RadioBanter - View Single Post

August 24th 04, 01:59 PM

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:10:51 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
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.

You like to accuse me of making things personal, but in this case (as
in many) you mistake my general summation for a direct critique of
your personal habits. I'm sure your operation is fairly low impact,
but there are others who are not so cognizant of their impact on
others (or worse, they don't care).

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.

So now you deny that geography and demographics play a major part in
determining the percentage of Good/Bad operators in a particular
location? That's a direct contrast to your comments about the people
who "infest" Philthy.

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,,,,,

They have not been "demonstrated" to be anything of the sort. Because
YOU claim them to be does not make them so. I can hear more rule
violations after listening to 5 minutes on CB channel 6 than I can
hear in a week's worth of ham radio. That's the plain truth, and for
you to deny or spin it is clearly a bias on your part.

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??

The point where I realized that you can't make an idiot into a normal
person. It's counterproductive to try. It's better to seek out little
oasis' of sanity in the cesspool, than trying to clean it up.

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.

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.

I have been informed of some. But I remain skeptical of their type
acceptance, and whether the FCC will allow it to continue. But time
will tell.

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.

Ok, I like the way you've presented this. You make a good argument
that a certain amount of reverb enhances audio quality and adds
"depth". I totally agree with you on this point. If the current batch
of "echo toys" were sold as devices which ONLY added enough reverb to
accomplish the effect you've described, then I would agree that the
device was an "enhancement" device in much the same way as an audio
compressor. But that would eliminate "repeater" type echos.

But you and I both know that is not the intent of the users of the
majority of these devices. Mot have them set way beyond the point of
"audio enhancement" and well into the point of audio distortion. They
run them for the "cool" effects, and not as a range extender.

Intent is the key point here.

There is also a burden of proof issue as well. The FCC can make a
broad determination as to any device which is "added" to a CB radio.
It is up to the makers of the device to demonstrate that the device
does not cause or promote illegal operation.

**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.
*

I stand corrected,

Thank you. My respect for you just went up a few notches.

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?

I can see how you might feel that way based on your perspective. But
that's not reflective of reality. I never claim to "blindly" follow
anyone. But there is a process to follow to have rules changed. It is
not proper to just "ignore" rules that we don't personally agree with.

One thing I DO believe in strongly is the concept that a person is
innocent until PROVEN guilty. Do you assume that someone is
automatically guilty of a crime the instant he is arrested? The fact
that Doug was cited (same as an arrest in this case) does not mean
that all the evidence was in and a final determination was made (at
least at the time I made my comments). Surely you have to acknowledge
that Doug's behavior has managed to earn him quite a few enemies.
What's to stop any one of them from "masquerading" as him in order to
cause trouble and "frame" him as a form of payback? It's a distinct
possibility. I admit that I am not privy to what evidence the FCC has
or doesn't have in this case, and I could be way off base.

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 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.

I will admit to being sensitive to audio quality. I can tell the sound
of a Class "C" amplifier without even looking. Any device that changes
the audio for the worse detracts from quality. I like to make my audio
as close to a broadcast station as I can. I like what those guys on 80
meter AM have done with their setups. Some of those guys have audio
that I am truly envious of.

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.

I might do that. I cannot see how a device which is clearly intended
to "amuse or entertain" could be considered legal, when the rules
expressly prohibit them.

But let me outline a few examples of how many of these "radio hotrods"
do affect other people's right of access.

1. A radio which is running in excess of the legal power limit
promotes a stronger signal. While this maybe be an advantage to the
operator, he cannot control just how far his signal travels. Legally
operating stations in the distance, now have a harder time
communicating, because of the illegally produced signal. Those legal
operators are having their right to access affected.

2. A radio which has had its modulation "clipped" the radio peaked,
and uses a class "C" "modulator" amp to get that added "swing" is
producing spurious audio harmonic content and splatter which makes
their signal extend outside (sometimes very far) outside of the 10 Khz
bandwidth of the CB channels. So when the operator transmits, he's not
only dominating his own channel, be creates sufficient interference on
others. Legally operating stations on those other channels, now have a
harder time communicating, because of the illegally produced signal.
Those legal operators are having their right to access affected.

3. A person operating a "peaked and clipped" CB into a class "C"
amplifier generates spurious emission and higher harmonic content.
People living in the vicinity of this illegal operator may have
trouble using their entertainment devices (Broadcast radio, TV,
computer) due to interference from those increased harmonics. Those
people are having their right of access impeded.

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.

That depends. See my #2 above.

Would it not bother you?

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

But why should you have to? If you have a hobby or activity that
normally brings you pleasure, and you are now faced with some
undesirables which ruin your pleasure, why should you be always forced
to be the one who has to yield to these people? If it were as simple
as allocating certain channels for each activity and there were no
such things as bleedover or interference, then your solution would be
acceptable. But you know that that's not reality on CB.

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.

But no "pulse" or poll is completely reflective of reality. Polls are
subject to political or social biases, and limited to the demographics
of the participants.

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.

Only if I am surrounded by "the bad" to the point where looking for
the positive becomes a ridiculous exercise in insanity.

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".

My mistake. I took it as a claim that there are more hams than Cbers.

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.

Your topographical parameters make for an overall greater direct
distance. In my area, there are numerous "hills" which bend and block
signals, resulting in lopsided range, especially when operating
mobile.

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.

_

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.

That is THE current understanding of what passes for modern liberalism
in today's political climate. It's not a "right wing conspiracy".
Liberals are the champions of the poor, the disenfranchised, the un
and underemployed, minorities, and anyone else who feels that they're
getting the "shaft" WRT the "American Dream". Liberals downplay the
importance of personal responsibility, instead believing that people
are all victims of circumstances, and that "corporations" are the root
of all evil. They believe that government should play the part of "the
great equalizer". THAT is the seed of socialism.

_
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...

Like no rules and everyone's rights trampling on everyone else's.

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.

You, the one lecturing me that all rules should be "evergreen" and
subject to revision as society and culture changes, are now sticking
by a definition which is obsolete?

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.

Nothing frightening about it. It's reality. Liberals have been a key
force in the undermining of traditional values for the last 30+ years.
There are practices and activities which are almost common today that
no one would even think of doing in the 1950's. You might think this
is good. But I don't look at increased promiscuity, along with
gratuitous sex and porn, the abandonment of traditional family roles
etc, as a "good" thing.

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.

I have been a strong conservative long before Bush came along. It's
refreshing to see a decisive leader who is guided by principle rather
than one who changes his position depending on the political winds at
the time.

_
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.

No that's the truth. Take the recent political events as an example.
The left feels that it's perfectly fine and an expression of a
person's 1st amendment for Michael Moore to create a
"propagandamentary" trashing and distorting Bush's leadership. But now
that the shoe is on the other foot and a group of veterans is
disputing Kerry's Vietnam claims, the left screams bloody murder and
has attempted legal intimidation to attempt to block the release of
the (#1 on the Amazon.com best seller list) Swift boat book Unfit for
Command, as well as the associated TV ads. So what happened to the
Left's cherished respect for the 1st amendment? The answer is clear to
those who are not blinded by partisan myopia. The left are hypocrites
of the first degree.

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.

Many of F-911's conjectures have been disproven by the 911 commission
report (I trust you've read it?).

Kerry can do the same to the Swift Boat veterans. Yet he, instead of
taking aim at the veterans themselves, has attempted to block
distribution of their book and ads. Conclusion? Hmmm.........

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.

What's "fair" is purely subjective. I don't believe that anyone
deserves special consideration. The tax rate should be flat.

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 top 10% of wage earners pay over 60% of the total income tax
revenue.

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.

Those who work hard and earn a place in the higher echelons of income
should not be penalized for their success by being burdened by the
baggage of those who lack the ambition to achieve similar success.

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.

Liberals and their socialistic ideals have been "bad" for this country
long before Bush came into power.

The term has become, albeit incorrectly, an intentionally misplaced
catch-all to encompass anyone who opposes the current admin.

The answer is easy if you look at a few key facts.

1. Socialism is a concept of a social structure which dictates that
government shall take from those according to their means, to those
according to their needs. This is well documented.

2. Which political party in this country looks to take more taxes from
those who achieve, to give back to those who don't?

3. A free market economy and true freedom involves less government
involvement in personal lives allowing people to make greater choices.

4. Which party is seeking to increase government involvement in
people's lives, by proposing government mandated education programs,
healthcare oversight, preventing social security investment in private
accounts, limiting gun ownership rights (Who needs the 2nd
amendment?), and of course increasing taxes to pay for it all?

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.

Every liberal who favors gun control is trampling on the 2nd
amendment.

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.

As it should be. There are just some activities that should not be
allowed. Freedom is not absolute.

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.

I'm not electing myself Pope here. I'm just saying that people need to
be held accountable (to someone or thing) for their actions.

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 how can you be held accountable to hold to your responsibility if
there is no one there to make the determination? Claim's of "taking
responsibility" are meaningless unless there is a mechanism to enforce
it.

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.

You should have the right to remain anonymous as long as it does not
cause undue problems for the harmony of the forum.

Dave
"Sandbagger"