RadioBanter - View Single Post

January 7th 05, 09:18 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:08:37 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
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.

=A0=A0I claimed nothing of the sort. I claimed only that your claim is
bull****, which it is.

So which is it? If you are denying my claim

that there are illegal stations on channel 6,

then by simple inverse logic, you are claiming

that there are NO illegal stations on channel 6.

That isn't inverse logic, that's illogic invoked by yourself. Once
again, since you are displaying an uncanny sense of self-cornfusion, the
legality of stations on channel 6 was never the issue. The only issue
was the manner in which you claimed you could tell they were illegal.

If, you acknowledge that there are, in fact,

illegal stations on channels 6, then my claim

cannot be false.

You REALLY need a course in logic.

Or will you try to weasel out of it by claiming

that the term "high power" is ambiguous?

See above.
Your personal feelings are not facts, despite how many times you invoke
them as such. Let's look at it again since you still can not grasp it.
You (N3CVJ)said:

`channel 6, which is notorious for harboring

the dregs of society, who regularly run high

power, is all the "evidence" I need, to

determine that the station in question is in fact,
llegal."

Once again, your personal feelings are not facts. That illegal operation
occurs on such a channel was never contested by myself.

Then you have to agree with my statement

that the majority of big radio stations are

running illegally.

Pay attention, Dave, that claim was never opposed.
I merely claimed your personal feelings cited above are in no manner
"evidence".

The fact that these stations exist and are

illegal are a matter of record for anyone who's

ever spent any time there. My "personal

feelings" notwithstanding.

Fine,,but the mere fact they exist, and (here we go Dave,,pay attention
once again, only for a short while longer)...is NOT a "fact"attesting to
their legality, nor is your original claim, which has been soundly
defeated.

..
How do you think I gathered the evidence that

prompted me to make that claim? It was

based on empirical observation.

Neat. You went from obtaining what you mistakenly and erroneously
referred "empirical evidence" to obtaining "empirical observation",
afterwards (in retrospect). We follow your logic, Dave. Truly.

The FCC knows the reputation of channel 6
also, only they have protocol to determine if
someone is breaking the law, not personal
feelings they refer to as "empirical evidence" as you do.

You are up a tree now. How do you think the

FCC makes the determination that a specific

high powered station is worthy of further

investigation? Do you think a little empirical

observation just MIGHT be a clue?

Not by you. Just like coming from Jerry, they are mere allegations and
by no means considered "empirical observation". The FCC, or their
assigned designee MUST witness an infraction prior to action be taken
against individual, other than a mere warning.
Tell me more about this tree that has you pizzing all over yourself with
errors.

The FCC is able to make a quantitative

analysis by inspecting the physical station to

determine just HOW illegal they are.

Keep grabbing at other subjects. You;re bound to find one you know
*sonething* about.

But I don't need to be that precise.

In order to determine if one is guilty and to be called a criminal, you
most certainly do.

Just knowing that they ARE illegal is all that

matters.

You can't make that judgement and it ****es you off. Only a court of law
can determine one's guilt,,even if they *are* guilty, the referring to
one as criminal without that person being convicted in a court of law
can be both libel and slander.

Because I can't follow through beyond the

initial observation stage, you think that means

that my observations are invalid?

You already proved your observations are completely skewered because you
base them on incorrect information.

Boy are you naive and devoid of

comprehensive abilities.

Your personal feelings are not "facts".

No but my trained observations skills can be

considered as strong evidence to the positive.

Did you train yourself, Dave? What special training did you receive,
regarding these observation skills you feel important enough to invoke?
No,,,it can not. It is personal testimony to be taken into
consideration.

Look up "expert witness" for a clue.
=A0

You are no expert. Referring to yourself as "expert" doesn't make it so.
My gosh Dave, I have never seen you so starved for status.

_
=A0It is intangible and can not be entered as evidence, only supporting
testimony.

This is not a court of law.

And as such, you have no right calling another a criminal based on your
(1) "empirical evidence". Such was shown to be nothing more than your
personal opinion. You were made to acknowledge and change your plea
concerning what you previously and erroneously referred. Your "empirical
evidence" morphed into "empirical observations", which can actually be
an oxymoron in itself, coming from you, but that's another story for
anotther day.

I need to convince

no one. And you aren't denying it either. You

just want to argue the point because *I* made

it. The deeper you go in the "debate", the

wackier and off the wall your retorts become.

Such as your next statement:

=A0=A0Huge difference where the law is concerned, but with your
demonstrated hate and disdain for the law and your fellow hammie and cb
operators

This is absolutely side splitting, coming from

an admitted federal law breaker, to accuse ME
of harboring hate and disdain for the law.

You not only laughed at those you were bleeding and thumbed your nose
with your operating habits, you were as verbally abusive on the air as
you are in this group. You base your false allegations against others
based on nothing more than your incorrect and flawed interpretation of
the law. An example is you incorrectly holding one who violates the dx
law as a "federal criminal." Your argument of *why* you consider such to
be true (it isn''t),,,is the sidesplitting material.

It's crystal clear you have no clue of the law that pertains and governs
your chosen hobby.
What IS clear is that you twist and obfuscate the law to fit into what
you think it is, and not what it truly says.

You will defend the dubious legality of an

obvious "entertainment" device,

it's not dubious at all Dave. It's cut and dry. email the fcc and ask
them. You are the only one expressing such difficulty in interpretating
their rules.

but see

nothing wrong with operating on clearly

unauthorized frequencies, or running power

beyond the legal limit.

On target-specific frequencies, and I don't run but 100 watts, the exact
wattage YOU claimed would not be a problem for freebanders if they were
running a clean station, which I always have, unlike yourself.
Your problem has always been your approach. The amount of time spent on
the freeband is miniscule compared to where I usually spend my time, yet
due to your overt concern with my personal world, you choose to focus
only on illegal freeband activity. Nevermind I am in complete compliance
with a past post of yours concerning how operators operate on the
freeband, this is a new day and a new contadiction from yourself.

Such is the nature of a sociopathic mind.

Not only do you fancy yourself an expert witness and radio technical
guru, you suffer from the Walter Mitty complex and fabcy yourself a
physician.
You have certainly illustrated how starved you are for status, Dave. I
hope you gain some self-confidence some day and can be satisfied with
who you are and not who your delusions dictate.
_
You demonstrated this when
you held roger beeps and echo illegal on cb because you "couldn't find a
rule that permitted them".

Because there aren't any. Otherwise you

would have posted it.

I know enough not to search for negatives.

But there ARE rules which specifically prohibit

devices used for "amusement or

entertainment".

Yes, that part is my personal opinion.

See what you can learn when you are force fed? At the beginning of this
thread, you claimed it was fact, now, after proper instruction, you
admit it is "personal opinion". Good show.

Only the first part is. The second part was

empirical observation

Dave

"Sandbagger"

A much more reasonable observation by yourself.