On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:04:02 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
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?


On several occasions. Even in this post, unless you snipped it. Are you
denying doing such?

I never claimed a specific number, only a "majority". It could be 51%,
or as much as 90%.



Put up or shut up.


I have several times and it most certainly "shut you up." Again....are
you denying producing such claims with number comparisons, Davie?

I'm sure your warped perception would not allow you to differentiate
between quoting an exact figure and citing approximate figures.



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.


The word "majority" IS most certainly specific Davie,,,it defines
exactly more than 50% or half.

That's just the minimum, it could be much higher.


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".

Experience my boy. 30+ years of it.

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.


Your hearsay and personal experience is not empirical data, regardless
of how severe you misappropriate and misdefine the term.

It certainly is.


Empirical data
is PROOF derived from your personal experiences. Merely claiming such
and assuming is not "empirical".

If one of the "saucer men" were to land in your front lawn and hang
out and drink a few beers with you, would you not then have "proof"
that alien life exists? Would that proof be from observation? The fact
that you cannot provide anything other than your own words to validate
the claim to others does not diminish its value as empirical data.

I have all the "proof" that I need to make the claim that a definite
majority of CB'ers are running illegal. That you choose to not believe
it is your problem.



Every time someone hits

that roger beep, every time you hear an echo

box,



Incorrect. roger beeps and echo is not illegal on cb.

They most certainly ARE illegal. They are considered "devices for the
purpose of attracting attention or amusement".

Check part 95:

Sec. 95.631 Emission types.

(c) A CB transmitter may transmit only emission types A1D, H1D, J1D,
R1D, A3E, H3E, J3E, R3E. A non-voice emission is limited to selective
calling or tone-operated squelch tones to establish or continue voice
communications. See Sec. 95.412 (b) and (c).

Sec. 95.412 (CB Rule 12) What communications may be transmitted? (Pay
attention to (b)

(a) You may use your CB station to transmit two-way plain language
communications. Two-way plain language communications are
communications
without codes or coded messages. Operating signals such as ``ten
codes''
are not considered codes or coded messages. You may transmit two-way
plain language communications only to other CB stations, to units of
your own CB station or to authorized government stations on CB
frequencies about--
(1) Your personal or business activities or those of members of
your
immediate family living in your household;
(2) Emergencies (see CB Rule 18, Sec. 95.418);
(3) Traveler assistance (see CB Rule 18, Sec. 95.418); or
(4) Civil defense activities in connection with official tests or
drills conducted by, or actual emergencies announced by, the civil
defense agency with authority over the area in which your station is
located.
(b) You may use your CB station to transmit a tone signal only
when
the signal is used to make contact or to continue communications.
(Examples of circuits using these signals are tone operated squelch
and
selective calling circuits.) If the signal is an audible tone, it must
last no longer than 15 seconds at one time. If the signal is a
subaudible tone, it may be transmitted continuously only as long as
you
are talking.
(c) You may use your CB station to transmit one-way communications
(messages which are not intended to establish communications between
two
or more particular CB stations) only for emergency communications,
traveler assistance, brief tests (radio checks) or voice paging.

RULE 13 - Illegal Communications (Pay attention to [2] and [6])

{A} You must NOT use a CB station-

[1] in connection with activity which is against federal, state or
local law;
[2] to transmit obscene, indecent or profane words, language or
meaning;
[3] to interfere intentionally with the communications of another CB
station;
[4] to transmit one-way communications, EXCEPT for emergency
communications, traveler assistance, brief tests (radio checks) or
voice paging;
[5] to advertise or solicit the sale of any goods or services;
[6] to transmit music, whistling, sound effects or any material to
amuse or entertain;
[7] to transmit any sound effect solely to attract attention;
[8] to transmit the word "MAYDAY" or use any other international
distress signal, EXCEPT when your station is located in a ship,
aircraft or other vehicle which is threatened with GRAVE AND IMMINENT
danger and you are requesting IMMEDIATE assistance. [9] to communicate
with, or ATTEMPT to communicate with, any CB station more than 155.3
miles (250 kilometers) away;


An echo box is a "sound effect" device and as such is prohibited by
the above rule. Same goes for roger beeps. Since they do not
facilitate communication, or work as a tone activated squelch, they
are not permitted.



No wonder you left
it,,

I left because of people like you who either refuse to operate by the
rules, or who somehow feel that their selfish pursuits override
consideration and respect for the rights of others.

you couldn't comprehend the rules,

I have no trouble comprehending the rules. You, on the other hand,
need a remedial course.



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?



That's your problem,,,in addition to the fact that you are now doing the
backwards shuffle and claiming "empirical observation" as opposed to
your former claim of "empirical DATA".

From my point of view, they are one and the same. My observations
became my data. The fact that you refuse to accept my word on it is
your problem.


Data is arived at via observation.

Exactly!


Look up the word "empirical" and try placing that term
again in front of the laughable term you coined "empirical observation"

Yea it's sort of redundant, but when I have to deal with intellectual
lightweights like you, sometime redundancy is necessary to get the
point across.



But you DID. Again, look up the word "empirical",,,,it means PROOF
supplied via your own experiments,

Actually the dictionary definition is:

1. Based on observation or experiment.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory.


Nowhere does it call for "proof".

Now go ahead and make the predictable next move of attempting to
discredit my dictionary for you own faux-pax.



however, one's word is NOT proof, no
matter how you try to postulate such. In the world of science, one's
mere word without proof positive is "a theory" and the word "experiment"
is a means of arriving at "proof" and disproving a theory and making it
fact. When a theory is proven via fact, (IE: proof) it is no longer a
theory It denotes a scientific arrival at a belief (theory) arrived at
and based upon by,,taa daa-- "proof",,not ones word based upon their own
experiences and assumptions.

See definition (2) above.


So then you make the claim that my 30+ year "experiment" with CB radio
is not valid because the conclusions I came to do not sit well with
you? I have all the "proof" I need. I don't need the approval of
someone who's operating habits bolster my statistics.


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.

Not "someone" Davie,,,just you,

Ah, now we get to the meat of the issue. Thank you for admitting your
bias.

,,,as you ahve been unable to present
proof for any of your wild assed claims I have ever called you on,

You are not worthy of the effort to provide what you will ultimately
spin and attempt to discredit anyway.



A tough and somewhat duplicitous position
for someone who claims to believe in God.


My personal faith and believing in God has absolutely nothing to do with
not believing one who has failed to produce anything concerning any of
his claims, except angry diatribes, off-topic obsessions, hearsay, and
personal opinion..

You demand "proof" in order to believe. That is in direct contrast to
the idea of faith.



Why do you feel the need to add my call? This
.is a CB newsgroup remember?


Because I am of the personal opinion the people should know who attempts
to sling and perpetuate bull**** against them on a regular basis and you
are known by your call.

I am not known by my call on this newsgroup. Anything beyond that is
irrelevant

Yet you are the one who once claimed that I "flaunt" my ham status,
yet the proof is on the pudding that you are the one who continues to
bring the fact that I'm a ham into the discussion.

If, as you also once claimed, that possession of a ham license is
irrelevant, then why bring it up at all?

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