On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:07:25 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:38:10 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:16:33 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

So you are denying that the majority of the

"big

radios" on Channel 6 are running any sort of

high power?


Apparently, that is a an argument you are having with yourself.

No, you are trying to claim that there are no illegal operators on 6,
based on your rejection to my claim that what I can hear on almost a
daily basis is in fact illegal.


I'm sure some of them are illegal, but my surity is not fact.

Why not? Are you claiming that empirical observation is not
sufficient? Are you now promoting the concept that if you are not
"right there" and personally witnessed an illegal transmission that
you can't factually determine that it was what it was?

Is your zeal to trounce me over my opposing political views blinding
your objectivity with regard to radio issues, which you have far
better knowledge of?


Your personal feelings are not "facts".

No but my trained observations skills can be considered as strong
evidence to the positive.


Trained observation skills = Tarot cards.

So, you're telling me that you can't listen to a channel and pick out
who the most blatant illegal operators are simply by the sound of
their rigs, and by the splatter they produce? Would it help you to
know that a spectrum analyzer connected to the I.F. of a receiver
confirmed my initial observation?

I never claimed to be able to make a quantitative evaluation, only a
determination that the transmissions were illegal.


Making a personal opinion that "channel 6 harbors the dregs of society"

Yes, that part is my personal opinion.


Why is -this- your personal opinion and not fact?

Because it is simply my opinion. What constitutes a "dreg" is
subjective.


What happened to your "trained observation skills"?

They are limited to technical evaluations of radio signals, which is
NOT subjective.


and claiming it is nothing short of empiracle evidence that illegalities
occur is jovial.

That you once again think that you can somehow claim that these
illegal operators do not exist is ludicrous.


Nobody suggested that illegal operators don't exist. The question is
your standard of proof, that what you claim to be illegal
transmissions are illegal IN FACT, not in your opinion or belief.

If you hear a loud noise and turn around to see a souped up car
buzzing down the road at a high rate of speed, far above the posted
speed limit for that road, would you not be able to determine as a
fact that the car was being operated illegally?

No, you could not determine just how fast the car was traveling, but
you could easily tell from the excessive noise, and the rate of speed
as compared to the other (legal) cars, that this one was illegal.

If you are attempting to discount empirical observation as an invalid
method to determining facts, then there are a whole lot of scientists
who will be sorely disappointed. Starting with paleontologists all the
way to astronomers.


We don't agree politically Frank. That much is true. But don't let
that one facet taint your objectivity in other subjects.

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