From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:25:41 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
You came full circle from denying it takes place (BS in less than 4
years) to not only acknowledging it happens, but giving your own
examples. See what you are capable of when others force you to think.
You sometimes just need a little kick of motivation.

I never said it wasn't possible, only that it's not
likely.


It's more than likely. It happens regularly at most major universities.

You like to cite extreme examples to make (or

counter) a point.


The fact that a four year degree is completed in less than four years
all over America each year by many is not an extreme example, it's an
accurate statement of the norm. You claiming such isn't likely is the
extreme deviation.

On the other hand, I tend to take my

examples from the means of the bell curve.

No you don't. You tend to work off of poor memory retainment and how
things "used to be".

Most people fall into the 70% part of the bell

curve, not the outside 30%.


While your percentages can be argued, it nevertheless illustrates a
comprehension difficulty regarding all those you are unable or not
permitted to effectively pigeonhole.


Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:01:53 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
=A0=A0It's also conceivable that over the last billion

years, that the solar energy output from the

sun could have deviated to some degree as

well, which can certainly affect surface

temperature here.

It's not conceivable (its definite), it's been proved the sun's harmful
rays have intensified over time. This is because of the damage in the
ozone layer.

I'm not talking about the ozone layer, I'm

talking about the sun's actual energy output.

Check this out:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html

This is called global warming.

Again, you come full circle. My work on this topic is done.

No one ever denied that global warming is

occurring. The point of contention is how

much of it can truly be definitively attributed to

man's actions.

Some light reading for you to bring you up to

speed:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html


http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1305/

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1395/

Your work on this topic is just beginning.......

Dave

"Sandbagger"

The intellicast links aren't compatible with webtv. Here are a few for
you, concerning your errors. Note the date on my references. They are
last word on the subject. Of course, if you have data confirmed since by
a verifiable source, feel free to post it....



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...may20,1,60065=
96.story?ctrack=3D1&cset=3Dtrue
=A0
THE WORLD
As Climate Shifts, Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Growing
Increased snowfall on the central icecap partly offsets effects of
melting glaciers, researchers say.
By Robert Lee Hotz, Times Staff Writer
As glaciers from Greenland to Kilimanjaro recede at record rates, the
central icecap of Antarctica has been steadily growing for 11 years,
partially offsetting the rise in seas from the melt waters of global
warming, researchers said Thursday.
The vast East Antarctic Ice Sheet =97 a 2-mile-thick wasteland larger
than Australia, drier than the Sahara and as cold as a Martian spring
=97 increased in mass every year from 1992 to 2003 because of additional
annual snowfall, an analysis of satellite radar measurements showed.
"It is an effect that has been predicted as a likely result of climate
change," said David Vaughan, an independent expert on the ice sheets at
the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England.
In a region known for the lowest temperatures recorded on Earth, it
normally is too cold for snow to form across the 2.7 million square
miles of the ice sheet. Any additional annual snowfall in East
Antarctica, therefore, is almost certainly attributable to warmer
temperatures, four experts on Antarctica said.
"As the atmosphere warms, it should hold more moisture," said
climatologist Joseph R. McConnell at the Desert Research Institute in
Reno, who helped conduct the study. "In East Antarctica, that means
there should be more snowfall."
The additional snowfall is enough to account for 45 billion tons of
water added to the ice sheet every year, just about equal to the amount
of water flowing annually into the ocean from the melting Greenland
icecap, the scientists reported in research published online Thursday by
the journal Science.
Rising sea level, which could swamp many coastal and island communities,
is considered one of the most serious potential consequences of global
warming, according to the most recent assessment by the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Overall, sea level is estimated to be rising by 1.8 millimeters a year
worldwide because of the expansion of warming water and the added
outwash from melting glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, tropical highlands
and some areas of Antarctica.
Every millimeter of increased sea level corresponds to about 350 billion
tons of water a year.
The growth in the East Antarctic icecap is enough to slow sea-level rise
by a fraction of that =97 about 0.12 millimeter a year =97 the
researchers reported.
All told, the fresh water locked up in the ice of East Antarctica is
enough to raise the level of the oceans by about 196 feet, experts said.
If it continues to grow as expected, the ice sheet could buffer some,
but not all, of the effects of anticipated sea-level rise for much of
the coming century, the researchers said.
"It is the only large body of ice absorbing sea level rise, not
contributing to it," said Curt H. Davis, a radar mapping expert at the
University of Missouri-Columbia, who led the research team.
The researchers based their conclusions on an analysis of 347 million
radar altimeter measurements made by the European Space Agency's ERS-1
and ERS-2 satellites from June 1992 to May 2003.
They determined that the icecap appeared to be thickening at the rate of
1.8 centimeters every year. The ice is thinning in West Antarctica and
other regions of the continent.
"The changes in the ice look like those expected for a warming world,"
said glaciologist Richard Alley at Pennsylvania State University. "The
new result in no way disproves global warming; if anything, the new
result supports global warming."
_

One more for the road....

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/...b328640589641=
0dab46b4c26c9fe&did=3D842083261&FMT=3DFT&FMTS=3DFT &date=3DMay+19%2C+2005&a=
uthor=3D&printformat=3D&desc=3DReport%3A+Iraq+asse ssment+bleaker


http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/...b328640589641=
0dab46b4c26c9fe&did=3D842083261&FMT=3DFT&FMTS=3DFT &date=3DMay+19%2C+2005&a=
uthor=3D&printformat=3D&desc=3DReport%3A+Iraq+asse ssment+bleaker


Spin it again and tell us how Iraq is getting better, Dave.

On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:40:52 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

him from human flaws or the consequences of
acting out on them.

Except when those flaws belong to Bush, then those consequences go out
the window and people like you blame the demos for his incompetence.

Because those "flaws" were largely invented

by the left leaning media.



Get reality in your life. Failing to balance the budget,


Bush never promised to balance the budget at this time. That's to come
in the future.


... the report
by the Pentagon two days ago that "Iraq war not fairing as well as
originally thought".

According to whom? Link please. That statement in itself is
meaningless. "Not fairing well" could simply means that we're a little
behind schedule. I suppose you consider the establishment of an
independent Iraqi government as not an important achievement?



.....the lack of protection for the troops he sent
in to battle underequipped and ill prepared.

I suppose you've forgotten this now infamous quote: "I actually voted
for the 87 billion, before I voted against it". What do you think that
87 billion was for?




,,the list goes on and his
failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred.

Yea sure. When you stand up for what is right, you're bound to take a
few on the chin in the process. Those who refuse to stand up, out of
fear of taking those few on the chin, are the ones to be very afraid
of.


There has been none to date which have been
proven.



Then show me the balanced budget.

Never promised.

Tell it to the military sons and
daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable
reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment.

A very valid reason why John F. Kerry is not the president today.


Now Bush is cutting bases in the US to pay for his tax cuts and failing
(admitted by the Pentagon) war, the same thing you blasted Clinton for
daring to entertain a few years ago, and he didn't even do it.

When did I "blast" Clinton for closing military bases?


Rathergate, is a glaring example of one such
smear which got discovered before any real
damage could be done.

You are wired to focus on anything but repsonsibility. You seek
abdication of the Bush failures through unrealistic self-denial,

I seek the truth, and I place blame where the blame belongs, and that
starts with those who seek to destroy this country out of a
ideological hatred of our way of life. I don't blame the one leader
with the cajones to call it like it is and stand up to it.

The liberals, on the other hand, when the truth cleverly evades them,
make up their own version of the truth to justify actions which would,
in an earlier generation, be considered treason.

Then there is the more recent Newsweek
gaffe about flushing the Koran down a toilet
(How does one flush a book down a toilet
anyway?).


They have port- a-potty's in Gunatanamo, not toilets.


I'm really interested in how you would know that with any accuracy.

BTW, port-a-potti's don't flush.


Did you know that the gutless clowns at
Newsweek had the nerve to actually blame
the repercussions of their erroneous reporting
on the Bush administration, for not denying it
quickly enough?


The BUsh administration began the phoney reporting with their bogus
"press releases" when it was found to be nothing of the sort, but you
are not surprisingly silent when the Bush party fails with the same
tactics.

This isn't about Bush, this is about a trusted news organization which
recklessly printed a story which turned out to be bogus, which
resulted in the deaths of 17 people, and incited further anti-U.S.
behavior. Which begs the question , who's side is Newsweek on?

They print a lie, and they blame Bush for not
denying it, as the reason why those people
.were killed in the protests. Unbelievable!


Not as unbelievable as a homosexual prostitute circumventing general WH
security protocol reserved for only those with higher clearance with
zero explanation of how and why the security FAILED.

Gee, that one never made the front page. Must have been one of
Clinton's leftovers. That's why the mainstream news didn't fly with
it.



Chances are you would have cheated.

I've never cheated on any assignment that I've
ever done. I've never had to.


Then why did you not provide the 2914 Stony Creek Rd address to the FCC
as required by law?

Ah, so you've decided to print the information without my permission
eh? I knew you couldn't resist the urge.

BTW, you need to either upgrade or trash your "Spy" software (Or ask
for a refund of that $9.95). THAT was my OLD address. Stony creek road
was were I was born and raised and spent most of my CB career. I moved
from there in 1999.

You can verify this by going on QRZ and loading the 1993 version of
the callbook, and then look at what address my call is listed with.

I accept (once again) your apology.


Because you lost all credibility for all your claims for many valid
reasons.

What you think is irrelevant,


It's not what I think, it's what more and more regs are conveying to you
on a regualr basis.

Name them.

and contrary to your wild imagination, you do
not represent the majority.


Contrary to your claims that have been corrected by the majority of the
regs, it is yourself that is of the most radical, hypocritical, and of a
minority position that is usually incorrect.

Prove it. Other that you, Frank, and occasionally Landshark, who
actually even gives enough of a crap about these jabs that we
exchange, to even chime in?


But I'll make a deal with you, I'll tell you every
place where I went to school, when you give
me your real name and address.



You invoked your schooling of your own free will.

I did not offer to provide specific details.


Your personal
obsessive mania concerning my personal life


Yet it is you who is obsessively looking up personal info about me
(And getting most of it wrong in the process).

The facts betray you.


has nothing to do with your
unsolicited claims posted by yourself in order to lend your hurt
feelings and soiled ago an image of support. This is done only because
of your need for validation. You can find no support on or of your own.

I'm not the one who feels the need to continually convince myself of
the existence of a mythical "majority" who's support doesn't really
exist.


Deal?

Checkmate.

Yep, that's my boat.

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

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:40:52 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
him from human flaws or the consequences of
acting out on them.

Except when those flaws belong to Bush, then those consequences go out
the window and people like you blame the demos for his incompetence.

Because those "flaws" were largely invented

by the left leaning media.

Get reality in your life. Failing to balance the budget,

Bush never promised to balance the budget at
this time. That's to come in the future.

... the report
by the Pentagon two days ago that "Iraq war not fairing as well as
originally thought".

According to whom?

The Pentagon.


Link please.

Already posted it once.

That statement in itself is

meaningless. "Not fairing well" could simply

means that we're a little behind schedule. I

suppose you consider the establishment of an

independent Iraqi government as not an

important achievement?

Ask the Pentagon.

.....the lack of protection for the troops he sent in to battle
underequipped and ill prepared.

I suppose you've forgotten this now infamous

quote: "I actually voted for the 87 billion,

before I voted against it". What do you think

that 87 billion was for?



Blaming anyone but Bush for over three years of inadequate supply,
protection, and gear
for our troops shows exactly how well you comprehend your government.

,,the list goes on and his
failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred.

Yea sure. When you stand up for what is right,

you're bound to take a few on the chin in the

process.


Placing unprepared troops and others in battle is not standing up, it is
a failure and illustration of the president's strategy and incompetence.
Ignoring Iran, Dharfur, and N Korea is not standing up.


Those who refuse to stand up, out of fear of

taking those few on the chin, are the ones to

be very afraid of.



Sort of like yourself in regards to radio law,,you do nothing that can
remotely be considered proactive (standing up) and offer nothing but
reactive lipeservice.

There has been none to date which have been
proven.

Then show me the balanced budget.

Never promised.


No one said it was, but it is part of the president's job that he failed
to manage. Cllaiming that if something isn't promised by the president,
it's ok if he is derelict in ignoring his duties, confirms your lack of
knowledge regarding the position of president.
_
Tell it to the military sons and
daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable
reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment.

.A very valid reason why John F. Kerry is not

.the president today.



Did Kerry bang Kimberly, or do you continuosly harbor unnatural feelings
and hatred for him for other reasons?
Bush is cutting military funding and it has nthing to do with Kerry.
Once again, you are not even aware of what your own party is
undertaking.
Now Bush is cutting bases in the US to pay for his tax cuts and failing
(admitted by the Pentagon) war, the same thing you blasted Clinton for
daring to entertain a few years ago, and he didn't even do it.

=A0=A0When did I "blast" Clinton for closing military

bases?


You blasted Clinton and claimed he was seeking to dismantle and "weaken"
the military through budget cuts. You have a **** poor memory, Dave.

Rathergate, is a glaring example of one such

smear which got discovered before any real

damage could be done.

You are wired to focus on anything but
responsibility. You seek abdication of the Bush failures through
unrealistic self-denial,

I seek the truth, and I place blame where the

blame belongs,


Except with the leader of the country...as I said, you seek abdication
of responsibility.

and that starts with those who seek to destroy

this country out of a ideological hatred of our

way of life.



Wrong,,,it begins and ends with the president.

I don't blame the one leader with the cajones

to call it like it is and stand up to it.



But's NOT standing up for anything...he's ignoring Dharfur, which is
much worse bllodshed than Hussein EVER committed, he failed to stop the
proliferation and spread of nukes, and N Korea is continuing to produce
them,,three more nuke warheads by year's end with the rods they recently
and publicly collected and announced that they are using them for nukes.
Of course, Iran has solidified several more nukes in the time Bush has
been lording over the oil glut,,,on it goes, yet you know little of it.

The liberals, on the other hand, when the truth
cleverly evades them, make up their own

version of the truth to justify actions which

would, in an earlier generation, be considered

treason.



Bush was the only one to flipflop on his reasons for war, yet when thse
reasons are applied equally to hostile countries, his position
evaporates.

Then there is the more recent Newsweek

gaffe about flushing the Koran down a toilet

(How does one flush a book down a toilet

anyway?).

They have port- a-potty's in Guantanamo, not toilets.

I'm really interested in how you would know

that with any accuracy.


Stay focused and try not to fall off track and delve into personal
realms again, Davey. I know it in the same manner I knew your party
acknowledged global warming and you didn't.

BTW, port-a-potti's don't flush.



All the more reason the story was suspect from the beginning.

Did you know that the gutless clowns at

Newsweek had the nerve to actually blame

the repercussions of their erroneous reporting

on the Bush administration, for not denying it

quickly enough?

The BUsh administration began the phoney reporting with their bogus
"press releases" when it was found to be nothing of the sort, but you
are not surprisingly silent when the Bush party fails with the same
tactics.

This isn't about Bush,



Yea,,right,,I forgot who I was talking to for a second.

this is about a trusted news organization

which recklessly printed a story which turned

out to be bogus,




Sort of like the fabricated press releases from what is to be a trusted
organization (WH) to do whta is best for the people, but who recklessly
fabricated not one, not two, not three, but months and months worth of
phoney bull****
and deliberately misrepresented the fluff as authentic news press
releases.

which resulted in the deaths of 17 people,

and incited further anti-U.S. behavior.



Not as much as the fabricated war Bush employed.

Which begs the question , who's side is

Newsweek on?

They print a lie, and they blame Bush for not

denying it, as the reason why those people

.were killed in the protests. Unbelievable!

Not as unbelievable as a homosexual prostitute circumventing general WH
security protocol reserved for only those with higher clearance with
zero explanation of how and why the security FAILED.

Gee, that one never made the front page.

Sure it did, Dave,,,you just are uninformed regrading everything these
days.

Must have been one of Clinton's leftovers.

That's why the mainstream news didn't fly with
.it.

Mainstream did fly with it. Missed it.



I've never cheated on any assignment that I've
ever done. I've never had to.

Then why did you not provide the 2914 Stony Creek Rd address to the FCC
as required by law?

Ah, so you've decided to print the information

without my permission eh? I knew you couldn't
resist the urge.



I don't need your permission to ask what is in the public domain.

BTW, you need to either upgrade or trash your
"Spy" software (Or ask for a refund of that

$9.95). THAT was my OLD address.


Yet, you brokke FCC law by not providing it to the FCC.

Stony creek road was were I was born and

raised and spent most of my CB career. I

moved from there in 1999.

You can verify this by going on QRZ and

loading the 1993 version of the callbook, and

then look at what address my call is listed

with.



I accept (once again) your apology.
Because you lost all credibility for all your claims for many valid
reasons.

What you think is irrelevant,

Aparently what I think is very relevant, as you deny the truth and
menstruate over it. I now have you in such a freakin' tizzy, you are
denying your own wife's name when it has been confirmed. In fact, she
used to reside on Gravers Road, but you go on denying she is your wife
because of the shame you rained down upon yourself.


It's not what I think, it's what more and more
regs are conveying to you on a regualr basis.

Name them.

Google hypocrite and your name, and you will find those who taught you
better.


and contrary to your wild imagination, you do

not represent the majority.

Contrary to your claims that have been corrected by the majority of the
regs, it is yourself that is of the most radical, hypocritical, and of a
minority position that is usually incorrect.

Prove it. Other that you, Frank, and

occasionally Landshark, who actually even

gives enough of a crap about these jabs that

we exchange, to even chime in?



You are again under the mistaken and erroneous belief one must "chime
in" to all exchanges in order to express they care? Dude, you are so far
out, you can never regain composure.


But I'll make a deal with you, I'll tell you every

place where I went to school, when you give

me your real name and address.

You invoked your schooling of your own free will.

I did not offer to provide specific details.


You invoked your schooling of your own free will. This is where your
**** poor communication skill comes in to play. When one enters a topic
in to a conversation, be prepared to substantiate it. Your constant
excuses and whining about not having to defend your claims portray you
exactly how you are viewed.....by the majority : )
Your personal
obsessive mania concerning my personal life

Yet it is you who is obsessively looking up

personal info about me


I looked up nothing...you put it out there. In fact, you put it all out
there, you just are so inept and have such a **** poor memory and tell
so many lies, you can't keep them all straight.
In fact, you initiated the personal game and were told many times to lay
off the personal remarks. Now that you are getting your own game crammed
down your throat, you can only cry foul and lie,,,,but lying about your
wife is an entirely new (at least when you do it publicly) concept you
have demonstrated to the public.
You have shamed your name, Dave and disgraced your wife. Deal with it,
move on from it, and stop becoming personal with others and you will
find you will stop hating life and blaming others for your personal
created hell in which you wallow.

(And getting most of it

wrong in the process).

Tell us again which parts are wrong, Dave,,,,I thoroughly enjoy watching
you squirm over your past lies. Tell us again how Kimberly T is not your
wife.


The facts betray you.


No,,,the facts confirm what I say. You're so ignorant in the ways of the
world and law, you are beside yourself because -you- are unable to
correctly ascertain the info that you have been begging me for years.
Meanwhile, the game you initiated has come full circel and slapped you
in your head.


has nothing to do with your
unsolicited claims posted by yourself in order to lend your hurt
feelings and soiled ago an image of support. This is done only because
of your need for validation. You can find no support on or of your own.

I'm not the one who feels the need to

continually convince myself of the existence of
a mythical "majority" who's support doesn't

really exist.


That's exactly what you do each time you
claim a superior morality and adherence to religion.

Deal?

Checkmate.

Yep, that's my boat.


No offers, yet, huh? Well, that's what happens when you purchase a used
overpriced POS.
Just because you overpaid doesn't mean others will subscribe to your
ignorance.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:17:38 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:40:52 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
him from human flaws or the consequences of
acting out on them.

Except when those flaws belong to Bush, then those consequences go out
the window and people like you blame the demos for his incompetence.

Because those "flaws" were largely invented

by the left leaning media.

Get reality in your life. Failing to balance the budget,

Bush never promised to balance the budget at
this time. That's to come in the future.

.. the report
by the Pentagon two days ago that "Iraq war not fairing as well as
originally thought".

According to whom?

The Pentagon.


Link please.

Already posted it once.

When? And don't just say "the pentagon", post a complete link to the
"news" source from which you base your biased claims.


....the lack of protection for the troops he sent in to battle
underequipped and ill prepared.

I suppose you've forgotten this now infamous
quote: "I actually voted for the 87 billion,
before I voted against it". What do you think
that 87 billion was for?



Blaming anyone but Bush for over three years of inadequate supply,
protection, and gear
for our troops shows exactly how well you comprehend your government.


And you would be equally ignorant to ignore the years of neglect that
our military suffered at the hands of Clinton, who had no great love
for it.



,,the list goes on and his
failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred.

Yea sure. When you stand up for what is right,

you're bound to take a few on the chin in the

process.


Placing unprepared troops and others in battle is not standing up, it is
a failure and illustration of the president's strategy and incompetence.
Ignoring Iran, Dharfur, and N Korea is not standing up.

Who says we're ignoring it? All in good time. We don't have unlimited
military resources. Unless, of course, you want the draft brought
back.....




Those who refuse to stand up, out of fear of
taking those few on the chin, are the ones to
be very afraid of.



Sort of like yourself in regards to radio law,,you do nothing that can
remotely be considered proactive (standing up) and offer nothing but
reactive lipeservice.

Stay focused. This isn't about me, as much as you'd like it to be.


There has been none to date which have been
proven.

Then show me the balanced budget.

Never promised.


No one said it was

You implied as much


, but it is part of the president's job that he failed
to manage. Cllaiming that if something isn't promised by the president,
it's ok if he is derelict in ignoring his duties, confirms your lack of
knowledge regarding the position of president.

There are far more pressing issues than a balanced budget. Ridding the
world of maniacal terrorists is a bit higher on the pecking list.

_
Tell it to the military sons and
daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable
reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment.

.A very valid reason why John F. Kerry is not
.the president today.



Did Kerry bang Kimberly, or do you continuosly harbor unnatural feelings
and hatred for him for other reasons?

No, it's a simple matter of you wanting to pin every failing on Bush,
when, if you truly understood how the government operates, you would
not make such an ignorant, uninformed claim. Military budgets have to
be approved by congress, a congress in which Kerry voted against
(after he voted for) the necessary money to provide that equipment you
feel we were glaringly lacking.




Bush is cutting military funding and it has nthing to do with Kerry.

He is merely doing the same things as many corporations. Making due
with less. Unless, you want a large tax increase.


Once again, you are not even aware of what your own party is
undertaking.
Now Bush is cutting bases in the US to pay for his tax cuts and failing
(admitted by the Pentagon) war, the same thing you blasted Clinton for
daring to entertain a few years ago, and he didn't even do it.

**When did I "blast" Clinton for closing military
bases?


You blasted Clinton and claimed he was seeking to dismantle and "weaken"
the military through budget cuts. You have a **** poor memory, Dave.

Not the same thing. Bush is not eliminating any crucial bases or
programs.


Rathergate, is a glaring example of one such
smear which got discovered before any real
damage could be done.

You are wired to focus on anything but
responsibility. You seek abdication of the Bush failures through
unrealistic self-denial,

I seek the truth, and I place blame where the

blame belongs,


Except with the leader of the country...as I said, you seek abdication
of responsibility.

and that starts with those who seek to destroy

this country out of a ideological hatred of our

way of life.



Wrong,,,it begins and ends with the president.

The president didn't fly airplanes into the trade towers or the
pentagon. The president didn't try to annex a neighboring country. The
president didn't exterminate hundreds of thousands of his own people.
The president didn't blow a hole in the USS Cole. The president didn't
blow up embassies. The list goes on.



I don't blame the one leader with the cajones
to call it like it is and stand up to it.



But's NOT standing up for anything...he's ignoring Dharfur, which is
much worse bllodshed than Hussein EVER committed

Dharfur does not threaten this country in any way.

, he failed to stop the
proliferation and spread of nukes, and N Korea is continuing to produce
them,,three more nuke warheads by year's end with the rods they recently
and publicly collected and announced that they are using them for nukes.

The former soviet union has nukes. The Chinese have nukes. So what?
Now if Osama Bin Laden had a few, I'd be concerned. Or if Saddam had
been allowed to finish his nuke program, I'd be concerned.


Of course, Iran has solidified several more nukes in the time Bush has
been lording over the oil glut,,,on it goes, yet you know little of it.

What oil glut? Do you not read the commodities page?

The liberals, on the other hand, when the truth
cleverly evades them, make up their own
version of the truth to justify actions which
would, in an earlier generation, be considered
treason.



Bush was the only one to flipflop on his reasons for war, yet when thse
reasons are applied equally to hostile countries, his position
evaporates.

He has not flip flopped on any of his reasons. They remain the same as
always.



Then there is the more recent Newsweek
gaffe about flushing the Koran down a toilet
(How does one flush a book down a toilet
anyway?).

They have port- a-potty's in Guantanamo, not toilets.

I'm really interested in how you would know
that with any accuracy.


Stay focused and try not to fall off track and delve into personal
realms again, Davey. I know it in the same manner I knew your party
acknowledged global warming and you didn't.

Which is how exactly? And for the record, I never denied global
warming, just questioned the amount of effect that humanity has truly
had on it. The evidence is still inconclusive on this point, as I have
provided in the links.


BTW, port-a-potti's don't flush.



All the more reason the story was suspect from the beginning.

Yet you were ready to embrace it as another reason to throw a dagger
at Bush.





Then why did you not provide the 2914 Stony Creek Rd address to the FCC
as required by law?

Ah, so you've decided to print the information
without my permission eh? I knew you couldn't
resist the urge.



I don't need your permission to ask what is in the public domain.

The why did you ask in the first place?


BTW, you need to either upgrade or trash your
"Spy" software (Or ask for a refund of that
$9.95). THAT was my OLD address.


Yet, you brokke FCC law by not providing it to the FCC.


Are you retarded, or can you simply not read? You are mistaken about
my current address. Your "Cyber detective" software is out of date. My
current address IS the one on my FCC license. The one you have is the
OLD one.


Stony creek road was were I was born and
raised and spent most of my CB career. I
moved from there in 1999.
You can verify this by going on QRZ and
loading the 1993 version of the callbook, and
then look at what address my call is listed
with.

I accept (once again) your apology.

And again.

Because you lost all credibility for all your claims for many valid
reasons.

What you think is irrelevant,

Aparently what I think is very relevant, as you deny the truth and
menstruate over it. I now have you in such a freakin' tizzy, you are
denying your own wife's name when it has been confirmed.

How has it been confirmed? Because YOU think it is? I am telling you,
you are dead wrong about my wife's name.


In fact, she
used to reside on Gravers Road, but you go on denying she is your wife
because of the shame you rained down upon yourself.

I never even heard of Gravers road. Once again you are mistaken (We
must be up to a dozen things you've been wrong about now). This is
what happens when you play with cyperspy wannabe software for $9.95.


It's not what I think, it's what more and more
regs are conveying to you on a regualr basis.

Name them.

Google hypocrite and your name, and you will find those who taught you
better.

Nice dodge. But I drive a Ford. Once again, name the people who agree
with your position and disagree with mine.




and contrary to your wild imagination, you do
not represent the majority.

Contrary to your claims that have been corrected by the majority of the
regs, it is yourself that is of the most radical, hypocritical, and of a
minority position that is usually incorrect.

Prove it. Post the names, posts and other references.



Prove it. Other that you, Frank, and
occasionally Landshark, who actually even
gives enough of a crap about these jabs that
we exchange, to even chime in?



You are again under the mistaken and erroneous belief one must "chime
in" to all exchanges in order to express they care?

Well gee, how then are we supposed to know that they disagree? Did you
buy Frank's crystal ball?

Dude, you are so far out, you can never regain composure.

I'm not the one who's suggesting that I can read minds in order to
glean the opinions of people who do not post their opinions here.



You invoked your schooling of your own free will. This is where your
**** poor communication skill comes in to play. When one enters a topic
in to a conversation, be prepared to substantiate it.

Just like you gave us the names and addresses of all of your
publishing gigs when you once claimed to be a "professional
journalist"?

If you are going to make the rules, you have to play by them too.
Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

Your constant
excuses and whining about not having to defend your claims portray you
exactly how you are viewed.....by the majority : )

Like I said, you have not provided for one single piece of information
you have provided here. Yet you expect others to do it. Hypocrisy.


Your personal
obsessive mania concerning my personal life

Yet it is you who is obsessively looking up
personal info about me


I looked up nothing...you put it out there.

I put my old home address out there? I put the incorrect name of my
wife out there? C'mon, you can do better.


In fact, you put it all out
there, you just are so inept and have such a **** poor memory and tell
so many lies, you can't keep them all straight.

When and where have I put any of the things that you've conjured out
of thin air out there?


In fact, you initiated the personal game

No, I didn't, you did.


and were told many times to lay
off the personal remarks.

While you continued to engage in the exact behavior yourself, either
ignorant of, or indifferent to your apparent hypocrisy.


Now that you are getting your own game crammed
down your throat, you can only cry foul and lie,,,,but lying about your
wife is an entirely new (at least when you do it publicly) concept you
have demonstrated to the public.

I have told no lies. You got suckered into paying some of your hard
earned and short on supply cash to some company to get personal
information about me, and much of it is wrong. But you'd rather
believe that I'm lying than believe that you got taken.


You have shamed your name, Dave and disgraced your wife.

How?


Deal with it,
move on from it, and stop becoming personal with others and you will
find you will stop hating life and blaming others for your personal
created hell in which you wallow.

The only hell is the one that you're stuck in and which you are
desperately trying to use me in order to vindicate yourself from.


(And getting most of it
wrong in the process).

Tell us again which parts are wrong, Dave,,,,I thoroughly enjoy watching
you squirm over your past lies. Tell us again how Kimberly T is not your
wife.

She's not. That's NOT my wife's name. The address on my ham license is
correct.

And G.W. Bush will probably be remembered in history as one of
America's greatest presidents, once he tames the barbarism in the
middle east.

The facts betray you.


No,,,the facts confirm what I say. You're so ignorant in the ways of the
world and law, you are beside yourself because -you- are unable to
correctly ascertain the info that you have been begging me for years.

I haven't begged you for anything. I am merely holding you up to the
hypocrisy spotlight for demanding information from other people that
you're not willing to give of yourself.


Checkmate.

Yep, that's my boat.


No offers, yet, huh? Well, that's what happens when you purchase a used
overpriced POS.

I bought it brand new in 1996. And even 9 years later, it's still
worth more than that scow you take people out fishing in order to earn
the money to pay for your webTV subscription.


Just because you overpaid doesn't mean others will subscribe to your
ignorance.

My boat is worth every penny that I'm asking for it, according to most
surveys that I've researched. It's not like in Florida where the sun
kills gelcoat in a year's time, and salt water exposure corrodes
everything metallic. My boat is garage kept and as clean as the day I
bought it. The summer season hasn't even hit yet. The weather isn't
all that great right now. Sooner or later I expect some interested
buyer activity.

But I'm not in a hurry. If I don't sell it this year, there's always
next. I just had an itch for a new boat, but I can wait. Next year's
bonus added in might give me enough extra money to buy one without
selling the old one right away.......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Hello, Dave

I've been really laughing over this thread. Yep, the deficit is *huge* ...
and when folks wake up, the Democrats will get blamed for "raising taxes".
We are in deep doo - doo here. Reaganomics didn't work then and it doesn't
work now.

As to the marriage protection act that Bush was for, have we heard anything
else about that, or was it to get a big reaction (along with votes) from the
religious folks?

One question begs for an answer: what is the divorce rate in this country?
Care to help Social Security? I'd suggest that once a couple divorces, they
can no longer give nor receive Social Security benefits from another person
(sole exception being to children). I've heard the divorce rate is close to
50%, but I honestly don't know.

I worked for a manager who was on his third or fourth wife. Hmmmm .... I'm
wondering if a woman (or man, for that matter) ever questions why their
intended has been divorced three times. I knew a guy (he passed away over
30 years ago) that was marrying his *fifth* wife! When he passed away, he
was living with a girl friend a good 20 years younger than he.

A lot of interesting questions come to mind with many of these threads, but
few answers.

Nope, I'm not for gay marriage, but I question what is it that drives these
big knee-jerk reactions. I fear that once folks wake up and smell the
coffee, it will be too late. In fact, it may already be too late. If other
countries stop "lending" us money and allowing our deficit to continue, we
are in for a crash. 1929 will look like a picnic. Many countries are
fearing us. Not only for the "Rambo" style of Bush, but our deficit. If we
crash, it will have a huge effect on the rest of the world as well.

Why do you think OPEC doesn't peg their target to the US dollar anymore?
(hint: the dollar is falling and OPEC wants to make more. I read an article
that Saudi Arabia wants to build an indoor skiing resort (talk about an air
conditioning bill!) as well as an underwater hotel.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:05:49 GMT, "Jim Hampton"
wrote:

Hello, Dave

I've been really laughing over this thread. Yep, the deficit is *huge* ...
and when folks wake up, the Democrats will get blamed for "raising taxes".

If. in fact, they do "raise taxes", it would be their fault. I do not
let a large deficit bother me. We've had large deficits before, and it
didn't kill us


We are in deep doo - doo here. Reaganomics didn't work then and it doesn't
work now.

I don't know about that. The end of a recession and the beginning of
the biggest period of economic growth followed "Reaganomics".


As to the marriage protection act that Bush was for, have we heard anything
else about that, or was it to get a big reaction (along with votes) from the
religious folks?

That's a good question. One answer might be that there are more
pressing issues right now (Run away filibusters, the war, getting an
energy bill passed etc.).

One question begs for an answer: what is the divorce rate in this country?

According to the stats from:

http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls

the percentage of divorced people is 9.6%. For some reason, Frank was
unable (or unwilling) to read the columns and see the actual numbers,
but if you believe the census bureau, that's what it is.


Care to help Social Security?

The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS
withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes
those who have already given into the SS program for their entire
working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to
everyone.

I'd suggest that once a couple divorces, they
can no longer give nor receive Social Security benefits from another person
(sole exception being to children). I've heard the divorce rate is close to
50%, but I honestly don't know.

9.6% according to the 2003 census.

I worked for a manager who was on his third or fourth wife. Hmmmm .... I'm
wondering if a woman (or man, for that matter) ever questions why their
intended has been divorced three times.

That would certainly send up a red flag for me. But, like they say,
love is blind and it's hard to be rational when all of your blood is
rushing to another organ in your body.

I knew a guy (he passed away over
30 years ago) that was marrying his *fifth* wife! When he passed away, he
was living with a girl friend a good 20 years younger than he.

Then hopefully he died a happy man, although I would question his
inability to remain faithful, and wonder if there weren't some
"issues" affecting him.

A lot of interesting questions come to mind with many of these threads, but
few answers.

That's the nature of debate, especially on subjects where answers are
elusive and somewhat subjective. There would be no point is debating
if the earth is round or whether the moon is made of green cheese, as
we know the answers to those questions.


Nope, I'm not for gay marriage, but I question what is it that drives these
big knee-jerk reactions.

I usually apply Newton's law of action vs. reaction. Someone does
something extreme and the opposite side responds with a equal and
opposite reaction. There wouldn't be such an outpouring of opposition
to gay marriage if there wasn't such a push to legalize it.



I fear that once folks wake up and smell the
coffee, it will be too late. In fact, it may already be too late. If other
countries stop "lending" us money and allowing our deficit to continue, we
are in for a crash.

That won't happen, because, like it or not, we live in a global
economy, and if we "crash", we take the rest of the world with us.


1929 will look like a picnic. Many countries are
fearing us. Not only for the "Rambo" style of Bush, but our deficit. If we
crash, it will have a huge effect on the rest of the world as well.

Exactly! I don't doubt for a minute that the pseudo-elitist socialist
Europeans would pass up any opportunity to put the screws to us
economically. But even they realize that if they do, they do so at
their own peril.


Why do you think OPEC doesn't peg their target to the US dollar anymore?

By basing their target price on another currency, they get more U.S.
dollars if the dollar is weak. OPEC knows that the dollar will rise
again, and so will the value of their "investment". It's no surprise
that oil prices have been falling as of late, which is coincident with
a strengthening dollar.


(hint: the dollar is falling and OPEC wants to make more. I read an article
that Saudi Arabia wants to build an indoor skiing resort (talk about an air
conditioning bill!) as well as an underwater hotel.

Hey, if they have the money, more power to them. Although, that sort
of materialism smacks against the core values of Wahabbism and radical
Islam. Maybe we are affecting the middle east more than we thought....

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

On Thu, 26 May 2005 09:09:44 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
No, the evidence is most certainly conclusive, as my links were dated of
last week.

Which is meaningless, as new evidence is always being obtained. There
has been no definitive decision made with regard to man's affect on
global warming, as there are too many unexplained variable. The
antarctic ice pack increasing as the arctic ice pack melts is but one
example.


Which, ironically, provides proof of what you deny. See below.


Once again, because you are unable to grasp the methods in
which concentrations of certain gases can ascertain and pinpoint with
extreme accuracy what is manmade and what is naturally occurring and
released into the atmosphere, does not make it any less so.

Gas is gas, there is no way to determine where it all came from once
it is all mixed into a large swirl.


Wrong. Ice provides carbon dioxide samples that are available for any
given year. These samples are measured for C14 concentrations, fossil
fuels having a much lower concentration of C14 than natural processes.
The difference is quantified as the percentage of CO2 contributed by
combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the contribution of atmospheric
CO2 from human sources is very accurately measured.


snip
Well, sure,,,Frank taugh you better regarding radio technical
competency,

Frank has some issues as well. He failed to recognize common industry
terms, and discredited my explanations of common electronic circuits
because they didn't fit within his own narrow "education".


I recognized the "terms" as being poorly defined slang used by some
who are without formal education in the field. And your explanations
don't fit within any educational (or engineering) standards, despite
your bogus claim to have had some formal education in electronics.


you called him names and took issue with his career.

I was he who first started to degrade my education and career. I only
kept the same level of civility.


You may have matched my level of 'civility' (subject to debate), but
you didn't even come close to my level of education and experience in
the field of electronics. On the contrary, you tried to denounce me
with nothing but ignorance, generalizations and subjective opinions.
So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave?


snip
.... No one is perfect. If the best you
can come up with is 2 mistakes that I made in 10 years worth of
posting, I'd say that's a pretty good percentage.


You may have -admitted- two of the many mistakes you have made in 10
years. IMO, that's a pretty -poor- percentage.


Jim
tried talking to you about foreign news sources, and you called him
naive.

If someone truly thinks that a foreign news service is any less likely
to be affected by political bias, then they are naive.


Yet you claim that domestic news services are heavily biased to the
left. If that's true then foreign news services are -more- likely to
be -less- biased, which makes -you- naive.


snip
Care is not a "simile" for "disagree". When you figure that out, you may
ask such questions.


You need to learn the difference between a 'simile' and a 'metaphor'.
Didn't you ever watch that Danny DeVito movie where he played Kotter
to a group of Army dimwits?


Your word games and semantic shuffle will not allow you to wiggle out
of that so easily. If one does not post their opinions, how do we know
what they think on any topic?


Several people have posted opinions that are contrary to your's.
Nobody (except one of your sock puppets) has posted -any- opinion that
supports or defends -your- opinions, even in rec.boats.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:13:35 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
One question begs for an answer: what is the divorce rate in this country?

According to the stats from:

http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls

the percentage of divorced people is 9.6%. For some reason, Frank was
unable (or unwilling) to read the columns and see the actual numbers,
but if you believe the census bureau, that's what it is.


For some reason, you were unable (or unwilling) to accept the clear
statement by the Census Bureau that they do not keep track of marraige
and divorce rates. And for some reason, you were unable (or unwilling)
to explain how you derived the divorce rate from the table you cited.
And for some reason, you were unable (or unwilling) to provide the
marriage rate so that it could be compared to the divorce rate you
'divined' from the census data.


Care to help Social Security?

The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS
withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes
those who have already given into the SS program for their entire
working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to
everyone.


So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat
idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have
tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to
"divert". Bush's solution to SS is a "credit-card" retirement plan,
which isn't any better. Maybe you two should get together and figure
out what "promote the general Welfare" means.


I'd suggest that once a couple divorces, they
can no longer give nor receive Social Security benefits from another person
(sole exception being to children). I've heard the divorce rate is close to
50%, but I honestly don't know.

9.6% according to the 2003 census.


http://www.census.gov/population/www.../marr-div.html

So what part of "The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect the number of
marriages and divorces that take place in a given year" do you not
understand?


snip
Nope, I'm not for gay marriage, but I question what is it that drives these
big knee-jerk reactions.

I usually apply Newton's law of action vs. reaction. Someone does
something extreme and the opposite side responds with a equal and
opposite reaction. There wouldn't be such an outpouring of opposition
to gay marriage if there wasn't such a push to legalize it.


"In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal.
You need a reason to make something illegal."

-- Donna Moss, "West Wing"







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Tue, 24 May 2005 07:03:13 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
.....the lack of protection for the troops he sent
in to battle underequipped and ill prepared.

I suppose you've forgotten this now infamous quote: "I actually voted
for the 87 billion, before I voted against it". What do you think that
87 billion was for?


Dave, you've been educated about this on more than one occasion; Kerry
dropped his support after the Reps attached a bunch of pork-barrel
spending amendments to the bill. Any responsible Senator would do the
same thing, and many did.


,,the list goes on and his
failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred.

Yea sure. When you stand up for what is right, you're bound to take a
few on the chin in the process. Those who refuse to stand up, out of
fear of taking those few on the chin, are the ones to be very afraid
of.


So does that mean a fool is right because he stands up and takes "a
few on the chin"?


There has been none to date which have been
proven.



Then show me the balanced budget.

Never promised.


No, but he -did- promise to bring the parties together and reduce
partisan politics. He said he would be a "uniter, not a divider". So
when do you suppose he's going to start implementing that policy?


Tell it to the military sons and
daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable
reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment.

A very valid reason why John F. Kerry is not the president today.


Kerry isn't president for the same reason that Ivan the Terrible was
still popular with many of his people after he crumpled over the chess
board.


snip
You are wired to focus on anything but repsonsibility. You seek
abdication of the Bush failures through unrealistic self-denial,

I seek the truth.....


You seek reasons to validate your interpretations of the truth.
Instead you should be seeking facts. Where are your facts, Dave?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----