Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61   Report Post  
Old April 13th 05, 02:40 PM
Landshark
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #62   Report Post  
Old April 13th 05, 05:19 PM
Dave Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #63   Report Post  
Old April 13th 05, 10:13 PM
I AmnotGeorgeBush
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #64   Report Post  
Old April 13th 05, 10:49 PM
Steveo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #65   Report Post  
Old April 13th 05, 10:56 PM
Steveo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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


  #66   Report Post  
Old April 13th 05, 11:36 PM
I AmnotGeorgeBush
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #67   Report Post  
Old April 14th 05, 05:36 AM
Landshark
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


Absolutely!


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


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


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


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


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


Speeding is not considered a criminal offense.


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

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


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


Those summary offenses do
not carry criminal penalties.


Both excessive speed and litter are misdemeanors and carry severe penalties

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


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

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


Might be, but is correct.



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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Isn't that enough?


If you conscience bothers you, yes.


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


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



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

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

Playing word games doesn't hide that fact.


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


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


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


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


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


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

Dave



Landshark


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


  #68   Report Post  
Old April 14th 05, 05:36 AM
Landshark
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steveo" wrote in message

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


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

Landshark


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


  #69   Report Post  
Old April 14th 05, 11:38 AM
Dave Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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

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


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

Dave
"Sandbagger"

  #70   Report Post  
Old April 14th 05, 12:38 PM
Dave Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


Absolutely!


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

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


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


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


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


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


Speeding is not considered a criminal offense.


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


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


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


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


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


Those summary offenses do
not carry criminal penalties.


Both excessive speed and litter are misdemeanors and carry severe penalties


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


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


Might be, but is correct.



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


It does if he was telling the truth.


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

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

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


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

If you conscience bothers you, yes.


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

Dave
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017