|
Steveo wrote in message ...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote: "Steveo" wrote in message ... "Leland C. Scott" wrote: "Steveo" wrote in message ... "Leland C. Scott" wrote: Maybe you can fill some bags up for SteveoChicken to sell. Should I bring my portfolio to inductoheat? Naw, we don't need any more floor sweepers, but if you insist I'll even give you a personal tour of the place then gleefully kick your fanny out the door. Friday at noon? I don't care when you show up chicken. Make sure you take a shower first. I don't want you stinking the place up. This ain't no social call, nad. You'll need to meet me in the parking lot..and if you have the nerve to say your spew to my face, your nose won't be much use to you for a while anyway. $100 cash money says steveochicken backpeddles into a no show, he got quite a scare today LOL. |
|
"Steveo" wrote in message ... This ain't no social call, nad. You'll need to meet me in the parking lot..and if you have the nerve to say your spew to my face, your nose won't be much use to you for a while anyway. You really that ignorant? You think you're going to show up where I work and start a fight on company property over something I'll say to your ugly face, and you don't think my company won't call the Madison Heights PD to arrest you? You're obviously computing while drunk. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message ... This ain't no social call, nad. You'll need to meet me in the parking lot..and if you have the nerve to say your spew to my face, your nose won't be much use to you for a while anyway. You really that ignorant? You think you're going to show up where I work and start a fight on company property over something I'll say to your ugly face, You invited me there, so say it to my ugly face or stfu. and you don't think my company won't call the Madison Heights PD to arrest you? Oh, you said this was between just you and me. Didn't know you were gonna invite your boss. You're obviously computing while drunk. Not a drop. Did you really think I was going for a tour of where you sweep the floor? -boring- |
JJ wrote in message ...
Twistedhed wrote: Which proves the FCC cares more about the ham bands than they do about cb. We applaud their efforts to catch the errant hams, more power to them. That is why they also go after the illegal cbers that attempt to operate on the ham bands. They couldn't care less about the cb band anymore as the cbers took it upon themselves to turn it into the sewer pit of the radio spectrum. Hey, the CB band is like the internet. It is unpoliced. That's why it is so much fun. It's like a chat room. Ever try to listen to any of the ham bands other then the liberty net? Well, for one thing, you will fall asleep in a matter of minutes! There just isn't anything entertaining to listen to on the ham bands. Yes, the ham bands are good to have in emergencies because they setup communications. But, other then that, they are pure boredom. Not so with CB. |
There just isn't anything entertaining to
listen to on the ham bands. what do you consider entertaining |
In , "Landshark"
wrote: snip The point is that making a statement that 99% of cb'rs operate illegally is false, just as 99% of hams get busted for operating illegally. Landshark I think any reasonable person would understand that the numbers he used are not actual statistics. Regardless, there is a 50% chance that those numbers -are- correct. -----= 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 Fri, 21 May 2004 00:57:24 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: The point is that making a statement that 99% of cb'rs operate illegally is false, just as 99% of hams get busted for operating illegally. I try to avoid making specific number comparisons since hard data is not usually easy to collect. But I would hope that you'd agree that a definite majority of CB'ers are running illegally in one form or another. I have certainly seen enough empirical data in my many years of the hobby to make that claim. It's one thing to be "busted" for operating illegally, It's totally another to just be "operating" illegally. It's true that a higher percentage of hams are busted for operating illegally than there are CB'ers popped for illegal operation. But for the most part it can be explained that hams themselves have requested stricter enforcement. In other words, just because there are a higher number of reported enforcement actions against hams vs. CB'ers, does not mean that there is a higher percentage of hams operating illegally. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 May 2004 00:57:24 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: The point is that making a statement that 99% of cb'rs operate illegally is false, just as 99% of hams get busted for operating illegally. I try to avoid making specific number comparisons since hard data is not usually easy to collect. Agreed, that is my point. But I would hope that you'd agree that a definite majority of CB'ers are running illegally in one form or another. I have certainly seen enough empirical data in my many years of the hobby to make that claim. I really don't. I would think that overall majority runs legally. If I were to take a stab, I would think that between 25-30% are illegal. I think amps are not as prevalent as are converted or export radios. It's one thing to be "busted" for operating illegally, It's totally another to just be "operating" illegally. It's true that a higher percentage of hams are busted for operating illegally than there are CB'ers popped for illegal operation. But for the most part it can be explained that hams themselves have requested stricter enforcement. Agreed, also Frank did a good analysis. In other words, just because there are a higher number of reported enforcement actions against hams vs. CB'ers, does not mean that there is a higher percentage of hams operating illegally. Agreed, just because a couple of Hams here are idiots, doesn't mean every Ham is an idiot, same goes for cb'rs. Dave "Sandbagger" Landshark -- That does suck..sometimes you're the windshield..sometimes you're the bug. |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 21 May 2004 00:57:24 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: The point is that making a statement that 99% of cb'rs operate illegally is false, just as 99% of hams get busted for operating illegally. I try to avoid making specific number comparisons Since when? This morning? You have presented such specific number "comparisons" on several occasions in order to shore up a claim of yours, with nothing to back it up except your "claim".. since hard data is not usually easy to collect. But I would hope that you'd agree that a definite majority of CB'ers are running illegally in one form or another. Majority? Hahha,,that would equal exactly what you said you do not do,,,,more than 51%...LOL....your hypocrisy radiates bull****. I have certainly seen enough empirical data in my many years of the hobby to make that claim. But of course, you can point to or illustrate *none* of this "empirical" (snicker) data,,,you want only to be taken at your word,,,something you ruined long ago, but I will give you another benefit of doubt,,,present something of this "empirical" data, as "empirical" means "provable or verifiable by experience or experiment". Merely claiming somehting is empirical does not make it so. Do something you have never been able to do for the masses, Davie,,prove your bull**** claim. It's one thing to be "busted" for operating illegally, It's totally another to just be "operating" illegally. It's true that a higher percentage of hams are busted for operating illegally than there are CB'ers popped for illegal operation. But for the most part it can be explained that hams themselves have requested stricter enforcement. It can also be argued, for the most part, it can be explained" that hammmies have also requested stricter enforcement against cbers as well,,,,,,it simply doesn't make it so and your claim was fabricated simply to suit your own warped politics. In other words, just because there are a higher number of reported enforcement actions against hams vs. CB'ers, does not mean that there is a higher percentage of hams operating illegally. It also can be stated with incredible accuracy, that simply because you categorically and vehemently stated you can prove something, doesn't mean you actually can or will. In other words, you're full of bull**** as usual. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 20 May 2004 11:15:53 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: (=A0=A0We applaud their efforts to catch the errant hams, more power to them. That is why they also go after the illegal cbers that attempt to operate on the ham bands. They couldn't care less about the cb band anymore as the cbers took it upon themselves to turn it into the sewer pit of the radio spectrum. ) Hehhee,,,it wasn't the cbers that brought the extra freqs and in between capabilities and amps to cb,,,it was the hammies. What gives you that idea? "Empirical" data. Are you saying that CBer's (or at least some of them) lack the technical expertise to achieve such feats? Your willingness to classify and typify entire groups of people has always been a flaw in your logic. I was experimenting with CB radios long before I got a ham license. In fact CB was my stepping stone into ham radio. Most people in hammie radio today share that sentiment. Nevertheless, it was the hammies that introduced the technology of frequency splitting and telling us where to get those crystals for the extra freqs. _ They actually did all the cbers a huge favor by their actions,,,,,they turned it into a virtual free for all and many cbers enjoy it just the way it is, much to the chagrin of certain scumbag hammies. And many legally operating CBers who now have a harder time communicating through the lawless and lack or respect "free-for-all". Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Goes both ways. The same statement is just as valid when applied to hammie radio. As in all of life's endeavors, one must take the good with the bad. Dwelling on only the bad is something you need get over. |
On Fri, 21 May 2004 13:16:28 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: I try to avoid making specific number comparisons since hard data is not usually easy to collect. Agreed, that is my point. But I would hope that you'd agree that a definite majority of CB'ers are running illegally in one form or another. I have certainly seen enough empirical data in my many years of the hobby to make that claim. I really don't. I would think that overall majority runs legally. If I were to take a stab, I would think that between 25-30% are illegal. I think amps are not as prevalent as are converted or export radios. Illegal operation does not end with amplifiers. Anyone who's had a radio "doctored" (peaked, clipped, extra channels etc), runs noise toys (including echo boxes and roger beeps), or laces his conversations with "four letter", words is running illegally. I cannot turn on the CB any more without someone violating at least one of these conditions. Like you pointed out before, some of this may be geographic in nature, but I have to assume, based on my own findings, that even considering geographical variations, that the average still favors the conclusion that more CBers run illegally to some degree, than those who do not.. Dave "Sandbagger" |
Steveo wrote in message ...
(I Am Not George) wrote: $100 cash money says steveochicken backpeddles into a no show, Should I add the $100 to the $1000 you'll owe me and make it an even $1100? How do you figure you won the bet? Ether your arrested at Inductoheat or your sneaking around Lelands apt while hes at work. |
On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:20:47 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Fri, 21 May 2004 00:57:24 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: The point is that making a statement that 99% of cb'rs operate illegally is false, just as 99% of hams get busted for operating illegally. I try to avoid making specific number comparisons Since when? This morning? You have presented such specific number "comparisons" on several occasions in order to shore up a claim of yours, with nothing to back it up except your "claim".. When? Put up or shut up. But I would hope that you'd agree that a definite majority of CB'ers are running illegally in one form or another. Majority? Hahha,,that would equal exactly what you said you do not do,,,,more than 51%...LOL....your hypocrisy radiates bull****. You evidently have absolutely no idea of the difference between general conclusions and specific numbers. Then again judging by your past performance and lack of comprehensive ability, this should not surprise me. I have certainly seen enough empirical data in my many years of the hobby to make that claim. But of course, you can point to or illustrate *none* of this "empirical" (snicker) data,,,you want only to be taken at your word,,,something you ruined long ago, but I will give you another benefit of doubt,,,present something of this "empirical" data, as "empirical" means "provable or verifiable by experience or experiment". And it's been my experience after 30+ years of CBing that the majority of CB operators operate illegally to one degree or another. Just turn the radio on any given day and you can hear it for yourself. Every time someone hits that roger beep, every time you hear an echo box, every time you see someone's signal "swinging" wildly, every yahoo on 27.555, and every time you hear some low-life cuss out someone else. Merely claiming somehting is empirical does not make it so. Do something you have never been able to do for the masses, Davie,,prove your bull**** claim. How does one "prove" a claim that is based on empirical observation? What, do you want government census numbers? You're not going to get them. But then again you know that, and you are simply falling back on your old standby excuse that "absence of proof means the same thing as lying". It's one thing to be "busted" for operating illegally, It's totally another to just be "operating" illegally. It's true that a higher percentage of hams are busted for operating illegally than there are CB'ers popped for illegal operation. But for the most part it can be explained that hams themselves have requested stricter enforcement. It can also be argued, for the most part, it can be explained" that hammmies have also requested stricter enforcement against cbers as well,,,,,,it simply doesn't make it so and your claim was fabricated simply to suit your own warped politics. Do a little searching. Or, be bold enough to ask Riley himself. Hams HAVE asked for better enforcement of the ham bands That is a matter of general acknowledgement for any ham who's spent any time listening to the ARRL and RAIN reports or who peruses ham discussion boards. But on the other hand, hams could not care less what goes on on 11 meters. As long as they stay above 12 meters and below 10. In other words, just because there are a higher number of reported enforcement actions against hams vs. CB'ers, does not mean that there is a higher percentage of hams operating illegally. It also can be stated with incredible accuracy, that simply because you categorically and vehemently stated you can prove something, doesn't mean you actually can or will. In other words, you're full of bull**** as usual. I have not claimed to have rock solid proof of anything. But if you are going to take the position that unless someone has such proof, that everything they say is automatically a lie, you are the one with issues. A tough and somewhat duplicitous position for someone who claims to believe in God. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ Why do you feel the need to add my call? This is a CB newsgroup remember? http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:26:50 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Thu, 20 May 2004 11:15:53 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: (**We applaud their efforts to catch the errant hams, more power to them. That is why they also go after the illegal cbers that attempt to operate on the ham bands. They couldn't care less about the cb band anymore as the cbers took it upon themselves to turn it into the sewer pit of the radio spectrum. ) Hehhee,,,it wasn't the cbers that brought the extra freqs and in between capabilities and amps to cb,,,it was the hammies. What gives you that idea? "Empirical" data. I'll take a page from your book and demand that you Prove it! Are you saying that CBer's (or at least some of them) lack the technical expertise to achieve such feats? Your willingness to classify and typify entire groups of people has always been a flaw in your logic. No, you did. I am merely taking your statement to its logical conclusion. If , as you imply, hams were responsible for all illegal CB activity, then that would mean that CBers themselves had no hand in it, which implies that they either could not, or were not willing to do it themselves. I was experimenting with CB radios long before I got a ham license. In fact CB was my stepping stone into ham radio. Most people in hammie radio today share that sentiment. Nevertheless, it was the hammies that introduced the technology of frequency splitting and telling us where to get those crystals for the extra freqs. 'Fraid not......... _ They actually did all the cbers a huge favor by their actions,,,,,they turned it into a virtual free for all and many cbers enjoy it just the way it is, much to the chagrin of certain scumbag hammies. And many legally operating CBers who now have a harder time communicating through the lawless and lack or respect "free-for-all". Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ Pasting in my call again? What's your point? http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
Dan wrote:
JJ wrote in message ... Twistedhed wrote: Which proves the FCC cares more about the ham bands than they do about cb. We applaud their efforts to catch the errant hams, more power to them. That is why they also go after the illegal cbers that attempt to operate on the ham bands. They couldn't care less about the cb band anymore as the cbers took it upon themselves to turn it into the sewer pit of the radio spectrum. Hey, the CB band is like the internet. It is unpoliced. That's why it is so much fun. It's like a chat room. Ever try to listen to any of the ham bands other then the liberty net? Well, for one thing, you will fall asleep in a matter of minutes! There just isn't anything entertaining to listen to on the ham bands. Yes, the ham bands are good to have in emergencies because they setup communications. But, other then that, they are pure boredom. Not so with CB. Yea, if you have the mentality of a junior high-schooler you probably would find the discussions on the ham bands, things like building antennas, equipment, learning about other parts of the world, boring. If you like vulgar language, and the sewer mentality, then cb is for you. |
Dave Hall wrote:
It's one thing to be "busted" for operating illegally, It's totally another to just be "operating" illegally. It's true that a higher percentage of hams are busted for operating illegally than there are CB'ers popped for illegal operation. But for the most part it can be explained that hams themselves have requested stricter enforcement. It is the difference between those in the ham ranks that want to operate withing the rules so that operating is pleasurable for everyone, as opposed to the cb ranks where many have no respect for rules or anyone and chaos is the norm. |
Dan wrote:
What an absolute collosal waste of tax payers money!!!! In your opinion which isn't worth much. |
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:20:47 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Fri, 21 May 2004 00:57:24 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: The point is that making a statement that 99% of cb'rs operate illegally is false, just as 99% of hams get busted for operating illegally. I try to avoid making specific number comparisons Since when? This morning? You have presented such specific number "comparisons" on several occasions in order to shore up a claim of yours, with nothing to back it up except your "claim".. When? On several occasions. Even in this post, unless you snipped it. Are you denying doing such? Put up or shut up. I have several times and it most certainly "shut you up." Again....are you denying producing such claims with number comparisons, Davie? But I would hope that you'd agree that a definite majority of CB'ers are running illegally in one form or another. Majority? Hahha,,that would equal exactly what you said you do not do,,,,more than 51%...LOL....your hypocrisy radiates bull****. You evidently have absolutely no idea of the difference between general conclusions and specific numbers. The word "majority" IS most certainly specific Davie,,,it defines exactly more than 50% or half. You evidently have no concept of the difference between,,,,ah hell, we all know what your problem is, Davie,,,,,you can't help slinging bull**** everytime you open that mouth of yours. Then again judging by your past performance and lack of comprehensive ability, this should not surprise me. Me either, since it is your interpretive and intellect skills that are so skewered. I have certainly seen enough empirical data in my many years of the hobby to make that claim. But of course, you can point to or illustrate *none* of this "empirical" (snicker) data,,,you want only to be taken at your word,,,something you ruined long ago, but I will give you another benefit of doubt,,,present something of this "empirical" data, as "empirical" means "provable or verifiable by experience or experiment". And it's been my experience after 30+ years of CBing that the majority of CB operators operate illegally to one degree or another. Just turn the radio on any given day and you can hear it for yourself. Your hearsay and personal experience is not empirical data, regardless of how severe you misappropriate and misdefine the term. Empirical data is PROOF derived from your personal experiences. Merely claiming such and assuming is not "empirical". Every time someone hits that roger beep, every time you hear an echo box, Incorrect. roger beeps and echo is not illegal on cb. No wonder you left it,,,you couldn't comprehend the rules,,,,say it with me now,,,altogether,,,"deficit in communications", Davie, is your dilemma. every time you see someone's signal "swinging" wildly, every yahoo on 27.555, and every time you hear some low-life cuss out someone else. _ Merely claiming somehting is empirical does not make it so. Do something you have never been able to do for the masses, Davie,,prove your bull**** claim. How does one "prove" a claim that is based on empirical observation? That's your problem,,,in addition to the fact that you are now doing the backwards shuffle and claiming "empirical observation" as opposed to your former claim of "empirical DATA". Data is arived at via observation. Look up the word "empirical" and try placing that term again in front of the laughable term you coined "empirical observation" and you may (on the other hand, you may not) comprhend how redundant and "double-speak" your newly coined phrase is. End of story. I have not claimed to have rock solid proof of anything. But you DID. Again, look up the word "empirical",,,,it means PROOF supplied via your own experiments, however, one's word is NOT proof, no matter how you try to postulate such. In the world of science, one's mere word without proof positive is "a theory" and the word "experiment" is a means of arriving at "proof" and disproving a theory and making it fact. When a theory is proven via fact, (IE: proof) it is no longer a theory It denotes a scientific arrival at a belief (theory) arrived at and based upon by,,taa daa-- "proof",,not ones word based upon their own experiences and assumptions. But if you are going to take the position that unless someone has such proof, that everything they say is automatically a lie, you are the one with issues. Not "someone" Davie,,,just you,,,,as you ahve been unable to present proof for any of your wild assed claims I have ever called you on,,just more lipservice and angry posts directed at personal issues and not the topic at hand. Once again, such behavior, I will surmise, most would feel is indicative of a chronic liar,,,,or one with "issues". A tough and somewhat duplicitous position for someone who claims to believe in God. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ My personal faith and believing in God has absolutely nothing to do with not believing one who has failed to produce anything concerning any of his claims, except angry diatribes, off-topic obsessions, hearsay, and personal opinion.. Why do you feel the need to add my call? This .is a CB newsgroup remember? Because I am of the personal opinion the people should know who attempts to sling and perpetuate bull**** against them on a regular basis and you are known by your call. Don't be so ashamed of your call, davie, it will trigger those incredible feelings of no self-worth you have expressed in needing to "move on" and disassociate yourself from your past and your past actions. http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Fri, May 21, 2004, 3:52pm (EDT-1) Date: =A0=A0
Fri, May 21, 2004, 1:47pm (EDT-2) From: =A0=A0 JJ User-Agent: =A0=A0 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: =A0=A0 en-us, en Group: =A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 More hams Busted, than CB'ers on Ham 10m Band X-Trace: =A0=A0 sv3-Ojo6u6ker1xj+Vz4qycifEB7FEdFGOgRkGG/zgifnkUgpIcx1vnNmYbJezcI83EXRe/wn1= MNZU67b5F!Ci9DrwCwG9lNoaKaFDAOyWukbJWMWPJLAEyFE88Y EZmtTeH1xhS1j6pw00RLWEaE= kRO1CpgCtvPe!DQ=3D=3D X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.1 Dave Hall wrote: It's one thing to be "busted" for operating illegally, It's totally another to just be "operating" illegally. It's true that a higher percentage of hams are busted for operating illegally than there are CB'ers popped for illegal operation. But for the most part it can be explained that hams themselves have requested stricter enforcement. _ It is the difference between those in the ham ranks that want to operate withing the rules so that operating is pleasurable for everyone, as opposed to the cb ranks where many have no respect for rules or anyone and chaos is the norm. Pretty funny, as there are many hammies that " "have no respect for rules or anyone and chaos is the norm"..I merely point to the number of licensed lids in this group. A peep into the hammie groups reveal the same. In fact, some of the same scumbag hammie lids in THIS group were partially responsible for Ed Hare leaving the hammie groups because of their "no respect for rules or anyone". |
On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:04:02 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:20:47 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Fri, 21 May 2004 00:57:24 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: The point is that making a statement that 99% of cb'rs operate illegally is false, just as 99% of hams get busted for operating illegally. I try to avoid making specific number comparisons Since when? This morning? You have presented such specific number "comparisons" on several occasions in order to shore up a claim of yours, with nothing to back it up except your "claim".. When? On several occasions. Even in this post, unless you snipped it. Are you denying doing such? I never claimed a specific number, only a "majority". It could be 51%, or as much as 90%. Put up or shut up. I have several times and it most certainly "shut you up." Again....are you denying producing such claims with number comparisons, Davie? I'm sure your warped perception would not allow you to differentiate between quoting an exact figure and citing approximate figures. But I would hope that you'd agree that a definite majority of CB'ers are running illegally in one form or another. Majority? Hahha,,that would equal exactly what you said you do not do,,,,more than 51%...LOL....your hypocrisy radiates bull****. You evidently have absolutely no idea of the difference between general conclusions and specific numbers. The word "majority" IS most certainly specific Davie,,,it defines exactly more than 50% or half. That's just the minimum, it could be much higher. Then again judging by your past performance and lack of comprehensive ability, this should not surprise me. I have certainly seen enough empirical data in my many years of the hobby to make that claim. But of course, you can point to or illustrate *none* of this "empirical" (snicker) data,,,you want only to be taken at your word,,,something you ruined long ago, but I will give you another benefit of doubt,,,present something of this "empirical" data, as "empirical" means "provable or verifiable by experience or experiment". Experience my boy. 30+ years of it. And it's been my experience after 30+ years of CBing that the majority of CB operators operate illegally to one degree or another. Just turn the radio on any given day and you can hear it for yourself. Your hearsay and personal experience is not empirical data, regardless of how severe you misappropriate and misdefine the term. It certainly is. Empirical data is PROOF derived from your personal experiences. Merely claiming such and assuming is not "empirical". If one of the "saucer men" were to land in your front lawn and hang out and drink a few beers with you, would you not then have "proof" that alien life exists? Would that proof be from observation? The fact that you cannot provide anything other than your own words to validate the claim to others does not diminish its value as empirical data. I have all the "proof" that I need to make the claim that a definite majority of CB'ers are running illegal. That you choose to not believe it is your problem. Every time someone hits that roger beep, every time you hear an echo box, Incorrect. roger beeps and echo is not illegal on cb. They most certainly ARE illegal. They are considered "devices for the purpose of attracting attention or amusement". Check part 95: Sec. 95.631 Emission types. (c) A CB transmitter may transmit only emission types A1D, H1D, J1D, R1D, A3E, H3E, J3E, R3E. A non-voice emission is limited to selective calling or tone-operated squelch tones to establish or continue voice communications. See Sec. 95.412 (b) and (c). Sec. 95.412 (CB Rule 12) What communications may be transmitted? (Pay attention to (b) (a) You may use your CB station to transmit two-way plain language communications. Two-way plain language communications are communications without codes or coded messages. Operating signals such as ``ten codes'' are not considered codes or coded messages. You may transmit two-way plain language communications only to other CB stations, to units of your own CB station or to authorized government stations on CB frequencies about-- (1) Your personal or business activities or those of members of your immediate family living in your household; (2) Emergencies (see CB Rule 18, Sec. 95.418); (3) Traveler assistance (see CB Rule 18, Sec. 95.418); or (4) Civil defense activities in connection with official tests or drills conducted by, or actual emergencies announced by, the civil defense agency with authority over the area in which your station is located. (b) You may use your CB station to transmit a tone signal only when the signal is used to make contact or to continue communications. (Examples of circuits using these signals are tone operated squelch and selective calling circuits.) If the signal is an audible tone, it must last no longer than 15 seconds at one time. If the signal is a subaudible tone, it may be transmitted continuously only as long as you are talking. (c) You may use your CB station to transmit one-way communications (messages which are not intended to establish communications between two or more particular CB stations) only for emergency communications, traveler assistance, brief tests (radio checks) or voice paging. RULE 13 - Illegal Communications (Pay attention to [2] and [6]) {A} You must NOT use a CB station- [1] in connection with activity which is against federal, state or local law; [2] to transmit obscene, indecent or profane words, language or meaning; [3] to interfere intentionally with the communications of another CB station; [4] to transmit one-way communications, EXCEPT for emergency communications, traveler assistance, brief tests (radio checks) or voice paging; [5] to advertise or solicit the sale of any goods or services; [6] to transmit music, whistling, sound effects or any material to amuse or entertain; [7] to transmit any sound effect solely to attract attention; [8] to transmit the word "MAYDAY" or use any other international distress signal, EXCEPT when your station is located in a ship, aircraft or other vehicle which is threatened with GRAVE AND IMMINENT danger and you are requesting IMMEDIATE assistance. [9] to communicate with, or ATTEMPT to communicate with, any CB station more than 155.3 miles (250 kilometers) away; An echo box is a "sound effect" device and as such is prohibited by the above rule. Same goes for roger beeps. Since they do not facilitate communication, or work as a tone activated squelch, they are not permitted. No wonder you left it,, I left because of people like you who either refuse to operate by the rules, or who somehow feel that their selfish pursuits override consideration and respect for the rights of others. you couldn't comprehend the rules, I have no trouble comprehending the rules. You, on the other hand, need a remedial course. every time you see someone's signal "swinging" wildly, every yahoo on 27.555, and every time you hear some low-life cuss out someone else. Merely claiming somehting is empirical does not make it so. Do something you have never been able to do for the masses, Davie,,prove your bull**** claim. How does one "prove" a claim that is based on empirical observation? That's your problem,,,in addition to the fact that you are now doing the backwards shuffle and claiming "empirical observation" as opposed to your former claim of "empirical DATA". From my point of view, they are one and the same. My observations became my data. The fact that you refuse to accept my word on it is your problem. Data is arived at via observation. Exactly! Look up the word "empirical" and try placing that term again in front of the laughable term you coined "empirical observation" Yea it's sort of redundant, but when I have to deal with intellectual lightweights like you, sometime redundancy is necessary to get the point across. But you DID. Again, look up the word "empirical",,,,it means PROOF supplied via your own experiments, Actually the dictionary definition is: 1. Based on observation or experiment. 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory. Nowhere does it call for "proof". Now go ahead and make the predictable next move of attempting to discredit my dictionary for you own faux-pax. however, one's word is NOT proof, no matter how you try to postulate such. In the world of science, one's mere word without proof positive is "a theory" and the word "experiment" is a means of arriving at "proof" and disproving a theory and making it fact. When a theory is proven via fact, (IE: proof) it is no longer a theory It denotes a scientific arrival at a belief (theory) arrived at and based upon by,,taa daa-- "proof",,not ones word based upon their own experiences and assumptions. See definition (2) above. So then you make the claim that my 30+ year "experiment" with CB radio is not valid because the conclusions I came to do not sit well with you? I have all the "proof" I need. I don't need the approval of someone who's operating habits bolster my statistics. But if you are going to take the position that unless someone has such proof, that everything they say is automatically a lie, you are the one with issues. Not "someone" Davie,,,just you, Ah, now we get to the meat of the issue. Thank you for admitting your bias. ,,,as you ahve been unable to present proof for any of your wild assed claims I have ever called you on, You are not worthy of the effort to provide what you will ultimately spin and attempt to discredit anyway. A tough and somewhat duplicitous position for someone who claims to believe in God. My personal faith and believing in God has absolutely nothing to do with not believing one who has failed to produce anything concerning any of his claims, except angry diatribes, off-topic obsessions, hearsay, and personal opinion.. You demand "proof" in order to believe. That is in direct contrast to the idea of faith. Why do you feel the need to add my call? This .is a CB newsgroup remember? Because I am of the personal opinion the people should know who attempts to sling and perpetuate bull**** against them on a regular basis and you are known by your call. I am not known by my call on this newsgroup. Anything beyond that is irrelevant Yet you are the one who once claimed that I "flaunt" my ham status, yet the proof is on the pudding that you are the one who continues to bring the fact that I'm a ham into the discussion. If, as you also once claimed, that possession of a ham license is irrelevant, then why bring it up at all? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
In , Dave Hall
wrote: snip .... The fact that you cannot provide anything other than your own words to validate the claim to others does not diminish its value as empirical data. Oh great. Now you've done it. You just gave Twisty enough fodder to last him another ten years of trolling. Imbicle. -----= 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! =----- |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:04:02 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:20:47 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Fri, 21 May 2004 00:57:24 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: (The point is that making a statement that 99% of cb'rs operate illegally is false, just as 99% of hams get busted for operating illegally.) I try to avoid making specific number comparisons Since when? This morning? You have presented such specific number "comparisons" on several occasions in order to shore up a claim of yours, with nothing to back it up except your "claim".. When? On several occasions. Even in this post, unless you snipped it. Are you denying doing such? I never "Never"? LOL,,you're lying again. Oh,,wait,,let me guess,,,you merely fail to recall what you posted in the past again,,,,LOL claimed a specific number, only a "majority". It could be 51%, or as much as 90%. But davie-son, "majority" means exactly more than half. Nevertheless, you HAVE presented statistical percentages in the past on several occasion Put up or shut up. I have several times and it most certainly "shut you up." Again....are you denying producing such claims with number comparisons, Davie? I'm sure your warped perception would not allow you to differentiate between quoting an exact figure and citing approximate figures. You have denied producing such claims with exact figures..a blatant lie, as you most certainly have done so in the past. But I would hope that you'd agree that a definite majority of CB'ers are running illegally in one form or another. Majority? Hahha,,that would equal exactly what you said you do not do,,,,more than 51%...LOL....your hypocrisy radiates bull****. You evidently have absolutely no idea of the difference between general conclusions and specific numbers. The word "majority" IS most certainly specific Davie,,,it defines exactly more than 50% or half. That's just the minimum, it could be much higher. Even so,,,the definition remains the same,,"Exactly more than half". =A0=A0Then again judging by your past performance and lack of comprehensive ability, this should not surprise me. I have certainly seen enough empirical data in my many years of the hobby to make that claim. But of course, you can point to or illustrate *none* of this "empirical" (snicker) data,,,you want only to be taken at your word,,,something you ruined long ago, but I will give you another benefit of doubt,,,present something of this "empirical" data, as "empirical" means "provable or verifiable by experience or experiment". Experience my boy. 30+ years of it. Again,,,you claim such, but prove nothing. And it's been my experience after 30+ years of CBing that the majority of CB operators operate illegally to one degree or another. Just turn the radio on any given day and you can hear it for yourself. Your hearsay and personal experience is not empirical data, regardless of how severe you misappropriate and misdefine the term. It certainly is. Empirical data is PROOF derived from your personal experiences. Merely claiming such and assuming is not "empirical". If one of the "saucer men" were to land in your front lawn and hang out and drink a few beers with you, would you not then have "proof" that alien life exists? Would that proof be from observation? LOL,,,,,my, but I have an uncanny ability to invoke speak of aliens among yourself, KC8LDO, and N7VCF. It is extremely difficult for the three of you to hold a pertinent debatable topic on anything without the htree of you becoming angry and incoherent, highly illustrative of a severe communication deficit. Just one more reason the three of you have become known as obnoxious lids among the world of hammie radio via your erratic behavior and lack of self control on usenet. _ The fact that you cannot provide anything other than your own words to validate the claim to others does not diminish its value as empirical data. I have all the "proof" that I need to make the claim that a definite majority of CB'ers are running illegal. That you choose to not believe it is your problem. (chuckle),,,In reality, it's *your* problem that you choose to refer to your opinion as "empirical data", illustrating you fail to comprhend what the term defines, but far be it from me to challenge your right to remain ignorant and uneducated on such definitions. Every time someone hits that roger beep, every time you hear an echo box, Incorrect. roger beeps and echo is not illegal on cb. They most certainly ARE illegal. They are considered "devices for the purpose of attracting attention or amusement". Check part 95: Sec. 95.631 Emission types. (c) A CB transmitter may transmit only emission types A1D, H1D, J1D, R1D, A3E, H3E, J3E, R3E. A non-voice emission is limited to selective calling or tone-operated squelch tones to establish or continue voice communications. See Sec. 95.412 (b) and (c). Sec. 95.412 (CB Rule 12) What communications may be transmitted? (Pay attention to (b) =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(a) You may use your CB station to transmit two-way plain language communications. Two-way plain language communications are communications without codes or coded messages. Operating signals such as ``ten codes=B4=B4 are not considered codes or coded messages. You may transmit two-way plain language communications only to other CB stations, to units of your own CB station or to authorized government stations on CB frequencies about-- =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(1) Your personal or business activities or those of members of your immediate family living in your household; =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(2) Emergencies (see CB Rule 18, Sec. 95.418); =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(3) Traveler assistance (see CB Rule 18, Sec. 95.418); or =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(4) Civil defense activities in connection with official tests or drills conducted by, or actual emergencies announced by, the civil defense agency with authority over the area in which your station is located. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(b) You may use your CB station to transmit a tone signal only when the signal is used to make contact or to continue communications. (Examples of circuits using these signals are tone operated squelch and selective calling circuits.) If the signal is an audible tone, it must last no longer than 15 seconds at one time. If the signal is a subaudible tone, it may be transmitted continuously only as long as you are talking. Someone may take pity on you, a self-professed Extra that is embarrassingly illustrating what little he knows of cb radio and our poor interpretive skills, but I doubt it, so you need email the FCC, as your ignorance will not be quenched by any other excepot the source. A roger beep fits neatly in part "b" of what you presented, and is not illegal on cb. Again, email the FCC for clarification, don't be so lazy and ignorant. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(c) You may use your CB station to t ransmit one-way communications (messages which are not intended to establish communications between two or more particular CB stations) only for emergency communications, traveler assistance, brief tests (radio checks) or voice paging. RULE 13 - Illegal Communications (Pay attention to [2] and [6]) {A} You must NOT use a CB station- [1] in connection with activity which is against federal, state or local law; [2] to transmit obscene, indecent or profane words, language or meaning; Transmitting obscene, indecent, or profane language has nothing to do with a roger beep or echo. Again, your interpretive skills appear intoxicated or blinded by rage. [3] to interfere intentionally with the communications of another CB station; [4] to transmit one-way communications, EXCEPT for emergency communications, traveler assistance, brief tests (radio checks) or voice paging; [5] to advertise or solicit the sale of any goods or services; [6] to transmit music, whistling, sound effects or any material to amuse or entertain; The FCC doe not consider a roger beep to be a sound effect for "amusement" or "entertainment", but rather a signal to signify the the end or beginning of a transmission. Ironic how an Extra can be so clueless in his interpretive skills of the FCC rules, but then again, you exhibit an incredible deficit in communicative skill, illustrated by your plethora of off topic and personal rants. [7] to transmit any sound effect solely to attract attention; See above. [8] to transmit the word "MAYDAY" or use any other international distress signal, EXCEPT when your station is located in a ship, aircraft or other vehicle which is threatened with GRAVE AND IMMINENT danger and you are requesting IMMEDIATE assistance. [9] to communicate with, or ATTEMPT to communicate with, any CB station more than 155.3 miles (250 kilometers) away; An echo box is a "sound effect" device and as such is prohibited by the above rule. Watching your scramble to argue with yourself has always been pleasurable to some of us, Davie-son. None took pleasure with the legality of an echo box. Merely more of your bull****. Same goes for roger beeps. Since they do not facilitate communication, But they do facilitate communication. Here's another self-esteem killer for you Davie,,in addition to emailing the FCC to ascertain what EVERYONE else aready knows concerning roger beeps,,,,,ask around on this group,,in fact,,ask around on the hammie groups,,,see if ANY other hammie agrees with you,,,,,,anywhere. Bet you can't find any to agree with you. or work as a tone activated squelch, they are not permitted. =A0 =A0No wonder you left it,, I left because of people like you who either refuse to operate by the rules, or who somehow feel that their selfish pursuits override consideration and respect for the rights of others. That's funny that you consider me having no respect for others merely because of my freebanding activity. In fact, I have met ops worldwide that have much more respect for others than you have ever exhibited. Your hypocrisy shines when you ump around like a monkey and attack others for their mere choice of topic (read: their freedom of speech) . Go on now, claim you haven't done it so we can present yet another of your self-contradictions and toss another lie of yours in that long, long ever-growing list of lies you present you couldn't comprehend the rules, I have no trouble comprehending the rules. You, on the other hand, need a remedial course. every time you see someone's signal "swinging" wildly, every yahoo on 27.555, and every time you hear some low-life cuss out someone else. Merely claiming somehting is empirical does not make it so. Do something you have never been able to do for the masses, Davie,,prove your bull**** claim. How does one "prove" a claim that is based on empirical observation? That's your problem,,,in addition to the fact that you are now doing the backwards shuffle and claiming "empirical observation" as opposed to your former claim of "empirical DATA". From my point of view, they are one and the same. Your point of view is not only lacking, but skewered, one-sided, incorrect, misinterpreted, flawed, and steadfastly fixed on remaining ignorant. My observations became my data. Wrong. Observations are but a mere theory without tangible proof. The fact that you refuse to accept my word on it is your problem. Wrong, as usual, it's *your* problem that you choose to call observation empirical evidence and are unable to distinguish between the two. Grab a dictionary, for your own sake. Data is arived at via observation. Exactly! =A0=A0Look up the word "empirical" and try placing that term again in front of the laughable term you coined "empirical observation" Yea it's sort of redundant, but when I have to deal with intellectual lightweights like you, sometime redundancy is necessary to get the point across. That's it,,blame me for your ignorance and inabilities,,,LOL. But you DID. Again, look up the word "empirical",,,,it means PROOF supplied via your own experiments, Actually the dictionary definition is: 1. Based on observation or experiment. 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory. Nowhere does it call for "proof". Now go ahead and make the predictable next move of attempting to discredit my dictionary for you own faux-pax. There is only one standard among the media and it is the AP standards. They utilize one source, not the lightweight junior high books you refer. Try Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary. See, Davie-son, the abridged versions are for people like yourself that need spoon-fed and not capable of correct interpretations. Again,,go to the source, as it most certainly does use the term "proof". Quoted verbatim: "Provable or verifiable by experiment or experience." Again,,your personal experience may indeed sway your belief, but without tangible proof, it is merely a theory. Attempting to educate you is futile, as you become angry and begin lodgin personal attacks,,another sure fire sign of your lack of skill, intellect, self-control, tolerance, and ability to remain on subject and hold rational debate with those who hold opposing opinions other than your own, but then again, we have always known that about yourself and such is what contributed to the demise of your self-esteem and your reputation. _ however, one's word is NOT proof, no matter how you try to postulate such. In the world of science, one's mere word without proof positive is "a theory" and the word "experiment" is a means of arriving at "proof" and disproving a theory and making it fact. When a theory is proven via fact, (IE: proof) it is no longer a theory It denotes a scientific arrival at a belief (theory) arrived at and based upon by,,taa daa-- "proof",,not ones word based upon their own experiences and assumptions. See definition (2) above. See the ONLY defining source of media acceptance. Such is only presented when one advances in their education. So then you make the claim that my 30+ year "experiment" with CB radio is not valid because the conclusions I came to do not sit well with you? Tee-hee...no,,that was your claim. I have all the "proof" I need. I don't need the approval of someone who's operating habits bolster my statistics. =A0 What statistics? You just claimed you offered no statistics....LOL,,there you go self-contradicting again. Statistic: Numerical fact. ..LOL..you claimed you avoided giving "exact numbers", yet that is exactly what a statistic encompasses.....man, you really do break down when you're wound up. =A0But if you are going to take the position that unless someone has such proof, that everything they say is automatically a lie, you are the one with issues. Not "someone" Davie,,,just you, Ah, now we get to the meat of the issue. Thank you for admitting your bias. , The bias is in your selective snipping, as you note I don't practice such with you as I have no need. You, on the other hand, are loathe to see yourself as you really are. The "meat of the issue" is that you are unable to produce for any of your claims with any proof, You wish the world totake your many-wild unsubstantiated claims as proof and it simply isn't going to occur. That you see your past failures to produce anything except more lipservice that backs your claims as a "bias" then so be it. I have said it before, I'll say it again, I am biased against liars and hold them right there with a thief. To date, you have made many, many claims that you have been unable to substantiate. When asked to substantiate, you attack like a child that was caught in a lie. _ ,,as you ahve been unable to present proof for any of your wild assed claims I have ever called you on, You are not worthy of the effort to provide what you will ultimately spin and attempt to discredit anyway. =A0 Perhaps Im not worthy, but that doesn't change the subject matter that you have been unable to provide for any of your claims. Once again, you point to me and blame me for your inability to substantiate. I love this stuff!!! =A0A tough and somewhat duplicitous position for someone who claims to believe in God. My personal faith and believing in God has absolutely nothing to do with not believing one who has failed to produce anything concerning any of his claims, except angry diatribes, off-topic obsessions, hearsay, and personal opinion.. You demand "proof" in order to believe. That is in direct contrast to the idea of faith. LOL,,my faith is in God, not you. Why do you feel the need to add my call? This .is a CB newsgroup remember? Because I am of the personal opinion the people should know who attempts to sling and perpetuate bull**** against them on a regular basis and you are known by your call. I am not known by my call on this newsgroup. You most certainly are,...claiming otherwise is but another in a long line of denials and your inability to see yourself as the majority. Anything beyond that is irrelevant Yet you are the one who once claimed that I "flaunt" my ham status, Wrong...and there you go once again attempting to place words in my mouth when ever you're being force fed crow. No dice,, yet the proof is on the pudding that you are the one who continues to bring the fact that I'm a ham into the discussion. Never claimed otherwise. Shore up that deficit so you won't take to making things up and pulling them out of thin air in order to attempt to ease the pain and suffering your ego is experiencing. If, as you also once claimed, that possession of a ham license is irrelevant, then why bring it up at all? In context, Davie. It most certainly is relevant when one is a hypocrite reagrding laws such as yourself. It most certainly is relevant when a hypocritical hammie such as yourself defends the felonious N8 and attacks others for the mere (by comparison) and single act of freebanding. Add to this what a manificent liar you are, and it is all too clear..except to you. Now go on and see how many agree with your adolescent and poorly informed claim that a roger beep is illegal. Dave N3CVJ "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
On Mon, 24 May 2004 05:50:31 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: In , Dave Hall wrote: snip .... The fact that you cannot provide anything other than your own words to validate the claim to others does not diminish its value as empirical data. Oh great. Now you've done it. You just gave Twisty enough fodder to last him another ten years of trolling. Imbicle. Excuse me? Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Mon, 24 May 2004 11:46:01 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote: Someone may take pity on you, a self-professed Extra My license class is a matter of public record. There is no "self professing" about it. so you need email the FCC, as your ignorance will not be quenched by any other excepot the source. A roger beep fits neatly in part "b" of what you presented, and is not illegal on cb. Again, email the FCC for clarification, don't be so lazy and ignorant. Riddle me this then Batman, why are there no type accepted LEGAL CB radios produced with a roger beep or an echo? Judging from the response that export radios get with these little sound effects, that these gimmicks would be a big hit with the toothless, trailer park, welfare set in this country. The fact that they are not being produced is pretty much a de-facto ruling that they are, in fact, illegal. So YOU need to get a clarification from the FCC. Go ahead, call them! The FCC had already made this clarification over 20 years ago, long before you were involved in the hobby. A roger beep is considered a sound effect, and as such is illegal. Prove me wrong if you can, but I won't hold my breath. [6] to transmit music, whistling, sound effects or any material to amuse or entertain; The FCC does not consider a roger beep to be a sound effect for "amusement" or "entertainment", Prove it! We have only your heresay. Provide the link or we'll all conclude that this is yet another of your lies. but rather a signal to signify the the end or beginning of a transmission. Superfluous on CB. Especially on AM, where a very distinct carrier dropping, signals the end of transmission. [7] to transmit any sound effect solely to attract attention; And that's exactly what a roger beep is. An echo box is a "sound effect" device and as such is prohibited by the above rule. Watching your scramble to argue with yourself has always been pleasurable to some of us, Davie-son. None took pleasure with the legality of an echo box. Merely more of your bull****. I'll take that as an acknowledgment of your inability to disprove my statement. Same goes for roger beeps. Since they do not facilitate communication, But they do facilitate communication. The FCC would appear to think otherwise. If not, then every last little Cobra 19 wannabe rig would have them installed by the factory. Here's another self-esteem killer for you Davie,,in addition to emailing the FCC to ascertain what EVERYONE else aready knows concerning roger beeps,,,,,ask around on this group,,in fact,,ask around on the hammie groups,,,see if ANY other hammie agrees with you,,,,,,anywhere. Bet you can't find any to agree with you. Anyone with a clear understanding of the rules knows that they are illegal. The rest? Well even you might know a handful of people who are as psychologically inept as you are and would agree with you. The mental hospitals are full of people who thought they could fly...... And even more who would swear to it. That's funny that you consider me having no respect for others merely because of my freebanding activity. It's not what you do, it's the tone you take when you defend it. Your staunch defending of freebanding even though it is illegal. Illegal operation which amounts to breaking federal law, which by logical definition makes you a CRIMINAL. Your point of view is not only lacking, but skewered, one-sided, incorrect, misinterpreted, flawed, and steadfastly fixed on remaining ignorant. I know you are, but what am I? Actually the dictionary definition is: 1. Based on observation or experiment. 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory. Nowhere does it call for "proof". Now go ahead and make the predictable next move of attempting to discredit my dictionary for you own faux-pax. There is only one standard among the media and it is the AP standards. They utilize one source, not the lightweight junior high books you refer. Try Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary. See, Davie-son, the abridged versions are for people like yourself that need spoon-fed and not capable of correct interpretations. Again,,go to the source, as it most certainly does use the term "proof". Quoted verbatim: "Provable or verifiable by experiment or experience." Again,,your personal experience may indeed sway your belief, but without tangible proof, it is merely a theory. Attempting to educate you is futile, as you become angry and begin lodgin personal attacks,,another sure fire sign of your lack of skill, intellect, self-control, tolerance, and ability to remain on subject and hold rational debate with those who hold opposing opinions other than your own, but then again, we have always known that about yourself and such is what contributed to the demise of your self-esteem and your reputation. Thank you for being so predictable. I love it when you go on a rant, and start spewing out words, the meaning of which you're not entirely sure of. When you have to start a brand new thread and then adorn it mith my call, I'm sure I've hit a nerve. My job here is done for the day...... Perhaps Im not worthy, No "perhaps" about it. but that doesn't change the subject matter that you have been unable to provide for any of your claims. Unwilling, maybe. Unable? Only you are unable to put your money where your mouth is. Once again, you are simply not worth my trouble. My personal faith and believing in God has absolutely nothing to do with not believing one who has failed to produce anything concerning any of his claims, except angry diatribes, off-topic obsessions, hearsay, and personal opinion.. Sounds like you're talking about (or is that to?) yourself again. Among your other psychiatric ailments, are you also schizophrenic? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
Most fish are caught in water! Given that there aren't supposed to BE any CBers on the ham bands, why is it a surprise that there are more enforcement actions against hams than CBers on the ham bands? |
In , Dave Hall
wrote: On Mon, 24 May 2004 05:50:31 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: In , Dave Hall wrote: snip .... The fact that you cannot provide anything other than your own words to validate the claim to others does not diminish its value as empirical data. Oh great. Now you've done it. You just gave Twisty enough fodder to last him another ten years of trolling. Imbicle. Excuse me? He's always ranting about how the only proof he needs is his 'word' because, as he says, "truth is my friend". Now whenever someone asks him for proof beyond his own warped opinions he will just quote your line above instead of wiggling away. -----= 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! =----- |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Riddle me this then Batman, why are there no type accepted LEGAL CB radios produced with a roger beep or an echo? Sorry Dave, my old Galaxy DX-949 came stock woith a roger beep...and was/is FCC type accepted. http://www.galaxyradios.com/cb/949.html Not to mention the DX-959. (Never owned this one though.) http://www.galaxyradios.com/cb/949.html They even have a little R.B. LED, cute. 73 de Bert WA2SI Disclaimer: This post in no way condones or approves illegal operation on the CB. |
"Bert Craig" wrote:
Disclaimer: This post in no way condones or approves illegal operation on the CB. Nice sig file, Bert. :) |
|
"Bert Craig" wrote in message . net... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Riddle me this then Batman, why are there no type accepted LEGAL CB radios produced with a roger beep or an echo? Sorry Dave, my old Galaxy DX-949 came stock woith a roger beep...and was/is FCC type accepted. http://www.galaxyradios.com/cb/949.html Not to mention the DX-959. (Never owned this one though.) http://www.galaxyradios.com/cb/949.html They even have a little R.B. LED, cute. 73 de Bert WA2SI Disclaimer: This post in no way condones or approves illegal operation on the CB. Hello Bert! Long time no hear. Landshark -- Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you will help them become what they are capable of becoming. |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 24 May 2004 11:46:01 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: Someone may take pity on you, a self-professed Extra My license class is a matter of public record. There is no "self professing" about it. All hammies license "class" is a matter of public record. You're not special, you're an abherration. You need email the FCC, as your ignorance will not be quenched by any other excepot the source. A roger beep fits neatly in part "b" of what you presented, and is not illegal on cb. Again, email the FCC for clarification, don't be so lazy and ignorant. Riddle me this then Batman, LMAO,,,gee, to watch you freak out and say it, needs regurgitated. Google that wonderful little phrase and the abusive sock puppets behind that phrase.....you always chew on the rusty razor blades when tossed your way. Judging from the response that export radios get with these little sound effects, that these gimmicks would be a big hit with the toothless, trailer park, welfare set in this country. _ Now, Davie, no need for your family bio,,remain focused and try not to "judge",,it has always been part of what ails you. The fact that they are not being produced is pretty much a de-facto ruling that they are, in fact, illegal. The only thing "de-facto" is your flawed logic and mind numbing but extremely entertaining and amusing misinterpretations. So YOU need to get a clarification from the FCC. Go ahead, call them! The FCC had already made this clarification over 20 years ago, long before you were involved in the hobby. Post it. Show the clarification where the FCC holds a roger beep not only as a sound effect, but illegal. Your answer to every single claim you have ever presented when asked for proof is the entertaining, but the very sad, "Prove me wrong". An ongoing beg of having one disprove your claim, leaving absolutely nothing but your empty words and pleas to take you at your word,,,time after time after pathetic time..LOL. The self-professed claim you have been in the hobby for over thirty years coupled with your added ignorance concerning another's personal life and time in radio, is nothing but indicative of the elevation you place upon one's time involved in radio, meaning you arrogantly feel the longer one has been in radio, the "better" or somehow, more knowledgeable one must be,,,,I love when you spout such ignorance. Thirty years is not all that long in radio,,,some of us were exposed to radio as soon as we could key the mic,,,much longer than what you arrogantly, disainfully, and incorrectly hold as your qualifications over another. The results are those of us who know better, correct ignorant hammielids such as yourself that spew disinformation about, whether through intentional ignorance or otherwise. A roger beep is considered a sound effect, and as such is illegal. Prove me wrong if you can, but I won't hold my breath. Again, some of us have no need to prove you wrong and are quite content watching you scream ignorance proudly. Watching you hold steadfastly to such an issue is rather amusing. I'd rather leave you out to bloody yourself a bit more. Your arrogance is too self-limiting to cross with your brusied ego at such a time as this. [6] to transmit music, whistling, sound effects or any material to amuse or entertain; The FCC does not consider a roger beep to be a sound effect for "amusement" or "entertainment", Prove it! (Translation: Wahhhhhhhhhhh) We have only your heresay. The heresay is all yours. You claimed the FCC holds a roger beep as a sound effect. The burden of proof is always on the one who makes =A0the claim. Of course, you bleeding all over the place attests to just that. Provide the link or we'll all conclude that this is yet another of your lies. LOL,,,,there is no "we:,,you are all alone in this lost, laughable claim of yours, N3CVJ. Even the your hammie buds of Lelnad and Geogre and Gillinad know the facts of this matter. It's why you're all alone on another claim you made with nothing to back you but "Waaaaaaaaaa". but rather a signal to signify the the end or beginning of a transmission. Superfluous on CB. Especially on AM, where a very distinct carrier dropping, signals the end of transmission. [7] to transmit any sound effect solely to attract attention; And that's exactly what a roger beep is. An echo box is a "sound effect" device and as such is prohibited by the above rule. Watching your scramble to argue with yourself has always been pleasurable to some of us, Davie-son. None took pleasure with the legality of an echo box. Merely more of your bull****. I'll take that as an acknowledgment of your inability to disprove my statement. LOL,,,,go right ahead and take it any way you please, You're being forced to argue with yourself. No one took issue with that statement. Same goes for roger beeps. Since they do not facilitate communication, But they do facilitate communication. The FCC would appear to think otherwise. No,*you* appear to think otherwise, not the FCC. If not, then every last little Cobra 19 wannabe rig would have them installed by the factory. The FCC is not in the habit of manufacturing radios, so the link you attempt to present between Cobra and the FCC is non-existent. Another little gem to spear this poor analogy through its black little heart is the fact that many microphones for cb have roger beeps, including Cobra brand, but pointing out such information to you has resulted in overload of your gray matter, as such has been met with a return of off-topic hostility. Here's another self-esteem killer for you Davie,,in addition to emailing the FCC to ascertain what EVERYONE else aready knows concerning roger beeps,,,,,ask around on this group,,in fact,,ask around on the hammie groups,,,see if ANY other hammie agrees with you,,,,,,anywhere. Bet you can't find any to agree with you. Anyone with a clear understanding of the rules knows that they are illegal. And that statement will haunt you for a time to come, once one of your hammie buds of Lelnad or gillinad or n8 takes pity upon you and educates you. The rest? Well even you might know a handful of people who are as psychologically inept as you are and would agree with you. The mental hospitals are full of people who thought they could fly..... And the world is full of dads like yourself who are are only permitted supervised visits with their children once a month. And even more who would swear to it. That's funny that you consider me having no respect for others merely because of my freebanding activity. It's not what you do, it's the tone you take when you defend it. "Tone"? LMAO,,,poor Davie,,here you go again opening the Hypocrite Hall,,,In the first manner, whatever "tone" you feel I take, would be better served by imitating yourself and initiating offtopic and personal insults? That is the tone you set, Davie-son. In the second place,,I don't defend my actions to anyone, but you go on and continue to claim that YOUR inquiries directed toward my actions soliticing a response is somehow "defending" such,,,,,merely more of your poor communicative skills you never learned how to hone properly,,,your communication deficit has rendered you unable to manage an exchange of ideas with another who holds opposing views without accusing the other of "defending" ones actions. You are owed no explanation, which is why you have never receieved one, ,,,something that galls you to the point of your continually expressed incapacitance. Your staunch defending of freebanding even though it is illegal. Illegal operation which amounts to breaking federal law, which by logical definition makes you a CRIMINAL. Your point of view is not only lacking, but skewered, one-sided, incorrect, misinterpreted, flawed, and steadfastly fixed on remaining ignorant, especially when you selectively focus on freebanding, yet defend N8WWM's felonious actions. You're a liar and a hypocrite which makes you a lid. I know you are, but what am I? Acting aout ten years old. Although your massive communication deficit has you hearing a stutter, I assure you, such is not the case. Actually the dictionary definition is: 1. Based on observation or experiment. 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory. Nowhere does it call for "proof". There is only one standard among the media and it is the AP standards. They utilize one source, not the lightweight junior high books you refer. Try Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary. See, Davie-son, the abridged versions are for people like yourself that need spoon-fed and not capable of correct interpretations. Again,,go to the source, as it most certainly does use the term "proof". Quoted verbatim: "Provable or verifiable by experiment or experience." Again,,your personal experience may indeed sway your belief, but without tangible proof, it is merely a theory. Attempting to educate you is futile, as you become angry and begin lodging personal attacks,,another sure fire sign of your lack of skill, intellect, self-control, tolerance, and ability to remain on subject and hold rational debate with those who hold opposing opinions other than your own, but then again, we have always known that about yourself and such is what contributed to the demise of your self-esteem and your reputation. Thank you for being so predictable. Your behavior doesn't change,,,,such is to be expected AND predictable. When you're given a rusty razor blade, you invariably stick it in your mouth to chew on. . I'm sure I've hit a nerve. My job here is done for the day...... LOL...once again, illustrating what a lid you are and your entire agenda,,,,,once you (mistakenly, albeit) feel you have "hit a nerve", you feel victorious. The classic illustration of only one small area that makes you a lid and detrimental pariah to hammie radio and usenet. Perhaps Im not worthy, No "perhaps" about it. =A0 but that doesn't change the subject matter that you have been unable to provide for any of your claims. Unwilling, maybe. Unable? Yes. Only you are unable to put your money where your mouth is. Of course, nothing but lipservice from N3CVJ crying "Waaaaaa believe my claims, believe my claims and ifyoucantdisprovemyclaims then theymustbetrue...waaaaa". LOL. Once again, you are simply not worth my trouble. My personal faith and believing in God has absolutely nothing to do with not believing one who has failed to produce anything concerning any of his claims, except angry diatribes, off-topic obsessions, hearsay, and personal opinion.. Sounds like you're talking about (or is that to?) yourself again. It does sound like that, and that's only because you selectively snipped the hilarious line where you begged me to explain why I have faith in God but not you, a known liar. Starved for status, you are indeed. Among your other psychiatric ailments, are you also schizophrenic? Dave N3CVJ It has come to my attention that all the manias you toss about as insult are the ones from which you more than likely suffer. You typify the classic projectionist and search for more insults as you angrily post along,,,,,,,. It all makes sense when taken into consideration all but the most supervised of visits were taken from you involving your child. You realy should try and drop other's personal lives from your posts and try attacking the post's view instead of the poster, but then again, such is the reason you suffer from such a communication deficit...you've never learned how to do so properly, and the hammie license only added to your low self-esteem as it brought you none of the respect you demand by sheer virtue of it Respect is earned as a person and must be given in order to be received,,another concept that is foreign to your lowl self due your deficits and learning disabilities.. One need only reflect on your views on roger beeps being illegal for an afternoon chuckle of monstrous but non-gregarious proportion. N3CVJ "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv |
From: =A0=A0 (I Am Not George) Group: =A0=A0
rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 More hams Busted, than CB'ers on Ham 10m Band Date: =A0=A0 Mon, May 24, 2004, 5:35pm (EDT-3) Organization: =A0=A0 http://groups.google.com X-Trace: =A0=A0 posting.google.com 1085445307 23689 127.0.0.1 (25 May 2004 00:35:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Tue, May 25, 2004, 12:35am (EDT+4) Frank Gilliland wrote: In , Dave Hall wrote: On Mon, 24 May 2004 05:50:31 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: In , Dave Hall wrote: snip but wait, Twisty says Dave Hall lies, so he can not use it as the truth _ LOL...that 172 aol addy again. Check it out,,,,,N3CVJ does lie,,,,and quite often....go back to defending n8..lol! Message-ID: From: Dave Hall Organization: Spew Radio Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb Subject: Power drops - square of the distance - Is this true and what do... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 17 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:16:12 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.103.222.111 X-Complaints-To: X-Trace: newsfeed.slurp.net 1039710442 207.103.222.111 (Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:27:22 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:27:22 CST Twistedhed wrote: I'm interested in hearing more about this program (I own a repeater, and am involved with a few others). IS this available as a download, or is it something that is a high dollar purchase? Dave "Sandbagger" Still have the Phelps? What Phelps? I wish I had a Station Master........ Dave "Sandbagger" _ From: (SANDBAGGER) Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb Subject: of Antennas and Urination Date: 5 Jan 1995 20:31 EST Organization: Villanova University Lines: 129 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: ucis.vill.edu News-Softwa VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41 In article , (Mark G. Salyzyn) writes... (Dave the SANDBAGGER) writes: They are, for 2M service usually though. G5RVs cost $100 from a commercial And they don't hold a candle to my phelps Dodge Super Station Master, on my 220 repeater........ Included Page: groups?selm=3D3DF8B64C.69F6%40worldlynx.net&output =3Dgplain= _ This also contradicts N3CVJ's recent claim that the repeater in question was shared and co-owned. In fact, this post, albeit a lie, confirms that he was attempting to portray the repeater using the Phelps was HIS. Note the words "MY repeater"..."MY Stationmaster". Total opposite of what he recently claimed. |
Excuse me? Dave "Sandbagger He called you a imbicle he meant imbicile. |
Subject: N3CVJ claims Roger Beeps illegal
From: "Bert Craig" OSPAM Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb References: Lines: 23 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: t Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 22:57:29 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.190.176.189 X-Complaints-To: X-Trace: news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net 1085439449 24.190.176.189 (Mon, 24 May 2004 18:57:29 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:57:29 EDT Organization: Optimum Online Path: lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsstand.cit .cornell.edu !news.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshosting.com !nx01.iad01.newshosting. com!167.206.3.103.MISMATCH!news3.optonline.net!new s4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net.POS TED!not-for-mail "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . Riddle me this then Batman, why are there no type accepted LEGAL CB radios produced with a roger beep or an echo? Sorry Dave, my old Galaxy DX-949 came stock woith a roger beep...and was/is FCC type accepted. http://www.galaxyradios.com/cb/949.html Not to mention the DX-959. (Never owned this one though.) http://www.galaxyradios.com/cb/949.html They even have a little R.B. LED, cute. 73 de Bert WA2SI Disclaimer: This post in no way condones or approves illegal operation on the CB. Cool disclaimer shame on it for the need. |
Steveo wrote in message ...
"Bert Craig" wrote: Disclaimer: This post in no way condones or approves illegal operation on the CB. Nice sig file, Bert. :) Yes its kind of like the davemade and xforce pages where they say use of these amplifiers on cb violates fcc rules |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com