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

May 16th 05, 10:04 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:58:08 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
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.

Yet, you have not provided nothing for this claim other than reasons why
you do not.
Again, feel free to illustrate where one was criinally prosecuted fro
the mere act of simple freebanding.

Only in very

rare situations.

So rare, only you are aware of such.

Which, I'm sure you consider the same as

never doing it.

Absence of proof when applied to your claims, is definitely proof of
absence.

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.

Yet, you are unable to distinguish between civil (cb) and criminal
matters (everything else you invoked), despite being taught repeatedly.

Although there really are some silly laws that

need to be done away with. Once that

happens, then it's a different story.

Only to you.

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?

Many of their rules are antiquated and should be done away. The fact
they do not enforce certain rules is exactly -why- I do not become
involved in actively seeking to change them. IF they enforced these
laws, I would become proacative, as opposed to your self-righteous
reactive approach. Such would be much more effective,,but you are
tilting windmills, as they don't care. Channel 6 is a perfect example.
That you experience TIA's over such facts, is beside the point.

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.

=A0=A0and societal irresponsibility of

engaging in the acts.
=A0
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.

So stop trying, no one asked you to COUNT it, Dave. Frank nailed it,,
you continue to use terms you have no clue what they mean and you apply
your own incorrect definition to such.
This disease took hold when you permitted Bush to incorrectly redefine
"liberal" to the suckered masses that wax sympathetic to such an idiot.

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.

And if you look real hard you may find the proper definition of
"quantify".

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.

So by breaking the law one is a criminal and not worthy of respect or
good manners...of course such would not apply to yourself when you
admittedly break Pa law and parallel a driver in the right lane in order
to hold traffic back to the posted limit..as you're a hypocrite.
A very ****ed off, one apparently. You need better things to do in the
wee hours than the behavior that has you screwing up so poorly each day
among our sacred and hallowed pages..

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.

Such radical views are shared by only yourself, Bush, and Hitler. You
were taught this once before when you posted right or wrong, you were
behind Bush all the way. First, such totalitari
Secondly, it was Hitler to who you are now reparaphrasing and adhering,
as he also agreed with you that "If one is not with us, then they are
against us"

But don't be surprised that those of us who

still harbor some sense of morality, do what

we can to stop you.

I've been asking you this for years...so since you are alluding to such
again, in what manner are you proactive in stopping anybody from doing
anything? I mean, besides breaking the law on the Pa roads like you do?
And remember your earlier claim that what one says on usenet is
paramount to a guilty plea in court (snicker).

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.

The FCC disagrees with you.

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.

Ask the FCC, just like you did with the roger beep legality dilemma that
had you all confused.
-
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.

That's not what you said earlier. Flip-flop.

However I

do present my opinion.

=A0I 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?

Irrelevant. You were the one in the left lane and not passing,,,which is
why you were breaking the law. Ignorance is no excuse. It's for passing
only. The fact that you couldn't pass is the criteria for you to be in
the right lane. Ask your unnamed, unsolicited but always invoked,
unidentified "several cop friends" who continue to plague your mind with
poor advice...
_
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.

It has since then, It hadn't up until that point. And the person that
did it all was a hammie like you..one who doesn't care about any other's
rights except your own.

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.

You broke the law, intentionally, and are beside yourself making excuses
for your actions..in other words,,,you were forced to break the
law...(mmmmph)...just like you do with your political views,,it was you
who said "breaking the law is beaking the law, the hows and whys don't
matter". Of course, except when you break the law.
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.

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 radio spectrum, which is what you are being
properly instructed upon.

Then why did YOU bring it up?
=A0

You brought up physical property comparison,,,you used the car as an
example. What's the matter with you these days, David? Is it being shown
your mistakes so much that has you teething on crow, or is it something
else g?

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.

Pay attention,,read it s-l-o-w,,read it over and over if you must. You
brought up physical property (car) as a poor and invalid comparison to
the spectrum. I referred back to your initial invoked statement
regarding physical property, selecting another example (empty lots,
buildings) to illustrate just how ridiculous are your failed
comparisons. But that's ok, Dave, as now you seem to be thoroughly
confused.

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

context.

To make you understand your error.

I made no error.

Sure you did. You initiated physical property as a poor and invalid
comparison to the spectrum. I once made the comment "too bad ignorance
isn't painful",,however, you realizing your errors, is apparently and
obviously very painful.

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.

If it came from me, it would make all the difference in the world. You,
on the other hand, are stuck with accepting the fact you will never have
integrity among these pages.

Everyone can repent, even you.

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

You're learning. It's applied very discriminating to select laws.

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.

You mentioned many problems you have with cb and hammie radio and
freebanders and all kinds of things over the years. Need reminded, or
would a list better serve you?

I once wanted more bandwidth, I earned a

ham license. No more problem.

David Hall Jr.

N3CVJ

You also want more enforcement to non-important matters (as judged by
the FCC),,but you're not going to get it. Again, there is a litany of
things that plague you. Perhaps, now, with your latest flip-flop claim
that you have no problems, you will again be looked to for radio advice
(only time and your attitude will tell) and not have to use sock puppets
to soothe your worn down and broken ego. But since it's all about what
other's think with you, perhaps you have seen the light,,,but I doubt
it.