RadioBanter - View Single Post

August 23rd 04, 08:10 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
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.

Neither do I, but you continue to try and pigeonhole me as such for
merely posting of freeband activity and dx, yet, nothing in my posts has
ever had a remote relation to what you falsely promote.

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 hoops 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.

Despite your belief of it being geographically dependendent (it's
not,,,,there are good and bad everywhere in both services)it doesn't
validate your contrived gaffe.

But I will say, that I've personally witnessed far
more rule abuses on CB than on ham radio.

Again, your personal views and beliefs have been demonstrated to be in
the minority,,,,,

_
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,

At the risk of being called a cad and yelling "na na nee nee boo
boo,toldjaso"....you'e been told that for years by myself and others.
What point was the epiphany you experienced??

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.

See prevous sentence..

-
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).

I doubt roger beeps were ever classified as such and as a result,
illegal on cb, but even if that were so,,,many things "used" to be a
certain way,,,,,it's no longer. It's a brave, new world*.

_
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.

I do believe some of the newer legal radios most certainly have them.

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.

I disagree, but let's assume you right on this item. I would challenge
the validity of this on several counts,,,the most obvious being the fact
that sound and broadcast engineers use echo (not repeat, but slight
reverb echo) on FM broadcasts for many commercials and ads for a
specific reason,,,,it gets noticed and is often more recognizeable and
often louder. As such, one could make the argument, it is an audio
"enhancer", not entertainment device, and with the myriad of broadcast
sound engineers backing my case, I would feel extremely confident
handling my own situation, if this were it. As you now are most astutely
aware, what you consi enhancement and what I consider enhancement is now
very much subjective. Again, ask Phil Kane what must take place now
(once this case is challenged). The FCC would have to rule (FIRST, and
before any further prosecution) what constitutes "amusement devices" and
specifically address the echo issue, just as they recently ruled what
constitutes broadcast obscenity.

_
=A0=A0You 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.
=A0

I stand corrected, You "postulated" that the FCC, who you profess we
should blindly follow, may not have the facts of the case before telling
the public one is guilty. I question your logic and intellect to blindly
follow an agency who crafts law, yet you claim same agency could be
incompetent in upholding said law.
Do you not see the sheer hypocrisy of such talk?

_
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. =A0Heck, 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.

=A0After 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 p

aycheck 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.

Correct,,but you apparently are, and are expressing difficulty grasping
why others are not so concerned with these nuances.

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.

See above.

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.

An echo mic is in no manner affecting any of your rights.
You are still confusing the law with your preferences. Echo mics are
legal. Email the FCC and ask them.

_

Would you listen to a radio with a torn

speaker?

Poor analogy, as your equipment apparently is not the problem...but your
personal preference with another's broadcast. You always have the righyt
to change the channel, as your "rights" are not being infringed upon.

Would it not bother you?

See above. If it bothered me, I'd shut it off.
_
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.

Hehhe,,,,,,,correct,,,not in the manner youappear to be taking it,,not
in an esp kind of way, but I indeed have the pulse of the public on a
variety of issues. I *have* to.

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.

Well, you are focusing on the urchins, not the good.

I find most hams in my area to be good

people.

But you are focusing on the urchins, lending to the notion that you
indeed have a preferecn to dwell on the bad instead of the good,,,IE.the
"half empty" glass.
_

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?

It was a multiple choice question. I tried qualifying such with "or".

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.

Don;t be so paranoid,,,I compared nothing,,,,again, it was a multiple
choice question.

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.

The cb hops in Tampa Bay, all the time, practically.

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.
=A0
-
=A0You 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.

No,,,that may be the currently attached definition by the terrified
right, but I suggest you look up the definition of each...use any
dictionary you prefer and come on back with a cut and paste.
_
A libertarian believes in the smallest amount of government that can
exist and still be effective.

Extreme libertarian views lead to anarchy.

Like the establishment of a free society? Like the Boston Tea Party?
Like suffrage? Like equal rights? On it goes...

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........

Again,,,,I do not need a partisan party to redefine the term. History
and the founding forefathers, in addition to Merriam Webster are those I
choose to believe. That the right has been so effective in making terms
mean something completely opposite of what it truly is (a liberal, of
all examples) is frightening. When the US government begins using the
term as an insult, those who follow such bull**** must be educated to
all they have been falsely indoctrinated. You have been misled and lied
to by Bush.....on many occassion.

_
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.

Wrong, wrong, way wrong. This is what the right has attempted to
redefine. That is what the right WANTS everyone to think and say, and
those of you, like yourself, need structure in their life, direction,
and pretty much told what to do and how to act and to conform to a
single mindset (theirs). And to you and the Bush admin, anyone who
expresses dissent (one of the most cherished American rights)
automatically becomes an enemy of the admin. The Bush admin not only
openly echoes Stalinism, but practices it....as Stalin said "those who
are not with us are against us".

_
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.

Moore can be sued if anything in his movie was untrue. No lawsuits after
all this time. Conclusion,,,,,,,hmmmmm.

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.

Nope,,just their fair percentage of their income. In fact, when faced
with actual percentages paid from their income, the top two percent of
the wealthiest have the least taken out of their income (percentage
wise) when compared to the bluecollar worker, even though in sheer
dollars, they pay more. The irony of this revelation alone should be
enough to serve as a wake-up call to the nation as the gap continues to
widen between the levels of society, but nope,,we have smokescreens by
those like you who are more concerned with redefining terms to encompass
all who dare oppose the current Bush regime are its enemy.

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.

Bush is the one undermining the values,,such as our rights...not the
liberals. You can cite NO liberal that has EVER seeked to take away
portions of our constitution.

Liberals are the ones who would defend the

"right" of someone to distribute kiddie porn,

rather than acknowledge that this is a social

disease.

Social disease? whooooo.that's a liberal term, isn't it? But of course,
we all know you made a boo-boo when using the term, 'cause the right
locks up those with social diseases.

-
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.

Accountability does not extend to you being one that another must
account to, although you ahve attempted such on many occasion.

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).

Exactly,,,,,*I* am responsible for my actions, not you, so anything that
I do, such as MY right to anonymity, has nothing to do with you, yet
that doesn't stop you from claiming it shouldn't be permitted as it
somehow imposes on these "rights" you have yet to define and say how it
affected your suffering.