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"

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"

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 07:08:06 -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"

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.

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"

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