On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:34:48 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Open your eyes, if you haven't noticed MANY don't seem to have any respect
for the law--pay attention.

So you're saying it's ok to ignore the law as long as there are a
bunch of others as morally bankrupt? Justification by consensus?


If it isn't the same in your city I am happy
for you--but here it is just getting damn dangerous!!!

Radio operators are dangerous?


The downright silly decisions the judges are making is ONE MAJOR cause, the
youngsters are laughing behind judges backs...

Which is when we need less bleeding heart liberal judges and more hard
nose, by the book style conservative ones.


Would you even begin to attempt to convince me that you get anything more
than the justice you can afford?

It's not about justice you can afford, it's about the justice you
truly deserve.


Those lawyers are not going to be bothered with freebanders/CB'ers--they
simply don't have the type of money the lawyers need to fill their
pockets....

Then I guess if the FCC ever decides to really crack down on illegal
radio ops, they should be concerned then?


Dave
"Sandbagger"

Your arguments ALL would call for a CHANGE!--I am simply stating what IS...

GET REAL!

Regards,
John

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:15:07 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:25:36 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
I think you should stay away from those magic
mushrooms.....

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

You can deny it to your little black heart's content, but the fact
remains many cbers get licenses (especialy the no-codes) only to return
to the cb and freeband.

I won't try to argue that point as I agree that

some people conceivably do "return" (or never
left in the first place) to the CB and freeband.

I'm still somewhat active on both to this day.


So, you began breaking the law again by returning to the freeband after
you told the group you no longer do so because you "grew up" and are
setting responsible behavior patterns for your daughter by folllowing
the law.

No, I am not on the freeband. I am active on both Ham radio AND CB.
Leave it to you to draw the wrong conclusion from a statement. But
then again, that's how you are.

-
Some of those who obtained licenses can
never go back because their voices are too easily recognized and their
hammie "friends" will report their ass for freebanding.

I'm not so sure that this is as prevalent as you
claim.
*

That's cool...but entertain, for a moment, if you would, the notion you
are subscribing. If you do not believe me, then you mistakenly believe
the FCC is actively patrolling the air for violators. This info can be
found simply by extolling a little leg work.....but I'm telling you, the
FCC does NOT actively patrol the air seeking violations by hammies or
cbers.

Just how do you KNOW that?


*They end up being
****ed off (then issed upon) hammies.

You discount the possibility that while exposed
to ham radio, that many people find respect
for the rules, and have a change of attitude.



I didn't discount it at all, as I know what you say to be true, but what
I say is just as true. Members belong to both camps.

Yet you lambast me for my change in attitude.

The anger toward such freebanders can be seen in your own posts.

Despite your many claims, I harbor no "anger".
Stating facts that doesn't sit well with you, is
not the same thing as "anger".


Stating facts has you chasing your tail with semantics. You call people
criminals with nothing more than your mistaken ignorance that "saying it
on usenet is the same as a guilty plea in a court of law".

An admission of guilt is an admission of guilt. This is not a court of
law. There is no judge or jury. If you admit to partaking in an
illegal activity, then you did it. Anything more is simply a
formality.

Although you
have been given the correct information regarding the judicial system,
you continue to mistakenly believe you may publicly refer to one as a
criminal even if they were not convicted in a court of law.

You do not need to be convicted of an action to make the reality of
that action known. You continue to fall back on the flawed concept
that you're only guilty when caught and convicted. As if you really
are not breaking the law because the feds never witnessed you doing
it. That's as absurd as the philosophical question of whether a tree
still makes noise when it falls in the forest, and no one was there to
hear it.


Several
years ago you were making posts chastising hammies as being too uptight
and uppity and technical who look down on cbers.

Because in many cases, it's true.



Not "in many cases"..you stated "For the most part" in your post when
you referred to the hammies... using the same sterotyping you just
hypocritically took another to task for employing. .

So now you're back to your old game of obfuscation and semantic word
games.



There are hams who are stuffy and uptight.
But they are legal. The converse is also true.
Many outlaw CB'ers feel that they have a right
to do just what (and where) they please
without due regard for the rights of anyone
else.


Same is true with many hammies,

But they are not here claiming any perceived right to do so.


yet for some reason, you do not voice
your concern for those you hold in higher regards, higher esteem,,,you
know,,those who are supposed to lead by example.

So, you posit that because there is a certain percentage of "bad hams"
who break the rules, that that gives you a right to do it on the
freeband?



RFI, direct interference, and public nuisance
issues do not seem to affect them.


"Them" is not limited exclusively to cb users.

No, but responsible radio operators on either service, will cooperate
to minimize such issues.



**Either behavior is reprehensible, and I've
defended each respective group when on the
receiving end of such stereotypical prejudice.

Yet, you continue to employ it yourself.

Not at all.


Lately it's the hams who are unfairly on the
receiving end of this prejudice.


Why is it unfair to illustrate the same behavior
committed by hammies that you complain about when committed by cbers?

Because as a matter of percentage, the number of law breaking hams
compared to licensed users, is much smaller than the amount of illegal
operators compared to legal CB'ers.

Everyone on the freeband is illegal. You don't need fancy equipment to
figure it out. Mere presence of a station there is all that is needed
to make the very accurate empirical observation.

On the other hand, a ham running twice the power output on 75 meters
would not be readily apparent to someone listening as the signal would
only be 3db stronger.


During your admitted
freebanding and illegal operating years, not once will you find a post
by yourself calling others names or expressing nosey concern for other
people's business that does not affect you.

I still don't. I'm not the one trying desperately
to find out personal information (often
incorrectly like the name of my wife) about
other people.


Yes, you were. In fact, you initiated the personal info game with me and
everyone knows it. You were told long ago to stay out of the personal,
off-topic arena. Once you violate this, you have nothing to say when
your initiated behavior is returned.

I did nothing of the sort. I attempted no such action against you or
anyone else. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Believe me, if you
were that important enough to make me want to find out information, I
would have. And trust me, it would not be wrong.



Also worthy of note is the time you spend
reviewing my 10 year span of messages to
this newsgroup. One might consider that as
bordering on obsession.


One might, but I have a photographic memory.

Yes, but you weren't around here when those beginning posts were first
left almost 10 years ago. You had to deliberately review them.

Besides, that "photographic memory" of yours is flawed, otherwise you
would be accusing me of things that I never did. Such as claiming the
case against Doug was "withdrawn", or that Keith was somehow involved,
or any other such accusation you have confused with another person (or
just plain invented) and then tried to attribute to me.



There,, now there's another
little tidbit of information for you to wallow in. I remember just about
everything, and in most cases you refer, I merely have to type in the
pertinent key words of your past posts and voila!....no time at all
spent other than three clicks right to the passage needed to illustrate
your incorrectness, hypocrisy, and double-talk, and lies.

Sure, that's why you keep making those glaring errors.



_
However, after having your
clock cleaned in reec.radio.cb by cbers for your oft extended hypocrisy,

reec (reek?) a freudian slip?

Which speaks volumes of how you think.

On a higher plain than you? Probably.


That you attribute such behavior (name calling, attacking those who
merely dx or freeband) to "growing up", illustrates the fact you were an
incredible late bloomer and extremely slow learner who hasn't fully
matured yet, as your behavior continued well in to your thirties.

Well, then if I'm still "growing up", then you
have yet to start because you are still
engaged in that illegal behavior.


As are you, according to your statement above at the beginning of this
post.

Your initial error continues to be compounded. And even when
corrected, I'm sure you'll still come back sometime in the future and
claim that I "admitted" to still actively freebanding.

In fact, you still are
illegal and have no right to say anything to
anyone,


I assume you have some proof of this? Yea I
know, you have tons of proof, but you're not
about to post it.


No Dave, that isn't the standard reply, but I'll remind you since you
strugge with memory impairment. You initiated unsolicited claims,,many
of them. When challenged for proof, you declined for personal reasons.
You are still free to provide proof for any of your unasnwered claims,
and then, as proper decorum and communicative technique dictates, will
have your inquiries answered with proof in turn.

Like I said........ You have no proof.


**as for starters, the address you provided the
FCC is not your primary residence and the fact that you fail to correct
this matter with the FCC even after being informed you are illegal,
leaves you no credibility with anything you may say regarding other's
actions.

You really, REALLY need to go back to
whatever source of information gathering you
use and either fire them, demand your money
back, or something. Because, quite frankly,
you are embarrassing yourself every time you
make these erroneous claims. My listed
address in the FCC database is exactly my
primary (only) residence. I am doing nothing
illegal.

So the real question is, Who do you think I
really am (today)? What do you think is my
"real" address?

Not concerned with your personal world, Dave,,that;s reserved for you to
cause yourself great pains concerning others.

You are the one making the personal claims. It obviously concerns you.
Your words say one thing, but your actions betray your true
motivations.


The only thing I can figure is that the
commonality of my name (Next after Smith
and Jones), has you so confused, that you
believe I'm someone different than who I
actually am (There are 3 Dave Hall's in my
company's phone directory, talk about
confusion).



Agreed. Perhaps you can explain how you mistakenly feel your unsolicited
but invoked claim regarding a company directory relates to anything,

It's an example of just how common my name is.

It's the ultimate irony for someone like you, who craves anonymity.
You go to great pains to hide who you are, while I gladly reveal my
name. Yet even when armed with that information, your efforts to seek
further information about me have proved to be dismal failures. When
you have a name as common as mine, you really can hide in plain sight.
Perhaps now you will finally "get it".......



The fact that my phone number is unlisted
removes me from many people searches.


You go on thinking that.

Oh so you have looked? Call me sometime then big boy......

That also explains why you keep insisting that
my wife's name is "Kimberly
T. Hall", and that she's a "teacher".


She may not teach now, but she tried to at elast once.

Yea, ok, whatever you say.


In
conclusion, you continue to trust unreliable
sources which provide you erroneous
information and then accuse others of things
.which are incorrect. It is not my credibility that
is in question here, it's yours.

But wait? Wasn't it you who just accused ME
of trying to obtain people's personal
information?


It was also myself that instructed you years ago that off-topic personal
information is not relevant to these pages,

Yet here you are demonstrating to the world just how much effort you
go through to do just that when you make personal information comments
about other people. And lest you try to use the excuse that it's my
fault, how many people have you accused Frank of being over the years?


And you call me hypocritical. Sheesh.......

Nothing hypocitiical at all about giving you back your initiated
behavior.

Bad behavior is inexcusable regardless of who started it. When you
were growing up and in school, it didn't matter who started the fight,
you BOTH got suspended. Both are equally culpable.

Using the excuse; "Well, he started it!" is truly feeble and a poor
justification for your own foibles.


In fact, you were warned on many occasion that this is what
your initiated behavior would degrade to.

But I never claimed or threatened to find out personal information
about anyone.

Again, if the information is
incorrect, ignore it and toss it out the window...but for some obvious
reasons, you chose to bitch about it.

Only to illustrate your obvious hypocrisy

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

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:04:46 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (John*Smith)
You waste your time, attempting to show logic

to Dave, he is obivously a ham or "ham

groupie."

He is just here to stop any progressive

changes--write your congressmen!!! Anyway,

whether he does what he does or not--the

winds of change begin to blow....

Regards,

John


Dave is capable of giving good entertainment when he remains cool, stays
on topic, and steers clear of emotional outbursts.

Why thank you! That's the closest thing to a compliment that I've seen
in a while. Now how 'bout a big hug?

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

I am afraid Dave is not even good entertainment... more of a
boring/repetitive slug...

He reminds me of an old woman with nothing better to do than harass anyone
in disagreement with them.

.. a Chihuahua, nipping at ones ankles--best ignored.

However, when not here, he is most likely in his mobile, pursuing truckers
(complete with a rotating caution light on his trunk and wearing a bunch of
pseudo-official badges, patches and ball caps purchased at ham fests), I
suppose it is better to have him here than out annoying the truckers, at
least they can get some honest work done then! grin



Regards,

John

Yeah, we know that is YOUR opinion... big deal...

John

Read my above post, it is still valid here...

Regards,
John

Read my top, new, post, still valid here...

John

Uh, from now on, just refer to my first post on this subject, or attempt to
memorize it--it is only ONE LINE FOR CRISSAKES!!!

John

Forget that!
Just write this down on a piece of paper, "REMEMBER! Next doctors visit, ask
him about a medication for Alzheimers."
And, pin it on your chest!

John