On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
CB IS anonymous, it's going to stay that way, get over the gastric pain
it causes you.

And that is the main reason why there are so
many malcontents on there.


Perhaps, perhaps not, but that is neither here nor there, and a problem
of yours. Stop trying to make it someone elses problem.

It's everyone's problem unless, of course, you are one of the
malcontents who enjoys ruining other people's fun.

Even the youngest, still wet-behind-the-ears
hooligan will tell you that they tend to partake
in more mischief if they have less of a chance
of being caught.



It's sad that your trust in fellow man has eroded to such a point. Most
of us look for the good in people, not the bad.

I look for the good in people too. It's a shame that it's getting
harder and harder to find. Wanting to believe that some people are
good, does not change the fact that a great number are bad. I am a
realist, I deal with reality, not how I'd like it to be.


That one would seek to mete out "accountability" for posting one's
opinion in usenet illustrates a freak, dude!


Not at all. If you are attempting to pass
yourself and your opinions off in a serious
discussion, with any sort of credibility, you
have to be accountable for what you say.


In a group dedicated to mere posting concerning an anonymous hobby, what
type accountability and credibility do you seek? How long have you
looked to cb venues seeking "serious" discussion?

So then, you are of the opinion that this forum should be nothing
more than an unimpeded free-for-all with no rules or decorum?
Discussions about technical topics should be taken at face value,
without the parties displaying their credentials?



It doesn't take any special courage or daring
to make inflammatory comments while hiding
behind an anonymous handle.


No doubt about it. Same can be said for radio. Merely possessing your
hammie call doesn't abdicate you from being anonymous if you wanted.
Same goes for this forum.

People identify on ham radio for a reason. People don't identify on CB
for the same reason. I have far more to be suspicious of, when someone
is afraid to identify themselves. I have to wonder what they are
hiding from.


Why should anyone take what a person like
that says seriously, when they don't have the
character to identify themselves?


Depends what you define as "identify".
In your case, you ask for names, backgrounds, etc, of those who you
disagree with on usenet.

I have NEVER asked for specific personal details. However, a person's
name, and their credentials will establish their expertise in related
topics. Who would you be most likely to believe on matters of radio,
someone firmly established in the art, with a good education and
background, or someone with the vague identifier: "Rubber Duck"?


And perhaps, just,,perhaps, because the entire world of security experts
SAY SO?

That is a bit of an exaggeration and a stretch of the truth.

_
What type accountability is
it you wish to foster upon those who dare say
something on usenet with which you may disagree?


There is nothing wrong with a healthy
disagreement. But when you make unfounded
character assassinations against those you
disagree with and then run and hide behind
your cloak of anonymity, that's not the sign of
a mature person.


If it were a true character assassination and something was injurous or
libelous, and IF you actually believed that bull**** and cared enough to
actually want to do something about it, there are simple channels to
follow and remedy the situation.

Are you suggesting that there are ways to identify someone who takes
serious steps to hide their identity? Or are you saying that we all
should just have to deal with abusive insulting and libelous comments
because they are not worth the trouble to pursue seriously?

I believe in the example of not saying something on a forum, that you
wouldn't have the cajones to say to someone's face. The fact is that
being anonymous eliminates the small chance that the person you may
insult might someday show up at your door to have you "explain"
yourself in person, thereby removing that little bit of polite
restraint you might otherwise have. Anonymity is the enabler for
people to act inappropriately, and rudely. Using the excuse that
privacy overrides acting in a civilized manner is weak IMHO.

At the very least, if this occurred,
one could surely prove such and illustrate the passage in the person's
isp that relates to such behavior and the service will take action.

Usually ISP's will not yank someone's account unless they become
serious problems. Simply speaking one's opinion (however insulting or
rude) is still a 1st amendment right, and ISP's are reluctant to go
down that road.


Having your identity known, at least tempers
the temptation to act like a retard.

And goes against everything the world of security experts and all isp's
tell you. As far as I know, acting like "a retard" is perfectly legal,
but if you had your way, anything you deemed 'acting like a retard"
would most certainly be illegal.

Acting rude, inconsiderate, or anti-social, is also not illegal, but
it's not something a civilized person would do in a public forum. Why
should this newsgroup be treated any differently than an in-person
venue?

I would not want to make these activities "illegal". If you want to
act like a retard, by all means, go for it! But we all have the right
to know who it is that is acting like the retard so that they can
properly face the repercussions that that type of behavior brings.

That's what I mean by accountability. If you had to "face the music"
for acting inappropriately, you would eventually adopt an incentive to
NOT act that way. The quality of the forums would increase
considerably.

_
And to answer your question,,,you weren't thinking, Davie, you never
do,,,,it's what is responsible for your foot in mouth disease and
unfettered anger toward cb anonymity. You gave up your anonymity and are
****ed at those who didn't

Not at all. I stand behind what I say,


You do? Shall we take those inquiries one at a time concerning those
unanswered claims you were asked to provide for?
You said a cber was busted in your area awhile back and went through
the courts. I politely called you on it and asked you to provide some of
this "credibility" you speak of and demand of the rest of the usenet
world. You became insultive and began attacking myself and going
off-topic without providing anything but lipservice. You have failed to
produce any of this "credibility' you demand of others, concerning your
claim.

Gee, that's not the way I remember it. I remember making the claim
that some I knew personally was popped by local cops for interference
relating to his CB radio. You challenged the validity of my claim,
first by trying to find some sort of difference between "a suburb of"
and "suburban", suggesting that I was lying. When you failed to find
any information on the incident (Due to the mistake that you made in
assuming that "suburban philly" meant that it was within the city
limits), you again tried to insinuate that because you couldn't
understand what the difference in locations were, you again inferred
that I was lying. Even when I told you the exact town, you were unable
to find anything, which is not surprising considering how poorly the
town keeps records..

But what have you actually proven? You have proven that:
A. You can't differentiate between the suburbs, suburban, and within
city limits. You covered this mistake by implying that I was making
the whole thing up.
B. That you were unable to locate any information on the subject.
(note that this doesn't mean that there isn't any)

I am telling it as someone who was there who knew the party involved.
I know what happened. If that isn't enough for you, then so be it.


and I have the credibility


Not on the Philly cber issue you don't, and not on the Phelps antenna
issue you don't, and,,,,ah, that's enough to keep you foaming at the
mouth and rabidly attacking me for a few days.

Defending my position and questioning your logic is hardly "attacking"
you on a personal level. That you cannot understand how someone would
not understand your initial reference to an antenna that was part of a
10 year old repeater system, and took my apparent unfamiliarity as a
sign of lying is not my problem.

and accountability to
say so in a serious and mature manner. If I
misbehave like the hordes of anonymous
posters on this group, it becomes a simple
matter to rectify the situation.


It's not up to you Davie, to rectify anything. THAT'S your problem...you
think it is.

It should be every person's responsibility to "rectify" the problem in
order to preserve civility.

Not so when you're anonymous and take
advantage of the many network tools to
conceal your origin. So it allows "bad" people
to continue to be "bad".

No,,the internet does not "allow" people to do anything. PEOPLE allow
themselves to be involved in such fiascos.

When you give people the means to be "bad" why should you be surprised
when they act on it?

You are illustrating the
risks of the internet perfectly with your citing "bad" people,,,,,all
the more reason to follow the internet security experts advice, Davie.
Just because one doesn't post with their real name, Davie, doesn't make
them "baaad" people.

No, that in itself doesn't. I never said that all people who post
anonymously are "bad", but it is by far more tempting for them to be,
rather than if they are easily identified.

,,,,,who had the smarts to follow their ISP suggestions and all security
experts and NOT post on the internet with their real name to a group
dealing with a hobby where no ones identity is revealed.


No one has suggested anything of the sort.
The only thing that they warn is not to give out
personal information such as social security
numbers and such.


Most people know their real name is personal information. See how far
removed your beliefs are from the moral majority..

It takes more than a person's name to invoke identity theft.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing
to fear.



That is an old cliche used by authoritarians the world over to cast
doubt on the motives of civil libertarians that actually care about such
things as privacy. The cliche is also often used as a means to shut off
debate on the actual issue, since no one wants other people to think
they may have something to hide. This plays on the psyche of people and
was used by the Nazis for psychological warfare on their own people
expected of being dissidents. Such anti-american insinuation that one
may have something to hide merely for not posting their real name to the
internet as their user name
will not stop me from defending privacy rights that belong to you as
well,, as an American, even if you don't appreciate your liberties or
take advantage of them.

A wonderful speech, but the truth of the comment remains. If you have
nothing to hide, you are more likely to be up front about your
motives. People who insist on anonymity are suspicious right from the
start. What is it about their presence, ideas, or opinion would
predicate a need to remain anonymous? That implies a nefarious motive.


Add to the fact that you can no longer partake in your old haunts and dx
on cb because someone would probably turn your azz in...if you weren't
such a jerkoff and were cool with people, you could operate with no fear
and talk dx on cb with the rest of us who enjoy it.


I never liked talking DX on CB after the first
hundred or so contacts that I made almost 30
years ago. DX is nothing more than a source
of irritation to me, as the noise level prevents
comfortable local chit-chatting.



Fine, No one faults you for it.

You have.

But for you to come out here and
constantly complain about what bothers you over and over concerning cb,
and tell others who really do enjoy cb and dx what is wrong with them
doing it,in a cb group, no less, illustrates your motives, whether you are aware
of your own behavior or not.

And just what are "my motives" if you going to be presumptuous as to
suggest that you might know?

Perhaps, It's just that I remember (fondly) how CB radio was in the
1970's. People played loose and fast with the rules, but despite all
that, they were civil (most of the time) and the ratio of constructive
or good clean fun conversations to idiots was far greater than it is
today. Maybe, my biggest flaw is hoping that the FCC, through
legislation and enforcement, will do what people's inner conscience
and morality fail to do, and that is act civilly and considerately.



Any desire that I might have to talk long
distance can easily be taken care of LEGALLY
on the ham bands, so your conjecture is like
many of your others, just plain wrong.


The hammie bands are dead for HF DX,,they got nothing on eleven meter,
including freeband.

Hello? There is nothing magical about propagation on 11 meters. If 11
meters is open then 10, 12, and 15 are also open. When 11 isn't open,
I can still talk on 20, 40, 80 and 160 meters. If you want DX, there's
no more consistent place to find it than on one of the several ham
bands. When the sunspot cycle is high, 11 is wide open, and talking DX
is like shooting fish in a barrel. But right now, the cycle is low,
and DX opportunities are sporadic. I'm betting that I'll find more DX
opportunities on the H.F bands than you will solely on 11 at the
current time.



BTW, Who is Kim T. Hall?


Exactly.

Exactly what? Or is that whom?



Oh, and you might not believe this, but I'm
glad that you survived the storm. I don't like to
see bad things happen to anyone.

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj


Why would I not believe that? Only subhumans wish ill will on others for
stating their opinions.

So at least I'm higher than a subhuman on your scale eh?

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj