"Steveo" wrote in message
...

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

LOL!! Go figure, since 1976 for me, still waiting,
you think we'll have to pay interest ;)


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

"Landshark" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...

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

LOL!! Go figure, since 1976 for me, still waiting,
you think we'll have to pay interest ;)

Yea well the 27 years is how long I've been freebanding and/or
running a kilowatt or less. My dad bought me my first CB in
1969 but he wouldn't spring for a linear or beams..cheap prick. :P

NNTP-Posting-Date:Thu, Apr 14, 2005, 6:38am (EDT-1)
From=A0 Dave Hall Group: =A0=A0 rec.radio.cb
Subject: While we're on the subject of funny and entertaining
websites.....
Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2005, 7:38am Organization: =A0=A0 home.ptd.net/~n3cvj
X-Trace: =A0=A0
sv3-qJoHfrmpBBdKztY7Kv3+1W6ewYvLY9HHPNoQARr8PDBjjAtlpl PYBfZaBwwEeyArtmShc+=
EXDyfl8jD!I1ho+rC8nYabp4wQAZuO+W71oZCPO7IK7A5iQg2a Irg8G1lkoyrDk4JZ/d1gkTKs=
Zm8tYhsI9aAB!v4/ZMKBDhUw=3D
X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward a
copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be
unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.3.31
I've never known anyone who went to jail for

simple speeding, jay-walking or littering.

You've never known anyone who went to jail for simple dxing or
freebanding, either.

Now if the speeding charge was in conjunction
with something else

.....same with dxing and freebanding.

NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0Thu, Apr 14, 2005, 7:43am (EDT-1)
From: =A0Dave Hall Group: rec.radio.cb
Subject:=A0 While we're on the subject of funny and entertaining
websites.....
Date: =A0=A0 Thu, Apr 14, 2005, 8:43am Organization: =A0=A0
home.ptd.net/~n3cvj X-Trace: =A0=A0
sv3-QyzEc9a3sv6vzMbHKyl1V33sWVXxUm0AMsawVG9/dTaYxKQOCW28tOcpt23bNlCN/+zlWS=
V3T6cduu4!aA6nJcTjuI1wSG1ts3upWFOk2MfXuHECajAGOP5G jBU4e6//Hwc9vgJ6WOdF/u8t=
OIeeqVu7NFiH!ZfmT4YOQpyQ=3D
X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward a
copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be
unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.3.32
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.

And everyone else mentioned above who illustrated your hypocrisy is
lying, too?

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 were taught by myself, after you inquired "What federal agency
enforces traffic laws?". I taught you the FEderal DOT does just that,
and you are busy digesting feathers while playing semantics via
invoking the term "federal police". Now, DOT officers do exist, but you
keep on providing these jewels for your daughter to read in the future.

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.

My "dissenting opinion" has nothing to do with you not being aware of a
federal agency's existence which enforces traffic laws.

You were challenged to provide proof,

You were asking the educated contingency to prove a negative, one that
existed only in your mind, concerning the roger beep issue,,,that's
whacked, Dave.

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,

Tut-tut,,you have proved unsolicited your claims to no one's
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.

I don't think there is a single presence on this group that hasn't
proved you wrong at one time or another.
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.

Wrong, One is not a criminal for a civil matter, yet you continue to
fail to comprehen

You still

cannot demonstrate anything hypocritical that

I've posted.

Hehe,,,in the last 2 weeks, check the names mentioned above..they ALL
noted your hypocrisy.
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

(snip)
Not about me, Dave...-you- asked forexamples, were given them, and the
first thing out of your mouth is " ...YOU"....... You're not even worthy
of dialog these days, David.
You initiated this tactic with your running from
your past claims that were proved lies.

Proved how? Because you disagreed with

them?


Because you are consistently wrong.

You have yet to prove anything you claim.


Truth needs no proof, such as the roger beep issue you needed educated
on because of your ignorance of the law and invoked excuses of -why- you
profess such ignorance. Hint: no one cares why you believe the things
you do...all that matters is you were brought in to the educated arena
in whcih the rest of us dwell concerning the law.

You aren't even man enough to use your real

name.


Aww David, did I hurt your feelings again?

Don't even talk to me a about providing proof

until you get over your own hypocrisy.

Your personal issues regarding the identity of cbers is a monkey on
-your- back, no one elses. CB is handle-driven, not personal identity.
The problem , as always, originates within yourself.

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.

Said the one with numerous unsolicited claims invoking fairies of
self-support, such as friends who are cops that give you incorrect
information regarding the law, cousins who are lawyers : ) and all other
kinds of self-conjured support to lend your trampled psyche and ego.

No wonder you've found so much in common.
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 of 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.

Proof is irrelevant, according to you, when we have "statistical
probablities"(that you like to invoke), such as the FACT that "anarchy"
and similar terms are used exclusively by yourself and the most
malicious sock posters on the group. Indeed.


Thank you for

answering my question.

You continue to learn, so I have reason for continuing to answer.

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.

Yep,,you're well shaken.

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.


Again,,you ignorantly inquired "What federal agency enforces traffic
laws?" When you were taught the DOT does this, you ranted and began
smoldering about what to call this entity of which you were not
familiar, and embarassed yourself with "There are no federal police".
Well, yes there are David,,the DOT employees in those cop looking cars
are called DOT OFFICERS (more education for your half-wit) and the FBI,
other agencies are certainly what you deny exists at all: Federal
Officers.



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.
=A0

Everyone else, including myself, had this "experience" you continually
defend on our side regarding the law and evidently made it our business
to be educated and informed on the law. This was due our experience and
familiarity with the law. You, on the other hand, was not only NOT
familiar with the law, but hypocritically hold such personal experience
as "no proof" when offered by others. LOL. What a card you are, but not
a very bright one, despite Frank's initial assessment concerning your
intellect. His reformed dissertation is very close to that of your
shrink's.
-
=A0I 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")
=A0

You claimed "empirical observations" derived from your personal
experience constituted proof. You then invoked your personal experiments
confirmed your positions. It was then you were properly instructed that
once experiments were undertaken by yourself, your position was no
longer derived from "empirical evidence" and voided your original use of
the word. But hey,,,off you go now to provide it for "me" (chuckle).....
again! LMAO!

=A0Frank 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.


No David, that would be your knowledge of the law governing your chosen
hobby.
_
Most recently, 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.

The difference wasn't with the dictionary, only your incorrect useage.

But such illustrates Frank's pompous

arrogance in that he feels that he knows more

than those who define these terms.

Or those who actually know the law and try to teach it your arrogant and
pompous self.
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.

It's more fun to watch you run around huffing and puffing with your
lactating chest protruding for a few days and finding out your were
ignorant all by your lonesome. Brass RING!
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?

It says no can tell David Hall Jr. anything because he believes he knows
better than everyone else, even when a number of people are telling him
the same thing. Wait till your daughter and Kimberly reads all this ****
you post one day....they will be like "damn,,,and we thought he was just
like that with 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,

No, they're basically not. Both of you are

running illegal transmitters on frequencies that
you are not licensed for.

When ever your head is in the sand or up another's ass and you are
stinging from being wrong so often, you lob bull**** you pull from your
ass and hope it sticks. My Ten-tec is more legal than your Dave made.


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.
In fact, that statement serves as a reminder that some jackasses who are
licensed for communications, such as yourself, know the least of it.

Translation: You can't prove it, but if you

repeat it enough maybe

someone will believe you.
=A0
=A0The 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.

No,,that's you desperately treading in your own fecal matter trying to
find a way out of the darkness you conjured with the claim that there
are no federal police officers when you had to be taught that the
FEDERAL DOT enforces traffic laws..
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.


......and only the basis for innocent until proven and found guilty.


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.

You're wandering.

Being pronounced guilty is only a formality.

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

Officially yes.


Which is what we are discussing,,the law. Your opinion to disagree with
it means ****.

But if you did the crime, you are technically

guilty whether the law recognizes it or not.


Only in the eyes of those who do not embrace the US justice system.

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.


Nope..you're the one using your ignorcane of the law as a basis for
claiming things are illegal (roger beeps) and do not exist (FEDERAL DOT
AKA and "federal police" AKA..(insert any number of federal agencies
here).

"You're only guilty if you're caught" doesn't

wash with me.

Watching you wander, it's apparent you don't wash at all.

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.

More ignorance from one who knows little to nothing of the laws and
agencies in this country.

There is no federal speed limit.

This is, countrary 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.


No, that's not what you originally said,,,you originally said there is
no federal agency that enforces treaffic laws. When you were taught
otherwise, you spun words with your invocation of "federal police". Now
you change it again to "federal traffic cop", yet, that is exactly what
a DOT officer is...a federal traffic cop.
=A0Man, you are a glutton for punishment. And there is mandatory speeds,
truckers must abide by them every day. As I said,,,keep talking.

As I said, put up the proof, or shut up.

I'm content watching you suffer.

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?


The same difference of importance you apparently felt compelled to
invoke such.

You would then claim that I simply made it up.

made it up.

Somebody else would have beat me to it.

Speaking of names, what's yours?

You had your chance.
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.


You should have applied this principle to yourself when you claimed
because -you- were unable to find a law specifically permitting roger
beeps, you were "forced" to consider them illegal. Your ignorance knows
no bounds.

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.


Yet, according to you, this cop gave you incorrect information regarding
the law of the state he and you reside.
=A0You 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.


I ask no one for accountability. That is reserved for jackasses like you
who see themselves as some sort of person who others need answer or
explain their ways, too. All I ask of you is to provide for your claims,
and again, as always, the first thing out of your fecal filled mouth is
"but..YOU". LOL.

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,


Not others, David, only you. as only you have been illustrated by no
less than ahndful of regular posters as being hypocritical.

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,,you tossed it out there.

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".

That was no threat, it was a challenge.

Something a real man would not back away

from.


So why did you, then? I see we need revisit that thread, eh?

You are simply too afraid to reveal yourself.

Whcih is why when faced with no other out, you chose to stick your
yellow tail between your legs and run from your "challenge". You claimed
I asked for your credit card (only to secure a commercial trip) as our
last exchange, but you lie. Our last exchange was when I offered to meet
you at a specific location, and you claimed I wouldn't show. When I
claimed I would take a picture of the day's paper (illustrating the
date) under the clock tower where we were to meet, and post the pic
online that day to probe I was there,,,you ran. You ran like the yellow
cowardly cur you are and droped the thread. Need see it again?

Which then begs the question of what you are

.hiding.

You're the one who continues to provide the FCC with a bogus address,
even after being informed such behavior was illegal.
_
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".

Based on experience, and my familiarity with law confirms it (when
compared to you), it most certainly does constitute proof,,at least,
according to you,,but then again, everyone knows you dont play by the
rules you spat.

You psychologically challenged few have t

ried, but keep missing the mark. And that is

what frustrates you.

Frustrated? My goodness jr..I'm not the one crying and moaning like a
bitch in heat about cbers personal identities,,,,that's reserved for
losers like yourself.

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.

And you answered including "any boat in general.

"Besides, you learned to walk what, at 13

months or so?

Just because Kimberly's inability to stop smoking was responsible for
your child's abnormal development, please don't take anymore of your
personal frustrations out on the group.

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?

All of them. Heck, everyone in this group has proved you wrong on a
panoply of subjects.
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.


I'm not the one getting personal, or at least I wasn't until you did.
Hell , you denying Kimberly T. as your wife alone makes you a
scumbag..then again, it holds perfectly with your fears,,,such as
continuing to provide the FCC with a bogus address.

David Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Thu, Apr 14, 2005, 8:55am (EDT-1) From: =A0=A0
Dave Hall Group: =A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject:
=A0=A0 While we're on the subject of funny and entertaining
websites..... Date: =A0=A0 Thu, Apr 14, 2005, 9:55am Organization:
=A0=A0 home.ptd.net/~n3cvj X-Trace: =A0=A0
sv3-4TLNFSFviReTwxAZTLO9SZ+NNQWhDaLLloia0z01/gSdHdmzT16+YmCkFOREsZETVNqk9S=
0YmPNZzEL!kWl9GOdxoMcGClNyHeKyPQveN4ZEULlJCuJrg16j 4K6Wea6rzOcTj9fbve5QO+Pz=
4AtkmA6eHodl!2LfWXRRKUGc=3D
X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward a
copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be
unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.3.31
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:13:37 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
29 -0400,
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.


Oh, but you are delusional. Google "libel" and "slander" in this group.

I'll be glad to provide the links again.


Just provide the tinyurl : ) Off you go.....again!

David HalI Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
I educated you once before on the conditions

of libel cases. I'll be glad to provide the links

again.

That's ok, Dave. I found the links, and it was you being educated as
always, after embarrassing yourself with bull****.
Folly you fancy yourself as twistedhead.
-
Twistedhed=A0 Jan 2 2003, 3:15=A0pm =A0 =A0
show options
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cbFrom: (Twistedhed) - Find
messages by this author
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:01:43 -0500 (EST)Local: Thurs,Jan 2 2003
3:01=A0pm
Subject: Free CB Crystal Mixing ChartsReply to Author | Forward |
Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
Twistedhed wrote:
From: (Dave Hall)
Twistedhed wrote:
From: rcra...@hotmail
comm (Git Some)
http://support.cox.net
/custsup/policies
/acceptableuse.shtml#aup_14
__
Again, when one requests certain information be posted and one responds
in kind, it is not spam


And I'm sure you'd be kind enough to provide

the posts where someone

on this board has made this so-called

"request"?

As would you with the cber that you say was busted.

So far, no one has come forward and

confirmed it.

Hypocrite.....pot...kettle...b=ADlack..

Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

I emailed him.

You E-mailed him,

I know you have a communication deficit but I
didn't stutter.

and requested that he SPAM the GROUP

with advertisements?

Your words. Check 'em out and file 'em appropriately. It's not spam when
it's requested.

Why couldn't he just E-mail you back?

My email is shut off except for those on my private email list.
Why can't you give us a name of the cber that you claim was busted for
disorderly?
I know, that's a strange concept, but.... it's no stranger than your
pathological lying for no reason other than to
lie. I offered to email you as well concerning your
dilemma

I have no dilemma, except what you fabricate

in your own sociopathic

mind

LOL....uh......I didn't fabricate anything..YOU did..the cber getting
busted..the Phelps.....probably everything else you ever said here.
I asked you about YOUR posts... Everything I asked about was in response
to a post of yours.
Let us start again so you are able to comprehend it isn't in my mind but
very much something in your mind you wish to forget, only I won't permit
it.
Can you explain how your email came by way via the University when you
claimed that you only "borrowed" the account for a short time long ago?
Can you explain why it defaults to "Mark Salzyn" who appears to have
been the other half of so many of your conversations?
How about the Phlelps comment? I asked if you still had the Phelps and
you asked, and I quote "What Phelps? I wish I HAD a Phelps"..when it was
shown you indeed lied in a post long ago by claiming you had one. A few
days later you popped the lid on the cesspooole and say: "Oh, THAT
Phelps..well, see...um...it.....itwa****bylightningyeathatsitand why
icantremeberit"...
LMAO.....tell me Davey boy, does that **** work on the people you
surround yourself with?
_
But you refused and proceeded to air your laundry in front of the group

You attempted to "air" what you thought you

could make an issue of.

Not true, davey..I was the one that asked you many times to take your
cries to email to AVOID making an issue in the group, to "avoid" airing
your shortcomings and personal problems..everyone knows that Davey, I
asked you many many times to go to email with your personal problems you
bring to the group and you trying to lie about it now and say otherwise

serves only to solidify your pathological status.
The fact that you fail at every attempt hasn't stopped you from
continuing.
*Your* posts. I merely questioned them...I can't help it if you went to
pieces and came gunning for me with flames and personal offtopic
attacks....that's in your upbringing..you weren't taught any better or
you simply don't know any better..either way,,you suffer a deficit.

I can't wait to see the next pitiful attempt.

Again, "your" posts, Davey boy. To agree with me at this time that they
were failures is redundant. The "pitiful attempts" have been limited to
you attempting but failing to explain away your lies.
Besides Dave, asking questions of anothers business is paramount to
sheer hypocrisy when you refuse/are unable to answer questions posed
concerning comments you uttered and are unable to 'confirm" any of
them...this is why they are called "lies
".
#1 I don't owe you an explanation for anything.
Nope, you certainly don't.
Merely carry on your little hit parade for yourself and I'll continue to
point out the bull**** as I see fit. You are most correct, Mr. Hall,
that in all instances, attacking me on a
personal level and fancying
yourself educated in the matter of all you can not comprehend, is
certainly more constructive and conducive than offering analysis or
basis for all which you claim.

What I *choose* to provide is for me to decide.
But of course, although I'm having none of it and for some reason that
just galls you to the point where you are single-handedly reduced to
reckless off-topic insults and self-professed slightly comical
images....that of an educated man, no less. You have proven yourself a
pathological liar. You have nothing to prove to me or provide, Davey
boy..but when you pathetically, habitually and pathologically continue
to throw bull**** lies on the group to futher your own bull**** agenda,
such as your claim of the cber near you getting busted for disorderly
conduct, be prepared to answer questions on it. A claim like that is
incredibly easy to disprove by anyone with
internet access who knows
what they are doing or to the super
sleuth......even an idiot can pick
up the phone and make the call to the precinct to disprove your lying,
lid, trolling hammie azz which is why your lying self got real quiet on
this issue..you were busted...instead of acting like a man and moving
on, you figure you're gonna get personal with me for calling attention
to it..you're a child, Hall..and as always, you never let us down with
your shining example of the worst of amateur radio...the perfect lid.

If a serious, legitimate person requests

information, I will be more

than happy to oblige. But I see no point in

providing information for

no other reason than to satisfy another of

your psychoses

A (ahem) "psychosis" has nothing to do with your pathological lying,
Dave, except that it is but one of many problems that ail you. Again,
you have to provide for nothing,,as there is nothing to provide for.
Your claims are just like you..bunk. At least folks are considering the
source when you post now.

#2 the fact that something I said isn't

verifyable by your own feeble

means does not mean that it's a lie


My resources are anything but.
But you go on ahead and believe that I'm the only one that disproved
your lie concerning that claim..as I said..a few clicks. a mere phone
call, and you, my angry little lid, are as you have always
been..........full of ****.

Rather it speaks of your own inabilities, or

your clouded, obsessed

judgement.

What part of my judgement was "clouded"
concerning asking you to provide a city, name, or year concerning *your*
claim that a local cber was convicted of disorderly conduct? The part
where I half-heartedly thought for once in your pathetic, pathological
lying life you may return an honest answer?
Hmmm...so I see......... I
know exactly just what you mean.
__
If you are feeling particularly adept at communicating today, I am not
the only one to have expressed an interest in your claim of how you
tamed the Davemade and TS into legality mode for your use on the
freeband

Only you and your sycophantic counterpart,

Nebo has made any comments.

I don't consider either of you to be worthy of

an answer

You don't have to answer, Davey boy,,your angry malicious hate filled
post and attacks speak quite clearly, as do your claims you refuse to
answer for even after you claimed you would..but that was before I drove
a stake through your black heart.. We wouldn't expect anything less..it
is how your type operate.

And I have never used either amp on the

freeband. I use them legally

on 10 and 15 meters, where I am licensed to

do so
..
Ok, when did you mod the Dvaemade and ditto for the TS? Was it your
equipment?
Surely out of all your claims you can choose and select better which to
respond than those of which you have managed to already mangle yourself,
eh? But thats ok,, a liar is a liar regardless of how many lies you
tells.
__
The "majority" of the posts seem to
disagree with your statement referring to them as legal amps for
hammies

That "majority" of posts that you refer to, have

been by yourself, so

that's hardly an objective poll

That's not true at all....but I wouldn't expect any correct information
to escape from your bruised and damaged psyche. The posts I refer to
were the conensus that the amps are illegal for hammies or cbers.

George may be a bit confused on certain

aspects of the ruling, but

he's essentially correct, and no amount of

slander, on your part, can

change that

I offered to educate you further but you merely wind up shooting
yourself in the foot and dining on the crow I
precariously prepare for you.
Slander is spoken, libel is written, my precocious angry, little lid.
You may continue to set forth the notion you have a bit of education,
but your uncouthness quickly dispells with any such notion. Continue to
make blunder upon blunder or you can learn from your mistakes and move
on from them.
_

HAHHAHHAHAHA..LMAO..yea, Davey,,you really educated people on your
bull****...when you made this post, you had no clue what libel is, as
you incorrectly accused me of slandering you in this group. As always,
you know ****, dave..everything else, you lie about, boy.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)

Do what you want. I'm not turning people in.

Wouldn't mean **** if you did. You're nobody and your word is ****.

I'm only pointing out what it is that they are

guilty of.


No one is guilty of anything simply because you pronounce it. Get over
the deity complex you hold of others but thirst for yourself.

DaviD Hall Jr.

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"

"Neil Down" wrote in message
...
"Landshark" wrote in
m:



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.


Sounds exactly like you and Fagaholic.. you created websites wnet to
peoples homes, look up tax records ... Yoyur a blatant transexual.. some
things never change...






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?


I never made any websites about you or anyone else ... You still ie like
the homosexual that you are ...

Shut up, Geo!

"Neil Down" wrote in message
...
"Landshark" wrote in
m:



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.


Sounds exactly like you and Fagaholic.. you created websites wnet to
peoples homes, look up tax records ... Yoyur a blatant transexual.. some
things never change...






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?


I never made any websites about you or anyone else ... You still ie like
the homosexual that you are ...

Your hero is a coward.

http://n8wwm.4t.com/photo.html

"U-Know-Who" wrote in message
...

"Neil Down" wrote in message
...
"Landshark" wrote in
m:



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.


Sounds exactly like you and Fagaholic.. you created websites wnet to
peoples homes, look up tax records ... Yoyur a blatant transexual.. some
things never change...






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?


I never made any websites about you or anyone else ... You still ie like
the homosexual that you are ...

Shut up, Geo!

LOl still on that kick huh... fagaholic says I am chris busch so which one
of you is right?