On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:36:34 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Steveo" wrote in message

****er needs a bullet to separate him from his sick habit. The parents
need a bullet too for allowing their children to accommodate him.

Man you got that right, especially the parents for letting him
have the kid. They are nothing better than pimps.


Being around money and celebrity does some strange things to people's
judgement. Also some people are really dense when it comes to the true
potential ugliness in the world.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:36:27 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:


Then provide the google link as proof.

Do not ask others what you refuse to provide yourself..it's called
hypocrisy and myself, Frank, Jim, Shark, Mopar, and now Lancer
(regarding your lack of knowledge of antennas) have illustrated such.


Translation: You're lying again.


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.

AS opposed to you being wrong concerning the federal DOT (just to name a
single issue).

There are no federal police. You can claim the opposite until the cows
come home. But until you can prove it, you're lying again.

You want to eat crow again for something you

had to reluctantly back off from before?

You're the one choking on feathers in all your posts, especially since
you were instructed of the existsence of the DOT and the legaliyy of
roger beeps.

I admitted to my error with regard to the roger beep issue. As to the
rest of them, because you offer a dissenting opinion is not the same
as proving me wrong.

You were challenged to provide proof, and you continually fall back on
the same tired excuse that since I didn't prove one or two of my
allegations to your satisfaction, that you have no responsibility to
prove any of yours. That's such an obvious cop-out, but all too
typical for you.


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

I've run nowhere. I maintain that that only "defense" that I ever
offered was the possibility that he may have been framed. The stuff
about me claiming that the charge was withdrawn or that I blamed Keith
for something is all coming from the bowels of your warped mind.

Google me and prove me wrong if you can (You can't), but you won't and
will still babble on about not having to prove anything.


And you certainly made your share of forced errors...forensics, DOT, PA
State Law, Civil vs criminal law, roger beeps, empirical evidence,..

With the exception of the roger beep issue, all of my other usages
were consistent with standard definitions as provided by established
resources. Try again.


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.

You initiated this tactic with your running from your past claims that
were proved lies.

Proved how? Because you disagreed with them? You have yet to prove
anything you claim. You aren't even man enough to use your real name.
Don't even talk to me a about providing proof until you get over your
own hypocrisy.



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

meaning of the word.

I force you to do plenty of things, but lately, it seems Frank has
forced you more than anyone.

Frank is proving to be almost as mentally unstable as you are. No
wonder you've found so much in common.


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.

Such is the nature if your actions. As has been illustrated by others,
you made more unsubstantiated claims than any.


No I haven't, and you can't prove otherwise.


Thank you for
answering my question. You did see the (?) at
the end of my question right?

What everyone else sees is way different than what you claim to see. The
light is blinding you.

Ah, so you don't know what a (?) is. That explains much. Perhaps a
remedial reading course is in order. Then you can work on that GED.


You are not capable of educating anyone.

I educated you when you denied existence of a Federal DOT.

You provided nothing but your own unsubstantiated claims. You
hypocritically take me to task for offering my experience as evidence,
yet you provide nothing to back your self up.


I educated
you concerning your shouted ignorance (for a month) that roger beeps
were illegal.

You provided no proof to back up what you said. I had to get it myself
from the FCC.


I educated you on your mistaken definition of "empirical"
evidence,

Which was wrong (as usual). Look up the definition (I'll be glad to
provide it again for you so you can then claim that my dictionary is
"wrong")



Frank educated you on your mistaken..well, on a lot of your
mistaken claims regarding radio

Frank has his own issues, most notably a glaring lack of hands-on
experience with CB and ham radio.


, but most recently, of your embarrassing
gaffe regarding the incorrect definition of "forensics", something you
erroneously claimed you use in addition to empirical evidence.

My usage of the word "forensics" was consistent with the definition.
Frank had a problem with that. But his beef is not with me, it's with
those who write the dictionaries. But such illustrates Frank's pompous
arrogance in that he feels that he knows more than those who define
these terms.

In fact,
you have been educated on a host of things by a host of people.

I've had people who have disagreed with me. None have provided any
proof otherwise.

Now
Lancer is providing your education concerning what you do not know about
antennas. Yes, Dave, despite your denials, you most certainly have been
educated by several of us.

None of you have provided any proof to back yourselves up. What does
that say?


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.


Tut-tut,,when you have been reduced to wandering, you tend to make
invalid comparisons. What B-o-b does, and what I do (dx) are two very
different items,

No, they're basically not. Both of you are running illegal
transmitters on frequencies that you are not licensed for.


The only difference
between the FM broadcast band and the
freeband is the frequency, and the visibility to
the public.
**
Hehe..no, Dave, you are dead wrong,,there are plenty of differences,
especially regarding legalities, but I have learned to be content
watching you deny existence of the things of which you are not educated.

Translation: You can't prove it, but if you repeat it enough maybe
someone will believe you.


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.

What you call technicalities is the basis and foundation for our
judicial system. It's not perfect, but it works much better than your
pronouncing one a guilty criminal based only on your ignorance.

Denying the criminal nature of your acts simply because you have not
been officially convicted is disingenuous.


Someone who murders someone is still guilty
of a criminal act regardless if he's been caught
yet.

Not if they haven't been convicted by a court of law. This is the ONLY
manner in which one can be "guilty" and called a criminal in the US. To
do so without the adjudication of guilt makes on guilty of slander or
libel, depending on the medium used.

So it's your position that no crime was committed until the verdict is
in? That's sure comforting to the families and friends of the victims.

Being pronounced guilty is only a formality.

Says you, but you are wrong. It is THE ONLY basis for guilt.

Officially yes. But if you did the crime, you are technically guilty
whether the law recognizes it or not.

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.

I'm not the one twisting the law in some vain attempt at justifying
illegal behavior. "You're only guilty if you're caught" doesn't wash
with me.

Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

Again, take it to your congressman.

There are no federal traffic cops.

Umm,,,there is. That is exactly what DOT officers are. In addition to
the usual laws they enforce regaridng commercial carriers and transit,
they are not LIMITED by them. A Federal officer may enforce ANY law in
this country. Keep talking, Dave, as you continue to be educated.

Until you provide the proof, you are simply babbling a bunch of
nonsense.


There is no federal speed limit.

This is your counter to your incorrect claim that there is no federal
DOT?

I never said there was no federal DOT. I said that there are no
federal traffic cops. Once again you attempt to twist words.


Man, you are a glutton for punishment. Sure there is, David,
truckers must abide by it every day. As I said,,,keep talking.

As I said, put up the proof, or shut up. The federal 55 MPH speed
limit was repealed. There has been no new limit to replace it.


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..

What difference would it make if I gave you his name? You would then
claim that I simply made it up. Speaking of names, what's yours?


You found it important enough to claim you have a
friend who was busted by the fcc, but will not provide for the claim.

I gave the particulars of the situation. Because you could find
nothing (assuming you actually looked) doesn't mean that it didn't
happen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This is the exact tactic you played with me regarding the Roger Beep
issue. How come you don't like the shoe when it's on the other foot?



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.

I've provided PA statute 3368, which substantiates my claim in the
vast majority of cases.

You find it important enough to claim you went to
a tech school, but will not provide for any claims.

I went to far more than that. But until you tell everyone who you are,
you are the epitome of hypocrisy to demand accountability from other
people when you won't even identify yourself.


providing for their claims when you can't even
reveal your own name.

Stay focused, Dave. By now, everyone understands your need to become
personal when you are forced to learn, but it's off topic and serves
only to illustrate your incompetence and lack of communication skill.

No it focuses attention on your true hypocrisy. You who demand that
others provide for their claims, while you yourself hide like a
sniveling child behind a cloak of anonymity. You haven't earned the
right to demand accountability from anyone as long as you are too
yellow to reveal yourself.


You who claims to embrace the concepts of
anonymity. You want me to give you personal

information,

No Dave,,,you -chose- to give us personal info regarding this subject,
.your claim was unsolicited.

yet you can't even come from

behind that clock of gutless anonymity.
*
*Gutless is the threat you made about coming to "give you what you
want".

That was no threat, it was a challenge. Something a real man would not
back away from. You are simply too afraid to reveal yourself. Which
then begs the question of what you are hiding.

Reviews of that thread show how yellow you are and what a coward
you have become, as well as the lies you made concerning your threats.

I gave you the chance to meet face to face like a man, and you came up
with all sorts of unreasonable conditions (Like demanding my credit
card number) and excuses. I'm not the one who backed down.



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

Oh, this should be good.


Your education is always regarded as good,,,except, by yourself, and
this is only because it pains you to be proven wrong.

Which you have yet to do. You word alone does not constitute "proof".

.I was going to say
"by myslef" and then considered saying"by cbers", but you have shown
that all who prove you wrong, bring you great pains.

You psychologically challenged few have tried, but keep missing the
mark. And that is what frustrates you.





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?


...asked the landlocked wannabe who gets maybe two, three months use
per year of his boat. Yes, David, again, your hands-on experience over
the years with your boats in Pennsylvania adds up to,,what...how many
months? LOL. Even if you multiplied 4 months per year of your experience
(and that's generous) for the last twenty five years, that gives you a
total of what,,,,,,100 months experience? That's less than 10 years
experience and it's not even consecutive.

That was not the claim. You made a specific claim about *MY* boat.

Besides, you learned to walk what, at 13 months or so? Does every year
that you walk beyond those first few make you any more proficient at
walking?


You're still green and a lightweight, but your self-proclaimed
experience regarding such, is my brass ring.

What "self proclaimed" experience are you talking about?


In fact, all areas which
you have professed unsolicited proficiency to the group, have been
decimated by others who do understand the subjects you fancy yourself
knowledgeable.

Not hardly. The fact that you try and fail miserably just makes me
smile. Even with the emotionally troubled Frank in your corner, you
still miss the mark.

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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Yes, it's deliberately done with a bit of a shock value. It's to
counter the rampant mindset that someone isn't really doing anything
wrong simply because the FCC is too incompetent and understaffed to
catch them yet.

Dave

Well Dave, I'm not going to continue, it's fruitless. In
closing you can go on your crusade against the FCC
scofflaws, but their "crime" as you like to put it is
very minor. If they are using Freeband or amps, their
actions are much less of a consequence. Litterbugs
add tons of garbage that costs millions a year to clean.
Speeders cost millions a year to enforce against and kill
hundreds of people while causing accidents because of speeding.
I just find that there are more important things to
worry about than someone that's using power or talking
on the freeband. I worry about speeders maybe hitting my
kids, drunk driver hitting someone I care about, drugs in
my kids school etc etc, not about labeling someone a
criminal for using a linear or freeband. You can go around
and see sociopath and anarchist around every corner, I fore
one am going to worry about what directly will affect my
family, not what is illegal and not going to affect virtually
anyone such as freeband use and linear.

Landshark


--
__
o /' )
/' ( ,
__/' ) .' `;
o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ;
_.--' b) LANDSHARK ``--...____. .'
( _. )). `-._
`\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'.
`---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.;
`-` `

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:13:37 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
: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.

Once one is found not guilty in the US by a court of law and/or a jury
of their peers, you can not claim he is guilty, regardless of what he
may have done as relating to his case. Do so and you'll be broke after
being sued for defamation of character along with anything else
concerning libel or slander laws.

I educated you once before on the conditions of libel cases. I'll be
glad to provide the links again. But the long and short of it is that
you can't just sue someone for libel unless you can prove that damages
were sustained as a result of the alleged libel claim.


(Doesn't change the acts he may or may not done? If he's done something
wrong, found guilty then he's a criminal. If he done nothing wrong, went
to court and was found not guilty, he should still be labeled a criminal
because he's being accused? )

What if he's done the acts he was accused of,
.but because of an inability for the state to
prove it, or the credibility of the witnesses
becomes cloudy and he walks, what does
THAT make him?

Depends on the verdict. There are only three possibilities,,,,,innocent,
not guilty, and guilty.

Technically, innocent and not guilty are the same thing. Most criminal
case verdicts are declared either guilty or not 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? )

If you witness someone killing another, do you
need a jury verdict before you know that that

person is a murderer?

You can "know" (translated in your case to being a simile for "believe")
anything you wish, but even if you witnessed such an act, you are not
permitted to publicly call him such IF he was tried and found other than
guilty. Your belief is irrelevent.

The truth is irrelevant? What a warped world you live in. A world
where labels mean more than the truth.

-
(I heard someone on 2 meters last night, swearing, threating people, is
he guilty of violating FCC rules? )

Absolutely!

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..

(chuckle),,you go on trying to convince *yourself" you have the right to
call one a criminal for what you perceive constitutes such. If you were
to publicly refer to one with their proper name as as a criminal, based
only what you present here and erroneously believe constitutes such
criminal activity (such as maintaining, on more than one occasion, that
one's posts in this group you -think- may belong to a certain identity,
is "proof" enough (for you) to refer to the person as a criminal), a
small filing fee would be paid (AFTER your criminal charges) and you
would be buried in civil court by someone versed in what you mistakenly
perceive as the law.

What criminal charge would I be liable for? There is no "crime" for
stating that someone is a criminal. There is that little thing called
the 1st amendment. You know, that little provision that allows
nutcases and fruitcakes alike to spew all sorts of hate, rhetoric and
nonsense. There might be a civil action depending on the conditions
and the people involved. The National Enquirer and other tabloids are
full of people who would like to sue, but for some reason don't. Why
is that, do you suppose? Of course, as always you are more than
welcome to provide some examples of case law to back yourself up.


After the criminal charges were applied you, the
civil matter would be only a formality, based on your guilt from the
outcome of the criminal trial based on your libel/slander/defamatory
comments, which are in turn based on -your- erroenous beliefs.

What crime would I be guilty of?


Speeding is not considered a criminal offense.

Neither is dxing

Ah, there's a difference. If you are operating a legal part 95 type
certified CB radio on authorized CB channels, and you talk some DX, I
would be inclined to agree with you. You would be in violation of a
minor rule, which would amount to a slap on the wrist.

However, once you set foot on the freeband, you lose your
authorization by rule to operate a transmitter, and you are no longer
considered a CB'er, but an unlicensed pirate radio transmitter.
Operating an unlicensed transmitter on a frequency which you are not
authorized for, is a far more serious offense, than simply DXing. It's
not the DX'ing that will get you popped on the freeband, it's
operating an unlicensed transmitter.


The you should have no problem citing an example where one of these
mystery people you are always invoking claimed they thought stealing
from a cable TV service was legal/acceptable/non-criminal.

When you give me your name first.



Until the law changed and got some

teeth. Now people who sell cable theft devices
face serious jail time.

But not dxers.

Not all DX'ers are guilty of criminal behavior. Those who freeband
are.


Anyways, those who sell illegal cable boxes are a much different
scenario than the first you invoked. Selling illegal converters carries
a much harsher charge than merely using one, but it does illustrate how
far off topic you are wliling to run.

It was used as an illustration of how some people view such
"victimless" crimes as somehow less than serious enough to consider
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. )

Maybe in a legal sense,

LOL,,as opposed to what? The legal sense is the only manner in which you
may legally refer to one a criminal. Do it ay other way and you are
opening yourself to penalties.

Such as?


Using your own warped logic (admitting
something on the internet is the same as a guilty plea in a court of
law) concerning what is said among internet babble, the mere fact that
you were informed of the law on many occasion, yet continue to refer to
certain proper names as a criminal, can enhance your penalties because
you continued to break said laws. Even though you may correctly plead
ignorance, such is never held in a court of law as a valid excuse for
one breaking the law.


So go ahead, sue me.



And only a court of law can determine such proof, not you, not your
observational skills, not your "knowing" based on beliefs, and certainly
not your (mis)interpretations of the law.

You are guilty. You know it, and I know it. The fact that you get away
with it in a legal venue, doesn't change that. You are simply playing
semantics games.

But you know as well as I do
that the system is flawed, and many times
guilty people walk for various reasons.



Irrelevant.
You continue to express extreme difficulty in comprehending that you
may not refer to these people as criminals.

I can and I will. Sue me if you think you can. But you won't because
you'd have to reveal your identity, and your anonymity means more to
you.


Conversely, some innocent people are
wrongly convicted. But if I witness a crime, I
don't need a jury to tell me that the perp is a
criminal.

You most certainly do if you wish to say it publicly or to another.


I can say anything I wish. The 1st amendment protects that.


Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a
bunch of people on an internet forum that he
did indeed molest children?

More of your ignorance. I can say I shot Kennedy....it means ****,
except to you.

Why would you admit to a crime you didn't commit?

More revealing is your admittance to the likelihood that you tend to
lie frequently.



Admitting to an unlawful activity is the same
thing in principle to pleading guilty in a trial.

Good gawd oh mighty. Here's where you get schooled again. not only do
you have no clue who one is on the internet, you are incompetently and
incorrectly claiming hearsay is the same thing as pleading guilty. Your
ignorance of the law has no bounds,

So, basically, you summed it up quite nicely, and anonymous non-person
admits to partaking in a criminal activity. So where's the problem? Is
this non-person engaging in criminal activity or not? The fact that he
hasn't been tagged by a court is irrelevant.


It may be "unofficial" but that's all I need to see
to make up my mind.


Of course, you do. You have been mispronouncing people on the internet
as "federal criminals" as long as you have been spoon-fed carefully
scripted information.

They deserve what they get. If people want to pretend to be things
that they are not, then they can make no charge of libel, since these
"cartoon characters" do not really exist.

You can't have it both ways. Anonymity cuts both ways.


Now that you shout to the world your mistaken
belief that what one posts on the internet is tantamount to an admission
of guilt in a US court of law, all one can do is laugh at you or feel
pity.

I'm the one laughing. At you for getting your panties in a knot
defending the non-words to non-people over the internet.


Besides, your position can get you sued, should you exercise it as you
claim,

Nope. Not a chance. You'd have to prove actual damages. But first
you'd have to prove that "twistedhed" (or whatever other sock name you
use) is a real entity and subject to defamation.

Your anonymity is your enemy at that point.

Do you think tabloid newspapers would be in business if it was THAT
easy to win a libel case?

You know nothing about the reality of law. You, like Frank, read
words, but can't apply them in the real world.


You have no way of knowing what someone, such as myself, does or
doesn't.

No, I don't. But if you admit to operating on the freeband, then you
deserve to wear the badge of federal criminal. Only you (And your
hairdresser) knows for sure.


Because you mistakenly believe everyone that posts from webtv
is the twisted who rang your bell and a sock puppet, doesn't make it so.

No, but in this case it does. You can change your name, but not your
"personality".


Wrong again. I can sit here and tell you I robbed banks, killed Kennedy,
was single-handedly responsible for the theft of the Star of India, and
broker counterfeit Monets,,,it means ****,,,,,,of course,,,except to
you, who has these warped beliefs regarding legalities responsible for
so many errors in your comments.

I can't convict you in a court of law, but that doesn't mean the court
of public opinion won't be influenced. The degree of proof in much
different. You can hide from the law, but you can't hide from yourself
or God. Your excuse that a court of law hasn't convicted you, is a
truly feeble excuse and poor justification for your anti-social
behavior, and won't protect you in the court of public opinion.


Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.


And your comments are typical of those consumed with hate and those of
little tolerance for all but your own beliefs.

If you are saying that I have a problem with people who disregard the
law at their own personal whim, and then fabricate weak excuses for
it, then you'd be correct.


What you profess as sound moral principles, ranks right there with your
denial the legality of roger beeps, the denial the existence of the
federal DOT, and your claim there is no federal speed limit (there is,
and it governs all commercial vehicles).

And until you can prove those claims, you are still ****ing in the
wind.


But the fact that you claim internet babble is the same thing as a
guilty plea in a court of law, most certainly governs when you may or
may not publicly refer one as a criminal.

This is not a court of law. This is the court of public opinion. The
standards of guilt are much different. As long as we have imaginary
identities, committing alleged crimes, I will call them on it as long
as I need to. You don't like it? Too bad.

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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:40:56 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
Yes, it's deliberately done with a bit of a shock value. It's to
counter the rampant mindset that someone isn't really doing anything
wrong simply because the FCC is too incompetent and understaffed to
catch them yet.

Dave

Well Dave, I'm not going to continue, it's fruitless. In
closing you can go on your crusade against the FCC
scofflaws, but their "crime" as you like to put it is
very minor. If they are using Freeband or amps, their
actions are much less of a consequence. Litterbugs
add tons of garbage that costs millions a year to clean.
Speeders cost millions a year to enforce against and kill
hundreds of people while causing accidents because of speeding.
I just find that there are more important things to
worry about than someone that's using power or talking
on the freeband. I worry about speeders maybe hitting my
kids, drunk driver hitting someone I care about, drugs in
my kids school etc etc, not about labeling someone a
criminal for using a linear or freeband. You can go around
and see sociopath and anarchist around every corner, I fore
one am going to worry about what directly will affect my
family, not what is illegal and not going to affect virtually
anyone such as freeband use and linear.


Mark,

Please don't get me wrong here. I'm not on any "crusade" I'm simply
pointing out a matter of fact with regard to what the people who break
the law by operating out of band technically are. Once you key the
mike on the freeband, you are breaking the law. A law which carried
criminal penalties if and when one is caught. But that is only a
formality.

If those who rabidly attack this truth would simply own up to their
complicity in this area, then we can move on. As long as people live
in denial, there will be no progress.

Personally, I don't care about freebanding or DX. Hell, some of my
best friends are freebanders. I used to do it myself. But I am not
trying to kid myself or other people by attempting to downplay what
this activity is in the eyes of the law.

Do what you want. I'm not turning people in. I'm only pointing out
what it is that they are guilty of.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

"Landshark" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message

****er needs a bullet to separate him from his sick habit. The parents
need a bullet too for allowing their children to accommodate him.

Man you got that right, especially the parents for letting him
have the kid. They are nothing better than pimps.

Landshark

Right on. $10 million hush money for a sleep over. Sick!

Dave Hall wrote:
On 13 Apr 2005 21:56:43 GMT, Steveo wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a bunch of people on an
internet forum that he did indeed molest children?

What do you think about a dog that is making a living but refuses to
feed his children, to the point of getting tagged with a felony for it?

As a parent, I am particularly offended by it. Anyone who is found to
have been deliberately negligent to his children deserves far more
than my scorn though.

Exactly. I know there are child support disputes that are hard to rectify
and a few of my friends have been down that road but somehow it gets
resolved one way or another.

The only guy I know that abused the system so bad that he got a court
ordered head shrinker, and a felony out of it is N8WWM Doug Adair.

Dave Hall wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:36:34 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Steveo" wrote in message

****er needs a bullet to separate him from his sick habit. The parents
need a bullet too for allowing their children to accommodate him.

Man you got that right, especially the parents for letting him
have the kid. They are nothing better than pimps.

Being around money and celebrity does some strange things to people's
judgement. Also some people are really dense when it comes to the true
potential ugliness in the world.

Jonny cockring took that million dollar excuse to the grave.

"Landshark" wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Yes, it's deliberately done with a bit of a shock value. It's to
counter the rampant mindset that someone isn't really doing anything
wrong simply because the FCC is too incompetent and understaffed to
catch them yet.

Dave

Well Dave, I'm not going to continue, it's fruitless. In
closing you can go on your crusade against the FCC
scofflaws, but their "crime" as you like to put it is
very minor. If they are using Freeband or amps, their
actions are much less of a consequence. Litterbugs
add tons of garbage that costs millions a year to clean.
Speeders cost millions a year to enforce against and kill
hundreds of people while causing accidents because of speeding.
I just find that there are more important things to
worry about than someone that's using power or talking
on the freeband. I worry about speeders maybe hitting my
kids, drunk driver hitting someone I care about, drugs in
my kids school etc etc, not about labeling someone a
criminal for using a linear or freeband. You can go around
and see sociopath and anarchist around every corner, I fore
one am going to worry about what directly will affect my
family, not what is illegal and not going to affect virtually
anyone such as freeband use and linear.

Landshark

I'm still waiting for my first NAL. Reckon how many more years
than 27 I have to wait yet?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:40:56 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
Yes, it's deliberately done with a bit of a shock value. It's to
counter the rampant mindset that someone isn't really doing anything
wrong simply because the FCC is too incompetent and understaffed to
catch them yet.

Dave

Well Dave, I'm not going to continue, it's fruitless. In
closing you can go on your crusade against the FCC
scofflaws, but their "crime" as you like to put it is
very minor. If they are using Freeband or amps, their
actions are much less of a consequence. Litterbugs
add tons of garbage that costs millions a year to clean.
Speeders cost millions a year to enforce against and kill
hundreds of people while causing accidents because of speeding.
I just find that there are more important things to
worry about than someone that's using power or talking
on the freeband. I worry about speeders maybe hitting my
kids, drunk driver hitting someone I care about, drugs in
my kids school etc etc, not about labeling someone a
criminal for using a linear or freeband. You can go around
and see sociopath and anarchist around every corner, I fore
one am going to worry about what directly will affect my
family, not what is illegal and not going to affect virtually
anyone such as freeband use and linear.


Mark,

Please don't get me wrong here. I'm not on any "crusade" I'm simply
pointing out a matter of fact with regard to what the people who break
the law by operating out of band technically are. Once you key the
mike on the freeband, you are breaking the law. A law which carried
criminal penalties if and when one is caught. But that is only a
formality.

Ok, fine. Understand Dave, you come across as an over-zealous
person on a crusade against "anyone" that does something illegal, not a
thing a normal person would do.


If those who rabidly attack this truth would simply own up to their
complicity in this area, then we can move on.

What? You mean turn themselves in? millions of people
in this country break laws everyday, are they all going to
walk down to the jail and say "I just broke this law,
arrest me". I'm sure they all sleep very soundly every night.

As long as people live
in denial, there will be no progress.

Personally, I don't care about freebanding or DX. Hell, some of my
best friends are freebanders. I used to do it myself. But I am not
trying to kid myself or other people by attempting to downplay what
this activity is in the eyes of the law.

It's illegal, as copying video tapes, DVD, CD, alcohol
across state lines, etc etc.


Do what you want. I'm not turning people in. I'm only pointing out
what it is that they are guilty of.

Dave

I never thought you were turning people in.
They are not guilty of anything, other than
their conscience.