(I Am Not George) wrote:
No according to the keyclowns I am wa3moj which makes me easy to look
up and makes you an anonymous troll, assflap.

So sending snail mail to Devon circle should end up at your
place without a hitch, right? eg

--
I won't retire, but I might retread.

"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 11 May 2004 19:41:50 -0700, (I Am Not George)
wrote:
No according to the keyclowns I am wa3moj which makes me easy to look
up and makes you an anonymous troll, assflap.

are you wa3moj? you are an anonymous google troll. the same thing you cry about
all the time, assflap licker

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.