| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
June 3rd 05, 01:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#3
June 3rd 05, 07:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 12:11:32 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:33:14 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Disagreeing viewpoints aren't a problem for the majority..it's people like you that mistakenly feel those who hold views contrary to your own are somehow of the minority. The last election pretty much confirms this. 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? and that he achieved a mandate (again, he did not, unless you can explain Gannon). It's people like you that are unable to come to terms with the fact that those large number of people who disagree with you need not conform to what you feel is appropriate. It is you who are in the minority, but somehow think you are in the majority despite evidence, Yes, evidence showing YOU are in the minority not the majority as relates here among these pages. A perfect example is your shining belief that speeders are criminals simply because they break a certain law, You just keep repeating that lie in the hopes that it'll suddenly become true. I NEVER ever made the statement that speeders are criminals. such as the last couple of elections, which show exactly the opposite. Democrats are still losing seats in congress, despite the unpopular war in Iraq. The desperation of these same democrats who just can't understand why they are losing, has become so obvious, that they don't even try to hide their crass, shrill, and unprofessional attacks against Republicans. Goes bothways,,,,like Delay and the comments he made regarding hatred and his threats against judges that you couldn't even locate on your own. Which pales in comparison to the vitriol spouted by the likes of Al Gore, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and others. In fact, you weren't even aware your own party acknowledged global warming, You're lying again. so you have pretty much ascertained to the group that even though you fancy yourself as educated on such subjects, you fall way short. Well, sure, when held against your wild imagination, I do fall short. But when held against the truth, I do just fine. That only makes the people rebel against them even more. At least one democrat understands this. It's interesting to watch Hillary Clinton try to reinvent herself as a "moderate", As many, many republicans have distanced themselves from Bush... A few uncertain doubters does not constitute "many". 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. 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. 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. Eventually the majority changed their belief and decided that it was no longer an acceptable practice. In no time in recent history has the minority successfully bent the will of the majority on major issues. 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. As another example, I personally think the TV show, "American Idol" (and most "reality" shows for that matter) is a complete waste of time and a total example of vapid vicarious superficiality, and voyeurism. Exactly, yet, such audio voyeurism is something you find "juicy". In fact, it was only a few years ago you claimed practicing audio voyeurism turned you on, That is yet another lie. I never made any such claim. I also listened to people making drug deals. But that doesn't make me a druggie. listening to underaged girls talk about sex on their cordless phones. In this example, you not only had to be made aware that intentional eavesdropping of private conversations is illegal It was not illegal at the time I was engaged in listening. Any scanner user could do it. If the FCC or the phone lobby doesn't want people listening in, they need to block out those frequencies or scramble the transmissions. Which is exactly what they did for the cell phone band. We've been all through this before. (As usual) You don't know what you are talking about. Don't embarrass yourself by bringing it up again. I am more than willing to post the links to the ECPA, showing the date that it became effective and what it covers. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#4
June 6th 05, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 12:11:32 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:33:14 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Disagreeing viewpoints aren't a problem for the majority..it's people like you that mistakenly feel those who hold views contrary to your own are somehow of the minority. The last election pretty much confirms this. 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? =A0 That you mistake the majority of registered voters who actually voted for the majority of the people in the US is your problem. That you fall victim to the deliberate disinformation campaign that Bush had a mandate is a bonus. It's people like you that are unable to come to terms with the fact that those large number of people who disagree with you need not conform to what you feel is appropriate. It is you who are in the minority, but somehow think you are in the majority despite evidence, Yes, evidence showing YOU are in the minority not the majority as relates to many, many positions among these pages. A perfect example is your shining belief that speeders are criminals simply because they break a certain law, You just keep repeating that lie in the hopes that it'll suddenly become true. I NEVER ever made the statement that speeders are criminals. You did in many fashion. For instance, you responded (concerning the speeder being called a criminal) "if the shoe fits" and you have indeed labeled those who commit civil infractions as "criminal". The speeding analogy was used to exterminate your poor analogy that dx'ers and freebanders are criminals. You changed the equation by adding additional parameters invoking that dx and freebanding can lead to other charges in certain instances,..same with speeding. You are still unable to comprehend neither offense is a criminal offense. Democrats are still losing seats in congress, despite the unpopular war in Iraq. The desperation of these same democrats who just can't understand why they are losing, has become so obvious, that they don't even try to hide their crass, shrill, and unprofessional attacks against Republicans. Goes bothways,,,,like Delay and the comments he made regarding hatred and his threats against judges that you couldn't even locate on your own. Which pales in comparison to the vitriol spouted by the likes of Al Gore, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and others. =A0=A0 60% of this majority you continue to invoke as justifications for whatever the Bush camp does agree with stem cell research, yet, in the third week of May, Bush said, addressing this situation "There is no such thing as a spare embryo" while attempting to explain his reasoning for opposing it. In the first place, what about this majority now, Dave? In the second place, each and EVERY single company that is involved with assisting infertile couples conceive tosses away countless embryos on a regular and ongoing basis. What the hell is Bush talking about? Now we have found abuses at Gitmo concerning the koran -were- true. As always, more lipservice from Bushyboy, downplaying it as "a few isolated incidences"...yes, incidents that are becoming commonplace and part of a pattern of this administration. In fact, you weren't even aware your own party acknowledged global warming, You're lying again. Which are you claiming isn't true, now? The fact that you weren't aware of global warming, asked for proof, was shown, then changed your claim to one of how much effect it actually has on the world, or the fact that you were not aware your own party acknowledged such? Either one is there for the reading. You have pretty much ascertained to the group that even though you fancy yourself as educated on such subjects, you fall way short. Well, sure, when held against your wild imagination, Try not and let your anger dictate your posts become personal because as much as you need to believe it, global waming is not my imagination. I do fall short. But when held against the truth, I do just fine. When the truth is presented, you attack it, the poster, change the subject, snip it, or claim the information is incorrect..Lol. Such was done with your wild ants that democracy was not only taking place in Iran, but that Iraq was improving. You asked for reports and were given several. On other occasion, you ask for what you mistakenly misrepresent to yourself as "proof", and when such is given, you claim the information is wrong because "mistakes happen",,,lol...I agree, and the only mistake here is made by yourself..repeatedly. That only makes the people rebel against them even more. At least one democrat understands this. It's interesting to watch Hillary Clinton try to reinvent herself as a "moderate", As many, many republicans have distanced themselves from Bush... A few uncertain doubters does not constitute "many". Well respected senators, generals, advisors and others on the front line not constitute uncertain doubters. Ditton for all those defectors who resigned from the Bush admin. 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. Something is very wrong with you, as -you- brought up health care. As is standard with your incompetence you blame another for your goofy gaffes. I oppose all forms of socialized medicine whether it be for us or Iraqi's. Yet, instead of being proactive (as you prefer to imagine yourself) and doing something about it or even speaking out about it, you choose to ignore the wild spending of health care spent on Iraq, and instead choose to whine and snivel and continue to be impotently REactive about history that has no relation to the present situation. Frank has demonstrated the reason you employ this particular method is because you can not discuss current political situations due how little informed you are of current affairs. 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. My gosh, you finally did it. You talked yourself into a circle. It has everything to do with it. The fact that you feel you have a right to deny others their rights under the impossible guise that your morals are somehow superior to those who do not subscribe to your core beliefs makes about as much sense as your position that rights have nothing to do with the concept of right or wrong. 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. You are dead wrong. Fashion trends and fads have indeed been set by extreme minority factions on many, many occasions. You're blathering. 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. Slavery was never right, David, no matter what the time -or- the context, nor is beating your wife, but you go on and argue how you agree these laws were right simply because they were enacted by what you refer the majority. Perhaps such a ****ed up core belief system is what was responsible for your marital and personal woes in the first place. During the time of slavery, the majority believed it was an acceptable practice. Eventually the majority changed their belief and decided that it was no longer an acceptable practice. In no time in recent (a relative term you can apply to mean any length of time you wish) history has the minority successfully bent the will of the majority on major issues. That's -exactly- what happened on countless issues. Most recently it happened with the taking of God and religion out of the schools. The will bends and this majority you continue to misrepresent changes the law, especially when it is shown the law is -wrong- or poorly constructed by those you hold as the -majority-. History is rife with examples of laws that were enacted by the "majority" but were struck down as unconstitutional and you denying such takes place on a regular basis is nothing short of astounding. Change occurs when the majority recognizes that the time is right for a different direction. Often brought on by the minority bending the "will" of the majority. It is not a sudden thing, rather it is a gradual transition. Aw gee,,,,you're off and ranting,,er, running on yet another topic. Liberals (snip) Liberals founded this country and the fact that Bush has successfully forced you to accept his redefined albeit incorrect definition of "liberal" is almost as funny as your blaming everyone but the current leaders of this country for everything,,you blamed the liberals, you blamed the queers, you blamed the democrats, hell Dave, you blamed everyone but the leader of this country for all the problems we face. It must be nice to go through life believing the person you voted for has done no wrong, is the leader of this country, and responsible for nothing except good things. As another example, I personally think the TV show, "American Idol" (and most "reality" shows for that matter) is a complete waste of time and a total example of vapid vicarious superficiality, and voyeurism. Exactly, yet, such audio voyeurism is something you find "juicy". In fact, it was only a few years ago you claimed practicing audio voyeurism turned you on, That is yet another lie. No, it's not. Google it. I never made any such claim. =A0 =A0You claimed listening to underaged girls on cordless phones speaking of sex was "juicy". You were not a minor when you spoke of such acts being "juicy". Now, the moral -majority- of people would find it disgustingly perverted that a man of your age finds sex talk of minors "juicy". 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. You plead and plead that everyone misunderstands you David, but what you can't comprehend is those people -are- the majority of posting regs in this group, I also listened to people making drug deals. But that doesn't make me a druggie. =A0 It also doesn't disqualify your remarks just a few short years ago calling sex talk between minor girls "juicy". In this example, you not only had to be made aware that intentional eavesdropping of private conversations is illegal 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. 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! 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. 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. We've been all through this before. (As usual) You don't know what you are talking about. As usual, you get so caught up in your lies, you begin to blame others for your problems. Don't embarrass yourself by bringing it up again. That's awful nice of you, but I prefer to let you, on occasion, talk sideways for the entertainment of all,..now tell us once again how it was legal for you to eavesdrop on private cordless telephone conversations (when scanners were using crystals) using an electronic device, when cordless phones were of a frequency which scanners did not come with. 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. 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. David T. Hall Jr. N3CVJ "Sandbagger" |
|
#5
June 6th 05, 09:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:35:51 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: (Most of your usual babble snipped) 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. It reflects in no way how I personally reacted to it. Once again you read more meanings in words than are actually conveyed. You were not a minor when you spoke of such acts being "juicy". No, but I was no more than about 22. The age difference between a 22 year old and an 18 year old is not even worth talking about. In fact, my wife is 3 years younger than me. So what of it? Now, the moral -majority- of people would find it disgustingly perverted that a man of your age 22? finds sex talk of minors "juicy". Again, the word describes the tone of the conversations. At no time did I claim that it "got me off" or affected me in any other way other than psychological curiosity. 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. 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" as I have given many people good advice from Radio, to practical matters. YOU are the only one who does not understand me, and the reason for that is in you inability to comprehend simple sentences. I also listened to people making drug deals. But that doesn't make me a druggie. * It also doesn't disqualify your remarks just a few short years ago calling sex talk between minor girls "juicy". In this example, you not only had to be made aware that intentional eavesdropping of private conversations is illegal 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. 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 1st generation cordless phone was on 49 Mhz for the handset and 1.7 Mhz for the base unit. The second generation phones were 49 Mhz and 46 MHz. Later models dropped down as low as 44 Mhz. Then the 900 MHz phones came out sometime in the 90's. 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? 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. That was the glaring loophole in the wiretap law. 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). Again, prove me wrong if you can (But I won't hold my breath). 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..... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#6
June 6th 05, 09:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#7
June 6th 05, 09:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
mopathetic the wrist flipper said:
"Oh come now Dave" AKC replies... Why? You wanna watch him do it? |
|
#8
June 7th 05, 12:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#9
June 6th 05, 11:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
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. I never made any such claim. =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. It reflects in no way how I personally reacted to it. No one claimed differently. in fact, you probably jacked off to it, but not one tried claiming how you reacted to it. You invoked how you felt about it. You found such talk "juicy". 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. 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". The age difference between a 22 year old and an 18 year old is not even worth talking about. That's right, except you called it "juicy" just a few short years ago. 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. So what of it? =A0Now, 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. 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. 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. =A0=A0 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. as I have given many people good advice from Radio, to practical matters. Which does not excuse your deficit. YOU are the only one who does not understand me, You told Frank he couldn't understand your politics. You said Shark couldn't understand the laws in your state because he didn't live there ( 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. 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. 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. I also listened to people making drug deals. But that doesn't make me a druggie. =A0 It also doesn't disqualify your remarks just a few short years ago calling sex talk between minor girls "juicy". =A0In this example, you not only had to be madeaware that intentional eavesdropping of private conversations is illegal 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. 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. generation cordless phone was on 49 Mhz (Snip) 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. 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. =A0=A0How? The method was your idea. The fact that you once again speak before thinking is illustrated by no one better than yourself. _ 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.. That was the glaring loophole in the wiretap law. No loophole at all, just another wrong claim from you. 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. 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. Please tell us more of what you do not know, David. You get real funny in these episodes of which you are made to perform and demand. 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. 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. David T. Hall Jr. "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#10
June 7th 05, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Roger Beeps 100% ILLEGAL | CB | |||
Hybrid Mode
