RadioBanter - View Single Post - Beware of hams planting dis-information...

May 16th 05, 04:55 PM

On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:58:08 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:34:14 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
If the FCC chose to do so, freebanders can be

charged criminally. The fact that they have not
chosen to do any more than sporadic

citations, does not diminish the fact that they

could if they chose to.

Whoaaa.....you are invoking what does not take place, only what you
pontificate can take place.
Reality is,,it doesn't take place. End of story.

Reality is that it DOES take place. Only in very rare situations.
Which, I'm sure you consider the same as never doing it.

Police do not usually cite people for
Jaywalking, but they could at any time.

Also reality,,but, stay relevant to reality and not what "may" happen.
Dreaming is nice, but not reality.

As long as the law is on the books, you are required to follow it.
Although there really are some silly laws that need to be done away
with. Once that happens, then it's a different story.

The point is that just because a law is not
actively enforced does not mean that it's ok to
break it.

It does in many cases where the law is not enforced. Blue laws are but a
single example,,,an example you felt so valid, you snipped it.

So FCC rules are a "blue law" to you?

But the point is that nothing will happen if you
are never caught. But the fact that you are not
likely to get caught does not diminish the
illegality

No one ever said it did.

**and societal irresponsibility of
engaging in the acts.
*
In order for you to claim such a "societal irresponsibility" exists,
there first must exist a "societal responsibility" somehwere other than
your mind regarding such (cb radio)....can you cite it?

Societal responsibility goes far beyond CB
radio. It goes hand in hand with morality,
consideration, and just plain old fashioned
good manners.

Try again.....in regards to cb radio, please cite this non-existent
"societal responsibility" concept that has you confounded.

It's hard to quantify an abstract concept. But if you look real hard
you can find out about such things as civic and societal
responsibility, with regard to many aspect of our lives. These things
are generic in how we live in a society. There needs not be one
"special" to CB radio. Good manners and respect is proper in all that
we do.

Not everything in life is codified, especially
morality.

Then you have no right to hold others to your view of what is and isn't
acceptable, despite your claims to the contrary.

Well, if you want to lead the charge for immorality, then be my guest.
But don't be surprised that those of us who still harbor some sense of
morality, do what we can to stop you.

If you need a specific guide on how to be a
responsible citizen and a good neighbor, you
can start with Miss Manners and work your
way up from there.

And since you admittedly can not comprehend why one jamming repeater
frequencies can present a safety hazard, you should begin your radio
education as relates to hammie radio, anew.

Jamming a repeater which spends 98% of it's time as a home for hams to
chew the fat on, is hardly a safety hazard. I agree that jamming a
repeater is improper behavior, just like jamming CB channels with high
power and on unauthorized channels. But there's no "safety hazard"
there nay more than on any given CB channel.

Please cite these criminal penalties referring the freeband or simple
dx.

Please refer to the communications act of
1934 and related parts.

I went to the source. I see no criminal charges, merely civil charges.
Can you cite this exception of which you speak?

Start with Title IV, section 401 and work your
way from there.

Waffling will not distance yourself from your incorrect claim, David. I
have yet to find a criminal charge for simple dxing. It does not exist.

You keep playing word games, oh purveyor of waffling. The charge is
not "simple DX". The charge is transmitting on unauthorized
frequencies.

There is a mitigating difference between "can't" and "won't". Even
so...keeping with your claim,,..how is it you confront all freebanders
and lawbreakers regarding cb and freebanding?

It's not my job to "confront" anyone. However I do present my opinion.

*I have, on occasion, prevented speeding by
paralleling someone in the right lane holding
the legal speed limit.

A massive ticket here in Florida, AND in Pa from what I read.

Based on what charge?

Left lane is for passing only. Again you don;t know the laws of your own
state.

Then perhaps you can tell me how someone can legally pass a car in the
right lane that's already at the posted speed limit?

.except when you invoked the possibilities of cbers running huge power
interfering with emergency communications in a long ago conversation. Of
course, it isno linger irrelevant when you invoke such.

Which happens.

Speculation is acceptable only when invoked by yourself to suppport your
hypocrisy.

Nothing I have said is hypocritical. However
you may wish to reexamine the context of
which you pull your information before making
invalid comparisons.

Since Frank taught you the proper definition of "analogy", it really
doesn't matter.

You two couldn't teach someone to find their rear ends with both
hands.

Right,,,it means not being used.To use your analogy regarding physical
property,,,,if a lot or property is abandoned, and one tends the ground,
takes care of it, and pays the tax on it for x amount of years, the
often land becomes the property of the caretaker who has been taking
care of it and paying the taxes.

Squatters rights. And interesting angle.

And a valid one.

And for it to apply, then you would have to
concede that radio spectrum is treated in the
same way as "real" property.

It doesn't apply to the radoio spectrum, which is what you are being
properly instructed upon.

Then why did YOU bring it up?

*I wonder if someone has tried that tactic on
the FCC in regard to the freeband area of 11
meters. The principle is similar.

Only to your misguided education or beliefs or whatever is responsible
for you not grasping such a concept. It has not been tried with the FCC
because even the lowly cbers seem to comprehend the spectrum is 1) not
owned by the FCC and 2) not tangible property.

Then the concept of squatter's rights does not
apply to radio spectrum.

Only you said it did.

YOU brought it up.

So I'm curious why you brought it up in that
context.

To make you understand your error.

I made no error.

There are many abandoned buildings around.
But you are still not allowed to trespass there.

Yet, many people use these abandon buildings on a regular basis with
immunity.
Bums,,,vagrants, crackheads,

..... Freebanders. I see the similarities.

You really have a low opinion of yourself, Dave.

No, not me, only scofflaws.

I always said you had a serious ego and self-esteem problem. The mere
admittance that you held yourself in such company confirms such.

That was then, this is now.

No matter. I could say my esteem is that of which my character was never
held in the company of whcih you refer yourself, past or present.

You could say that the moon is made of green cheese for all the
difference it would make.

Everyone can repent, even you.

Repent? To who? ANd for what? Is it a sin to talk on the freeband? Dave,
you're losing nd, here.

You can correct yourself from your bad habits.

It's not too late to atone for the error of your
ways.

See above for examples of a form of civil disobedience..

Civil disobedience is not a catch-all concept for scofflaws to use as
an excuse to ignore laws that they, as individuals, have some deep
rooted psychological issue with.

Then again, some people would rather just
operate illegally rather than going through the
trouble to have an perceived unjust rule
changed. Those people are simply weak.

Like yourself,,,who is reactive but never proactive. Great analogy,

I am not the one with the problem. I once wanted more bandwidth, I
earned a ham license. No more problem.

The only thing you have in your favor is that
the FCC is not motivated enough to do much
about it.

You have nothing in your favor. It's all blatant hypocrisy.
What have I said, that could be considered
hypocritical?

too many things to list, but many regs have illustrated it for
you,,,it;s not their fault you can;t comprehend it.

Yet you cannot list them. Another excuse. You and Frank are both full
of lame excuses these days. You like to recklessly throw around the
word "hypocritical", yet I am seriously beginning to believe that you
have no idea what it truly means.

Is operation on the freeband not illegal?
Should the law not be respected? How many
more excuses are you going to invent to hide,
obfuscate, justify, or otherwise downplay the
fact that you willingly ignore a federal law?

It really galls you that you were never given any reasons, let alone
conjured excuses of which onlu you hallucinate.

I'll take that as another excuse, and a concession that you cannot
counter the points that I presented.

*It's not that it's any less illegal, it's only that
they don't care enough.

Because it is rightly a non-issue to the majority,

Of which you have absolutely no idea who they are, or how they feel.

of which you clearly
do not belong, leading to the fact that you are a minority wishing to
dictate your beliefs to the masses. Doesn't work that way.

Sort of like the democratic party trying to
subvert the constitution by an abusive
application of a filibuster to block judicial
nominees......

You said you were behind all legal activities. You're a hypocrite.
Fillibusters are legal.

Not in the manner in which they've been used as of late. Note another
quick, reckless, and incorrect application of the word "hypocrite"

Dave
"Sandbagger"