In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
. net...
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:20:28 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:

In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property.

In your opinion anyway. Again, no such claim or
argument was ever leveled against Bash as violating any
FCC rules...much less any "criminal act" such as
receiving stolen goods.

Not for the lack of us around whose office he lurked wanting that
action taken.....

Need we rehash this again ??

What for...by your own statements you admit nothing
was done by the FCC? The fact that one or more
FCC attorneys may have wanted action taken doesn't
validate anything other than those FCC folks that
wanted action couldn't convince their management
that the case either had merit or was worth the time
and expense.

That's one way to look at it.
(insert standard "I'm not a lawyer and the following is just my layman's
opinion" disclaimer HERE)

Here's another:

Perhaps what Bash did *was* illegal, and prosecutable under the rules at the
time. Maybe the top folks decided not to go after Bash because (choose any
number of the following):

- they made a dumb mistake
- they were planning to publicize the Q&A anyhow
- they wanted to focus on other areas of enforcement
- they didn't think they could win
- they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would bring other things to light,
such as the limited size of the pool actually in use
- they were concerned that prosecuting Bash would sell more of his books and
encourage imitators to do the same thing

All the academic discussion of what may have been
the legal outcome had Bash been challenged means
nothing in the end.

I disagree. It's an example of how things used to work, or not work.

Most of all, the fact that no enforcement action was taken does not mean there
was no violation. If a driver zips past a police radar setup at, say, 15 mph
over the posted limit but the police don't go after that driver, a violatiuon
still occurred. The police in that particular case just decided not to go after
the violator, for whatever reason.

73 de Jim, N2EY