From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
CB IS anonymous, it's going to stay that way, get over the gastric pain
it causes you.

And that is the main reason why there are so

many malcontents on there.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but that is neither here nor there, and a problem
of yours. Stop trying to make it someone elses problem.

It's everyone's problem unless, of course, you

are one of the malcontents who enjoys ruining
other people's fun.



CB is not like that in my area. We have one channel with the lulu's,,the
rest yield great local roundtables and everyone radio-wise pretty much
knows everyone else. Being so close to Philthy, I can understand why CB
must be mess in your area. Those people are vile.




Even the youngest, still wet-behind-the-ears

hooligan will tell you that they tend to partake

in more mischief if they have less of a chance

of being caught.


It's sad that your trust in fellow man has eroded to such a point. Most
of us look for the good in people, not the bad.


I look for the good in people too. It's a shame

that it's getting harder and harder to find.


Yup, it is, but that doesn't shake my faith of always seeing the glass
half full and noting the good instead of the bad in most cases..that's
why it's called "faith".


Wanting to believe that some people are

good, does not change the fact that a great

number are bad. I am a realist, I deal with

reality, not how I'd like it to be.

Not true at all. You subscribe to socialist views and rhetoric,,,this is
NOT how America is, but how you wish it would be. The majority of
American's (THANK GOD) do not subscribe to your bull**** about allowing
the authorities and anyone else an open book to your life "if you don't
have anything to hide".

_
That one would seek to mete out "accountability" for posting one's
opinion in usenet illustrates a freak, dude!

Not at all. If you are attempting to pass

yourself and your opinions off in a serious

discussion, with any sort of credibility, you

have to be accountable for what you say.


In a group dedicated to mere posting concerning an anonymous hobby, what
type accountability and credibility do you seek? How long have you
looked to cb venues seeking "serious" discussion?


So then, you are of the opinion that this forum

should be nothing more than an unimpeded

free-for-all with no rules or decorum?


Please try not to answer a question with a question. How long have you
looked to anonymous cb venues on the internet seeking "serious"
discussion?


Discussions about technical topics should be

taken at face value, without the parties

displaying their credentials?



Now you're catching on. No credentials needed for usenet posting, nor is
the "identity", that has you reeling.


It doesn't take any special courage or daring

to make inflammatory comments while hiding

behind an anonymous handle.


No doubt about it. Same can be said for radio. Merely possessing your
hammie call doesn't abdicate you from being anonymous if you wanted.
Same goes for this forum.


People identify on ham radio for a reason.


Yea,,,,,,it's the law.

People don't identify on CB for the same

reason.


Wrong. One is NOT required to identify on CB.


I have far more to be suspicious of, when

someone is afraid to identify themselves.



That is your right. And it's the majority of the rest of the world's
right to be suspicious of you seeking another's identity on usenet,
especially when you didn't listen to the world of security experts when
they told you not to post publicly to the internet with your personal
information. There indeed are areas of the internet that a certain
amount of identity is required, but usenet, especially a cb group, is
not one of them. This is a very rare concern that has no relation to
your life and voiced only by a bitter few.



I have to wonder what they are hiding from.

Why should anyone take what a person like

that says seriously, when they don't have the

character to identify themselves?


Depends what you define as "identify".
=A0=A0In your case, you ask for names, backgrounds, etc, of those who
you disagree with on usenet.


I have NEVER asked for specific personal

details. However, a person's name, and their

credentials will establish their expertise in

related topics. Who would you be most likely

to believe on matters of radio, someone firmly

established in the art, with a good education

and background, or someone with the vague

identifier: "Rubber Duck"?


Not even a valiant attempt.
Some of those "good educations" you refer have posted directions on how
to destroy your radio in the form of mods. This is exactly the reason
one should take everything on the internet with a grain of salt.
Apparently, you believe otherwise.


_
And perhaps, just,,perhaps, because the entire world of security experts
SAY SO?
=A0

=A0That is a bit of an exaggeration and a stretch

of the truth.



No, it's not at all.

_
What type accountability is
it you wish to foster upon those who dare say something on usenet with
which you may disagree?


There is nothing wrong with a healthy

disagreement. But when you make unfounded
character assassinations against those you

disagree with and then run and hide behind

your cloak of anonymity, that's not the sign of

a mature person.



If it were a true character assassination and something was injurous or
libelous, and IF you actually believed that bull**** and cared enough to
actually want to do something about it, there are simple channels to
follow and remedy the situation.


Are you suggesting that there are ways to

identify someone who takes serious steps to

hide their identity?



If unfounded character assassinations (libel) was committed, absolutely.


Or are you saying that we all should just have

to deal with abusive insulting and libelous

comments because they are not worth the

trouble to pursue seriously?



You said that.
If my emotions were to take over, I would simply trn the thing off and
walk away. No one is forcing you to partake in what you view as an
injurous electronic arena. It is your choice.


I believe in the example of not saying

something on a forum, that you wouldn't have

the cajones to say to someone's face.


Very noble. Many agree with you. Obviously, those like Dogie, do not.


The fact is that being anonymous eliminates

the small chance that the person you may

insult might someday show up at your door to

have you "explain" yourself in person, thereby

removing that little bit of polite restraint you

might otherwise have.


I have incredible restraint and am overly polite, even to you in many
instances when you began reambling off-topic with insult. I invite
anyone who has a problem with me to come forward....of course, those who
do, encapsulate the very idea you are railing against...not identifying
themselevs, only it doesn't bother me like it does you. I have an open
door policy and will meet anyone from this group for coffee, fishing, or
to continue our rec.radio.cb debates. So far, I have met several from
this forum and plan on meeting more. If I didn't fish for the day, and
we didn't talk about politics or cb, I am certain you and I would get
along just fine on the boat for an afternoon ride talking of nothing but
hammie radio.



Anonymity is the enabler for people to act

inappropriately, and rudely. Using the excuse

that privacy overrides acting in a civilized

manner is weak IMHO.



No one suggested such..but the gist of it, is that American's are
afforded the right to act like idiots, even it offends you to no end.
Using the excuse that it ought be over-ridden is what is weak.


_
At the very least, if this occurred,
one could surely prove such and illustrate the passage in the person's
isp that relates to such behavior and the service will take action.


Usually ISP's will not yank someone's account
unless they become serious problems.



Well, that's what you were talking about, Davie..those serious
"malcontents", I believe was the word you used.



Simply speaking one's opinion (however

insulting or rude) is still a 1st amendment

right, and ISP's are reluctant to go down that

road.



You weren't talking of an opinion, Davie, you spoke of character
assassination.



Having your identity known, at least tempers

the temptation to act like a retard.


And goes against everything the world of security experts and all isp's
tell you. As far as I know, acting like "a retard" is perfectly legal,
but if you had your way, anything you deemed 'acting like a retard"
would most certainly be illegal.


Acting rude, inconsiderate, or anti-social, is

also not illegal, but it's not something a

civilized person would do in a public forum.



Therein lies the answer to what ails you. Not all people in public
forums are civilized. Nevertheless, these traits you consider
uncivilized, exist in these "bad" people you speak of, and unfortunately
the word is made up of good AND bad people.



Why should this newsgroup be treated any

differently than an in-person venue?



I happen to agree with you on this item, but why should others be forced
or made to conform to our view? They shouldn't.



I would not want to make these activities

"illegal". If you want to act like a retard, by all

means, go for it! But we all have the right to

know who it is that is acting like the retard so

that they can properly face the repercussions

that that type of behavior brings.




No,,you don't have the right to know the identity of one just because
you feel he is acting like a retard. But,,keeping with this thought you
put forward, you just described exactly what happened to Dogie.




That's what I mean by accountability. If you

had to "face the music" for acting

inappropriately, you would eventually adopt an

incentive to NOT act that way. The quality of

the forums would increase considerably.




What you feel constitutes "quality" is the opposite of what many others
feel. The loss of personal privacy in this world is never an improvement
in the quality of anything.


_
And to answer your question,,,you weren't thinking, Davie, you never
do,,,,it's what is responsible for your foot in mouth disease and
unfettered anger toward cb anonymity. You gave up your anonymity and are
****ed at those who didn't


Not at all. I stand behind what I say,


You do? Shall we take those inquiries one at a time concerning those
unanswered claims you were asked to provide for? You said a cber was
busted in your area awhile back and went through the courts. I politely
called you on it and asked you to provide some of this "credibility" you
speak of and demand of the rest of the usenet world. You became
insultive and began attacking myself and going off-topic without
providing anything but lipservice. You have failed to produce any of
this "credibility' you demand of others, concerning your claim.

Gee, that's not the way I remember it.

We can post those posts one by one, if the need be. Same with the
Phelps. Perhaps it will jog your failing memory.


I remember making the claim that some I

knew personally was popped by local cops for

interference relating to his CB radio. You

challenged the validity of my claim,



AFTER you refused to cite a credible source, and only after did I
"challenge the validity" of your claim.


first by trying to find some sort of difference

between "a suburb of" and "suburban",

suggesting that I was lying.



You are lying now. YOU were the one to invoke the word "suburb", not I,
and you invoked it when the heat got to hot and you realized, like said,
the court documents would confirm your story. I note you originally
claimed it happened IN Philthadelphia, and when I pressed on, you began
the back pedal and insults, playing games and getting elusive and only
then invoking "suburban" Philly. You provided nothing to this day
concerning this alleged case except more posts full of lipservice and
smoke..



When you failed to find any information



AFTER you claimed it was in Philly, and AFTER you failed to provide
anything at all concerning this case other than your lipservice.


on the

incident (Due to the mistake that you made in

assuming that "suburban philly" meant that it

was within the city limits), you again tried to

insinuate that because you couldn't

understand what the difference in locations

were,


Makes no difference. You provided nothing but insult towards myself and
offtopic rants when asked for a single source of credibility showing
this occurred. You presented nothing.



you again inferred that I was lying.



You were, and are.


Even when I told you the exact town,


You never said the exact town and if you did, you NEVER linked it with
the case you claim occurred or in the same thread. Since you claim
otherwise, force feed me some crow, Davie, and show the world where you
told me what town the cber got busted in and went to court. Just another
in that long line of unsubstantiated bull****,,,,



you were

unable to find anything, which is not surprising
considering how poorly the town keeps

records..

But what have you actually proven?



That you can't correctly "recall" what occurred in past posts, but we
all realized that with your goof on the Phelps that you claimed you
owned, then when asked about your Phelps a few years later, replied
"What Phelps? I WISH I had a Phelps Stationmaster"...LOL,,THAT was the
exact antenna you claimed you owned a few years earler.





You have

proven that:

A. You can't differentiate between the

suburbs, suburban, and within city limits. You

covered this mistake by implying that I was

making the whole thing up.



No mistake. Nothing but lipservice regaridng this item.




B. That you were unable to locate any

information on the subject. (note that this

doesn't mean that there isn't any)




Your ASSuming ignorance in getting in the way of your sense. I looked
for nothing on any "subject". I specifically looked for the case you
cited as receiving a citation. It never happened.



I am telling it as someone who was there who

knew the party involved. I know what

happened. If that isn't enough for you, then so

be it.



Hehe,,it's not me,,it's the law of the land when it comes right down to
it,,the burden of proof is always on the claimant. It is not like a
scientist yelling "The world is flat. I dare you to disprove
me....haha". One doesn't need disprove another's ramblings concerning
their own specialty. In such cases, one merely asks them for their proof
and watches them fall apart.



and I have the credibility



Not on the Philly cber issue you don't, and not on the Phelps antenna
issue you don't, and,,,,ah, that's enough to keep you foaming at the
mouth and rabidly attacking me for a few days.



Defending my position and questioning your

logic is hardly "attacking" you on a personal

level.



When you continue to say "I know it happened and it isn't enough for
*you*,,that is making it personal, as once again, I didn't make the
rules of society, I merely conform to them and in society, the burden of
proof is on the claimant, that's just the way it is



That you cannot understand how someone

would not understand your initial reference to

an antenna that was part of a 10 year old

repeater system, and took my apparent

unfamiliarity as a sign of lying is not my

problem.




Of course it is. You have already demonstrated you are not familiar with
curent FCC law regarding the governing of CB. Now, how many CBer's and
hammies present that are posting regs like yourself, can not remember an
antenna they had, especially if it was part of THEIR repeater system. In
fact, the majority can recall just about every radio set-up they ever
had. I grew up in a home with a moonraker IV many years ago. If someone
asked me "still have the moonraker?".....I would have immediately
recalled the antenna to mind and so would the majority of radio ops. But
not you. If one doesnt lie, one needs not worry about remembering such
bull****.



and accountability to

say so in a serious and mature manner. If I

misbehave like the hordes of anonymous

posters on this group, it becomes a simple

matter to rectify the situation.


It's not up to you Davie, to rectify anything. THAT'S your problem...you
think it is.


It should be every person's responsibility to

"rectify" the problem in order to preserve

civility.



You said you are realist,yet here you sit posting the opposite and
telling us how "it SHOULD be", right after posting you don't partake in
such
behavior. See? Your bull**** is so deep, you can't recall what you wrote
a few paragraphs ago.



Not so when you're anonymous and take

advantage of the many network tools to

conceal your origin. So it allows "bad" people

to continue to be "bad".


No,,the internet does not "allow" people to do anything. PEOPLE allow
themselves to be involved in such fiascos.


When you give people the means to be "bad"

why should you be surprised when they act on
it?


Are you daft? I'm not the one complaining about such things,,,*you* are.
You are the only one complaining about behavior and people's acts. Add
to this your invoking the mythical Voob man to illustrate one of your
non-points, then turn around and invaildate yourself with the claim
concerning posts with no positive personal identity. You need a very
long vacation, Davie.


_
You are illustrating the
risks of the internet perfectly with your citing "bad" people,,,,,all
the more reason to follow the internet security experts advice, Davie.
Just because one doesn't post with their real name, Davie, doesn't make
them "baaad" people.


No, that in itself doesn't. I never said that all

people who post anonymously are "bad", but it
is by far more tempting for them to be, rather

than if they are easily identified.


Now you are concerning yourself with the temptations to your fellow man
caused by anonynmity on the internet. If this is what you need concern
yourself with, you lead a blessed life.
-
,,,,,who had the smarts to follow their ISP suggestions and all security
experts and NOT post on the internet with their real name to a group
dealing with a hobby where no ones identity is revealed.


No one has suggested anything of the sort.

The only thing that they warn is not to give out
personal information such as social security

numbers and such.


Most people know their real name is personal information. See how far
removed your beliefs are from the moral majority..


It takes more than a person's name to invoke

identity theft.



That is only one of the reasons for warning against such practice. And
no, it doesn't take anything more than person's anme for identity theft
on usenet (ANOTHER reason for keeping info secure), and that is exactly
why your full name is considered "personal" inormation by all except
yourself. Another reason for you to take what you read on the intetrnet
with a grain of salt.



If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing

to fear.


That is an old cliche used by authoritarians the world over to cast
doubt on the motives of civil libertarians that actually care about such
things as privacy. The cliche is also often used as a means to shut off
debate on the actual issue, since no one wants other people to think
they may have something to hide. This plays on the psyche of people and
was used by the Nazis for psychological warfare on their own people
expected of being dissidents. Such anti-american insinuation that one
may have something to hide merely for not posting their real name to the
internet as their user name
will not stop me from defending privacy rights that belong to you as
well,, as an American, even if you don't appreciate your liberties or
take advantage of them.


A wonderful speech, but the truth of the

comment remains.



Wrong. Your entire point revolving around having nothing to hide is
invalid and anti-American and is NOT the way we do things herte in the
USA, at least, not yet.


If you have nothing to hide,

you are more likely to be up front about your

motives.



That's NOT what you said,,,you said if you have nothing to fear then you
have nothing to hide, and THAT, my friend is Orwellian totalitarian
bull****.





People who insist on anonymity are

suspicious right from the start.



I give you Thomas Paine.


What is it about their presence, ideas, or

opinion would predicate a need to remain

anonymous?



Unfair retailiation by neanderthals who feel they have a right to decide
how others should live. Unfair imposition by those who don't agree with
what was written. Oppressive governments, like the one that is
responsible for people like you being scared into giving up liberties in
the name of temporary security. People who feel they are somehow owed an
explanation by internet posters and retaliate with personal attacks
concerning offtopic and inquiries of personal matters and lives. The
reasons are endless.




That implies a nefarious motive.



Only to those seeking to curb liberties and freedoms. If the internet is
so bad, why continue to harp about the place you continue to frequent?
It's not like you are part of the solution or anythiing, as your posts
are impotent when relating to what governs usenet posting concerning
identity.

_
Add to the fact that you can no longer partake in your old haunts and dx
on cb because someone would probably turn your azz in...if you weren't
such a jerkoff and were cool with people, you could operate with no fear
and talk dx on cb with the rest of us who enjoy it.


I never liked talking DX on CB after the first

hundred or so contacts that I made almost 30

years ago. DX is nothing more than a source

of irritation to me, as the noise level prevents

comfortable local chit-chatting.

Fine, No one faults you for it.


You have.


Cite it. Show it. Link it. Another incorrect claim (read: LIE) you said
took place but never happened. But I understand your need for such
fantasy as resorting to claiming I have faulted you for local chit
chatting. It justifies your mania.
_
But for you to come out here and
constantly complain about what bothers you over and over concerning cb,
and tell others who really do enjoy cb and dx what is wrong with them
doing it,in a cb group, no less, illustrates your motives, whether you
are aware of your own behavior or not.


And just what are "my motives" if you going to

be presumptuous as to suggest that you might
know?


Nothing at all presumptious conerning your constant problems with all
that cb has to offer. You never post anything positive relating to
CB,,,just always complaining about it in some manner or another. When
you're not complaining about the CB, you're busy fancying yourself as
looking at the outdated mode of communication as some type valid
representation as a "reflection of society" as a whole. And when you're
not doing THAT, you're busy not remembering what you said in past posts.


Perhaps, It's just that I remember (fondly) how
CB radio was in the 1970's.


Yea,,well so do I, but if you can't lend a hand get out of the road
'cause your old world is rapidly aging. So you better start swimming or
you'll sink like a stone, for the times, they are a changin'.


People played loose and fast with the rules,

but despite all that, they were civil (most of the
time) and the ratio of constructive or good

clean fun conversations to idiots was far

greater than it is today.



Not where I live. CB is pretty cool where I live and has been for some
time.

Maybe, my biggest flaw is hoping that the

FCC, through legislation and enforcement, will
do what people's inner conscience and

morality fail to do, and that is act civilly and

considerately.



The government has no business in legislating personal morality when
another is not harmed.
If you're offended, shut it off, close the book, walk away.


Any desire that I might have to talk long

distance can easily be taken care of LEGALLY
on the ham bands, so your conjecture is like

many of your others, just plain wrong.


The hammie bands are dead for HF DX,,they got nothing on eleven meter,
including freeband.

Hello? There is nothing magical about

propagation on 11 meters. If 11 meters is

open then 10, 12, and 15 are also open.



Once again,,they got nothing (in other words, there is no comparison) on
eleven meter. The crowds simply aren't there to make the contacts
as they are on 11.



When 11 isn't open, I can still talk on 20, 40,

80 and 160 meters. If you want DX, there's no

more consistent place to find it than on one of

the several ham bands.



Depends what you define as DX. I prefer HF DX, no repeaters, my own low
power and rig. Nothing but me and mutha' nature.


When the sunspot cycle is high, 11 is wide

open, and talking DX is like shooting fish in a

barrel.


Shooting fish in a barrel was pioneered by repeaters for HF DX not cb.
Get it right. 11 meter is much more difficult than 10 meter repeater
contacts.


But right now, the cycle is low, and DX

opportunities are sporadic. I'm betting that I'll

find more DX opportunities on the H.F bands

than you will solely on 11 at the current time.

BTW, Who is Kim T. Hall?

Exactly.

Exactly what? Or is that whom?

Either way will work.


Oh, and you might not believe this, but I'm

glad that you survived the storm. I don't like to

see bad things happen to anyone.

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj


Why would I not believe that? Only subhumans wish ill will on others for
stating their opinions.

So at least I'm higher than a subhuman on

your scale eh?


Oh yea. I think you're one who gets caught p in the moment while
posting.



Dave

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj