Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! =----- |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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" |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FM Broadcast band as we know it going away? | Broadcasting | |||
FCC: Broadband Power Line Systems | Policy | |||
magic band and baby monitors | Homebrew | |||
Muilti band quad with a single loop? | Antenna | |||
keyclown radio dealers busted in spokane WA and walcott IW | CB |