|
|
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. 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. 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. Who does the majority party represent if not the majority? Is this a loaded 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? How does gay and lesbian marriage infringe on your rights? It is not a matter of infringing on my "rights". It's matter of tarnishing an institution that is based on religious practices. The government has no right to do such. 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, 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 have no problem with secular civil unions. I have a big problem with gay marriages. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Thu, 19 May 2005 06:44:10 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Dave would know that already if he actually attended college. Heck, you can earn a college "degree" these days without ever setting a foot in a classroom. Sure. Just send a few bucks to a PO box listed in an advertisement in the back of Rolling Stone magazine. But 20 years ago, that just wasn't the case. You had a certain amount of credits that you had to earn, and a required course curriculum. Yes, it was possible to do it in less than four years, but that required an overly ambitious fast-paced schedule. Most people are not up for that. It depends on the person. For some people, three hours a day in the lecture halls is mindbogglingly slow. For others the challenge is overwhelming. The trick is to choose classes each quarter/semester that make the most efficient use of study time required -outside- the classroom. And not to waste your time at keggers. Also, some colleges and most Universities offer equivalency tests as well as credits for prior experience directly related to the field. I cut down my time by almost a full year by testing out of first-year electricity courses, math all the way through calculus, and was given credits for being a radio tech in the USMC. Night school allowed people to avoid many of the "nonsense" courses, which were unrelated to your major, that the full time day programs usually required you to take. Those "nonsense" courses have very legitimate purposes. Suppose your major is electrical engineering. You need to study economics so you can do a cost/benefit analysis for a design project, as well as be able to run a business if the opportunity arises. For the same reason it's a good idea to study a little business law and accounting. There is no substitute for good communication skills, -especially- English composition, and because my objective required strong communication skills I decided to minor in the field. Along the same lines, a few courses in humanities and history are also a very good idea since a lot of current events either revolve around cultural differences and issues, or require some understanding of the history surrounding the events. Etc, etc, etc. You pick any course required for a BS and I'll explain how and why it's related to your field of study. Or is it that you don't like the idea of a liberal education because it's 'liberal'? But the people who took the night school route usually were, like me, working full time during the day, and could not take as many courses per semester and, consequently, it could take close to 8 years to earn the B.S. If that's the way they choose to do it then that's their choice. I worked my way through college while working at night -- bartending. ----== 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, 19 May 2005 06:50:17 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 18 May 2005 09:54:03 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Dave Hall, N3CVJ wrote: Now, let's take a closer look at this, and expose just why these answers that you gave are highly unlikely. You once claimed that you were in the military in the mid 80's, then worked for a while. Then you went back to school (presumably because you had trouble finding a decent job). Now a BS program requires a 4 year course study at a minimum. Frank was in the military (can earn you college credits) and it doesn't take 4 years minimum to get a BS degree. It is often done in 3 or less. For engineering? We're not talking about liberal arts here. In fact, there are many who do it in less time. Many major universities and schools have BS programs that take less than 4 years. Name them. EWU, UW, WSU, OSU, USC..... pretty much most of them. And also list what the student has to do in order to cram 4 years worth of work and study into "less than" 4 years. Work hard. A B.S. degree requires a certain amount of credits and certain required courses. So either you have to take more classes in less time, or you are somehow "getting around" certain required classes. Or simply don't waste your time partying, buckle down and study. That starts to bring up Frank's earlier analogy of the "new" 2 year Bachelor's degree, That was -your- analogy, Dave. And it's irrelevant to this discussion since the concept of a "2 year degree" was to offer a BS after completing only half the current academic requirements. This topic deals with completing the current academic requirements in different amounts of time. and how the "old" 4 year degree would be worth more by virtue of more time spend in the classroom. Not "time", Dave -- the amount that is learned. If you really need an analogy, just look at the requirements for an Extra-class ham license. The code test is down to 5 wpm, which more than a few hams feel has "diminished the value" of their license. You used the "2 year degree" analogy as an argument against gay marriage when you -should- be using it as an argument against dropping the code requirement. But I don't hear you screaming about that at all. Regardless, if a person can complete a 4 year BS program in 2 years, more power to him. But that's not the same as cutting the cirriculum in half in order to reduce a 4 year program to only 2 years. That's the same as dumbing down the course..... in fact, it's not just the -same- as dumbing down the course, it -IS- dumbing down the course. ----== 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, 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? 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? No diatribe about how it diminishes the credibility of your own mayor? No sermon on how his sexual perversions are a moral abomination? Instead you refer to his homosexuality and pedophilia as "human flaws" when you have consistently referred to such behavior in much stronger language? 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". 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. Liberal pedophile: guilty of a moral sin. Conservative pedophile: victim of a human flaw. You're a trip, Dave. 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. 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? 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? 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. 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. 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? I see your point, Dave. But what you refuse to accept is that marriage is not exclusive to religion. 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. And as I have pointed out several times before, the Christian definition of marriage is, at best, poorly defined. 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. ----== 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 =---- |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 May 2005 09:54:03 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Dave Hall, N3CVJ wrote: "Now, let's take a closer look at this, and expose just why these answers that you gave are highly unlikely. You once claimed that you were in the military in the mid 80's, then worked for a while. Then you went back to school (presumably because you had trouble finding a decent job). Now a BS program requires a 4 year course study at a minimum." - Frank was in the military (can earn you college credits) and it doesn't take 4 years minimum to get a BS degree. It is often done in 3 or less. For engineering? Stop assuming, but since you did, I will lay odds years working in the engineering field can translate into credits applied toward a related degree. Credit for real work experience was conceived in the eighties and took off in the nineties. We're not talking about liberal arts here. In fact, there are many who do it in less time. Many major universities and schools have BS programs that take less than 4 years. Name them. There's that hypocrisy....(sigh),,you know, your refusal to answer for your unsolicited and unbelievable claims haunts you so, which is why you have lost all credibility. You provide for nothing these days, Dave, yet find yourself on all fours begging others for confirmation of things the generally educated public already know to be valid. Try your own state's "bitch" of the Ivy League, Penn State. Look under "fast track" and if you still can't find it, I'll place you in touch with an admission's counselor who can try and make you understand such a concept that is lost upon your forty-plus year old self. And also list what the student has to do in order to cram 4 years worth of work and study into "less than" 4 years. Simple. Summer classes is but a single method. But again, you are assuming it takes 4 years work -and- study,,,it does not. Your answer can never be correct when your equation is wrong from the beginning. A B.S. degree requires a certain amount of credits and certain required courses. So either you have to take more classes in less time, Ka-Ching! Give the man an affirmation for hitting on but a single example that invalidates his original remark. or .you are somehow "getting around" certain required classes. That starts to bring up Frank's earlier analogy of the "new" 2 year Bachelor's degree, and how the "old" 4 year degree would be worth more by virtue of more time spend in the classroom. Dave Hall Jr. N3CVJ "Sandbagger" You came full circle from denying it takes place (BS in less than 4 years) to not only acknowledging it happens, but giving your own examples. See what you are capable of when others force you to think. You sometimes just need a little kick of motivation. |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
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.h tm Philly is the scumbag capital of the country. They have nothing to be proud of in the last twenty five years. Jobs, crime, housing, education,..all past the brink. Medical care is the only thing that is even half decent in that area, and even that is a joke when all is taken in to consideration. "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. 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. Except when those flaws belong to Bush, then those consequences go out the window and people like you blame the demos for his incompetence. 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. Chances are you would have cheated. "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 you lost all credibility for all your claims for many valid reasons. In the past, your claims were suspect at best, with a chance of being correct. You removed all doubt with your hypocrisy. Your claims now are now on par with what is to be found on www.snopes.com.... David HAll Jr. N3CVJ "Sandbagger" |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:17:40 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: The history of the earth's climate is well documented back to the begining of the earth's creation...grammar school basic earth and science taught this. Carbon dating confirms much and plays a large part of the techniques used to arrive at such widely accepted and mainstream taught scientific facts. Again, we know what the climate was, but not conclusively how it got that way. It's called weather. Weather coupled with other events. There are many good theories, but that's all they are. Changing the topic from one of you learning how global warming is defined, studied, and confirmed to another serves only to solidify your pain in ebing incorrect. Like I told Frank, science can tell us that, for instance, it was once tropical in Montana, and that Glaciers covered much of the northern United States during different time periods. This proves that the earth's climate has vacillated in a fairly wide range. But what this DOESN'T tell us is how much of the current global warming cycle can be attributed to natural cyclic climatic changes, and how much of it is a direct result of man made pollution. Sure it can, and does. The amount of many chemical releases in the atmosphere are man made. Many are not man made. Exactly, which is why it is extremely difficult to make a positive determination as to the percentage of man's contribution to the total amount of global warming. It's not difficult at all. I just taught you that the concentration of such gases, such as methane gas, is but a single method by which is measured. Some are both. However, science has methods of measuring each,,including natural occurring vs. manmade chemicals,,,such as methane gases. Yes, and that "science" is in much dispute right now as there are many scientists who do not accept the findings of others as conclusive. There are still many assumptions being made. Not regarding global warming. Twenty years ago, yes..today, it is widely accepted and taught mainstream. Without a point of reference, it is extremely difficult to positively determine how much we are changing the climate. The point of reference is the richness/ concentration of the gas. Which we cannot positively ascertain because we do not know how much of that gas truly came as a result of man-made pollution versus that which is naturally occurring. But we do. One large volcano eruption, for instance, can drastically effect the concentration of methane .gasses in the atmosphere. Yes, but it does not dilute or enrich what is already there, it simply adds quantity to one or the other. Such an example is very easily taken into consideration and calculations allow for the exact molecular configuration when determining such factors. This is done by the precise and absolute measuremtn of related contributions, such as time of eruption, length of eruption, velocity of eruption, etc., etc. _ An example can be the amount of methane in a predetermined air sample. Higher concentrations of the gas can be attributed to manmade releases and emissions. Or a volcano eruption. Methane gas does not have a "tag" which says "man made" or natural. We can only measure the total concentration. =A0 Which is the exact manner in which to tell man-made from natural. =A0It's elementary for anyone with a fair retainment value that took college science classes. Since you called it "elementary", it's obvious that you've never studied it, as it is far too complex a process to be called "elementary". Umm,,no. Go back and reread just what I called "elementary"... not what you felt the need to misrepresent here. By attempting to make this issue simpler than it really is, you also disparage the scientists who do this for a living. It is very simple for anyone who has ever taken college science classes, but gases are introduced in elementary school science. _ Chloroflourocarbons released by the burning of fossil fuels is directly linked to global warming. No argument. But you can't positively determine the rate of global warming that might still be occurring if we suddenly stopped using fossil fuels today. Sure you can. One measures the rate of speed the studied glaciers melt. If they suddenly stopped melting and began growing, the figured equations and calculations are all that's left to give you the answer you seek. Global warming was proved by the continual shrinkage of the polar ice cap confirmed by 24-7 high tech monitoring of such. Villages that reside in the frozen tundra watch their mountains of ice shrink each year. How much of that shrinkage would still be occurring without man made pollution? As you referred, the climate is thought to adhere to cycles, When the cycles suddenly deviate substantially from the norm, it's dedeucedly dedeucedly? Do you mean deductively? Ha,,no I meant "deucedly", as in wickedly confirmed. I was watching the penguin on the Dudley Doright cartoons and my fingers did their own thing.. And you chastise MY vocabulary and grammar....... Huge difference. I admit my mistakes whereas you scream bloody murder or try to ignore yours because of the pain they cause you. _ decided and accepted that something is amiss. First of all, there is no "norm" when it comes to clim`atic shifts. When "deviation from the norm" is used in such a reference, it means deviation from the usual patterns. -You- were first to claim weather patterns in his topic, now you again, self-contradict yourself. Many of those shifts occurred as the direct result of an external random event, such as the asteroid strike which is generally the current accepted theory for precipitating the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period. Not any more. Perhaps when you were i grammar school, but the most compelling andgenerally accepted theory now is they simply died out. The meteor that caused the ice age that was originally thought to have brought about the extinction of such creatures is now believed to have occured many, many years after the dinosaurs have already become extinct. There are other craters all over the planet, as evidence of other such strikes. Yea,,and if you ever were west of the Mississippi, you would have undoubtedly had the chance to see one. There is also evidence of large volcano eruptions, ..in 'patterns' of eras of high activity. which can spew enough particulate matter into the atmosphere, that an "ice age" would likely result. And did. The climatic shifts which occur between these significant events is likely only the result of climatic balance or a normalization from the extremes caused by the random external events. It's also conceivable that over the last billion years, that the solar energy output from the sun could have deviated to some degree as well, which can certainly affect surface temperature here. It's not conceivable, it's been proved the sun's harmful rays have intensified over time. This is because of the damage in the ozone layer. This is called global warming. Again, you come full circle. My work on this topic is done. |
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. I did say that the constitution was written by religious, God respecting people, most of whom were Christian. 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 any institution that would, cheapens and tarnishes that institution. 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. I see your point, Dave. But what you refuse to accept is that marriage is not exclusive to religion. But it started there. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:34:45 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10995886.h tm Philly is the scumbag capital of the country. They have nothing to be proud of in the last twenty five years. Jobs, crime, housing, education,..all past the brink. Medical care is the only thing that is even half decent in that area, and even that is a joke when all is taken in to consideration. I agree with you. Then again, Other than the fact that NYC has more money surging through it, it isn't any better. I'm not a fan of cities anyway. "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. 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. Except when those flaws belong to Bush, then those consequences go out the window and people like you blame the demos for his incompetence. Because those "flaws" were largely invented by the left leaning media. There has been none to date which have been proven. Rathergate, is a glaring example of one such smear which got discovered before any real damage could be done. Then there is the more recent Newsweek gaffe about flushing the Koran down a toilet (How does one flush a book down a toilet anyway?). Did you know that the gutless clowns at Newsweek had the nerve to actually blame the repercussions of their erroneous reporting on the Bush administration, for not denying it quickly enough? They print a lie, and they blame Bush for not denying it, as the reason why those people were killed in the protests. Unbelievable! But there is no character on the left side of the aisle. And it becomes more apparent with each passing day, and each further shrill speech a democrat makes. 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. Chances are you would have cheated. I've never cheated on any assignment that I've ever done. I've never had to. "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 you lost all credibility for all your claims for many valid reasons. What you think is irrelevant, and contrary to your wild imagination, you do not represent the majority. But I'll make a deal with you, I'll tell you every place where I went to school, when you give me your real name and address. Deal? Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Thu, 19 May 2005 04:42:26 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2005 06:44:10 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Dave would know that already if he actually attended college. Heck, you can earn a college "degree" these days without ever setting a foot in a classroom. Sure. Just send a few bucks to a PO box listed in an advertisement in the back of Rolling Stone magazine. But 20 years ago, that just wasn't the case. You had a certain amount of credits that you had to earn, and a required course curriculum. Yes, it was possible to do it in less than four years, but that required an overly ambitious fast-paced schedule. Most people are not up for that. It depends on the person. For some people, three hours a day in the lecture halls is mindbogglingly slow. For others the challenge is overwhelming. The trick is to choose classes each quarter/semester that make the most efficient use of study time required -outside- the classroom. And not to waste your time at keggers. It should be that simple. But you forgot to consider, that not all courses are offered each semester, pretty much forcing you to do things "their way". Trying to transfer credits from other schools was also sometimes problematic. Sometimes they would refuse to give credit, other times they would only give partial credit. Colleges are somewhat competitive, and have no incentive to have students give another school money, and then accept that as credit in their school. At least that's the way it was 20+ years ago. Also, some colleges and most Universities offer equivalency tests as well as credits for prior experience directly related to the field. I cut down my time by almost a full year by testing out of first-year electricity courses, math all the way through calculus, and was given credits for being a radio tech in the USMC. Yes, I am aware of "testing out" I did similar things, with my previous tech school credits. Night school allowed people to avoid many of the "nonsense" courses, which were unrelated to your major, that the full time day programs usually required you to take. Those "nonsense" courses have very legitimate purposes. Really? I don't think you understand what I refer to as "nonsense". Suppose your major is electrical engineering. You need to study economics so you can do a cost/benefit analysis for a design project, as well as be able to run a business if the opportunity arises. For the same reason it's a good idea to study a little business law and accounting. There is no substitute for good communication skills, -especially- English composition, and because my objective required strong communication skills I decided to minor in the field. Along the same lines, a few courses in humanities and history are also a very good idea since a lot of current events either revolve around cultural differences and issues, or require some understanding of the history surrounding the events. Etc, etc, etc. You pick any course required for a BS and I'll explain how and why it's related to your field of study. Ok, then explain to me the necessity of phys-ed courses? Those are the ones that I was referring to as "nonsense". The examples you gave above I totally agree with. It's interesting that you'd think I was referring to them as "nonsense". Or is it that you don't like the idea of a liberal education because it's 'liberal'? A liberal Arts degree is basically useless if making serious money is one of your goals. Seen on a bumper sticker: "I have a Liberal Arts degree, Do you want fries with that?"_ Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:01:53 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: It's also conceivable that over the last billion years, that the solar energy output from the sun could have deviated to some degree as well, which can certainly affect surface temperature here. It's not conceivable, it's been proved the sun's harmful rays have intensified over time. This is because of the damage in the ozone layer. I'm not talking about the ozone layer, I'm talking about the sun's actual energy output. Check this out: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html This is called global warming. Again, you come full circle. My work on this topic is done. No one ever denied that global warming is occurring. The point of contention is how much of it can truly be definitively attributed to man's actions. Some light reading for you to bring you up to speed: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1305/ http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1395/ Your work on this topic is just beginning....... Dave "Sandbagger" |
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. Why is it 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, 20 May 2005 07:52:17 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Ok, then explain to me the necessity of phys-ed courses? Those are the ones that I was referring to as "nonsense". The examples you gave above I totally agree with. It's interesting that you'd think I was referring to them as "nonsense". Considering that brain function is physiological, it is therefore dependent upon general health and wellness of the body. And I can tell that because you feel physical education is "nonsense" that you were probably one of those fat little kids that couldn't get your chin over the bar, or run a lap around the track without puking. And always the last pick for dodge-ball. Or is it that you don't like the idea of a liberal education because it's 'liberal'? A liberal Arts degree is basically useless if making serious money is one of your goals. Seen on a bumper sticker: "I have a Liberal Arts degree, Do you want fries with that?"_ Well if it's on a bumper sticker then it -must- be true! ----== 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 =---- |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:34:45 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10995886.h tm Philly is the scumbag capital of the country. They have nothing to be proud of in the last twenty five years. Jobs, crime, housing, education,..all past the brink. Medical care is the only thing that is even half decent in that area, and even that is a joke when all is taken in to consideration. I agree with you. Then again, Other than the fact that NYC has more money surging through it, it isn't any better. Agreed. I'm not a fan of cities anyway. Me neither. - "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. 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. Except when those flaws belong to Bush, then those consequences go out the window and people like you blame the demos for his incompetence. Because those "flaws" were largely invented by the left leaning media. Get reality in your life. Failing to balance the budget,... the report by the Pentagon two days ago that "Iraq war not fairing as well as originally thought"......the lack of protection for the troops he sent in to battle underequipped and ill prepared.,,the list goes on and his failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred. There has been none to date which have been proven. Then show me the balanced budget. Tell it to the military sons and daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment. Now Bush is cutting bases in the US to pay for his tax cuts and failing (admitted by the Pentagon) war, the same thing you blasted Clinton for daring to entertain a few years ago, and he didn't even do it. Rathergate, is a glaring example of one such smear which got discovered before any real damage could be done. You are wired to focus on anything but repsonsibility. You seek abdication of the Bush failures through unrealistic self-denial, Then there is the more recent Newsweek gaffe about flushing the Koran down a toilet (How does one flush a book down a toilet anyway?). They have port- a-potty's in Gunatanamo, not toilets. Did you know that the gutless clowns at Newsweek had the nerve to actually blame the repercussions of their erroneous reporting on the Bush administration, for not denying it quickly enough? The BUsh administration began the phoney reporting with their bogus "press releases" when it was found to be nothing of the sort, but you are not surprisingly silent when the Bush party fails with the same tactics. They print a lie, and they blame Bush for not denying it, as the reason why those people .were killed in the protests. Unbelievable! Not as unbelievable as a homosexual prostitute circumventing general WH security protocol reserved for only those with higher clearance with zero explanation of how and why the security FAILED. But there is no character on the left side of the aisle. And it becomes more apparent with each passing day, and each further shrill speech a democrat makes. 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. Chances are you would have cheated. I've never cheated on any assignment that I've ever done. I've never had to. Then why did you not provide the 2914 Stony Creek Rd address to the FCC as required by law? _ "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 you lost all credibility for all your claims for many valid reasons. What you think is irrelevant, It's not what I think, it's what more and more regs are conveying to you on a regualr basis. 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. But I'll make a deal with you, I'll tell you every place where I went to school, when you give me your real name and address. You invoked your schooling of your own free will. Your personal obsessive mania concerning my personal life has nothing to do with your unsolicited claims posted by yourself in order to lend your hurt feelings and soiled ago an image of support. This is done only because of your need for validation. You can find no support on or of your own. Deal? Checkmate. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:11:20 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: You were wrong. Possibly, in an extreme case. Yea,,,the majority of times you are wrong are the result of your most extreme -and- uninformed positions. But I was using standard norms (Which is 4 years) to base my timeline on. If it's completed in less than four years, there is nothing standard about it. Not many people have what it takes (Both from an academic and emotional standpoint) to complete a true 4 year program in less time. It's happening all over America and is much more prevalent than you know. But even if I was wrong and Frank earned his degree a year earlier, it doesn't change much of what I put down on the timeline, Only by a year or so,,which makes a huge impact on your original claim. and doesn't change the suspicion that Frank has been a little too restless for the time that he had. Any suspicion is yours. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ I'll wave a hand to your call this weekend. If you monitor the dial, you may even hear it. |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:25:41 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: You came full circle from denying it takes place (BS in less than 4 years) to not only acknowledging it happens, but giving your own examples. See what you are capable of when others force you to think. You sometimes just need a little kick of motivation. I never said it wasn't possible, only that it's not likely. It's more than likely. It happens regularly at most major universities. You like to cite extreme examples to make (or counter) a point. The fact that a four year degree is completed in less than four years all over America each year by many is not an extreme example, it's an accurate statement of the norm. You claiming such isn't likely is the extreme deviation. On the other hand, I tend to take my examples from the means of the bell curve. No you don't. You tend to work off of poor memory retainment and how things "used to be". Most people fall into the 70% part of the bell curve, not the outside 30%. While your percentages can be argued, it nevertheless illustrates a comprehension difficulty regarding all those you are unable or not permitted to effectively pigeonhole. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:01:53 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: =A0=A0It's also conceivable that over the last billion years, that the solar energy output from the sun could have deviated to some degree as well, which can certainly affect surface temperature here. It's not conceivable (its definite), it's been proved the sun's harmful rays have intensified over time. This is because of the damage in the ozone layer. I'm not talking about the ozone layer, I'm talking about the sun's actual energy output. Check this out: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html This is called global warming. Again, you come full circle. My work on this topic is done. No one ever denied that global warming is occurring. The point of contention is how much of it can truly be definitively attributed to man's actions. Some light reading for you to bring you up to speed: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1305/ http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1395/ Your work on this topic is just beginning....... Dave "Sandbagger" The intellicast links aren't compatible with webtv. Here are a few for you, concerning your errors. Note the date on my references. They are last word on the subject. Of course, if you have data confirmed since by a verifiable source, feel free to post it.... http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...may20,1,60065= 96.story?ctrack=3D1&cset=3Dtrue =A0 THE WORLD As Climate Shifts, Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Growing Increased snowfall on the central icecap partly offsets effects of melting glaciers, researchers say. By Robert Lee Hotz, Times Staff Writer As glaciers from Greenland to Kilimanjaro recede at record rates, the central icecap of Antarctica has been steadily growing for 11 years, partially offsetting the rise in seas from the melt waters of global warming, researchers said Thursday. The vast East Antarctic Ice Sheet =97 a 2-mile-thick wasteland larger than Australia, drier than the Sahara and as cold as a Martian spring =97 increased in mass every year from 1992 to 2003 because of additional annual snowfall, an analysis of satellite radar measurements showed. "It is an effect that has been predicted as a likely result of climate change," said David Vaughan, an independent expert on the ice sheets at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England. In a region known for the lowest temperatures recorded on Earth, it normally is too cold for snow to form across the 2.7 million square miles of the ice sheet. Any additional annual snowfall in East Antarctica, therefore, is almost certainly attributable to warmer temperatures, four experts on Antarctica said. "As the atmosphere warms, it should hold more moisture," said climatologist Joseph R. McConnell at the Desert Research Institute in Reno, who helped conduct the study. "In East Antarctica, that means there should be more snowfall." The additional snowfall is enough to account for 45 billion tons of water added to the ice sheet every year, just about equal to the amount of water flowing annually into the ocean from the melting Greenland icecap, the scientists reported in research published online Thursday by the journal Science. Rising sea level, which could swamp many coastal and island communities, is considered one of the most serious potential consequences of global warming, according to the most recent assessment by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Overall, sea level is estimated to be rising by 1.8 millimeters a year worldwide because of the expansion of warming water and the added outwash from melting glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, tropical highlands and some areas of Antarctica. Every millimeter of increased sea level corresponds to about 350 billion tons of water a year. The growth in the East Antarctic icecap is enough to slow sea-level rise by a fraction of that =97 about 0.12 millimeter a year =97 the researchers reported. All told, the fresh water locked up in the ice of East Antarctica is enough to raise the level of the oceans by about 196 feet, experts said. If it continues to grow as expected, the ice sheet could buffer some, but not all, of the effects of anticipated sea-level rise for much of the coming century, the researchers said. "It is the only large body of ice absorbing sea level rise, not contributing to it," said Curt H. Davis, a radar mapping expert at the University of Missouri-Columbia, who led the research team. The researchers based their conclusions on an analysis of 347 million radar altimeter measurements made by the European Space Agency's ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites from June 1992 to May 2003. They determined that the icecap appeared to be thickening at the rate of 1.8 centimeters every year. The ice is thinning in West Antarctica and other regions of the continent. "The changes in the ice look like those expected for a warming world," said glaciologist Richard Alley at Pennsylvania State University. "The new result in no way disproves global warming; if anything, the new result supports global warming." _ One more for the road.... http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/...b328640589641= 0dab46b4c26c9fe&did=3D842083261&FMT=3DFT&FMTS=3DFT &date=3DMay+19%2C+2005&a= uthor=3D&printformat=3D&desc=3DReport%3A+Iraq+asse ssment+bleaker http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/...b328640589641= 0dab46b4c26c9fe&did=3D842083261&FMT=3DFT&FMTS=3DFT &date=3DMay+19%2C+2005&a= uthor=3D&printformat=3D&desc=3DReport%3A+Iraq+asse ssment+bleaker Spin it again and tell us how Iraq is getting better, Dave. |
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:40:52 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: him from human flaws or the consequences of acting out on them. Except when those flaws belong to Bush, then those consequences go out the window and people like you blame the demos for his incompetence. Because those "flaws" were largely invented by the left leaning media. Get reality in your life. Failing to balance the budget, Bush never promised to balance the budget at this time. That's to come in the future. ... the report by the Pentagon two days ago that "Iraq war not fairing as well as originally thought". According to whom? Link please. That statement in itself is meaningless. "Not fairing well" could simply means that we're a little behind schedule. I suppose you consider the establishment of an independent Iraqi government as not an important achievement? .....the lack of protection for the troops he sent in to battle underequipped and ill prepared. I suppose you've forgotten this now infamous quote: "I actually voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it". What do you think that 87 billion was for? ,,the list goes on and his failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred. Yea sure. When you stand up for what is right, you're bound to take a few on the chin in the process. Those who refuse to stand up, out of fear of taking those few on the chin, are the ones to be very afraid of. There has been none to date which have been proven. Then show me the balanced budget. Never promised. Tell it to the military sons and daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment. A very valid reason why John F. Kerry is not the president today. Now Bush is cutting bases in the US to pay for his tax cuts and failing (admitted by the Pentagon) war, the same thing you blasted Clinton for daring to entertain a few years ago, and he didn't even do it. When did I "blast" Clinton for closing military bases? Rathergate, is a glaring example of one such smear which got discovered before any real damage could be done. You are wired to focus on anything but repsonsibility. You seek abdication of the Bush failures through unrealistic self-denial, I seek the truth, and I place blame where the blame belongs, and that starts with those who seek to destroy this country out of a ideological hatred of our way of life. I don't blame the one leader with the cajones to call it like it is and stand up to it. The liberals, on the other hand, when the truth cleverly evades them, make up their own version of the truth to justify actions which would, in an earlier generation, be considered treason. Then there is the more recent Newsweek gaffe about flushing the Koran down a toilet (How does one flush a book down a toilet anyway?). They have port- a-potty's in Gunatanamo, not toilets. I'm really interested in how you would know that with any accuracy. BTW, port-a-potti's don't flush. Did you know that the gutless clowns at Newsweek had the nerve to actually blame the repercussions of their erroneous reporting on the Bush administration, for not denying it quickly enough? The BUsh administration began the phoney reporting with their bogus "press releases" when it was found to be nothing of the sort, but you are not surprisingly silent when the Bush party fails with the same tactics. This isn't about Bush, this is about a trusted news organization which recklessly printed a story which turned out to be bogus, which resulted in the deaths of 17 people, and incited further anti-U.S. behavior. Which begs the question , who's side is Newsweek on? They print a lie, and they blame Bush for not denying it, as the reason why those people .were killed in the protests. Unbelievable! Not as unbelievable as a homosexual prostitute circumventing general WH security protocol reserved for only those with higher clearance with zero explanation of how and why the security FAILED. Gee, that one never made the front page. Must have been one of Clinton's leftovers. That's why the mainstream news didn't fly with it. Chances are you would have cheated. I've never cheated on any assignment that I've ever done. I've never had to. Then why did you not provide the 2914 Stony Creek Rd address to the FCC as required by law? Ah, so you've decided to print the information without my permission eh? I knew you couldn't resist the urge. BTW, you need to either upgrade or trash your "Spy" software (Or ask for a refund of that $9.95). THAT was my OLD address. Stony creek road was were I was born and raised and spent most of my CB career. I moved from there in 1999. You can verify this by going on QRZ and loading the 1993 version of the callbook, and then look at what address my call is listed with. I accept (once again) your apology. Because you lost all credibility for all your claims for many valid reasons. What you think is irrelevant, It's not what I think, it's what more and more regs are conveying to you on a regualr basis. Name them. and contrary to your wild imagination, you do not represent the majority. Contrary to your claims that have been corrected by the majority of the regs, it is yourself that is of the most radical, hypocritical, and of a minority position that is usually incorrect. Prove it. Other that you, Frank, and occasionally Landshark, who actually even gives enough of a crap about these jabs that we exchange, to even chime in? But I'll make a deal with you, I'll tell you every place where I went to school, when you give me your real name and address. You invoked your schooling of your own free will. I did not offer to provide specific details. Your personal obsessive mania concerning my personal life Yet it is you who is obsessively looking up personal info about me (And getting most of it wrong in the process). The facts betray you. has nothing to do with your unsolicited claims posted by yourself in order to lend your hurt feelings and soiled ago an image of support. This is done only because of your need for validation. You can find no support on or of your own. I'm not the one who feels the need to continually convince myself of the existence of a mythical "majority" who's support doesn't really exist. Deal? Checkmate. Yep, that's my boat. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:40:52 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: him from human flaws or the consequences of acting out on them. Except when those flaws belong to Bush, then those consequences go out the window and people like you blame the demos for his incompetence. Because those "flaws" were largely invented by the left leaning media. Get reality in your life. Failing to balance the budget, Bush never promised to balance the budget at this time. That's to come in the future. ... the report by the Pentagon two days ago that "Iraq war not fairing as well as originally thought". According to whom? The Pentagon. Link please. Already posted it once. That statement in itself is meaningless. "Not fairing well" could simply means that we're a little behind schedule. I suppose you consider the establishment of an independent Iraqi government as not an important achievement? Ask the Pentagon. .....the lack of protection for the troops he sent in to battle underequipped and ill prepared. I suppose you've forgotten this now infamous quote: "I actually voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it". What do you think that 87 billion was for? Blaming anyone but Bush for over three years of inadequate supply, protection, and gear for our troops shows exactly how well you comprehend your government. ,,the list goes on and his failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred. Yea sure. When you stand up for what is right, you're bound to take a few on the chin in the process. Placing unprepared troops and others in battle is not standing up, it is a failure and illustration of the president's strategy and incompetence. Ignoring Iran, Dharfur, and N Korea is not standing up. Those who refuse to stand up, out of fear of taking those few on the chin, are the ones to be very afraid of. Sort of like yourself in regards to radio law,,you do nothing that can remotely be considered proactive (standing up) and offer nothing but reactive lipeservice. There has been none to date which have been proven. Then show me the balanced budget. Never promised. No one said it was, but it is part of the president's job that he failed to manage. Cllaiming that if something isn't promised by the president, it's ok if he is derelict in ignoring his duties, confirms your lack of knowledge regarding the position of president. _ Tell it to the military sons and daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment. .A very valid reason why John F. Kerry is not .the president today. Did Kerry bang Kimberly, or do you continuosly harbor unnatural feelings and hatred for him for other reasons? Bush is cutting military funding and it has nthing to do with Kerry. Once again, you are not even aware of what your own party is undertaking. Now Bush is cutting bases in the US to pay for his tax cuts and failing (admitted by the Pentagon) war, the same thing you blasted Clinton for daring to entertain a few years ago, and he didn't even do it. =A0=A0When did I "blast" Clinton for closing military bases? You blasted Clinton and claimed he was seeking to dismantle and "weaken" the military through budget cuts. You have a **** poor memory, Dave. Rathergate, is a glaring example of one such smear which got discovered before any real damage could be done. You are wired to focus on anything but responsibility. You seek abdication of the Bush failures through unrealistic self-denial, I seek the truth, and I place blame where the blame belongs, Except with the leader of the country...as I said, you seek abdication of responsibility. and that starts with those who seek to destroy this country out of a ideological hatred of our way of life. Wrong,,,it begins and ends with the president. I don't blame the one leader with the cajones to call it like it is and stand up to it. But's NOT standing up for anything...he's ignoring Dharfur, which is much worse bllodshed than Hussein EVER committed, he failed to stop the proliferation and spread of nukes, and N Korea is continuing to produce them,,three more nuke warheads by year's end with the rods they recently and publicly collected and announced that they are using them for nukes. Of course, Iran has solidified several more nukes in the time Bush has been lording over the oil glut,,,on it goes, yet you know little of it. The liberals, on the other hand, when the truth cleverly evades them, make up their own version of the truth to justify actions which would, in an earlier generation, be considered treason. Bush was the only one to flipflop on his reasons for war, yet when thse reasons are applied equally to hostile countries, his position evaporates. Then there is the more recent Newsweek gaffe about flushing the Koran down a toilet (How does one flush a book down a toilet anyway?). They have port- a-potty's in Guantanamo, not toilets. I'm really interested in how you would know that with any accuracy. Stay focused and try not to fall off track and delve into personal realms again, Davey. I know it in the same manner I knew your party acknowledged global warming and you didn't. BTW, port-a-potti's don't flush. All the more reason the story was suspect from the beginning. Did you know that the gutless clowns at Newsweek had the nerve to actually blame the repercussions of their erroneous reporting on the Bush administration, for not denying it quickly enough? The BUsh administration began the phoney reporting with their bogus "press releases" when it was found to be nothing of the sort, but you are not surprisingly silent when the Bush party fails with the same tactics. This isn't about Bush, Yea,,right,,I forgot who I was talking to for a second. this is about a trusted news organization which recklessly printed a story which turned out to be bogus, Sort of like the fabricated press releases from what is to be a trusted organization (WH) to do whta is best for the people, but who recklessly fabricated not one, not two, not three, but months and months worth of phoney bull**** and deliberately misrepresented the fluff as authentic news press releases. which resulted in the deaths of 17 people, and incited further anti-U.S. behavior. Not as much as the fabricated war Bush employed. Which begs the question , who's side is Newsweek on? They print a lie, and they blame Bush for not denying it, as the reason why those people .were killed in the protests. Unbelievable! Not as unbelievable as a homosexual prostitute circumventing general WH security protocol reserved for only those with higher clearance with zero explanation of how and why the security FAILED. Gee, that one never made the front page. Sure it did, Dave,,,you just are uninformed regrading everything these days. Must have been one of Clinton's leftovers. That's why the mainstream news didn't fly with .it. Mainstream did fly with it. Missed it. I've never cheated on any assignment that I've ever done. I've never had to. Then why did you not provide the 2914 Stony Creek Rd address to the FCC as required by law? Ah, so you've decided to print the information without my permission eh? I knew you couldn't resist the urge. I don't need your permission to ask what is in the public domain. BTW, you need to either upgrade or trash your "Spy" software (Or ask for a refund of that $9.95). THAT was my OLD address. Yet, you brokke FCC law by not providing it to the FCC. Stony creek road was were I was born and raised and spent most of my CB career. I moved from there in 1999. You can verify this by going on QRZ and loading the 1993 version of the callbook, and then look at what address my call is listed with. I accept (once again) your apology. Because you lost all credibility for all your claims for many valid reasons. What you think is irrelevant, Aparently what I think is very relevant, as you deny the truth and menstruate over it. I now have you in such a freakin' tizzy, you are denying your own wife's name when it has been confirmed. In fact, she used to reside on Gravers Road, but you go on denying she is your wife because of the shame you rained down upon yourself. It's not what I think, it's what more and more regs are conveying to you on a regualr basis. Name them. Google hypocrite and your name, and you will find those who taught you better. and contrary to your wild imagination, you do not represent the majority. Contrary to your claims that have been corrected by the majority of the regs, it is yourself that is of the most radical, hypocritical, and of a minority position that is usually incorrect. Prove it. Other that you, Frank, and occasionally Landshark, who actually even gives enough of a crap about these jabs that we exchange, to even chime in? You are again under the mistaken and erroneous belief one must "chime in" to all exchanges in order to express they care? Dude, you are so far out, you can never regain composure. But I'll make a deal with you, I'll tell you every place where I went to school, when you give me your real name and address. You invoked your schooling of your own free will. I did not offer to provide specific details. You invoked your schooling of your own free will. This is where your **** poor communication skill comes in to play. When one enters a topic in to a conversation, be prepared to substantiate it. Your constant excuses and whining about not having to defend your claims portray you exactly how you are viewed.....by the majority : ) Your personal obsessive mania concerning my personal life Yet it is you who is obsessively looking up personal info about me I looked up nothing...you put it out there. In fact, you put it all out there, you just are so inept and have such a **** poor memory and tell so many lies, you can't keep them all straight. In fact, you initiated the personal game and were told many times to lay off the personal remarks. Now that you are getting your own game crammed down your throat, you can only cry foul and lie,,,,but lying about your wife is an entirely new (at least when you do it publicly) concept you have demonstrated to the public. You have shamed your name, Dave and disgraced your wife. Deal with it, move on from it, and stop becoming personal with others and you will find you will stop hating life and blaming others for your personal created hell in which you wallow. (And getting most of it wrong in the process). Tell us again which parts are wrong, Dave,,,,I thoroughly enjoy watching you squirm over your past lies. Tell us again how Kimberly T is not your wife. The facts betray you. No,,,the facts confirm what I say. You're so ignorant in the ways of the world and law, you are beside yourself because -you- are unable to correctly ascertain the info that you have been begging me for years. Meanwhile, the game you initiated has come full circel and slapped you in your head. has nothing to do with your unsolicited claims posted by yourself in order to lend your hurt feelings and soiled ago an image of support. This is done only because of your need for validation. You can find no support on or of your own. I'm not the one who feels the need to continually convince myself of the existence of a mythical "majority" who's support doesn't really exist. That's exactly what you do each time you claim a superior morality and adherence to religion. Deal? Checkmate. Yep, that's my boat. No offers, yet, huh? Well, that's what happens when you purchase a used overpriced POS. Just because you overpaid doesn't mean others will subscribe to your ignorance. Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj |
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:17:38 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:40:52 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: him from human flaws or the consequences of acting out on them. Except when those flaws belong to Bush, then those consequences go out the window and people like you blame the demos for his incompetence. Because those "flaws" were largely invented by the left leaning media. Get reality in your life. Failing to balance the budget, Bush never promised to balance the budget at this time. That's to come in the future. .. the report by the Pentagon two days ago that "Iraq war not fairing as well as originally thought". According to whom? The Pentagon. Link please. Already posted it once. When? And don't just say "the pentagon", post a complete link to the "news" source from which you base your biased claims. ....the lack of protection for the troops he sent in to battle underequipped and ill prepared. I suppose you've forgotten this now infamous quote: "I actually voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it". What do you think that 87 billion was for? Blaming anyone but Bush for over three years of inadequate supply, protection, and gear for our troops shows exactly how well you comprehend your government. And you would be equally ignorant to ignore the years of neglect that our military suffered at the hands of Clinton, who had no great love for it. ,,the list goes on and his failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred. Yea sure. When you stand up for what is right, you're bound to take a few on the chin in the process. Placing unprepared troops and others in battle is not standing up, it is a failure and illustration of the president's strategy and incompetence. Ignoring Iran, Dharfur, and N Korea is not standing up. Who says we're ignoring it? All in good time. We don't have unlimited military resources. Unless, of course, you want the draft brought back..... Those who refuse to stand up, out of fear of taking those few on the chin, are the ones to be very afraid of. Sort of like yourself in regards to radio law,,you do nothing that can remotely be considered proactive (standing up) and offer nothing but reactive lipeservice. Stay focused. This isn't about me, as much as you'd like it to be. There has been none to date which have been proven. Then show me the balanced budget. Never promised. No one said it was You implied as much , but it is part of the president's job that he failed to manage. Cllaiming that if something isn't promised by the president, it's ok if he is derelict in ignoring his duties, confirms your lack of knowledge regarding the position of president. There are far more pressing issues than a balanced budget. Ridding the world of maniacal terrorists is a bit higher on the pecking list. _ Tell it to the military sons and daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment. .A very valid reason why John F. Kerry is not .the president today. Did Kerry bang Kimberly, or do you continuosly harbor unnatural feelings and hatred for him for other reasons? No, it's a simple matter of you wanting to pin every failing on Bush, when, if you truly understood how the government operates, you would not make such an ignorant, uninformed claim. Military budgets have to be approved by congress, a congress in which Kerry voted against (after he voted for) the necessary money to provide that equipment you feel we were glaringly lacking. Bush is cutting military funding and it has nthing to do with Kerry. He is merely doing the same things as many corporations. Making due with less. Unless, you want a large tax increase. Once again, you are not even aware of what your own party is undertaking. Now Bush is cutting bases in the US to pay for his tax cuts and failing (admitted by the Pentagon) war, the same thing you blasted Clinton for daring to entertain a few years ago, and he didn't even do it. **When did I "blast" Clinton for closing military bases? You blasted Clinton and claimed he was seeking to dismantle and "weaken" the military through budget cuts. You have a **** poor memory, Dave. Not the same thing. Bush is not eliminating any crucial bases or programs. Rathergate, is a glaring example of one such smear which got discovered before any real damage could be done. You are wired to focus on anything but responsibility. You seek abdication of the Bush failures through unrealistic self-denial, I seek the truth, and I place blame where the blame belongs, Except with the leader of the country...as I said, you seek abdication of responsibility. and that starts with those who seek to destroy this country out of a ideological hatred of our way of life. Wrong,,,it begins and ends with the president. The president didn't fly airplanes into the trade towers or the pentagon. The president didn't try to annex a neighboring country. The president didn't exterminate hundreds of thousands of his own people. The president didn't blow a hole in the USS Cole. The president didn't blow up embassies. The list goes on. I don't blame the one leader with the cajones to call it like it is and stand up to it. But's NOT standing up for anything...he's ignoring Dharfur, which is much worse bllodshed than Hussein EVER committed Dharfur does not threaten this country in any way. , he failed to stop the proliferation and spread of nukes, and N Korea is continuing to produce them,,three more nuke warheads by year's end with the rods they recently and publicly collected and announced that they are using them for nukes. The former soviet union has nukes. The Chinese have nukes. So what? Now if Osama Bin Laden had a few, I'd be concerned. Or if Saddam had been allowed to finish his nuke program, I'd be concerned. Of course, Iran has solidified several more nukes in the time Bush has been lording over the oil glut,,,on it goes, yet you know little of it. What oil glut? Do you not read the commodities page? The liberals, on the other hand, when the truth cleverly evades them, make up their own version of the truth to justify actions which would, in an earlier generation, be considered treason. Bush was the only one to flipflop on his reasons for war, yet when thse reasons are applied equally to hostile countries, his position evaporates. He has not flip flopped on any of his reasons. They remain the same as always. Then there is the more recent Newsweek gaffe about flushing the Koran down a toilet (How does one flush a book down a toilet anyway?). They have port- a-potty's in Guantanamo, not toilets. I'm really interested in how you would know that with any accuracy. Stay focused and try not to fall off track and delve into personal realms again, Davey. I know it in the same manner I knew your party acknowledged global warming and you didn't. Which is how exactly? And for the record, I never denied global warming, just questioned the amount of effect that humanity has truly had on it. The evidence is still inconclusive on this point, as I have provided in the links. BTW, port-a-potti's don't flush. All the more reason the story was suspect from the beginning. Yet you were ready to embrace it as another reason to throw a dagger at Bush. Then why did you not provide the 2914 Stony Creek Rd address to the FCC as required by law? Ah, so you've decided to print the information without my permission eh? I knew you couldn't resist the urge. I don't need your permission to ask what is in the public domain. The why did you ask in the first place? BTW, you need to either upgrade or trash your "Spy" software (Or ask for a refund of that $9.95). THAT was my OLD address. Yet, you brokke FCC law by not providing it to the FCC. Are you retarded, or can you simply not read? You are mistaken about my current address. Your "Cyber detective" software is out of date. My current address IS the one on my FCC license. The one you have is the OLD one. Stony creek road was were I was born and raised and spent most of my CB career. I moved from there in 1999. You can verify this by going on QRZ and loading the 1993 version of the callbook, and then look at what address my call is listed with. I accept (once again) your apology. And again. Because you lost all credibility for all your claims for many valid reasons. What you think is irrelevant, Aparently what I think is very relevant, as you deny the truth and menstruate over it. I now have you in such a freakin' tizzy, you are denying your own wife's name when it has been confirmed. How has it been confirmed? Because YOU think it is? I am telling you, you are dead wrong about my wife's name. In fact, she used to reside on Gravers Road, but you go on denying she is your wife because of the shame you rained down upon yourself. I never even heard of Gravers road. Once again you are mistaken (We must be up to a dozen things you've been wrong about now). This is what happens when you play with cyperspy wannabe software for $9.95. It's not what I think, it's what more and more regs are conveying to you on a regualr basis. Name them. Google hypocrite and your name, and you will find those who taught you better. Nice dodge. But I drive a Ford. Once again, name the people who agree with your position and disagree with mine. and contrary to your wild imagination, you do not represent the majority. Contrary to your claims that have been corrected by the majority of the regs, it is yourself that is of the most radical, hypocritical, and of a minority position that is usually incorrect. Prove it. Post the names, posts and other references. Prove it. Other that you, Frank, and occasionally Landshark, who actually even gives enough of a crap about these jabs that we exchange, to even chime in? You are again under the mistaken and erroneous belief one must "chime in" to all exchanges in order to express they care? Well gee, how then are we supposed to know that they disagree? Did you buy Frank's crystal ball? Dude, you are so far out, you can never regain composure. I'm not the one who's suggesting that I can read minds in order to glean the opinions of people who do not post their opinions here. You invoked your schooling of your own free will. This is where your **** poor communication skill comes in to play. When one enters a topic in to a conversation, be prepared to substantiate it. Just like you gave us the names and addresses of all of your publishing gigs when you once claimed to be a "professional journalist"? If you are going to make the rules, you have to play by them too. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. Your constant excuses and whining about not having to defend your claims portray you exactly how you are viewed.....by the majority : ) Like I said, you have not provided for one single piece of information you have provided here. Yet you expect others to do it. Hypocrisy. Your personal obsessive mania concerning my personal life Yet it is you who is obsessively looking up personal info about me I looked up nothing...you put it out there. I put my old home address out there? I put the incorrect name of my wife out there? C'mon, you can do better. In fact, you put it all out there, you just are so inept and have such a **** poor memory and tell so many lies, you can't keep them all straight. When and where have I put any of the things that you've conjured out of thin air out there? In fact, you initiated the personal game No, I didn't, you did. and were told many times to lay off the personal remarks. While you continued to engage in the exact behavior yourself, either ignorant of, or indifferent to your apparent hypocrisy. Now that you are getting your own game crammed down your throat, you can only cry foul and lie,,,,but lying about your wife is an entirely new (at least when you do it publicly) concept you have demonstrated to the public. I have told no lies. You got suckered into paying some of your hard earned and short on supply cash to some company to get personal information about me, and much of it is wrong. But you'd rather believe that I'm lying than believe that you got taken. You have shamed your name, Dave and disgraced your wife. How? Deal with it, move on from it, and stop becoming personal with others and you will find you will stop hating life and blaming others for your personal created hell in which you wallow. The only hell is the one that you're stuck in and which you are desperately trying to use me in order to vindicate yourself from. (And getting most of it wrong in the process). Tell us again which parts are wrong, Dave,,,,I thoroughly enjoy watching you squirm over your past lies. Tell us again how Kimberly T is not your wife. She's not. That's NOT my wife's name. The address on my ham license is correct. And G.W. Bush will probably be remembered in history as one of America's greatest presidents, once he tames the barbarism in the middle east. The facts betray you. No,,,the facts confirm what I say. You're so ignorant in the ways of the world and law, you are beside yourself because -you- are unable to correctly ascertain the info that you have been begging me for years. I haven't begged you for anything. I am merely holding you up to the hypocrisy spotlight for demanding information from other people that you're not willing to give of yourself. Checkmate. Yep, that's my boat. No offers, yet, huh? Well, that's what happens when you purchase a used overpriced POS. I bought it brand new in 1996. And even 9 years later, it's still worth more than that scow you take people out fishing in order to earn the money to pay for your webTV subscription. Just because you overpaid doesn't mean others will subscribe to your ignorance. My boat is worth every penny that I'm asking for it, according to most surveys that I've researched. It's not like in Florida where the sun kills gelcoat in a year's time, and salt water exposure corrodes everything metallic. My boat is garage kept and as clean as the day I bought it. The summer season hasn't even hit yet. The weather isn't all that great right now. Sooner or later I expect some interested buyer activity. But I'm not in a hurry. If I don't sell it this year, there's always next. I just had an itch for a new boat, but I can wait. Next year's bonus added in might give me enough extra money to buy one without selling the old one right away....... Dave "Sandbagger" |
Hello, Dave
I've been really laughing over this thread. Yep, the deficit is *huge* ... and when folks wake up, the Democrats will get blamed for "raising taxes". We are in deep doo - doo here. Reaganomics didn't work then and it doesn't work now. As to the marriage protection act that Bush was for, have we heard anything else about that, or was it to get a big reaction (along with votes) from the religious folks? One question begs for an answer: what is the divorce rate in this country? Care to help Social Security? I'd suggest that once a couple divorces, they can no longer give nor receive Social Security benefits from another person (sole exception being to children). I've heard the divorce rate is close to 50%, but I honestly don't know. I worked for a manager who was on his third or fourth wife. Hmmmm .... I'm wondering if a woman (or man, for that matter) ever questions why their intended has been divorced three times. I knew a guy (he passed away over 30 years ago) that was marrying his *fifth* wife! When he passed away, he was living with a girl friend a good 20 years younger than he. A lot of interesting questions come to mind with many of these threads, but few answers. Nope, I'm not for gay marriage, but I question what is it that drives these big knee-jerk reactions. I fear that once folks wake up and smell the coffee, it will be too late. In fact, it may already be too late. If other countries stop "lending" us money and allowing our deficit to continue, we are in for a crash. 1929 will look like a picnic. Many countries are fearing us. Not only for the "Rambo" style of Bush, but our deficit. If we crash, it will have a huge effect on the rest of the world as well. Why do you think OPEC doesn't peg their target to the US dollar anymore? (hint: the dollar is falling and OPEC wants to make more. I read an article that Saudi Arabia wants to build an indoor skiing resort (talk about an air conditioning bill!) as well as an underwater hotel. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim |
On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:05:49 GMT, "Jim Hampton"
wrote: Hello, Dave I've been really laughing over this thread. Yep, the deficit is *huge* ... and when folks wake up, the Democrats will get blamed for "raising taxes". If. in fact, they do "raise taxes", it would be their fault. I do not let a large deficit bother me. We've had large deficits before, and it didn't kill us We are in deep doo - doo here. Reaganomics didn't work then and it doesn't work now. I don't know about that. The end of a recession and the beginning of the biggest period of economic growth followed "Reaganomics". As to the marriage protection act that Bush was for, have we heard anything else about that, or was it to get a big reaction (along with votes) from the religious folks? That's a good question. One answer might be that there are more pressing issues right now (Run away filibusters, the war, getting an energy bill passed etc.). One question begs for an answer: what is the divorce rate in this country? According to the stats from: http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls the percentage of divorced people is 9.6%. For some reason, Frank was unable (or unwilling) to read the columns and see the actual numbers, but if you believe the census bureau, that's what it is. Care to help Social Security? The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes those who have already given into the SS program for their entire working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to everyone. I'd suggest that once a couple divorces, they can no longer give nor receive Social Security benefits from another person (sole exception being to children). I've heard the divorce rate is close to 50%, but I honestly don't know. 9.6% according to the 2003 census. I worked for a manager who was on his third or fourth wife. Hmmmm .... I'm wondering if a woman (or man, for that matter) ever questions why their intended has been divorced three times. That would certainly send up a red flag for me. But, like they say, love is blind and it's hard to be rational when all of your blood is rushing to another organ in your body. I knew a guy (he passed away over 30 years ago) that was marrying his *fifth* wife! When he passed away, he was living with a girl friend a good 20 years younger than he. Then hopefully he died a happy man, although I would question his inability to remain faithful, and wonder if there weren't some "issues" affecting him. A lot of interesting questions come to mind with many of these threads, but few answers. That's the nature of debate, especially on subjects where answers are elusive and somewhat subjective. There would be no point is debating if the earth is round or whether the moon is made of green cheese, as we know the answers to those questions. Nope, I'm not for gay marriage, but I question what is it that drives these big knee-jerk reactions. I usually apply Newton's law of action vs. reaction. Someone does something extreme and the opposite side responds with a equal and opposite reaction. There wouldn't be such an outpouring of opposition to gay marriage if there wasn't such a push to legalize it. I fear that once folks wake up and smell the coffee, it will be too late. In fact, it may already be too late. If other countries stop "lending" us money and allowing our deficit to continue, we are in for a crash. That won't happen, because, like it or not, we live in a global economy, and if we "crash", we take the rest of the world with us. 1929 will look like a picnic. Many countries are fearing us. Not only for the "Rambo" style of Bush, but our deficit. If we crash, it will have a huge effect on the rest of the world as well. Exactly! I don't doubt for a minute that the pseudo-elitist socialist Europeans would pass up any opportunity to put the screws to us economically. But even they realize that if they do, they do so at their own peril. Why do you think OPEC doesn't peg their target to the US dollar anymore? By basing their target price on another currency, they get more U.S. dollars if the dollar is weak. OPEC knows that the dollar will rise again, and so will the value of their "investment". It's no surprise that oil prices have been falling as of late, which is coincident with a strengthening dollar. (hint: the dollar is falling and OPEC wants to make more. I read an article that Saudi Arabia wants to build an indoor skiing resort (talk about an air conditioning bill!) as well as an underwater hotel. Hey, if they have the money, more power to them. Although, that sort of materialism smacks against the core values of Wahabbism and radical Islam. Maybe we are affecting the middle east more than we thought.... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Thu, 26 May 2005 09:09:44 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip No, the evidence is most certainly conclusive, as my links were dated of last week. Which is meaningless, as new evidence is always being obtained. There has been no definitive decision made with regard to man's affect on global warming, as there are too many unexplained variable. The antarctic ice pack increasing as the arctic ice pack melts is but one example. Which, ironically, provides proof of what you deny. See below. Once again, because you are unable to grasp the methods in which concentrations of certain gases can ascertain and pinpoint with extreme accuracy what is manmade and what is naturally occurring and released into the atmosphere, does not make it any less so. Gas is gas, there is no way to determine where it all came from once it is all mixed into a large swirl. Wrong. Ice provides carbon dioxide samples that are available for any given year. These samples are measured for C14 concentrations, fossil fuels having a much lower concentration of C14 than natural processes. The difference is quantified as the percentage of CO2 contributed by combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the contribution of atmospheric CO2 from human sources is very accurately measured. snip Well, sure,,,Frank taugh you better regarding radio technical competency, Frank has some issues as well. He failed to recognize common industry terms, and discredited my explanations of common electronic circuits because they didn't fit within his own narrow "education". I recognized the "terms" as being poorly defined slang used by some who are without formal education in the field. And your explanations don't fit within any educational (or engineering) standards, despite your bogus claim to have had some formal education in electronics. you called him names and took issue with his career. I was he who first started to degrade my education and career. I only kept the same level of civility. You may have matched my level of 'civility' (subject to debate), but you didn't even come close to my level of education and experience in the field of electronics. On the contrary, you tried to denounce me with nothing but ignorance, generalizations and subjective opinions. So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave? snip .... No one is perfect. If the best you can come up with is 2 mistakes that I made in 10 years worth of posting, I'd say that's a pretty good percentage. You may have -admitted- two of the many mistakes you have made in 10 years. IMO, that's a pretty -poor- percentage. Jim tried talking to you about foreign news sources, and you called him naive. If someone truly thinks that a foreign news service is any less likely to be affected by political bias, then they are naive. Yet you claim that domestic news services are heavily biased to the left. If that's true then foreign news services are -more- likely to be -less- biased, which makes -you- naive. snip Care is not a "simile" for "disagree". When you figure that out, you may ask such questions. You need to learn the difference between a 'simile' and a 'metaphor'. Didn't you ever watch that Danny DeVito movie where he played Kotter to a group of Army dimwits? Your word games and semantic shuffle will not allow you to wiggle out of that so easily. If one does not post their opinions, how do we know what they think on any topic? Several people have posted opinions that are contrary to your's. Nobody (except one of your sock puppets) has posted -any- opinion that supports or defends -your- opinions, even in rec.boats. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:13:35 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip One question begs for an answer: what is the divorce rate in this country? According to the stats from: http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls the percentage of divorced people is 9.6%. For some reason, Frank was unable (or unwilling) to read the columns and see the actual numbers, but if you believe the census bureau, that's what it is. For some reason, you were unable (or unwilling) to accept the clear statement by the Census Bureau that they do not keep track of marraige and divorce rates. And for some reason, you were unable (or unwilling) to explain how you derived the divorce rate from the table you cited. And for some reason, you were unable (or unwilling) to provide the marriage rate so that it could be compared to the divorce rate you 'divined' from the census data. Care to help Social Security? The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes those who have already given into the SS program for their entire working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to everyone. So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to "divert". Bush's solution to SS is a "credit-card" retirement plan, which isn't any better. Maybe you two should get together and figure out what "promote the general Welfare" means. I'd suggest that once a couple divorces, they can no longer give nor receive Social Security benefits from another person (sole exception being to children). I've heard the divorce rate is close to 50%, but I honestly don't know. 9.6% according to the 2003 census. http://www.census.gov/population/www.../marr-div.html So what part of "The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take place in a given year" do you not understand? snip Nope, I'm not for gay marriage, but I question what is it that drives these big knee-jerk reactions. I usually apply Newton's law of action vs. reaction. Someone does something extreme and the opposite side responds with a equal and opposite reaction. There wouldn't be such an outpouring of opposition to gay marriage if there wasn't such a push to legalize it. "In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal. You need a reason to make something illegal." -- Donna Moss, "West Wing" ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Tue, 24 May 2005 07:03:13 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip .....the lack of protection for the troops he sent in to battle underequipped and ill prepared. I suppose you've forgotten this now infamous quote: "I actually voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it". What do you think that 87 billion was for? Dave, you've been educated about this on more than one occasion; Kerry dropped his support after the Reps attached a bunch of pork-barrel spending amendments to the bill. Any responsible Senator would do the same thing, and many did. ,,the list goes on and his failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred. Yea sure. When you stand up for what is right, you're bound to take a few on the chin in the process. Those who refuse to stand up, out of fear of taking those few on the chin, are the ones to be very afraid of. So does that mean a fool is right because he stands up and takes "a few on the chin"? There has been none to date which have been proven. Then show me the balanced budget. Never promised. No, but he -did- promise to bring the parties together and reduce partisan politics. He said he would be a "uniter, not a divider". So when do you suppose he's going to start implementing that policy? Tell it to the military sons and daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment. A very valid reason why John F. Kerry is not the president today. Kerry isn't president for the same reason that Ivan the Terrible was still popular with many of his people after he crumpled over the chess board. snip You are wired to focus on anything but repsonsibility. You seek abdication of the Bush failures through unrealistic self-denial, I seek the truth..... You seek reasons to validate your interpretations of the truth. Instead you should be seeking facts. Where are your facts, Dave? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:17:38 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) Because those "flaws" were largely invented by the left leaning media. Get reality in your life. Failing to balance the budget, Bush never promised to balance the budget at this time. That's to come in the future. A president's job is to balance the budget. He failed to do so in 4.5 years in office. The report by the Pentagon two days ago that "Iraq war not fairing as well as originally thought". According to whom? The Pentagon. Link please. Already posted it once. When? The other day. And don't just say "the pentagon", post a complete link to the "news" source from which you base your biased claims. You missed the link...again If blaming me makes you feel better, I volunteer. Anything to get you feeling more confident. - ....the lack of protection for the troops he sent in to battle underequipped and ill prepared. I suppose you've forgotten this now infamous quote: "I actually voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it". What do you think that 87 billion was for? Blaming anyone but Bush for over three years of inadequate supply, protection, and gear for our troops shows exactly how well you comprehend your government. And you would be equally ignorant to ignore the years of neglect that our military suffered at the hands of Clinton, who had no great love for it. That's not being ignorant, that's refusing to argue history and what can not be changed. "Ignorant" is publicly telling the world they are ignorant for preferring to focus on the present failures of Bush instead of arguing past history. Stay focused. - The list goes on and his failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred. Yea sure. When you stand up for what is right, you're bound to take a few on the chin in the process. Placing unprepared troops and others in battle is not standing up, it is a failure and illustration of the president's strategy and incompetence. Ignoring Iran, Dharfur, and N Korea is not standing up. Who says we're ignoring it? You think otherwise? All in good time. And this information comes from..... We don't have unlimited military resources. Unless, of course, you want the draft brought back..... =A0=A0 Maybe if the kids of people like you who are hellbent on this farcical war were drafted, I would support such an act. Those who refuse to stand up, out of fear of taking those few on the chin, are the ones to be very afraid of. Sort of like yourself in regards to radio law,,you do nothing that can remotely be considered proactive (standing up) and offer nothing but reactive lipeservice. Stay focused. This isn't about me, as much as you'd like it to be. Exactly, it's about your hypocrisy. There has been none to date which have been proven. Then show me the balanced budget. Never promised. No one said it was You implied as much You haev a serious deficit. I implied nothing of the sort, in fact, I "implied" the opposite. I said your president failed to do his job, such as balance the budget. You implied if the president doesn't promise to his job, he can be derelict in it. LMAO! It is part of the president's job that he failed to manage. Claiming that if something isn't promised by the president, it's ok if he is derelict in ignoring his duties, confirms your lack of knowledge regarding the position of president. There are far more pressing issues than a balanced budget. You admitting your president is unable to fulfill his duties is a step in the right direction. Ridding the world of maniacal terrorists is a bit higher on the pecking list. And an impossibility that only gullible people believe....one of Bush'most incompetent statements was "We will rid the world of terror". _ Tell it to the military sons and daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment. .A very valid reason why John F. Kerry is not .the president today. Did Kerry bang Kimberly, or do you continuosly harbor unnatural feelings and hatred for him for other reasons? No, it's a simple matter of you wanting to pin every failing on Bush, when, if you truly understood how the government operates, you would not make such an ignorant, uninformed claim. My claim simply was Bush failed to balance the budget. It's a fact. Also is a fact, is it appears to have struck a nerve with you, as you have gone from denying any Bush failures, to defending his failures. Military budgets have to be approved by congress, a congress in which Kerry voted against (after he voted for) the necessary money to provide that equipment you feel we were glaringly lacking. Isn't me, it's the American families of the dead and the soldiers in the field, and the high ranking officers who first brought this to light. This month's Maxim magazine printed a bunch of letters from the troops, signed with rank and names and where they are assigned in the middle east. Stars and Stripes, a very republican publication, also printed many letters from those serving. Number THREE on the soldiers complaint list is RUMSFELD, and ALL their letters confirm the exact opposite of everything you think you know about the war. Bush is cutting military funding and it has nthing to do with Kerry. He is merely doing the same things as many corporations. Making due with less. Unless, you want a large tax increase. Yes, i would much rather have a tax increase to pay for adequate gear and protection for out soldiers. Many of us are not so galavant when trivializing the lives of our soldiers, as many of us don't put tax cuts, like yourself, above the lives of our soldiers. Once again, you are not even aware of what your own party is undertaking. Now Bush is cutting bases in the US to pay for his tax cuts and failing (admitted by the Pentagon) war, the same thing you blasted Clinton for daring to entertain a few years ago, and he didn't even do it. =A0=A0When did I "blast" Clinton for closing military bases? You blasted Clinton and claimed he was seeking to dismantle and "weaken" the military through budget cuts. You have a **** poor memory, Dave. Not the same thing. Right,,because Bush is doing the military slashing, it must be ok. Bush is not eliminating any crucial bases or programs. Eliminate your poor choice of the subjective term "crucial" and your hypocrisy glares and you are left with no salient point. Rathergate, is a glaring example of one such smear which got discovered before any real damage could be done. You are wired to focus on anything but responsibility. You seek abdication of the Bush failures through unrealistic self-denial, I seek the truth, and I place blame where the blame belongs, Except with the leader of the country...as I said, you seek abdication of responsibility. and that starts with those who seek to destroy this country out of a ideological hatred of our way of life. Wrong,,,it begins and ends with the president. The president didn't fly airplanes into the trade towers or the pentagon. Right,,,,he just failed to prevent it, as the Official 911 Report suggests...you know,,,the Presidential Commission he was against, then for investigating his administrations ill-preparedness and response to 911. The president didn't try to annex a neighboring country. Right.... The president didn't exterminate hundreds of thousands of his own people. He's on his way with the number of dead in this war. The president didn't blow a hole in the USS Cole. Neither did Kerry. The president didn't blow up embassies. The list goes on. =A0 So do his failures, such as curbing more and more of our rights under the false guise of keeping us safer, when we are under more danger than ever before. In fact, puppets like you are programmed to incorrectly parrot that Bush has protected us since 911, when nothing is further from the truth. We have had several attacks on US soil since then, but Bush, keeping a perfect record, fails to apprehend those responsible. =A0I don't blame the one leader with the cajones to call it like it is and stand up to it. But's NOT standing up for anything...he's ignoring Dharfur, which is much worse bllodshed than Hussein EVER committed Dharfur does not threaten this country in any way. Neither did Hussein. Read the 911 Report. Bush failed to stop the proliferation and spread of nukes, and N Korea is continuing to produce them,,three more nuke warheads by year's end with the rods they recently and publicly collected and announced that they are using them for nukes. The former soviet union has nukes. The Chinese have nukes. So what? Now if Osama Bin Laden had a few, I'd be concerned. Or if Saddam had been allowed to finish his nuke program, I'd be concerned. He wasn't working on one during the invasion. It's a shame you have to learn history for this group by denying it, then researching it for yourself when the proper links are placed in front of you. - Of course, Iran has solidified several more nukes in the time Bush has been lording over the oil glut,,,on it goes, yet you know little of it. What oil glut? Do you not read the commodities page? Clown. The commodities page has nothing to do with the world oil supply. It's a management problem, not one of supply and demand. The liberals, on the other hand, when the truth cleverly evades them, make up their own version of the truth to justify actions which would, in an earlier generation, be considered treason. Bush was the only one to flipflop on his reasons for war, yet when thse reasons are applied equally to hostile countries, his position evaporates. .He has not flip flopped on any of his reasons. Then perhaps you can explain what reasons were given the first time congress denied his plea to invade Iraq. They remain the same as always. You're wrong. The reasons presented to congress each time had nothing to dow with each other. When he was denied the first time, he invoked a reason as "liberating Iraq". The second time, he claimed violations of the UN and that Hussein was amassing WMDS. Then there is the more recent Newsweek gaffe about flushing the Koran down a toilet (How does one flush a book down a toilet anyway?). They have port- a-potty's in Guantanamo, not toilets. I'm really interested in how you would know that with any accuracy. Stay focused and try not to fall off track and delve into personal realms again, Davey. I know it in the same manner I knew your party acknowledged global warming and you didn't. Which is how exactly? 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. just questioned the amount of effect that humanity has truly had on it. Yes, after you initially 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. 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. BTW, port-a-potti's don't flush. All the more reason the story was suspect from the beginning. Yet you were ready to embrace it as another reason to throw a dagger at Bush. I did no such thing..one can always tell when your ego is waning, as you harriedly and sloppily begin misattributing things that were never said to those you love. 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? 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. _ 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. .Your "Cyber detective" software is out of date. I have no software,,,besides,,webtv doesn't use software. Off you go, now,,, 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. Stop being so paranoid, as it leads to incredible gaffes in your behalf. What you think is irrelevant, Aparently what I think is very relevant, as you deny the truth and menstruate over it. I now have you in such a freakin' tizzy, you are denying your own wife's name when it has been confirmed 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. 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! _ In fact, she used to reside on Gravers Road, but you go on denying she is your wife because of the shame you rained down upon yourself. I never even heard of Gravers road. 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. again you are mistaken And you're sweating like a stuck pig. (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. 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? _ 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, you called him names and took issue with his career. Shark taught you better regarding your own state's driving laws, and he was attacked by "Geo" all of a sudden with homo remarks,,BTW, where is "Geo" these days? : ) 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. Jim tried talking to you about foreign news sources, and you called him naive. No Davie,,as is always the pattern, you blame everyone else when the problem is yourself. _ Google hypocrite and your name, and you will find those who taught you better. .Nice dodge. See above. But I drive a Ford. A blue one whose license plates do not match the address given to the FCC as provided by law. Go ahead,,,,'splain! LMAO... Once again, name the people who agree with your position and disagree with mine. See above. and contrary to your wild imagination, you do not represent the majority. Contrary to your claims that have been corrected by the majority of the regs, it is yourself that is of the most radical, hypocritical, and of a minority position that is usually incorrect. .Prove it. Post the names, posts and other references. Na-na-nee-nee-noo-noo,,,,"pwove it" Prove it. See above. 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. 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. That horrible **** poor memory you have is partially responsible for your communication deficits. If you are going to make the rules, you have to play by them too. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. Your constant excuses and whining about not having to defend your claims portray you exactly how you are viewed.....by the majority : ) You have not provided for one single piece of information you have provided here. Yet you expect others to do it. Hypocrisy. Your personal obsessive mania concerning my personal life Yet it is you who is obsessively begging for personal info about me. C'mon, you can do better. When you take to providing a contingent of explanations, it reiterates my perfect aim and accuracy. |
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" |
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. |
"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 |
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" |
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" |
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" |
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" |
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 =---- |
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 =---- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com