|
|
"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. |
|
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com