Frank Gilliland wrote:
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?

I wonder just what federal law, I am supposedly breaking (and in the mid
80's)? If it's transmitted over the air, and I can receive it with
common radio gear, then there can be no expectation of privacy. It's no
different than listening to police or fire calls. A far different
situation than deliberately attempting to break an encryption code, or
attempting unconventional methods to receive these calls, beyond
"common" radio receivers.



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?

The only thing he is expert at is dragging out a moot point, and beating
a dead horse. All for the purposes of attention. It's futile to attempt
to logically debate with him. He does not acknowlege logic. When his
point has been soundly trounced, he'll just spin it into a tangent, and
start down another path. As long as you keep coming back at him, he's
getting his fill of attention. You've become his cyber-mommy.

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.

He knows no logic, he only exploits a point which he feels can give him
some attention mileage. I was not about to "debate" the issue with him,
for that very reason. You're only feeding his ego, by doing it for me.

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.

Amen to that!


Dave
"Sandbagger"