|
On 06 Jun 2005 19:48:01 GMT, Steveo wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: YOU are the only one who does not understand me, and the reason for that is in you inability to comprehend simple sentences. Oh come now Dave, you have me scratching my head from time to time, as I'm sure I do to you as well. I usually ignore this thread, but I scanned over it this time and had some time to reply. I think I can understand sentences ok so far. Of course you can. There's nothing wrong with your ability to comprehend. You're not an idiot. Once in a while we sometimes have trouble putting our thoughts into comprehensible words. And sometimes others have trouble understanding what it is that we try to say. That's to be expected. But with some people it's more the rule than the exception...... BTW, how was Dayton? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
Dave Hall wrote:
BTW, how was Dayton? Nerd festival. :P |
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:55:58 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:35:51 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: (Most of your usual babble snipped) Truth is always snipped, David, especially when your lies about cellular phones are brought to light with proof. The only one who lies is you. Of course you can always use Bush's excuse and claim that you were "misinformed".... I never made any such claim. * *You claimed listening to underaged girls on cordless phones speaking of sex was "juicy". An adjective used to describe the nature of the conversation. Wrong,,,an adjective chosen by -you- to convey -your- interpretations of sex talk by minors. The adjective was used to describe the nature of the conversation. The age of the participants is irrelevant. Feel free to insert your own adjective if you wish. It reflects in no way how I personally reacted to it. No one claimed differently. in fact, you probably jacked off to it No, in your own dirty little immature mind, you might think that. But the "fact" is much different. Wasn't it Al Bundy who once said "Why go out for milk when you have a cow at home?" , but not one tried claiming how you reacted to it. You invoked how you felt about it. You found such talk "juicy". So would anyone else who happened to hear it, so what? Once again you read more meanings in words than are actually conveyed. But of course, David. This is your pattern. This is the part where you redefine what you really meant with the term "juicy" when eavesdropping on minors talk about sex. Trying to get you to comprehend is like teaching a pig to dance. A fruitless prospect. But it is fun watching you apply your demented mind to simple sentences. You were not a minor when you spoke of such acts being "juicy". No, but I was no more than about 22. You lie. You made the post a few years ago and called the act "juicy". A few years ago, I posted about something that I did when I was 22. I also post quite often about my experiences on CB back in the 70's. Does that mean that I did it at the exact time I posted it? In fact, my wife is 3 years younger than me. And her middle name begins with T and she lived at 1819 Gravers Road in Plymouth Meeting, a (according to your definition) suburb of Norristown that appears when plugged into google maps,,remember,,,,,it was that thing you said you tried but it gave you "nada" results. You said 1819 Gravers road in Norristown. There is NO Gravers road in Norristown. Plain and simple. It does not show up in either Mapquest or Google. Now had you been more accurate in your information, and given me Plymouth Meeting (Which has it's own post office and is a town in it's own right) then it might have worked. Don't blame me for YOUR error. My wife never lived there, nor does her middle name begin with "T". You are wrong yet again (A pattern for you). So what of it? *Now, the moral -majority- of people would find it disgustingly perverted that a man of your age 22? You weren't 22 when you described the act you performed. No, but I was when I actually partook in it. You said it in your post only a few short years ago, and I quote, that their "talk of sex was "juicier" than Melrose Place", which came on in the nineties, when you were well into your thirties. So you believe that a person cannot take two elements from different times and compare them at a later date? I can't talk about my 1967 Mustang in the same sentence as talking about my current rides? I can compare the state of CB radio today to what it was like 35 years ago? Are you THAT mentally impaired? Just for the record, you did not claim the act of eavesdropping on these minors was "juicy" when you did the act, you said it a few short years ago. Yet, you entertainingly think yourself as part of some imagined moral majority. Any majority of moral people would not describe the act of eavesdropping on minors speaking of sex as "juicy" at your age. Get over it, David. You're a perv and your problems are all over these pages. I'm not the one accusing other people of masturbation, of dressing in drag, or talking about abhorrent sex acts with other men. That would be reserved for you at various times and posts. So tell me again who the "perv" is? * Again, the word describes the tone of the conversations. Normal moral adults would disagree with you, David. Normal moral adults would not find such "tones" of minors as "juicy". And again, the term denotes -your- interpretation of sex talk by minors as such. Moral adults would not be operating unlicensed transmitters on unauthorized frequencies, and then incorrectly use the term "civil disobedience" in a vain attempt to ease what little conscience they might have. At no time did I claim that it "got me off" or affected me in any other way other than psychological curiosity. Of course you did, you caled it "juicy". Please do not embarrass yourself again by misleading yourself that anyone at all would believe a young man of the age you speak would consider any psychological factor concerning such talk. You don't know me very well (after all this time) do you? Why do you think I bother responding to you at all? Do you think I do it because I feel that you are a person of influence, or that the things you say have some intrinsic value? LMAO! If so, then you really are as narcissistic as I've thought. No, I do it for the psychological entertainment value that you provide. I love watching you bend even the most straightforward statements into convoluted fragments of the truth. I love watching you lie, and then back pedal to cover it up. I love driving you to dig up information about me, and end up getting much of it wrong, yet accuse ME of seeking information about you. This is greater entertainment than watching Homer Simpson say "Doh" for the hundred thousandth time. I've always enjoyed watching the human experience. Who needs scripted "reality" TV when the real world is your stage and regular people are here to perform, and all without scripts (But maybe with a little prodding). It also gives me insight into how people think and what things are important to them. Just like Dr. Jane Goodall studies primates in order to understand their social interaction, I do the same for humans. Informally, but it's fun watching people react predictably to programmed stimuli. On that note, you have never failed yet. Anything other than what I have just said, is purely your imagination running amuck. Your words and actions speak loud and clear to the world, David, as only you have this incredible belief only you can see yourself as you really are and that you are misunderstood to the point that you need reiterate and explain yourself to each and every person you disagree. If someone is a thick and with the incredible comprehensively challenged as you are, I guess I do have to explain everything in simple basic terms. Which you have demonstrated throughout your posting history with all you disagree, David. Your errant behavior began long before I came along and tweaked you with your own offensive acts. No, actually it hasn't. You are the only one who sees fit to mince words, twist meanings, obfuscate the truth, make disingenuous statements, and project your failings on to others. Nothing is more laughable (To the point of tears sometimes) than to hear you go off on other people and accuse them of having "communications deficits" when it is clear to anyone who's been here for more than a few weeks that it is YOU who can't seem to grasp the straight meaning. It's no wonder you fall for liberal propaganda. In your convoluted mind, their logic probably makes sense. Otherwise you garner meanings that do not exist and assume something that was not expressly conveyed. You plead and plead that everyone misunderstands you David, I have never claimed that "everyone misunderstands me" Sure you have, David, You do it in the manner of attempting to explain away "just what you really meant" after manking a post using words you have no clue their definition. I never use a word that I do not know the definition of. You have tried to make an issue of my vernacular, or grammatical usage, but in every case, I have provided the definitions of the words to support my usage. Your predictable response has always been to attack my source. Since I started using internet dictionaries, it becomes harder for you to claim that I am "lying" about it as it is easily verifiable by anyone who cares. For countless examples of you not understanding the majority of people you disagree, one merely needs google "sandbagger" and the words "you mean". Cripes, there is enough reading for even the most remote layperson to get a handle on your communication deficits. There you go again, projecting your own faults onto me. Google "Twistedhed" and "Lying" and see what you come up with. as I have given many people good advice from Radio, to practical matters. Which does not excuse your deficit. You mean YOUR deficit. YOU are the only one who does not understand me, You told Frank he couldn't understand your politics. People will argue politics until the cows come home. Both sides claim to have the "facts", while accusing the other side of "propagandizing". All I tried to do with Frank, is to show him that his political beliefs were based on no more credible information than mine were. Even after he hypocritically tried to discredit my sources as "propaganda" while offering up his own propaganda (Which he claimed to be "fact") as proof of such. All he had to do was say that he believes what he wants to believe, based on his own intrinsic core values. But instead he tried to walk the intellectual high road. But all I have to do is hold up a mirror to every claim he makes at me, and the same rules apply right back. You said Shark couldn't understand the laws in your state because he didn't live there Well yea, how can someone who doesn't live here have any experience with the process of the LEO's here? I admit quite readily that there are many laws in California that I am not familiar with. I have no reason to be. I don't live there. There are many similarities, but there are also differences. ( a most ludicrous comment coming from the end we expect it most) after he produced proof that one can indeed et a speeding ticket in your state for going less than 5 MPH under the posted limit, despite your objections claiming otherwise. What proof did he offer? He offered nothing but his own opinionated claim that "a cop can write a ticket for anything if he wants", which is a ridiculous statement to make. If the cop has any hope of having that ticket stand up in court (Which he would have to appear at), then it better be legitimate. All one would have to do is show up in court with a copy of statute 3368, and the ticket goes away in most cases. I posted the statutes that clearly define the speed tolerances that are in effect in the Commonwealth of Pa. They clearly supported my claims in the vast majority of cases, stopwatches and tailgating notwithstanding. So who are you going to believe, the opinion of an out of state resident, professing a gut feeling, or the actual laws printed in black and white? You (and he) lost that one big time. Why you continue to bring it up only shows the depths of your psychological problems. and the reason for that is in you inability to comprehend simple sentences. Actually David, and I'm not the only one who has pointed this out to you, it's because you misuse words of which you have no clue their definition. Name them. And in the proper context in which I used them. This is probably why there are so many posts with you not comprehending what others say to you. LOL..again try the google with your words "Do you mean" or "did you mean". The number of posts made by you seeking clarification to other's words are numerable, yet, your knee jerk reaction is to blame another. Do the search David, it's not the "other", it's you all throughout your posting history who can ot comprehend what others tell you. Despite your paranoia, it's not just me David, there are many many others in those returns which have you expressing difficulties. The ony common theme in ALL the posts, is you disagreed with each and every one of those of which you needed to seek clarification. This holds with your need for validation. Your lying again. I have no trouble communicating with anyone. Anyone, that is, who has normal mental faculties. But during the course of communication, especially on technical issues, one often finds the need for some additional information, or clarification. It is far better, and much more polite, to ask for clarification than to assume a meaning when it is not clear or forthcoming. But that's been one of your primary problems, you jump to conclusions, often the wrong ones, rather than getting that clarification. Don't worry, we won't (can't) think any less of you if you can't understand what someone is trying to say. We'll try to speak a little slower next time. It was not illegal at the time I was engaged in listening. It was. This is another area concernig the law of which you are extremely ignorant. There was NO law preventing interception of cordless phones in the 1980's. None, nada, zilch. Prove me wrong if you can. And I'll laugh at your attempts. You've been proved wrong, such as on the roger beep issue, and most -have- laughed at you, David. The roger beep issue does not equate to, or bear any relevance to the ECPA and cordless phone reception issue. Your attempt at deflection is duly noted. Any scanner user could do it. No David,,the last time this was brought up, you tried and failed with this excuse. When it was illustrated what a pervert you are, you come back with the defense that the incident occurred years and years ago, when you were a younger man. It appears you can remember vividly the details of such an incident that many years ago, but can not recal a simple Phelps antenna when inquired of a comment you made a few year's previous alluding to such. Nevertheless, back when you were that young, the scanners were not digital, but crystals, and contrary to your claim "any scanner user could do it", that simply was not the case back then. In fact, cordless phones came on the market in 1980 and were ALL 27 MHZ phones, a specific crystal that did NOT come imbedded in "any scanner". All of this coupled together with your oft-invoked "statistical probablility" factor, makes you to be one big freegin' liar! LMAO! Your lack of age and experience is glaringly apparent in this statement. First off, the first programmable scanners came out in the late 70's. Look into the Bearcat 101, the SBE Optiscan, the Regency "Whamo 10" and the Tenelec. My Bearcat 210xl was purchased in 1980 or 81, and you can clearly see it in the pictures of my station in 1985 and 1990 as shown on my website. Secondly cordless phones were not on 27 MHz (What idiot would put cordless phones on the already crowded CB band?). The same type idiot that comes out here pretending he knows all kinds of things about all kinds of things, but knows jack **** intimately. www.affordablephones.net/HistoryCordless.htm LMAO,,the feds did it, genius. They most certainly WERE on 27 in their beginning. The 1st 49 MHZ came about in or around 1986. Talk that smack, David. Wrong. The first 49 Mhz (with 1.7 Mhz return) was on the market earlier than 1986, because I was listening to them long before then. I bought my Yaesu FT-757 in 1984 (I still have the receipt), and I used it to catch the cordless phone base frequency, while the Bearcat scanner was tuned to the initial 10 (Later upped to 25) 49 Mhz frequencies. In fact, you've just given me the inspiration for another article for my website. I'll provide all the details there. It's a darn shame that the cordless phones came along when they did. They pretty much ruined the 49 Mhz band as an unlicensed hobby band. Prior to about 1982, there was a budding group of low power experimenters running 100 mW (And in some cases modified 6 meter ham gear) radios and trying to work DX there. When the phones and baby monitors arrived, that was the death knell for that band for hobbyists and experimenters. I still have my old Lafayette HA-240 on 49.860 Mhz. The 46/49 Mhz phones (49 Mhz handset, 46 Mhz base) started around 1986. While I won't deny that the very first phones might have actually been on 27 MHz, I was not into listening to them then (It would have been a lot easier to do. Any modified CB could have done it). I don't think those early phones sold all that well. I never saw or heard one in my area. As usual, your lack of knowledge of the subject was illustrated perfectly. Such lack of knowldge of the subject prevents you from discussing it further. My knowledge was from direct personal experience. I know you're too young to remember back that far, but the first truly legitimate cordless phones used 49 Mhz for the handset and 1.7 Mhz (Just above the AM broadcast band) for the base unit. Find an old timer and ask them if you don't believe me. If the FCC or the phone lobby doesn't want people listening in, they need to block out those frequencies or scramble the transmissions. Then the same logic can be applied to use of the freeband. **How? The method was your idea. The fact that you once again speak before thinking is illustrated by no one better than yourself. Which means what exactly? As usual, you are talking a bunch of circular nonsense. Someday, I hope to read a nice long E-mail from you outlining just how your postings were all deliberate attempts at psychological tweaking. I can far better respect you for being that, than a unconscious dyslexic thinker. My faith in humanity is greatly lowered knowing that such people exist and actually think they know something. It was always a crime to eavesdrop on one's private telephone conversation using electronic equipment, David. It violates federal wiretap law, but your position of "thinking like a criminal" (your words) is interesting. Wire tapping did not apply to radio devices at that time. It was still considered a telephone and as such was subject to the rules and regulations governing telpephones.. Nope. There was no provision in any wiretap law at that time that specifically addresses reception of cordless phones. So by using your logic, if it isn't specifically called out as illegal, assume that it is legal. That was the glaring loophole in the wiretap law. No loophole at all, just another wrong claim from you. Then I'm sure you will provide the exact verbiage to substantiate your claim? There could be no reasonable expectation of privacy when you run unencrypted analog FM signals over a band that is generally easy to receive by "common" radio receivers (Such as a scanner). One's expectations of privacy has nothing to do with the law, David. It has a great deal to do with it. Again, prove me wrong if you can (But I won't hold my breath). I've proved you wrong so many times with radio law that it's downright dandy giving you the cord and watching you so eagerly jump to wrap it around your neck. You are so quick to jump these days that you rant on about things you have no clue. The only thing I have been wrong on was the roger beep issue. And you didn't prove that. I had to get the info myself from the FCC. As for anything else, you're just blowing smoke. Now, I'll say this as directly and as succinctly as possible so that you will (hopefully) understand it. Please provide the exact verbiage in the federal wiretap law, as is was around 1984, that specifically addresses reception of cordless phones. I am more than willing to post the links to the ECPA, showing the date that it became effective and what it covers. Try reading what applied to your situation, not what you think gave you permission to violate the law. The ECPA is what specifically addresses wireless phone devices. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. If you are going to break the law, you should at least be educated about the law you break and penalties you face. Remember that each time you run your unlicensed transmitter on the freeband..... My Ten-Tec needs no license or acceptance. True, for the amateur bands where authority to operate is granted to a properly licensed amateur (Which BTW, are you one?), and type acceptance of radio gear is not required. However, the radio is not authorized to operate anywhere other than the amateur bands except by license or authorization (such as MARS or CAP). Certain other bands require type acceptance of radio gear. The land mobile service (which is what the freeband was once part of) does (As does the CB band). So your Ten Tec is not type accepted to operate on the land mobile band, and you are not licensed as an operator on that band. That's two strikes. See, this is another example of your **** poor retainment skills, as you have been informed on repeated occasion that as an extra, you ought know such things, but then again you are the deviant exception to hammie ops, not the norm. You are the one who doesn't understand radio law. No matter how many time you spew your convoluted understanding of the law, it will not make it right. You are not authorized to operate a transmitter on the freeband without a license. It is not a band authorized by rule, therefore the operator requires a station license. If you don't have one, you are not authorized to run there, Period. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:12:14 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Dave: Kinda like the "suicide bombers" in Iraq--only hopefully Americans are intelligent to get away without blowing themselves up--would be more effective if more than one bomb could be delivered before your death--hypothetically speaking of course... Warmest regards, John Then we would be no better morally, than the terrorists that we are seeking to fight in the middle east. Killing innocent lives through violence to front a cause seems to be counterproductive. It's hard to gather sympathy and support for your cause, when your "bombs" kill someone in another's family. That's why, I believe, we will ultimately win in Iraq. The Iraqi people are growing tired of the criminal element in their own society carrying out these acts of violence, and they will (and are) help us to eradicate them. Dave "Sandbagger" |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:55:58 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) =A0 =A0You claimed listening to underaged girls on cordless phones speaking of sex was "juicy". An adjective used to describe the nature of the conversation. Wrong,,,an adjective chosen by -you- to convey -your- interpretations of sex talk by minors. The adjective was used to describe the nature of the conversation. Only by perverts. The age of the participants is irrelevant. Only to perverts. The mere fact that you feel normal moral adults would find sex talk by minor underaged girls as "juicy" like you do, is way off base. Feel free to insert your own adjective if you wish. Perverted. =A0=A0It reflects in no way how I personally reacted to it. No one claimed differently. in fact, you probably jacked off to it No, in your own dirty little immature mind, LOL,,,you are the one finding sex talk by undeaged girls "juicy" David. The dirty litle immature mind is all yours. Stop projecting your deficiencies unto others. you might think that. But the "fact" is much different. Wasn't it Al Bundy who once said "Why go out for milk when you have a cow at home?" The "fact" is you found sex talk of minors "juicy" and normal moral adults do not agree with you. Normal moral adults find such behavior troubling and of deviant behavior.. Not one tried claiming how you reacted to it. You invoked how you felt about it. You found such talk "juicy". So would anyone else who happened to hear it, so what? You didn't "happen" upon it David, you went out of your way to obtain the conversation. And again, you're wrong. "Anyone else" would not describe sex talk between minor underaged children as "juicy". Only perverts like yourself. Once again you read more meanings in words than are actually conveyed. But of course, David. This is your pattern. This is the part where you redefine what you really meant with the term "juicy" when eavesdropping on minors talk about sex. Trying to get you to comprehend is like teaching a pig to dance. A fruitless prospect. But it is fun watching you apply your demented mind to simple sentences. Demented is a choice term to apply to an adult of your age who continues to refer to talk by children of sex as "juicy". Freak. You were not a minor when you spoke of such acts being "juicy". No, but I was no more than about 22. You lie. You made the post a few years ago and called the act "juicy". .A few years ago, I posted about something that I did when I was 22. And you called it "juicy" a few years ago, and here you are now defending the term you used and reiterating that you indeed found such talk as "juicy". You appear to need another vocabulary lesson. The manner in which you used the term can have only two meanings: 1) Appealing; satisfying or 2) Interesting or colorful especially when slightly scandalous. You're a freak who shouldn't be permitted around children unless other adults are present. I also post quite often about my experiences on CB back in the 70's. Does that mean that I did it at the exact time I posted it? That whine is getting redundant. In fact, my wife is 3 years younger than me. And her middle name begins with T and she lived at 1819 Gravers Road in Plymouth Meeting, a (according to your definition) suburb of Norristown that appears when plugged into google maps,,remember,,,,,it was that thing you said you tried but it gave you "nada" results. You said 1819 Gravers road in Norristown. I said to -enter- "1819 Gravers Road Norristown" into google, but then again, your deficit is in full gear right now, brought on by your self-created stress and gaffes. There is NO Gravers road in Norristown. Plain and simple. It does not show up in either Mapquest or Google. You are still having problems, David. I told you to enter the info into google, you said you did do that and that "nada" was returned. Now you are experiencing that great familiar pain that ails you when you fail with semantics. Now had you been more accurate in your information, and given me Plymouth Meeting (Which has it's own post office and is a town in it's own right) then it might have worked. Norristown has its own PO also, yet, you insisted it was a "suburb" of Philly. In fact, you have confused yourself twice in the past by giving contraindicated information concerning what you mistakenly feel constitutes a suburb. Sef-contradiction is a by=3Dproduct of your incompetence. Don't blame me for YOUR error. My wife never lived there, nor does her middle name begin with "T". You are wrong yet again (A pattern for you). So what of it? Now, the moral -majority- of people would find it disgustingly perverted that a man of your age 22? You weren't 22 when you described the act you performed. No, but I was when I actually partook in it. You said it in your post only a few short years ago, and I quote, that their "talk of sex was "juicier" than Melrose Place", which came on in the nineties, when you were well into your thirties. .So you believe that a person cannot take two elements from different times and compare them at a later date? Most people grow up and those who would find such behavior involving minors speaking of sex would not find the talk "juicy" when they were in their forties, but you not only defend your interpretation of this behavior, you continue to insist talk of sex by minors in "juicy" to you. You have problems, David. I can't talk about my 1967 Mustang in the same sentence as talking about my current rides? I can compare the state of CB radio today to what it was like 35 years ago? Are you THAT mentally impaired? Mentally impaired are those like yourself who find sex talk of minors "juicy". In fact, the majority of normal moral adults find your talk of such acts as quite disturbing. Just for the record, you did not claim the act of eavesdropping on these minors was "juicy" when you did the act, you said it a few short years ago. Yet, you entertainingly think yourself as part of some imagined moral majority. Any majority of moral people would not describe the act of eavesdropping on minors speaking of sex as "juicy" at your age. Get over it, David. You're a perv and your problems are all over these pages. I'm not the one accusing other people of masturbation, of dressing in drag, When one of your age comes out here and invokes unsolicited claims to the world that you find talk between minors talking of sex as "juicy", what others accuse you of is the least of your problems. or talking about abhorrent sex acts with other men. Ahhh,,,you and Dogie are the --only-- ones on this board who are preoccupied with queers and gays, as only you two consistently enter such into your conversations. That would be reserved for you at various times and posts. So tell me again who the "perv" is? =A0 Adults who find talk of sex by minors as "juicy". Again, the word describes the tone of the conversations. Normal moral adults would disagree with you, David. Normal moral adults would not find such "tones" of minors as "juicy". And again, the term denotes -your- interpretation of sex talk by minors as such. Moral adults would not be operating unlicensed transmitters on unauthorized frequencies, and then incorrectly use the term "civil disobedience" in a vain attempt to ease what little conscience they might have. It's always been you who has problems with other's consciences. But there is no comparison to dxing and freebading David, when it comes to your sexual deviances. BBTW, you need to look up the term civil disobedience again, as you have no clue what the term entails, despite being informed on numerous occasions. |
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:15:11 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 02:44:07 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: Did you miss this post, too, Dave? Frank, I'll choose which posts I wish to respond to and which ones I won't . Trying to bury me under a pile of nonsense is not going to work Frank. No, -you- don't work, Dave. You can't accept the fact that you are wrong, and when I post facts that you can't spin or obfuscate you simply ignore those posts and pick the posts that you feel you can work to your advantage. It's a bonehead tactic and you are too ignorant to see that it works to -my- advantange, not your's. The answer is A because loyalty must be earned, and American's have a very good long-term memory. Even if the American company is forced out of business by cheaper foreign competitors? Considering that other countries have no objection to using cheap foreign labor, and producing products cheaper, the U.S. company is now at a competitive disadvantage with those products which they are in direct competition from foreign companies. American workers could be easily protected with import tariffs; but Bush's butt has been kissed (and licked, sucked, wiped and powdered) by corporations seeking cheap labor, so he is pushing for open-border trade agreements with third-world countries. Tariffs are an overly naive and simplistic answer, which will not help. I'll tell you why. First off, the import tariff will raise the price of imported goods which drive up the costs that the American consumer pays. Then the worker will demand more in raises to compensate, and you now have inflation. Wrong. No, right. If you are going to claim that I am "wrong", protocol dictates that you provide corroborating evidence to back it up. Simply claiming that I'm wrong based on little more than your own ignorance of economics is not going to be seriously considered. Import tariffs drive up the cost of -imported- products, which in turn encourages -domestic- production and manufacturing. The prices will go up, as will the wages; Which translates to....... INFLATION! Inflation occurs when the costs increase faster than the wages (an explanation simplified for someone with your level of education). Import tariffs actually -reduce- inflation for the very simple reason that the export deficits are reduced and more American money stays in America. If you want to pay $500 again for a VCR or DVD player, and $400 again for a decent CB (Like it was in the 70's not even accounting for inflation) then maybe this might appeal to you. VCRs and CBs were expensive because of their popularity at the time, not because of inflation. But the problem is that the American public has become adjusted to receiving high American wages, while paying for cheaper imported goods. If the price of goods increases substantially, then the wages of the workers will have to jump to cover it. You are assuming the premises that 1) the cost of imported products will "increase substantially", and 2) that there are no domestic substitutes for those products. Both are wrong: The price of -any- product relies upon the laws of supply and demand. If you have a hammer made in China and a hammer made in the USA, the price is going to be the same because the market dictates the price. That's why it's called a "free-market economy". Imposing import tariffs increases the costs to the manufacturers of the hammers from China, but the price remains the same because the demand hasn't changed. But because of the increased cost to China the supply from China will be smaller. That reduction in supply is met with an increased supply of hammers from the US manufacturers, who are now relieved of some of the foreign competition. In the process, more Americans are hired to make those hammers, which, in turn, improves the economic status of not only the company that manufactures the hammers, but also of the community that benefits from the jobs and the government that benefits from the taxes. Everybody wins except China. When that happens the cost of corporate direct labor and overhead goes up, and they have to raise the price of manufactured goods to cover it. And the cycle of inflation repeats. Part of the reason why the rate of inflation has been so low for the last several years is due to the fact that the cost of goods had actually dropped as corporations tighten their belts and outsource more of their labor. Demand for higher wages has fallen, and inflation remains in check. Wrong again. Inflation has been held in check by interference by the Federal Reserve. Greenspan sets the prime interest rate to control lending (which puts money into the economy), and with the buying and selling of T-bills. Despite this, inflation -does- occur because the major inflationary indicators are not perfect and the calculations are usually flawed to some extent. But because of this interference, there is no longer a free-market economy, and free-market economic models no longer apply. So it's possible to have inflation and recession at the same time, or have two or three economic markets operating independent of each other. Regardless of it's unnatural complexity, the economy is manipulated to the advantage of those that wield power over the Federal Reserve. And regardless of the economic impact of import tariffs, the Federal Reserve will control any inflation (to the extent that it can be controlled), with the added benefit that the country stops bleeding from huge export deficits. but the overall effect is that the domestic economy is stimulated, which more than compensates for any short-term dips. And for the record, it also reduces the amount paid for welfare since more people are working. I'm not sure where to start since you have such a myopic view of global economics. This isn't the USA solely owning it's own corporations any more. Practically all large corporations are multi-national to some degree. They compete in many markets of which the US is but one consumer. Tariffs will only help the domestic market. It will do little to help the corporation in the international market share. Find me one American that's willing to stand in the unemployment line so someone from India or China or Venezuela can have their job. Secondly, the U.S. is but ONE consumer of goods. American companies trying to compete in foreign markets will not have the protection of the tariff and they will wither under strong foreign competition which they will not be able to match. Also, other countries do not like tariff policies and would likely impose tariffs on our goods in retaliation to our tariffs on theirs. Surely you can figure out what would happen then. Wrong on both counts. American innovation and technology is, and has always been, one of the primary exports of this country. You blindly assume that Americans are the only ones who can master this area. Have you spent any time in the Pacific Rim lately? We're about to be eclipsed by Japan (If not already), and many other countries (such as India) are also closing in on us in technology related fields. Then we better get some better policies started pretty soon, huh? Speaking of policy, when do you suppose Bush is going to make good on his promise to unite the parties and do away with partisan politics? Stimulate the industrial base and you stimulate people and businesses to be more innovative (instead of using the word as an advertising gimmick). You should write motivational slogans. Empty, hollow, and meaningless words designed to make us feel good, but carry absolutely no weight. There are plenty of people doing that already. Most of them work for auto manufacturers, insurance corporations, Bank of America, and political campaign organizations. But since you cannot provide substance for your claims, allow me to provide it for mine: http://web.infoweb.ne.jp/fairtradec/new/b031107.pdf This report outlines, among other things, what happens when a global organization, such as the WHO, reacts negatively to what they perceive as "protectionist" tactics such as tariffs. So tell me again how I am "wrong" about potential retaliation for any tariffs we may place on foreign made goods. Sure. Go to college and take Macro- and Micro-Economics. And since you are so gullible, try to avoid those neocon and WTO proxy websites. Tell me, would you pay 50 - 100% more for a TV or some other product just to keep the U.S. company here? Considering that the government is squeezing more and more money out of us in the form of taxes, and the costs of things like fuel are skyrocketing, we look for the best bargains in everything we buy. Because the taxes are on the Americans, not on the import corporations (e.g, Walmart, aka 'China Inc.') where they should be. See above. And that doesn't cover the foreign market. Would a European pay more for a U.S. made product over a foreign made product? Depends on where that 'foreign' product was made. Does it matter? If it's cheaper, they will buy it. I guess that's why Mercedes, Jags and BMW's sell so well, huh? Didn't you learn anything in our discussion about how a quality education is often preferred over a lesser degree? If you did, what part of your brain is unable to apply the underlying concept to other situations? So you posit that a Ford is on equal standing, quality wise, with a Mercedes? People will sometimes pay more for something if they perceive a greater value for it. Oh, you mean like if an employer sees a greater value in a better education? So I ask again, is the relative value of a Ford the same as that of a Mercedes? Would the Ford be able to compete on a price basis with a Mercedes? If not for the cheaper price of the domestic car, would they not lose all market share to those foreign companies if they were forced to compete on a purely quality basis? Finally, you see the light! Now hit the archives from a couple months ago and see how you flip-flopped on the issue. Besides the obvious pedigree and prestige that names like Mercedes bring to the table, there is also the issue of status. That's why idiots will pay thousands more for a Lexus, which is little more than a Toyota with a few superficial frills and a different emblem badge. I have to agree with you on that one. Why do you think sales of imported cars have become such a threat here? GM, Ford, and Mopar are all feeling the pinch. It used to be that the foreign cars were significantly more expensive (Mostly due to import tariffs), and the domestic product sold well because it was cheaper. Now, since the prices are fairly close, the perception of better quality that comes with the Japanese cars, has convinced people to abandon the "Buy American" motif, in favor of their own bottom line. The price difference in the past had little to do with import tariffs and much more to do with raw materials. That's why nowdays we cut down our own trees, ship them off to foreign countries to be made into plywood, which is shipped back and sold in the US for ridiculous prices. This is a direct result of "free trade" with foreign countries, not high labor costs in the US as many claim. Because of these free-trade agreements, restrictions were lifted for raw materials being exported but -not- for raw materials being used for domestic manufacturing. Same deal with imported products. If you are going to invoke the WTO to support your arguments then at least learn something about the dirty deals the US has made in its benefit. I'm suprised you haven't because Clinton made a few of those dirty deals. This example also speaks to your assumption of "superior American technology" and ingenuity. Don't look now, but we've been beaten at our own game. That's because you are ignoring the fact that technology is exported just as easily as wood. What ultimately happens to a U.S. corporation who loses a competitive edge? Any US corp that chooses to cut American jobs instead of lobbying for import tariffs against foreign competitors is, in the most tactful of terms, economically nearsighted. So, then, you would rather an American company keep it's American workforce in a patriotic corporate suicide attempt, as it folds under unmatchable competition from abroad? What if all US companies fold or move their corporate headquarters offshore? Then what? What if all US companies lobbied for import tariffs? What if there really were a man in the moon? It's more likely than your "mass corporate suicide" scenario. What happens when there are no more cheap labor countries like China? Can you spell double digit inflation??? How about 20% per yr for about ten yrs. Maybe even longer or higher inflation rates. Yes, inflation is a very real fear. No, it's not. It's a hope. Inflation, in a free market economy, is an 'equalizer' -- it's an effect of a surplus of cash in circulation, which usually ends up in the hands of those who need it the most. Historically, inflation hurts the rich and benefits the poor, which is something you never hear from the "left-wing, liberally biased media". Well that's true to an extent. Those who invest their money in fixed rate securities (retired people) will earn more interest, while those seeking to borrow, will pay more. But the rich are who generally create the jobs that the rest of us work at. Wrong. The failure of Reaganomics proved that people create their own jobs when the rich get too greedy. They do so out of necessity. Reagonomics was far from a failure. LOL! It is what stimulated the last 2 decades of economic growth, especially in the tech sector which was heavily made up of small, face-paced startup companies. You know, like Microsoft. And Enron, Worldcom, numerous Savings & Loans, etc, etc. If inflation cuts into their costs too much, they will have to reduce the workforce or make other cuts (outsource?) to keep the margins. It really doesn't matter since the US is no longer a free-market economy -- the Federal Reserve has tight (and probably illegal) control over the money supply and keeps the inflation rate down artificially. The Fed only controls the rate at which money is borrowed. Wrong. They also buy and sell T-bills, which either injects or removes money from the economy, respectively. Regardless, the prime interest rate controls the amount of money that is borrowed, and the amount of money borrowed has a direct effect on the amount of money circulating in the economy, even much more so than the buying and selling of T-bills. Any time the government mucks with the market, it upsets the balance of the free market. Why do you think healthcare costs are so high? Insurance companies. Probably the biggest legalized racket since organized religion. But when the standard of living equalizes, then there will be no further incentive to manufacture overseas. Then factors such as shipping costs will make domestic manufacturing attractive again for the U.S. market. Inflation may also be mitigated by market pressures. If people cannot afford to buy as much, demand goes down. When demand goes down, so does the price. That's free market 101. You obviously failed Economics 101, and probably never took Macro- or Micro-Economics. Sigh. You can't get through a post without an insult can you Mr Bartender? Nope. Can you get through a post without a demonstration of your ignorance and lack of education? I'm still waiting for something more significant than just your opposing opinion to substantiate that. Sounds like I need to make another list here pretty soon..... Cheap labor will always be available in any country that's poor in natural resources. There are many, and that's not going to change anytime soon. The fact that Iraq's new "government" refused to allow labor unions (a law imposed by Saddam) should be a good indication as to where the next market for cheap labor will be found. But Iraq is not poor in natural resources. But Iraq's natural resources are only partially owned and controlled by Iraq. They were fully owned by Iraq under Saddam, but after his overthrow many international conglomerates (mostly US and UK oil companies, most of which include the Bush family as stockholders) invoked claims that existed prior to Saddam. The people of Iraq are going to see hardly any of the money that comes from their own resources -- instead it's going right into the pockets of oil company fat-cats. I suppose I'm grasping at straws to ask that you back that up with something official. US/UK ownership and control of Iraq's oil prior to Saddam (Iraqi Oil Company, later known as Shell Oil) is well documented. Try Funk & Wagnall's. The fact that Saddam reclaimed Iraq's oil was not only documented by Western civilization but used as propaganda by Saddam. He even tried to reclaim oil fields that were stolen from Iraq by international charter long before Saddam took power (see Funk & Wagnall's for the history of Kuwait). Only one month after the US invasion, Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA, took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government. By January 2004, a "state-owned" oil company was created by James Baker (former Secretary of State, now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil) that favoured the US oil industry. Shell Oil (as well as several other US oil companies) quickly established exclusive contracts with this new Iraqi oil company. Any more dumb questions that you could have answered yourself by using the internet? In time the US will suffer. Prepare for China owning more an dmore of teh US debt and consequently the US' economy . Ok, We pretty much agree that the road ahead will be a bit bumpy. So what do we do about it? Can we do anything about it? Push your elected officials to do their job -- make them understand that they are lobbyists for their constituents, not the constituents of lobbyists for special interest groups or corporations. Well then we need to outlaw all corporate election contributions. Well gee, Dave, what a novel idea. Now try to get it passed eh? Push your elected officials to do their job -- make them understand that they are lobbyists for their constituents, not the constituents of lobbyists for special interest groups or corporations..... ......hmmmm, seems I've said all this before..... Getting the picture yet? Are you getting the picture that the government is supposed to work for the people? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:59:06 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Exactly, as a certain faction (like yourself) who voted for Bush continue to mistakenly believe Bush had a majority of the people in the US vote for him (he didn't) Then how do you explain how he won? I explained this to you before -- read about Ivan the Terrible (assuming you can find it on the internet). It probably also had something to do with election fraud in Ohio and a few other states, the extent of which will probably not be fully known until after the Dems regain the WH. snip As many, many republicans have distanced themselves from Bush... A few uncertain doubters does not constitute "many". Dave, are you friggin' blind? The Republican party is splitting in half and you don't even see it? and to distance herself from some of her more vocal compadres. I guess she figures that we'll all forget her former leftist politics, and that farce that was supposed to be universal heathcare. That you consider healthcare for our own people as leftist politics while we continue to offer free health care to all the Iraqis who simply ask for it illustrates your level of comprehension. As is typical for you, you divert from one issue to another. I oppose all forms of socialized medicine whether it be for us or Iraqi's. I suppose you are able to pay for all your medical bills -- even catastrauphic injuries -- right out of your own pocket, huh? The majority makes the rules. It's fine that the rights of the minority are considered but it makes no logical sense that the needs of that minority outweighs the needs of the majority. It doesn't matter which group. When rights are being taken away or infringed upon, the needs you speak of far outweigh any perceived majority. You come across as "majority is always right" when it has been illustrated and accepted the majority has been wrong, especially with this administration. What is considered right and wrong is usually relative and depends upon the perspective of the majority. Wrong. Rights are not inherent to any majority group, despite what they and you feel. you are not special,....rights extend to all in this country, not merely your imagined moral majority. That has nothing to do with the concept of what is "right or wrong" and who sets the standard by which this is gauged. Well, in the "right or wrong" category you are certainly in the minority in this newsgroup. In fact, you -are- the minority. And, like it or not, from the time we are little kids in school, we learned that life is not always fair, and that those in the majority set the fads, trends, and rules whether the rest of us agree or not. Take slavery for example. I already did. Get your own examples to illustrate how majority rule is not always right. Majority rule is always right in the context of the time it is enacted. During the time of slavery, the majority believed it was an acceptable practice. Wrong. There was bitter debate about slavery during the Constitutional Congress. The reason slavery was left to the states was because they felt that unity was far more important than slavery. The issue was ultimately resolved during the Civil War, but existed long before. Eventually the majority changed their belief and decided that it was no longer an acceptable practice. Wrong again. The 'majority' prior to the Civil War included only white male citizens. After emancipation the 'majority' suddenly included blacks as well as whites, and a much better representation of the majority could be counted (although still not very well until after the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, and the civil rights movement of the 1960's). In no time in recent history has the minority successfully bent the will of the majority on major issues. Again, wrong. You claim that a majority of people wanted Bush to be president, yet only 30% of registered voters actually voted in the election (some of them not voting because they were prevented from voting, with the Supreme Court declaring that citizens do -not- have any right to vote). Just 15% is not a "majority" by any stretch of the imagination. Enough with the semantics, Dave -- address the facts. Change occurs when the majority recognizes that the time is right for a different direction. It is not a sudden thing, rather it is a gradual transition. Liberals have been attempting to affect political and social change through the indoctrination of young people and by the dissemination of liberally biased news for some time. Fortunately, events such as the rise of talk radio, the ability of people to seek alternative news sources through the internet, and exposure of some of the purveyors of liberal bias, has slowed down, if not reversed, this trend. Oh good God -- you've been brainwashed, Dave. Either that or you're a bona-fide paranoid. Get some professional help already. ----== 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 =---- |
David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
Of course you did, you caled it "juicy". Please do not embarrass yourself again by misleading yourself that anyone at all would believe a young man of the age you speak would consider any psychological factor concerning such talk. You don't know me very well (after all this time) do you? I don't know you at all, David, but your claims of where you find your fun, such as eavesdropping on minors speak of sex, are quite bizarre, especially when you are in your forties and continue to defend such practices and refer to the emotions you experience as "juicy" when speaking of the act. Why do you think I bother responding to you at all? You're my command performance, David. The "whys" are irrelevant except only to yourself, which has been reiterated, solidified and illustrated by yourself on numerous occasion by expressing your concerns over internet stranger's behavior off-line. Do you think I do it because I feel that you are a person of influence, or that the things you say have some intrinsic value? LMAO! If so, then you really are as narcissistic as I've thought. The world knows how you think, David, and it's quite troubling and upsetting to those of us who are concerned for the welfare of our children. Anyone who is mixed up with confused emotions and finds talk of sex by minors as "juicy", well, it doesn't matter at all what people like that (you) think. You're on the bottom rung of the evolutionary ladder. No, I do it for the psychological entertainment value that you provide. I love watching you bend even the most straightforward statements into convoluted fragments of the truth. I love watching you lie, and then back pedal to cover it up. I love driving you to dig up information about me, and end up getting much of it wrong, yet accuse ME of seeking information about you. This is greater entertainment than watching Homer Simpson say "Doh" for the hundred thousandth time. I've always enjoyed watching the human experience. As Frank alluded, you look to the inorrect mediums for your information. Homer Simpson is not real, David, but watching you cling to desperation and refer to such as "human expereince" tells all. Who needs scripted "reality" TV when the real world is your stage and regular people are here to perform, and all without scripts (But maybe with a little prodding). It also gives me insight into how people think and what things are important to them. Just like Dr. Jane Goodall studies primates in order to understand their social interaction, I do the same for humans. Informally, You mean uneducated. but it's fun watching people react predictably to programmed stimuli. On that note, you have never failed yet. Anything other than what I have just said, is purely your imagination running amuck. Your words and actions speak loud and clear to the world, David, as only you have this incredible belief only you can see yourself as you really are and that you are misunderstood to the point that you need reiterate and explain yourself to each and every person you disagree. .If someone is a thick and with the incredible comprehensively challenged as you are, I guess I do have to explain everything in simple basic terms. Which you have demonstrated throughout your posting history with all you disagree, David. Your errant behavior began long before I came along and tweaked you with your own offensive acts. No, actually it hasn't. Since you admitted incompetence with google, I suggest you get some assistance by someone you trust and feel isn't against you all the time. Try it again,,,,google, enter "Sandbagger" and "You mean" and you will indeed find your behavior began -long- before I entered your world illustrate your impotence and ignorance. You are the only one who sees fit to mince words, twist meanings, obfuscate the truth, make disingenuous statements, and project your failings on to others. Tell the world what "juicy" means to you, David. Nothing is more laughable (To the point of tears sometimes) than to hear you go off on other people and accuse them of having "communications deficits" when it is clear to anyone who's been here for more than a few weeks that it is YOU who can't seem to grasp the straight meaning. Wow,,you really are on the offensive today, David. Truth always sets you on the attack, but you can not distance yourself from your problems, they follow you everywhere, but please, feel free to continue to blame everyone who disagrees with you. It's no wonder you fall for liberal propaganda. In your convoluted mind, their logic probably makes sense. That's what you said to Frank. Once again, your idiocy is always the other person's fault. Otherwise you garner meanings that do not exist and assume something that was not expressly conveyed. "Juicy". So go ahead...'splain! LMAO! You plead and plead that everyone misunderstands you David, I have never claimed that "everyone misunderstands me" Sure you have, David, You do it in the manner of attempting to explain away "just what you really meant" after manking a post using words you have no clue their definition. I never use a word that I do not know the definition of. You have tried to make an issue of my vernacular, or grammatical usage, but in every case, I have provided the definitions of the words to support my usage. You have also been properly taught the use of "forensics" when you misapplied it and claimed your work with radios is much like forensics. You needed taught the term connotates a legal relation. So go ahead and explain, how even in the most remote manner, your radio work is even remotely "like" forensics. Your predictable response has always been to attack the source. internet dictionaries, it becomes harder for you to claim that I am "lying" about it as it is easily verifiable by anyone who cares. Believe whatever your damaged ego needs, David. Watching you talk smack about nothing you understand is extremely "verifiable" to most, as most don't need internet dictionaries, only you. The athetic part is, you still **** up the definitions and need to come out and apply your own definitions and tell the masses what you "really meant".(snicker). You have always had the greatest difficulties in conveying exactly what you mean, and as I said, google confirms your problems with this long before I ever tweaked your already problematic psyche. _ For countless examples of you not understanding the majority of people you disagree, one merely needs google "sandbagger" and the words "you mean". Cripes, there is enough reading for even the most remote layperson to get a handle on your communication deficits. .There you go again, projecting your own faults onto me. I'm not in the majority of those posts, David. There are tons of posts of you expressing communication difficulties, begging ALL you disagree "just what they mean". Google "Twistedhed" and "Lying" and see what you come up with. Now THAT statement illustrates perfectly just how short the string is you are attached and how clueless you are.Not only is your deficit rampant, you are unable to keep track with just who you blame for your misery. as I have given many people good advice from Radio, to practical matters. Which does not excuse your deficit. You mean YOUR deficit. I'm not the one whose posts are peppered with beg after beg seeking validation and clarification..those are all yours. YOU are the only one who does not understand me, You told Frank he couldn't understand your politics. People will argue politics until the cows come home. Both sides claim to have the "facts", while accusing the other side of "propagandizing". All I tried to do with Frank, is to show him that his political beliefs were based on no more credible information than mine were. Even after he hypocritically tried to discredit my sources as "propaganda" while offering up his own propaganda (Which he claimed to be "fact") as proof of such. All he had to do was say that he believes what he wants to believe, based on his own intrinsic core values. But instead he tried to walk the intellectual high road. There is the pattern that affects you. Most everyone walks the "intellectual high road" compared to you. This is where your self-degradation comes in to play, as other's intellect has always been deeemed a threat by yourself, especially when you disagree with a poster and it is shown you are wrong. You have always expressed a great difficulty in accepting you are wrong. If you knew half of what you think you do, this would be a catalyst for you,,a wakeup call, but as one in their forties who continues to call sex talk among underaged girls as "juicy", what you say is on the level of sexual deviants. But all I have to do is hold up a mirror to every claim he makes at me, and the same rules apply right back. It's not about rules, David, as you have never practiced the golden rule. You can not select which rules apply to others and that has always been one of your major malfunctions. You seek status and were denied it among these pages, even after you demanded respect by virtue of your hammie license....such clamoring for respect turned to foot stomping and demands and you have never been the same. You said Shark couldn't understand the laws in your state because he didn't live there Well yea, how can someone who doesn't live here have any experience with the process of the LEO's here? David, the laws in Pa are a separate subject than those charged with adminstering them. Shark said nothing of the LEO's process, those were -your- unsolicited, unproved, and steadfast refusals to substantiate anything you invoked. One can most certainly understand the laws in your state with education. Shark educated himself and -you- concerning the laws in your state that -you- said were explained to you by LEOS you refuse to name or substantiate, yet you beg others to substantiate for their claims. In fact, you always invoke unsolicited claims of grandeure when referring to yourself. Steadfast refusal to provide for all your unsolicited claims while you beg others for the same, well, ...anyone can see that your refusals to provide for your claims to all who ask is another in a lng line of failures you present. I admit quite readily that there are many laws in California that I am not familiar with. and Shark showed there are laws in your own state of which you are not familiar, and neiher are your phony LEOS. I have no reason to be. I don't live there. There are many similarities, but there are also differences. No one mentioned California law, David, except you. Shark produced proof that one can indeed et a speeding ticket in your state for going less than 5 MPH under the posted limit, despite your objections claiming otherwise. What proof did he offer? Work on that retainment value, David. You are the only one that can take self-denial and morph it into a belief system to protect your already fragile psyche. He offered nothing but his own opinionated claim that "a cop can write a ticket for anything if he wants", which is a ridiculous statement to make. If the cop has any hope of having that ticket stand up in court (Which he would have to appear at), then it better be legitimate. All one would have to do is show up in court with a copy of statute 3368, and the ticket goes away in most cases. I posted the statutes that clearly define the speed tolerances that are in effect in the Commonwealth of Pa. They clearly supported my claims in the vast majority of cases, stopwatches and tailgating notwithstanding. No one ever took issue with the "majority" of cases in Pa. only the one of which you were wrong. You said a cop can not issuea ticket for going less than 5 MPH,,,you were wrong. So who are you going to believe, the opinion of an out of state resident, professing a gut feeling, or the actual laws printed in black and white? Certainly not you, David, You have more excuses that Carter had liver pills regarding your unsolicited claims. You invoke LEOS on your own free will, to the extent of claiming them as personal friends of yours. When it was shown they gave you erroneous information, you attacked the poster, not the information. You invoked schooling, as you felt it important enough as to lend credibility of which you lack, yet when you are asked to provide for all your claims, all you do is attack those who illustrate your lies and bull****. You pattern has never changed David. You are full of ****, you are a habitual liar, and you have no formal education in anything you claim. In other words, the majority of your claims have been decimated and found to be lies utilizing -your- unsolicited yet often invoked "statistical probaility" factor. You (and he) lost that one big time. No David, there is jo win or lose on usenet David, and as Frank atutely illustrrated, your life is so incomplete, you need to tune in here for your challenges,as you take them where you find them. Why you continue to bring it up only shows the depths of your psychological problems. =A0 Gee David, if you managed to provide for any of your claims, your self-delusions of grandeur and selfqualifications may have had an air of validity, but self-validation is only done by those who have self-image and confidence problems, whihc would explain your need for redundant and unsolicited claims concerning yourself. One reason for that is in your inability to comprehend simple sentences or apply proper definitions to words. Actually David, and I'm not the only one who has pointed this out to you, it's because you misuse words of which you have no clue their definition. .Name them. Already named several. And in the proper context in which I used them. =A0 There was no proper context in which you used them..that's the gist of your problems. =A0This is probably why there are so many posts with you not comprehending what others say to you. LOL..again try the google with your words "Do you mean" or "did you mean". The number of posts made by you seeking clarification to other's words are numerable, yet, your knee jerk reaction is to blame another. Do the search David, it's not the "other", it's you all throughout your posting history who can ot comprehend what others tell you. Despite your paranoia, it's not just me David, there are many many others in those returns which have you expressing difficulties. The ony common theme in ALL the posts, is you disagreed with each and every one of those of which you needed to seek clarification. This holds with your need for validation. Your lying again. Yea, well, denial ain't a river in Egypt and only you have admitted to being confused and not knowing how to use google. I have no trouble communicating with anyone. Anyone, that is, who has normal mental faculties. But of course,,,all those people you disagreed with in google and beg clarification have the problems, not you. But during the course of communication, especially on technical issues, one often finds the need for some additional information, or clarification. No David, not "one",,-you-. You are the -only- one among this group whose posts are rife with posts begging people to explain what they really "mean" as you have a most difficult time communicating with all those you disagree. It's your character flaw, David, and you are unable to get a grip on it. It is far better, and much more polite, to ask for clarification than to assume a meaning when it is not clear or forthcoming. It's clear to all in the google history except you, as -you- are the -only- one beggin people to clarify what they said, as -you- have a most extreme difficulty in comprehending the majority of people with who you disagree. But that's been one of your primary problems, you jump to conclusions, often the wrong ones, rather than getting that clarification. Don't worry, we won't (can't) think any less of you if you can't understand what someone is trying to say. We'll try to speak a little slower next time. It was not illegal at the time I was engaged in listening. It was. This is another area concernig the law of which you are extremely ignorant. .There was NO law preventing interception of cordless phones in the 1980's. None, nada, zilch. Prove me wrong if you can. And I'll laugh at your attempts. You've been proved wrong, such as on the roger beep issue, and most -have- laughed at you, David. .The roger beep issue does not equate to, or .bear any relevance to the ECPA and cordless phone reception issue. Your attempt at .deflection is duly noted. It stands with the familiar theme of you not knowing the laws. |
On 07 Jun 2005 11:02:58 GMT, Steveo wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: BTW, how was Dayton? Nerd festival. :P That's a shame. It used to be interesting, from an electronic flotsam perspective. Some hams have a er... ah... problem with personal hygiene though...... Dave "Sandbagger" |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com