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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

....of one (you).

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

Despite your obvious paranoia, I never said you were.

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


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

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


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

(Which has been strangely silent),


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

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


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

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

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



the truth is there is only you.


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

I never mentioned that. Guilty conscience?


Provide even ONE example of my misuse of

any term.


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

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

Despite being taught and
educated on this matter several times,

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Have yourself a good weekend, old man.

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

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

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

neutral observation.

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

You're lying again. I never made any such

claim.

I simply offered that based on Doug's

"notoriety", that he MIGHT have been framed.

Are you stating that this scenario is

impossible?





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

The only thing "bizarre" is your inability to

comprehend simple concepts.


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

You accused me of stating that someone

withdrew the complaint. I made no such

statement. That's a lie on your part,

predicated, no doubt, from your inability to

remember who said what over the years.


Nah,,,you said it.

You once tried to claim that I accused Keith of

something. When pressed on the issue,

(While you scrambled through google) you f

finally had to back off when you realized that

you make a mistake. But true to form, you

would never be a man and admit it.



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

Are you man enough to apologize now, or will

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



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

....of one (you).

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

Despite your obvious paranoia, I never said

you were.


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

I am no more hypocritical than any of those

who have claimed the same of me.


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

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

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

(Which has been strangely silent),

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

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

cannot demonstrate anything hypocritical that

I've posted.



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


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

meaning of the word. So for your edification:

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

n. pl. hy=B7poc=B7ri=B7sies

1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings,

or virtues that one does not hold or possess;

falseness.


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

2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Now, where have I ever professed a belief,

virtue, or feeling that I don't possess?

See above.

the truth is there is only you.

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

I never mentioned that.


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


Guilty conscience?


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

Provide even ONE example of my misuse of

any term.

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

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

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

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


You are not capable of educating anyone.

Your legal and political views are akin to the

malcontents and subversive slackers of the

1960's.


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

It does and it is.



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


The FCC (a FEDERAL

agency)

via the communications act of 1934 clearly

defines both civil AND criminal penalties for

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

been caught yet does not change that.


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

Your problem is that in your narcissistic mind,

(snip)

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


Someone can't be "educated" when the "

teacher" is further off the rails than the

"student". Your knowledge of the law is the

worst that I've ever seen anywhere.

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

I have a cousin who's a lawyer



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



Stick to fishing. It's probably the only subject

you know anything about.


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


You really should take some remedial

education courses, including a course on

reading comprehension. That way you

wouldn't be so quick to accuse others of

saying things they never said.


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


Have yourself a good weekend, old man.

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

David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

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

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

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


Nah,,,you said it.

Then provide the google link as proof.


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



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

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

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

Are you man enough to apologize now, or will

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



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

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

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




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

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

cannot demonstrate anything hypocritical that

I've posted.



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

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



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


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

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


Guilty conscience?


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


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



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


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

It does and it is.



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

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



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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Besides, they are not the FCC.


I have a cousin who's a lawyer



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

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



Stick to fishing. It's probably the only subject

you know anything about.


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

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

Dave


Landshark


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Isn't that enough?

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

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

Playing word games doesn't hide that fact.


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

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


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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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




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

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

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

Isn't that enough?

If you conscience bothers you, yes.


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

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

Playing word games doesn't hide that fact.


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

Dave


Landshark


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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Absolutely!


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Isn't that enough?

If you conscience bothers you, yes.

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


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

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

Playing word games doesn't hide that fact.


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

on technicalities and semantics. Someone

who murders someone is still guilty of a

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

The same holds true for the FCC rules.

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

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

pronounced him as such doesn't change the

acts that he may or may not have done.

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

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

.but because of an inability for the state to

prove it, or the credibility of the witnesses

becomes cloudy and he walks, what does

THAT make him?

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

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

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

person is a murderer?

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

Absolutely!

If the law defines a particular act as criminal,

then if you engage in that act, you are

engaging in a criminal activity. Being labeled

as such by a court is only a formality and a

convenient excuse for people who want to

thumb their nose at the law, and wish to ease

their guilty conscience, by trying to convince

themselves that their activities aren't really

criminal because they haven't been caught

yet..

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

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

Nor will stating that a person clearly engaging


in a particular criminal activity isn't really a

criminal because they haven't been caught or

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

Speeding is not considered a criminal offense.
Neither is dxing

Operating a radio transmitter without a license
is.

CB.

Interesting that you lump illegally operating

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

littering.

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

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

the other hand, does.


Not dx.

Some people used to

think the same thing about theft of cable TV

service.


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

Until the law changed and got some

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

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


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

Maybe in a legal sense,

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

but that's a poor justification for engaging in

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

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

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

Ah, but there is a fine difference.

Only in your mind.

A person accused is presumed innocent until

proven guilty.



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



But you know as well as I do

that the system is flawed, and many times

guilty people walk for various reasons.



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

Conversely, some innocent people are

wrongly convicted. But if I witness a crime, I

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

criminal.

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

Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a

bunch of people on an internet forum that he

did indeed molest children?

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

Admitting to an unlawful activity is the same

thing in principle to pleading guilty in a trial.

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

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


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

If I arbitrarily call you a federal lawbreaking

criminal for violation of FCC rules on

freebanding or power levels, and I can't prove

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


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

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

you brag to other people that you do it,

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

then you are engaging in a criminal activity. _

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

Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "

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


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

Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.


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


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

Isn't that enough?


(If you conscience bothers you, yes.)

If you are of sound moral principles, then it

should.


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


If not, then you start bordering on

.sociopathic tendencies.

The law disagrees with you.

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

But the fact that you might get away with a

crime, doesn't lessen what you truly are.



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

Playing word games doesn't hide that fact.

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

And once again, if you

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

you what your senses already did.

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

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

No, since I did not do it,

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

and the distance between us makes it very

unlikely that you heard me. Now, if I stated

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

and you could positively identify me, then you

.could factually make that statement.

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


David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

.n3cvj

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

The same holds true for the FCC rules.

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

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

pronounced him as such doesn't change the

acts that he may or may not have done.

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

person is a murderer?

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

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

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

Absolutely!

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

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

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


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

What crime would I be guilty of?


Speeding is not considered a criminal offense.

Neither is dxing

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

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


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

When you give me your name first.



Until the law changed and got some

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

But not dxers.

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


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

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


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

Maybe in a legal sense,

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

Such as?


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


So go ahead, sue me.



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

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

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



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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Your anonymity is your enemy at that point.

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.


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

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


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

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


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

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

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