On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave*Hall)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave*Hall)
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.
Yes they are. Ironically, in my new area, there is one channel with
any decent local activity. But as luck would have it, the people on
the channel rarely just "talk". They are usually involved with showing
off another new noise toy, or engaging in the verbal equivalent of WWF
smackdown. The rest of the band is pretty much dead now.
I'd love to have it they way you have described.
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".
I tend to look at a glass that has 50% contents as half full also. The
problem is that when running across people, with respect to morality
and consideration, it seems that the glass is slowly dropping below
50%, and it's hard to see the positive side.
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.
You know, I really have to laugh when you accuse me of being a
socialist. That is so far off track it's really funny. I am the
biggest fan of the free market, capitalism, freedom, and personal
responsibility. Hell, I'm voting for Bush, that's about as far away
from a socialist as you can get.
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".
As I stated before, I am a big supporter of the concept of freedom.
But with the RIGHT of freedom, comes the RESPONSIBILITY to follow the
rules of civilized society. It's not a free ride. If a significant
percentage of the population fails to recognize their responsibility
as a member of this civilized society, then their rights should be
proportionally removed as well. If people choose to hide behind the
freedom and "right" of privacy in order to commit crimes or subvert
the moral framework of society, then I am in favor of plugging those
loopholes in our Constitution which allows this type of malcontented
behavior to proliferate.
People who live honest, righteous lives have nothing to worry about,
as nothing will change. Only those with something to hide (or lose)
will have any fear. When I see people complaining loudly about this
logic, I have to wonder what it is that they are hiding........
_
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?
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?
As long as I have been here. I am an engineer, and I've been repairing
and working on radios for close to 30 years, so I have an interest in
serious technical topics, as they relate to CB.
So now it's your turn:
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?
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.
So as someone looking for technical information, you should take "bad"
advice at face value, without even the hint that it might be "bad"
advice? What accountability is there if someone takes someone's "bad"
advice and in the process ruins a once perfectly good radio?
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.
Hmmm.... The law states that it's illegal to talk on the freeband, yet
it doesn't stop you. With hams (At least the good ones), following the
rules is not just a requirement, it's part of preserving the service
as a usable venue for the many facets that the service offers.
People don't identify on CB for the same
reason.
Wrong. One is NOT required to identify on CB.
No, they are not required to. But the fact that many go out of their
way to conceal who they are, imply a certain suspicious motive.
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.
I have nothing to hide. One might wonder about you though. What dark
secret prevents you from revealing who you are?
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.
Again, if there is no accountability, then there is nothing to prevent
the forum for degenerating into spam postings, vulgar language, and
general lack of respect. Sound familiar? Do you LIKE what this forum
has become?
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".
**In 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.
But, you see, if someone posted a well written, but "poison" mod as a
dupe to unsuspecting CBers, then that person needs to held accountable
for that. Thank you for making my case for me.
And perhaps, just,,perhaps, because the entire world of security experts
SAY SO?
*That is a bit of an exaggeration and a stretch of the truth.
No, it's not at all.
I have not read anywhere where any "expert" tells you not to post on a
forum with your real name. The do caution you not to reveal too many
details, like SSN, credit card info, or other unrelated personal
details.
I don't ask for any more detail than what a callsign lookup on QRZ.com
would provide.
_
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.
How? When people hide behind anonymous remailers, servers, public WIFI
access nodes, and NAT routers, how can you find out exactly who they
are?
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.
I'm asking if that is how you feel?
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.
The same "turn it to the left" mentality that abusive CBers use to
force good people off of the CB band? Decent people should be forced
to yield to malcontents, rather than fight back?
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.
Doug has personal issues of his own. I suspect they transcend those of
radio operation.
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.
How does one "come forward" if we don't know who you are or where you
live?
...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.
Ok, I'm coming to Orlando in October. I might make a detour to Tampa.
Where do you want to meet?
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.
Nothing wrong about talking about CB. I love the hobby (at least in
the old days), and I could tell you a few good stories. But in order
for you to talk authoritatively about hammie radio, that would imply
that you are a ham yourself (or at least should be). You've implied
similar before. The fact that you won't admit it one way or the other
probably speaks more about your fear of identification, considering
your admitted behavior on the freeband. Don't worry, I have a whole
website full of past antics, and no one has busted me yet. As I've
said before, I have nothing to hide......
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.
So then you assert that an American's right to act like an anti-social
idiot deserves more consideration than other people's right to expect
civilized behavior in public places?
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.
Character assassination is either based on truth, or opinion. If the
claims are true then they deserve to be brought out. If they are
simply opinions, then it becomes a process to determine whether there
was any "real" damage done. Again this becomes complicated if people
"hide" well.
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.
So then what is your conclusion? Should good people be turned away
from public forums (Both radio and internet) by the behavior of the
bad people? Do good people not have some right to protection from the
worst of the bad people? Isn't this in the best interest of society?
Is the right of privacy so important that you would allow it to
supersede keeping public places to at least a minimum amount of
decorum?
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.
Why not? Personal freedom does not (or should not) extend to the
ruination of other people's freedom or right of access.
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.
If the behavior is continual and affects more than just one person,
then that changes things.
But,,keeping with this thought you
put forward, you just described exactly what happened to Dogie.
As it should be. Everyone who acts in that manner should be removed
from society where they can no longer harm the activities of others.
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.
Why? Why should it matter if people know who you are? Are you THAT
paranoid?
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.
I don't have a credible source. I didn't "find" the incident. I was
personally involved with it.
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,
I never EVER claimed that it happened IN philthy. Never. I said that
it happened in SUBURBAN (Meaning in the suburbs) of Philly. Why I
chose that wording instead of just saying that it happened in
Norristown, should be obvious. This is an international forum. Ask
someone from another geographical area if they're ever heard of a
relatively small town (such as Norristown) and they will most likely
not. But mention a popular city as a geographical point of reference,
and it's another story.
and when I pressed on, you began
the back pedal
What you call "back pedal" I call "clarification. Nothing changed
except the precise wording.
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..
What more do you want? I told you all the details. I never knew the
defendant's last name (part of that anonymity aspect of CB) only that
the name he went by was "Floyd" (Which from other people, is his
middle name, his fist name is Anthony). It happened in Norristown Pa
(A suburb of philly) in the late 90's.
When you failed to find any information
AFTER you claimed it was in Philly,
I never claimed it was IN philly. You will not find any post which
claims that. That you feel that suburban philly means the same thing
as IN philly was your mistake.
and AFTER you failed to provide
anything at all concerning this case other than your lipservice.
I don't need to go through the trouble to pacify you. If you want to
go through the trouble to request (at your cost) microfiche records,
then go for it. But because you can't find it on the internet, does
not mean that it doesn't exist, nor that I "lied" about it.
you again inferred that I was lying.
You were, and are.
Nope. It was the truth. I only wish I had a way to prove it to you, so
you can feel as foolish as you should.
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 asked for it, you got it: Enjoy your crow....
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=No...x.net&rnum= 1
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.
7 or 8 years earlier. An antenna that was a part of a repeater system,
not my own shack.
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.
You can't look for something and expect to find much without key
particulars, like the defendant's name, which I can't give you as I
didn't know all of it. Not all information is available on the
internet.
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.
It's true as far as I'm concerned. You made it one of your life's
goals to disprove it. If you want to believe that I lied, then feel
free. It doesn't make nay difference to me, or to the guy who had to
pay a fine because of it
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.
Yet you ignore certain other rules of society when it suits you.
Pardon me if I don't buy this high road of societal responsibility you
are attempting to drive on.
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.
Quite a few. Especially when hit with a quick question from out in
left field. I don't look at the repeater system's equipment as "my
personal station".
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****.
I never had a stationmaster as part of my antenna system, so I won't
remember it.
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.
Nothing hypocritical about it at all. It's one thing to live and work
in the real world, and deal with it as such. It's another to ponder
how to correct the ills of society. I recognize the faults of society
and deal with them within my limits. But that doesn't prevent me from
looking for a better solution
See? Your bull**** is so deep, you can't recall what you wrote
a few paragraphs ago.
You are so confrontational and literal that you take every small
nuance difference as a contradiction.
_
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.
There is a difference between identifying the source of a problem and
"concern" for it.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing
to fear.
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****.
No, I said if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. I
shouldn't have to explain the nuances to you. If you have nothing to
hide, you are more likely to be up front and honest (That is the
"fear").
People who insist on anonymity are
suspicious right from the start.
I give you Thomas Paine.
I don't want him.
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.
Woah! So you believe that it is unfair that people who state their
position should be held accountable? People should be allowed to lob
anonymous rhetoric bombs for little more than disruption of society,
without repercussions? We all have rights, and we all have
responsibilities. You have as much of a voice in policy as I do. But
if you want to be taken seriously, have the balls to sign your name to
the bottom.
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.
And equally valid. You have yet to justify a good reason why someone
should be allowed to hide behind a cloak of anonymity. If their
intentions are serious and worthy of note, then they have nothing to
fear by attaching their name to the bottom. Conversely, why should
anyone take seriously anything written by someone who doesn't have the
intellectual fortitude to sign their name to it.?
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.
Interestingly, I am involved on a peripheral basis, with the proposed
technology changes which would make internet identification automatic.
It would eliminate security concerns for people engaged in internet
commerce. It would also reduce or eliminate spammers, criminals, and
other purveyors of the dark side of the internet. So I am somewhat a
part of the eventual solution.
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.
And that is a BAD thing? I prefer quality to quantity. I prefer to
have an hour long QSO with a DX station without having to swat at the
DX chasers like flys who are constantly barging in on frequency.
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.
Why would someone consider operating through a repeater as DX?
On the HF ham bands DX is normally considered anything that is not
stateside. On VHF and higher, DX could be 100 miles, or the moon.
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.
Who is talking about repeaters? Where are there repeaters on any band
below 10 meters?
Get it right. 11 meter is much more difficult than 10 meter repeater
contacts.
How difficult can it be when you have all those "crowds"?
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.
Evasive are we? So who is Kim T. Hall?
A relation of mine perhaps? One that you found through some sort of
internet search? That's the funny thing about having a name like mine.
I might as well be anonymous as common as the name is. It's hard to
sift through all the information your searches come up with when you
enter my name in.
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.
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.
So you believe that there's some hope for me eh?
Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj
|