Ah, I see you didn't understand the subtle

differences. I told Jim that I don't post political

diatribes. That is factually accurate, as I have

never yet started a thread which was politically
oriented.


Hello, Dave. How's it been going? No one accused you of starting
anything relating to politics. You seem unduly paranoid lately.

I do, however RESPOND to other's

posts on political matters.


And you accomplish this with telepathy? No, you ~post~ your responses.


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(Politics & Religion are a never ending

debate, that's why I am going to stay out of

that subject.)




Probably a wise decision, unless you're like

me and enjoy watching the other side dance.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj


Still waging imaginary wars and taking up "sides". Will wonders never
cease?

N3CVJ asked:
When have I ever been hypocritical?

you wrote all of the following


And who would they report them to? The FCC has already shown time and
time again that they have better things to do than worry about
out-of-band CBers. I was involved in the DFing of a local 2 meter
repeater jammer a few years back. We found him in short order, even
though he was using a HT. He was reported to the FCC, and they sat on
their laurels. Not until the SAME GUY was found causing malicious
interference to the local police and fire frequencies, did the FCC
finally get off of their collective butts and do something. After it was
all said and done, the guy got what amounted to a wrist slapping. The
point is, don't expect the feds to help rid the airwaves of Freebanders.
And any ham that tries to "take the law into his own hands" will most
likely
end up full of lead......
_

I want to put this to rest once and for all. It seems that many of our
ham friends here, have used the excuse that "I can work the world with 1
watt, so YOU don't need an amplifier". Well, lets set the record
straight:
Misleading statement: " I can work the world with 1 watt". Facts: You
can work the world with 1 watt, IF the ionospheric conditions are proper
AND you are on a suitable frequency band. You CANNOT do it anytime you
want, you are at the mercy of mother nature. Secondly, what most of
these QRP guys have also failed to meantion, is that their "working of
the world" was most likely via the CW mode. CW, because of its narrow
bandwidth, offers excellent signal to noise ratios, easily 10 db better
than a typical CB. If a CW contact were running 1 watt, and they were at
your noise threshold, they would need to jump to 10 watts to make the
same contact on AM. These "fantastic" claims aren't worth a nickel on
the CB band, where most of us just wand RELIABLE (Meaning at ANY time)
communications with other LOCAL stations.

_
I take offense to the "holer than thou" attitude displayed by many hams
toward Cbers. They flaunt their "superior equipment" and tell the CBers,
to get ham licenses, and then are the first to complain to their ham
buddies, that the reason the ham bands are going to pot, is because of
all the CBers that are moving up there.
Ham radio and CB radio are both communications services. Both offer
their respective users with a forum for enjoyment. Each service has it's
own unique appeal that is not duplicated on the other.
-
Ham radio is full of serious discussions and one can learn alot from
just listening. On the other hand though, a constant diet of
technobabble gets VERY boring fairly quickly. CBers are less technical,
and as a result, are more like talking to "regular" people. Topics are
more varied, and you can "fool around" without fear of upsetting the
"kilocycle kops", and have more fun.
Dave
C & W Communications
CB Sales and Service
(610)272-8709/(610)539-8709

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

neutral observation.

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

You're lying again. I never made any such

claim.


See Dave, when
the FCC places a hammie on the Rain Report and informs the world they
have evidence before them that indicates he was in violation of FCC law,
and you come along and attempt to say otherwise and that the FCC could
be wrong, is in no manner "neutral", It's simply another case (of many)
where you are not in any remote sense of the word "neutral".

I simply offered that based on Doug's

"notoriety",


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

_
The contingency recognizes this fact and several have illustrated and
commented on your position and hypocrisy.

....of one (you).

Despite your paranoia, I am not Frank, Jim, Shark, or anyone else that
has commented on your bizarre hypocrisy.
=A0=A0

You don't know the meaning of the word.


Then again, it is your right to
insist on remaining detached from reality and refusing to view yourself
as you really are, such as how others and the majority view you.

Ah yes, the majority of people who you base

support by the number of magazines that sell

which contain your fishing articles.



Such was your gaffe, not mine.
You
claiming the majority misunderstands you via explaining what you
"really" meant after the fact (usually accompanied by you misapplying
definitions of words and terms) adds to the joke.

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


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

(Which has been strangely silent),


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

the truth is there is only you.


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

Provide even ONE example of my misuse of

any term.


Empirical evidence, for one.
But you outdone yourself concerning your knowledge of the laws governing
your hobby regarding Civil Disobedience. Despite being taught and
educated on this matter several times, you fecklessly insist such an act
(such as dxing) makes one a federal criminal. You very clearly are
suffering some sort of massive block, some type of learning disability
that prevents you from comprehending the differences between what
constitutes civil and criminal penalties, despite being properly
instructed each time you shout your ignorance concerning this subject.
You erroneously claimed, "it is perception" (yours, albeit wrong) that
distinguishes between such.


David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj


Have yourself a good weekend, old man.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:48:24 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

N3CVJ asked:
When have I ever been hypocritical?

you wrote all of the following


And who would they report them to? The FCC has already shown time and
time again that they have better things to do than worry about
out-of-band CBers. I was involved in the DFing of a local 2 meter
repeater jammer a few years back. We found him in short order, even
though he was using a HT. He was reported to the FCC, and they sat on
their laurels. Not until the SAME GUY was found causing malicious
interference to the local police and fire frequencies, did the FCC
finally get off of their collective butts and do something. After it was
all said and done, the guy got what amounted to a wrist slapping. The
point is, don't expect the feds to help rid the airwaves of Freebanders.
And any ham that tries to "take the law into his own hands" will most
likely
end up full of lead......

And this is wrong how?


I want to put this to rest once and for all. It seems that many of our
ham friends here, have used the excuse that "I can work the world with 1
watt, so YOU don't need an amplifier". Well, lets set the record
straight:
Misleading statement: " I can work the world with 1 watt". Facts: You
can work the world with 1 watt, IF the ionospheric conditions are proper
AND you are on a suitable frequency band. You CANNOT do it anytime you
want, you are at the mercy of mother nature. Secondly, what most of
these QRP guys have also failed to meantion, is that their "working of
the world" was most likely via the CW mode. CW, because of its narrow
bandwidth, offers excellent signal to noise ratios, easily 10 db better
than a typical CB. If a CW contact were running 1 watt, and they were at
your noise threshold, they would need to jump to 10 watts to make the
same contact on AM. These "fantastic" claims aren't worth a nickel on
the CB band, where most of us just wand RELIABLE (Meaning at ANY time)
communications with other LOCAL stations.

And this is hypocritical how?


_
I take offense to the "holer than thou" attitude displayed by many hams
toward Cbers. They flaunt their "superior equipment" and tell the CBers,
to get ham licenses, and then are the first to complain to their ham
buddies, that the reason the ham bands are going to pot, is because of
all the CBers that are moving up there.
Ham radio and CB radio are both communications services. Both offer
their respective users with a forum for enjoyment. Each service has it's
own unique appeal that is not duplicated on the other.

Again?


-
Ham radio is full of serious discussions and one can learn alot from
just listening. On the other hand though, a constant diet of
technobabble gets VERY boring fairly quickly. CBers are less technical,
and as a result, are more like talking to "regular" people. Topics are
more varied, and you can "fool around" without fear of upsetting the
"kilocycle kops", and have more fun.


Did you like me better back then?

But how is that hypocritical? I still PERSONALLY feel that way. But I
also recognize the letter of the law, and the penalties that go with
violating it.

You like to accuse me of confusing civil and criminal issues. But you
still can't seem to differentiate someone's personal opinion, from a
matter of fact and law.

Both of these statements are true:

If you freeband you are a federal lawbreaker.

I personally don't care if you do.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:11:30 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

Ah, I see you didn't understand the subtle
differences. I told Jim that I don't post political
diatribes. That is factually accurate, as I have
never yet started a thread which was politically
oriented.


Hello, Dave. How's it been going? No one accused you of starting
anything relating to politics. You seem unduly paranoid lately.

What happened, the other sock get dirty so you changed back to this
one?


I do, however RESPOND to other's
posts on political matters.


And you accomplish this with telepathy? No, you ~post~ your responses.


No, I enter them.



*******(Politics & Religion are a never ending
debate, that's why I am going to stay out of
that subject.)




Probably a wise decision, unless you're like
me and enjoy watching the other side dance.


Still waging imaginary wars and taking up "sides". Will wonders never
cease?


So you deny that there are"sides" to political and religious debates?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:57:39 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:11:51 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
That was not meant as a criticism, just a
neutral observation.

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

You're lying again. I never made any such
claim.


I simply offered that based on Doug's
"notoriety", that he MIGHT have been framed.
Are you stating that this scenario is impossible?


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

The only thing "bizarre" is your inability to comprehend simple
concepts. You accused me of stating that someone withdrew the
complaint. I made no such statement. That's a lie on your part,
predicated, no doubt, from your inability to remember who said what
over the years. You once tried to claim that I accused Keith of
something. When pressed on the issue, (While you scrambled through
google) you finally had to back off when you realized that you make a
mistake. But true to form, you would never be a man and admit it.

Are you man enough to apologize now, or will you just spin this some
more to lay down even more smoke?

The contingency recognizes this fact and several have illustrated and
commented on your position and hypocrisy.

....of one (you).

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

Despite your obvious paranoia, I never said you were.

I am no more hypocritical than any of those who have claimed the same
of me.


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

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


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

(Which has been strangely silent),


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

No, it's called correcting an error. You still cannot demonstrate
anything hypocritical that I've posted. I'm forced to conclude that
you don't know the meaning of the word. So for your edification:


hy·poc·ri·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one
does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Now, where have I ever professed a belief, virtue, or feeling that I
don't possess?



the truth is there is only you.


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

I never mentioned that. Guilty conscience?


Provide even ONE example of my misuse of

any term.


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

You have absolutely no idea what the concept of civil disobedience is
do you? You think it's your "get out of jail free card". You are so
far off, it's not even funny.

Despite being taught and
educated on this matter several times,

You are not capable of educating anyone. Your legal and political
views are akin to the malcontents and subversive slackers of the
1960's.

you fecklessly insist such an act
(such as dxing) makes one a federal criminal.

It does and it is. The FCC (a FEDERAL agency) via the communications
act of 1934 clearly defines both civil AND criminal penalties for
violation of the law. The fact that you haven't been caught yet does
not change that.


You very clearly are
suffering some sort of massive block, some type of learning disability
that prevents you from comprehending the differences between what
constitutes civil and criminal penalties, despite being properly
instructed each time you shout your ignorance concerning this subject.
You erroneously claimed, "it is perception" (yours, albeit wrong) that
distinguishes between such.

Your problem is that in your narcissistic mind, that you believe that
you know what's "proper". Someone can't be "educated" when the
"teacher" is further off the rails than the "student". Your knowledge
of the law is the worst that I've ever seen anywhere. I have a cousin
who's a lawyer and he just shakes his head at your ignorance.

Stick to fishing. It's probably the only subject you know anything
about.

You really should take some remedial education courses, including a
course on reading comprehension. That way you wouldn't be so quick to
accuse others of saying things they never said.


Have yourself a good weekend, old man.

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

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

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

neutral observation.

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

You're lying again. I never made any such

claim.

I simply offered that based on Doug's

"notoriety", that he MIGHT have been framed.

Are you stating that this scenario is

impossible?





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

The only thing "bizarre" is your inability to

comprehend simple concepts.


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

You accused me of stating that someone

withdrew the complaint. I made no such

statement. That's a lie on your part,

predicated, no doubt, from your inability to

remember who said what over the years.


Nah,,,you said it.

You once tried to claim that I accused Keith of

something. When pressed on the issue,

(While you scrambled through google) you f

finally had to back off when you realized that

you make a mistake. But true to form, you

would never be a man and admit it.



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

Are you man enough to apologize now, or will

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



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

....of one (you).

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

Despite your obvious paranoia, I never said

you were.


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

I am no more hypocritical than any of those

who have claimed the same of me.


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

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

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

(Which has been strangely silent),

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

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

cannot demonstrate anything hypocritical that

I've posted.



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


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

meaning of the word. So for your edification:

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

n. pl. hy=B7poc=B7ri=B7sies

1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings,

or virtues that one does not hold or possess;

falseness.


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

2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Now, where have I ever professed a belief,

virtue, or feeling that I don't possess?

See above.

the truth is there is only you.

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

I never mentioned that.


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


Guilty conscience?


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

Provide even ONE example of my misuse of

any term.

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

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

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

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


You are not capable of educating anyone.

Your legal and political views are akin to the

malcontents and subversive slackers of the

1960's.


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

It does and it is.



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


The FCC (a FEDERAL

agency)

via the communications act of 1934 clearly

defines both civil AND criminal penalties for

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

been caught yet does not change that.


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

Your problem is that in your narcissistic mind,

(snip)

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


Someone can't be "educated" when the "

teacher" is further off the rails than the

"student". Your knowledge of the law is the

worst that I've ever seen anywhere.

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

I have a cousin who's a lawyer



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



Stick to fishing. It's probably the only subject

you know anything about.


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


You really should take some remedial

education courses, including a course on

reading comprehension. That way you

wouldn't be so quick to accuse others of

saying things they never said.


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


Have yourself a good weekend, old man.

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

David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

The only thing "bizarre" is your inability to
comprehend simple concepts.

You accused me of stating that someone
withdrew the complaint. I made no such
statement. That's a lie on your part,
predicated, no doubt, from your inability to
remember who said what over the years.


Nah,,,you said it.

Then provide the google link as proof.


You once tried to claim that I accused Keith of
something. When pressed on the issue,
(While you scrambled through google) you f
finally had to back off when you realized that
you make a mistake. But true to form, you
would never be a man and admit it.



Go on then and ask Keith, since you brought it up. You most certianly
blamed him.

You want to eat crow again for something you had to reluctantly back
off from before? You really don't learn your lessons.

Until you can provide the proof, you're simply spinning yarns.

Are you man enough to apologize now, or will

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



Look how far you ran from your initial denial of
defending Dogie.

Look how far you go to deflect the topic (again!).

You made a specific accusation, and cannot back it up. Not you try to
change the subject.




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

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

cannot demonstrate anything hypocritical that

I've posted.



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

Translation: You are unable to provide the needed proof, so you resort
to your predictable deflection tactic.



I'm forced to conclude that you don't know the
meaning of the word. So for your edification:
hy·poc·ri·sy * ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings,
or virtues that one does not hold or possess;
falseness.


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

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Such is the circular nature
of your reasoning.


Guilty conscience?


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


Ah, so you now admit to being a sociopath? That's a progressive sign.
Thank you for answering my question. You did see the (?) at the end of
my question right?



You are not capable of educating anyone.
Your legal and political views are akin to the
malcontents and subversive slackers of the
1960's.


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

It does and it is.



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

The real joke is that you don't even bother to read the links your
posted to the stories about your boy "Bob Noxious". In them they state
that it's a criminal violation to operate an unlicensed transmitter.
The only difference between the FM broadcast band and the freeband is
the frequency, and the visibility to the public.



The FCC (a FEDERAL
agency)
via the communications act of 1934 clearly
defines both civil AND criminal penalties for
violation of the law. The fact that you haven't
been caught yet does not change that.


Yet, the fact one hasn't been convicted of such DOES change -your-
mistaken position. The fact that you disagree with the US laws and
justice system that does not allow anyone to refer to another as a
criminal unless they are found guilty and pronounced as such in a court
of law, is irrelevant, as it again is your ignorance responsible for
your mistaken belief.

Once again you base your mistaken opinion on technicalities and
semantics. Someone who murders someone is still guilty of a criminal
act regardless if he's been caught yet. Being pronounced guilty is
only a formality. The same holds true for the FCC rules.


Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.

Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "it's only guilty if
you're caught" mentality. Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

The Federal DOT enforces many rules and
laws, and they are all not of a criminal nature, despite your inability
to comprehend such. If you need more examples, you may indicate such and
they will be provided.

There are no federal traffic cops. There is no federal speed limit.

Besides, they are not the FCC.


I have a cousin who's a lawyer



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

Far be it for you to chastise anyone for not providing for their
claims when you can't even reveal your own name. You who claims to
embrace the concepts of anonymity. You want me to give you personal
information, yet you can't even come from behind that clock of gutless
anonymity.



Stick to fishing. It's probably the only subject

you know anything about.


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

Oh, this should be good. Another subject where I'll clean your clock
and not even break a sweat. What could you possibly know about my boat
or any boat in general?

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400,

Once again you base your mistaken opinion on technicalities and
semantics. Someone who murders someone is still guilty of a criminal
act regardless if he's been caught yet. Being pronounced guilty is
only a formality. The same holds true for the FCC rules.


Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty?
Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in
the jury box? listening to the testimony? following
the judges orders concerning what type of evidence
you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion
until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are
deliberating the case? Of course not, so how can
you say because someone here is running a 1000
watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal?
You can't, you are not a sheriff, judge & jury, to
which is the only way someone can be classified
a criminal, after being convicted, before that they
are only a suspect.



Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.

Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "it's only guilty if
you're caught" mentality. Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

Nope, it's called a guilty conscience, to which you can only
be called guilty in front of the lord all-mighty, everything
else has to be done through a court of law.

Dave


Landshark


--
Courage is what it takes to stand up
and speak; courage is also what it
takes to sit down and listen.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:47:24 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:41:29 -0400,

Once again you base your mistaken opinion on technicalities and
semantics. Someone who murders someone is still guilty of a criminal
act regardless if he's been caught yet. Being pronounced guilty is
only a formality. The same holds true for the FCC rules.


Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty?

I don't know. But whether or not the court pronounced him as such
doesn't change the acts that he may or may not have done.


Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in
the jury box? listening to the testimony? following
the judges orders concerning what type of evidence
you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion
until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are
deliberating the case? Of course not, so how can
you say because someone here is running a 1000
watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal?

If you witness someone killing another, do you need a jury verdict
before you know that that person is a murderer?

If the law defines a particular act as criminal, then if you engage in
that act, you are engaging in a criminal activity. Being labeled as
such by a court is only a formality and a convenient excuse for people
who want to thumb their nose at the law, and wish to ease their guilty
conscience, by trying to convince themselves that their activities
aren't really criminal because they haven't been caught yet..


You can't, you are not a sheriff, judge & jury, to
which is the only way someone can be classified
a criminal, after being convicted, before that they
are only a suspect.

Maybe in a legal sense, but that's a poor justification for engaging
in criminal behavior, and saying; "you can't call me a criminal
because a jury didn't convict me yet".


Only a court of law can refer to one as a criminal, and yes, the fact
that one has NOT been caught yet (as you tried and failed with) most
certainly abdicates them from being referred a criminal,,,,,again, the
fact that you disagree with our justice system is YOUR bad.

Yep, the old subversive ploy of thinking that "it's only guilty if
you're caught" mentality. Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

Nope, it's called a guilty conscience, to which you can only
be called guilty in front of the lord all-mighty

Isn't that enough?

, everything
else has to be done through a court of law.

You can't serve time and be branded a "criminal" until found guilty in
a court of law. But the fact that you might get away with a crime,
doesn't lessen what you truly are.

Playing word games doesn't hide that fact.


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj