On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:25:36 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:


I think you should stay away from those magic
mushrooms.....

Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

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

I won't try to argue that point as I agree that some people
conceivably do "return" (or never left in the first place) to the CB
and freeband. I'm still somewhat active on both to this day.


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Because in many cases, it's true. There are hams who are stuffy and
uptight. But they are legal. The converse is also true. Many outlaw
CB'ers feel that they have a right to do just what (and where) they
please without due regard for the rights of anyone else. RFI, direct
interference, and public nuisance issues do not seem to affect them.

Either behavior is reprehensible, and I've defended each respective
group when on the receiving end of such stereotypical prejudice.
Lately it's the hams who are unfairly on the receiving end of this
prejudice.


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

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

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

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

reec (reek?) a freudian slip?

You are not qualified to make that determination. Your ability to be
objective is compromised by your subjective bias.


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

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

If you consider bringing reality into focus in the same manner as a
simple unfounded ad-hominem attack, then I can see your issue. But
they're not the same.


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

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


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

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

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

The only thing I can figure is that the commonality of my name (Next
after Smith and Jones), has you so confused, that you believe I'm
someone different than who I actually am (There are 3 Dave Hall's in
my company's phone directory, talk about confusion). The fact that my
phone number is unlisted removes me from many people searches. That
also explains why you keep insisting that my wife's name is "Kimberly
T. Hall", and that she's a "teacher". In conclusion, you continue to
trust unreliable sources which provide you erroneous information and
then accuse others of things which are incorrect. It is not my
credibility that is in question here, it's yours.

But wait? Wasn't it you who just accused ME of trying to obtain
people's personal information? And you call me hypocritical.
Sheesh.......



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

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:25:36 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
I think you should stay away from those magic
mushrooms.....

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

claim.
=A0

That's cool...but entertain, for a moment, if you would, the notion you
are subscribing. If you do not believe me, then you mistakenly believe
the FCC is actively patrolling the air for violators. This info can be
found simply by extolling a little leg work.....but I'm telling you, the
FCC does NOT actively patrol the air seeking violations by hammies or
cbers.
_
=A0They end up being
****ed off (then issed upon) hammies.

You discount the possibility that while exposed
to ham radio, that many people find respect

for the rules, and have a change of attitude.



I didn't discount it at all, as I know what you say to be true, but what
I say is just as true. Members belong to both camps.
_
The anger toward such freebanders can be seen in your own posts.

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

not the same thing as "anger".

Stating facts has you chasing your tail with semantics. You call people
criminals with nothing more than your mistaken ignorance that "saying it
on usenet is the same as a guilty plea in a court of law". Although you
have been given the correct information regarding the judicial system,
you continue to mistakenly believe you may publicly refer to one as a
criminal even if they were not convicted in a court of law. THIS, is
fact.
_
Several
years ago you were making posts chastising hammies as being too uptight
and uppity and technical who look down on cbers.

Because in many cases, it's true.



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

There are hams who are stuffy and uptight.

But they are legal. The converse is also true.

Many outlaw CB'ers feel that they have a right

to do just what (and where) they please

without due regard for the rights of anyone

else.


Same is true with many hammies, yet for some reason, you do not voice
your concern for those you hold in higher regards, higher esteem,,,you
know,,those who are supposed to lead by example. In other words, you
**** all over the hammie creed.

RFI, direct interference, and public nuisance

issues do not seem to affect them.


"Them" is not limited exclusively to cb users.

=A0=A0Either behavior is reprehensible, and I've

defended each respective group when on the

receiving end of such stereotypical prejudice.

Yet, you continue to employ it yourself.

Lately it's the hams who are unfairly on the

receiving end of this prejudice.


Why is it unfair to illustrate the same behavior
committed by hammies that you complain about when committed by cbers?
_
During your admitted
freebanding and illegal operating years, not once will you find a post
by yourself calling others names or expressing nosey concern for other
people's business that does not affect you.

I still don't. I'm not the one trying desperately

to find out personal information (often

incorrectly like the name of my wife) about

other people.


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

Also worthy of note is the time you spend

reviewing my 10 year span of messages to

this newsgroup. One might consider that as

bordering on obsession.


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

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

reec (reek?) a freudian slip?

Which speaks volumes of how you think.

You are not qualified to make that

determination.


Yet, based on your unsolicited self-qualifications regarding psychology,
you somehow present yourself as qualified to determine whether others
are qualified for anything.
_
That you attribute such behavior (name calling, attacking those who
merely dx or freeband) to "growing up", illustrates the fact you were an
incredible late bloomer and extremely slow learner who hasn't fully
matured yet, as your behavior continued well in to your thirties.

Well, then if I'm still "growing up", then you

have yet to start because you are still

engaged in that illegal behavior.


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

If you consider bringing reality into focus in the
same manner as a simple unfounded

ad-hominem attack, then I can see your issue.

Reality is you are not permitted to refer one a criinal based on nothing
more than your ignorance regarding the laws of the land, yet, this
somehow presents a great inner difficult struggle for you, regarding the
comprehension of such a simple concept that is solidified by law. In
fact, you still are
illegal and have no right to say anything to
anyone,


I assume you have some proof of this? Yea I

know, you have tons of proof, but you're not

about to post it.


No Dave, that isn't the standard reply, but I'll remind you since you
strugge with memory impairment. You initiated unsolicited claims,,many
of them. When challenged for proof, you declined for personal reasons.
You are still free to provide proof for any of your unasnwered claims,
and then, as proper decorum and communicative technique dictates, will
have your inquiries answered with proof in turn. You continue to
struggle with such simple techniques of proper communication, but it
does illustrate perfectly what i have always maintained,,,that some of
those licensed for communications, know the lease about it.
_
=A0=A0as for starters, the address you provided the
FCC is not your primary residence and the fact that you fail to correct
this matter with the FCC even after being informed you are illegal,
leaves you no credibility with anything you may say regarding other's
actions.

You really, REALLY need to go back to

whatever source of information gathering you

use and either fire them, demand your money

back, or something. Because, quite frankly,

you are embarrassing yourself every time you

make these erroneous claims. My listed

address in the FCC database is exactly my

primary (only) residence. I am doing nothing

illegal.

So the real question is, Who do you think I

really am (today)? What do you think is my

"real" address?

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


The only thing I can figure is that the

commonality of my name (Next after Smith

and Jones), has you so confused, that you

believe I'm someone different than who I

actually am (There are 3 Dave Hall's in my

company's phone directory, talk about

confusion).



Agreed. Perhaps you can explain how you mistakenly feel your unsolicited
but invoked claim regarding a company directory relates to anything, but
then again, keeping with your continued behavior that when you are not
aware of something, it must not exist, speaks volumes.

The fact that my phone number is unlisted

removes me from many people searches.


You go on thinking that.

That also explains why you keep insisting that
my wife's name is "Kimberly

T. Hall", and that she's a "teacher".


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

In

conclusion, you continue to trust unreliable

sources which provide you erroneous

information and then accuse others of things

.which are incorrect. It is not my credibility that
is in question here, it's yours.

But wait? Wasn't it you who just accused ME

of trying to obtain people's personal

information?

It was also myself that instructed you years ago that off-topic personal
information is not relevant to these pages, and were instructed that you
should practice the golden rule, in other words, do not do to others
that you do not want done to yourself, but you continued with off-topic
personal information. When it is returned to its place of origination,
you cry foul.

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

Nothing hypocitiical at all about giving you back your initiated
behavior. In fact, you were warned on many occasion that this is what
your initiated behavior would degrade to. Again, if the information is
incorrect, ignore it and toss it out the window...but for some obvious
reasons, you chose to bitch about it.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

You waste your time, attempting to show logic to Dave, he is obivously a ham
or "ham groupie."
He is just here to stop any progressive changes--write your congressmen!!!
Anyway, whether he does what he does or not--the winds of change begin to
blow....

Regards,
John

From: (John=A0Smith)
You waste your time, attempting to show logic

to Dave, he is obivously a ham or "ham

groupie."

He is just here to stop any progressive

changes--write your congressmen!!! Anyway,

whether he does what he does or not--the

winds of change begin to blow....

Regards,

John


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

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

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

to Dave, he is obivously a ham or "ham

groupie."

He is just here to stop any progressive

changes--write your congressmen!!! Anyway,

whether he does what he does or not--the

winds of change begin to blow....

Regards,

John


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

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

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

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:04:46 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (John=A0Smith)
(You waste your time, attempting to show logic
to Dave, he is obivously a ham or "ham
groupie."
He is just here to stop any progressive
changes--write your congressmen!!! Anyway,
whether he does what he does or not--the
winds of change begin to blow....
Regards,
John )

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

Why thank you! That's the closest thing to a

compliment that I've seen in a while. Now how
'bout a big hug?

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj


I'll settle for staying on topic in the future. Maybe it can even lead
to a Fresca some day.

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

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

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

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



Regards,

John

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:22:20 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

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

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

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

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

I see stereotyping is a standard method of operation for you. As
opposed to actually dissecting your issues and discussing their
relative worth.

Any society that expects to live together must enact rules which set
limits on what people can do to one another, and generally set's
boundaries on an individual's right of access and right of property.

Anyone who thinks that these rules are overly restrictive or otherwise
"wrong" need to do some serious research on history and sociology.

This applies to the radio spectrum as well. There are millions of
licensed users who are granted the privilege of operating on a
specified band of frequencies to accomplish a particular task. Things
like wireless internet, cell phones, GPS, the drive-in at a fast food
joint, long haul telephone service, satellite and broadcast radio,
television, and many more conveniences that some of us take for
granted, need clear spectrum to operate properly. That is why the FCC
controls who goes where. What do you suppose would happen if the FCC
were to disappear and anyone was allowed to transmit on any frequency
they pleased?

Common citizens have access to certain portions of spectrum to conduct
personal business or engage in hobby talk. As you demonstrate
increased responsibility and technical competence, you are granted
increased privileges. That is why ham radio has more bands, modes, and
power. A ham license is a certificate that demonstrates that the
holder has passed tests showing that he understands the FCC
operational rules, as well as possessing enough technical skill to
operate higher power transmitters, erect proper antenna systems, and
mitigate interference complaints.

That is not to say that there aren't CB operators equally qualified in
these areas. But until they prove their competence, the FCC does not
recognize it.

Eliminating ham radio and replacing it with a "no-holds-barred" radio
service where people are allowed to run class "C" amps on AM, or
running 10 KW into a poorly decoupled antenna, generating RFI, etc.,
is a recipe for disaster.

One way to illustrate how anarchy is a poor choice for RF spectrum
management, is by turning the tables. If there are no rules, then you
might think it's a good thing. But what if you were engaged in a radio
activity that you enjoyed. All of a sudden that activity was
interrupted by another station creating interference. You could no
longer partake in what it is that you enjoy, thanks to the
interference from the other station. Now, what do you do? There is no
FCC to complain to right? Who stands up for your right of access?

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

From: (John=A0Smith)
(I am afraid Dave is not even good entertainment... more of a
boring/repetitive slug...
He reminds me of an old woman with nothing better to do than harass
anyone in disagreement with them.
a Chihuahua, nipping at ones ankles--best ignored.
However, when not here, he is most likely in his mobile, pursuing
truckers (complete with a rotating caution light on his trunk and
wearing a bunch of pseudo-official badges, patches and ball caps
purchased at ham fests), I suppose it is better to have him here than
out annoying the truckers, at least they can get some honest work done
then! grin
Regards,
John)


-

Well, when he is here he isn't on the air, at least.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:47:04 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

You waste your time, attempting to show logic to Dave, he is obivously a ham
or "ham groupie."
He is just here to stop any progressive changes--write your congressmen!!!
Anyway, whether he does what he does or not--the winds of change begin to
blow....

Regards,
John


anyone that makes a response to post and doesn't quote the original
post so that we know who the hell you are responding to, is dumber
than a ****ing ice cube!!!!