From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:25:10 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
N3CVJ wrote:
I no longer partake in those activities. I grew

up Twist, plain and simple. Now, when will

you?
That's a good thing you don't partake in those activities anymore,
Dave...as I NEVER took part in those activities cited by you,,bragging
about your radio that caused severe bleed,,,laughing about the
intentional intereference the bleed caused,,telling people to buy a
bandaid when you were bleeding,,,..

I don't expect you to understand the dynamics

of the local CB population back then, but any

interference that I deliberately did to anyone

back then was to those who were asking for it,
in the form of a payback



No one understands your "dynamics" nor your "empiricle evdence" nor your
incorrect blathers about echo and roger beeps being illegal on cb.
That you are unable to find a rule expressly permitting roger beeps on
cb, is all the "dynamics" on needs to understanding your twisted world.


(You know all about paybacks right?).

f you are attempting to draw some type false analogy between my typed
words and your committed actions, you better dig a little deeper in your
desperation bag,,,,,whoops, nothing left : ).

Plus, I was a teenager then. That should

explain everything.


No, Dave, you weren't a teenager when you were making these posts, but
good luck on trying to get the contingency to believe your
frequent-flowing lies.

I knew way more about radio back then than

my maturity level could control.

I guess some of us (me) were light
years ahead of others (you) in radio mannerisms and operating procedure.

Yet, you operate on illegal frequencies and

see nothing wrong with breaking federal law?

How is that any better than what you lambast

me for?




I never splattered, never ran huge power, never was a jerk on the air,
even as a child, I not only knew better, I was taught better.

But you see nothing wrong with breaking

federal communications law as an adult? It

would seem that respect for the law was a

subject skipped over when you was "learned".


Respect for the law has abolutely nothing to do with selective
disregardment. Until you can distinguish between such, you are forced to
remain captive to your own ignorance reagrding your service. You have
illustrated this time and time again with your attempted non-valid
comparisons between my words and your actions.




Glad you
"grew up" and joined those of us who have been waiting for idiots like
you to stop being part of the problem.

I'm not the one operating on illegal

frequencies or using above legal power limits.



But you do, Dave. Your lies come to fast and furious for there to be any
truth in your statements, In fact, you have become one of the most
unreliable posters in this group when it comes to anything at all. All
your posts are suspect, at best. Your agenda has been ilustrated, as has
your hypocrisy, contradictions, deliberate misattributions to others,
and lies, But then again, where would this group be without lids like
you to keep us ahead of your game...
_
Although, just for the record,
you have claimed you haven't operated illegally since the seventies or
eighties, but that little gem you cited about running the AB amp in your
vehicle was made in '98, not that long ago, and was referring to your cb
use.

No, that was in reference to 10 meter

operation.
=A0


No,,it wasn't. Read the thread. It was about cb and 10 meter wasn't even
mentioned until just now, by yourself, years later.
_
=A0But if you grew up since then, I'm happy to say, I was indeed a part
of it, since that is when we first exchanged pleasantries and you began
crying about technical legalities,

You had nothing to do with it.

Sure I did. Chec the time frame. You were lying and screaming about
legalities, aligning yourself with n8WWM, when I entered this group back
in the late ninetes,,,,the same time you were running your amp on cb.

Had I not grown up, I'd be singing right along

side of you with the "screw everyone else,

I'm going to talk where I want" attitude.


Gee Dave, just because you were never taught better and you had to learn
on your own and figure out a little bit of common sense and proper radio
communication technique, doesn;t give you the right to use nothing but
your personal feelings and falsely accuse others of the "screw everyone
else" attitude you pioneered in this group along with n8wwm.


It would seem that you still need to mature

enough to learn respect for the law...

Dave

"Sandbagger"


I have incredible respect for the law. In fact, there are two
sandbaggers in this group howling their azzes off watching you come
apart with such remote accusations. Someday, I may permit you to be
clued in.

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
Dave Hall wrote in
:
I have hardly been "bewildered". I told you and everyone else how it was
done. It was done by utilizing a 7805 regulator to create a steady 5V
for the bias supply. The 5V was then dropped through a resistor and
applied to the base of each of the 2290 devices. The bias voltage was
limited to .6V by utilizing a forward biased diode on each transistor,
which was placed on top of each "pill" for heat tracking and stability.
It's not rocket science, for someone who knows what they're doing. You
know, I might just take a some pictures of the project and put them on
my website just to squash your incessant babble.

Exactly dave you just added ab-1 bias to the

am which certainly would clean it up, but what

would the spoiled kid in Tampa know he

doesnt even solder his mike plugs on.

_
I'm not in Tampa. And I do solder my own mic plugs at this
point,,,sometimes. But when one has access to super techs like myself,
it allows me more relax time to do more valuable and constructive things
with my time, such as making certain your continuing education begins
and ends when I choose. But damn it man, just wait until I start
soldering linears.

: ).......................................

N3CVJ wrote:
The reverse can be applied to Nader. He

appeals to the hard core left,


You continue to reaffirm you haven't the foggiest.

From: (Dave=A0Hall) wrote:
So, you're telling me that you can't listen to a

channel and pick out who the most blatant

illegal operators are simply by the sound of

their rigs, and by the splatter they produce?


When the dx is running strong, that is exactly what people are trying to
tell you. I find it absoutely astounding this is lost upon you in lieu
of your recent comments self-professing an incredible amount of adept
and technical radio knowledge. Coupled with your claim concerning roger
beeps and echo on cb being illegal (they're not) merely because you were
unable to locate a rule specifically permitting their use, and it merits
repeating..........


Irony: When some of those licensed for communications know the least
about their chosen endeavor.

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall) wrote:
So, you're telling me that you can't listen to a

channel and pick out who the most blatant

illegal operators are simply by the sound of

their rigs, and by the splatter they produce?


When the dx is running strong, that is exactly what people are trying to
tell you.

The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the
distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is
heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations
were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample
of any particular transmission could not be made.

I find it absoutely astounding this is lost upon you

That's not surprising considering you once tried to tell me (and the
group) that a 4 watt skip station 1000 miles away could potentially
walk on top of a 4 watt station a half mile away, totally disregarding
the effects of R.F. path loss.

of your recent comments self-professing an incredible amount of adept
and technical radio knowledge. Coupled with your claim concerning roger
beeps and echo on cb being illegal (they're not) merely because you were
unable to locate a rule specifically permitting their use, and it merits

There are specific rules which specifically prohibit devices used for
"entertainment" and "amusement" purposes. There is also a specific
rule which outlines permitted tone signals. A Roger Beep is not listed
under permissible tone signals. Following simple logic, since there is
no valid rule which permits a particular device, then the device
defaults to one of "amusement or entertainment" status and is
prohibited.

So therefore it can be assumed that a roger beep and (even more
definite) an echo box could be considered "entertainment" or
"amusement" devices and, as such, are specifically prohibited.

You can make the point that the FCC doesn't care enough to make a case
about these things, and I would probably agree with you. But the fact
remains that they are prohibited by the rules.

Irony: When some of those licensed for communications know the least
about their chosen endeavor.


Bigger Irony: Someone with obvious comprehensive issues chastising
others for the same flaw.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:29:04 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:

Lancer wrote in news:41de891b.990875
:

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:46:41 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote in
:

what is the difference between the bias on an AB1 and
an AB2


Class ab2 an amplifier with higher bias than the class ab1 amplifier.



Or better yet, what is the difference between the bias on an AB1 and
an AB2? (transistor amp)


No such animal those numbers are for tube use only

1 indicating that the tube does not draw any grid current, and 2
indicates that the grid voltage is above 0 volts and a positive grid
voltage, causes the grid to draw current.







Why did you snip the original post apart where you told Dave to bias
his transistor amp bias to .6 volts to run class AB1?

Why did you lie? i never said that, this is my reply to dave

"Exactly dave you just added ab-1 bias to the am which certainly would
clean it up, but what would the spoiled kid in Tampa know he doesnt even
solder his mike plugs on. "

Forget it, its not worth arguing over..

On 07 Jan 2005 13:30:14 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

Lancer wrote:
On 07 Jan 2005 02:52:34 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

Lancer wrote:
Still up to your eyeballs in snow? Our weather has been really wierd,
it was 70 Wednesday morning, and 20 this morning.

Nah, we've had warmer weather and rain/sleet/slush lately. Did plow from
midnight till 9 this morning tho..needed a big azz'd squeegee instead of
a plow.. You're right, very strange weather patterns.

How did your SW radio Christmas present go over?

I gave it to him, but didn't notice someone had soldered the contacts
shut on the mode switch. It still works, I just need to track down a
new switch for it. He's having a ball with it, likes it even better
than the videos games he got..

Cool..now you've created a monster!

Hopefully the right kind.. get him away from the computers and video
games and into radio..

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:08:37 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:16:33 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
So you are denying that the majority of the
"big
radios" on Channel 6 are running any sort of
high power?

Apparently, that is a an argument you are having with yourself.

No, you are trying to claim that there are no
illegal operators on 6, based on your rejection
to my claim that what I can hear on almost a
daily basis is in fact illegal.


I claimed nothing of the sort. I claimed only that
your claim is bull****, which it is.

So which is it? If you are denying my claim that there are illegal
stations on channel 6, then by simple inverse logic, you are claiming
that there are NO illegal stations on channel 6. If, you acknowledge
that there are, in fact, illegal stations on channels 6, then my claim
cannot be false.

You REALLY need a course in logic.

Or will you try to weasel out of it by claiming that the term "high
power" is ambiguous?



Your personal feelings are not facts, despite how many times you invoke
them as such. Let's look at it again since you still can not grasp it.
You said

`channel 6, which is notorious for harboring

the dregs of society, who regularly run high

power, is all the "evidence" I need, to

determine that the station in question is in fact,
llegal."



Once again, your personal feelings are not facts. That illegal operation
occurs on such a channel was never contested by myself

Then you have to agree with my statement that the majority of big
radio stations are running illegally.


, despite your
deperate attempt at trying to say it was. I merely claimed your ersonal
feelings cited above are in no manner "evidence".

The fact that these stations exist and are illegal are a matter of
record for anyone who's ever spent any time there. My "personal
feelings" notwithstanding.


How do you think I gathered the evidence that prompted me to make that
claim? It was based on empirical observation.

The FCC knows the reputation of channel 6 also, only they have protocol
to determine if someone is breaking the law, not personal feelings they
refer to as "empirical evidence" as you do.

You are up a tree now. How do you think the FCC makes the
determination that a specific high powered station is worthy of
further investigation? Do you think a little empirical observation
just MIGHT be a clue?

The FCC is able to make a quantitative analysis by inspecting the
physical station to determine just HOW illegal they are. But I don't
need to be that precise. Just knowing that they ARE illegal is all
that matters.

Because I can't follow through beyond the initial observation stage,
you think that means that my observations are invalid? Boy are you
naive and devoid of comprehensive abilities.

Your personal feelings are not "facts".

No but my trained observations skills can be
considered as strong evidence to the positive.



No,,,it can not. It is personal testimony to be taken into
consideration.

Look up "expert witness" for a clue.

It is intangible and can not be entered as evidence, only
supporting testimony.

This is not a court of law. I need to convince no one. And you aren't
denying it either. You just want to argue the point because *I* made
it. The deeper you go in the "debate", the wackier and off the wall
your retorts become. Such as your next statement:


Huge difference where the law is concerned, but
with your demonstrated hate and disdain for the law and your fellow
hammie and cb operators

This is absolutely side splitting, coming from an admitted federal law
breaker, to accuse ME of harboring hate and disdain for the law.


, it's crystal clear you have no clue of the law
that pertains and governs your chosen hobby.

What IS clear is that you twist and obfuscate the law to fit into what
you think it is, and not what it truly says.

You will defend the dubious legality of an obvious "entertainment"
device, but see nothing wrong with operating on clearly unauthorized
frequencies, or running power beyond the legal limit.

Such is the nature of a sociopathic mind.


You demonstrated this when
you held roger beeps and echo illegal on cb because you "couldn't find a
rule that permitted them".

Because there aren't any. Otherwise you would have posted it. But
there ARE rules which specifically prohibit devices used for
"amusement or entertainment".


Yes, that part is my personal opinion.

See what you can learn when you are force fed? At the beginning of this
thread, you claimed it was fact, now, after proper instruction, you
admit it is "personal opinion". Good show.

Only the first part is. The second part was empirical observation

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:19:19 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:10:13 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
My "point" was illustrated yesterday when you said this:
_
N3CVJ wrote:
I do not shoot skip. I don't LIKE skip. When I

used to use an amplifier, it was to GET OVER

or chase it off the channel

But this next post was made when you were using that amplifier...

in 1975, a Texas Star didn't exist.

Next......


After talking skip internationally on the
freeband channels, on SSB, I gradually lose
interest in skip
_
Different time periods.

Right, the claim about when you USED to use an amp it wasn't to talk
skip, was made the other day. The claim about you talking skip with
your amplifier was made long ago. It illustrates your statement the
other day was bull****.....but a mere lie in another of your long list
of self-perjuries.

Once again for the perpetually comprehensively inhibited: I talked
skip in the middle 70's. I used my amps to get over it from then on.

That's pretty funny considering only you are having difficulty with your
communication skills at this level and are madly trying to misattribute
things that were never said to others.

No that's what you're doing. I'm not the one who cut and pasted a
quote from ICECOLDNYC and erroneously claimed it was mine.


Besides, it doesn;t take a rocket scientist to understand the kind of
operator you are,,,you already admitted to being the worse kind of
operator that exists.

Someone who didn't take crap from idiots? Yea, I'm guilty. But unless
you're one of those idiots, you can hardly make a valid claim that my
"style" is the "worst kind of operator that exists". I've done more to
help other CB'ers than you could possibly imagine.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:34:54 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:



No one understands your "dynamics" nor your "empiricle evdence" nor your
incorrect blathers about echo and roger beeps being illegal on cb.

No, only you have a problem with straight talk. You prefer speaking
with forked tongue.


That you are unable to find a rule expressly permitting roger beeps on
cb, is all the "dynamics" on needs to understanding your twisted world.

Already addressed. Move on.


(You know all about paybacks right?).

f you are attempting to draw some type false analogy between my typed
words and your committed actions, you better dig a little deeper in your
desperation bag,,,,,whoops, nothing left.

See, you can comprehend things when you really want to! It's funny
that what you do here today, is so similar to what I used to do in the
1970's. The thing is, in 1974 I was 14, so what's your excuse for your
immature and antisocial behavior today?


Plus, I was a teenager then. That should

explain everything.


No, Dave, you weren't a teenager when you were making these posts, but
good luck on trying to get the contingency to believe your
frequent-flowing lies.

Are you caught in some form of dissociative time warp? The internet
didn't exist (at least not in this form) when I was making noise on
the band. The fact that I can tell stories from back then, does not
mean that I'm still doing the same thing.

If I write a recollection of an event which occurred 30 years ago,
does that mean that what I write about is still true?


I never splattered, never ran huge power, never was a jerk on the air,
even as a child, I not only knew better, I was taught better.

But you see nothing wrong with breaking
federal communications law as an adult? It
would seem that respect for the law was a
subject skipped over when you was "learned".


Respect for the law has abolutely nothing to do with selective
disregardment.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. How can you claim to respect the law,
when you feel you have the right to ignore it when it suits your
purpose?


But you do, Dave. Your lies come to fast and furious for there to be any
truth in your statements, In fact, you have become one of the most
unreliable posters in this group when it comes to anything at all.

Second only to you in that regard.



All
your posts are suspect, at best.

Only by you. No one else has made any claims of the sort. Except
perhaps Frank, who's smarting a bit because he can't deal with a
conservative who employs logic.

Your agenda has been ilustrated, as has
your hypocrisy, contradictions, deliberate misattributions to others,
and lies, But then again, where would this group be without lids like
you to keep us ahead of your game...

It would be forced to deal with sociopath like you, and your warped
views on the way the world is.



It would seem that you still need to mature
enough to learn respect for the law...

I have incredible respect for the law.

And you prove it every day when you disregard the law which prohibits
you from utilizing more than the 40 legal class D channels.

In fact, there are two
sandbaggers in this group howling their azzes off watching you come
apart with such remote accusations. Someday, I may permit you to be
clued in.

Someday I may clue you in to just how a psychological study of your
posting habits was included in someone I know's psychology report on
deviant behaviors.

Dave
"Sandbagger"