wrote in message
ups.com...
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dick Bash disagreed with you then and he disagrees with you now.
No.
Dick Bash disagreed with the federal government.
Yes, he did.
He violated federal law in the process.
Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He was never charged with anything
for his publishing activities, let alone convicted. (Innocent until
proven
guilty, right?).
He should have gone to prison a long time ago.
IMHO a fine and license revocation would have been more appropriate.
The fact is that FCC never went after him, despite folks like K2ASP
wanting to do so, because the folks at the top said no. Seems to me
there are several possible explanations for that lack of action:
1) Corruption (no evidence of that)
2) Incompetence (?)
3) Lack of hard evidence. IANAL, but IMHO the books themselves are not
hard evidence; and Bash would not have had to testify against himself.
FCC would have had to get someone with firsthand evidence of what Bash
was doing.
4) Unclear law. Bash didn't steal or copy the exams. He didn't ask
others to do so. All he did was ask people questions and write down
their answers. It could be argued that those who talked to Bash and
accepted the money were breaking the law, not Bash himself.
And was it clearly spelled out to everyone who took an FCC exam that
they were not to divulge the contents of that exam? Was it clearly
spelled out in the regulations that the exams were to be kept secret
and what the penalties were for making them public? If not, FCC might
have lost a very embarrassing case had they gone after Bash.
5) Planning for the future. The folks at the top who did not allow
prosecution of Bash might have already been thinking of going to public
question pools when Bash did his thing. If so, it would have been a
waste of time to prosecute him, because by the time they got a verdict,
what he did would not have been an offense any more.
It's clear he violated the *spirit* of the old exam rules. But whether
he violated the *letter* of those rules, and could have been convicted,
will probably never be certain because he won't ever be charged or
tried.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Jim,
I agree with all your comments and analysis.
There was a time you clearly believed Bash broke
the law, but you do seem to now recognize the
many possibilities that are or were potentially in
play back in the 60's. Nice write-up. You
should keep this text handy for every time the
Bash issue resurfaces in this newsgroup.
Heck, call it the FAQ on Bash :-) :-)
Cheersm
Bill K2UNK