| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#21
April 4th 05, 01:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 20:29:06 -0500, jim
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:31:58 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:15:36 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message om... On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:04:01 -0500, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: http://www.****qrz.com Yet another example of someone who had their feelings hurt and who is now on a personal vendetta. It's childish in any case. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Agreed. Do you think Doug's & Geo's attacks on Mopar & I as childish? Landshark Yes. And it takes two to tango. Dave Good. If you are implying that I am egging him on, your wrong. You are not the only one on the other side. I did in the past, but since he was been warned by his ISP to stop changing nics to by pass filters, he doesn't change his nic. Now that has happened, I don't see his posts, as Vinnie doesn't either. No need to explain, it's all good. Remember Dave, were talking about sic individuals that send you virus, threatening emails & posts, foul vulgar language, create web pages with all sorts of false images & accusations. Hmm, some could argue the same for the other side, with the posting of pictures of certain individuals and their antennas and such. Now I don't post much anymore, to much political BS and crap still being responded too left by said two individuals, I'm lucky if I post once a day in the past 6 months. When I do, it's concerning radio or to joke around with Mopar, Jim's, Vinnie or the likes. I'd much prefer a return to strictly radio related topics as well. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj you know dave i dont respond to your oh so long posts as they tend to put people to sleep but this response is so hypocritical it makes me laugh. quit posting your political diatribes and you might be taken seriously. You must have me confused with someone else. I don't post political diatribes. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#23
April 4th 05, 09:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 20:00:51 -0500, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: You obviously are more familiar with the site than myself, as I was just made aware of it. Can you enlighten the contingency about whose feelings were hurt and why? Just read the site. I did. Evidently not completely enough. The author has outlines his "beef" quite clearly. I find nothing to indicate any hurt feelings. Read between the lines. Oh,,,,,,I see,,,subjective stuff. Why didn't you just say so. I didn't think I had to. But of course you did not, as to do so, would have invalidated your allegations concerning the site builder. Again, I ask you once again to explain your position. What is it that has you subjectively indicating hurt feelings were responsible for the creator's site? =A0=A0And once again, I ask that you read his mail thread from QRZ. In it Fred Lloyd lays out his "issues". So keeping with your approach, it would be safe to say your "issues" regarding cb radio are born of your feelings being hurt. Erroneously thinking others become reactive like you merely becasue you are unable to distinguishing between issues and personal feelings has long plagued you and been responsible for countless and needless attacks you have launched over the years on others in usenet. Why the need for multiple accounts? What possible legitimate use could one have for that? The site was not done anonymously. YOUR "issue" goes beyond the site, as you are now invoking another topic. People who feel the need to remain anonymous (In addition to their regular account) tend to use those anon accounts when they want to say something that they'd be ashamed of signing their real names to. That should be fairly obvious to anyone who understands human nature. Well, forget what you are being taught for a moment and let's pretend you already arrived at such a point, What? QRZ is a moderated forum. There are rules that are expected to be followed. There are hundreds of discussions there and most people have no problem. I'd say MANY people on QRZ have problems. In fact, it led to many new policies by the owner of the site. Some people do have problem. No Dave, MANY people have these "problems" you speak of, regarding QRZ. Again, policy changes were not instituted because of a few random problem children. Those who want to play games and hide behind the cloak of anonymity. Be specific......games are not illegal. Speaking of certain topics is not illegal. When one is banned because of a topic and NOT because of any abuse, it is called censorship. But QRZ is better off without those kind of people. Your admitted fondness and past defenses for freedom-impinging socialistic approaches when you do not personally agree with the message or topic is well documented in this group. =A0=A0The author of the aforementioned site had a disagreement with the owner of QRZ and got his feather ruffled, felt personally persecuted because he couldn't abide by the rules More "reading between the lines?" I'm sorry if you can't see it. I offer the same to you concerning Delay's comments you are unable to see.. But don't blame me. I'm not blaming you, you're paranoid. I'm asking what rules, if any, were violated, and you have not been able to cite a single one. and was kicked off. Many say he was kicked off because of the topic QRZ refused to entertain, as it illustrated the issue was not at all about feelings (such as you maintain), but about certain hypocrisy. So he's now set up an "anti-QRZ" site to somehow repair his bruised ego, and garner support from other people who share his lack of respect for the rules of civilized on-line discourse. Translated, this innocently means those who share his views concerning censorship. If you'd prefer an totally open forum with no rules, and no accountability, then you deserve the results. You can then have the Dougies and spammers and sex-porn sock puppets to take away from any meaningful discussions. Other's mere words do not effect me to the obvious and admitted degree they do yourself. If you believe Dogie, spam, or sock pups take away from any meaningful discussion, far be it from me to try and tell you otherwise. In fact, just the opposite holds true for several of us. Example: the more Dougie posts, the more many of us giggle at his incompetence. _ Thomas Paine created his paper the Federalist and people like you screamed similar to what you offer now attempting to explain his actions,,,,,and his paper was anonymous. There is no comparison. =A0 Exactly, as this site is not done by anonymous authors. Then why bring it up? You invoked anonymity and sock pups. Stop being such a hypocrite. Yet, the person you accuse makes very clear his intention for his actions....censorship. And these folks are not anonymous. But they violated the rules of a members only forum and were TOSsed for it. The issue is not censorship. So you say. Please help me understand these rules that you claim were broken. It appears you are merely echoing another's sentiments and have no clue what, if any, rule(s) were broken regaridng this issue. You said to read his site,,,,I did,,and that very clearly says It is about censorship. Again, you appear to kow more about the issue than myself, as you are claiming things that are not on his site. How? I only know what I read. Ahhh,,so you don't know about any rules, and are merely repeating what you read somewhere else..the site he took to task. I'm surprised that you are unable to comprehend the issues from the material presented. I'm certain you are, as it is you on this group always seeing things that are not there and mis-attributing quotes and claims to others that never take place. The issue is one of following the rules of membership. Please be specific. What rule did he violate? Let's see if I remember. Holding multiple accounts, If this is indeed true, and if this rule was arbitrarily made in response to the QRZ management not agreeing with the topics of those posts, then your rule-violation claim is out the window. placing binary files. See above. I also believe there was something in there about messages from a disruptive person traced back to one or two of the people involved. In where and by who? Disruptive, can mean anything anyone wishes. If one wishes to discuss softball instead of radio, it can be viewed as disruptive. A person can not be disruptive on a forum unless one explicitly permits them inside their personal realm. When you are in a non-public forum which is moderated, there are certain expectations from the participants. Stray from those rules and you risk losing your membership. Instead of being redundant, please be more specific,,that is,,,if,, of course, you know anything about any "breaking of rules" here and are not merely siding with QRZ when you have none of the facts and are merely surmising what you think to be true. When you set up a site on your own, using your time and resources, you have the right to set the rules. As a user, you have the choice to either abide by them, or not join in. Plain and simple. Agreed. However, if rules are arbitrarily made in direct response and as a means to silence one who is speaking of a topic the "ruler" wishes to silence, it's bull****, no matter how you present it. You wouldn't engage in boisterous, lewd behavior at a private golf club and not expect to be reprimanded and expelled. So why should the same type of behavior be tolerated on-line? =A0=A0 LMAO,,you claim no comparison to the acts of anonymous publishing, then try and make a comparison between hammies and those who belong to a private golf club? HHAHHHAHAHHAHAHHA! THAT,,,,,,,is not a valid comparison by any wildest stretch of the imagination. It is if you understand the behavioral comparisons and your responsibility as a member of a private group to follow the rules. For someone who claims to have a good knowledge of history and politics, you seem to fall glaringly short in areas of human nature and social behavior, and the concepts of responsibility. So you say, but your unsolicited position and self-qualifications concerning such has been thoroughly debunked by another. When one wishes to have an avenue free from undue interference and censorship, sometimes one must create that avenue themselves. Which is his right. Nothing wrong with that. But let's not lose track of exactly WHY he chose to do such. YOU are claiming a reason that is not detailed on his site. It is clearly illustrated to those who understand human nature. Self-qualification regarding such is equal to tilting imaginary windmills in your own backyard, only no one else can see them. In fact, his reasoning set forth is much differetnt from your subjective "reading between the lines" and assuming rules were broke, with nothing more than your personal biases and subjective view providing for such. Rules WERE broken. But you'd have to ask Fred Lloyd for exact details. Fred Lloyd isn't the one posting that rules were broken concerning this user..you are. This is twice in two days you have taken an American born patriotic birthright and trashed it,,first was the right to select civil disobedience, now, you accuse one who voices his own opinion on his own site with nothing more than your own based subjective opinion, formed by reading the site he took to task. There is no American birthright that claims that anyone has the right to ignore the rules of a private club and expect to remain as a member. The freedom to respond how he sees fit and make his own site, is indeed his right. There is also no American patriotic birthright that allows people the right to selectively ignore any law they feel is "unjust" and then claim civil disobedience as some sort of weak justification for it. Correct, which is why you deleted the proper definition of such that I presented. Civil Disobedience is NOT a right to ignore ANY law, as you intentionally distorted, but a METHOD of *selectively* ignoring a specific law for a specific reason. Now that you have been armed and corrected with the proper definition, you shouldn't make the same mistake again concerning the act. The prisons are full of people who tried that trick. Really? Would it prove to difficult for you to cite three cases of those imprisoned for an act of civil disobedience? After all, since the prisons are "full" of these people, you should have no problem citing but a few examples. It's no different than those guys who try (and fail) to sue the IRS claiming that federal income tax is unconstitutional. It's very different, Dave. This is the part where your confusion regarding "criminal" and "civil" infractions and penalties invalidate your position that dxers and freebanders are federal criminals. While I laud their efforts, the law is not on their side. And in just as many times you have made a case that freedom of expression should be universal even on private forums, I said nothing of the sort, Dave, your difficluties are really making you go off the deep end today, and regardless anything I said, it does not negate your problem with trashing legal actions by those whose political views you disagree. Who's legal actions did I trash? Here you go again, asking of another without providing for your own claim. Cite a single passage where you insist I said anything of the sort regarding private forums, and then you will have earned the right to ask another question. this is common respect and etiqueete concerning proper communication technique. and that any rules restricting behavior for the better common good, are somehow unfair. I said nothing of the sort. You implied as much. More "reading between the lines" based on nothing more than self-qualification. You seem to think that Fred Lloyd did not have the right to kick off the author of "****qrz.com" for what he claimed were rules violations. Not at all,,,I merely asked you what they were. In fact, my use of the word "if" regarding said acts, most definitely distinguishes such. You can't have anarchy and expect to remain civilized. Google "anarchy" and it has ALWAYS been you and the malicious sock puppets invoking the term. And that means what exactly? Page from your quotes "Statistical Probability". There are far too many people who cannot handle that much responsibility. There were also discussions on QRZ on the "other side". Invocation of the site he decries as improperly censoring as the pillar of truth for -your- subjective bias is no different than the site builder's actions you take issue with,,,,you just happen to be on the "other side" (your words). So you are now claiming that Fred is a liar? I have only your self-qualifications and statements concerning the issue. How you are able to transcend this to inferring another party not privy to this exchange as a "liar" is something only you can explain. There are (at least) two sides to every .argument. And the truth is usually somehwere in the middle, not on your side or his. There is no "my side". There is only what happened and the reasons given for why it happened. I know you like to believe in such fairy tale endings, but once again, in the United States, there are always two sides to disagreeing parties. If there were not, civil court would not exist. The bottom line is that The author of the site (Which for some reason is no longer there as I checked today), Which lends even more to your non-credibility factor. It is there, Dave. Your difficulties today know no bounds. It was not there when I checked at the time I posted. It has since returned. I don't know what the problem was. The site has been there all along, Dave. You were unable to locate it for whatever reason. He had a personal butting of heads with Floyd at QRZ, and was kicked off of that site for not abiding by the rules. =A0=A0 Make up your mind. You claim it was personal (hence, your claim of "feelings being hurt") and then say it was a violation of rules. Be specific, Dave. What rule did this guy violate? Ask Fred, he'll give you a better explanation than I will. I am just a casual observer. Such is hardly an unbiased look at each site regarding the issue that sparked the creation of the site responsible for effectively moving you to the point of lambasting the creators. Sure it is. It doesn't matter how "noble" you may think he is Your difficulties have you making hypocritical erroneous assumptions all the live long day. In what way? I have no idea what the guy is about, yet you found the need to erroneously assume I somehow feel the guy is "noble". What this astutely illustrates, is more of how *you* think. for "standing up" to the "fascist" rules on QRZ, Of course we couldn't have you mention "anarchy" without presenting the word "fascist" and attempting to misattribute it to others, now, could we, Dave If the shoe fits....... It never does, but that has never stopped you from jamming the shoe in your mouth by falsely attributing quotes to others. the fact remains that when you belong to a private group, you are subject to rules. If you can't abide by them, the owner/moderator has the right to kick you off. Plain and simple. And he has the right to make his own site,,,even more plain and simple, regardless the fact your bias has you reading between lines and saying things that are not there They are there to anyone who takes the time to actually READ the whole thing. Well, to be perfectly fair and honest, you said you arrived at your decision by reading the F***QRZ.com site and told me to read it, yet, when presented with the fact that your claims are not to be found on that site anywhere, you invoke the site he took to task. In that vein, the site you take issue with is an instant success, for if it moved you in such a manner. There is something that you STILL don't understand about me. I can separate factual events from personal opinion. Not too may "understand" that about you, Dave. You have made many claims, even went as far as to say they were on the site, but I'm still waiting for you to illustrate these claims. I actually like the site, but I also understand the feelings that pushed him to make it. Apparently, you do not, as you claim it was not about censorship, which is very clearly what the site owner maintains. _ In the media, there is no bad press, regardless what you have been told. The only thing the public masses love more than controversy is resiliency from one who was once down...the underdog. Hitler was once an underdog too. Hitler was always an underdog. David T. Hall Jr. "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#24
April 5th 05, 01:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 20:29:06 -0500, jim wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:31:58 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message m... On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:15:36 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message news:dlal41tp0pgjh619s5l5ufrlgo7segbnrq@4ax. com... On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:04:01 -0500, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: http://www.****qrz.com Yet another example of someone who had their feelings hurt and who is now on a personal vendetta. It's childish in any case. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Agreed. Do you think Doug's & Geo's attacks on Mopar & I as childish? Landshark Yes. And it takes two to tango. Dave Good. If you are implying that I am egging him on, your wrong. You are not the only one on the other side. I did in the past, but since he was been warned by his ISP to stop changing nics to by pass filters, he doesn't change his nic. Now that has happened, I don't see his posts, as Vinnie doesn't either. No need to explain, it's all good. Remember Dave, were talking about sic individuals that send you virus, threatening emails & posts, foul vulgar language, create web pages with all sorts of false images & accusations. Hmm, some could argue the same for the other side, with the posting of pictures of certain individuals and their antennas and such. Now I don't post much anymore, to much political BS and crap still being responded too left by said two individuals, I'm lucky if I post once a day in the past 6 months. When I do, it's concerning radio or to joke around with Mopar, Jim's, Vinnie or the likes. I'd much prefer a return to strictly radio related topics as well. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj you know dave i dont respond to your oh so long posts as they tend to put people to sleep but this response is so hypocritical it makes me laugh. quit posting your political diatribes and you might be taken seriously. You must have me confused with someone else. I don't post political diatribes. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj then what do you call them? |
|
#25
April 5th 05, 05:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"jim" wrote in message ... Dave Hall wrote: On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 20:29:06 -0500, jim wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:31:58 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message om... On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:15:36 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message news:dlal41tp0pgjh619s5l5ufrlgo7segbnrq@4ax .com... On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:04:01 -0500, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: http://www.****qrz.com Yet another example of someone who had their feelings hurt and who is now on a personal vendetta. It's childish in any case. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Agreed. Do you think Doug's & Geo's attacks on Mopar & I as childish? Landshark Yes. And it takes two to tango. Dave Good. If you are implying that I am egging him on, your wrong. You are not the only one on the other side. I did in the past, but since he was been warned by his ISP to stop changing nics to by pass filters, he doesn't change his nic. Now that has happened, I don't see his posts, as Vinnie doesn't either. No need to explain, it's all good. Remember Dave, were talking about sic individuals that send you virus, threatening emails & posts, foul vulgar language, create web pages with all sorts of false images & accusations. Hmm, some could argue the same for the other side, with the posting of pictures of certain individuals and their antennas and such. Now I don't post much anymore, to much political BS and crap still being responded too left by said two individuals, I'm lucky if I post once a day in the past 6 months. When I do, it's concerning radio or to joke around with Mopar, Jim's, Vinnie or the likes. I'd much prefer a return to strictly radio related topics as well. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj you know dave i dont respond to your oh so long posts as they tend to put people to sleep but this response is so hypocritical it makes me laugh. quit posting your political diatribes and you might be taken seriously. You must have me confused with someone else. I don't post political diatribes. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj then what do you call them? Both he, Twist & Frank do. The problem with politics is it's like religion, no matter what side of the fence you sit on, there will always be an opposite side that will have the same convictions. Landshark -- Most true happiness comes from one's inner life, from the disposition of the mind and soul. Admittedly, a good inner life is hard to achieve, especially in these trying times. It takes reflection and contemplation and self-discipline. |
|
#26
April 5th 05, 12:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 03:20:50 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in : snip You must have me confused with someone else. I don't post political diatribes. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj then what do you call them? Both he, Twist & Frank do. The problem with politics is it's like religion, no matter what side of the fence you sit on, there will always be an opposite side that will have the same convictions. And this is a country where you have the freedom to pursue both your politics and religion, provided those convictions don't diminish the rights of others to exercise different "core beliefs". ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#27
April 5th 05, 12:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:47:14 -0400, jim
wrote: You must have me confused with someone else. I don't post political diatribes. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj then what do you call them? Call what? Check the archives. There are no politically related threads that I have started. On the other hand, If you don't want me to respond, then don't post. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#28
April 5th 05, 01:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hall wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:31:58 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:15:36 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:04:01 -0500, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: http://www.****qrz.com Yet another example of someone who had their feelings hurt and who is now on a personal vendetta. It's childish in any case. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Agreed. Do you think Doug's & Geo's attacks on Mopar & I as childish? Landshark Yes. And it takes two to tango. Dave Good. If you are implying that I am egging him on, your wrong. You are not the only one on the other side. We see the side you've chosen to be on. Fine company you keep. Remember Dave, were talking about sic individuals that send you virus, threatening emails & posts, foul vulgar language, create web pages with all sorts of false images & accusations. Hmm, some could argue the same for the other side, with the posting of pictures of certain individuals and their antennas and such. Most here would say he deserves what gets as a consequence of his own actions. Or maybe he shouldn't **** with someone like me that lives so close to him. wrote: Be forewarned: I like the kinda rumbles where there are cuts and broken bones. If you have never deliberately broken someones bones, or don't have the heart to cut, be civil. I have. http://img115.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img1...sefugly7qn.jpg |
|
#29
April 5th 05, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hall wrote:
On the other hand, If you don't want me to respond, then don't post. That would make a good Hypocrite Hall Sig file. |
|
#30
April 5th 05, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
iamnotchrissy wrote:
Steveo wrote in news:20050401014813.876$SK_- : Someone call chrissy the sissy busch a waaaaaaaaambulance, I thought I was george or can't you make your clueless mind up. poor little feller is having a meltdown and changing nyms to avoid killfilters. land**** said i wan't allowed to change names, but what do you and he know? Can't stand being ignored, can you sissy? the only sissy is you Parks, stalk anyone lately? Never have. I come by invitation. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
