RadioBanter - View Single Post - While we're on the subject of funny and entertaining websites.....

April 12th 05, 05:41 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:57:39 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:11:51 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
That was not meant as a criticism, just a

neutral observation.

Sure, sure,,a "neutral" observation whose first knee jerk reaction when
Dogie was busted was to jump to his defense and lie and say someone
someone withdrew the complaint against him to the FCC.

You're lying again. I never made any such

claim.

I simply offered that based on Doug's

"notoriety", that he MIGHT have been framed.

Are you stating that this scenario is

impossible?

Your reasoning for your bizarre behavior means something only to
yourself.
Your first instinct was to deny it took place, call me a liar, then turn
around in your next sentence and attempt to explain WHY you made such a
claim. Very bizarre, David.

The only thing "bizarre" is your inability to

comprehend simple concepts.

Such as you saying.."I never made any such claim",,followed by "I only
offered that based on Dogie's notoriety." The market of any such
"inability" has been cornred by yourself, as you remove all doubt.

You accused me of stating that someone

withdrew the complaint. I made no such

statement. That's a lie on your part,

predicated, no doubt, from your inability to

remember who said what over the years.

Nah,,,you said it.

You once tried to claim that I accused Keith of

something. When pressed on the issue,

(While you scrambled through google) you f

finally had to back off when you realized that

you make a mistake. But true to form, you

would never be a man and admit it.

Go on then and ask Keith, since you brought it up. You most certianly
blamed him. And while you are invoking such past discussions, it would
serve proper at this time if you were held to your own espoused standard
that what took place in the past is irrelevant, as you just told
another. Then again, you have a set of rules for everyone else, not
adhered by yourself..aka, another glaring example of your hypocrisy.

Are you man enough to apologize now, or will

you just spin this some more to lay down even
more smoke?

Look how far you ran from your initial denial of
defending Dogie. Off you go now, with all the smoke you can muster (a
little puffy whiff).
The contingency recognizes this fact and several have illustrated and
commented on your position and hypocrisy.

....of one (you).

Despite your paranoia, I am not Frank, Jim, Shark, or anyone else that
has commented on your bizarre hypocrisy.

Despite your obvious paranoia, I never said

you were.

As Frank, Jim, and Shark have all illustrated your hypocrisy AND
commented on it, yet, for some perplexing reason known only to yourself,
you acknowledge only myself as recognizing it and commenting of it.

I am no more hypocritical than any of those

who have claimed the same of me.

You
claiming the majority misunderstands you via
explaining what you "really" meant after the fact (usually accompanied
by you misapplying definitions of words and terms) adds to the joke.

No, you are claiming there's a "majority"

Yes, I did claim there was a majority on many occasion.

(Which has been strangely silent),

You always default to denial mode when other people tell you your
behavior is hypocritical. It's called denial.

No, it's called correcting an error. You still

cannot demonstrate anything hypocritical that

I've posted.

You ask others to provide for their claims after you make unsolicited
claims you felt important enough to invoke, but not provide (proof)
yourself.

I'm forced to conclude that you don't know the

meaning of the word. So for your edification:

hy=B7poc=B7ri=B7sy =A0 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)

n. pl. hy=B7poc=B7ri=B7sies

1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings,

or virtues that one does not hold or possess;

falseness.

You asking for anyone to provide for any of their claims is hypocrisy,
David, because you refuse to provide for for the majority fo your own.
You can deny all you like. It's my pleasure.

2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Now, where have I ever professed a belief,

virtue, or feeling that I don't possess?

See above.

the truth is there is only you.

Classic denial. I wasn't the one telling you about your hypocritical
political diatribes, despite your need to believe I am now posting as
Jim, or anyone else.

I never mentioned that.

LOL..exactly at what point does one recognize their daftness? Is it
before, during, or after you claimed no one but myself illustrated or
mentioned your hypocrisy?

Guilty conscience?

Sociopaths do not have consciences. Reversing your uneducated opinions
at your whim serves to illustrate only your ineptness regarding the area
you fancy yourself educated.

Provide even ONE example of my misuse of

any term.

Empirical evidence, for one.
But you outdone yourself concerning your knowledge of the laws governing
your hobby regarding Civil Disobedience.

You have absolutely no idea what the concept
of civil disobedience is do you? You think it's

your "get out of jail free card". You are so far

off, it's not even funny.
=A0
=A0Despite being taught and
educated on this matter several times, you are unable to comprehend
such.

You are not capable of educating anyone.

Your legal and political views are akin to the

malcontents and subversive slackers of the

1960's.

The definition of the term has not changed, your personal feelings and
bleeding from the gums, not withstanding.
You fecklessly insist such an act
(such as dxing) makes one a federal criminal.

It does and it is.

It doesn't. An inability to distinguish between federal, criminal, and
civil acts displayed by yourself is not shared by anyone else, only you.
You are assuming all rules and laws governed by a federal agency are
criminal and this simply isn't so. Your error, is you mistakenly believe
the term "federal" can be interchanged with the term "criminal" wehn
relating to the rules and laws they govern. This is your bad, Dave, not
anyone elses.

The FCC (a FEDERAL

agency)

via the communications act of 1934 clearly

defines both civil AND criminal penalties for

violation of the law. The fact that you haven't

been caught yet does not change that.

Yet, the fact one hasn't been convicted of such DOES change -your-
mistaken position. The fact that you disagree with the US laws and
justice system that does not allow anyone to refer to another as a
criminal unless they are found guilty and pronounced as such in a court
of law, is irrelevant, as it again is your ignorance responsible for
your mistaken belief.
Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.
_
You very clearly are
suffering some sort of massive block, some type of learning disability
that prevents you from comprehending the differences between what
constitutes civil and criminal penalties, despite being properly
instructed each time you shout your ignorance concerning this subject.
You erroneously claimed, "it is perception" (yours, albeit wrong) that
distinguishes between such.

Your problem is that in your narcissistic mind,

(snip)

Try and not permit my education of you to allow yourself to become
angry, as when you become angry, you get off topic and personal and must
be corrected and brought back in to the fold. AS much as your need
dictates, such is not about me, it's about your inability to properly
distinguish the differences between civil and criminal penalties, and
the fact that a federal agency governs such, does not make it a federal
crime, as you mistakenly and repeatedly maintain. You should have
realized such when you were informed about the Federal DOT's existence
(you denied their existence). The Federal DOT enforces many rules and
laws, and they are all not of a criminal nature, despite your inability
to comprehend such. If you need more examples, you may indicate such and
they will be provided.

Someone can't be "educated" when the "

teacher" is further off the rails than the

"student". Your knowledge of the law is the

worst that I've ever seen anywhere.

Yet, it was I who taught you roger beeps were legal for cb (you had to
confirm it with the FCC), after you cried for months that they were
illegal.
Your reasons for doing so, are irrelevant, it merely illustrates whose
knowledge of the law is compromised.
You are the only one taking issue, Dave. Ask anyone on ths group, anyone
at all, if they agree with you regarding your claim of what constitutes
a federal criminal. Off you go now...

I have a cousin who's a lawyer

Hehehe,,,as I said,,,off you go now.
You find it important enough you feel you must mention you have a cousin
who is a lawyer, but no identification, resutling in you not providing
for your claim.. You found it important enough to claim you have a
friend who was busted by the fcc, but will not provide for the claim.
You feel it important enough to claim you have cops who are friends who
gave you the wrong definition of Pa law, but of course you will not
provide for the claim. You find it important enough to claim you went to
a tech school, but will not provide for any claims. It's your pattern,
David. "Statistical probablities" as you like to call it,,,,,,same as
googling "anarchy". Socks and only your name comes up.

Stick to fishing. It's probably the only subject

you know anything about.

I also know boats, and that you were seen coming a mile away when you
bought yours.

You really should take some remedial

education courses, including a course on

reading comprehension. That way you

wouldn't be so quick to accuse others of

saying things they never said.

That's pretty funny, considering the source, but let's remain focused.
Your gaffe of using "criminal", "civil" and "federal" as similes when
referring to the dx law just because such is administered by a federal
agency, is wrong. That's all there is to it.

Have yourself a good weekend, old man.

Same to you. See you on Monday....

David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ