In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote:

From: (Frank*Gilliland)
In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote:
snip
Yep. Post it.

Sure,,,,,here we have N3CVJ not only intentionally, wanton, willful,
breaking of federal communication law as set forth and defined by the
FCC (shouldn't a hammie of his status know better?) but committing
behavior that is construed by many LEOs to be of pedophilia-like nature,
of which ALL experts believe there is NO cure, only a time span until
they approach another child.
I mean, Frankie,,you just claimed in another thread that there is NO
excuse for breaking the law pertaining to the airwaves....according to
Hall himself, you condone this type behavior he commits...hmmmm,,,but
you hae a problem with DX and freebanding.LOL....your priorities are
whacked, Frankie, and I am certain beyond any doubt whatsoever, not one
person in this group would want either of you near any children.

From: Dave Hall
Subject: WhAt FrEqUeNcEy DoEs A mObLiE pHoNe OpPeRaTe On? Date:
1999/12/16
Message-ID: #1/1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References:

Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: tw12.nn.bcandid.com 945352043 207.224.84.38 (Thu, 16 Dec 1999
06:47:23 MST) Organization: Spew Radio Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 06:47:23 MST Newsgroups:
rec.radio.cb
Who needs "Melrose Place" when you have a scanner? My neighborhood phone
traffic was no less juicy at times. Teenaged girls talking about their
first time with sex

Hmmm.... seems that there is more to that

post than what you quoted... let's put

it in context by adding the rest of his post,

shall we?


Certainly. editing it for brevity doesn't alter his beahvior one bit,
nor his violation of the law.

......, wife talking to newly found lover while

hubby watched Monday Night Football in the

next room, guys making drug buys, and even

caught one neighbor bitching about ME and all
my "radio stuff" to another.

It's fun to try to figure out who all those voices

belong to. Sometimes more entertaining than

TV, becasue it's REAL......
*
Dave

"Sandbagger"

When not taken out of context,



Out of context? LOL...his statement admitting breaking federal
communication law stands alone.

Yes it does. You brag about breaking federal communication law yourself. I guess
that makes him no better than you, huh? So what are you complaining about?

it doesn't sound like pedophilia to me


No surprise there. You two are quite alike.

Are you an expert on pedophiles? Or are you renewing your accusation that I'm a
child molester?

or to any other reasonable person, which is

clearly why you have pulled it out of context

and interpreted it as such.



Feel free to ask anyone at all that you cite, or feel is "reasonable" if
they feel listening to minor children talk of their sexual liasons is
"juicy" let alone healthy, conducive behavior of one that continually
spoouts off about other folk's morals,,go on now, do as your told.

Since you have no brain, I guess I have to do all the thinking around here.
Let's start with his own words -- he said he heard "teenaged girls talking about
their first time with sex". When you listen to two or more people talking, you
don't know what they are talking about until you listen; and after you listen,
and therefore discover the nature of the conversation, you can't return it for a
refund. Did he say that he sat there and jacked off to the conversation? No. All
he said was that he heard the conversation. He didn't even describe the details
of the conversation. He didn't say if the girls were saying, "It was SO big and
hard, and it hurt so BAD", or if it was more like, "...and when I woke him up he
copped an attitude, drove me home and didn't even open my door! I don't think he
respects me AT ALL!" Well, I grew up with two older sisters, and let me tell you
that the latter is more like what two girls talk about when they are talking
about boys. Yet you automatically assume that the conversation he heard was not
just sexually explicit, but pornographic in nature. And you know what else,
Twist? He also said that he heard other conversations, such as people making a
drug deal. Does that make him a drug addict? Of course not, but according to
your "logic" it does.

Now go finish your chores before your hubby comes home.

While there is no doubt that eavesdropping on
private conversations is illegal (and if you

have ever read my website



LOL...there it is again,,,,that ego,,,,I'm not interested in anything a
confirmed and self-admitted liar sets forth.

Which is worse -- a person that can admit his lies, or one that continues to
stack lie upon lie upon lie? Oh, I forgot, truth is your friend, and everything
you say is the truth. I don't suppose you have told a lie in your entire life,
have you, Twist?

you would know that I'm not a big fan of

cordless or cell phones for just that reason), it

doesn't interfere with the conversation or

cause any harm or inconvenience.


Nevertheless,,,you're intentionally glossing over Davie-son's wanton,
illegal behavior. He has called several others here a criminal for no
less than freebanding. By your own words, he is "selecting what rules to
disregard" and, man, have you posted a ton of ignorance concerning how
you feel about such behavior. Not only is Hall's behavior hypocritical,
but your selective whining about WHO breaks laws is laughable in the
face of your ire.

I'm "glossing over" nothing. Freebanding is necessarily illegal. Using a scanner
isn't. I really don't care if someone spends their time listening to their
neighbor's telephone conversations, just as long as they don't have any
intention of cleaning out bank accounts, or using the info to hurt someone. In
the same vein, I don't have a problem with CB DXing, just as long as the power
and splatter is kept to a minimum so as not to muck up the rest of the band. On
the contrary, I would like to see the 250km limit lifted. The only problem with
that is as soon as it's lifted (if it's ever lifted), there is going to be a
subsequent surge in freebanding and amps.

And no, I don't choose which laws I obey or ignore. But I DO choose which people
I vote for office, and I DO choose to voice my opinion to those people when I
think a law is unfair or useless. A couple of the issues I'm working on now
happen to be the current mess regarding local broadcast station ownership, and
the ban on new Class D station licenses. LPFM might have been an issue if it
wasn't so poorly implemented. But none of that justifies ignoring the laws in
favor of illegal operation.

So I'm not being hypocritical here. The problem is that you can't get past your
obsessions long enough to have a civilized conversation, or to understand
another person's point of view, or even to let someone listen to your opinions
with a sincere interest. IOW, your opinions don't carry much weight when you are
the newsgroup punch-clown.

Unless someone is listening for purposes

other than a morbid curiousity, I really don't

have a problem with scanners. I do -not-

condone eavesdropping on private

conversations. But the fact is that it does

happen,



HAhhahah..so does freebanding.


and I -do- warn people about using

cordless phones.


Not here you haven't.

Oh yes I have. I have mentioned the issue a few times before, and on other
newsgroups as well. And I have also posted my website addy. I would probably
have posted it more often if the name of this newsgroup was rec.radio.scanners
or alt.telephone.cordless.

But go ahead and do it now and use N3CVJ as an
example.

http://www.aimcomm.com/sparky/hi-tech.htm

Despite all that,



Despite your hypocrisy? No, Frankie,,,IN ADDITION, to your hypocrisy,,,,

the FCC has recognized the issue of

eavesdropping on cordless phones and has

taken steps in order to impede the efforts of

those that would listen to private

conversations for personal gain or the

commission of a crime.




Umm,,hey Frankie,,,intentionally monitoring private telephone calls IS a
crime, just as you hold freebanding is.

No it isn't. 18USC2511(2)(g)(v). Even though they should probably find a less
intrusive hobby, it's perfectly legal for anyone to listen to unencrypted
cordless phone conversations. Not my idea of a fun evening, but hell, I'm
wasting my time replying to your posts. I don't know which is worse....

As the older, unsecure phones find their way

to the trash heaps, the issue is gradually

becoming moot.



Not moot at all. I merely use you and Hall's oft-repeated mantra that
it's the "BEHAVIOR" that makes such criminal acts so bad,,,,the blatant
disregarding of federal rules for personal satisfaction...try not to
lose site of what you selectively hold others to, Frankie.

Idiot.

_
Oh, wait a second, youre still tripping over your hairlipped lie looking
for that post you claimed I said the same thing about you in,,,,,,still
waiting, Frankie,,,you mean you lied? Again? Gee...
"I have admitted to lying in this ng and on
more than
one occasion." Frank
Gilliland )
BTW,,,what happened to that Vancouver
feed?

Never had one.

LOL...hokay!
Your Time Warner (TWTelecom) is in Vancouver, Frankie.

My ISP is in Spokane, Twisty.


Your Time Warner (TWTelecom) is in Vancouver, Frankie, the "feed" you
just lied and denied.

My "feed" comes from my ice-box and pantry. My ISP is in Spokane. Where it goes
from there I don't know and I don't care, just as long as it ends up at it's
intended destination. If it goes through Vancouver, so be it. It might also go
through Tacoma, Fargo, DesMoines, or even Tampa, I couldn't care less, but that
doesn't mean I live in or around any of those urbs.

_
"I have admitted to lying in this ng, and on

more than one occasion"



Ah never mind,,,,one thing
at a time,,,,,now, about those RF pirates that you claimed affected your
daily work...

Do you want to know the names of the most

obnoxious offenders in this area?



Not at all. I'm not interested in anything about you.

Then why bother even bringing up the subject? Or did you write it just to read
it yourself?

I am being polite,

ROTFLMMFAO!!!

to you, that is all. Your ego misinterprets such simple acts as much
more than they are.

Your incessant hounding on the subject leads me to properly interpret such a
simple statement as a hub of your obsession about me. Regardless, I responded
politely, yet your ego misinterpreted my simple question as much more than it
was.

(sigh) Direct a post to myself, I shall respond,

Respond to this: If I want you to know anything about me, just ask. If I don't
tell you what you want to hear, deal with it on your own terms, or consult your
imaginary shrink. Or keep begging for another year and a half if you really
want, I couldn't care less.

When one makes a post on usenet, they are asking the one they directed
the post toward for attention in the form of a reply. That you can not
grasp the simple fashion in which usenet works,

Do you mean like the simple way people use greater-than signs to indicate lines
that are quoted from a previous post? You still haven't grasped that yet, Twist.
Let me help you out -- one arrow () means the quote is from a post one step
back in the thread. Now pay attention, Twist: this next part is your hangup,
probably because you can't count this high. TWO arrows () means the line is
from a post that is TWO steps back in the thread. THREE arrows () means THREE
posts back. Are you getting all this? Do you see the pattern? You haven't blown
a mental sprocket trying to understand this SIMPLE concept, have you?

is testament to that
mounting communication deficit that ails you. Such behavior is your
forte and inherent to the unstable.

Fix your own communication deficits, then I'll listen to you whine about mine.
You might want to fix them soon, because in order to keep you from whining about
me snipping the irrelevant crap you write in your posts, I am now quoting your
entire post with each reply. No doubt they are going to get big. I wonder if
webtv has enough bandwidth to compensate for your communication deficit....






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----