| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
May 25th 05, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#3
May 26th 05, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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" |
|
#4
May 25th 05, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 =---- |
|
#5
May 26th 05, 06:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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" |
|
#6
May 26th 05, 11:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:08:30 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Wrong. Ice provides carbon dioxide samples that are available for any given year. These samples are measured for C14 concentrations, fossil fuels having a much lower concentration of C14 than natural processes. The difference is quantified as the percentage of CO2 contributed by combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the contribution of atmospheric CO2 from human sources is very accurately measured. No they are not. Since CO2 can come from a variety of places including volcanos, and large forest fires any of which can skew those results. Wrong. Volcanos give off very little CO2 -- most of the gasses are Hydrogen Sulfide and oxides of Sulfer. And the Carbon Dioxide from forest fires is easily calculated. In fact, forest fires (both recent and ancient) are studied for their impact on the environment and have been found to cause very little variation in CO2 concentration simply because they occur every year, and are actually -decreasing- in both frequency and intensity. When the apparent variation in the sun's energy output is taken into consideration, it becomes very difficult to determine the exact rate of global warming and how much of it is part of the cyclic climatic change and how much of it is caused strictly as a result of human activity. Wrong. Solar variations can be determined from tree ring growth, and when compared to ice samples they can be differentiated from CO2 concentrations. snip Well, sure,,,Frank taugh you better regarding radio technical competency, Frank has some issues as well. He failed to recognize common industry terms, and discredited my explanations of common electronic circuits because they didn't fit within his own narrow "education". I recognized the "terms" as being poorly defined slang used by some who are without formal education in the field. I'm sure the senior level engineers who I work with would take exception to your highly sheltered and quite ignorant claims. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide the names of those "senior level engineers". And your explanations don't fit within any educational (or engineering) standards, despite your bogus claim to have had some formal education in electronics. Which only shows just how sheltered your own education and (more importantly) your real world experience has been. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to name the tech school you claim to have attended. you called him names and took issue with his career. I was he who first started to degrade my education and career. I only kept the same level of civility. You may have matched my level of 'civility' (subject to debate), but you didn't even come close to my level of education and experience in the field of electronics. Frank, like my mother once said: Self praise stinks, and boy do you smell...... Probably because I've been busy working on my garage. But the fact remains that, no matter how you would like to believe otherwise, your education and experience in the field doesn't measure up to mine. On the contrary, you tried to denounce me with nothing but ignorance, generalizations and subjective opinions. Which is exactly what you did. Wrong. I provided facts and logic. You choose to ignore any facts or logic that isn't consistent with your "core beliefs". So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave? Where are yours? Oh that's right, they're on that website right next to the one with all the left wing anti-war propaganda....... I've provided fact after fact after fact. All the facts I have provided can be independently verified by yourself and anyone else willing to do so. You have provided nothing of the sort in -any- topic. snip .... No one is perfect. If the best you can come up with is 2 mistakes that I made in 10 years worth of posting, I'd say that's a pretty good percentage. You may have -admitted- two of the many mistakes you have made in 10 years. IMO, that's a pretty -poor- percentage. I'll leave it to you and your obsessed minion Twisty to dig up all of my mistakes. Until then, your ****ing in the wind. Jim tried talking to you about foreign news sources, and you called him naive. If someone truly thinks that a foreign news service is any less likely to be affected by political bias, then they are naive. Yet you claim that domestic news services are heavily biased to the left. If that's true then foreign news services are -more- likely to be -less- biased, which makes -you- naive. That statement makes absolutely no logical sense. Only because you are incapable of thinking logically. Where is the logic that supports your claim that a foreign news service bias is in any way connected to domestic news services? That's not what I said, Dave. Learn to read instead of gazing into your crystal ball. Of course your statement, however ignorant and illogical, still did not address my claim which was that foreign news services are just as likely to be politically swayed as any in this country. They are not immune to agenda driven slant. But the exact degree of bias relative to domestic services is irrelevant. You care to deny that? Absolutely. Any news service is subject to bias simply because must decide if any given article is newsworthy. US news services are biased because of corporate ownership influences and target audience demographics. IOW, the Dutch are far less concerned with American news than Americans, so an independent Dutch news agency is going to have far less bias than any US news service, NPR included. I suppose you would find Al-Jazeera to be the bastion of objectivity? I don't think Jim claimed to get his news from Al-Jazeera. Or is that something you divined from your crystal ball? snip Care is not a "simile" for "disagree". When you figure that out, you may ask such questions. You need to learn the difference between a 'simile' and a 'metaphor'. Didn't you ever watch that Danny DeVito movie where he played Kotter to a group of Army dimwits? I wholeheartedly agree with you. Twisty should learn the difference between those terms. You did know to whom you were directing your comments right? No, I didn't. But since you didn't spot his error, my statement stands. Your word games and semantic shuffle will not allow you to wiggle out of that so easily. If one does not post their opinions, how do we know what they think on any topic? Several people have posted opinions that are contrary to your's. Several? Hardly. Other than you Twisty and sometimes Landshark (Who's mostly annoyed at the continuing banter), who else has disagreed with my advice on CB radio? After 10 years of posting I'm sure I could find more than a few in the archives. If you want to talk about politics, there are too few facts to make any definitive choice as to who is "right" or "wrong". Regardless, there are -many- people who have posted political opinions that are contrary to your own warped and subjective whinings. Nobody (except one of your sock puppets) has posted -any- opinion that supports or defends -your- opinions, even in rec.boats. I have had many supporting opinions. Heck, in rec.boats, the conservatives are pretty much even with the liberals. You must be cross-posting to an alternative universe because that's not what comes up on my newsreader. The conservatives mount far better logical arguments. The liberals there tend to limit their opinions to blindly regurgitating talking points and cut and paste articles written by other people. So much for independent thought. They "regurgitate" their arguments in order to find some path of understanding through your thick skull and to your brain, assuming you actually have a brain. And I have no sock puppets, your attempt to bolster your own sagging credibility by trying to discredit mine notwithstanding. You are becoming as paranoid and narcissistic as Twisty. Doesn't matter since your only supporter has left the building. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#7
June 2nd 05, 12:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:32:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:08:30 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Wrong. Ice provides carbon dioxide samples that are available for any given year. These samples are measured for C14 concentrations, fossil fuels having a much lower concentration of C14 than natural processes. The difference is quantified as the percentage of CO2 contributed by combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the contribution of atmospheric CO2 from human sources is very accurately measured. No they are not. Since CO2 can come from a variety of places including volcanos, and large forest fires any of which can skew those results. Wrong. Volcanos give off very little CO2 -- most of the gasses are Hydrogen Sulfide and oxides of Sulfer. And the Carbon Dioxide from forest fires is easily calculated. In fact, forest fires (both recent and ancient) are studied for their impact on the environment and have been found to cause very little variation in CO2 concentration simply because they occur every year, and are actually -decreasing- in both frequency and intensity. That's hard to quantify, for years before accurate data was routinely taken. Your only guessing at that point. There's only so much you can see in ice cores and soil layers. Most of what you see there is suggestive, but not conclusive. When the apparent variation in the sun's energy output is taken into consideration, it becomes very difficult to determine the exact rate of global warming and how much of it is part of the cyclic climatic change and how much of it is caused strictly as a result of human activity. Wrong. Solar variations can be determined from tree ring growth, and when compared to ice samples they can be differentiated from CO2 concentrations. Tree ring growth can be affected by a number of factors, besides solar output. Without accounting for and removing those other variables, a true tracking of solar output cannot be accurately ascertained. snip Well, sure,,,Frank taugh you better regarding radio technical competency, Frank has some issues as well. He failed to recognize common industry terms, and discredited my explanations of common electronic circuits because they didn't fit within his own narrow "education". I recognized the "terms" as being poorly defined slang used by some who are without formal education in the field. I'm sure the senior level engineers who I work with would take exception to your highly sheltered and quite ignorant claims. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide the names of those "senior level engineers". And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know them. And your explanations don't fit within any educational (or engineering) standards, despite your bogus claim to have had some formal education in electronics. Which only shows just how sheltered your own education and (more importantly) your real world experience has been. Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to name the tech school you claim to have attended. I told you before, you aren't worthy of knowing. I have no intention of revealing any of the secondary education sources (and there have been a few) that I have attended over the years. If you want to think that I'm hiding something, then so be it. I know the truth and so does my paycheck, and that's all that matters in the grand scheme of things. you called him names and took issue with his career. I was he who first started to degrade my education and career. I only kept the same level of civility. You may have matched my level of 'civility' (subject to debate), but you didn't even come close to my level of education and experience in the field of electronics. Frank, like my mother once said: Self praise stinks, and boy do you smell...... Probably because I've been busy working on my garage. But the fact remains that, no matter how you would like to believe otherwise, your education and experience in the field doesn't measure up to mine. Says you, a guy who tends bar, and who's next big career move is a lawn care business. Yep, that's some education you have there Frankie. On the contrary, you tried to denounce me with nothing but ignorance, generalizations and subjective opinions. Which is exactly what you did. Wrong. I provided facts and logic. You choose to ignore any facts or logic that isn't consistent with your "core beliefs". You have yet to provide a single unbiased "fact". Your "facts" are simply conclusions reached by other equally opinionated, and agenda driven people, who are making up these conclusions to try to explain certain facts (according to their spin of course). But these are hardly the only explanation. Your logic is often laughable and contains many fallacies. So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave? On the opposite side of the coin from yours Frank. Where are yours? Oh that's right, they're on that website right next to the one with all the left wing anti-war propaganda....... I've provided fact after fact after fact. No you haven't. You provided assumption, after conclusion, after opinion. All the facts I have provided can be independently verified by yourself and anyone else willing to do so. Where? You have provided nothing of the sort in -any- topic. I provide what is necessary. Like the PA state laws which back up what I stated about allowing at least 5 MPH over the speed limit in most cases when clocking speeders. It was comical watching you spin and twist, not much differently that Twistedhed, trying to find the smallest exception to those rules, in a vain effort to try to disprove the majority case. Talk about desperation.... Is your ego that shallow? .... No one is perfect. If the best you can come up with is 2 mistakes that I made in 10 years worth of posting, I'd say that's a pretty good percentage. You may have -admitted- two of the many mistakes you have made in 10 years. IMO, that's a pretty -poor- percentage. I'm sure I made a few more, so what? Like I said, nobody's perfect. But I am right more than I'm wrong. And I invite you to invest even more of your leisure time researching my newsgroup participation in yet another fruitless effort to discredit me. But hey, if that makes you feel better about yourself, then who am I to stand in the way of therapy. I'll leave it to you and your obsessed minion Twisty to dig up all of my mistakes. Until then, your ****ing in the wind. Jim tried talking to you about foreign news sources, and you called him naive. If someone truly thinks that a foreign news service is any less likely to be affected by political bias, then they are naive. Yet you claim that domestic news services are heavily biased to the left. If that's true then foreign news services are -more- likely to be -less- biased, which makes -you- naive. That statement makes absolutely no logical sense. Only because you are incapable of thinking logically. That's not logic. It's convolution. What one country's news service bias is, has absolutely no bearing on what another country's bias is. There is no connection or relation whatsoever. Their bias depends on the agenda of those who are pulling the financial or political purse strings and who sits in the editor's/ publisher's office. Where is the logic that supports your claim that a foreign news service bias is in any way connected to domestic news services? That's not what I said, Dave. Learn to read instead of gazing into your crystal ball. What you said makes no sense, so maybe you should rephrase it in a more logical manner. Of course your statement, however ignorant and illogical, still did not address my claim which was that foreign news services are just as likely to be politically swayed as any in this country. They are not immune to agenda driven slant. But the exact degree of bias relative to domestic services is irrelevant. You care to deny that? Absolutely. Any news service is subject to bias simply because must decide if any given article is newsworthy. US news services are biased because of corporate ownership influences and target audience demographics. Not to mention the liberal slant of the reporters and writers who are producing the articles. If corporate ownership had as much influence as you imply, then the slant of U.S. news would be decidedly conservative. Yet, with the notable exception of (Thank God for) Fox News, that is not the case. I suggest that you pick up copies of the books "Bias" and "Arrogance" by Bernard Goldberg. Both are good reads into the liberal slant of the mainstream media. Goldberg was a 28 year veteran of CBS news, and has an insider's view on what actually goes on inside the "art" of news reporting. IOW, the Dutch are far less concerned with American news than Americans, so an independent Dutch news agency is going to have far less bias than any US news service, NPR included. That may or may not be true depending on their bias toward or against Americans. If they have a decidedly anti-American slant, they would tend to only report on those news stories that paint America in an unfavorable light. I suppose you would find Al-Jazeera to be the bastion of objectivity? I don't think Jim claimed to get his news from Al-Jazeera. No he didn't. But would you consider Al Jazeera's reporting of Americans to be objective? Why or why not? Then explain why any of those factors would be exclusive only to Al Jazeera. Care is not a "simile" for "disagree". When you figure that out, you may ask such questions. You need to learn the difference between a 'simile' and a 'metaphor'. Didn't you ever watch that Danny DeVito movie where he played Kotter to a group of Army dimwits? I wholeheartedly agree with you. Twisty should learn the difference between those terms. You did know to whom you were directing your comments right? No, I didn't. But since you didn't spot his error, my statement stands. I don't nitpick on grammatical mistakes. Only people who start losing debates on the merits of debate itself, resort to attacking grammar, structure or spelling errors. If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger as it were. Your word games and semantic shuffle will not allow you to wiggle out of that so easily. If one does not post their opinions, how do we know what they think on any topic? Several people have posted opinions that are contrary to your's. Several? Hardly. Other than you Twisty and sometimes Landshark (Who's mostly annoyed at the continuing banter), who else has disagreed with my advice on CB radio? After 10 years of posting I'm sure I could find more than a few in the archives. Doubtful. Most are either thankful for my advice, or at least debate with it on a civil level. I miss the days when Dennis O, Sean, Bill E., Toll and others offered up their own perspectives with respect to CB radio. Only the rapid malcontents have any consistent issue with me. If you want to talk about politics, there are too few facts to make any definitive choice as to who is "right" or "wrong". Regardless, there are -many- people who have posted political opinions that are contrary to your own warped and subjective whinings. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But the fact that you hold that opinion, in and of itself, is not proof that my contrary opinions are "wrong". Nobody (except one of your sock puppets) has posted -any- opinion that supports or defends -your- opinions, even in rec.boats. I have had many supporting opinions. Heck, in rec.boats, the conservatives are pretty much even with the liberals. You must be cross-posting to an alternative universe because that's not what comes up on my newsreader. Then you need to look harder. Most of the liberals there cannot think independently. They offer up op-ed column of obviously biased reporters as some sort of "support" for their opinions. But liberalism defies logic, and that's what especially laughable about you Frank. You, who claim to embrace logic, yet adopt a political ideology that's mostly "pie in the sky" idealism. A philosophy that requires a great deal of complicated governmental intervention to implement. The free market capitalist society is one of true freedom. Those who work hard, get rewarded. Those who don't....... Well they have no one else to blame but themselves for what they end up with. The conservatives mount far better logical arguments. The liberals there tend to limit their opinions to blindly regurgitating talking points and cut and paste articles written by other people. So much for independent thought. They "regurgitate" their arguments in order to find some path of understanding through your thick skull and to your brain, assuming you actually have a brain. But BS is still BS no matter how many times they "regurgitate" it. And I have no sock puppets, your attempt to bolster your own sagging credibility by trying to discredit mine notwithstanding. You are becoming as paranoid and narcissistic as Twisty. Doesn't matter since your only supporter has left the building. Your still wrong Frank. But your nature dictates that you will continue to attack me. But like trying to find firm footing in quicksand, your arguments will be just as ineffective. That is why arguing politics is usually pointless. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#8
May 26th 05, 05:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#9
May 26th 05, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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" |
|
#10
May 31st 05, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
Really? You grew up near there and never heard of it? Need the exact address on Gravers Road and then you can use the mapblast, eh? Ok,,she was born in 1963 and lived at 1819 Gravers Road in Norristown. .Oh, this is just too easy..... http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp...te=PA&zipcode= There is no such address in the mapquest database, as the link shows. Once again, you're wrong, and I proved it. You proved nothing. Go to google maps and try it again. Been there, done that. Nada. Wrong,,,try it again. Your incompetence coupled with desperation has you claiming something that the rest of the world has no problem viewing. Now, take a deep breath, and try it again...."google" then "google maps". Enter "1819 Gravers Road Norristown, Pa." View. Enjoy. Come back. Get laughed at for glaring error. Deny. Claim information is incorrect. Change subject. Make more accusations. Go away angry. Besides, you can't use google maps. No, you have just demonstrated -you- can't use google maps. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1419 Â October 22, 2004 | CB | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
| OLD motorola trunking information | Scanner | |||
Hybrid Mode
