AB8MQ is in denial again
 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^
Who said anything about a fine, Roger?

Who said I was Roger, dumbass? You see him behind every post, dumbass.

We know Riley didn't fine you.

Last time I checked, I wasn't Roger, either. Looks like you ****ed up
as usual.

He merely warned you in writing about malicious interference and mandated
(not
'invited') that you retest.

But no reason was given why Wiseman had to retest, stupid. Learn to
read.
..............................................
To show reason, "Not Roger", read below. (taken from a Hollingsworth letter
to you)

"citing evidence that the licensee had been "deliberately and maliciously
interfering with the radio operations of other licensed amateurs" on 20
meters. "This interference has occurred at...."

Color it what you will Woger, but a pig in the poke is still a pig.
Learn to read, Pig.

FCC Affirms Jack Gerritsen $42,000 fine
 

"Who said I was Roger, dumbass? You see him behind every post,
dumbass.'

You will find 2test behind the curtains.

FCC Affirms Jack Gerritsen $42,000 fine
 

FCC Affirms Jack Gerritsen $42,000 fine
 

Todd "Toiddie" Daugherty, N9OGL. Todd is a combination of a
"Saturday Night Live" version of Howard Stern on the Amateur airways,
with just a bit of PeeWee Herman thrown in for flavor. He purports to
operate an "information bulletin" station yet refers to all of his
broadcasting as "shows", and clearly uses these to broadcast his
personal opinion and rhetoric, not "information".

Nice, coming from someone who has NEVER heard my bulletin. If you think
(which I really doubt you do) it's illegal then bitch to the FCC, if
you aren't going to complain then shut the HELL up.


Almost 40, he's living at home and sopping up all the resources he can from mumsy and
pops while they are still able to do it.

Yeah right steve, lying again

Todd's biggest rants center around (1) his inability to obtain an LPFM license for his non-existant
"company",

Steve, it was LOW POWER TV not LOW POWER FM, get your fact right before
posting. As for my "company" who said it's non-exisant? you a little
nobody. RIGHT!

(2) his illegal use of the Amateur service to take the place of the LPFM license he didn't get,

Dam right, and there's NOTHING yo can do about it Bwahahaha

and now (3) his BBS sites for the promulgation of kiddy-porn anime. I wish him well since there's a recent news release of a guy sentenced by a FEDERAL court for promulgating cartoon-style kiddy-porn.

The truth steve is the guy was found guilty of possession REAL child
porn, animation porn is in fact legal (Below is the Federal Law)

SSEC. 502. IMPROVEMENTS TO PROHIBITION ON VIRTUAL CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY.
(a) Section 2256(8) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-
(1) so that subparagraph (B) reads as follows:
''(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer
image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable
from, that of a minor engaging in sexually
explicit conduct; or'';
(2) by striking ''; or'' at the end of subparagraph (C) and
inserting a period; and
(3) by striking subparagraph (D).
(b) Section 2256(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
''(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 'sexually
explicit conduct' means actual or simulated-''(i) sexual
intercourse, including genital-genital, oralgenital,
anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons
of the same or opposite sex;
''(ii) bestiality;
''(iii) masturbation;
''(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
''(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area
of any person;
''(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) of this section, 'sexually
explicit conduct' means-
[next page]
''(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital,
oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether
between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious
simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast,
or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
''(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
''(I) bestiality;
''(II) masturbation; or
''(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
''(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the
genitals or pubic area of any person;''.
(c) Section 2256 is amended by inserting at the end the following
new paragraphs:
''(10) 'graphic', when used with respect to a depiction of
sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe
any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person
or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit
conduct is being depicted; and
''(11) the term 'indistinguishable' used with respect to a
depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction
is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction
would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged
in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply
to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or
paintings depicting minors or adults.''.
(d) Section 2252A(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
''(c) It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating
paragraph (1), (2), (3)(A), (4), or (5) of subsection (a) that-
''(1)(A) the alleged child pornography was produced using
an actual person or persons engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
and
''(B) each such person was an adult at the time the material
was produced; or''(2) the alleged child pornography was not
produced using any actual minor or minors.
No affirmative defense under subsection (c)(2) shall be available
in any prosecution that involves child pornography as described
in section 2256(8)(C). A defendant may not assert an affirmative
defense to a charge of violating paragraph (1), (2), (3)(A), (4), or
(5) of subsection (a) unless, within the time provided for filing
pretrial motions or at such time prior to trial as the judge may
direct, but in no event later than 10 days before the commencement
of the trial, the defendant provides the court and the United States
with notice of the intent to assert such defense and the substance
of any expert or other specialized testimony or evidence upon which
the defendant intends to rely. If the defendant fails to comply
[NEW PAGE VerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:52 May 02, 2003 Jkt 019139 PO 00021
Frm 00031 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL021.108 APPS24 PsN: PUBL021
117 STAT. 680 PUBLIC LAW 108-21-APR. 30, 2003]
with this subsection, the court shall, absent a finding of
extraordinary
circumstances that prevented timely compliance, prohibit
the defendant from asserting such defense to a charge of violating
paragraph (1), (2), (3)(A), (4), or (5) of subsection (a) or presenting
any evidence for which the defendant has failed to provide proper
and timely notice.''.



Of course like all kiddy-porners, he claims it's his "Constitutional" right to promulgate kiddy-porn.

Animation Porn, even lolicon is LEGAL and in 2001 the US Supreme Court
ruled that "virtual child porn" (which includes animation lolicon) WAS
protected by the First Amendment. Beside what are going to do about
it??? NOTHING, grow up steve you little worm

Todd N9OGL

FCC Affirms Jack Gerritsen $42,000 fine
 

N9OGL wrote:

Todd "Toiddie" Daugherty, N9OGL. Todd is a combination of a
"Saturday Night Live" version of Howard Stern on the Amateur airways,
with just a bit of PeeWee Herman thrown in for flavor. He purports to
operate an "information bulletin" station yet refers to all of his
broadcasting as "shows", and clearly uses these to broadcast his
personal opinion and rhetoric, not "information".

Nice, coming from someone who has NEVER heard my bulletin. If you think
(which I really doubt you do) it's illegal then bitch to the FCC, if
you aren't going to complain then shut the HELL up.

Hey Toiddie...If you can bring YOUR mindless trash in here under
the color of protection of the Constitution, then guess what...?!?!?

YOU don't have ANY right to suggest someone else not exercise
their opinions regardless of what YOU think of them.

Almost 40, he's living at home and sopping up all the resources he can from mumsy and
pops while they are still able to do it.

Yeah right steve, lying again

Nope.

Todd's biggest rants center around (1) his inability to obtain an LPFM license for his non-existant
"company",

Steve, it was LOW POWER TV not LOW POWER FM, get your fact right before
posting. As for my "company" who said it's non-exisant? you a little
nobody. RIGHT!

LPTV...I stand corrected...However the rest remains correct.

Your "company" does not have a charter in the State of Illinois.
Nor is there a business license I can find.

Ergo...It doesn't exist...save perhaps in your imagination.

(2) his illegal use of the Amateur service to take the place of the LPFM license he didn't get,

Dam right, and there's NOTHING yo can do about it Bwahahaha

Sure there is.

and now (3) his BBS sites for the promulgation of kiddy-porn anime. I wish him well since there's a recent news release of a guy sentenced by a FEDERAL court for promulgating cartoon-style kiddy-porn.

The truth steve is the guy was found guilty of possession REAL child
porn, animation porn is in fact legal (Below is the Federal Law)

SSEC. 502. IMPROVEMENTS TO PROHIBITION ON VIRTUAL CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY....SNIP

Sooner or later you'll get jammed up, Toiddie, and you'll wish
you'd spent your precious "freedom of speech" on something meaningful.

Of course like all kiddy-porners, he claims it's his "Constitutional" right to promulgate kiddy-porn.

Animation Porn, even lolicon is LEGAL and in 2001 the US Supreme Court
ruled that "virtual child porn" (which includes animation lolicon) WAS
protected by the First Amendment. Beside what are going to do about
it??? NOTHING, grow up steve you little worm

I'm already "doing something" about it, Todd.

And from what I've seen, YOU are the worm, four eyes.

Steve, K4YZ

FCC Affirms Jack Gerritsen $42,000 fine
 

Hey Toiddie...If you can bring YOUR mindless trash in here under
the color of protection of the Constitution, then guess what...?!?!?
YOU don't have ANY right to suggest someone else not exercise
their opinions regardless of what YOU think of them.

That's the problem steve with the first amendment huh? BTW I do have
the right to assert and protect myself from assholes like you,
regardless if you like it or not.

Yeah right steve, lying again
Nope.

Where's your proof, Sure I live at home, but that don't mean I don't
have money, I own my own business.


Steve, it was LOW POWER TV not LOW POWER FM, get your fact right before
posting. As for my "company" who said it's non-exisant? you a little
nobody. RIGHT!

LPTV...I stand corrected...However the rest remains correct.
Your "company" does not have a charter in the State of Illinois.
Nor is there a business license I can find.


But you forget one thing, as I've stated many times before, there's a
lot more to that LPTV deal it then you know. Secondly my "company" as
you claim isn't a business, it's a club, it always has been, since
1983. It started in 1983 as DDC-TV, we produced programs for the local
public acess channel, and for school. Most of the people that were in
our group back then was also part of the local theater group called
"the Spotlight Players" In 1985 We started Langley Park Studio's for
the sole purpose to get people interested in theater and the preforming
arts. In 1987 the Spotlight Player's disbanned so we were all that was
left when it can to theater and the arts. In the 1990's we changed it
to Langley Park Telecommuniation, because we not only wanted to promote
theater and the preforming arts but telecommunication as well. Langley
Park has done a hell of lot more work then what you think. We've had
people who has gone through our group only to later go on into other
aspects of the industry. We had one guy name Joey who was with our
group and now has his own rock band (Last time I talked to him they had
cut an album). Another one named Matt, went to the University of
Florida and got his degree in theater. We've also taught a number of
people radio and electronics only to later move on into the military
and Universities to continue their studies in that field. So steve, I
don't really give a **** what you think, cause frankly you don't know
what the hell your talking about.

Dam right, and there's NOTHING yo can do about it Bwahahaha
Sure there is.

RIGHT.....you've been saying that for a long time now...

Sooner or later you'll get jammed up, Toiddie, and you'll wish
you'd spent your precious "freedom of speech" on something meaningful.

Keep dreaming steve.

Animation Porn, even lolicon is LEGAL and in 2001 the US Supreme Court
ruled that "virtual child porn" (which includes animation lolicon) WAS
protected by the First Amendment. Beside what are going to do about
it??? NOTHING, grow up steve you little worm

I'm already "doing something" about it, Todd.

What tell your mommy??


Putz

Todd N9OGL

FCC Affirms Jack Gerritsen $42,000 fine
 

Yassar wrote:
Who said anything about a fine, Roger?

Who said I was Roger, dumbass? You see him behind every post, dumbass.

We know Riley didn't fine you.

Last time I checked, I wasn't Roger, either. Looks like you ****ed up
as usual.

He merely warned you in writing about malicious interference and mandated
(not
'invited') that you retest.

But no reason was given why Wiseman had to retest, stupid. Learn to
read.


No reason? Did Riley's mention of malicious interference in the letters sent
you sound like "no reason"???

Yet the retest letter that has been posted ad nauseum gives no reason
like "interference" for the retest.


Still in denial, are you?

You're still a ****ing imbecile, aren't you?

AB8MQ's "detractors" show thay have their heads up their asses
 

Who said I was Roger? wrote:


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^
Who said anything about a fine, Roger?

Who said I was Roger, dumbass? You see him behind every post, dumbass.

We know Riley didn't fine you.

Last time I checked, I wasn't Roger, either. Looks like you ****ed up
as usual.

He merely warned you in writing about malicious interference and mandated
(not
'invited') that you retest.

But no reason was given why Wiseman had to retest, stupid. Learn to
read.
.............................................
To show reason, "Not Roger", read below. (taken from a Hollingsworth letter
to you)

No, that is taken from the ARRL press release in the enforcement
letters news section.


"citing evidence that the licensee had been "deliberately and maliciously
interfering with the radio operations of other licensed amateurs" on 20
meters. "This interference has occurred at...."

Yet the actual retest letter that has been posted many times gives no
reason. You lose, ****nuts.


Color it what you will Woger, but a pig in the poke is still a pig.

You should know, FATASSED pig. And, quit sucking so many cocks, your
lisp is showing.

Learn to read, Pig.

Learn to read an actual letter from the FCC versus one from the ARRL
news section's take on the subject, dumbass!

FCC Affirms Jack Gerritsen $42,000 fine
 

Convicted child Molester
Commode Buzz Corey wrote:
"Who said I was Roger, dumbass? You see him behind every post,
dumbass.'

You will find 2test behind the curtains.

And you'll never find you unless you find the **** stains on the floor
because you hide behind doors when other hams come visiting.

FCC Affirms Jack Gerritsen $42,000 fine
 

You seem to be quite familiar with the laws against child pornography,
Toad. Did the FBI agents read them to you the last time they caught you
with some on your hard drive, faggot?