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

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 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

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

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