On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:25:07 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
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:
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.

I snip the fat, as this thread has already grown to the point where it
is no longer comfortable to follow. I snip the oldest parts first.
There is no "game" involved. Brevity is a virtue. One you have yet to
appreciate, it would seem.


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.

I guess in all honesty, it is highly geography dependant. Trust me, in
my area, there are a great many malcontents. I apologize to the fine
CBers in your area, if they are not of the same (im)moral caliber.


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.

What "hoops" are there to just acting in a civilly responsible manner?


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.

Nothing. I've done it already. But what good will it do? All it does
it cause further arguments. You try to tell a nut that he's nuts, and
they'll swear you're crazy. Finally I realize that it's no use. Why
would I want to change a bunch of complete morons into people I'd want
to associate with, if that's even remotely possible? You can't make an
idiot into a normal person, so why try? Birds of a feather stick
together. My only hope is that a group of decent people will decide to
start another channel that I would be happy to participate in. I'm
already working on a CB reunion for some of the old crew that I've
contacted. This might spawn a "retro net" where we fire up that
vintage gear for some old fashioned CB fun.


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.

Been there, done that. How do you rationalize the detrimental effects
of distorted audio, such as that produced by an echo mike, to someone
who has that "kid on Christmas" look on his face at the discovery of
his latest toy (that he probably spend half his fast food paycheck
for)? He doesn't care that it makes his audio hard to understand. He
just thinks it's "cool". Must be something in the water around
here.....


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

Because, in those cases, the glass in much less than 50% full.

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.

That all depends on which circles you run in. I find most hams in my
area to be good people. I find my neighbors to be good people. I can't
say the same for the "seedier" towns, or the trash that populates the
most popular CB channel.


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****.

Do you even know what a socialist is? Do you still think (like you
once posted) that a liberal and a libertarian are the same thing?

Please provide any exchanges that I have authored where I defended the
concepts of socialism. I believe in limited government. I believe in
personal responsibility (and accountability). I believe that
government should not restrict access and actions, but should
prosecute those who abuse their rights.


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.

Only if you have your own partisan beliefs and buy into the rhetoric
from equally clueless detractors.

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.

He did nothing to the Constitution. He merely granted the same powers
currently afforded to law enforcement, to those involved with the
fight against terrorism. Have you read the entire Patriot act? I have,
and I find nothing in it that isn't necessary if we want to improve
our chances against those who take advantage of our lax security to do
us harm.

_
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".

You have no way of knowing what the majority of Americans, CBers, Hams
or anyone else thinks or wants. Unless of course, you're omnipotent.
You only know what YOU want and the small circle of people you
associate want.


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.

There is no good reason why someone needs to hide. You can't give me a
good reason why someone deserves the right to be able to hide from
others. Especially when that right threatens the rights of other
people to the expectation of civil discourse.

When that right conflicts with the right to expect civility and
accountability in public places then I favor civility and
accountability.


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.

I'm sorry you cannot put the pieces together to form the big picture.
All rights come with corresponding responsibilities. You can't hide
behind a right, without being expected to be responsible enough to not
abuse it. That's what I mean by "no 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.




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?

Maybe we do. When we allow people the option to abuse the system, is
it any wonder that there will be a percentage of people who do?
Criminals have reneged on their responsibilities and therefore had
their rights suspended. That is as it should be.


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.

Prove to me that this is a true statement.

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.

As long as people use these loopholes against society, our nation is
diminished in quality of life.


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.

Non-sequiter. This has nothing to do with anonymity.


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.

You are talking about apples and oranges. We were talking about the
right to anonymity and how that right can disrupt a civil discourse.
Now you are trying to link this to abuses and mistakes in the criminal
justice system. They do not equate. If people are truly innocent they
do not deserve to be incarcerated. But if they are guilty, they
deserve their punishment. But the biggest question I have is how do
these incidents relate to the right of anonymity?




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.


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.


CB radio is full of "CB science" myths, which claim fantastic
improvements in performance. I am one of a few on here who will throw
cold water on these myths and debunk them with proven R.F. practices
when I can. This benefits anyone who might have been contemplating
spending a good chunk of cash on something that WILL disappoint them.
I've had 30 years of experience, and I know generally what works and
what doesn't.

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.

I didn't ask you whether or not you concern yourself with regulating
the forum. I asked if you think it SHOULD be an unimpeded
free-for-all.


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.

So now you are proposing that all information found on the internet is
suspect? Then what GOOD is it, if you can't trust what you read? All
the more reason for a greater accountability. Thank you again for
making yet another point for me.



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".

But we are talking about the law. Why is it a given that hams follow
the law with respect to ID'ing, yet it's ok to ignore the law WRT
freebanding?

Try and remain on your invoked topic.

I am, it's not my fault you don't see the relationship.

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.

Why would concealing one's identity on CB be any more important than
someone doing so on the ham band? Isn't privacy important there? Once
again, the anonymous appeal of CB implies a potentially sinister
motive.



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?

What "mission" is that? You are confusing me with Frank. I'm not the
one who's looking for information on you. I just wonder why you hide
behind a cloak of anonymity.


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.

Like I posted before, I'll be in Orlando in October. When and where do
you want to meet?

Do you LIKE what this forum has become?
**


I do.

So you like the barrage of "homo" spam, the bickering, the name
calling, the cessation of most of the technical discussions? The
rude, confrontational demeanor expressed by many of the participants?


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.

Who have you met personally? I'd like to see them come forward and
confirm it.


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.

I only inquired about your occupation when you made claims of being a
"professional writer" one time, and then in the "information gathering
business" (ironic occupation for someone who claims to relish privacy)
on another occasion, and then a charter boat captain yet again. There
are some inconsistencies which indicate deception.


.look at the lenght of this thread,

Yet you lambast me for trying to clean it up and reduce the overall
length.

,,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.

No, I'm just seeking a civil discussion with you to discover why you
hold such subversive views, and why it is so important to you that you
be allowed to hide behind a cloak of anonymity. I am keeping my tone
civil although I've noticed you starting to become personally
insulting. When you cross that line, I'm finished.

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 there is no accountability then there is no means to insure
accuracy or civility. That is a bad thing IMHO. It lessens the
usefulness of the internet. Without accountability, the internet is
little more than a playground for the socially deviate and pornography
starved people to slither though and disrupt.



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.

There is nothing socialist about demanding accountability. And
demanding accountability is not censorship. Nobody is suggesting that
people be prevented from engaging in any activity, only the we all
know who it is that's doing it.


You have maintained in the
past that, for example, instructions for homemade bombs (just for a
SINGLE of endless examples) should be censored.

I never said that this information should be censored. Only that those
who USE this information should be prosecuted.

Your argument is weak.

It would be, if it were the truth.

If the information is out there, you want the person that put the
information out there to be "held accountable.

Well, the liberals in this country are all about the idea of
deflecting responsibility to other (deeper pocket) entities. Holding
bar owners responsible for a drunk patron becoming involved in a DUI
accident. How would this be any different?

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