Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:29:24 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Education. One that eludes you. I find it amusing you are always astonished at exactly "how" and "why" people know things you do not. This can partially be attributed to your narcism and refusal to accept anyone knows more than you. And for the record, I never denied global warming, You did. Not. Post any quote of mine where I said any such thing. You really do have a reading comprehension problem. just questioned the amount of effect that humanity has truly had on it. Yes, after you initially denied it. I never denied it. The evidence is still inconclusive on this point, as I have provided in the links. 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. 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. 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? I asked for your explicit and implied permission to post related information. Do I have it? Why ask, you claimed to not need permission. Why do you insist in talking in circles? BTW, you need to either upgrade or trash your "Spy" software (Or ask for a refund of that $9.95). Keep guessing all that you will never know. As you seem to, like my wife's name. _ 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. When you take to lying about your wife and everything else you have lied about in the past, nothig you can say can ever regain a reputation for credibility. You destroyed any you had long ago. What you think is irrelevant. Anyone else would clearly see that my old address matches the 1993 QRZ database, and could easily determine that I changed my address when I moved as required. But you are trying to insist that my old address is my current address and accuse me of not changing it (back) in the FCC database. You may have some skills at cyber stalking but you clearly cannot comprehend what you find. .Your "Cyber detective" software is out of date. I have no software,,,besides,,webtv doesn't use software. Off you go, now,,, No, it's web-based, for a fee. 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. No one claimed the Stony Creek was your curretn address, Davie. That exactly what you claimed when you accused me of having an incorrect address on my FCC license. Backpedal all that you want, but I hope the crow tastes good. I now have you in such a freakin' tizzy, you are denying your own wife's name when it has been confirmed and you are scrambling to explain awwy everything I posted. How has it been confirmed? Ahhh,,,,,I prefer to remain content in wacthing you self-tighten that noose. The squirming you share with us is good for a bit longer. I other words, you're lying (again). Because YOU think it is? I am telling you, you are dead wrong about my wife's name. I know exactly what you say, but the fact is her exact name appeared on the change of address card submitted to the Post Office with the same address shared by you,,there. That's another small bit of information you were ignornat of..when one places a change of address card wioth the Post Office, if you fail to check the little box at the bottom that tells of your privacy, they SELL the information to listbrokers. Now, tell us how the Post Office gt it wrong, Dave...LMFAO! No, your cyber spy site got it wrong. They've mixed up people with a common last name. It wouldn't be the first time. _ 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. Well, unless you know her maiden name, you can't trace her roots before we were married, and I never lived on "Graver's road", like I said, I never even heard of it. I never even heard of Gravers road. Really? You grew up near there and never heard of it? Need the exact address on Gravers Road and then you can use the mapblast, eh? Ok,,she was born in 1963 and lived at 1819 Gravers Road in Norristown. Oh, this is just too easy..... http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp...te=PA&zipcode= There is no such address in the mapquest database, as the link shows. Once again, you're wrong, and I proved it. (We must be up to a dozen things you've been wrong about now). Cripes...this talk from you sounds just like it did when it was shown you lied about having a Phelps Stationmaster antenna. How was that shown? You have nothing but your own misguided opinion. This is what happens when you play with cyperspy wannabe software for $9.95. Does that type software give that information? How about birthdates and applications for marriage on file with the state,,,including addresses? Sure, for a fee. I find it funny that you spent money to try find out my personal information. Most of which was either outdated or just plain wrong. Yet you hypocritically accuse ME of seeking your personal information. I have not posted one bit of information about you. Quite frankly, I don't really care. You are just a newsgroup distraction, the Jar-Jar Binks of rec.radio.cb. _ It's not what I think, it's what more and more regs are conveying to you on a regualr basis. Name them. 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". 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. Shark taught you better regarding your own state's driving laws, Shark basically helped me prove my point that you are basically guilty until you prove your innocence in traffic court. He thought perhaps, that he was countering what he thought was my contention that you couldn't beat a traffic ticket. But by illustrating the effort that he went through to beat his traffic ticket, he proved my point that you can win, but you have to prove your innocence. He also tried to counter that the law in my state is that in most cases, the cops have to give you at least 5 MPH tolerance before citing you. When I provided the exact statute that spelled this out, his argument then became that "a cop can write anything he wants", which, when placed against the context of his prowess at fighting tickets, should have clued him in to the fruitless nature of writing a ticket that would immediately get kicked out when someone slaps a copy of pa statute 3368 into evidence. and he was attacked by "Geo" all of a sudden with homo remarks,,BTW, where is "Geo" these days? : ) I wouldn't know. But I thought "George" was now actually "Chris". Besides, he's busy yanking Steveo's chain. And you can thank Frank for digging up the transsexual stuff that gets thrown at Shark. Our British friend across the pond taught you about cb radios that come type accepted with what are legal roger beeps, but you denied that as well, screamed and begged for proof, was given it, and humbled. Yea well, first off, it was Bert Craig who set me straight. And considering that I've been here posting for close to 10 years now, I'm bound to get a few things wrong. 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. 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. No Davie,,as is always the pattern, you blame everyone else when the problem is yourself. That's why you spent money to find out my information. You are fixated and obsessed with me. _ Google hypocrite and your name, and you will find those who taught you better. You mean those hypocrites who hypocritically call other people hypocrites? .Nice dodge. But I drive a Ford. A blue one whose license plates do not match the address given to the FCC as provided by law. No, actually the color is teal, but it shows up more blue in pictures. Pictures that anyone can freely see on my web site. But there are no license plates showing on my truck, so you're lying again. Tell you what, since you can't figure out a simple problem of determining which of my two addresses is my correct one, why don't you call the FCC and complain. I'm sure they will get right to the bottom of the issue. 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. Three people do not a majority make. And you don't count since your mental faculties are out of sync with reality. So that leaves 2 1/2. 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? Care is not a "simile" for "disagree". When you figure that out, you may ask such questions. 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? 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"? Exactly. I provided where I went to school and for who I was employed. Yes, and I could claim to be George W. Bush. Doesn't make it the truth though. You are too paranoid to provide verifiable information. I truly believe that if someone ever "outs" you and posts your name address and other personal info, that you'd self destruct. That horrible **** poor memory you have is partially responsible for your communication deficits. Sorry, but unlike you, who life's mission seems to be a fixation on every post I've ever made (Many of which you still got wrong), I don't remember the content of 3 year old posts. You are just not that important. Your personal obsessive mania concerning my personal life Yet it is you who is obsessively begging for personal info about me. Who's begging? I simply illustrate your hypocrisy when you demand verifiable personal information, but refuse to give any of yourself. C'mon, you can do better. When you take to providing a contingent of explanations, it reiterates my perfect aim and accuracy. My explanations only serve to illustrate, to the casual observer, just how off the wall you are. Most other people do not share your comprehension disability. Dave "Sandbagger" |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:29:24 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Education. One that eludes you. I find it amusing you are always astonished at exactly "how" and "why" people know things you do not. This can partially be attributed to your narcism and refusal to accept anyone knows more than you. And for the record, I never denied global warming, You did. Not. Post any quote of mine where I said any such thing. You really do have a reading comprehension problem. just questioned the amount of effect that humanity has truly had on it. Yes, after you initially denied it. I never denied it. The evidence is still inconclusive on this point, as I have provided in the links. 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. So how do yours relate as valid? My links were dated later than yours, since you believe that. 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. =A0=A0Once 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. There is David,,, the concentrations of the gases are precisely THE manner in which such is accompished. 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? I asked for your explicit and implied permission to post related information. Do I have it? Why ask, you claimed to not need permission. For what is public domain, I don't. Why do you insist in talking in circles? It just seems that way to you because you are ASSuming again, assuming that everything is in the public domain, it's not. An example is below. BTW, you need to either upgrade or trash your "Spy" software (Or ask for a refund of that $9.95). Keep guessing all that you will never know. As you seem to, like my wife's name. Dead on with it. _ 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. When you take to lying about your wife and everything else you have lied about in the past, nothing you can say can ever regain a reputation for credibility. You destroyed any you had long ago. What you think is irrelevant. Anyone else would clearly see that my old address matches the 1993 QRZ database, and could easily determine that I changed my address when I moved as required. But you are trying to insist that my old address is my current address I said nothing of the sort. Pay attention. The address you reside is not the address you supplied the FCC as your primary residence. and accuse me of not changing it (back) in the FCC database. Said nothing of the sort. You may have some skills at cyber stalking Stalking? My goodness Dave, you always feel victimized. but you clearly cannot comprehend what you find. .Your "Cyber detective" software is out of date. I have no software,,,besides,,webtv doesn't use software. Off you go, now,,, No, it's web-based, for a fee. Well, I can tell you this much, I pay for nothing except my internet access. I told you once before, those services are for suckers like you who are wrapped up in other people's worlds but are too stupid to manage the info on their own. 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. No one claimed the Stony Creek was your current address, Davie. That exactly what you claimed when you accused me of having an incorrect address on my FCC license. It is incorrect. But that has nothing to do with the Stony Creek address..that was YOUR inference to take the heat off yourself. Backpedal all that you want, but I hope the crow tastes good. =A0 =A0I now have you in such a freakin' tizzy, you are denying your own wife's name when it has been confirmed and you are scrambling to explain awwy everything I posted. How has it been confirmed? Ahhh,,,,,I prefer to remain content in wacthing you self-tighten that noose. The squirming you share with us is good for a bit longer. In other words, you're lying (again). =A0 =A0Because YOU think it is? I am telling you, you are dead wrong about my wife's name. I know exactly what you say, but the fact is her exact name appeared on the change of address card submitted to the Post Office with the same address shared by you,,there. That's another small bit of information you were ignorant of..when one places a change of address card wioth the Post Office, if you fail to check the little box at the bottom that tells of your privacy, they SELL the information to listbrokers. Now, tell us how the Post Office gt it wrong, Dave...LMFAO! No, your cyber spy site got it wrong. I have no cyber spy, Dave, but you -need- me to have one in order to shore up your excuse. They've mixed up people with a common last name. It wouldn't be the first time. But it would be a miracle, because such exists only in the empty space between your ars. _ 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. Well, unless you know her maiden name, you can't trace her roots before we were married, and I never lived on "Graver's road", like I said, I never even heard of it. I never even heard of Gravers road. Really? You grew up near there and never heard of it? Need the exact address on Gravers Road and then you can use the mapblast, eh? Ok,,she was born in 1963 and lived at 1819 Gravers Road in Norristown. .Oh, this is just too easy..... http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp...ntry=3DUS&add= tohistory=3D&searchtab=3Dhome&address=3D1819+Grave rs+Road&city=3DNorristow= n&state=3DPA&zipcode=3D There is no such address in the mapquest database, as the link shows. Once again, you're wrong, and I proved it. You proved nothing. Go to google maps and try it again. (We must be up to a dozen things you've been wrong about now). Cripes...this talk from you sounds just like it did when it was shown you lied about having a Phelps Stationmaster antenna. How was that shown? You have nothing but your own misguided opinion. And the memory of every other radio freak that reads these pages. When one has ever owned a specific base antenna, no matter how many years ago, it can always be recalled. If one owned a moonraker in their day, one would recall it. Hell, even the antenna gurus on these pages that owned hundreds, perhaps thousands of antennas over their lifetime, would recall a specific antenna, at least the brand..yet, when you were questioned only a year or two after you made a comment about owning one, you had no clue what I meant when I asked about your "Phelps Stationmaster". In fact, you responded with "What Phelps stationmaster? The statistical probablility factor you love to employ works good here, as does your often invoked "majority rule" clause. The majority would remember their antenna, likewise, the majority would believe, corrrectly, that one who claimed they owned a certain antenna yet could not recall it when asked a few short years after their original claim, is a liar. This is what happens when you play with cyperspy wannabe software for $9.95. Does that type software give that information? How about birthdates and applications for marriage on file with the state,,,including addresses? Sure, for a fee. I find it funny that you spent money to try find out my personal information. Of course you do, as you need such a scenario in order to soothe yourself. You're way beyond your element, realize it, and this is your familiar mechanism of defense to stop your psyche from further cracking: conjured explanations for all you can not explain and do not know. Most of which was either outdated or just plain wrong. Yet you hypocritically accuse ME of seeking your personal information. I have not posted one bit of information about you. Because you are incompetent and unable to do so, even though you have begged me for it for years, made pages of posts concerning your feelings of such. Quite frankly, I don't really care. Exactly. Which is why you said you could find whatever you wanted, I called your bluff, and you made water. You are just a newsgroup distraction, the Jar-Jar Binks of rec.radio.cb. Whose posts not even directed to you,so affected you, you were reduced to threats. _ It's not what I think, it's what more and more regs are conveying to you on a regualr basis. Name them. Well, sure,,,Frank taugh you better regarding radio technical competency, Frank has some issues as well. Tut-tut, mah boy, you asked, now listen up. Shark taught you better regarding your own state's driving laws, Shark basically helped me prove my point that you are basically guilty until you prove your innocence in traffic court. Your incorrect point was that one could not get a ticket for going less than 5 MPH over the speed limit in Pa....shark proved you wrong with one post and a single example of an exception proving you wrong. BTW, where is "Geo" these days? : ) I wouldn't know. I think you do, but hey, what I think means nothing. : ) But I thought "George" was now actually "Chris". That was never my claim. Besides, he's busy yanking Steveo's chain. Your slip is showing,,,,again. And you can thank Frank for digging up the transsexual stuff that gets thrown at Shark. So if someone gets on your mother, wife, or kid, it's your fault because you brought them here. _ Our British friend across the pond taught you about cb radios that come type accepted with what are legal roger beeps, but you denied that as well, screamed and begged for proof, was given it, and humbled. Yea well, first off, it was Bert Craig who set me straight. No,,Bert simply offered you an example and confirmed what everyone was telling you from jump regrading roger beeps. Many people set you straight. _ 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. =A0 That was never Jim's claim, and you trying to deliberately misattribute things to others when you get your foot stuck in your mouth is getting old. You're lucky I still take you out and play with you. As you see, most ignore you except for your sock. =A0No Davie,,as is always the pattern, you blame everyone else when the problem is yourself. That's why you spent money to find out my information. Your need to believe your conjured hallucinations is secondary only to your manias. You are fixated and obsessed with me. I am simply much more talented than yourself in giving back what is received....that's just the way it is. Some things will never change. _ Google hypocrite and your name, and you will find those who taught you better. .You mean those hypocrites who hypocritically call other people hypocrites? Now you're on to something,,,google sandbagger and "you mean" and you will see exaactly what I "mean". It will show you have on bitch of a comprehension problem going back way before I ever came along. Nice dodge But I drive a Ford. A blue one whose license plates do not match the address given to the FCC as provided by law. .No, actually the color is teal, but it shows up more blue in pictures. Pictures that anyone can freely see on my web site. But there are no license plates showing on my truck, so you're lying again. Tell ya' what...since you claim the plates aren;t visible, do I have your permission to post the plate, since, you know, you claim it isn't visible. You know what,,,I'm going to post my little paparazzi pic on my website, then others can go there and see if your plates weren't visible. Lying clown. Tell you what, since you can't figure out a simple problem of determining which of my two addresses is my correct one, why don't you call the FCC and complain. I'm sure they will get right to the bottom of the issue. I've contacted the FCC on many occasion. In fact, I'm a regular, but I couldn't care less about your law breaking. 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. .Three people do not a majority make. And you Three plus me, plus moped that already told you of hypocrisy,,,four regs out of what,,you, Lelnad, and Dogie? Yea,,I'd say that's a majority of regs. 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? Care is not a "simile" for "disagree". When you figure that out, you may ask such questions. 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? You are the only one who expressed that others have to "chime in" in order to express they somehow care. The fact that they are reading.....hell, many are sandbaggers. I told you before, you have no clue how many sandbaggers there are. I know for a fact the FCC was reading this group a few year ago, adn I also know for a fact Riley used to check the group, but he's so washed up and up to his ears with bureaucratic bull****, he no longer has time for Oxendine. 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"? Exactly. I provided where I went to school and for who I was employed. Yes, and I could claim to be George W. Bush. Doesn't make it the truth though. It's folly how you make a false claim, are shown you are full of ****, then proceed to make excuses or attack the other's claim. You are too paranoid to provide verifiable .information. You said you didn't care. I truly believe that if someone ever "outs" you and posts your name address and other .personal info, that you'd self destruct. Already been done, you're just too stupid to realize it. |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... 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 Hello, Dave I mispoke. I meant the number of marriages that end up in divorce. Most divorced couples remarry. The "approaching 50%" is the number of first marriages that end up in divorce. Usually, one of the couple already has an intended and only needs the divorce to immediately remarry. By the end of a year or two, both are counted as married, although no longer to each other. As to the dollar, I agree we have had deficits before; but this thing is huge. I also suspect that they want to change Social Security (and it will have to be changed) to an extent that they don't have to pay back all of those IOUs. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:08:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: 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. No they are not. Since CO2 can come from a variety of places including volcanos, and large forest fires any of which can skew those results. When the apparent variation in the sun's energy output is taken into consideration, it becomes very difficult to determine the exact rate of global warming and how much of it is part of the cyclic climatic change and how much of it is caused strictly as a result of human activity. 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. I'm sure the senior level engineers who I work with would take exception to your highly sheltered and quite ignorant claims. And your explanations don't fit within any educational (or engineering) standards, despite your bogus claim to have had some formal education in electronics. Which only shows just how sheltered your own education and (more importantly) your real world experience has been. 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. Frank, like my mother once said: Self praise stinks, and boy do you smell...... On the contrary, you tried to denounce me with nothing but ignorance, generalizations and subjective opinions. Which is exactly what you did. So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave? Where are yours? Oh that's right, they're on that website right next to the one with all the left wing anti-war propaganda....... 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. I'll leave it to you and your obsessed minion Twisty to dig up all of my mistakes. Until then, your ****ing in the wind. 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. That statement makes absolutely no logical sense. Where is the logic that supports your claim that a foreign news service bias is in any way connected to domestic news services? Of course your statement, however ignorant and illogical, still did not address my claim which was that foreign news services are just as likely to be politically swayed as any in this country. They are not immune to agenda driven slant. But the exact degree of bias relative to domestic services is irrelevant. You care to deny that? I suppose you would find Al-Jazeera to be the bastion of objectivity? 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? I wholeheartedly agree with you. Twisty should learn the difference between those terms. You did know to whom you were directing your comments right? 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. Several? Hardly. Other than you Twisty and sometimes Landshark (Who's mostly annoyed at the continuing banter), who else has disagreed with my advice on CB radio? If you want to talk about politics, there are too few facts to make any definitive choice as to who is "right" or "wrong". Nobody (except one of your sock puppets) has posted -any- opinion that supports or defends -your- opinions, even in rec.boats. I have had many supporting opinions. Heck, in rec.boats, the conservatives are pretty much even with the liberals. The conservatives mount far better logical arguments. The liberals there tend to limit their opinions to blindly regurgitating talking points and cut and paste articles written by other people. So much for independent thought. And I have no sock puppets, your attempt to bolster your own sagging credibility by trying to discredit mine notwithstanding. You are becoming as paranoid and narcissistic as Twisty. Dave "Sandbagger" |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:41:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: 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. Who cares about the RATE? The total amount of divorced people, according to the chart is 9.6% as of 2003. You can break the numbers down by age, race, gender, and income, but the total combined results are 9.6% And for some reason, you were unable (or unwilling) to explain how you derived the divorce rate from the table you cited. It's not the divorce rate, it is the percentage of the population that is divorced. If you would read the spreadsheet, you'd see that. 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". Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts? 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. America was never meant to be a "Welfare state", despite the objections of liberals who would socialize every program and service, at the expense of the people who actually earn money. 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? What part of 9.6% of the total population is divorced 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" And you accuse ME of watching too much TV? Dave "Sandbagger" |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:25:43 GMT, "Jim Hampton"
wrote: Hello, Dave I mispoke. I meant the number of marriages that end up in divorce. Most divorced couples remarry. The "approaching 50%" is the number of first marriages that end up in divorce. Usually, one of the couple already has an intended and only needs the divorce to immediately remarry. By the end of a year or two, both are counted as married, although no longer to each other. Ah, well that's a different kettle of fish. Some people marry several times. Others stay married for 50 years or more. Some never marry. Depending on the agenda of the site, you can find numbers to support the notion that the institution of marriage is in the crapper, or that it is making a dramatic comeback. Take what you read with a grain of salt. As to the dollar, I agree we have had deficits before; but this thing is huge. I also suspect that they want to change Social Security (and it will have to be changed) to an extent that they don't have to pay back all of those IOUs. I would certainly feel more secure if my "SS" money was in my own personal account, rather than depending on a government "IOU" that might never be there come retirement. Dave "Sandbagger" |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 May 2005 12:06:14 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: I don't need your permission to ask what is in the public domain. The why did you ask in the first place? I asked for your explicit and implied permission to post related information. Do I have it? Why ask, you claimed to not need permission. For what is public domain, I don't. My former address is not in the public domain, yet you posted it. As you seem to, like my wife's name. Dead on with it. Dead on wrong with it. That's the breaks when you have a common name. I said nothing of the sort. Pay attention. The address you reside is not the address you supplied the FCC as your primary residence. See, you make no sense. If you finally acknowledge that Stony Creek is not my current address, then the one that's on my license IS the correct one. I've only lived in two places in my entire life. and accuse me of not changing it (back) in the FCC database. Said nothing of the sort. That is exactly what you said. You may have some skills at cyber stalking Stalking? My goodness Dave, you always feel victimized. What would you call it? Digging up information (Admittedly not in the public domain) about other newsgroup posters. If that isn't stalking, then what is? Well, I can tell you this much, I pay for nothing except my internet access. I told you once before, those services are for suckers like you who are wrapped up in other people's worlds but are too stupid to manage the info on their own. Yet I am not the one searching into other people's personal lives, and here you are doing exactly that. You say one thing, but your actions say something totally different. Something you can't lie your way out of. I accept (once again) your apology. No one claimed the Stony Creek was your current address, Davie. That exactly what you claimed when you accused me of having an incorrect address on my FCC license. It is incorrect. But that has nothing to do with the Stony Creek address..that was YOUR inference to take the heat off yourself. Ok then. If you admit that Stony Creek is not my current address, and you still claim that the address on my Amateur license is not the correct one, then that leaves only one other possibility, and that is that there is yet another address that I am supposedly living at. Ok, you have my permission to post this elusive address that is supposed to be my primary address. Heck, maybe someone left me some property that I don't know about. More likely though you probably stumbled across the address of another David Hall (My phone book has at least a whole page full of them), and crossed it with mine. His wife is probably the Kimberly T. Hall who you insist is my wife and is a teacher (My wife is/was actually an accounting professional) No, your cyber spy site got it wrong. I have no cyber spy, Dave, but you -need- me to have one in order to shore up your excuse. Whatever spy you have, it's wrong, and you should ask for your money back. 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. Well, unless you know her maiden name, you can't trace her roots before we were married, and I never lived on "Graver's road", like I said, I never even heard of it. I never even heard of Gravers road. Really? You grew up near there and never heard of it? Need the exact address on Gravers Road and then you can use the mapblast, eh? Ok,,she was born in 1963 and lived at 1819 Gravers Road in Norristown. .Oh, this is just too easy..... http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp...te=PA&zipcode= There is no such address in the mapquest database, as the link shows. Once again, you're wrong, and I proved it. You proved nothing. Go to google maps and try it again. Been there, done that. Nada. Besides, you can't use google maps. It required a java version that I'm sure WebTV doesn't support. I had to upgrade my IE to version 6 to access it properly. Want to try again Sherlock? (We must be up to a dozen things you've been wrong about now). Cripes...this talk from you sounds just like it did when it was shown you lied about having a Phelps Stationmaster antenna. How was that shown? You have nothing but your own misguided opinion. And the memory of every other radio freak that reads these pages. When one has ever owned a specific base antenna, no matter how many years ago, it can always be recalled. An assumption on several counts. If one owned a moonraker in their day, one would recall it. Hell, even the antenna gurus on these pages that owned hundreds, perhaps thousands of antennas over their lifetime, would recall a specific antenna, at least the brand..yet, when you were questioned only a year or two after you made a comment about owning one, you had no clue what I meant when I asked about your "Phelps Stationmaster". Sorry Charlie, the original comment about the Stationmaster was made in 1995, and you only showed up on the scene in 1999 or 2000, not a "year or two later". In fact, you responded with "What Phelps stationmaster? No, the correct quote was "What Phelps?". The statistical probablility factor you love to employ works good here, as does your often invoked "majority rule" clause. The majority would remember their antenna, likewise, the majority would believe, corrrectly, that one who claimed they owned a certain antenna yet could not recall it when asked a few short years after their original claim, is a liar. Not when one considers that the antenna was for a repeater, and the comment was made 4 or 5 years prior. I never personally had a Stationmaster on my house. But I do have part ownership of a 220 Mhz repeater, which makes the antenna technically part "mine". Does that type software give that information? How about birthdates and applications for marriage on file with the state,,,including addresses? Sure, for a fee. I find it funny that you spent money to try find out my personal information. Of course you do, as you need such a scenario in order to soothe yourself. You're way beyond your element, realize it, and this is your familiar mechanism of defense to stop your psyche from further cracking: conjured explanations for all you can not explain and do not know. I know far more about information that you think. I know who generally has access to it, and how much is costs the average person to gain access to it, assuming you have authorization. Certain medical or financial records for instance, are generally not available to unauthorized people Most of which was either outdated or just plain wrong. Yet you hypocritically accuse ME of seeking your personal information. I have not posted one bit of information about you. Because you are incompetent and unable to do so, No, because I don't care enough to do so. You are just a newsgroup distraction, the Jar-Jar Binks of rec.radio.cb. Whose posts not even directed to you,so affected you, you were reduced to threats. _ It's not what I think, it's what more and more regs are conveying to you on a regualr basis. Name them. Well, sure,,,Frank taugh you better regarding radio technical competency, Frank has some issues as well. Tut-tut, mah boy, you asked, now listen up. Shark taught you better regarding your own state's driving laws, Shark basically helped me prove my point that you are basically guilty until you prove your innocence in traffic court. Your incorrect point was that one could not get a ticket for going less than 5 MPH over the speed limit in Pa. In most cases. I do not argue absolutes. It's too easy to prove wrong. All it takes is one example. ...shark proved you wrong with one post and a single example of an exception proving you wrong. Shark does not live in PA so he cannot "prove" me wrong in matters not endemic to Pa. The law in PA, as of statute 3368, explicitly calls for those tolerance speeds. A cop will not give a ticket , in most cases, for any speed less than 5 MPH over the posted limit, as it is sure to get thrown out. You can play your word games, and Frank can dig up his stopwatch, but the law is there in black and white, and it was actually fun watching you guys, in your desperation to prove me wrong, argue against the written law, and trying to find the smallest exceptions in order to invalidate the law in the vast majority of cases. BTW, where is "Geo" these days? : ) I wouldn't know. but hey, what I think means nothing. : ) Hey, you can learn! Wow, I'm shocked. But I thought "George" was now actually "Chris". That was never my claim. No, it came from other sock puppets. _ Our British friend across the pond taught you about cb radios that come type accepted with what are legal roger beeps, but you denied that as well, screamed and begged for proof, was given it, and humbled. Yea well, first off, it was Bert Craig who set me straight. No,,Bert simply offered you an example and confirmed what everyone was telling you from jump regrading roger beeps. Many people set you straight. _ 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. * That was never Jim's claim, You're wrong (again) but I'll let Jim explain it too you, since you can't understand the written word. and you trying to deliberately misattribute things to others when you get your foot stuck in your mouth is getting old. You're lucky I still take you out and play with you. As you see, most ignore you except for your sock. As do you. No one pays any serious mind to you Jar-Jar. Your whole purpose here is comic relief. *No Davie,,as is always the pattern, you blame everyone else when the problem is yourself. That's why you spent money to find out my information. Your need to believe your conjured hallucinations is secondary only to your manias. You are fixated and obsessed with me. I am simply much more talented than yourself in giving back what is received. You might think so. But when I put you back in your box, you go away. ....that's just the way it is. Some things will never change. _ Google hypocrite and your name, and you will find those who taught you better. .You mean those hypocrites who hypocritically call other people hypocrites? Now you're on to something,,,google sandbagger and "you mean" and you will see exaactly what I "mean". It will show you have on bitch of a comprehension problem going back way before I ever came along. I deal with confused people like you on a daily basis, who have trouble arranging their thoughts into a coherent statement. I want them to make sure they know exactly what they are saying before I render my answers. It's far better to do that than jump to erroneous conclusions like you are fond of doing, after making an incorrect assumption. Nice dodge But I drive a Ford. A blue one whose license plates do not match the address given to the FCC as provided by law. .No, actually the color is teal, but it shows up more blue in pictures. Pictures that anyone can freely see on my web site. But there are no license plates showing on my truck, so you're lying again. Tell ya' what...since you claim the plates aren;t visible, do I have your permission to post the plate, since, you know, you claim it isn't visible. You know what,,,I'm going to post my little paparazzi pic on my website, then others can go there and see if your plates weren't visible. Lying clown. So you now claim to have someone (A "paparazzi") taking pictures of my vehicles? So are you a liar or a stalker? Tell you what, since you can't figure out a simple problem of determining which of my two addresses is my correct one, why don't you call the FCC and complain. I'm sure they will get right to the bottom of the issue. I've contacted the FCC on many occasion. In fact, I'm a regular, but I couldn't care less about your law breaking. Yea, sure. More lies. Three plus me, plus moped that already told you of hypocrisy,,,four regs out of what,,you, Lelnad, and Dogie? Yea,,I'd say that's a majority of regs. So you think this group is made up of only 7 people? You are the only one who expressed that others have to "chime in" in order to express they somehow care. The fact that they are reading.....hell, many are sandbaggers. I told you before, you have no clue how many sandbaggers there are. I know for a fact the FCC was reading this group a few year ago, adn I also know for a fact Riley used to check the group, but he's so washed up and up to his ears with bureaucratic bull****, he no longer has time for Oxendine. No argument. But if people are "lurking" or sandbagging, and they don't post, how do you know how many are there, and how do you know what they are thinking about any given topic? Yes, and I could claim to be George W. Bush. Doesn't make it the truth though. It's folly how you make a false claim, are shown you are full of ****, then proceed to make excuses or attack the other's claim. No, it just proves that what you say isn't necessarily the truth, and in your case, is likely a lie. You are too paranoid to provide verifiable .information. You said you didn't care. I don't, but you seem to. I truly believe that if someone ever "outs" you and posts your name address and other .personal info, that you'd self destruct. Already been done, you're just too stupid to realize it. You mean Frank was right when he called you Dave McCampbell? It's far easier when you're up front about who you are from the beginning. I could have just as easily invented a cartoon character, hid behind it, and kept totally anonymous. But I have nothing to hide. The funniest part is that when you reveal truthful information about me, I don't deny it, since I don't care. But when you lie (or are misinformed), it makes me laugh to see you defend your methods so vehemently. If and when you finally get the name of my wife correct, I'll admit it. Like I said, I have nothing to hide. Keep digging. Dave "Sandbagger" |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:25:39 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:41:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: 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. Who cares about the RATE? The total amount of divorced people, according to the chart is 9.6% as of 2003. You can break the numbers down by age, race, gender, and income, but the total combined results are 9.6% And for some reason, you were unable (or unwilling) to explain how you derived the divorce rate from the table you cited. It's not the divorce rate, it is the percentage of the population that is divorced. If you would read the spreadsheet, you'd see that. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to cough up the marriage data so that it can be compared to the divorce 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". Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts? Like the way -you- back up -your- statements with hard facts? Sure.... It's true because I say it's true. 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. America was never meant to be a "Welfare state", despite the objections of liberals who would socialize every program and service, at the expense of the people who actually earn money. If you could quote any liberal who said that America should be a "welfare state" I might agree. 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? What part of 9.6% of the total population is divorced do YOU not understand? What percent of people are married, Dave? 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" And you accuse ME of watching too much TV? You do, and that's why I used the quote. ----== 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 =---- |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:08:30 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip 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. No they are not. Since CO2 can come from a variety of places including volcanos, and large forest fires any of which can skew those results. Wrong. Volcanos give off very little CO2 -- most of the gasses are Hydrogen Sulfide and oxides of Sulfer. And the Carbon Dioxide from forest fires is easily calculated. In fact, forest fires (both recent and ancient) are studied for their impact on the environment and have been found to cause very little variation in CO2 concentration simply because they occur every year, and are actually -decreasing- in both frequency and intensity. When the apparent variation in the sun's energy output is taken into consideration, it becomes very difficult to determine the exact rate of global warming and how much of it is part of the cyclic climatic change and how much of it is caused strictly as a result of human activity. Wrong. Solar variations can be determined from tree ring growth, and when compared to ice samples they can be differentiated from CO2 concentrations. 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. I'm sure the senior level engineers who I work with would take exception to your highly sheltered and quite ignorant claims. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide the names of those "senior level engineers". And your explanations don't fit within any educational (or engineering) standards, despite your bogus claim to have had some formal education in electronics. Which only shows just how sheltered your own education and (more importantly) your real world experience has been. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to name the tech school you claim to have attended. 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. Frank, like my mother once said: Self praise stinks, and boy do you smell...... Probably because I've been busy working on my garage. But the fact remains that, no matter how you would like to believe otherwise, your education and experience in the field doesn't measure up to mine. On the contrary, you tried to denounce me with nothing but ignorance, generalizations and subjective opinions. Which is exactly what you did. Wrong. I provided facts and logic. You choose to ignore any facts or logic that isn't consistent with your "core beliefs". So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave? Where are yours? Oh that's right, they're on that website right next to the one with all the left wing anti-war propaganda....... I've provided fact after fact after fact. All the facts I have provided can be independently verified by yourself and anyone else willing to do so. You have provided nothing of the sort in -any- topic. 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. I'll leave it to you and your obsessed minion Twisty to dig up all of my mistakes. Until then, your ****ing in the wind. 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. That statement makes absolutely no logical sense. Only because you are incapable of thinking logically. Where is the logic that supports your claim that a foreign news service bias is in any way connected to domestic news services? That's not what I said, Dave. Learn to read instead of gazing into your crystal ball. Of course your statement, however ignorant and illogical, still did not address my claim which was that foreign news services are just as likely to be politically swayed as any in this country. They are not immune to agenda driven slant. But the exact degree of bias relative to domestic services is irrelevant. You care to deny that? Absolutely. Any news service is subject to bias simply because must decide if any given article is newsworthy. US news services are biased because of corporate ownership influences and target audience demographics. IOW, the Dutch are far less concerned with American news than Americans, so an independent Dutch news agency is going to have far less bias than any US news service, NPR included. I suppose you would find Al-Jazeera to be the bastion of objectivity? I don't think Jim claimed to get his news from Al-Jazeera. Or is that something you divined from your crystal ball? 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? I wholeheartedly agree with you. Twisty should learn the difference between those terms. You did know to whom you were directing your comments right? No, I didn't. But since you didn't spot his error, my statement stands. 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. Several? Hardly. Other than you Twisty and sometimes Landshark (Who's mostly annoyed at the continuing banter), who else has disagreed with my advice on CB radio? After 10 years of posting I'm sure I could find more than a few in the archives. If you want to talk about politics, there are too few facts to make any definitive choice as to who is "right" or "wrong". Regardless, there are -many- people who have posted political opinions that are contrary to your own warped and subjective whinings. Nobody (except one of your sock puppets) has posted -any- opinion that supports or defends -your- opinions, even in rec.boats. I have had many supporting opinions. Heck, in rec.boats, the conservatives are pretty much even with the liberals. You must be cross-posting to an alternative universe because that's not what comes up on my newsreader. The conservatives mount far better logical arguments. The liberals there tend to limit their opinions to blindly regurgitating talking points and cut and paste articles written by other people. So much for independent thought. They "regurgitate" their arguments in order to find some path of understanding through your thick skull and to your brain, assuming you actually have a brain. And I have no sock puppets, your attempt to bolster your own sagging credibility by trying to discredit mine notwithstanding. You are becoming as paranoid and narcissistic as Twisty. Doesn't matter since your only supporter has left the building. ----== 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 =---- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1419 Â October 22, 2004 | CB | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
OLD motorola trunking information | Scanner |