David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
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.


Wrong,,,try it again. Your incompetence coupled with desperation has you
claiming something that the rest of the world has no problem viewing.
Now, take a deep breath, and try it again...."google" then "google
maps". Enter "1819 Gravers Road Norristown, Pa."
View. Enjoy. Come back. Get laughed at for glaring error. Deny. Claim
information is incorrect. Change subject. Make more accusations. Go away
angry.



Besides, you can't use google maps.


No, you have just demonstrated -you- can't use google maps.

On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:46:31 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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.

No one had asked previously. But since you have now, the percentage of
married people (Which included both spouse present and absent) is
about 53.5% from the same spreadsheet that you can't seem to read and
gather information from.


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.

In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated
"factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist.


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.

They refer to it by different names. Names like "living wage", "fair
share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing.
Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't.


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?

See above. And before you jump the gun and say "Aha! if 53.4% of
people are married, that means that 46.4% are divorced, that's almost
half!", you need to consider that an additional 6.2% are widowed, 2.1%
are separated, and 28.6% have never been married.

It's all there in the spreadsheet. Don't tell me you too have webTV
and can't read a simple spreadsheet?

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.

Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't
surprise me that you have.

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

On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:18:37 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
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.


Wrong,,,try it again. Your incompetence coupled with desperation has you
claiming something that the rest of the world has no problem viewing.
Now, take a deep breath, and try it again...."google" then "google
maps". Enter "1819 Gravers Road Norristown, Pa."
View. Enjoy. Come back. Get laughed at for glaring error. Deny. Claim
information is incorrect. Change subject. Make more accusations. Go away
angry.

You are the one who's angry because your spy sources are wrong. There
is no Gravers road in Norristown Pa. Period. Look at all the map
programs you want.

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

On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:32:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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.

That's hard to quantify, for years before accurate data was routinely
taken. Your only guessing at that point. There's only so much you can
see in ice cores and soil layers. Most of what you see there is
suggestive, but not conclusive.



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.

Tree ring growth can be affected by a number of factors, besides solar
output. Without accounting for and removing those other variables, a
true tracking of solar output cannot be accurately ascertained.


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 what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know
them.



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.

I told you before, you aren't worthy of knowing. I have no intention
of revealing any of the secondary education sources (and there have
been a few) that I have attended over the years. If you want to think
that I'm hiding something, then so be it. I know the truth and so does
my paycheck, and that's all that matters in the grand scheme of
things.


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.

Says you, a guy who tends bar, and who's next big career move is a
lawn care business. Yep, that's some education you have there Frankie.


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".

You have yet to provide a single unbiased "fact". Your "facts" are
simply conclusions reached by other equally opinionated, and agenda
driven people, who are making up these conclusions to try to explain
certain facts (according to their spin of course). But these are
hardly the only explanation.

Your logic is often laughable and contains many fallacies.



So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave?

On the opposite side of the coin from yours Frank.


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.

No you haven't. You provided assumption, after conclusion, after
opinion.

All the facts I have
provided can be independently verified by yourself and anyone else
willing to do so.

Where?


You have provided nothing of the sort in -any-
topic.

I provide what is necessary. Like the PA state laws which back up what
I stated about allowing at least 5 MPH over the speed limit in most
cases when clocking speeders. It was comical watching you spin and
twist, not much differently that Twistedhed, trying to find the
smallest exception to those rules, in a vain effort to try to disprove
the majority case. Talk about desperation.... Is your ego that
shallow?



.... 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'm sure I made a few more, so what? Like I said, nobody's perfect.
But I am right more than I'm wrong. And I invite you to invest even
more of your leisure time researching my newsgroup participation in
yet another fruitless effort to discredit me.

But hey, if that makes you feel better about yourself, then who am I
to stand in the way of therapy.


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.

That's not logic. It's convolution.

What one country's news service bias is, has absolutely no bearing on
what another country's bias is. There is no connection or relation
whatsoever. Their bias depends on the agenda of those who are pulling
the financial or political purse strings and who sits in the editor's/
publisher's office.


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.

What you said makes no sense, so maybe you should rephrase it in a
more logical manner.


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.

Not to mention the liberal slant of the reporters and writers who are
producing the articles. If corporate ownership had as much influence
as you imply, then the slant of U.S. news would be decidedly
conservative. Yet, with the notable exception of (Thank God for) Fox
News, that is not the case.

I suggest that you pick up copies of the books "Bias" and "Arrogance"
by Bernard Goldberg. Both are good reads into the liberal slant of the
mainstream media. Goldberg was a 28 year veteran of CBS news, and has
an insider's view on what actually goes on inside the "art" of news
reporting.




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.

That may or may not be true depending on their bias toward or against
Americans. If they have a decidedly anti-American slant, they would
tend to only report on those news stories that paint America in an
unfavorable light.

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.

No he didn't. But would you consider Al Jazeera's reporting of
Americans to be objective? Why or why not? Then explain why any of
those factors would be exclusive only to Al Jazeera.


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.

I don't nitpick on grammatical mistakes. Only people who start losing
debates on the merits of debate itself, resort to attacking grammar,
structure or spelling errors. If you can't attack the message, attack
the messenger as it were.


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.

Doubtful. Most are either thankful for my advice, or at least debate
with it on a civil level. I miss the days when Dennis O, Sean, Bill
E., Toll and others offered up their own perspectives with respect to
CB radio. Only the rapid malcontents have any consistent issue with
me.


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.


That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But the fact that you
hold that opinion, in and of itself, is not proof that my contrary
opinions are "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.


You must be cross-posting to an alternative universe because that's
not what comes up on my newsreader.

Then you need to look harder. Most of the liberals there cannot think
independently. They offer up op-ed column of obviously biased
reporters as some sort of "support" for their opinions. But liberalism
defies logic, and that's what especially laughable about you Frank.
You, who claim to embrace logic, yet adopt a political ideology that's
mostly "pie in the sky" idealism. A philosophy that requires a great
deal of complicated governmental intervention to implement. The free
market capitalist society is one of true freedom. Those who work hard,
get rewarded. Those who don't....... Well they have no one else to
blame but themselves for what they end up with.


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.


But BS is still BS no matter how many times they "regurgitate" it.

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.

Your still wrong Frank.

But your nature dictates that you will continue to attack me. But like
trying to find firm footing in quicksand, your arguments will be just
as ineffective.

That is why arguing politics is usually pointless.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
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.


Wrong,,,try it again. Your incompetence coupled with desperation has you
claiming something that the rest of the world has no problem viewing.
Now, take a deep breath, and try it again...."google" then "google
maps". Enter "1819 Gravers Road Norristown, Pa." View. Enjoy. Come back.
Get laughed at for glaring error. Deny. Claim information is incorrect.
Change subject. Make more accusations. Go away angry.


Besides, you can't use google maps.


No, you have just demonstrated -you- can't use google maps.


There is no Gravers

road in Norristown Pa. Period.



That's a far cry from your above claim that you "been there and done
that" and got "nada" when entering "1819 Gravers Road Norristown, Pa."
into the search engine.


Look at all the

map programs you want.



Only needed the one to show your incompetency.


Dave

"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 07:54:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:32:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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.

That's hard to quantify, for years before accurate data was routinely
taken. Your only guessing at that point. There's only so much you can
see in ice cores and soil layers. Most of what you see there is
suggestive, but not conclusive.


No, it's not hard to quantify. Carbon dioxide is not the only product
of wood combustion. The gasses contain various quantities of carbon
monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons, as well as tars, acids, aldehydes,
ketones, and other chemicals that make good preservatives for meat and
add such a unique flavor to a BBQ. And that's just what goes into the
air; the residue left on the ground is wood ash, and that ash can not
only be easily identified but actually analyzed to determine what type
of wood was burned. We also know how much carbon dioxide and ash is
produced from the burning of a given quantity of any specific type of
wood, the average number and size of naturally occuring forest fires
each year, the extent those fires will burn if left unchecked, the
amount of growth that typically occurs before fire takes it's toll,
the areas and climates that are more likely to have fires, how much
vegetation survives a fire, how much vegetation actually -depends-
upon fire for regeneration, the rate of reforestation after a fire,
etc, etc.

In comparison, volcanos spew very few and very specific gasses, which
are usually compounds of sulphur, not carbon. Volcanic ash is actually
a mineral that's easily identified. And contrary to your statement of
professed ignorance on this topic, the effect of a volcanic eruption
has a climatic impact that is totally -opposite- to the effect of
greenhouse gasses -- the global temperature actually -drops- after an
eruption because the ash suspended in the atmosphere reflects sunlight
away from the surface.

I obviously know more about the subject than you, and there are
scientists that study this stuff professionally and know gobs more
than I will ever learn. You are the only one guessing, Dave.


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.

Tree ring growth can be affected by a number of factors, besides solar
output. Without accounting for and removing those other variables, a
true tracking of solar output cannot be accurately ascertained.


You're barking up the wrong tree once again, Dave; it was the study of
tree ring growth that led to the discovery of the climatic effects of
the 11/22 year sunspot cycles.


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 what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know
them.


Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references?


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.

I told you before, you aren't worthy of knowing. I have no intention
of revealing any of the secondary education sources (and there have
been a few) that I have attended over the years. If you want to think
that I'm hiding something, then so be it. I know the truth and so does
my paycheck, and that's all that matters in the grand scheme of
things.


Yet you want me and others to believe your claims. Well then, if your
proof consists of your paycheck then post a scan of your pay stub, or
a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence
that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up
with more excuses. So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm
proud of it. I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school,
and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both
attended and graduated from EWU. Second, every school is prevented by
law from releasing any personal information beyond the fact that a
student attended and graduated. IOW, you have no reason to withhold
the name of your school -- unless, of course, you lied.


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.

Says you, a guy who tends bar, and who's next big career move is a
lawn care business. Yep, that's some education you have there Frankie.


And my education continues. Your's stalled in high-school shop class.


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".

You have yet to provide a single unbiased "fact". Your "facts" are
simply conclusions reached by other equally opinionated, and agenda
driven people, who are making up these conclusions to try to explain
certain facts (according to their spin of course). But these are
hardly the only explanation.


Facts are not biased, Dave. Opinions are biased. You still haven't
learned how to tell the difference between them.


Your logic is often laughable and contains many fallacies.


Despite your amateurish application of your internet-education in
logic, you have yet to find a single fallacy in any of my logical
arguments. My offer to send you the Copi book still stands.


So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave?

On the opposite side of the coin from yours Frank.


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.

No you haven't. You provided assumption, after conclusion, after
opinion.

All the facts I have
provided can be independently verified by yourself and anyone else
willing to do so.

Where?


Since you are so poorly educated that you don't even know how or where
to verify a fact, I would suggest you start learning this valuable
skill by pestering the good folks at your local public library.


You have provided nothing of the sort in -any-
topic.

I provide what is necessary. Like the PA state laws which back up what
I stated about allowing at least 5 MPH over the speed limit in most
cases when clocking speeders. It was comical watching you spin and
twist, not much differently that Twistedhed, trying to find the
smallest exception to those rules, in a vain effort to try to disprove
the majority case. Talk about desperation.... Is your ego that
shallow?


It was more fun watching you play semantics upon the disclosure of
facts that contradicted your claim. You do indeed "provide what is
necessary" to support your conclusions; but you withhold any facts
that don't. For example, you are withholding the names of those
engineers that disagree with me; you are withholding the name of your
"tech school"; you are withholding the specific nature of your
"engineering" career; and you withheld the section of law that
contradicted your claim about speeding laws in PA.


.... 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'm sure I made a few more, so what? Like I said, nobody's perfect.
But I am right more than I'm wrong.


Again, you need to learn the difference between facts and opinions.






----== 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 Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:57:43 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
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.

No one had asked previously.


I asked several times.


But since you have now, the percentage of
married people (Which included both spouse present and absent) is
about 53.5% from the same spreadsheet that you can't seem to read and
gather information from.


Excellent. Now, from that same spreadsheet, how many of those people
that are married have been previously married? And how many times?


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.

In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated
"factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist.


If you assume that the annual Federal Budget Reports from both
Congress and the White House are written by skilled left wing
propagandists then I suppose you are correct.


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.

They refer to it by different names.


Which is something the conservatives -never- do, I'm sure.


Names like "living wage", "fair
share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing.
Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't.


LOL..... I think I'll let that statement stand on it's own 'merits'!


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?

See above. And before you jump the gun and say "Aha! if 53.4% of
people are married, that means that 46.4% are divorced, that's almost
half!", you need to consider that an additional 6.2% are widowed, 2.1%
are separated, and 28.6% have never been married.

It's all there in the spreadsheet. Don't tell me you too have webTV
and can't read a simple spreadsheet?


I can read it just fine. Now it's -your- turn to read it: Notice that
the total for each row is 100%. So how many people are counted in two
or more categories?


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.

Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't
surprise me that you have.


You bet I do! It's a lot better than most of the other crap that's
pushed onto the public as 'entertainment'.







----== 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, 18 May 2005 08:30:19 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
I am hardly a religious zealot. I don't even go to church. I am not
even a practicing Christian. But I do believe in a "God" and I do
believe in intelligent design, and I believe in keeping morality as a
guide to responsible social behavior.


Another excellent book you should read: "The Golden Bough" by James
George Frazer. I think it should be required reading for any sociology
class.


I am for preserving proven
tradition


It's not the responsibility of the government to "preserve tradition"
no matter how much you would like the government to shoulder that
repsponsibility for you.


and do not believe that change is automatically a good
thing.


Neither do I. But change, good or bad, -is- inevitable (or haven't you
looked up the word yet?).


I am also a political conservative (As are you IIRC), and tend
to favor smaller government, personal responsibility and
accountability, a free market


I agree 100%.


and a strong morality based system of
law and order in order to punish those who cannot act properly in a
civilized society.


The only problem I have with that is your source of "morality". The
First Amendment prohibits any law that favors any specific religion,
therefore religion cannot be the source of morality. Thus, society
must define the lines of morality. If the majority of society derive
their moral values from religion that's fine -- but remember that the
framers of this country were mostly Christians, yet felt it was a
moral imperative to protect the freedom of everyone to practice their
own religious faith, -and- to protect the government from imposing
religion by law. Now if you had a sociological foundation for your
argument against gay marriage I might even agree, but you don't. And
since society is constantly changing (as it inevitably does), morality
will change, and so will the laws based on morality.

But what you -still- don't seem to accept is that -you- are not forced
to change your religion based upon changes in society -- that's your
Constitutional right. You may not like those changes, but as you have
stated many times before, the government can't make everyone happy.


The arguments between Frank, Twisty and I are much more complex than a
simple ideological disagreement. Twisty is twisty. His actions need no
further explanation. Frank has been stung ever since I admitted that I
supported Bush. A revelation that seems to have affected him
personally. Frank has since been trying to prove that support of Bush
(and republicans in general) is wrong based solely on his subjective
opinion that only an idiot would support him so, consequently, he has
been since trying to prove that I'm that idiot.


You have that a little mixed up, Dave. You -are- an idiot, but that's
beside the point; I don't care if you support Bush or not -- but your
reasons for supporting him are based on ignorance, propaganda, and
flat-out lies, many of which you perpetrate yourself just because you
don't like being proved wrong. And I don't care if you are Republican
or Democrat since both parties are just about equally corrupt, as I
have stated on more than one occasion (and you evidently -still- can't
(or won't) understand). So if you are going to tell the story then
tell the -correct- story, not just your biased version of it.


But during the course
of the ensuing "debates", Frank has revealed much about his
personality, and has given me an insight into his own inner demons. I
can now see why he and Twisty have found common ground. They both have
a profound distrust of corporations and any form of "the
establishment". And, if their level of knowledge and education is as
they claim, they are both underachievers. Frank, who once claimed to
teach college courses, and claims to hold a BS degree in engineering,
working as a bartender. Twisty, who claims to be well versed in law,
and an "accomplished" writer, takes snowbirds out to fish on a charter
boat, and can't even afford a real computer. No wonder he hides behind
an anonymous pseudonym.


Twisty and I have common ground now only because I was forced to admit
that he was right regarding Bush. Beyond that, we still have strong
ideological differences. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the
differences between Twisty and myself are greater than the differences
between you and me. If you can just get past your presumptive nature
and think for yourself instead of taking the temporally lazy route by
relying on those that prey on emotional weaknesses then we probably
wouldn't have any arguments at all. One of these days you may realize
that the mental effort you use to defend your ignorance is far greater
than if you spent your time and energy digging for subjective facts
and forming your own -independent- opinions. Or maybe not.


It had been fun from a purely psychological standpoint. But I am
beginning to tire of this almost constant off-topic banter. I am
actually longing for the days when we talked about amplifiers and mods
to radios. I never guessed that a simple ideological disagreement
would turn into several years worth of trash talking.


You can't help yourself. You hate to be proved wrong because it
shatters your self-image as a morally-motivated person (it's that
"perception-window" thing I mentioned earlier -- and the offer for
-that- book still stands, too). When faced with the truth that your
motivations are generally selfish (and frequently prejudicial), it
creates emotional conflict with what you have chosen as your "core
beliefs". Therefore, you seek validation for your lame justifications
on Usenet. You can't give up arguing these issues or your brain would
explode into a mushroom-cloud of hypocrisy. Besides, you have claimed
to be tired of this bickering many, many times. You have also
threatened to give it up many, many times. Each time you come right
back here defending the same bogus arguments because you can't control
yourself. And this time is no different.

But feel free to take a long sabbatical. Then come back and answer
some of the pending questions that you have been avoiding for several
months -- maybe a fresh mind will let you fabricate some new lies and
excuses. I hope so because your constant repitition of the old ones
are getting to be monotonous.





----== 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 =----

Did you miss this post, Dave? Just in case you did I'm reposting it
because I really think it has issues that you need to address if you
want to continue to defend your arguments -- you didn't answer the
questions:

On Fri, 20 May 2005 07:24:56 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 19 May 2005 06:02:17 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:01:51 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:49:36 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Speaking of 'media bias', are you keeping up-to-date on the status of
one of your staunchly anti-gay, conservative Republicans that happens
to be the mayor of my home town?

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/


No, I'm more interested in the criminal activities surrounding the
associates of the democratic mayor of Philadelphia in a "Pay to play"
scandal. It is, after all, more regionally relevant for me.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10995886.htm


Gee Dave, after all your sermons about morality -- you don't care
about a pedophile that not only used his government office for
cyber-sex but promised internships to young boys in exchange for
'dates'? What happened to your morality, Dave? Did it suddenly get
lost because West is a conservative Republican?

Geeze Frank, don't get your panties into a bunch here. This has
nothing to do with my "morality", only that you live 3000 miles away
from me and, as such, the events which occur there take a back seat in
the local news to events which are also occurring here.


Gee, so a couple gays getting married in San Francisco should be about
as unimportant as the mayor of Spokane, huh?


A totally different issue. One single gay couple in San Fran, is a
minor footnote. The broader reaching implications of such behavior, is
what concerns me and most Americans.


So a mayor that's a homosexual and a pedophile doesn't have any
"broader reaching implications"?


I was simply
not aware for what you were referring.


Your "Jim West" is a scumbag, plain and simple. Being a republican
does not excuse him from human flaws or the consequences of acting out
on them.


That's it? That's all you have to say about the subject?

What do you want me to say?


No diatribe
about how it diminishes the credibility of your own mayor?

Why should it? It's not the whole institution of mayor's which is at
the heart of the issue. It's simply one person's sick, perverted
behavior.


So the behavior is seperate from the office?


No sermon
on how his sexual perversions are a moral abomination?

I would think you'd already know that. If my assumption was wrong
then, I apologize.


Instead you
refer to his homosexuality and pedophilia as "human flaws" when you
have consistently referred to such behavior in much stronger language?

How much stronger than "scumbag" do you want me to go? I'd like to
keep this at a "PG" level.


Hey, it's not like I'm suprised -- it's ok to call Kerry a criminal
when there has been no trial; but Bush, who was tried and convicted of
a DUI, is guilty of nothing more than a "civil infraction".

I'm sorry if the truth bothers you. Bush's conviction was for a motor
vehicle violation at that time. Not a criminal offense. Despite the
fact that Kerry never saw a courtroom for his perjurious and arguably
treasonous behavior, his actions are still contemptible.


And all
the while it was -you- that said that anyone who breaks the law is a
criminal. So instead of condemning people in your own camp with your
own standards, you simply use softer words. How nice.

You really need to get over yourself Frank. You spend far too much
time analyzing my words, and attempting to imply meanings which are
not there.


You can complain about how I "analyze" your words all you want, but
the fact remains that you change their definitions and context when
forced to defend yourself against your own words.


Liberal pedophile: guilty of a moral sin.
Conservative pedophile: victim of a human flaw.

All pedophiles are guilty of moral sins, which happens to be a human
flaw.


Then why do you refer to a homosexuality as immoral, yet a homosexual
that is a conservative Republican merely has "human flaws"? This has
to do with the strength of your wording, Dave. You use strong words
when addressing people you despise, but much softer words when
describing bad behavior of people you favor. This isn't a recent
observation, Dave -- it's one of the common characteristics of your
postings for a very long time. And it's very hypocritical.


You're a trip, Dave.

No, your interpretations are.


snip
All I can say is that I sure wish I had the tools of the internet and
computers back when I had to do term papers. The task would have been
much less tedious and actually somewhat interesting, and fun.


Where did you go to college, Dave? And BTW, what was the name of that
tech school you claimed to have attended?

Give me one good reason why I should tell you.


Because if you don't then your claim has no credibility, and I will be
reiterating that fact for as long as you post in this group.

Then neither do any of yours for, as Twisty is so fond of pointing
out, USENET is an anonymous service. Very little about anyone is
verifiable. Being a ham puts me at somewhat of a disadvantage, as my
name and address can be obtained from my call sign. But any personal
information beyond that is revealed by personal choice at your own
risk. As long as guys like Twisty can be a continual disruption and
can safely hide from the consequences behind his cloak of anonymity, I
feel no obligation to provide any more of my personal information,
just to satiate your credibility issues. Remembering what happened to
Dennis O, when his place of employment was found out, is further
incentive for me to remain quiet about those aspects of my personal
life.

If you can't handle that, Tough.


How would a simple call to the administration of this alleged academic
institution to verify your attendance get you fired from your present
job? Or did you get your job by lying on your resume like you lie in
this newsgroup?

You never attended any sort of post-graduate education, Dave. You
probably took a high-school shop class and glorified it with your
imagination.


Who does the majority party represent if not the majority?

Is this a loaded question?


Not at all. Bush and the Republicans ignored the voices of the vast
majority of Americans when they tried to meddle in the Shiavo case. If
they were not acting on behalf of the majority of Americans then what
was their motive? IOW, who does the majority party represent if not
the majority?

Principles, Character, Morality. Most of which the majority posses and
agree with.


Apparently not, since the majority didn't agree with the "principles,
character, morality" that the Republicans attempted to impose. So who
does the majority party represent if not the majority? And why are you
having such a difficult time answering such a simple question?


Where does the Constitution require, or
even suggest, that religious influence should play any role in the
government?

Where does the Constitution require or even suggest that religious
influences should NOT play any role in the government?


You claimed that the Constitution included words that defined this
country to be a Christian state. Where does it say anything of the
sort?

I never made any such claim. But I'm sure you've misinterpreted one of
my past statements and think I said it.


You most certainly did make that claim, and more than once:

"The constitution is relative as well. It was framed by Christian
people with their religious inspired morality contained within its
wording."

"A nation founded by Christian people based on Christian doctrine,
even if the 1st amendment decries that there is no 'official' state
sponsored religion."

"You who claim to support the constitution and the wisdom of our
forefathers (who were all religious people), yet now advocate that we
go above and beyond the definitions called for in the constitution..."

Need more examples?


I did say that the constitution was written by religious, God
respecting people, most of whom were Christian.


No, you said they were -all- Christians. Need a quote there too?


How does gay and lesbian marriage infringe on your rights?

It is not a matter of infringing on my "rights".


That's absolutely correct, Dave.

Of course it is, I said it.


It's matter of
tarnishing an institution that is based on religious practices.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with the government or the
Constitution.


The
government has no right to do such.


The government cannot prevent people from practicing their religion as
they see fit, even if their religion includes a definition of marriage
that's different than your's.


The only thing the government can
or should do is offer a civil union option, to provide gay couples the
same civil rights and responsibilities as straight couples when
dealing with secular issues.


You can call it a "civil union" if you want. They can call it a
"marriage" if -they- want. That's -their- right. It's not -your- right
to prevent them from exercising -their- rights.

From a secular point of view, they have the right to live in sin, but
no true Christian church would recognize such a union.


And the law doesn't require them to do anything of the sort. It only
requires that you respect their -legal- rights. And if they choose to
exercise their right to freedom of expression by calling their "civil
union" a marriage, or if their religion formally recognizes homosexual
marriage, then you have no right to prevent them from exercising their
rights. It's a very simple concept, Dave. And why is -that- so hard
for you to understand?


And any
institution that would, cheapens and tarnishes that institution.


Then that's the choice of the institution, not the government.


You, a big advocate for separation of church and state, should
understand where the line is drawn here. If you advocate that church
doctrine should not be infused into the workings of the government,
then the converse is also true. Otherwise you are practicing
hypocrisy.


I agree, the government should not impose upon any religion. How does
gay marriage impose government upon religion?

By forcing universal recognition of gay marriages as legitimate, which
they are not in the eyes of God.


Where, in the Constitution, does it require that any law must be
viewed as legitimate in the eyes of God? And even if it did, who
exactly would make that determination? God's legal representative?


I see your point, Dave. But what you refuse to accept is that marriage
is not exclusive to religion.

But it started there.


So? Christmas and Easter originated with Christianity but eventually
merged with pagan festivals. Why aren't you bitching about that? The
Sabbath is on Saturday but the Christians worship it on Sundays,
despite the first of the Ten Commandments. Why aren't you bitching
about that? The Bible embraces slavery, but it's now illegal in the
US. Why aren't you bitching about that?

You aren't bitching about those things because you are only concerned
with homosexuality. You are a bigot, Dave. And a hypocrite.


It may have been formally defined under
religion, but I wasn't there so I don't know for sure. Regardless, the
concept of marriage is not only secular but universal.

By necessity, not by choice. And the secular definition of marriage
simply adopted the religious definition of marriage in order to define
the civil rights that married couples would gain. Creating a new
definition of marriage, that is not endorsed by the church, is not
acceptable.


Yet it already exists, like it or not.


Think of it as similar to a copyrighted trademark. The church has
"licensed" the term "marriage" to the government to use for civil
purposes, as long as they abide by the terms of the license. Unless
the church decides to condone a gay union (Not likely), then the
government has no right to apply the term "marriage" to a secular gay
union.


The church has a "copyright" on marriage? ROTFLMMFAO!!! Dave, marriage
outside the sphere of religion has been socially recognized for many,
many centuries -- perhaps even longer than religion!


Like I said before, I have no problem with the government creating a
gay civil union, with the same civil rights and responsibilities given
to married couples, just don't call it marriage.


That's not your choice. Deal with it.


And as I have
pointed out several times before, the Christian definition of marriage
is, at best, poorly defined.

But it has been widely accepted in this country for hundreds of years.
Marriage is only recognized in the secular arena, due to the
additional legal rights and responsibilities that couples get. Before
the complexities of secular society necessitated such civil
recognition of marriage, the only thing a couple needed to do was have
the marriage blessed before God at a church service. That was all
that was necessary to legitimize a marriage.


Times change, Dave. You can either change with the times or spend the
rest of your life in a bitter depression.


I have no problem with secular civil unions. I have a big problem with
gay marriages.


You don't want homosexuals to be able to walk down the same street
that you do. You are a bigot.


Ah, you're back to making unfounded speculative assumptions and then
drawing an erroneous conclusion based on those unfounded speculations.
That's yet another example of your poor logic. You never could stick
to the facts Frank. But your liberal demonization tactic doesn't work
on me Frank. Labeling me will not change the very real legitimacy of
the issue.


Why not? You slap the "liberal" label on me all the time.






----== 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 Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:45:29 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:57:43 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
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.

No one had asked previously.


I asked several times.

No, you asked about the divorce rate.


But since you have now, the percentage of
married people (Which included both spouse present and absent) is
about 53.5% from the same spreadsheet that you can't seem to read and
gather information from.


Excellent. Now, from that same spreadsheet, how many of those people
that are married have been previously married? And how many times?

Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant.



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.

In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated
"factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist.


If you assume that the annual Federal Budget Reports from both
Congress and the White House are written by skilled left wing
propagandists then I suppose you are correct.


The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social
security"?


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.

They refer to it by different names.


Which is something the conservatives -never- do, I'm sure.

Irrelevant. It doesn't change the truth of my statement.


Names like "living wage", "fair
share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing.
Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't.


LOL..... I think I'll let that statement stand on it's own 'merits'!

Yea, the truth. But you wisely chose not to comment on it as the only
thing you could do is defend the practices. That's sort of like
defending the IRS. Not a very popular position to be in.


What part of 9.6% of the total population is divorced do YOU not
understand?


What percent of people are married, Dave?

See above. And before you jump the gun and say "Aha! if 53.4% of
people are married, that means that 46.4% are divorced, that's almost
half!", you need to consider that an additional 6.2% are widowed, 2.1%
are separated, and 28.6% have never been married.

It's all there in the spreadsheet. Don't tell me you too have webTV
and can't read a simple spreadsheet?


I can read it just fine. Now it's -your- turn to read it: Notice that
the total for each row is 100%. So how many people are counted in two
or more categories?

None if you add all the numbers together to get that 100%. Although I
would tend to think that there should be no difference between
"married spouse absent" and "separated". Although the former category
could refer to things like military deployment for long term. But
then, I'm guessing at that point.


"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.

Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't
surprise me that you have.


You bet I do! It's a lot better than most of the other crap that's
pushed onto the public as 'entertainment'.

That figures. West wing is very liberally slanted so I've been told.

I prefer "24". The most intense show on TV.

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