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

From: (JJ)
Dan wrote:
JJ wrote in message
...
Twistedhed most certainly didn't write:

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.



But of course, you intentionally fail to list those who love a bunch of
long distance HF (much more on cb compared to 10 meter) without the use
of a hammie radio.

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

From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
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.


Yet the mere notion of even the word "twist" keeps you in contortive
spasms all weekend. Not like you suffer from chronic obsessive
compulsive disorder or a communicative deficit, ya' know. I'll stop
making fun of your elephant when you top kizzing my azz!

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?