank has his own issues, most notably a glaring lack of hands-on
experience with CB and ham radio.


, but most recently, of your embarrassing
gaffe regarding the incorrect definition of "forensics", something you
erroneously claimed you use in addition to empirical evidence.

My usage of the word "forensics" was consistent with the definition.
Frank had a problem with that. But his beef is not with me, it's with
those who write the dictionaries. But such illustrates Frank's pompous
arrogance in that he feels that he knows more than those who define
these terms.

In fact,
you have been educated on a host of things by a host of people.

I've had people who have disagreed with me. None have provided any
proof otherwise.

Now
Lancer is providing your education concerning what you do not know about
antennas. Yes, Dave, despite your denials, you most certainly have been
educated by several of us.

None of you have provided any proof to back yourselves up. What does
that say?


Your legal and political views are akin to the
malcontents and subversive slackers of the
1960's.

The definition of the term has not changed, your personal feelings and
bleeding from the gums, not withstanding.
You fecklessly insist such an act
(such as dxing) makes one a federal criminal.

It does and it is.

It doesn't. An inability to distinguish between federal, criminal, and
civil acts displayed by yourself is not shared by anyone else, only you.
You are assuming all rules and laws governed by a federal agency are
criminal and this simply isn't so. Your error, is you mistakenly believe
the term "federal" can be interchanged with the term "criminal" wehn
relating to the rules and laws they govern. This is your bad, Dave, not
anyone elses.

The real joke is that you don't even bother to
read the links your posted to the stories about
your boy "Bob Noxious". In them they state
that it's a criminal violation to operate an
unlicensed transmitter.


Tut-tut,,when you have been reduced to wandering, you tend to make
invalid comparisons. What B-o-b does, and what I do (dx) are two very
different items,

No, they're basically not. Both of you are running illegal
transmitters on frequencies that you are not licensed for.


The only difference
between the FM broadcast band and the
freeband is the frequency, and the visibility to
the public.
**
Hehe..no, Dave, you are dead wrong,,there are plenty of differences,
especially regarding legalities, but I have learned to be content
watching you deny existence of the things of which you are not educated.

Translation: You can't prove it, but if you repeat it enough maybe
someone will believe you.


The fact that you haven't
.been caught yet does not change that.

Yet, the fact one hasn't been convicted of such DOES change -your-
mistaken position. The fact that you disagree with the US laws and
justice system that does not allow anyone to refer to another as a
criminal unless they are found guilty and pronounced as such in a court
of law, is irrelevant, as it again is your ignorance responsible for
your mistaken belief.

Once again you base your mistaken opinion
on technicalities and semantics.

What you call technicalities is the basis and foundation for our
judicial system. It's not perfect, but it works much better than your
pronouncing one a guilty criminal based only on your ignorance.

Denying the criminal nature of your acts simply because you have not
been officially convicted is disingenuous.


Someone who murders someone is still guilty
of a criminal act regardless if he's been caught
yet.

Not if they haven't been convicted by a court of law. This is the ONLY
manner in which one can be "guilty" and called a criminal in the US. To
do so without the adjudication of guilt makes on guilty of slander or
libel, depending on the medium used.

So it's your position that no crime was committed until the verdict is
in? That's sure comforting to the families and friends of the victims.

Being pronounced guilty is only a formality.

Says you, but you are wrong. It is THE ONLY basis for guilt.

Officially yes. But if you did the crime, you are technically guilty
whether the law recognizes it or not.

The same holds true for the FCC rules.

Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.

I'm not the one twisting the law in some vain attempt at justifying
illegal behavior. "You're only guilty if you're caught" doesn't wash
with me.

Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

Again, take it to your congressman.

There are no federal traffic cops.

Umm,,,there is. That is exactly what DOT officers are. In addition to
the usual laws they enforce regaridng commercial carriers and transit,
they are not LIMITED by them. A Federal officer may enforce ANY law in
this country. Keep talking, Dave, as you continue to be educated.

Until you provide the proof, you are simply babbling a bunch of
nonsense.


There is no federal speed limit.

This is your counter to your incorrect claim that there is no federal
DOT?

I never said there was no federal DOT. I said that there are no
federal traffic cops. Once again you attempt to twist words.


Man, you are a glutton for punishment. Sure there is, David,
truckers must abide by it every day. As I said,,,keep talking.

As I said, put up the proof, or shut up. The federal 55 MPH speed
limit was repealed. There has been no new limit to replace it.


I have a cousin who's a lawyer

Hehehe,,,as I said,,,off you go now.
You find it important enough you feel you must mention you have a cousin
who is a lawyer, but no identification, resutling in you not providing
for your claim..

What difference would it make if I gave you his name? You would then
claim that I simply made it up. Speaking of names, what's yours?


You found it important enough to claim you have a
friend who was busted by the fcc, but will not provide for the claim.

I gave the particulars of the situation. Because you could find
nothing (assuming you actually looked) doesn't mean that it didn't
happen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This is the exact tactic you played with me regarding the Roger Beep
issue. How come you don't like the shoe when it's on the other foot?



You feel it important enough to claim you have cops who are friends who
gave you the wrong definition of Pa law, but of course you will not
provide for the claim.

I've provided PA statute 3368, which substantiates my claim in the
vast majority of cases.

You find it important enough to claim you went to
a tech school, but will not provide for any claims.

I went to far more than that. But until you tell everyone who you are,
you are the epitome of hypocrisy to demand accountability from other
people when you won't even identify yourself.


providing for their claims when you can't even
reveal your own name.

Stay focused, Dave. By now, everyone understands your need to become
personal when you are forced to learn, but it's off topic and serves
only to illustrate your incompetence and lack of communication skill.

No it focuses attention on your true hypocrisy. You who demand that
others provide for their claims, while you yourself hide like a
sniveling child behind a cloak of anonymity. You haven't earned the
right to demand accountability from anyone as long as you are too
yellow to reveal yourself.


You who claims to embrace the concepts of
anonymity. You want me to give you personal

information,

No Dave,,,you -chose- to give us personal info regarding this subject,
.your claim was unsolicited.

yet you can't even come from

behind that clock of gutless anonymity.
*
*Gutless is the threat you made about coming to "give you what you
want".

That was no threat, it was a challenge. Something a real man would not
back away from. You are simply too afraid to reveal yourself. Which
then begs the question of what you are hiding.

Reviews of that thread show how yellow you are and what a coward
you have become, as well as the lies you made concerning your threats.

I gave you the chance to meet face to face like a man, and you came up
with all sorts of unreasonable conditions (Like demanding my credit
card number) and excuses. I'm not the one who backed down.



I also know boats, and that you were seen coming a mile away when you
bought yours.

Oh, this should be good.


Your education is always regarded as good,,,except, by yourself, and
this is only because it pains you to be proven wrong.

Which you have yet to do. You word alone does not constitute "proof".

.I was going to say
"by myslef" and then considered saying"by cbers", but you have shown
that all who prove you wrong, bring you great pains.

You psychologically challenged few have tried, but keep missing the
mark. And that is what frustrates you.





Another subject
where I'll clean your clock and not even break
a sweat. What could you possibly know about
my boat or any boat in general?


...asked the landlocked wannabe who gets maybe two, three months use
per year of his boat. Yes, David, again, your hands-on experience over
the years with your boats in Pennsylvania adds up to,,what...how many
months? LOL. Even if you multiplied 4 months per year of your experience
(and that's generous) for the last twenty five years, that gives you a
total of what,,,,,,100 months experience? That's less than 10 years
experience and it's not even consecutive.

That was not the claim. You made a specific claim about *MY* boat.

Besides, you learned to walk what, at 13 months or so? Does every year
that you walk beyond those first few make you any more proficient at
walking?


You're still green and a lightweight, but your self-proclaimed
experience regarding such, is my brass ring.

What "self proclaimed" experience are you talking about?


In fact, all areas which
you have professed unsolicited proficiency to the group, have been
decimated by others who do understand the subjects you fancy yourself
knowledgeable.

Not hardly. The fact that you try and fail miserably just makes me
smile. Even with the emotionally troubled Frank in your corner, you
still miss the mark.

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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Yes, it's deliberately done with a bit of a shock value. It's to
counter the rampant mindset that someone isn't really doing anything
wrong simply because the FCC is too incompetent and understaffed to
catch them yet.

Dave

Well Dave, I'm not going to continue, it's fruitless. In
closing you can go on your crusade against the FCC
scofflaws, but their "crime" as you like to put it is
very minor. If they are using Freeband or amps, their
actions are much less of a consequence. Litterbugs
add tons of garbage that costs millions a year to clean.
Speeders cost millions a year to enforce against and kill
hundreds of people while causing accidents because of speeding.
I just find that there are more important things to
worry about than someone that's using power or talking
on the freeband. I worry about speeders maybe hitting my
kids, drunk driver hitting someone I care about, drugs in
my kids school etc etc, not about labeling someone a
criminal for using a linear or freeband. You can go around
and see sociopath and anarchist around every corner, I fore
one am going to worry about what directly will affect my
family, not what is illegal and not going to affect virtually
anyone such as freeband use and linear.

Landshark


--
__
o /' )
/' ( ,
__/' ) .' `;
o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ;
_.--' b) LANDSHARK ``--...____. .'
( _. )). `-._
`\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'.
`---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.;
`-` `

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:13:37 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
:29 -0400,
Once again you base your mistaken opinion
on technicalities and semantics. Someone
who murders someone is still guilty of a
criminal act regardless if he's been caught yet.
Being pronounced guilty is only a formality.

The same holds true for the FCC rules.

(Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty? )

I don't know. But whether or not the court

pronounced him as such doesn't change the

acts that he may or may not have done.

Once one is found not guilty in the US by a court of law and/or a jury
of their peers, you can not claim he is guilty, regardless of what he
may have done as relating to his case. Do so and you'll be broke after
being sued for defamation of character along with anything else
concerning libel or slander laws.

I educated you once before on the conditions of libel cases. I'll be
glad to provide the links again. But the long and short of it is that
you can't just sue someone for libel unless you can prove that damages
were sustained as a result of the alleged libel claim.


(Doesn't change the acts he may or may not done? If he's done something
wrong, found guilty then he's a criminal. If he done nothing wrong, went
to court and was found not guilty, he should still be labeled a criminal
because he's being accused? )

What if he's done the acts he was accused of,
.but because of an inability for the state to
prove it, or the credibility of the witnesses
becomes cloudy and he walks, what does
THAT make him?

Depends on the verdict. There are only three possibilities,,,,,innocent,
not guilty, and guilty.

Technically, innocent and not guilty are the same thing. Most criminal
case verdicts are declared either guilty or not guilty.


(Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in the jury box?
listening to the testimony? following the judges orders concerning what
type of evidence you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion
until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are deliberating the case?
Of course not, so how can you say because someone here is running a 1000
watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal? )

If you witness someone killing another, do you
need a jury verdict before you know that that

person is a murderer?

You can "know" (translated in your case to being a simile for "believe")
anything you wish, but even if you witnessed such an act, you are not
permitted to publicly call him such IF he was tried and found other than
guilty. Your belief is irrelevent.

The truth is irrelevant? What a warped world you live in. A world
where labels mean more than the truth.

-
(I heard someone on 2 meters last night, swearing, threating people, is
he guilty of violating FCC rules? )

Absolutely!

If the law defines a particular act as criminal,
then if you engage in that act, you are
engaging in a criminal activity. Being labeled
as such by a court is only a formality and a
convenient excuse for people who want to
thumb their nose at the law, and wish to ease
their guilty conscience, by trying to convince
themselves that their activities aren't really
criminal because they haven't been caught
yet..

(chuckle),,you go on trying to convince *yourself" you have the right to
call one a criminal for what you perceive constitutes such. If you were
to publicly refer to one with their proper name as as a criminal, based
only what you present here and erroneously believe constitutes such
criminal activity (such as maintaining, on more than one occasion, that
one's posts in this group you -think- may belong to a certain identity,
is "proof" enough (for you) to refer to the person as a criminal), a
small filing fee would be paid (AFTER your criminal charges) and you
would be buried in civil court by someone versed in what you mistakenly
perceive as the law.

What criminal charge would I be liable for? There is no "crime" for
stating that someone is a criminal. There is that little thing called
the 1st amendment. You know, that little provision that allows
nutcases and fruitcakes alike to spew all sorts of hate, rhetoric and
nonsense. There might be a civil action depending on the conditions
and the people involved. The National Enquirer and other tabloids are
full of people who would like to sue, but for some reason don't. Why
is that, do you suppose? Of course, as always you are more than
welcome to provide some examples of case law to back yourself up.


After the criminal charges were applied you, the
civil matter would be only a formality, based on your guilt from the
outcome of the criminal trial based on your libel/slander/defamatory
comments, which are in turn based on -your- erroenous beliefs.

What crime would I be guilty of?


Speeding is not considered a criminal offense.

Neither is dxing

Ah, there's a difference. If you are operating a legal part 95 type
certified CB radio on authorized CB channels, and you talk some DX, I
would be inclined to agree with you. You would be in violation of a
minor rule, which would amount to a slap on the wrist.

However, once you set foot on the freeband, you lose your
authorization by rule to operate a transmitter, and you are no longer
considered a CB'er, but an unlicensed pirate radio transmitter.
Operating an unlicensed transmitter on a frequency which you are not
authorized for, is a far more serious offense, than simply DXing. It's
not the DX'ing that will get you popped on the freeband, it's
operating an unlicensed transmitter.


The you should have no problem citing an example where one of these
mystery people you are always invoking claimed they thought stealing
from a cable TV service was legal/acceptable/non-criminal.

When you give me your name first.



Until the law changed and got some

teeth. Now people who sell cable theft devices
face serious jail time.

But not dxers.

Not all DX'ers are guilty of criminal behavior. Those who freeband
are.


Anyways, those who sell illegal cable boxes are a much different
scenario than the first you invoked. Selling illegal converters carries
a much harsher charge than merely using one, but it does illustrate how
far off topic you are wliling to run.

It was used as an illustration of how some people view such
"victimless" crimes as somehow less than serious enough to consider
criminal.


(You can't, you are not a sheriff, judge & jury, to which is the only
way someone can be classified a criminal, after being convicted, before
that they are only a suspect. )

Maybe in a legal sense,

LOL,,as opposed to what? The legal sense is the only manner in which you
may legally refer to one a criminal. Do it ay other way and you are
opening yourself to penalties.

Such as?


Using your own warped logic (admitting
something on the internet is the same as a guilty plea in a court of
law) concerning what is said among internet babble, the mere fact that
you were informed of the law on many occasion, yet continue to refer to
certain proper names as a criminal, can enhance your penalties because
you continued to break said laws. Even though you may correctly plead
ignorance, such is never held in a court of law as a valid excuse for
one breaking the law.


So go ahead, sue me.



And only a court of law can determine such proof, not you, not your
observational skills, not your "knowing" based on beliefs, and certainly
not your (mis)interpretations of the law.

You are guilty. You know it, and I know it. The fact that you get away
with it in a legal venue, doesn't change that. You are simply playing
semantics games.

But you know as well as I do
that the system is flawed, and many times
guilty people walk for various reasons.



Irrelevant.
You continue to express extreme difficulty in comprehending that you
may not refer to these people as criminals.

I can and I will. Sue me if you think you can. But you won't because
you'd have to reveal your identity, and your anonymity means more to
you.


Conversely, some innocent people are
wrongly convicted. But if I witness a crime, I
don't need a jury to tell me that the perp is a
criminal.

You most certainly do if you wish to say it publicly or to another.


I can say anything I wish. The 1st amendment protects that.


Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a
bunch of people on an internet forum that he
did indeed molest children?

More of your ignorance. I can say I shot Kennedy....it means ****,
except to you.

Why would you admit to a crime you didn't commit?

More revealing is your admittance to the likelihood that you tend to
lie frequently.



Admitting to an unlawful activity is the same
thing in principle to pleading guilty in a trial.

Good gawd oh mighty. Here's where you get schooled again. not only do
you have no clue who one is on the internet, you are incompetently and
incorrectly claiming hearsay is the same thing as pleading guilty. Your
ignorance of the law has no bounds,

So, basically, you summed it up quite nicely, and anonymous non-person
admits to partaking in a criminal activity. So where's the problem? Is
this non-person engaging in criminal activity or not? The fact that he
hasn't been tagged by a court is irrelevant.


It may be "unofficial" but that's all I need to see
to make up my mind.


Of course, you do. You have been mispronouncing people on the internet
as "federal criminals" as long as you have been spoon-fed carefully
scripted information.

They deserve what they get. If people want to pretend to be things
that they are not, then they can make no charge of libel, since these
"cartoon characters" do not really exist.

You can't have it both ways. Anonymity cuts both ways.


Now that you shout to the world your mistaken
belief that what one posts on the internet is tantamount to an admission
of guilt in a US court of law, all one can do is laugh at you or feel
pity.

I'm the one laughing. At you for getting your panties in a knot
defending the non-words to non-people over the internet.


Besides, your position can get you sued, should you exercise it as you
claim,

Nope. Not a chance. You'd have to prove actual damages. But first
you'd have to prove that "twistedhed" (or whatever other sock name you
use) is a real entity and subject to defamation.

Your anonymity is your enemy at that point.

Do you think tabloid newspapers would be in business if it was THAT
easy to win a libel case?

You know nothing about the reality of law. You, like Frank, read
words, but can't apply them in the real world.


You have no way of knowing what someone, such as myself, does or
doesn't.

No, I don't. But if you admit to operating on the freeband, then you
deserve to wear the badge of federal criminal. Only you (And your
hairdresser) knows for sure.


Because you mistakenly believe everyone that posts from webtv
is the twisted who rang your bell and a sock puppet, doesn't make it so.

No, but in this case it does. You can change your name, but not your
"personality".


Wrong again. I can sit here and tell you I robbed banks, killed Kennedy,
was single-handedly responsible for the theft of the Star of India, and
broker counterfeit Monets,,,it means ****,,,,,,of course,,,except to
you, who has these warped beliefs regarding legalities responsible for
so many errors in your comments.

I can't convict you in a court of law, but that doesn't mean the court
of public opinion won't be influenced. The degree of proof in much
different. You can hide from the law, but you can't hide from yourself
or God. Your excuse that a court of law hasn't convicted you, is a
truly feeble excuse and poor justification for your anti-social
behavior, and won't protect you in the court of public opinion.


Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.


And your comments are typical of those consumed with hate and those of
little tolerance for all but your own beliefs.

If you are saying that I have a problem with people who disregard the
law at their own personal whim, and then fabricate weak excuses for
it, then you'd be correct.


What you profess as sound moral principles, ranks right there with your
denial the legality of roger beeps, the denial the existence of the
federal DOT, and your claim there is no federal speed limit (there is,
and it governs all commercial vehicles).

And until you can prove those claims, you are still ****ing in the
wind.


But the fact that you claim internet babble is the same thing as a
guilty plea in a court of law, most certainly governs when you may or
may not publicly refer one as a criminal.

This is not a court of law. This is the court of public opinion. The
standards of guilt are much different. As long as we have imaginary
identities, committing alleged crimes, I will call them on it as long
as I need to. You don't like it? Too bad.

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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:40:56 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
Yes, it's deliberately done with a bit of a shock value. It's to
counter the rampant mindset that someone isn't really doing anything
wrong simply because the FCC is too incompetent and understaffed to
catch them yet.

Dave

Well Dave, I'm not going to continue, it's fruitless. In
closing you can go on your crusade against the FCC
scofflaws, but their "crime" as you like to put it is
very minor. If they are using Freeband or amps, their
actions are much less of a consequence. Litterbugs
add tons of garbage that costs millions a year to clean.
Speeders cost millions a year to enforce against and kill
hundreds of people while causing accidents because of speeding.
I just find that there are more important things to
worry about than someone that's using power or talking
on the freeband. I worry about speeders maybe hitting my
kids, drunk driver hitting someone I care about, drugs in
my kids school etc etc, not about labeling someone a
criminal for using a linear or freeband. You can go around
and see sociopath and anarchist around every corner, I fore
one am going to worry about what directly will affect my
family, not what is illegal and not going to affect virtually
anyone such as freeband use and linear.


Mark,

Please don't get me wrong here. I'm not on any "crusade" I'm simply
pointing out a matter of fact with regard to what the people who break
the law by operating out of band technically are. Once you key the
mike on the freeband, you are breaking the law. A law which carried
criminal penalties if and when one is caught. But that is only a
formality.

If those who rabidly attack this truth would simply own up to their
complicity in this area, then we can move on. As long as people live
in denial, there will be no progress.

Personally, I don't care about freebanding or DX. Hell, some of my
best friends are freebanders. I used to do it myself. But I am not
trying to kid myself or other people by attempting to downplay what
this activity is in the eyes of the law.

Do what you want. I'm not turning people in. I'm only pointing out
what it is that they are guilty of.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

"Landshark" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message

****er needs a bullet to separate him from his sick habit. The parents
need a bullet too for allowing their children to accommodate him.

Man you got that right, especially the parents for letting him
have the kid. They are nothing better than pimps.

Landshark

Right on. $10 million hush money for a sleep over. Sick!

Dave Hall wrote:
On 13 Apr 2005 21:56:43 GMT, Steveo wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a bunch of people on an
internet forum that he did indeed molest children?

What do you think about a dog that is making a living but refuses to
feed his children, to the point of getting tagged with a felony for it?

As a parent, I am particularly offended by it. Anyone who is found to
have been deliberately negligent to his children deserves far more
than my scorn though.

Exactly. I know there are child support disputes that are hard to rectify
and a few of my friends have been down that road but somehow it gets
resolved one way or another.

The only guy I know that abused the system so bad that he got a court
ordered head shrinker, and a felony out of it is N8WWM Doug Adair.

Dave Hall wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:36:34 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Steveo" wrote in message

****er needs a bullet to separate him from his sick habit. The parents
need a bullet too for allowing their children to accommodate him.

Man you got that right, especially the parents for letting him
have the kid. They are nothing better than pimps.

Being around money and celebrity does some strange things to people's
judgement. Also some people are really dense when it comes to the true
potential ugliness in the world.

Jonny cockring took that million dollar excuse to the grave.

"Landshark" wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Yes, it's deliberately done with a bit of a shock value. It's to
counter the rampant mindset that someone isn't really doing anything
wrong simply because the FCC is too incompetent and understaffed to
catch them yet.

Dave

Well Dave, I'm not going to continue, it's fruitless. In
closing you can go on your crusade against the FCC
scofflaws, but their "crime" as you like to put it is
very minor. If they are using Freeband or amps, their
actions are much less of a consequence. Litterbugs
add tons of garbage that costs millions a year to clean.
Speeders cost millions a year to enforce against and kill
hundreds of people while causing accidents because of speeding.
I just find that there are more important things to
worry about than someone that's using power or talking
on the freeband. I worry about speeders maybe hitting my
kids, drunk driver hitting someone I care about, drugs in
my kids school etc etc, not about labeling someone a
criminal for using a linear or freeband. You can go around
and see sociopath and anarchist around every corner, I fore
one am going to worry about what directly will affect my
family, not what is illegal and not going to affect virtually
anyone such as freeband use and linear.

Landshark

I'm still waiting for my first NAL. Reckon how many more years
than 27 I have to wait yet?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:40:56 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
Yes, it's deliberately done with a bit of a shock value. It's to
counter the rampant mindset that someone isn't really doing anything
wrong simply because the FCC is too incompetent and understaffed to
catch them yet.

Dave

Well Dave, I'm not going to continue, it's fruitless. In
closing you can go on your crusade against the FCC
scofflaws, but their "crime" as you like to put it is
very minor. If they are using Freeband or amps, their
actions are much less of a consequence. Litterbugs
add tons of garbage that costs millions a year to clean.
Speeders cost millions a year to enforce against and kill
hundreds of people while causing accidents because of speeding.
I just find that there are more important things to
worry about than someone that's using power or talking
on the freeband. I worry about speeders maybe hitting my
kids, drunk driver hitting someone I care about, drugs in
my kids school etc etc, not about labeling someone a
criminal for using a linear or freeband. You can go around
and see sociopath and anarchist around every corner, I fore
one am going to worry about what directly will affect my
family, not what is illegal and not going to affect virtually
anyone such as freeband use and linear.


Mark,

Please don't get me wrong here. I'm not on any "crusade" I'm simply
pointing out a matter of fact with regard to what the people who break
the law by operating out of band technically are. Once you key the
mike on the freeband, you are breaking the law. A law which carried
criminal penalties if and when one is caught. But that is only a
formality.

Ok, fine. Understand Dave, you come across as an over-zealous
person on a crusade against "anyone" that does something illegal, not a
thing a normal person would do.


If those who rabidly attack this truth would simply own up to their
complicity in this area, then we can move on.

What? You mean turn themselves in? millions of people
in this country break laws everyday, are they all going to
walk down to the jail and say "I just broke this law,
arrest me". I'm sure they all sleep very soundly every night.

As long as people live
in denial, there will be no progress.

Personally, I don't care about freebanding or DX. Hell, some of my
best friends are freebanders. I used to do it myself. But I am not
trying to kid myself or other people by attempting to downplay what
this activity is in the eyes of the law.

It's illegal, as copying video tapes, DVD, CD, alcohol
across state lines, etc etc.


Do what you want. I'm not turning people in. I'm only pointing out
what it is that they are guilty of.

Dave

I never thought you were turning people in.
They are not guilty of anything, other than
their conscience.