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
news
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
news
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

On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:04:47 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

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.


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