From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:04:01 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
http://www.****qrz.com

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



You obviously are more familiar with the site than myself, as I was just
made aware of it. Can you enlighten the contingency about whose feelings
were hurt and why?

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:08:37 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:04:01 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
http://www.****qrz.com

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



You obviously are more familiar with the site than myself, as I was just
made aware of it. Can you enlighten the contingency about whose feelings
were hurt and why?

Just read the site. The author has outlines his "beef" quite clearly.
There were also discussions on QRZ on the "other side".

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

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:08:37 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:04:01 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
http://www.****qrz.com
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

You obviously are more familiar with the site than myself, as I was just
made aware of it. Can you enlighten the contingency about whose feelings
were hurt and why?

Just read the site.


I did.

The author has outlines his "beef" quite

clearly.

I find nothing to indicate any hurt feelings. Again, I ask you once
again to explain your position. What is it that has you subjectively
indicating hurt feelings were responsible for the creator's site? Thomas
Paine created his paper the Federalist and people like you screamed
similar to what you offer now attempting to explain his actions,,,,,and
his paper was anonymous. Yet, the person you accuse makes very clear his
intention for his actions....censorship. And these folks are not
anonymous.
When one wishes to have an avenue free from undue interference and
censorship, sometimes one must create that avenue themselves. This is
twice in two days you have taken an American born patriotic birthright
and trashed it,,first was the right to select civil disobedience, now,
you accuse one who voices his own opinion on his own site with nothing
more than your own based subjective opinion, formed by reading the site
he took to task.




There were also discussions on QRZ on the

"other side".



Invocation of the site he decries as improperly censoring as the pillar
of truth for -your- subjective bias is no different than the site
builder's actions you take issue with,,,,you just happen to be on the
"other side" (your words). Such is hardly an unbiased look at each site
regarding the issue that sparked the creation of the site responsible
for effectively moving you to the point of lambasting the creators. In
that vein, the site you take issue with is an instant success, for if it
moved you in such a manner. In the media, there is no bad press,
regardless what you have been told. The only thing the public masses
love more than controversy is resiliency from one who was once
down...the underdog.


David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:58:36 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:08:37 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave*Hall)
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:04:01 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
http://www.****qrz.com
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

You obviously are more familiar with the site than myself, as I was just
made aware of it. Can you enlighten the contingency about whose feelings
were hurt and why?

Just read the site.


I did.

The author has outlines his "beef" quite

clearly.

I find nothing to indicate any hurt feelings.

Read between the lines.


Again, I ask you once
again to explain your position. What is it that has you subjectively
indicating hurt feelings were responsible for the creator's site?

That should be fairly obvious to anyone who understands human nature.
QRZ is a moderated forum. There are rules that are expected to be
followed. There are hundreds of discussions there and most people have
no problem. The author of the aforementioned site had a disagreement
with the owner of QRZ and got his feather ruffled, felt personally
persecuted because he couldn't abide by the rules and was kicked off.
So he's now set up an "anti-QRZ" site to somehow repair his bruised
ego, and garner support from other people who share his lack of
respect for the rules of civilized on-line discourse.


Thomas
Paine created his paper the Federalist and people like you screamed
similar to what you offer now attempting to explain his actions,,,,,and
his paper was anonymous.

There is no comparison.

Yet, the person you accuse makes very clear his
intention for his actions....censorship. And these folks are not
anonymous.

The issue is not censorship. The issue is one of following the rules
of membership. When you are in a non-public forum which is moderated,
there are certain expectations from the participants. Stray from those
rules and you risk losing your membership. You wouldn't engage in
boisterous, lewd behavior at a private golf club and not expect to be
reprimanded and expelled. So why should the same type of behavior be
tolerated on-line?


When one wishes to have an avenue free from undue interference and
censorship, sometimes one must create that avenue themselves.

Which is his right. Nothing wrong with that. But let's not lose track
of exactly WHY he chose to do such.


This is
twice in two days you have taken an American born patriotic birthright
and trashed it,,first was the right to select civil disobedience, now,
you accuse one who voices his own opinion on his own site with nothing
more than your own based subjective opinion, formed by reading the site
he took to task.

And in just as many times you have made a case that freedom of
expression should be universal even on private forums, and that any
rules restricting behavior for the better common good, are somehow
unfair. You can't have anarchy and expect to remain civilized. There
are far too many people who cannot handle that much responsibility.


There were also discussions on QRZ on the
"other side".



Invocation of the site he decries as improperly censoring as the pillar
of truth for -your- subjective bias is no different than the site
builder's actions you take issue with,,,,you just happen to be on the
"other side" (your words).

There are (at least) two sides to every argument. The bottom line is
that The author of the site (Which for some reason is no longer there
as I checked today), had a personal butting of heads with Floyd at
QRZ, and was kicked off of that site for not abiding by the rules.



Such is hardly an unbiased look at each site
regarding the issue that sparked the creation of the site responsible
for effectively moving you to the point of lambasting the creators.

Sure it is. It doesn't matter how "noble" you may think he is for
"standing up" to the "fascist" rules on QRZ, the fact remains that
when you belong to a private group, you are subject to rules. If you
can't abide by them, the owner/moderator has the right to kick you
off. Plain and simple.


In
that vein, the site you take issue with is an instant success, for if it
moved you in such a manner. In the media, there is no bad press,
regardless what you have been told. The only thing the public masses
love more than controversy is resiliency from one who was once
down...the underdog.


Like I said, for some reason, the site is no longer there. What does
that say?

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

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:58:36 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:08:37 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:04:01 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
http://www.****qrz.com
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

You obviously are more familiar with the site than myself, as I was just
made aware of it. Can you enlighten the contingency about whose feelings
were hurt and why?

Just read the site.

I did.

The author has outlines his "beef" quite

clearly.

I find nothing to indicate any hurt feelings.

Read between the lines.

Oh,,,,,,I see,,,subjective stuff. Why didn;t you just say so.
Again, I ask you once
again to explain your position. What is it that has you subjectively
indicating hurt feelings were responsible for the creator's site?

That should be fairly obvious to anyone who

understands human nature.


Well, forget what you are being taught for a moment and let's pretend
you already arrived at such a point,

QRZ is a

moderated forum. There are rules that are

expected to be followed.

There are hundreds of discussions there and

most people have no

problem.



I'd say MANY people on QRZ have problems. In fact, it led to many new
policies by the owner of the site.

The author of the aforementioned site had a

disagreement with

the owner of QRZ and got his feather ruffled,

felt personally

persecuted because he couldn't abide by the

rules




More "reading between the lines?"


and was kicked off.

So he's now set up an "anti-QRZ" site to

somehow repair his bruised ego, and garner

support from other people who share his lack

of respect for the rules of civilized on-line

discourse.



Translated, this innocently means those who share his views concerning
censorship.
Thomas
Paine created his paper the Federalist and people like you screamed
similar to what you offer now attempting to explain his actions,,,,,and
his paper was anonymous.

There is no comparison.
=A0
Exactly, as this site is not done by anonymous authors.
Yet, the person you accuse makes very clear
his intention for his actions....censorship. And these folks are not
anonymous.

The issue is not censorship.

You said to read his site,,,,I did,,and that very clearly says It is
about censorship. Again, you appear to kow more about the issue than
myself, as you are claiming things that are not on his site. How?

The issue is one

of following the rules

of membership.

Please be specific. What rule did he violate?

When you are in a non-public

forum which is moderated, there are certain

expectations from the participants. Stray from

those rules and you risk losing your

membership.


Instead of being redundant, please be more specific,,that is,,,if,, of
course, you know anything about any "breaking of rules" here and are not
merely siding with QRZ when you have none of the facts and are merely
surmising what you think to be true.


You wouldn't engage in boisterous, lewd

behavior at a private golf club and not expect

to be

reprimanded and expelled. So why should the

same type of behavior be

tolerated on-line?
=A0=A0
LMAO,,you claim no comparison to the acts of anonymous publishing, then
try and make a comparison between hammies and those who belong to a
private golf club? HHAHHHAHAHHAHAHHA! THAT,,,,,,,is not a valid
comparison by any wildest stretch of the imagination.
_
When one wishes to have an avenue free from undue interference and
censorship, sometimes one must create that avenue themselves.

Which is his right. Nothing wrong with that. But
let's not lose track

of exactly WHY he chose to do such.

YOU are claiming a reason that is not detailed on his site. In fact, his
reasoning set forth is much differetnt from your subjective "reading
between the lines" and assuming rules were broke, with nothing more than
your personal biases and subjective view providing for such.
This is
twice in two days you have taken an American born patriotic birthright
and trashed it,,first was the right to select civil disobedience, now,
you accuse one who voices his own opinion on his own site with nothing
more than your own based subjective opinion, formed by reading the site
he took to task.

And in just as many times you have made a

case that freedom of

expression should be universal even on

private forums,

I said nothing of the sort, Dave, your difficluties are really making
you go off the deep end today, and regardless anything I said, it does
not negate your problem with trashing legal actions by those whose
political views you disagree.

and that any rules restricting behavior for the

better common good,

are somehow unfair.

I said nothing of the sort.

You can't have anarchy and expect to remain

civilized.

Google "anarchy" and it has ALWAYS been you and the malicious sock
puppets invoking the term.

There are far too many people who cannot

handle that much

responsibility.

There were also discussions on QRZ on the

"other side".

Invocation of the site he decries as improperly censoring as the pillar
of truth for -your- subjective bias is no different than the site
builder's actions you take issue with,,,,you just happen to be on the
"other side" (your words).

There are (at least) two sides to every

argument.

And the truth is usually somehwere in the middle, not on your side or
his.

The bottom line is that The author of the site

(Which for some reason

is no longer there as I checked today),

Which lends even more to your non-credibility factor. It is there, Dave.
Your difficulties today know no bounds.

had a personal butting of heads with Floyd

at QRZ, and was kicked

off of that site for not abiding by the rules. =A0=A0

Be specific, Dave. What rule did this guy violate?
_
Such is hardly an unbiased look at each site
regarding the issue that sparked the creation of the site responsible
for effectively moving you to the point of lambasting the creators.

Sure it is. It doesn't matter how "noble" you

may think he is



Your difficulties have you making hypcritical erroneous assumptions all
the live long day.

for

"standing up" to the "fascist" rules on QRZ,



Of course we couldn't have you mention "anarchy" without presenting the
word "fascist" and attempting to misattribute it to others, now, could
we, Dave

the

fact remains that

when you belong to a private group, you are

subject to rules.

If you can't abide by them, the

owner/moderator has the right to kick

you off. Plain and simple.

And he has the right to make his own site,,,even more plain and simple,
regardless the fact your bias has you reading between lines and saying
things that are not there,,,,you've always done that on usenet, why
should it be any diferent in any other facets of your life?
_
In
that vein, the site you take issue with is an instant success, for if it
moved you in such a manner. In the media, there is no bad press,
regardless what you have been told. The only thing the public masses
love more than controversy is resiliency from one who was once
down...the underdog.

Like I said, for some reason, the site is no

longer there.

And like I said earlier,,it IS still there.

What does that say?

It says your diffculties are now transcending to your computer use. Like
I said before, you need another vacation,,,perhaps a long one to
somewhere other than Florida, as it doesn;t agree with you, somewhere
you can actually relax.

David T. Hall Jr,

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 20:00:51 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

You obviously are more familiar with the site than myself, as I was just
made aware of it. Can you enlighten the contingency about whose feelings
were hurt and why?

Just read the site.

I did.

Evidently not completely enough.


The author has outlines his "beef" quite
clearly.

I find nothing to indicate any hurt feelings.

Read between the lines.

Oh,,,,,,I see,,,subjective stuff. Why didn;t you just say so.

I didn't think I had to.



Again, I ask you once
again to explain your position. What is it that has you subjectively
indicating hurt feelings were responsible for the creator's site?

And once again, I ask that you read his mail thread from QRZ. In it
Fred Lloyd lays out his "issues".

Why the need for multiple accounts? What possible legitimate use could
one have for that? People who feel the need to remain anonymous (In
addition to their regular account) tend to use those anon accounts
when they want to say something that they'd be ashamed of signing
their real names to.


That should be fairly obvious to anyone who
understands human nature.

Well, forget what you are being taught for a moment and let's pretend
you already arrived at such a point,

What?

QRZ is a
moderated forum. There are rules that are
expected to be followed.
There are hundreds of discussions there and
most people have no
problem.



I'd say MANY people on QRZ have problems. In fact, it led to many new
policies by the owner of the site.

Some people do have problem. Those who want to play games and hide
behind the cloak of anonymity. But QRZ is better off without those
kind of people.


The author of the aforementioned site had a
disagreement with
the owner of QRZ and got his feather ruffled,
felt personally
persecuted because he couldn't abide by the
rules

More "reading between the lines?"

I'm sorry if you can't see it. But don't blame me.

and was kicked off.
So he's now set up an "anti-QRZ" site to
somehow repair his bruised ego, and garner
support from other people who share his lack
of respect for the rules of civilized on-line
discourse.

Translated, this innocently means those who share his views concerning
censorship.

If you'd prefer an totally open forum with no rules, and no
accountability, then you deserve the results. You can then have the
Dougies and spammers and sex-porn sock puppets to take away from any
meaningful discussions.

Thomas
Paine created his paper the Federalist and people like you screamed
similar to what you offer now attempting to explain his actions,,,,,and
his paper was anonymous.

There is no comparison.
*
Exactly, as this site is not done by anonymous authors.

Then why bring it up?


Yet, the person you accuse makes very clear
his intention for his actions....censorship. And these folks are not
anonymous.

But they violated the rules of a members only forum and were TOSsed
for it.


The issue is not censorship.

You said to read his site,,,,I did,,and that very clearly says It is
about censorship. Again, you appear to kow more about the issue than
myself, as you are claiming things that are not on his site. How?

I only know what I read. I'm surprised that you are unable to
comprehend the issues from the material presented.


The issue is one
of following the rules
of membership.

Please be specific. What rule did he violate?

Let's see if I remember. Holding multiple accounts, placing binary
files. I also believe there was something in there about messages from
a disruptive person traced back to one or two of the people involved.


When you are in a non-public
forum which is moderated, there are certain
expectations from the participants. Stray from
those rules and you risk losing your
membership.


Instead of being redundant, please be more specific,,that is,,,if,, of
course, you know anything about any "breaking of rules" here and are not
merely siding with QRZ when you have none of the facts and are merely
surmising what you think to be true.

When you set up a site on your own, using your time and resources, you
have the right to set the rules. As a user, you have the choice to
either abide by them, or not join in. Plain and simple.


You wouldn't engage in boisterous, lewd
behavior at a private golf club and not expect
to be
reprimanded and expelled. So why should the
same type of behavior be
tolerated on-line?
**
LMAO,,you claim no comparison to the acts of anonymous publishing, then
try and make a comparison between hammies and those who belong to a
private golf club? HHAHHHAHAHHAHAHHA! THAT,,,,,,,is not a valid
comparison by any wildest stretch of the imagination.

It is if you understand the behavioral comparisons and your
responsibility as a member of a private group to follow the rules. For
someone who claims to have a good knowledge of history and politics,
you seem to fall glaringly short in areas of human nature and social
behavior, and the concepts of responsibility.

When one wishes to have an avenue free from undue interference and
censorship, sometimes one must create that avenue themselves.

Which is his right. Nothing wrong with that. But
let's not lose track
of exactly WHY he chose to do such.


YOU are claiming a reason that is not detailed on his site.

It is clearly illustrated to those who understand human nature.

In fact, his
reasoning set forth is much differetnt from your subjective "reading
between the lines" and assuming rules were broke, with nothing more than
your personal biases and subjective view providing for such.

Rules WERE broken. But you'd have to ask Fred Lloyd for exact details.


This is
twice in two days you have taken an American born patriotic birthright
and trashed it,,first was the right to select civil disobedience, now,
you accuse one who voices his own opinion on his own site with nothing
more than your own based subjective opinion, formed by reading the site
he took to task.

There is no American birthright that claims that anyone has the right
to ignore the rules of a private club and expect to remain as a
member. There is also no American patriotic birthright that allows
people the right to selectively ignore any law they feel is "unjust"
and then claim civil disobedience as some sort of weak justification
for it. The prisons are full of people who tried that trick. It's no
different than those guys who try (and fail) to sue the IRS claiming
that federal income tax is unconstitutional. While I laud their
efforts, the law is not on their side.


And in just as many times you have made a
case that freedom of
expression should be universal even on
private forums,

I said nothing of the sort, Dave, your difficluties are really making
you go off the deep end today, and regardless anything I said, it does
not negate your problem with trashing legal actions by those whose
political views you disagree.

Who's legal actions did I trash?


and that any rules restricting behavior for the
better common good,
are somehow unfair.

I said nothing of the sort.

You implied as much. You seem to think that Fred Lloyd did not have
the right to kick off the author of "****qrz.com" for what he claimed
were rules violations.


You can't have anarchy and expect to remain
civilized.

Google "anarchy" and it has ALWAYS been you and the malicious sock
puppets invoking the term.

And that means what exactly?


There are far too many people who cannot
handle that much
responsibility.
There were also discussions on QRZ on the
"other side".

Invocation of the site he decries as improperly censoring as the pillar
of truth for -your- subjective bias is no different than the site
builder's actions you take issue with,,,,you just happen to be on the
"other side" (your words).

So you are now claiming that Fred is a liar?


There are (at least) two sides to every
argument.

And the truth is usually somehwere in the middle, not on your side or
his.

There is no "my side". There is only what happened and the reasons
given for why it happened.


The bottom line is that The author of the site
(Which for some reason
is no longer there as I checked today),

Which lends even more to your non-credibility factor. It is there, Dave.
Your difficulties today know no bounds.

It was not there when I checked at the time I posted. It has since
returned. I don't know what the problem was.

had a personal butting of heads with Floyd
at QRZ, and was kicked
off of that site for not abiding by the rules. **

Be specific, Dave. What rule did this guy violate?

Ask Fred, he'll give you a better explanation than I will. I am just a
casual observer.


Such is hardly an unbiased look at each site
regarding the issue that sparked the creation of the site responsible
for effectively moving you to the point of lambasting the creators.

Sure it is. It doesn't matter how "noble" you
may think he is

Your difficulties have you making hypcritical erroneous assumptions all
the live long day.

In what way?


for
"standing up" to the "fascist" rules on QRZ,



Of course we couldn't have you mention "anarchy" without presenting the
word "fascist" and attempting to misattribute it to others, now, could
we, Dave

If the shoe fits.......


the
fact remains that
when you belong to a private group, you are
subject to rules.
If you can't abide by them, the
owner/moderator has the right to kick
you off. Plain and simple.

And he has the right to make his own site,,,even more plain and simple,
regardless the fact your bias has you reading between lines and saying
things that are not there

They are there to anyone who takes the time to actually READ the whole
thing.


In
that vein, the site you take issue with is an instant success, for if it
moved you in such a manner.

There is something that you STILL don't understand about me. I can
separate factual events from personal opinion. I actually like the
site, but I also understand the feelings that pushed him to make it.


In the media, there is no bad press,
regardless what you have been told. The only thing the public masses
love more than controversy is resiliency from one who was once
down...the underdog.

Hitler was once an underdog too.

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

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 20:00:51 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
You obviously are more familiar with the site than myself, as I was just
made aware of it. Can you enlighten the contingency about whose feelings
were hurt and why?

Just read the site.

I did.

Evidently not completely enough.

The author has outlines his "beef" quite

clearly.

I find nothing to indicate any hurt feelings.

Read between the lines.

Oh,,,,,,I see,,,subjective stuff. Why didn't you just say so.

I didn't think I had to.

But of course you did not, as to do so, would have invalidated your
allegations concerning the site builder.
Again, I ask you once
again to explain your position. What is it that has you subjectively
indicating hurt feelings were responsible for the creator's site?

=A0=A0And once again, I ask that you read his mail

thread from QRZ. In it Fred Lloyd lays out his

"issues".

So keeping with your approach, it would be safe to say your "issues"
regarding cb radio are born of your feelings being hurt. Erroneously
thinking others become reactive like you merely becasue you are unable
to distinguishing between issues and personal feelings has long plagued
you and been responsible for countless and needless attacks you have
launched over the years on others in usenet.

Why the need for multiple accounts? What

possible legitimate use could one have for

that?

The site was not done anonymously. YOUR "issue" goes beyond the site, as
you are now invoking another topic.

People who feel the need to remain

anonymous (In addition to their regular

account) tend to use those anon accounts

when they want to say something that they'd

be ashamed of signing their real names to.

That should be fairly obvious to anyone who

understands human nature.

Well, forget what you are being taught for a moment and let's pretend
you already arrived at such a point,

What?

QRZ is a

moderated forum. There are rules that are

expected to be followed.

There are hundreds of discussions there and

most people have no

problem.

I'd say MANY people on QRZ have problems. In fact, it led to many new
policies by the owner of the site.

Some people do have problem.


No Dave, MANY people have these "problems" you speak of, regarding QRZ.
Again, policy changes were not instituted because of a few random
problem children.


Those who want to play games and hide

behind the cloak of anonymity.


Be specific......games are not illegal. Speaking of certain topics is
not illegal. When one is banned because of a topic and NOT because of
any abuse, it is called censorship.

But QRZ is better off without those kind of

people.

Your admitted fondness and past defenses for freedom-impinging
socialistic approaches when you do not personally agree with the message
or topic is well documented in this group.


=A0=A0The author of the aforementioned site had a

disagreement with

the owner of QRZ and got his feather ruffled,

felt personally

persecuted because he couldn't abide by the

rules

More "reading between the lines?"

I'm sorry if you can't see it.

I offer the same to you concerning Delay's comments you are unable to
see..

But don't blame me.

I'm not blaming you, you're paranoid. I'm asking what rules, if any,
were violated, and you have not been able to cite a single one.

and was kicked off.

Many say he was kicked off because of the topic QRZ refused to
entertain, as it illustrated the issue was not at all about feelings
(such as you maintain), but about certain hypocrisy.

So he's now set up an "anti-QRZ" site to

somehow repair his bruised ego, and garner

support from other people who share his lack

of respect for the rules of civilized on-line

discourse.

Translated, this innocently means those who share his views concerning
censorship.

If you'd prefer an totally open forum with no

rules, and no accountability, then you deserve

the results. You can then have the Dougies

and spammers and sex-porn sock puppets to

take away from any meaningful discussions.




Other's mere words do not effect me to the obvious and admitted degree
they do yourself.
If you believe Dogie, spam, or sock pups take away from any meaningful
discussion, far be it from me to try and tell you otherwise. In fact,
just the opposite holds true for several of us. Example: the more Dougie
posts, the more many of us giggle at his incompetence.

_
Thomas
Paine created his paper the Federalist and people like you screamed
similar to what you offer now attempting to explain his actions,,,,,and
his paper was anonymous.

There is no comparison.
=A0
Exactly, as this site is not done by anonymous authors.

Then why bring it up?

You invoked anonymity and sock pups. Stop being such a hypocrite.
Yet, the person you accuse makes very clear
his intention for his actions....censorship. And these folks are not
anonymous.

But they violated the rules of a members only

forum and were TOSsed for it.

The issue is not censorship.

So you say. Please help me understand these rules that you claim were
broken. It appears you are merely echoing another's sentiments and have
no clue what, if any, rule(s) were broken regaridng this issue.
You said to read his site,,,,I did,,and that very clearly says It is
about censorship. Again, you appear to kow more about the issue than
myself, as you are claiming things that are not on his site. How?

I only know what I read.



Ahhh,,so you don't know about any rules, and are merely repeating what
you read somewhere else..the site he took to task.

I'm surprised that you are unable to

comprehend the issues from the material

presented.


I'm certain you are, as it is you on this group always seeing things
that are not there and mis-attributing quotes and claims to others that
never take place.

The issue is one

of following the rules

of membership.

Please be specific. What rule did he violate?

Let's see if I remember. Holding multiple

accounts,


If this is indeed true, and if this rule was arbitrarily made in
response to the QRZ management not agreeing with the topics of those
posts, then your rule-violation claim is out the window.


placing binary files.


See above.

I also believe there was something in there

about messages from a disruptive person

traced back to one or two of the people

involved.


In where and by who? Disruptive, can mean anything anyone wishes. If one
wishes to discuss softball instead of radio, it can be viewed as
disruptive. A person can not be disruptive on a forum unless one
explicitly permits them inside their personal realm.


When you are in a non-public

forum which is moderated, there are certain

expectations from the participants. Stray from

those rules and you risk losing your

membership.

Instead of being redundant, please be more specific,,that is,,,if,, of
course, you know anything about any "breaking of rules" here and are not
merely siding with QRZ when you have none of the facts and are merely
surmising what you think to be true.

When you set up a site on your own, using

your time and resources, you have the right to

set the rules. As a user, you have the choice

to either abide by them, or not join in. Plain

and simple.


Agreed. However, if rules are arbitrarily made in direct response and as
a means to silence one who is speaking of a topic the "ruler" wishes to
silence, it's bull****, no matter how you present it.

You wouldn't engage in boisterous, lewd

behavior at a private golf club and not expect

to be

reprimanded and expelled. So why should the

same type of behavior be

tolerated on-line?
=A0=A0
LMAO,,you claim no comparison to the acts of anonymous publishing, then
try and make a comparison between hammies and those who belong to a
private golf club? HHAHHHAHAHHAHAHHA! THAT,,,,,,,is not a valid
comparison by any wildest stretch of the imagination.

It is if you understand the behavioral

comparisons and your responsibility as a

member of a private group to follow the rules.

For someone who claims to have a good

knowledge of history and politics, you seem to
fall glaringly short in areas of human nature

and social behavior, and the concepts of

responsibility.


So you say, but your unsolicited position and self-qualifications
concerning such has been thoroughly debunked by another.
When one wishes to have an avenue free from undue interference and
censorship, sometimes one must create that avenue themselves.

Which is his right. Nothing wrong with that. But
let's not lose track

of exactly WHY he chose to do such.

YOU are claiming a reason that is not detailed on his site.

It is clearly illustrated to those who understand
human nature.


Self-qualification regarding such is equal to tilting imaginary
windmills in your own backyard, only no one else can see them.
In fact, his
reasoning set forth is much differetnt from your subjective "reading
between the lines" and assuming rules were broke, with nothing more than
your personal biases and subjective view providing for such.

Rules WERE broken. But you'd have to ask

Fred Lloyd for exact details.


Fred Lloyd isn't the one posting that rules were broken concerning this
user..you are.
This is
twice in two days you have taken an American born patriotic birthright
and trashed it,,first was the right to select civil disobedience, now,
you accuse one who voices his own opinion on his own site with nothing
more than your own based subjective opinion, formed by reading the site
he took to task.

There is no American birthright that claims

that anyone has the right to ignore the rules of
a private club and expect to remain as a

member.


The freedom to respond how he sees fit and make his own site,
is indeed his right.

There is also no American patriotic birthright

that allows people the right to selectively

ignore any law they feel is "unjust" and then

claim civil disobedience as some sort of weak

justification for it.



Correct, which is why you deleted the proper definition of such that I
presented. Civil Disobedience is NOT a right to ignore ANY law, as you
intentionally distorted, but a METHOD of *selectively* ignoring a
specific law for a specific reason. Now that you have been armed and
corrected with the proper definition, you shouldn't make the same
mistake again concerning the act.

The prisons are full of people who tried that

trick.

Really? Would it prove to difficult for you to cite three cases of those
imprisoned for an act of civil disobedience? After all, since the
prisons are "full" of these people, you should have no problem citing
but a few examples.


It's no different than those guys who try (and

fail) to sue the IRS claiming that federal

income tax is unconstitutional.


It's very different, Dave. This is the part where your confusion
regarding "criminal" and "civil" infractions and penalties invalidate
your position that dxers and freebanders are federal criminals.


While I laud their efforts, the law is not on their
side.

And in just as many times you have made a

case that freedom of

expression should be universal even on

private forums,

I said nothing of the sort, Dave, your difficluties are really making
you go off the deep end today, and regardless anything I said, it does
not negate your problem with trashing legal actions by those whose
political views you disagree.

Who's legal actions did I trash?


Here you go again, asking of another without providing for your own
claim. Cite a single passage where you insist I said anything of the
sort regarding private forums, and then you will have earned the right
to ask another question.
this is common respect and etiqueete concerning proper communication
technique.

and that any rules restricting behavior for the

better common good,

are somehow unfair.

I said nothing of the sort.

You implied as much.

More "reading between the lines" based on nothing more than
self-qualification.

You seem to think that Fred Lloyd did not

have the right to kick off the author of

"****qrz.com" for what he claimed were rules

violations.

Not at all,,,I merely asked you what they were. In fact, my use of the
word "if" regarding said acts, most definitely distinguishes such.


You can't have anarchy and expect to remain

civilized.

Google "anarchy" and it has ALWAYS been you and the malicious sock
puppets invoking the term.

And that means what exactly?


Page from your quotes "Statistical Probability".


There are far too many people who cannot

handle that much

responsibility.

There were also discussions on QRZ on the "other side".
Invocation of the site he decries as improperly censoring as the pillar
of truth for -your- subjective bias is no different than the site
builder's actions you take issue with,,,,you just happen to be on the
"other side" (your words).

So you are now claiming that Fred is a liar?


I have only your self-qualifications and statements concerning the
issue. How you are able to transcend this to inferring another party not
privy to this exchange as a "liar" is something only you can explain.

There are (at least) two sides to every

.argument.

And the truth is usually somehwere in the middle, not on your side or
his.

There is no "my side". There is only what

happened and the reasons given for why it

happened.



I know you like to believe in such fairy tale endings, but once again,
in the United States, there are always two sides to disagreeing parties.
If there were not, civil court would not exist.

The bottom line is that The author of the site

(Which for some reason

is no longer there as I checked today),

Which lends even more to your non-credibility factor. It is there, Dave.
Your difficulties today know no bounds.

It was not there when I checked at the time I

posted. It has since returned. I don't know

what the problem was.


The site has been there all along, Dave. You were unable to locate it
for whatever reason.

He had a personal butting of heads with Floyd

at QRZ, and was kicked

off of that site for not abiding by the rules. =A0=A0



Make up your mind. You claim it was personal (hence, your claim of
"feelings being hurt") and then say it was a violation of rules.
Be specific, Dave. What rule did this guy violate?

Ask Fred, he'll give you a better explanation

than I will. I am just a casual observer.

Such is hardly an unbiased look at each site regarding the issue that
sparked the creation of the site responsible for effectively moving you
to the point of lambasting the creators.

Sure it is. It doesn't matter how "noble" you

may think he is

Your difficulties have you making hypocritical erroneous assumptions all
the live long day.

In what way?


I have no idea what the guy is about, yet you found the need to
erroneously assume I somehow feel the guy is "noble". What this astutely
illustrates, is more of how *you* think.

for

"standing up" to the "fascist" rules on QRZ,

Of course we couldn't have you mention "anarchy" without presenting the
word "fascist"
and attempting to misattribute it to others, now, could we, Dave

If the shoe fits.......


It never does, but that has never stopped you from jamming the shoe in
your mouth by falsely attributing quotes to others.


the

fact remains that

when you belong to a private group, you are

subject to rules.

If you can't abide by them, the

owner/moderator has the right to kick

you off. Plain and simple.

And he has the right to make his own site,,,even more plain and simple,
regardless the fact your bias has you reading between lines and saying
things that are not there

They are there to anyone who takes the time

to actually READ the whole thing.

Well, to be perfectly fair and honest, you said you arrived at your
decision by reading the F***QRZ.com site and told me to read it, yet,
when presented with the fact that your claims are not to be found on
that site anywhere, you invoke the site he took to task.
In
that vein, the site you take issue with is an instant success, for if it
moved you in such a manner.

There is something that you STILL don't

understand about me. I can separate factual

events from personal opinion.



Not too may "understand" that about you, Dave.
You have made many claims, even went as far as to say they were on the
site, but I'm still waiting for you to illustrate these claims.

I actually like the site, but I also understand

the feelings that pushed him to make it.


Apparently, you do not, as you claim it was not about censorship, which
is very clearly what the site owner maintains.
_
In the media, there is no bad press,
regardless what you have been told. The only thing the public masses
love more than controversy is resiliency from one who was once
down...the underdog.

Hitler was once an underdog too.

Hitler was always an underdog.

David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj