"Peter" wrote in message
news:41888d4e.0@entanet...
"DR. Death" wrote...
"Peter" wrote in message
...
Post snipped for brevity...
against laws restricting freedom of communications
"freedom of communications" only pertains to verbal communications
not radio or TV ect.
I can only surmise you believe you have rights in this issue the same as
others believe they have the right to drive a car.
Please go back to the parts you snipped, AND READ THEM.
Where do I say that I believe I have such rights, or that I believe in
certain freedoms?
I note that, although I refer to some people being "pro-legal", you do not
accuse me of referring to myself at that point.
I get the idea that you select a certain part and twist it to mean
something
different, so that you can feel the need to argue over something.
To back up your argument, you take PART of a sentence totally out of
context
to use as a suggestion that I am on a certain side.
Peter.
OK, here is the entire post. I only snipped it because it was the only part
I felt a need to respond to. I still stand behind my original post that
transmitting on C.B. is not a right but a privilege, just like driving a
car. It is not a right under the constitution it is a privilege.
I did not suggest in my post that you were on ANY side. You read that into
it YOURSELF.
"Peter" wrote in message
...
"harvey" wrote in message
...
ok after a few monhts of reading here and some digging, my assumptions
are
thus:
keyclowns:
snip
The theory is that Keyclowns are illegal CBers, and Antikeyclowns
those who oppose illegal CB. However, that is all just a cover for
the truth. Some people are just hell bent against CB and those
who use it - as demonstrated by their inability to post CB related
messages, and their use of the term "keyclown" being aimed at anyone
they dislike - without any proof of any kind that they use any
illegal CB of any kind.
The homosexual hate messages are just the physical manifestation
of the mental problems within the minds of those who hate some
people so much that they will chase them around trying to anoy them.
Rather than trying to make their own lives better and more enjoyable,
they wish to make other people as unhappy and mentally unwell as
themselves.
Although they try to mask what they are with some claim to respect
for the law, they are often unmasked as their own criminal activities
or "brushes" with the FCC or police are made public.
That being said, there are some on this group who are pro-legal, some
who are against laws restricting freedom of communications, and others
who walk the line between - believing that the law is often an ass, and
may not always be technically correct.
This is the part in which you make reference to "freedom of communication".
If you can show me where in the constitution that mentions C.B. radio or any
court decisions upholding freedom of communication by way of C.B. radio, I
will retract my statement and issue an apology.
For example, distance rules. In America, you have a "No DX" rule. If
you do not reply to a signal, does that mean it did not go over that
distance? This law is often seen as a technically unsound and legally
unenforceable law.
Here in the UK, when CB was first legalized, our Government opted to
restrict distance with tech spec rather than trust to some "no DX"
rule. What they did was to put in rules regarding antenna length and
height from the ground.
Those who stuck within the law were radiating 4 Watts of RF at a height
well below that of radio and TV equipment, and often caused interference.
It was soon worked out that, to avoid harmful interference and grief, the
way to go was NOT what the law said. The rule was broken everywhere, and
never enforced. Eventually, the government saw their error, removed the
height rule and relaxed the length rule, allowing us bigger homebase
antennas at any height within local planning rules.
Some say that stupid laws often needs a hard push before they will be
changed, and illegal action becomes necessary - would the RA have removed
that height rule if CBers had not proved it wrong by their illegal use?
Would the UK Government even be considering changing outdated and
extremely
sexist family law if it was not for the illegal actions of Batman and
Robin?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...bsection=world
http://www.itv.com/news/index_1789720.html
http://www.fathers-4-justice.org
I wouldn't have liked to be the person who had to make the call to the
queen...
"Sorry to bother you, your majesty... but Batman is on
your ledge, and he's asking to speak to you."
Aparently she watched it on TV.
Regards,
Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/