N7VCF wrote:
Busting someone that isn't licensed costs much more money in man-hours,
equipment usage, travel expenses, etc. There needs to be monitoring and
DFing, at least one warning notice, more monitoring and DFing, a request
for station inspection, more monitoring and DFing, etc, etc, etc. This
is done because once an NAL is issued, the evidence needs to be very
nearly unimpeachable to avoid legal challenges in court, which would
cost even more money in court fees and lawyers. That's why when you -do-
hear of a CBer getting busted the violations are usually quite
extensive. On the other hand, it's easy to bust a ham because a lot of
the legal process is eliminated by the fact that the violator is
licensed -- the license pre-empts most of the issues upon which a legal
challenge could be made. All they need to do is record a few illegal
transmissions, do a DF and audio comparison against legal transmissions
where the ham identifies himself, then cite the ham for a violation
against his license. Very cheap and easy.
_
As it should be.

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
N7VCF wrote:
Busting someone that isn't licensed costs much more money in man-hours,
equipment usage, travel expenses, etc. There needs to be monitoring and
DFing, at least one warning notice, more monitoring and DFing, a request
for station inspection, more monitoring and DFing, etc, etc, etc. This
is done because once an NAL is issued, the evidence needs to be very
nearly unimpeachable to avoid legal challenges in court, which would
cost even more money in court fees and lawyers. That's why when you -do-
hear of a CBer getting busted the violations are usually quite
extensive. On the other hand, it's easy to bust a ham because a lot of
the legal process is eliminated by the fact that the violator is
licensed -- the license pre-empts most of the issues upon which a legal
challenge could be made. All they need to do is record a few illegal
transmissions, do a DF and audio comparison against legal transmissions
where the ham identifies himself, then cite the ham for a violation
against his license. Very cheap and easy.
_
As it should be.

I guess that's what Frank wrote............100% correct.

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

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.

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"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
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.


_
LOL,,there is that assumed status you are so starved for,,,,,how in the
hell can you make such a statement? That's akin to saying illegal drug
use doesn't end with pot. You haven't the qualifications to make such
statements.

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.



You are wrong. Echo and roger beeps are not illegal.


I cannot turn on the CB any more without

someone violating at least one of these

conditions.



Non-sequitur and personal testimony that you are presenting as
unequivocal proof. No see-gar..

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..
=A0
=A0Dave
=A0
"Sandbagger"



Very good. "Assuming" is not the same as you claiming you have
"empirical" data and I was glad to be of service.

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

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

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