On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:20:47 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Dave*Hall)
On Fri, 21 May 2004 00:57:24 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:
The point is that making a statement that 99% of cb'rs operate illegally
is false, just as 99% of hams get busted for operating illegally.
I try to avoid making specific number
comparisons
Since when? This morning? You have presented such specific number
"comparisons"
on several occasions in order to shore up a claim of yours, with nothing
to back it up except your "claim"..
When? Put up or shut up.
But I would hope that you'd agree that a
definite majority of CB'ers are running illegally
in one form or another.
Majority? Hahha,,that would equal exactly what you said you do not
do,,,,more than 51%...LOL....your hypocrisy radiates bull****.
You evidently have absolutely no idea of the difference between
general conclusions and specific numbers. Then again judging by your
past performance and lack of comprehensive ability, this should not
surprise me.
I have certainly seen enough empirical data in
my many years of the hobby to make that
claim.
But of course, you can point to or illustrate *none* of this "empirical"
(snicker) data,,,you want only to be taken at your word,,,something you
ruined long ago, but I will give you another benefit of doubt,,,present
something of this "empirical" data, as "empirical" means "provable or
verifiable by experience or experiment".
And it's been my experience after 30+ years of CBing that the majority
of CB operators operate illegally to one degree or another. Just turn
the radio on any given day and you can hear it for yourself. Every
time someone hits that roger beep, every time you hear an echo box,
every time you see someone's signal "swinging" wildly, every yahoo on
27.555, and every time you hear some low-life cuss out someone else.
Merely claiming somehting is
empirical does not make it so. Do something you have never been able to
do for the masses, Davie,,prove your bull**** claim.
How does one "prove" a claim that is based on empirical observation?
What, do you want government census numbers? You're not going to get
them. But then again you know that, and you are simply falling back on
your old standby excuse that "absence of proof means the same thing as
lying".
It's one thing to be "busted" for operating
illegally, It's totally another to just be
"operating" illegally. It's true that a higher
percentage of hams are busted for operating
illegally than there are CB'ers popped for
illegal operation. But for the most part it can
be explained that hams themselves have
requested stricter enforcement.
It can also be argued, for the most part, it can be explained" that
hammmies have also requested stricter enforcement against cbers as
well,,,,,,it simply doesn't make it so and your claim was fabricated
simply to suit your own warped politics.
Do a little searching. Or, be bold enough to ask Riley himself. Hams
HAVE asked for better enforcement of the ham bands That is a matter of
general acknowledgement for any ham who's spent any time listening to
the ARRL and RAIN reports or who peruses ham discussion boards. But on
the other hand, hams could not care less what goes on on 11 meters. As
long as they stay above 12 meters and below 10.
In other words, just because there are a
higher number of reported enforcement
actions against hams vs. CB'ers, does not
mean that there is a higher percentage of
hams operating illegally.
It also can be stated with incredible accuracy, that simply because you
categorically and vehemently stated you can prove something, doesn't
mean you actually can or will. In other words, you're full of bull****
as usual.
I have not claimed to have rock solid proof of anything. But if you
are going to take the position that unless someone has such proof,
that everything they say is automatically a lie, you are the one with
issues. A tough and somewhat duplicitous position for someone who
claims to believe in God.
Dave
"Sandbagger"
N3CVJ
Why do you feel the need to add my call? This is a CB newsgroup
remember?
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj