On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:21:10 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:


Oh, I know what Philthy is about...been there many times.

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.

You are entitled to see things from the other side of the glass, as it
were. But there is a big difference. Us "snobby" hams are not
interfering with other hams while pursuing our fringe activities, and
insisting that our "right" to pursue it, overrides everyone else
rights to enjoy their piece of the hobby. Yes, there are hams who do,
but I do not associate with them.

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


Read again: "same hops you must jump through regarding hammie radio".
That you responded with hammie radio as an example in acting civilly
responsible is not the best example you could have chosen,,in fact, it's
a poor one.

Again, like on CB, this is largely geographically dependant. But I
will say, that I've personally witnessed far more rule abuses on CB
than on ham radio.


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?
-
I've asked that of you concerning here and your answer was always along
the lines of "you have got to start somewhere" and "someone has got to
take a stand". It appears you shy aways from live real-time
confrontation you claimed would take place in the same manner in which
you conduct yourself on usenet.

I don't "shy away" but at some point you have to realize that it's an
unwinnable situation, or you realize that you can put a 3 piece suit
on a pig, and he's still a pig. Even if I convince the idiots that
their echo boxes and distorted class "C" amplifiers sound like crap,
they're still idiots.


All it does it cause further arguments.
-
Same on usenet.

This is true.


You try to tell a nut that he's nuts, and they'll
swear you're crazy.
-
In all fairness and I'm not being cruel or mean or malicious, but coming
from one who holds talking dx is technically a felony, and that roger
beeps are illegal on cb, that doesn't mean much.

Roger beeps were at one time classified as an "amusement" device, and
as such was prohibited in 95.413 (6). While it is true that I cannot
find a rule which specifically addresses these devices, I can neither
find any information which specifically allows them, along the same
lines as selective call tones are specifically outlined in 95.412 (b).

Since there isn't a definitive rule in place, you can make the case
that they are, in fact, legal (or at the very least not worthy of
consideration). But it seems funny that this feature has not appeared
on most mainstream legal radios.

Echo boxes are a totally different issue. They fall clearly into the
classification of "amusement or entertainment" devices and as such are
specifically prohibited by 95.413.

_
You can't make an idiot into a normal person,
so why try? Birds of a feather stick together.

-

Which is why you have defended Dogie and attempted to present an
incredibly spaced out and fantasized case for Keith framing him, even
though the FCC busted him for jamming.

I never accused Keith of framing Doug. I wish you would look back on
your links and realize that. I postulated that it was possible that he
might have been framed, but I never accused any one person of doing
it.


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.
-
Now that might bring back some of the fun with cb that has eluded you
for some time. *Heck, we have get togethers all the time here. On any
given day one can tune in and hook up with countless fishermen all over
the bay area,,many of them sitting in their cars chewing the fat while
fishing.

Those are some of the things I sorely miss.


*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.....



Nothing to rationalize. This is cb, not audiophile FM 101 High Fidelity
Broadcasting. What you can't get, because you been in with the snobs
that have a hard-on for cb too long, is that many, many folks don't look
at cb like you do and compare it to hammie radio. The only thing many
folks are interested in is making contact, not quality. Like a stereo,
some folks spend big bucks for symphonic reproduction, others do ok and
opt for a clock radio. Different strokes, but here you are bashing those
folks that may use a legal item as is their right, on cb, all because
*you* disagree and dislike their choice. Tsk tsk.

You don't have to be an audiophile. Some people are so distorted that
they are actually hard to understand. Yet these same mentally
challenged idiots think that they actually sound good! Excessive echo,
class "C" amplifiers, too much mike gain, no limiters, excessive
"swing" all contribute to overall poor audio quality. Many of these
"mods" also contribute to adjacent channel interference and RFI. There
is nothing even remotely redeemable about these actions.

Echo is not legal. Class "C" (or any other) amplifiers are not legal.
Removing modulation limiters is not legal. Transmitter modifications
are not legal. Generating RFI above the technical specifications is
not legal.

So I'm not bashing people for liking different things than I do. I'm
bashing people for their displayed ignorance of good RF practice and
for displaying an indifference to, or an outright contempt for, other
people's right of access to the hobby.

Would you listen to a radio with a torn speaker? Would it not bother
you?


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.
-
No,,NOT in those cases, in YOUR personal experiences CB and society may
be crumbling, but not to the rest of the world. What you experience is
not the last word, far from it.

Again you claim to know what the "majority" are thinking. You cannot
possibly know what anyone else is thinking.

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.

Interesting. Do you feel there are more hammies or cbers in this
country?

Not at all. Where would you get that idea? But there does seem to be
more hams in my radio than there are local CBers. But that's an unfair
comparison, due to the fact that many ham bands have long distance
capability, and the sphere of my VHF coverage is much wider than the
typical range for CB. I can talk back to my old area with no problem
on 2 meters. Yet I can hear no one over about a S3 on CB, from a
similar distance.

There are more total Cbers in this country than hams (at least it used
to be that way years ago), but the range of CB is relatively small and
results in "pockets" of users, not all of which can be heard beyond
their local range.

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?


I do.

Do you
still think (like you once posted) that a liberal
and a libertarian are the same thing?
_
A liberal and a libertarian are very much similar and the same.

No, they are not. Liberals believe in big government oversight to
handle the plethora of social programs that they feel we need to have
shoved down our throats (At our tax expense). In fact extreme
liberalism is what leads to socialism.

A libertarian believe is the smallest amount of government that can
exist and still be effective. Extreme libertarian views lead to
anarchy.

Conservatives believe in somewhat limited government, and personal
responsibility. Conservatives believe in strong law enforcement for
those who cannot abide by the rules of society. Extreme conservatism
leads to fascism.


They BOTH advocate the maximum liberties permitted under the law which is the
exact manner of which I referred the two.

Wrong! You need to do some more reading........


In fact, it is you and Frank
who were shown not to know what a liberal is. Washington was a liberal.
Our forefathers were liberals. This country was founded and built by
liberlas.

Today's liberal is someone who wants freedom for everyone, as long as
it's according to their standards. A typical example is how the
democrats had no problem with letting Michael Moore trash the
president, but now scream foul when an independent group is now taking
aim on Kerry. Today's liberal is two faced, duplicitous, and
hypocritical. Today's liberal wants the working man to pay for the
habitually lazy. Higher taxes for richer people. From those according
to their means, to those according to their needs. Sound familiar? Try
reading Karl Marx for the answer.


You have succumbed to partisanship rhetoric of the right, where all who
dare question or oppose the Bush admin, are labeled a liberal. The term
has become, albeit incorrectly, an intentionally misplaced catch-all to
encompass anyone who opposes the current admin.

I've opposed bleeding heart liberals since the time I was aware enough
to realize that they were undermining the traditional values that this
country was founded on. Liberals are the ones who would defend the
"right" of someone to distribute kiddie porn, rather than acknowledge
that this is a social disease.


Please provide any exchanges that I have
authored where I defended the concepts of
socialism. I believe in limited government.

Wrong, you favor government imposition and can't even see it.

Not at all. I believe is responsibility an accountability. You a re
free to do what you will, (within the framework of a civilized
society) but you are solely responsible for the effects of your
actions (or inactions).

I believe in personal responsibility (and
accountability).

So do the majority, but you also believe you have the right to mete out
accountability as you see fit, in your most recent example, by requiring
the identity of those who post to the internet.

Accountability is universal. Every action that you do, has the
potential to affect someone else. You need to be accountable to those
you affect.


I believe that government should not restrict
access and actions, but should prosecute
those who abuse their rights.

-
Abuse is a relevant term and what you consitute defines abuse has
already been shown to not always be illegal, so no, when one "abuses"
their rights, say, to the point of offending the hell out of you for
their behavior or for what they say, no, there should be no
"prosecution".

Laws exist to codify "abuse".


You not being aware of how this
adminsitration has snowballed sheople like
you isn't at all
funny, it's frighteningly pathetic.
-
Only if you have your own partisan beliefs


The rest of the world would hold you claiming and posting that you are
voting for George Bush constitutes a partisan belief. That you used his
name and the words "against socialism" in the same sentence with a
straight face and actually made yourself believe it, is even more
telling.

That you think that GWB is synonymous with socialism is even more
telling.


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.
_
Wrong. He repealed the Fourth Amendment via the Patriot Act in the name
of terror when deemed necessary.

This is the same power already given to law enforcement for use
against drug dealers. It still requires a court order. You need to
read the fine print.

Adding to this, not single conviction has resulted from the (un)Patriot
Act,,not ONE!

What does that mean exactly? That's like concluding that since WMD
have not been found yet, that they never will. You seem to take the
future for granted.


He merely
granted the same powers currently afforded to
law enforcement, to those involved with the
fight against terrorism.

-
Huh? What does that mean? Those in Law Enforcement ARE the ones involved
in the repub's manufactured war on another intangibe, er,,"terrorism".

It broadened the power which used to be restricted to other uses (like
drug traffickers) to now include terrorists.


_
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.


If you read it, you may want to have someone read it to you, cause you
missed the part about not needing a warrant in certain cases which has
NEVER been afforded law enforcement until now.

You still need court approval to perform those functions. No one has
ultimate power.


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.
-
Sure I do, Davie. Many people have such a talent. Some people spot
market trends, some people know fashion opinions, some know political
opinions, many people make a living off of similar talents, Davie. But
keeping with your line of bull****, it is *you* that have no way of
knowing what I know. For all you don't know, I could be involved with
the current political polls that usually have a margin of only a 3%
error. Suhc is highly idicative of the pulse of the people. Once again,
Frank accused me of writng for Pop Comm and Monitoring Times. Assuming I
did, that would mean I am much closer in touch with my readers, who just
happen to be,,,taa daa,,,hammies and cbers, tahn you care to
acknowledge. So you see, these are but a fraction of the multitude of
possibilities that decimate your incorrect hypothesis.

That means nothing. If you take a poll of dopers at a rock concert on
their feelings WRT legalizing pot, you would get an overwhelming
majority in favor of it. If you look in a fish store, should it
surprise you to find fish there?


Unless of course, you're omnipotent. You only
know what YOU want and the small circle of
people you associate want.

_
Umm,,,see above. Heck, with Sporadic Waves alone, there was never a
"small circle". Some day you may wish to think big, as in big "circles",
Davie. the big doggs are not sleeping on the porch in small circles.

It's still small potatoes. Sporadic Waves was a 3rd rate rag.

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.


You aer owed no reason. This is your problem and the source of your
hostility toward anonymity. You are owed nothing when a citizen
exercises their rights under the law.

Especially when that right threatens the rights
of other people to the expectation of civil
discourse.

-
You have NO right to expect civility among anyone. It would be great in
a perfect world if that were true, but there is no law outlawing those
who are not civil. Once again, there is too much personal interpretation
here for you to claim you have a right to expect civil behavior from
everyone. That there is NO law outlawing these things you feel out be
illegal shows that I indeed am in touch with the majority of the
opinion, as if the majority felt like you, rudeness/non-civil acting
folks and anonymity would be illegal.

Certain behavior is illegal. Things which fall under disturbing the
peace, disorderly conduct, creating a public nuisance etc.


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

_
Once again, you have no right to expect civility by anyone, let alone
demand accountability from another.

I have as much right as everyone else.

Dave
"Sandbagger"