On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:18:11 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

Sorry Dave, had to run out for awhile. Let us carry on,,,,

I enjoy the civil tone. As long as it stays this way, I'm cool.

Part III
From: N3CVJ
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?

Because they have the same rights as we do.


Personal freedom does not (or should not)
extend to the ruination of other people's
freedom or right of access.


And usenet does neither, nor does CB.

When legally operating people are shouted off of CB radio by illegal
stations "squashing mud ducks", their right of access has been
infringed. On Usenet, no one can "squash" a "mud duck" every one is
allowed to voice their opinions. But there are no restraints for those
who can't maintain a civil tone.


Your argument makes the point against the Patriot Act quite nicely,
though.

In what way?


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.

There would be no question about whether or not someone is acting like
a retard. This is beyond the subjective opinion of one user over
another.


If the behavior is continual and affects more
than just one person, then that changes
things.



Well now, the word "if" and the entrance of injurous posts constitutes
an entirely new concept and has no relation to you claiming you have the
right to know one's identity on usenet merely because you feel he is
"acting like a retard". Nice shuffle, but it non-effective.

What did you think I meant when I used the term "acting like a
retard"? A simple disagreement of opinion does not qualify as "acting
like a retard". Someone who acts like a retard is someone who
contributes nothing positive and verbally harasses the regular users
to the point that they take the fun out of participation.


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.





Wrong." Acting like a retard" is not illegal.

Neither is listening to loud rap music outside. But do it at 1:00 Am
and guaranteed the cops will be there to "oppress" your right, for the
betterment of the rest of the community.


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? What would you do differently if suddenly we all knew who you
were? It certainly wouldn't change how I interact as I'm already
up-front about who I am.


Why? Why should it matter if people know
who you are? Are you THAT paranoid?

Why is none of your concern.

But is undoubtedly the whole reason why you defend this notion so
vehemently.


Why I choose to exercise my American
birthrights is none of your concern. Once again, you are owed no
explanation.

That you would flaunt you rights as an excuse to allow people to
victimize other people at the expense of their rights is also telling.


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.


Of course you don't and of course you were. There are those who insist
they were abducted by aliens who also have no credible source.

That doesn't mean that it didn't happen.




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


Exactly. And then you invoked Norristown, which is NOT a suburb of
Philthy, NOT on any area maps of Philthy, and pays no bills or taxes to
Philthy, and has no mail go through Philthy. It meets NONE of the
criteria for a suburb of Philthy, ,,in fact, it's nowhere near Philthy..

It IS a suburb of philly, as it resides in an area which surrounds
the city area. In any case it was your hangup of semantics that caused
you to look in the wrong place. The worst you can accuse me of is
incorrectly stating the location. It doesn't change the particulars.

Oh, and thank you for admitting that I DID provide the name of the
exact town.



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.

This being an international forum doesn't stop you from invoking
domestic (American) law, so you can;t invoke it as a defense for your
beahvior now.

American law applies to me as I am a citizen of America. But as a
referential courtesy to those who don't line in "my neck of the woods"
I used general locational terms. I never intended to be detail
specific at the time I posted it. That you took it as such is a
failing on your part.



What more do you want?


Umm....perhaps this credibility you always speak of . You hold one who
doesn't respond to your demands for personal information as not credible
on usenet. The rest of the world holds one who makes claims with no
substantiation as not credible.



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.


Sure you did,,,here it is again:
"This happened about 5 years ago IN
suburban Philadelphia.."

Suburban philadelphia is not the same thing as being in the city of
philadelphia. If I had intended to state that it was in the city I
would have said "in the city of Philadelphia".
You still won't admit your mistake.


That you feel that suburban philly means the
same thing as IN philly was your mistake.


Wrong. That you called it that with, once again, nothing to substantiate
it except your belief, does not consititute what makes a suburbia of a
city. Once again, some of those parameters are which defines a suburb of
a city are outlined above and Norristown meets none of them.

Not in the minds of the people who live here, all of whom refer to
themselves as living in the suburbs of phila. Even as far out in the
sticks as I now live even the news media refers to this area as the
"philadelphia suburbs". But I guess all these people are wrong and you
are right?

If I was making the whole thing up, do you think I would waste so much
time on semantics? What difference does it make now? You know where
exactly it happened now, so to continue to argue the point now is
counterproductive and wasteful of bandwidth.




If you want to go through the trouble to
request (at your cost) microfiche records,



No need. As far as a court of law would be concerned, I have presented
the burden of proof that your claims were false. I have been "pacified"
over this issue regardless or not of whether you feel that such is your
decision.

This is the internet remember, there is no accountability. So anything
that anyone says is already suspect.


You are the one unable to provide for your claims. That you feel another
should feel foolish for your inability to do so is troubling.


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



There it is again,,,,Norristown, a town that has nothing to do with
Philadelphia except in your mind. You will find nothing anywhere
denoting Norristown as even remotely associated as a suburb of Philthy.

Except by the people who live here. I don't purport to know what the
people in the greater Tampa area should refer to themselves as, so I
would expect that you not be so presumptuous as to assume the same
from my area.



Not "a" repeater system,,,YOUR repeater system. You referred to it as
"my repeater".

I built it. I am a 1/3 of an owner of it. It is NOT located at my


You can't look for something and expect to f

ind much without key particulars,

like the defendant's name, which I can't give

you as I didn't know all of it.



YOU not being able to doesn't mean others are unable. And sure I can,
dave,,,I can do just that with the very simple process of elimination.
You start with the town and backtrack to the corresponding year or two
which you already gave us indirectly,,from there, one eliminates all
charges except for discorderly conduct. From there, it's a matter of
checking those charged with the offense in the corresponding time frame
and walla walla,,,,,,,,,,and that is but one way of many and by far the
easiest.

Not disorderly conduct, it was disturbing the peace. Get it right.
And you still assume that this information is on the internet. It may
not be. The incident occurred in the 1996-1998 time frame


Not all information is available on the internet.


Exactly, so I have no clue why you continue to assume it is.

Then use your "magic" to produce the info. Although once you find it,
I suspect you will not admit it. You don't strike me as someone who
takes being proven wrong all that well.

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