RadioBanter - View Single Post

August 19th 04, 08:25 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
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:
I can't help note but you have begun your games again, selectively
snipping questions you pose and have great difficulty when given replies
with which you disagree. Editing your gaffes so that they no longer
appear illustrates only that you not only recognize such self-created
buffoonery, but go to great lengths to attempt to conceal it.
By introducing the behavior of selective snipping and editing of your
replies, you have intentionally compromised the thread. What you fail to
comprehend is such behavior merely serves to facilitate your own
degrading commmunicative skills.

_
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,

No, it's not everyone's problem,,it's YOUR problem. Not everyone sees CB
as full of malcontents. Some see hammies like yourself as the
malcontents for feeling you have some sort inalienable right to demand
cbers jump through the same hoops you must jump through regarding hammie
radio.

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.

Then what is preventing from you from getting on that channel and
speaking your mind to those people as you do on here concerning your
radical and minority beliefs. After all, that would make you proactive
instead of reactive like you have always been here, and I am certain we
can count on you to offer your beliefs to those on the air using those
noise toys that have you bleeding from the ears and nose, because we all
know you believe in saying the same things here as you would face to
face. Try it with the noise toys and on the radio with these
people,,tell them they are the equivalent of the WWF. Report back.

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.

Not with CB, society, the FCC, and personal privacy rights you don't

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.

That IS a problem of yours, no doubt. I still find the majority of
people to be good hearted. Must be southern thing (shrug),,if I'm wrong,
I'm sure a yankee will correct me to say it is you that are wrong and
that people, even in the north, are generally good people.

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.

It's true, In fact, this is another of those little times that I will
not only remind you that we have had this conversation long ago and many
times, but that in what remains one of my more favorite exchanges with
you, you not only embrace socialist beliefs, but go as far as to DEFEND
those beliefs and offer several reasons WHY you believe that bull****.

That is so far off track it's really funny.

You not being aware of how snowballed this adminsitration has sheople
like you isn't at all funny, it's frighteningly pathetic.

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.

I'll make this very simple. Bush swore with his hand upon the Bible that
he would uphold and protect the constitution. Immediately after taking
office, he launched an assault upon it. His reasons for doing so are
irrelevant, as are yours.

_
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.

Except when it comes to others exercising THEIR freedoms that you think
should be curbed,,such as the right to anonymity on the internet, just
for starters.

But with the RIGHT of freedom, comes the

RESPONSIBILITY to follow the rules of

civilized society. It's not a free ride.

Ride? What is this ride you speak of? You have rambled from speaking of
anonymity on the net, (one's right) and your problems with it saying one
shouldn;t have that right, and once again linked CB to society and
presented your problems with all three in discombobulated fashion. You
still need that vacation, Dave.

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.

3% of the population of the US HAVE been "proportionally removed" due to
poorly constructed laws that created non-violent criminals. We have more
incarcerations than any other country on Earth. Keeping with your
radical and oppressive beliefs, we must have the worst, evil, people to
be found on the planet, eh?

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.

Again, Thank God the majority do not share your belief. Free society is
not perfect and those "loopholes" will always be there in order to make
a free society work. Plugging what you wrongly refer to as "loopholes"
in the US Constitution does nothing but take away rights of ALL
Americans, whether they choose to exercise those rights or not. Just
because you choose not to, you damn sure don't have the right to tell
others that they should not be able to exercise same and as it stands
now, such is the law.

People who live honest, righteous lives have

nothing to worry about, as nothing will change.

Bull****. Over 50 people have been exonerated by DNA this year alone for
crimes they were wrongly accused. Just last week a man was released from
death row after 22 years when a DNA completely abdicated and absolved
him from the murder for which he was doing time. I won't even bother to
inform you of the rate of crooked cops in cities like LA and NY, as you
are myopically not aware and it is apparent that you feel these innocent
victims who lose their lives and families are just the acceptable kill
and error ratio.

Only those with something to hide (or lose) will
have any fear.

Again, bull****.

When I see people complaining loudly about

this logic, I have to wonder what it is that they

are hiding........

And when people see you demanding personal identity of usenet posters
which goes against all advice from experts and security experts and
privacy experts, especially when taken into consideration the usenet
group is dedicated to CB, an anonymous hobby, the majorty has to wonder
why it is you seek such personal information as it is not relevant to
anyone but yourself in this group..

_
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?

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.

Well, there is yet another problem of yours that you answered yourself.
Since you see this specific forum as such a poor venue, you need to look
to other places for your needs, 'casue you been at it for years here
pitching your bitch about CB yet you still haven't figured out that you
are not going to to control others actions. Of course, you can invoke
that "fence sitter" that never posts and claim you are trying to reach
this mythical creature. Perhaps that will allow you to believe a slight
victory and you won't feel like you are waging a fight that "has to
start somewhere" to clean up radio to the point you wish it.

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?

I do not concern myself with the manner in which usenet is constructed.
You have so many problems with this group, but crying about what you
don't like is reactive, Dave. It won't change a thing. I mean, now
you're alluding to the manner in which this group is governed..somehing
totally transparent to you or I and beyond your ability to do anything
about. Have you ever realized you spend a great deal of time worrying
about something over which you have no control? Of course, you do. It
drives you to frustration and it manifests here.

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?

No accountabilty, which is why the internet and isps and usenet have
discalimers you agree to prior to being able to access such information.
You are really wound tighter than a slinky, Dave. You tend to forget,
deliberate, bad information has been posted here by a certain hammie
scumbag, that gave directions on how to ruin a radio,,,, disguised as a
mod. Sorry you feel what you find on usenet and the internet is so
credible. No wonder you are voting for Bush, as only the gullible are
doing so.

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.

Freebanding has nothing to do with hammies identifying "on ham radio for
a reason". Try and remain on your invoked topic. You claimed people
identify on the hammie radio for the same reason,,,,,you're wrong. It's
the law to identify on hammie radio, it is NOT the law to identify on
usenet or cb, but you have really been confused with the law lately, as
it relates to CB.

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.

Heheh,,,,of course they do, that is what one is supposed to do on
cb,,,conceal their personal identity. You really don't know much about
anything CB related.

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?

Oh, I have no problem revealing who I am...in person. What great fear
stops you from completing your mission concerning my personal
information? If you wanted to know that bad, you would come down and
meet me like others have..unless, of course, you have some dark secret
fear, preventing you from doing so, and you would rather whine and cry
here about something so bloody off-topic that only you are consumed with
it. In that way, there is no danger of you having to live up to your
word and saying things in person instead of on usenet that are offtopic,
such as 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.

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?

Sure does, ,,,, as only you are heretically demanding accountablilty
from usenet internet strangers. Lets see,,,,who would you start with?
LMOA.....you're fallen and twisted yourself again, dude..

Do you LIKE what this forum has become?
=A0=A0

I do. I have met many good folks, I have daily emails with regs, I have
anything in the manner of radio, cb, hammie equipment I could possibly
want, and I owe much of it to this group. tyvm.

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.

Sure you have. You have inquired as to my work on past occasion, what
town I live in, my name, my call sign,,,why, in fact, you have overly
concerned yourslef with my identity for years and you;re still doing
it..look at the lenght of this thread,,,all because you are still
experiencing growing pains because the law regarding internet use is not
the way you wish it. Another example of what you want and not the way
the realism exists.

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.

No, they DON'T need held accountable for that. If you read your user
agreements when accessig the internet and usenet and all that governs
such, you would find disclaimers for such info. This is where your
socialist views and censorship are magnified. You have maintained in the
past that, for example, instructions for homemade bombs (just for a
SINGLE of endless examples) should be censored. Your argument is weak.
If the information is out there, you want the person that put the
information out there to be "held accountable. Since that is the way you
feel, why did you agree to the terms of usenet access via your isp ?
Since you no longer agree to the terms of service, you should inform
your isp of your decision.

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

That is a bit of an exaggeration and a stretch o

f 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.

Not surprised. You haven't read the laws in over twenty years governing
CB radio, and you haven't read your terms of services, either.

The do caution you not to reveal too many

details, like SSN, credit card info, or other

unrelated personal details.

Wrong,,,they do not say 'details",,,they say "personal information" and
your semantic slide is not achieving the shift for which you were
reaching.

I don't ask for any more detail than what a

callsign lookup on QRZ.com would provide.

Yet, you carry on and invoke your own version of what usenet SHOULD be
and how YOU feel it should operate when you are denied this information.
Despite your claim, your views are NOT those of a realist, but of one
who clamors for a way in which it simply isn't.