N3CVJ wrote:
Also note that wiretap laws vary from state to

state, and what's true in one state, may not be
in another.

_


Not true. Congress broadened the act, Davie,,,,,you're wrong, incorrect,
and hostile over yourself, Get over it...LOL.

(Twistedhed) wrote in message ...
N3CVJ wrote:
Also note that wiretap laws vary from state to

state, and what's true in one state, may not be
in another.

_


Not true. Congress broadened the act, Davie,,,,,you're wrong, incorrect,
and hostile over yourself, Get over it...LOL.

"Somehow,somewhere, this madman, this self appointed
apostle, a trollish monster disguised in the robes
of virtue, with delusions of Witches everywhere he
looks, must be stopped before he has a chance to
exercise his demented version of hate" -LCS

Twistedhed wrote:

HAhaha..Davie,,,you liar,you had a scanner capable of listening to the
cordless phones in 1984? Name it.


Bearcat 210xl

Dave
"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ wrote: You can still tune cordless phones on a scanner, and you're
free to listen to anything you want (How could they ever catch you?).
The kicker is that you are not allowed to devulge details of what you've
heard, or use information to your advantage. Anyone who uses a cordless
phone needs to be aware of the potential security risks, and buy the
most advanced digital phone.
_
N3CVJ wrote: There can be no expectation of privacy or the protection
that comes from it, due to the "open" nature of unencrypted radio
transmissions. It's no more private than CB radio.
_
N3CVJ wrote:
But as far as anything else, if you can receive it, you can listen to
it. The only stipulation (And the only way that the law can prove you
actually did it, other than catching you in the act) is that you can't
devulge any specific information that you heard, or use it to your
advantage.
__
And Davie,,you made these posts in the last week. You're *wrong* and
incorrect. Such acts are NOT legal despite your professed ignorance
claiming they are. Congress broadened the act long ago.
One who has been a hammie as long as you should know better ( but you
suffer from a communication deficit as bad as Gillinad which prevents
such acquisition of knowledge), especially when you throw stones at
others for their topic of choice you claim makes them a criminal.
Hammies are recognizing davie,,you're a mess...a self-made lying
mess,,but a mess no, less g.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
Twistedhed wrote:
HAhaha..Davie,,,you liar,you had a scanner capable of listening to the
cordless phones in 1984? Name it.

Bearcat 210xl

Dave

"Sandbagger"



LOL,,,,,,only there was no "Melrose Place" in '84,,,,,,,(engage N3CVJ
whine, bitch, and lie mode)......hahha!

Twistedhed wrote:

From: (Dave Hall)
Twistedhed wrote:
HAhaha..Davie,,,you liar,you had a scanner capable of listening to the
cordless phones in 1984? Name it.

Bearcat 210xl

Dave

"Sandbagger"

LOL,,,,,,only there was no "Melrose Place" in '84,,,,,,,(engage N3CVJ
whine, bitch, and lie mode)......hahha!

No **** Sherlock. But when I retold the story, there was. Duh!

Dave

Retell your story about a cber getting popped that none know about
except you. Maybe invent a town name along with an imaginary kangaroo
court. Fiction agrees with you.

In , Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote:

snip
And Davie,,you made these posts in the last week. You're *wrong* and
incorrect. Such acts are NOT legal despite your professed ignorance
claiming they are. Congress broadened the act long ago.
One who has been a hammie as long as you should know better ( but you
suffer from a communication deficit as bad as Gillinad which prevents
such acquisition of knowledge), especially when you throw stones at
others for their topic of choice you claim makes them a criminal.
Hammies are recognizing davie,,you're a mess...a self-made lying
mess,,but a mess no, less g.

I cited federal law. You ignored it. I cited it again, provided a link, and
quoted the part that permits the monitoring of electronic communication that is
"readily accessible to the general public". You ignored it. Do you want to talk
about Michigan? I don't, since Michigan doesn't write federal law. Regardless,
if the courts of Michigan have determined that a cordless phone conversation is
private....

....DESPITE the fact that almost all owner manuals for cordless phones warn that
they are NOT private....

....DESPITE the fact that the news media has covered the issue of cordless
phones and scanners ever since they were first built....

....DESPITE the fact that the FCC, the federal agency responsible for the laws
permitting cordless phones, has acknowledged that unencrypted cordless phones
are -not- private, and has recently instituted regulations which require newer
phones to be built with privacy systems....

....DESPITE the fact that the Michigan court failed to recognize that if their
state law declares conversations over cordless phones are to be considered
private, then they have effectively outlawed cordless phones, since EVERY user
of a cordless phone in Michigan would be violating the Federal Wiretap Act (and
possibly even Michigan law) by using the cordless phone to transmit private
conversations....

....then that's an issue for the people and government of Michigan to take up
with the FCC, since it's not the job of the FCC to make sure state laws are not
in conflict with federal laws. But one thing I have to say about lawyers -- most
of them are not technically competent enough to handle such a case; and that, I
suspect, is the reason for the bogus decision in Michigan.

Now, whether you ignore this post, or respond with your usual mumbo-jumbo about
lids and communication deficits, you simply don't have an argument here, Twist.
But that's nothing new...



BTW, now that I have provided the answer for which you have been begging for a
year and a half, it's time you started answering some: Most recently, have you
been able to guess which two presidents I quoted? Do you really need ANOTHER
clue? How about if I do it like on that game show -- I'll just put up the
consonants....

#1 -- This president increased the military well beyond the limits of the law,
spent millions without appropriations, and for a time suspended the right of
habeas corpus -- and did it all without congressional approval. Here is what he
said: "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by
becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the
preservation of the nation."

The name of this president was "_BR_H_M L_NC_LN".

#2 -- This president meddled in foreign affairs, encouraging a civil war that
resulted in the creation of a new country with a puppet government. And like the
other president, he did so without congressional approval. When congress passed
a resolution forming a commission to investigate the legality of his acts as
president, he refused to cooperate and ignored the resolution. This is his
excuse: "I declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for
the nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific
authorization to do it... Under this interpretation of the executive power I did
and caused to be done many things not previously done by the President and the
heads of departments. I did not usurp power but I did greatly broaden the use of
executive power."

The name of this president was "TH__D_R_ R__S_V_LT".

So can you guess them NOW, Twist?

Well?

I hope so, because there are several hundred
more questions you have left unanswered....

Now where do you want to start? How about with another recent inquiry prompted
by your insinuations -- are you an expert on pedophilia?





-----= 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! =-----

Frank Gilliland wrote:
are you an expert on pedophilia?

Are you an expert on AKC? Let a sleeping dog alone.

--
http://NewsReader.Com/
50 GB/Month

In , wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote:
are you an expert on pedophilia?

Are you an expert on AKC? Let a sleeping dog alone.

If he -were- sleeping that would be fine, but the dog awoke early this morning
screaming my name over and over. Now if I was -really- ambitious I would be
searching Google to see if anybody in rec.fishing.special_olympics was missing
during the same time Twisty was gone....







-----= 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! =-----