|
BP wrote:
FlavaFlav wrote in : (snip) I am not wa3moj. Deal with it. yawn.. He must have sobered up today. -- I won't retire, but I might retread. |
"FlavaFlav" wrote in message ... "Landshark" wrote in news:QpLnc.46810$EV2.318 @newssvr29.news.prodigy.com: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 07 May 2004 03:39:02 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... You forgot about these Lee: Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Irrelevant. This is a CB newsgroup. The "bad apples" of the ham radio fraternity have no bearing on what happens here. Sure it does, Lee posts stuff about cb'rs getting busted, Jer does, N8 does, WA3MOJ does, so why can all these people put up things about cb'rs, but I can't post this about Hams? A little one-sided don't you think? Naw, never mind. Besides, two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that there are a fair percentage of bad hams, does not diminish the seriousness of illegal CB operation. Agreed, but the fact that this is a CB newsgroup that a couple of certain hams (N8WWM, WA3MOJ) are trolling this group and posting that just to inflame is ok? I think not, anymore than if someone went onto the Ham groups and posted about Hams being busted and then making statements that most hams are illegal, I would think that would make them upset too. Yes this is a cb NG, Steveo is a troll, BP is a troll road warrior is a troll, randy is a troll, snipped Please capitalize my name. |
"AKC KennelMaster" wrote:
Please capitalize my name. lol -- I won't retire, but I might retread. |
"Steveo" wrote in message ... FlavaFlav wrote: Yes this is a cb NG, Steveo is a troll, BP is a troll road warrior is a troll, randy is a troll, icecold nyc is a troll, scott69 is a trolllandshark is a troll, twisty is a troll, Stuff a tampon, loser. LMAO!!, Ice & Scott haven't made any posts in months, what a paranoid person WA3MOJ is. Landshark -- Hard things are put in our way, not to stop us, but to call out our courage and strength. |
On 10 May 2004 11:58:10 GMT, Steveo
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Sat, 08 May 2004 13:50:35 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... "Landshark" wrote in message . com... "Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... You forgot about these Lee: It's totally irrelevant to the question by the original poster concerning use of modified equipment on 11m. Totally relevant, you made a post, I countered with one of dozens of hams doing far worse things. This is not a ham newsgroup. What happens on ham radio is irrelevant to the cause of CB radio. Except for the fact that certain hams like to come here to **** with us CBers, and Jerry likes to post the enforcement logs. So yes it is relevant. FCC logs of enforcement action which pertains to illegal CB operation is relevant to a CB newsgroup. Logs of similar action against illegal hams is not relevant. The fact that you view such information as "****ing with CB'ers" is a perception issue. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Mon, 10 May 2004 13:26:08 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 07 May 2004 03:39:02 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... You forgot about these Lee: Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Irrelevant. This is a CB newsgroup. The "bad apples" of the ham radio fraternity have no bearing on what happens here. Sure it does, Lee posts stuff about cb'rs getting busted, Jer does, N8 does, WA3MOJ does, so why can all these people put up things about cb'rs, but I can't post this about Hams? That's easy. THIS IS A CB NEWSGROUP. Articles which pertain to CB, including the publishing of the eventual consequences for thumbing one's nose at the FCC, are part and parcel of CB operations. A little one-sided don't you think? Naw, never mind. Not at all. If you want to go to the ham newsgroup and remind them about their bad apples, it would be perfectly appropriate. Why would you think that enforcement action against hams has a place on a CB newsgroup? Besides, two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that there are a fair percentage of bad hams, does not diminish the seriousness of illegal CB operation. Agreed, but the fact that this is a CB newsgroup that a couple of certain hams (N8WWM, WA3MOJ) are trolling this group and posting that just to inflame is ok? So reminding people of the consequences for illegal operation, is nothing more than "trolling"? If that is true, then wouldn't the best course of action to take in this case, would be to ignore those who troll? Trolls want attention. Responding just gives them what they want. I think not, anymore than if someone went onto the Ham groups and posted about Hams being busted and then making statements that most hams are illegal, I would think that would make them upset too. It's not my problem if the truth upsets you. The simple fact is that most people who operate on CB ARE running illegally to some degree. Conversely, the percentage of hams who are illegal is much less, but they have higher visibility, simply because the FCC is more serious about enforcement on the ham bands, due largely to the fact that the hams themselves asked for it. Hams, for the most part, want to be rid of troublemakers. Most hams did not go through the trouble to pass the test and earn their privileges, only to have to deal with idiots. When you earn something, you are more likely to want to protect it. If you want to post ham related enforcement logs on ham newsgroups, then by all means, go for it. At least they'll be on a relevant newsgroup. The original poster was not asking for information about "peaked and tuned" ham radios....... OK, so? This is a CB newsgroup. Not a Ham newsgroup. What does ham have to do with it? Operating modified radios on CB is illegal. I know such mundane details like FCC rules are a thorn in the ass of many people's fun, but the point needs to be made. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... illegal. I know such mundane details like FCC rules are a thorn in the ass of many people's fun, but the point needs to be made. Dave "Sandbagger" Well Dave, you know I don't have a problem with you, but Lee doesn't own a cb radio, talk on a cb radio, but does post this stuff just to start a flame war. I bring up the Ham, Because the ones that always post these things are Hams, that don't own a CB or even talk on one, so why are they here? To gain information on CB? You really think that posting those things here has some sort of impact? The things Jer does has more of an impact then any of the posts, repost, re-post of reposts of CB'rs getting busted 4+ years ago by the FCC in a cb group. News Flash, CHP/NHP is doing a 0 tolerance on Highway 80, from the SF Bay Area to the Nevada/Utah Stateline, broadcast on TV/Radio/Newspaper/Internet, did that slow people down? Some 400+ tickets written during that one day enforcement, CHP said up some 15% from previous year when they did the same thing. Landshark -- The world is good-natured to people who are good natured. |
The Hypocrite (N3CVJ) Hall wrote:
Why would you think that enforcement action against hams has a place on a CB newsgroup? Same reason you feel it pertinent to present your hammie call in a CB ng. |
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:43:54 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . illegal. I know such mundane details like FCC rules are a thorn in the ass of many people's fun, but the point needs to be made. Dave "Sandbagger" Well Dave, you know I don't have a problem with you, but Lee doesn't own a cb radio, talk on a cb radio, but does post this stuff just to start a flame war. Do you know that for sure? How much information does anybody really know is true or not on these newsgroups? People are not who they claim in many cases, and how they represent themselves is equally suspect. I bring up the Ham, Because the ones that always post these things are Hams, that don't own a CB or even talk on one, so why are they here? THAT is a good question. I don't understand why any ham, who is not also interested in some form in CB, would waste their time here. To gain information on CB? You really think that posting those things here has some sort of impact? In the grand scheme of things, probably not. A small fraction of CB operators actually read this newsgroup. But a small group of people do seem to get some sort of satisfaction by raining on other people's (illegal) parade. Many have left the group as a result. The things Jer does has more of an impact then any of the posts, repost, re-post of reposts of CB'rs getting busted 4+ years ago by the FCC in a cb group. Jerry's not the only one. There are a number of hams who routinely monitor the lower end of 10 meters and report trespassers. Personally, I am way too busy to play radio cop. But I applaud the efforts of those who do. It's one thing if the kids in the neighborhood want to play in the vacant lot next door. Nobody really minds. But when they go beyond the vacant lot and into the occupied home on the other side, there's bound to be trouble. News Flash, CHP/NHP is doing a 0 tolerance on Highway 80, from the SF Bay Area to the Nevada/Utah Stateline, broadcast on TV/Radio/Newspaper/Internet, did that slow people down? Some 400+ tickets written during that one day enforcement, CHP said up some 15% from previous year when they did the same thing. So what you are saying, in essence, is that people are well aware of the rules. If they choose to break them they will do so at their own risk. Efforts to enforce the rules are a waste of time, since it will not stem the tide of irresponsible behavior. Is that about right? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
When have I EVER done that? YOU are the
one who sees fit to paste it in, when it suits you. I deliberately do not bring my ham status into this group as a rule, since it is not relevant. The fact that my call is part of my email address is incidental, not deliberate. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj _ Oh? Someone ELSE made your email for you, making it "incidental" (definition: "Happening or likely to happen in an UNPLANNED conjunction")? And of course, the inclusion of your call in your email was "unplanned" and completely accidental. Go fish. That roll you're on keeps on growing.... |
|
On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:44:42 -0500, FlaFla wrote:
You think by posting peoples names and addresses will have some sort of impact, steve threaterning people will that have some sort of impact, not with me, and as noted you nor any of your keyclowns will ever disclose their address why? afraid of the impact? The things Jer does has more of an impact then any of the posts, repost, re-post of reposts of CB'rs getting busted 4+ years ago by the FCC in a cb group. News Flash, CHP/NHP is doing a 0 tolerance on Highway 80, from the SF Bay Area to the Nevada/Utah Stateline, broadcast on TV/Radio/Newspaper/Internet, did that slow people down? Some 400+ tickets written during that one day enforcement, CHP said up some 15% from previous year when they did the same thing. Landshark So go tell them what they are doing does not have an impact, they will tell you to head back down to gaylord street and mind your own business. right on brutha flav. notice that I Am Not George's name and address is unknown, he is the one doing the threats and trolling. imagine if I Am Not George was as easy to look up as kc8ldo and n8wwm I can say for sure he would act much differently in here. |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:43:54 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . illegal. I know such mundane details like FCC rules are a thorn in the ass of many people's fun, but the point needs to be made. Dave "Sandbagger" Well Dave, you know I don't have a problem with you, but Lee doesn't own a cb radio, talk on a cb radio, but does post this stuff just to start a flame war. Do you know that for sure? How much information does anybody really know is true or not on these newsgroups? People are not who they claim in many cases, and how they represent themselves is equally suspect. Leland has said so a number of times, Doug too. Jerry has said he doesn't care at all about cb, just 10 meters. If by their own statements they don't care about CB, then why believe them on anything else? I bring up the Ham, Because the ones that always post these things are Hams, that don't own a CB or even talk on one, so why are they here? THAT is a good question. I don't understand why any ham, who is not also interested in some form in CB, would waste their time here. Agreed To gain information on CB? You really think that posting those things here has some sort of impact? In the grand scheme of things, probably not. A small fraction of CB operators actually read this newsgroup. But a small group of people do seem to get some sort of satisfaction by raining on other people's (illegal) parade. Many have left the group as a result. Agreed The things Jer does has more of an impact then any of the posts, repost, re-post of reposts of CB'rs getting busted 4+ years ago by the FCC in a cb group. Jerry's not the only one. There are a number of hams who routinely monitor the lower end of 10 meters and report trespassers. Personally, I am way too busy to play radio cop. But I applaud the efforts of those who do. Agreed It's one thing if the kids in the neighborhood want to play in the vacant lot next door. Nobody really minds. But when they go beyond the vacant lot and into the occupied home on the other side, there's bound to be trouble. I don't know about you, but as a kid & currently where I live there really isn't any sort of fences, especially in the front yards. so most "kids" play where they want. Now, it's probably going to cause problems in the future when some "kid" hurts himself, but right now no big deal. News Flash, CHP/NHP is doing a 0 tolerance on Highway 80, from the SF Bay Area to the Nevada/Utah Stateline, broadcast on TV/Radio/Newspaper/Internet, did that slow people down? Some 400+ tickets written during that one day enforcement, CHP said up some 15% from previous year when they did the same thing. So what you are saying, in essence, is that people are well aware of the rules. If they choose to break them they will do so at their own risk. Yes Efforts to enforce the rules are a waste of time, since it will not stem the tide of irresponsible behavior. Is that about right? No. It is the job of the duly appointed Officer (Sheriff, constable, Highway Patrolman, Trooper) to enforce the laws, not me. There would be no reason for me to go chasing after a speeder and pull along side of him and start to berate him on how he was speeding. It would just **** him off and maybe create an even worse situation, road rage. Dave Landshark -- Most true happiness comes from one's inner life, from the disposition of the mind and soul. Admittedly, a good inner life is hard to achieve, especially in these trying times. It takes reflection and contemplation and self-discipline. |
|
In , "Landshark"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . snip Efforts to enforce the rules are a waste of time, since it will not stem the tide of irresponsible behavior. Is that about right? No. It is the job of the duly appointed Officer (Sheriff, constable, Highway Patrolman, Trooper) to enforce the laws, not me. No, but it is your responsibility as a citizen to see that those laws are enforced. That is, of course, assuming you want the laws to work in your favor; i.e, the prosecution of those that violate your rights, safety, property, etc. There would be no reason for me to go chasing after a speeder and pull along side of him and start to berate him on how he was speeding. It would just **** him off and maybe create an even worse situation, road rage. The least you can do is set an example (and enjoy the ride a little more) by leaving a few minutes early and driving a little below the speed limit. It may not make a noticable difference, but it's something, and it's certainly more than your 'do-nothing' attitude. Apathy is not a solution. If you are not part of the solution..... -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Sun, 9 May 2004 14:54:46 -0400, "Road Warrior"
wrote: WA3MOJ wrote: I love to suck cock and eat cum. Vanilla or Chocolate, George? He likes chocolate just check google. |
"AKC KennelMaster" wrote in message
... Yes this is a cb NG, Steveo is a troll, BP is a troll road warrior is a troll, randy is a troll, snipped Please capitalize my name. It took all his effort to spell it correctly, and you expect him to know the difference between a proper noun and an adjective? :~} Peter. |
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:51:09 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote: When have I EVER done that? YOU are the one who sees fit to paste it in, when it suits you. I deliberately do not bring my ham status into this group as a rule, since it is not relevant. The fact that my call is part of my email address is incidental, not deliberate. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj _ Oh? Someone ELSE made your email for you, making it "incidental" (definition: "Happening or likely to happen in an UNPLANNED conjunction")? Sigh. I should have known I'd have to explain it to you in the same manner that I have to use when explaining things to my 4 year old. *I* made up my email address. But its inclusion in any headers is not a deliberate act on my part. It's a normal part of internet traffic. I am hardly "flaunting" my ham status. You will not see me signing it in the message body of any message posted on this group. You need to dig some more. The only thing you're coming up with are dirty hands. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 12 May 2004 02:07:50 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: Well Dave, you know I don't have a problem with you, but Lee doesn't own a cb radio, talk on a cb radio, but does post this stuff just to start a flame war. Do you know that for sure? How much information does anybody really know is true or not on these newsgroups? People are not who they claim in many cases, and how they represent themselves is equally suspect. Leland has said so a number of times, Doug too. Jerry has said he doesn't care at all about cb, just 10 meters. If by their own statements they don't care about CB, then why believe them on anything else? Many people have said many things. I take what I read with a grain of salt. A lot of people take advantage of the relative anonymity of the internet to behave in ways that they would never consider face-to-face. Unless you fully understand and are willing to work within that framework, and deal with people accordingly, you may fall victim to trolls. Jerry's not the only one. There are a number of hams who routinely monitor the lower end of 10 meters and report trespassers. Personally, I am way too busy to play radio cop. But I applaud the efforts of those who do. Agreed It's one thing if the kids in the neighborhood want to play in the vacant lot next door. Nobody really minds. But when they go beyond the vacant lot and into the occupied home on the other side, there's bound to be trouble. I don't know about you, but as a kid & currently where I live there really isn't any sort of fences, especially in the front yards. so most "kids" play where they want. Now, it's probably going to cause problems in the future when some "kid" hurts himself, but right now no big deal. I was using that as an analogy. The biggest rule to follow if you are going to freeband is to tread lightly and keep a low profile. The more attention you attract, the more likely it will be that you will cross paths with the FCC at some point. Most of the freeband frequencies are vacant (The vacant lot), and if the "kids" want to play there, not too many people will mind, as long as they aren't making too much noise (RFI), or they don't wander onto the neighbor's yard (10 meters). So what you are saying, in essence, is that people are well aware of the rules. If they choose to break them they will do so at their own risk. Yes Efforts to enforce the rules are a waste of time, since it will not stem the tide of irresponsible behavior. Is that about right? No. It is the job of the duly appointed Officer (Sheriff, constable, Highway Patrolman, Trooper) to enforce the laws, not me. Do you think that this may be a part of the problem with society these days? If no one is willing to support the laws, and instead place that job fully on the shoulders of LEO, is it any surprise that there are so many people willing to ignore those same laws? There would be no reason for me to go chasing after a speeder and pull along side of him and start to berate him on how he was speeding. It would just **** him off and maybe create an even worse situation, road rage. Maybe so, but if people routinely did this, there would be a lot less people speeding, and the cops would have an easier job. Do we, as American citizens, not have a responsibility to stand up for what is right? Do we have a responsibility to instill the need to be more law abiding? What event(s) took place that made it seem more "cool" to be a law breaking rebel, rather than someone who obeys the rules? When did social responsibility give way to social indifference? It's no wonder when serial killers are caught, there will invariably be those interviews with neighbors who can't understand why he was a killer ("He was such a quiet guy"), and how he never gave any outward signs. Maybe if people were more observant, they'd have seen the signs....... Food for thought..... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Dave Landshark |
|
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 May 2004 02:07:50 GMT, "Landshark" Many people have said many things. I take what I read with a grain of salt. A lot of people take advantage of the relative anonymity of the internet to behave in ways that they would never consider face-to-face. Unless you fully understand and are willing to work within that framework, and deal with people accordingly, you may fall victim to trolls. Agreed, but when you continually announce that you have nothing to do with CB, then you must be taken at you're word. As for saying things face-to-face, you'll be right in most cases. I was using that as an analogy. The biggest rule to follow if you are going to freeband is to tread lightly and keep a low profile. The more attention you attract, the more likely it will be that you will cross paths with the FCC at some point. Most of the freeband frequencies are vacant (The vacant lot), and if the "kids" want to play there, not too many people will mind, as long as they aren't making too much noise (RFI), or they don't wander onto the neighbor's yard (10 meters). Agreed, in most any cases. So what you are saying, in essence, is that people are well aware of the rules. If they choose to break them they will do so at their own risk. Yes Efforts to enforce the rules are a waste of time, since it will not stem the tide of irresponsible behavior. Is that about right? No. It is the job of the duly appointed Officer (Sheriff, constable, Highway Patrolman, Trooper) to enforce the laws, not me. Do you think that this may be a part of the problem with society these days? No. I believe the problems lays in the up bring and teachings from Family & Friends in most cases. If no one is willing to support the laws, and instead place that job fully on the shoulders of LEO, is it any surprise that there are so many people willing to ignore those same laws? I think you should support the job that Law enforcement is doing, but that does not mean chasing down speeders and people that do break minor laws. There would be no reason for me to go chasing after a speeder and pull along side of him and start to berate him on how he was speeding. It would just **** him off and maybe create an even worse situation, road rage. Maybe so, but if people routinely did this, there would be a lot less people speeding, and the cops would have an easier job. Any cop will tell you not to confront a law breaker, call them and let them know, that is their job. Throw a ball in front of a speeding car, make him swerve, possibly crash, injure himself or someone other, you will be the law breaker, not the speeder. Do we, as American citizens, not have a responsibility to stand up for what is right? Do we have a responsibility to instill the need to be more law abiding? Yes, but as for "enforcement" of most laws, that is the responsibility of the Police, not average Joe on the street. What event(s) took place that made it seem more "cool" to be a law breaking rebel, rather than someone who obeys the rules? Don't know, again up bringing, but look at it this way, if there were no traffic fines, cities, counties etc etc would be broke. When did social responsibility give way to social indifference? Oh, mid 70's I would think. It's no wonder when serial killers are caught, there will invariably be those interviews with neighbors who can't understand why he was a killer ("He was such a quiet guy"), and how he never gave any outward signs. Maybe if people were more observant, they'd have seen the signs....... Food for thought..... Serial killer? Most cases no, drug trafficking, yes, domestic abuse, yes, a lot things yes, others you would never know. Dave Landshark -- Real heroes are men who fall and fail and are flawed, but win out in the end because they've stayed true to their ideals and beliefs and commitments. |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:51:09 -0400, When have I EVER done that? YOU are the one who sees fit to paste it in, when it suits you. I deliberately do not bring my ham status into this group as a rule, since it is not relevant. The fact that my call is part of my email address is incidental, not deliberate. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj _ Oh? Someone ELSE made your email for you, making it "incidental" (definition: "Happening or likely to happen in an UNPLANNED conjunction")? Sigh. I should have known I'd have to explain it to you in the same manner that I have to use when explaining things to my 4 year old. Your 4 year old has been that age for years. Why is that child not aging, Davie? Ah..never mind. *I* made up my email address. But its inclusion in any headers is not a deliberate act on my part. No one mentioned headers, Davie, except you. Let's look at what you said again. The fact that my call is part of my email address is incidental, not deliberate. No davie-son, the fact that your call is part of your email address is NOT incidental...it is deliberate, as you created it. _ It's a normal part of internet traffic. I am hardly "flaunting" my ham status. No one accused you of doing such. You're way too paranoid. You will not see me signing it in the message body of any message posted on this group. You need to dig some more. The only thing you're coming up with are dirty hands. No need to dig. One merely needs to watch your posts full of contradictions and lies. Those "dirty hands" only come from handling you and dragging you across the coals with your own lies. .. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:08:09 -0500, FlavaFlav wrote:
you are an anon aol troll... pot, kettle,black... bingo ... and? i have never said i was anything else, unlike your sock puppet. bingo. |
On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:53:28 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:51:09 -0400, When have I EVER done that? YOU are the one who sees fit to paste it in, when it suits you. I deliberately do not bring my ham status into this group as a rule, since it is not relevant. The fact that my call is part of my email address is incidental, not deliberate. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj _ Oh? Someone ELSE made your email for you, making it "incidental" (definition: "Happening or likely to happen in an UNPLANNED conjunction")? Sigh. I should have known I'd have to explain it to you in the same manner that I have to use when explaining things to my 4 year old. Your 4 year old has been that age for years. Why is that child not aging, Davie? Ah..never mind. My 4 year old has been a 4 year old since January. Before that, she was a three year old. *I* made up my email address. But its inclusion in any headers is not a deliberate act on my part. No one mentioned headers, Davie, except you. Let's look at what you said again. No, let's keep what you said in context. You said: "Same reason you feel it pertinent to present your hammie call in a CB ng. Which to anyone with normal comprehensive skills, would mean that I deliberately sign my messages with it or otherwise include the fact within the message body. Since you once again ran your fingers before you had your brain fully engaged, you made that erroneous accusation, and are now backpeddling. I am hardly "flaunting" my ham status. No one accused you of doing such. You're way too paranoid. You did, see above. You will not see me signing it in the message body of any message posted on this group. You need to dig some more. The only thing you're coming up with are dirty hands. No need to dig. One merely needs to watch your posts full of contradictions and lies. I made no such contradictions. Conversely, you make many accusations which, when confronted with them, resort to obfuscation and spin followed by the inevitable backpeddle. Those "dirty hands" only come from handling you and dragging you across the coals with your own lies. You are the only one who lies here. And you're not even dead yet..... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:52:46 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: So what you are saying, in essence, is that people are well aware of the rules. If they choose to break them they will do so at their own risk. Yes Efforts to enforce the rules are a waste of time, since it will not stem the tide of irresponsible behavior. Is that about right? No. It is the job of the duly appointed Officer (Sheriff, constable, Highway Patrolman, Trooper) to enforce the laws, not me. Right, but it's the responsibility of every citizen to apply the social equivalent of peer pressure to those who refuse to "tow the line". This form of intimidation was widely employed in days long gone, but has largely been abandoned in this age of indifference. Do you think that this may be a part of the problem with society these days? No. I believe the problems lays in the up bring and teachings from Family & Friends in most cases. I would agree, and add that upbringing doesn't end at age 18. If no one is willing to support the laws, and instead place that job fully on the shoulders of LEO, is it any surprise that there are so many people willing to ignore those same laws? I think you should support the job that Law enforcement is doing, but that does not mean chasing down speeders and people that do break minor laws. People need to be made aware that "minor laws" are not always as "minor" as they may think. Many people believed that crimes such as cable TV theft of service were "minor" because what was being stolen was not physically tangible. But when the lost revenue for the cable companies were added to the picture, it's not such a "victimless" crime. Speeding, on the surface, does not seem to be a big deal either. But consider what can happen when there is a traffic mishap. Speed lessens reaction time, and increases the potential for damage and injury. Most laws were not created to ruin people's fun. They were created to protect society as a collective whole. There would be no reason for me to go chasing after a speeder and pull along side of him and start to berate him on how he was speeding. It would just **** him off and maybe create an even worse situation, road rage. Maybe so, but if people routinely did this, there would be a lot less people speeding, and the cops would have an easier job. Any cop will tell you not to confront a law breaker, call them and let them know, that is their job. Throw a ball in front of a speeding car, make him swerve, possibly crash, injure himself or someone other, you will be the law breaker, not the speeder. That would not be a good idea. But leaving a little "note" on the offender's car every time it happens, including the forwarding of their license number to the cops, might make someone think a little. As a parent, I have become very conscious of people speeding through residential neighborhoods. I would hate to have my kid or an neighbor's kid fall victim to someone who's ignoring a "nuisance" law. Do we, as American citizens, not have a responsibility to stand up for what is right? Do we have a responsibility to instill the need to be more law abiding? Yes, but as for "enforcement" of most laws, that is the responsibility of the Police, not average Joe on the street. The police are given the jurisdiction to make arrests and levy fines. But we all share the responsibility to make it known that we will not stand by and allow these things to go on. By doing nothing, you are giving your passive condonation, which further re-enforced the attitude that breaking the law is "ok". Like in the case of illegal CB use, it may seem that the guys advocating legal operation are grossly outnumbered, but to ignore it, is giving your acceptance of it. What event(s) took place that made it seem more "cool" to be a law breaking rebel, rather than someone who obeys the rules? Don't know, again up bringing, but look at it this way, if there were no traffic fines, cities, counties etc etc would be broke. A capitalist solution to a social problem. Turn the problem into a windfall. Maybe if the fines were raised sufficiently, people might be less inclined to take the risk. When did social responsibility give way to social indifference? Oh, mid 70's I would think. I would agree. I'm still waiting for the pendulum to swing back. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:40:25 -0500, FlavaFlav wrote:
btw, let me rephrase you are a aol troll, and I will bet dollars to donuts you are 1 of 3 people no one is obsessed as much as they are roflmao.. you guys are too easy ..woooooo your point? so i am an aol troll? how much of your alcohol ravaged brain did it take to figure that out? |
On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:38:45 -0500, FlavaFlav wrote:
sorry if you are too stupid to figure out that isn't me.. but then again I am wa3moj right?? and aaron voobner?? etc etc etc sorry if you are too stupid to figure out i never said you were wa3moj. paranoia problems? or have you been in the bottle already today? |
Dave Hall wrote:
Like in the case of illegal CB use, it may seem that the guys advocating legal operation are grossly outnumbered, but to ignore it, is giving your acceptance of it. Hypocrite. Dave Hall wrote: Granted this turns a 800 watt peak amp into a 200 watt amp (Doesn't sound so glamourous), but for my type of operating, this works the best. -- I won't retire, but I might retread. |
On Wed, 12 May 2004 14:10:51 -0500, FlavaFlav wrote:
I dont drink assflap. maybe you don't drink assflap, but i bet you drink your fair share of whiskey |
|
|
Dave Hall wrote:
Like in the case of illegal CB use, it may seem that the guys advocating legal operation are grossly outnumbered, but to ignore it, is giving your acceptance of it. I never understand why people need to drive their amps with so much power. With my amp in an out of box condition, 4 watts will push it to 500 watts carrier (In the high position), with little headroom left for peak modulation (And it sounds fuzzy). Why would anyone need to drive it with another amp? Dave "Sandbagger" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- -- I won't retire, but I might retread. |
(I Am Not George) wrote:
Steveo wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Like in the case of illegal CB use, it may seem that the guys advocating legal operation are grossly outnumbered, but to ignore it, is giving your acceptance of it. Hypocrite. Dave Hall wrote: Granted this turns a 800 watt peak amp into a 200 watt amp (Doesn't sound so glamourous), but for my type of operating, this works the best. Watch out Dave, if you disagree with this guy he will have a tantrum and drive to you're house and leave notes or take pictures, rotflmao. Or send mail to your house........ -- I won't retire, but I might retread. |
Steveo wrote:
(I Am Not George) wrote: Steveo wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Like in the case of illegal CB use, it may seem that the guys advocating legal operation are grossly outnumbered, but to ignore it, is giving your acceptance of it. Hypocrite. Dave Hall wrote: Granted this turns a 800 watt peak amp into a 200 watt amp (Doesn't sound so glamourous), but for my type of operating, this works the best. Watch out Dave, if you disagree with this guy he will have a tantrum and drive to you're house and leave notes or take pictures, rotflmao. Or send mail to your house........ Dave there it is from the horses mouth, steve is openly harasing and threatening to harass hams in this NG he is like a child, if he doesnt get his way he will have a tantrum. He has no regard for laws, restraining orders, using the us mail for threats, etc. so be advised. |
Steveo wrote:
(I Am Not George) wrote: Steveo wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Like in the case of illegal CB use, it may seem that the guys advocating legal operation are grossly outnumbered, but to ignore it, is giving your acceptance of it. Hypocrite. Dave Hall wrote: Granted this turns a 800 watt peak amp into a 200 watt amp (Doesn't sound so glamourous), but for my type of operating, this works the best. Watch out Dave, if you disagree with this guy he will have a tantrum and drive to you're house and leave notes or take pictures, rotflmao. Or send mail to your house........ Dave there it is from the horses mouth, steve is openly harasing and threatening to harass hams in this NG he is like a child, if he doesnt get his way he will have a tantrum. |
(I Am Not George) wrote:
Steveo wrote: (I Am Not George) wrote: Steveo wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Like in the case of illegal CB use, it may seem that the guys advocating legal operation are grossly outnumbered, but to ignore it, is giving your acceptance of it. Hypocrite. Dave Hall wrote: Granted this turns a 800 watt peak amp into a 200 watt amp (Doesn't sound so glamourous), but for my type of operating, this works the best. Watch out Dave, if you disagree with this guy he will have a tantrum and drive to you're house and leave notes or take pictures, rotflmao. Or send mail to your house........ Dave there it is from the horses mouth, steve is openly harasing and threatening to harass hams in this NG he is like a child, if he doesnt get his way he will have a tantrum. What are you babbling about now, you drunken fool? I want to send -YOU- some mail. That's not harassment, dumbass. -- I won't retire, but I might retread. |
|
On 12 May 2004 20:06:21 GMT, Steveo wrote:
What retraining order, punk? didn't he order you to "restrain" from teasing him and making fun of him? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com