![]() |
Dave Hall, this is what you have been looking for
YAWN....
"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge" wrote in message ... Ok so this should just about end the discussion, this was sent to me by request from a Administrative Leo. There is no hersay here or no web sites. Just actual proof, other than signed active work zones or school zones these law are it. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. 760 Session of 2003 INTRODUCED BY THOMPSON, KUKOVICH, RAFFERTY, WONDERLING, EARLL, KITCHEN, MUSTO, PILEGGI, ORIE, D. WHITE, DENT, WAUGH, PUNT, WAGNER, LOGAN, C. WILLIAMS AND ERICKSON, MAY 16, 2003 REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION ACT, MAY 16, 2003 Amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for conviction and point schedules, for speed timing devices and for State and local powers. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts as follows: Section 1. Section 1535(d) of Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes is amended to read: § 1535. Schedule of convictions and points. (d) [Exception] Exceptions.-- (1) This section does not apply to a person who was operating a pedalcycle or an animal drawn vehicle. (2) If a speeding offense under section 3362 (relating to maximum speed limits) is charged as a result of use of a device authorized by section 3368(c) (relating to speed timing devices), no points shall be assigned under subsection (a) unless the speed recorded is ten or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. Section 2. Section 3368(a), (c), (d) and (e) of Title 75, amended December 23, 2002 (P.L.1982, No.229), are amended and the section is amended by adding subsections to read: § 3368. Speed timing devices. (a) Speedometers authorized.--The rate of speed of any vehicle may be timed on any highway by a police officer using a motor vehicle equipped with a speedometer, except as provided in section 6109 (relating to specific powers of department and local authorities). In ascertaining the speed of a vehicle by the use of a speedometer, the speed shall be timed for a distance of not less than three-tenths of a mile. (c) Mechanical, electrical and electronic devices authorized.-- (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in section 6109, the rate of speed of any vehicle may be timed on any highway by a police officer using a mechanical or electrical speed timing device. (2) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (3), electronic devices such as radio-microwave devices (commonly referred to as electronic speed meters or radar) or infrared laser light devices (commonly referred to as LIDAR) may be used [only by]: (i) By members of the Pennsylvania State Police. (ii) Upon completion of a training course approved by the Pennsylvania State Police and the Municipal Police Officers' Education and Training Commission, by full-time police officers employed by the full-service police - 2 - department of a political subdivision or regional police department if official warning signs indicating the use of these devices are erected within 500 feet of the border of the political subdivision on the main arteries entering that political subdivision. (3) Electronic devices which calculate speed by measuring elapsed time between measured road surface points by using two sensors and devices which measure and calculate the average speed of a vehicle between any two points may be used by any police officer. (4) No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (2) or (3) in an area where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (2) or (3) within a school zone or an active work zone. (5) As used in this subsection, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this paragraph: "Full-service police department." A local or regional police department which: (i) is authorized by one or more political subdivisions; (ii) provides 24-hour-a-day patrol and investigative - 3 - services; and (iii) reports its activities monthly to the Pennsylvania State Police in accordance with the Uniform Crime Reporting System. "Full-time police officer." An employee of a political subdivision or regional police department who complies with all of the following: (i) Is certified under 53 Pa.C.S. Ch. 21 Subch. D (relating to municipal police education and training). (ii) Is empowered to enforce 18 Pa.C.S. (relating to crimes and offenses) and this title. (iii) Is a regular full-time police officer under the act of June 15, 1951 (P.L.586, No.144), entitled "An act regulating the suspension, removal, furloughing and reinstatement of police officers in boroughs and townships of the first class having police forces of less than three members, and in townships of the second class," or works a minimum of 200 days a year. (iv) Is provided coverage by a police pension plan under: (A) the act of May 24, 1893 (P.L.129, No.82), entitled "An act to empower boroughs and cities to establish a police pension fund, to take property in trust therefor and regulating and providing for the regulation of the same"; (B) the act of June 23, 1931 (P.L.932, No.317), known as The Third Class City Code; (C) the act of May 22, 1935 (P.L.233, No.99), referred to as the Second Class City Policemen Relief Law; 20030S0760B0871 - 4 - (D) the act of May 29, 1956 (1955 P.L.1804, No.600), referred to as the Municipal Police Pension Law; or (E) the act of July 15, 1957 (P.L.901, No.399), known as the Optional Third Class City Charter Law. The term does not include auxiliary, part-time or fire police. (d) Classification, approval and testing of mechanical, electrical and electronic devices.--The department may, by regulation, classify specific devices as being mechanical, electrical or electronic. All mechanical, electrical or electronic devices shall be of a type approved by the department, which shall appoint stations for calibrating and testing the devices [and may prescribe regulations as to the manner in which calibrations and tests shall be made]. All devices, including LIDAR laser devices and electronic speed meters or radar, must have been tested for accuracy within a period of one year prior to the alleged violation in accordance with specifications prescribed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). All electronic devices, such as LIDAR laser devices, and electronic speed devices, such as speed meters or radar, approved for use in this Commonwealth, must appear on the International Association of Chiefs of Police consumer products list, in conjunction with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards. The certification and calibration of electronic devices under subsection (c)(3) shall also include the certification and calibration of all equipment, timing strips and other devices which are actually used with the particular electronic device being certified and calibrated. [The devices shall have been 20030S0760B0871 - 5 - tested for accuracy within a period of 60 days prior to the alleged violation.] A certificate from the station showing that the calibration and test were made within the required period, and that the device was accurate, shall be competent and prima facie evidence of those facts in every proceeding in which a violation of this title is charged. (e) Distance requirements for use of mechanical, electrical and electronic devices.--[Mechanical] (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), mechanical, electrical or electronic devices may not be used to time the rate of speed of vehicles within 500 feet after a speed limit sign indicating a decrease of speed. This limitation on the use of speed timing devices shall not apply to speed limit signs indicating school zones, bridge and elevated structure speed limits, hazardous grade speed limits and work zone speed limits. (2) Whenever radio-microwave speed timing devices or infrared laser light devices are used by a local or regional police officer, the police officer must locate the vehicle with the radio-microwave speed timing device or infrared laser light device in a location that is not intentionally concealed from the motoring public. (f) Local ordinance required to enforce.-- (1) Prior to use of radio-microwave speed timing devices or infrared laser light devices used for speed timing by local or regional police officers, the appropriate governing body must adopt an ordinance authorizing the local or regional police department to employ such devices on roads within the boundaries of the governing body where a required engineering and traffic study has been conducted and in 20030S0760B0871 - 6 - accordance with section 6109(a)(11) to address citizen complaints or demonstrable traffic safety concerns, such as high crash rates or fatalities. (2) During the initial 90 days of speed enforcement by a local or regional police department using radio-microwave speed timing devices or infrared laser light devices, persons may only be sanctioned for violations with a written warning. (g) Excess revenues.--The primary use of radar or LIDAR by local or regional police officers is for traffic safety purposes. Each local or regional police department that uses radar or LIDAR shall report annually to the Pennsylvania State Police the municipal revenue generated from speed enforcement citations on such forms as may be prescribed by the Pennsylvania State Police. In the event the municipal share of revenue generated from speed enforcement citations exceeds 5% of the total municipal budget or 5% of the regional police department budget, all sums in excess thereof shall be remitted to the Pennsylvania State Police to be used for traffic safety purposes. This subsection shall expire five years after it takes effect. Section 3. Section 6109(a)(11) of Title 75 is amended to read: § 6109. Specific powers of department and local authorities. (a) Enumeration of police powers.--The provisions of this title shall not be deemed to prevent the department on State- designated highways and local authorities on streets or highways within their physical boundaries from the reasonable exercise of their police powers. The following are presumed to be reasonable exercises of police power: 20030S0760B0871 - 7 - (11) Enforcement of speed restrictions authorized under Subchapter F of Chapter 33[, except that] in accordance with the following: (i) Except as set forth in subparagraph (ii), speed restrictions may be enforced by [local police] full-time police officers employed by the full-service police department of a political subdivision or regional police department on a limited access or divided highway only if [it] this title authorizes such enforcement and the highway is patrolled by the local or regional police force under the terms of an agreement with the Pennsylvania State Police. (ii) If this title authorizes speed restrictions to be enforced by a police department of a city of the first class, they may be enforced on limited access or divided highways within the police department's jurisdiction. An agreement with the Pennsylvania State Police is not necessary under this subparagraph. Section 4. This act shall take effect in 120 days. E13L75BIL/20030S0760B0871 - 8 - -- "Landshark" wrote in message . com... See, I have proved he did those posts and all he can do now is try to recriminate me and anyone that disagree with him. Landshark |
|
NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 5:07pm (EST-1) Group:
=A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 Dave Hall, this is what you have been looking for From: =A0=A0 itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge User-Agent: =A0=A0 Xnews/06.08.25 X-No-Archive: =A0=A0 yes Date: =A0=A0 Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 5:07pm (EST-1) X-Trace: =A0=A0 sv3-WgMKChYj1j3DnXm0SmoIZg5xWPovJPwnFOR7LL6EKdfWy/auKkiCzv4Ds+juKhGy5GNvk1= 31PQ2uvo0!sEAUhpczBytZokFwtt0JOfbnr/YtkZB6nydFZwmohXNHfACoCCQ2tKsR2iYU7c55= AfaT X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.3.31 (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:3633-421F5BAC-46 @storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net: N3CVJ David T. Hall Jr. wrote: Ok so this should just about end the discussion, this was sent to me by request from a Administrative Leo. A claim by yourself of a mystery administrative leo telling you anything is third-hand hearsay. Until this mystery source is cited and ascertained, that's exactly what it is..hearsay. Don't worry about the mystery source, David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) invoked this mystery source, not I. Your chin appears to be getting caught under my heel, again. _ It's not proof because you say so, It is proof because the Pa commonwealths statutes are stamped all over it, your communicaTION DEFICIT PRECLUDES YOU FROM SEEING SUCH AS IT IS Only David T. Hall Jr. has been wrong on every issue. _ but let's assume it is, Assume all you want, that is your normal SOP =A0 =A0just for the sake of the thread. Your statement above absolutely contradicts N3CVJ's claim that one CAN NOT BE CITED for speeding 1 MPH over the limit in Pa. Perhaps you can show us in the documents I posted where it says that? Perhaps you can ask another, as everyone has long tired of explaining whta they mean to you and reminding you of your poor memory. _ You deftly illustrate the circumstances where one can be cited for such an infraction. The funny part is your and frank's arguement never hinged upon this obscure fact that has been presented. The only thing that is funny is the manner in which you attack myself, Frank, and anyone else that illustrates David's hypocrisy and bull****. Until an actual passage from pa code is presented it is hersay to speculate the exact meaning of the law. Hearsay is everything Hall has presented and attributed as fact because a mystery leo source "told" him so _ =A0 David T. Hall Jr. knew nothing of the law regarding these exceptions, therefore, he insists such does not exist, effectively contradicting one of his favorite claims that "absence of proof is not proof of absence". Well tipsy, Your feelings of shame are increasing day by day. It really upsets you to not who who the hell it is bouncing your head off the wall. frank nor yourself knew of these exceptions until Landshark brought them to light, What Frank and myself knew, was exactly what you have been taught since then...that there exists no requirement saying Pa State Officers must give a window of 5 MPH to all speeders..that was David T. Hall's : ) claim, and you are bleeding from the ....uh..gums trying to manage some sort of damage control for his regular idiocy. and yet so far there has been no law posted by anyone stating the exact exception and any limitations. You asking for a law that disproves David T. Hall Jr.'s misinterpretation of the law. In fact the article landshark posted did indeed state there are tolerances which i clearly demonstrated with my follow up document. Stay with the topic, no matter how painful it is to have your ears pinned and tail cropped at a time like this. No one ever took issue with tolerances,..in fact, only you are invoking such a topic to try and obscure David T. Hall Jr.'s screwups. It was he that claimed that a 5 MPH tolerance was mandatory in Pa for all speeders. You begging for someone to show a law to disprove your incompetence and misinterpretations is but a bonus to the freak show you have been forced to live. |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: -snip- Going to Dayton, or skeered? |
NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Mon, Feb 28, 2005, 12:29pm (EST-1) Group:
=A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 Dave Hall, this is what you have been looking for From: =A0=A0 itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge User-Agent: =A0=A0 Xnews/06.08.25 X-No-Archive: =A0=A0 yes Date: =A0=A0 Mon, Feb 28, 2005, 12:29pm (EST-1) X-Trace: =A0=A0 sv3-elvWuheb+VSQ+bfeYCAekOa8WGSH+FJ9ie8TbsYdYut/CdMeOTB2OvM4B8+8LYi2UUKeUv= meyMPxjjQ!W7H1vO98k+FTufjrN8exy6xpANLMriDhaC3ElTCQ wu3bjyO6j08M9tOmSPJvOzBq= fTVQ X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.3.31 (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote 2) If a speeding offense under section 3362 (relating to maximum speed limits) is charged as a result of use of a =A0device authorized by section 3368(c) (relating to speed timing devices), no points shall be assigned under subsection =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= A0=A0(a) unless the speed recorded is ten or more miles per hour =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 in excess of the legal speed limit. =A0 Yet, the passage you invoke is a single exemption to the rule that speeders can be cited at any speed infraction. Your single exemption passage addresses only the matter of points being assessed and addresses nothing of the fines that are assessed, the end result of receiving a speeding ticket. =A0=A0=A0No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= A0=A0through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= A0=A0(3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 in excess of the legal speed limit. Repeating this single exemption is fine, but does not address David T. Hall Jr.'s erroneous interpretation of yet another law. Furthermore, no person =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 devices authorized by paragraph (2) or (3) in an area where =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the legal speed limit. The line you posted above is in direct contradiction with the previous line you posted. For instance, above, your passage claims 55 MPH as the determining factor and speed, yet your previous passage gives no speed at all, and makes only reference to a speed recorded in excess of 6 MPH over the limit as the determining factor. Both sentences cite the same law, same paragraph applications, yet have two separate conclusions. They both can't be right. This paragraph shall not apply to =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 paragraph (2) or (3) within a school zone or an active work =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 zone. Nicely illustrated. You not only cite an example of David Jr. being incorrect, but present what you apparently hold as proof. You are holding a passage that applies only to speeders in Pa going 55 or less. The speed limit is 65 on the interstates in Pa, and State Troopers are the only ones who use radar in Pa. State Troopers are usually found on the interstates and turnpikes, which is where the allowed speed limit is 65 MPH and where the State Troopers usually employ their radar. Try this one more time: David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) claimed it was required that all speeders in Pa be given an automatic "grace window" by the cops, permitting them 5 MPH over the posted limit. You were wrong then, you are wrong now. |
NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Tue, Mar 1, 2005, 11:21am (EST-1) Group:
=A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 Dave Hall, this is what you have been looking for From: Daid T. Hall Jr. =A0=A0 itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge User-Agent: =A0=A0 Xnews/06.08.25 X-No-Archive: =A0=A0 yes Date: =A0=A0 Tue, Mar 1, 2005, 11:21am (EST-1) X-Trace: =A0=A0 sv3-hkCw7Z9N9k+3C9WalHw+W5kegNigPLh6OXQcZry18j9d8WJpc/YnRZKMcCjDOXlSjll979= AFUQzhWgY!NsOzK/1rWCheb+AMCOXb2w8vDBJyAms1igd2wYeCVwGWbEyUiCCAbg86 wZo1X2ys= WmDD X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.3.32 (David T. Hall Jr.) wrote in news:9507-42249354-37 Both sentences cite the same law, same paragraph applications, yet have two separate conclusions. They both can't be right. LOL you better reread it You ought try and understand what it is you are wrong about. your communication deficit has caused you much grief before and it still does. I'm not the one citing the law where it very plainly illustrates what everyone has been trying to tell you. As usual, you are extremely slow to get it. If the speed limit is below 55 mph, you cant get cited for a ticket unless you are caught 10 mph over the speed limit, not 6 in this case. ,,which has nothing at all to do with getting cited when violating the state's maximum speed limit of 65 MPH,,you know,,on the interstates where the State Troopers (who are the only ones allowe dto use radar in Pa) actually use radar and write tickets. Now go menstrate some more over the facts because they dont agreee with you. Pay attention, as that deficit and mild retardation has you getting angry again, with all those who continue to educate your ignorance: David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) said he was told by leo's that all speeders in Pa are to be given a 5 MPH "grace window". You continue to post the passage of the law that cites the complete pposite of that claim. Again, one can be cited for going 66 in a 65, yet, you are in dire straits and drooling incoherently about the law whichi you always demonstrate a problem comprehending. I'm still grinning over you invoking yet another mystery. The (read: un-named) radar manufacturer that you permit to define the definition of the law. Tell us again about how this radar marketing department came up with the term "non-radar state" to apply to states that use radar, and of which you cited as some type of support for your misinterpratations and plain, rude ignorance. |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:21:05 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:9507-42249354-37 : The line you posted above is in direct contradiction with the previous line you posted. For instance, above, your passage claims 55 MPH as the determining factor and speed, yet your previous passage gives no speed at all, and makes only reference to a speed recorded in excess of 6 MPH over the limit as the determining factor. Both sentences cite the same law, same paragraph applications, yet have two separate conclusions. They both can't be right. LOL you better reread it your communication deficit has caused you much grief before and it still does. If the speed limit is below 55 mph, you cant get cited for a ticket unless you are caught 10 mph over the speed limit, not 6 in this case. Now go menstrate some more over the facts because they dont agreee with you. Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (2) or (3) in an area where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. I'm tired of wasting my time on this issue. He doesn't get it. He can't understand conditionals, and that's why he feels there's an apparent "contradiction" between paragraph 2 and 3 devices. The law is the law, and it specifies the conditions by which a speed tolerance is required to be given, which is most of the time. The minimum tolerance is 5 MPH, and in certain other situations (Below 55 MPH and using electronic devices OTHER than RADAR), they have to increase that tolerance to 10 MPH. It's not contradictory, it's in addition to. Your amended statutes also illustrate that no points are to be assigned until 10 MPH or more over, but it does not say that you can't be stopped and ticketed between 5 and 10 MPH over in a radar zone. Twisty's interpretive skills are not much better than my 5 year old's. It's no wonder he thinks the various laws mean something different than what they actually state, to those of us who CAN interpret and comprehend what we read. Dave "Sandbagger" |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:21:05 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:9507-42249354-37 @storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net: The line you posted above is in direct contradiction with the previous line you posted. For instance, above, your passage claims 55 MPH as the determining factor and speed, yet your previous passage gives no speed at all, and makes only reference to a speed recorded in excess of 6 MPH over the limit as the determining factor. Both sentences cite the same law, same paragraph applications, yet have two separate conclusions. They both can't be right. I'm tired of wasting my time on this issue. That's because of your stubborn refusal to learn and ignorance insisting no one else can be right besides you, despite the number of people that continually correct you. He doesn't get it. He can't understand conditionals, and that's why he feels there's an apparent "contradiction" between paragraph 2 and 3 devices. There is,,,,and you are unable to comprehend it. The law is the law, ..and you simply aren't up to date on it, despite your cries and whines about how it's your state and you know about the law. Same thing you said regarding the law about your hobby that you know nothing of and have to be shown, such as your claim that roger beeps were illegal based on your inability to find a law specifically permitting them. and it specifies the conditions by which a speed tolerance is required to be given, which is most of the time. See what you are iunable to comprehend.. The minimum tolerance is 5 MPH, Wrong,,, and in certain other situations (Below 55 MPH and using electronic devices OTHER than RADAR), they have to increase that tolerance to 10 MPH. It's not contradictory, it's in addition to. No,,it's not. Your amended statutes also illustrate that no points are to be assigned until 10 MPH or more over, but it does not say that you can't be stopped and ticketed between 5 and 10 MPH over in a radar zone. Twisty's interpretive skills are not much better than my 5 year old's. Although your need to be insultive is based upon your own incompetence and ignorance, ithere is no excuse for such when you are taught better each day by cber's who do know the law better than yourself. Perhaps you can get your five year old to explain to you what everyone comprehends. It's no wonder he thinks the various laws mean something different than what they actually state, to those of us who CAN interpret and comprehend what we read. Too bad these reading skills you speak of have prevented you from finding the current law. David T. Hall Jr. N3CVJ "Sandbagger" |
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:31:25 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:21:05 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:9507-42249354-37 @storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net: The line you posted above is in direct contradiction with the previous line you posted. For instance, above, your passage claims 55 MPH as the determining factor and speed, yet your previous passage gives no speed at all, and makes only reference to a speed recorded in excess of 6 MPH over the limit as the determining factor. Both sentences cite the same law, same paragraph applications, yet have two separate conclusions. They both can't be right. I'm tired of wasting my time on this issue. That's because of your stubborn refusal to learn and ignorance insisting no one else can be right besides you, despite the number of people that continually correct you. I am more than willing to admit a mistake (ala the roger beep issue) when I am actually wrong. But in this case, you can "correct" me all you want, and the only thing you'll accomplish is to illustrate just how poorly your comprehensive skills are, and how ignorant you are of Pennsylvania law. He doesn't get it. He can't understand conditionals, and that's why he feels there's an apparent "contradiction" between paragraph 2 and 3 devices. There is,,,,and you are unable to comprehend it. There is not. If you had normal comprehensive skills you'd understand the difference. The more you talk about it, the more obvious your inabilities become. .and you simply aren't up to date on it, despite your cries and whines about how it's your state and you know about the law. But I'm right and you're not. Plain and simple. Same thing you said regarding the law about your hobby that you know nothing of and have to be shown, such as your claim that roger beeps were illegal based on your inability to find a law specifically permitting them. There is no rule specifically permitting them. It then becomes a subjective matter as to whether a roger beep could be classified as an amusement or entertainment device. Absent a specific rule either way, it becomes little more than speculation as to whether they are legal or not. You ASSUMED they were. without anything authoritative to go on. At least I had the sense to go to the FCC and have it clarified once and for all. and it specifies the conditions by which a speed tolerance is required to be given, which is most of the time. See what you are iunable to comprehend.. I comprehend just fine. It is you who cannot understand the difference between a paragraph 2 and 3 device and why there are separate tolerances specified for each. The minimum tolerance is 5 MPH, Wrong,,, Right. Read it again. Or better yet, have your mommy read (and then explain) it to you. and in certain other situations (Below 55 MPH and using electronic devices OTHER than RADAR), they have to increase that tolerance to 10 MPH. It's not contradictory, it's in addition to. No,,it's not. Yes, it is. Your amended statutes also illustrate that no points are to be assigned until 10 MPH or more over, but it does not say that you can't be stopped and ticketed between 5 and 10 MPH over in a radar zone. Twisty's interpretive skills are not much better than my 5 year old's. Although your need to be insultive is based upon your own incompetence and ignorance, ithere is no excuse for such when you are taught better each day by cber's who do know the law better than yourself. You have poor comprehensive abilities, and you continually prove it on a daily basis. I used to think you deliberately twisted words as a sort of mind game. Now I'm beginning to think that you actually don't understand written words, and your "twisting" is the result of your inability to accurately comprehend what you read. The real hoot is that you then have the gaul to accuse others of having "communication's deficits" when it is you who has the problem. If outlining this simple fact is "insulting" to you, then so be it. Like I said many time over the years, I don't pull punches or mollycoddle people. If you can't handle the harsh reality, then I suggest you find someone else to "play" with. The only thing you know about the law is how to make excuses for breaking it. Perhaps you can get your five year old to explain to you what everyone comprehends. Now you fall back on your old standby, how "everyone agrees with me" fallacy. You're alright, it's the rest of the world that's crazy........ It's no wonder he thinks the various laws mean something different than what they actually state, to those of us who CAN interpret and comprehend what we read. Too bad these reading skills you speak of have prevented you from finding the current law. I know the current law. What's your excuse? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:54:14 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:13636-4225DC4D- : but it does not say that you can't be stopped and ticketed between 5 and 10 MPH over in a radar zone. This part of the statue begs to differ with your communication deficit. No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. Maybe if you use crayon drawings to illustrate this, he'll finally understand..... Dave "Sandbagger" |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:31:25 -0500, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:21:05 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:9507-42249354-37 @storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net: The line you posted above is in direct contradiction with the previous line you posted. For instance, above, your passage claims 55 MPH as the determining factor and speed, yet your previous passage gives no speed at all, and makes only reference to a speed recorded in excess of 6 MPH over the limit as the determining factor. Both sentences cite the same law, same paragraph applications, yet have two separate conclusions. They both can't be right. I'm tired of wasting my time on this issue. That's because of your stubborn refusal to learn and ignorance insisting no one else can be right besides you, despite the number of people that continually correct you. I am more than willing to admit a mistake (ala the roger beep issue) when I am actually wrong. But you didn't,,admitting you aer wrong is like an apology,,it is to be issued unconditionally or it's worthless. And you conditionalized your gaffe by claiming the rest of the group that actually knew the law, didn't really know the law, but were "speculating" that roger beeps were legal,and just coincidentally ahppened to be right. That was the biggest load of **** I have seen from you to date, but it does continue to loudly telegraph your increasing dilemma regarding you being wrong. But in this case, you can "correct" me all you want, and the only thing you'll accomplish is to illustrate just how poorly your comprehensive skills are, and how ignorant you are of Pennsylvania law. The law is not in contention, your claim is. You incorrectly claimed one can not be cited per the law in Pa. UNLESS they are speeding more than 5 MPH over the limit. You were wrong and Shark proved it. You are suffering over this issue and you simply aren't up to date on it, despite your cries and whines about how it's your state and you know about the law. But I'm right and you're not. Plain and simple. As on the roger beep issue,,,you are alone in your position. Despite a growing number of group members telling you that you are wrong again regarding your interpretations of the law, you insist everyone else is wrong. Same thing you said regarding the law about your hobby that you know nothing of and have to be shown, such as your claim that roger beeps were illegal based on your inability to find a law specifically permitting them. There is no rule specifically permitting them. Haha,,, It then becomes a subjective matter as to whether a roger beep could be classified as an amusement or entertainment device Subjective only to those who struggle with comprehensive and cognitive communication abilities, such as yourself. Absent a specific rule either way, it becomes little more than speculation as to whether they are legal or not. You ASSUMED they were. without anything authoritative to go on. So everyone that agreed with me and told you they were legal "assumed" it? My gosh, Davie,, you really have issues when you are shown to be wrong. Now you are claiming the entire group is wrong and you are right, but when the group's position is proved true to you, you claim such knowledge was an assumption. How ver wrong of you, David. This is called education and being familair and up to date concerning the laws that govern your chosen hobby. You have illustrated that as an extra, you don't know **** about communications law. At least I had the sense to go to the FCC and have it clarified once and for all. That was ignorance, not sense. Sense is what everyone else had when they took pity on you and informed you that you were wrong. "Sense" was the actions of those others newsgroupies that informed you of your ignorance, who then sat back and watched as you jumped up and down with insult after insult insisting that roger beeps were illegal because only you subscribe to the notion that negatives must be proved. The minimum tolerance is 5 MPH, Wrong,,, Right. Read it again. Or better yet, have your mommy read (and then explain) it to you. The mommy fixation again,,,I imagine if yours didn't kick of lung cancer, you wouldn't be so fixated on the mother issues and non related topics. The again, with your wife Kimberly T. Hall smoking like a chimney only to give it up during her pregnancy and to resume again right afterwards, one can't be too hard on you when you go rambling about such things. Your demons control your bizarre emotive outbursts and off-topic rants. BTW, are you aware what second hand smoke does to children? and in certain other situations You made no claim about "certain other situations". Your original claim that one can not be cited in Pa for speeding 1 mph over the limit was bull****. End of story, but feel free to continue to torture yourself over your continual goofs borne of learned ignorance. _ Your amended statutes also illustrate that no points are to be assigned until 10 MPH or more over, but it does not say that you can't be stopped and ticketed between 5 and 10 MPH over in a radar zone. Twisty's interpretive skills are not much better than my 5 year old's. Then perhaps you should get your five year old to interpret everything you are ignorant on. _ Although your need to be insultive is based upon your own incompetence and ignorance, ithere is no excuse for such when you are taught better each day by cber's who do know the law better than yourself. it is you who has the problem. No Dave, it is you and you have been told that you were wrong by a good number of this group on several issues. Your responses are all the same to each person,,,classic paranoia, accusing them of personal issues and vendettas against yourself. If outlining this simple fact is "insulting" to you, then so be it. Gee Dave,,,you are the one claiming the group is against you adn plotting with conspiracies. You need a vacation Dave, and not to Florida, as it appears you were unable to relax when you were down here,,,,,I can not imagine why or what or who you may have thought was going to ruin your vacation, but that much is evident and you need a real vacation where you can relax and come back refreshed and not accuse everyone that gently points out your errors of taking up sides against you...(snicker) Like I said many time over the years, I don't pull punches or mollycoddle people. If you can't handle the harsh reality, then I suggest you find someone else to "play" with. Again, David, your attacks on everyone who dares cite your goofs are very predictable adn all the same,,change the subject, attack them..lol. The only thing you know about the law is how to make excuses for breaking it. I'm more legal than you David, since th dx has gone away, and it is just another needle in your eye that causes you great pain, as you have no legality issue to attempt to hide behind., illustrating your personal problems are not at all what you claim them to be. Too bad these reading skills you speak of have prevented you from finding the current law. I know the current law. Umm...no you don;t and you had to find it out for yourself because your ignorance will not permit your ego to believe anyone else, such as the list of regs that told you that you were wrong. What's your excuse? Watching you claim everyone else merely made correct assumptions regarding their correct interpretations of the law, in order to soothe your wounded ego. In a nutshell,,,,I enjoy watching you super freak when you're wrong. It results in fine, upstanding amateur/cb related topics you invoke, such as mothers. David T. Hall Jr. "Sandbagger" N3CVJ |
|
Steveo wrote:
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: -snip- Going to Dayton, or skeered? Well George, gonna make the 8 hour jaunt or is that more than you bargained for when you emailed that threat to me? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com