From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
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.



CB is not like that in my area. We have one channel with the lulu's,,the
rest yield great local roundtables and everyone radio-wise pretty much
knows everyone else. Being so close to Philthy, I can understand why CB
must be mess in your area. Those people are vile.




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.


Yup, it is, but that doesn't shake my faith of always seeing the glass
half full and noting the good instead of the bad in most cases..that's
why it's called "faith".


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.

Not true at all. You subscribe to socialist views and rhetoric,,,this is
NOT how America is, but how you wish it would be. The majority of
American's (THANK GOD) do not subscribe to your bull**** about allowing
the authorities and anyone else an open book to your life "if you don't
have anything to hide".

_
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?


Please try not to answer a question with a question. How long have you
looked to anonymous cb venues on the internet seeking "serious"
discussion?


Discussions about technical topics should be

taken at face value, without the parties

displaying their credentials?



Now you're catching on. No credentials needed for usenet posting, nor is
the "identity", that has you reeling.


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.


Yea,,,,,,it's the law.

People don't identify on CB for the same

reason.


Wrong. One is NOT required to identify on CB.


I have far more to be suspicious of, when

someone is afraid to identify themselves.



That is your right. And it's the majority of the rest of the world's
right to be suspicious of you seeking another's identity on usenet,
especially when you didn't listen to the world of security experts when
they told you not to post publicly to the internet with your personal
information. There indeed are areas of the internet that a certain
amount of identity is required, but usenet, especially a cb group, is
not one of them. This is a very rare concern that has no relation to
your life and voiced only by a bitter few.



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".
=A0=A0In 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"?


Not even a valiant attempt.
Some of those "good educations" you refer have posted directions on how
to destroy your radio in the form of mods. This is exactly the reason
one should take everything on the internet with a grain of salt.
Apparently, you believe otherwise.


_
And perhaps, just,,perhaps, because the entire world of security experts
SAY SO?
=A0

=A0That is a bit of an exaggeration and a stretch

of the truth.



No, it's not at all.

_
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?



If unfounded character assassinations (libel) was committed, absolutely.


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?



You said that.
If my emotions were to take over, I would simply trn the thing off and
walk away. No one is forcing you to partake in what you view as an
injurous electronic arena. It is your choice.


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.


Very noble. Many agree with you. Obviously, those like Dogie, do not.


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.


I have incredible restraint and am overly polite, even to you in many
instances when you began reambling off-topic with insult. I invite
anyone who has a problem with me to come forward....of course, those who
do, encapsulate the very idea you are railing against...not identifying
themselevs, only it doesn't bother me like it does you. I have an open
door policy and will meet anyone from this group for coffee, fishing, or
to continue our rec.radio.cb debates. So far, I have met several from
this forum and plan on meeting more. If I didn't fish for the day, and
we didn't talk about politics or cb, I am certain you and I would get
along just fine on the boat for an afternoon ride talking of nothing but
hammie radio.



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.



No one suggested such..but the gist of it, is that American's are
afforded the right to act like idiots, even it offends you to no end.
Using the excuse that it ought be over-ridden is what is weak.


_
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.



Well, that's what you were talking about, Davie..those serious
"malcontents", I believe was the word you used.



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.



You weren't talking of an opinion, Davie, you spoke of character
assassination.



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.



Therein lies the answer to what ails you. Not all people in public
forums are civilized. Nevertheless, these traits you consider
uncivilized, exist in these "bad" people you speak of, and unfortunately
the word is made up of good AND bad people.



Why should this newsgroup be treated any

differently than an in-person venue?



I happen to agree with you on this item, but why should others be forced
or made to conform to our view? They shouldn't.



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.




No,,you don't have the right to know the identity of one just because
you feel he is acting like a retard. But,,keeping with this thought you
put forward, you just described exactly what happened to Dogie.




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.




What you feel constitutes "quality" is the opposite of what many others
feel. The loss of personal privacy in this world is never an improvement
in the quality of anything.


_
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.

We can post those posts one by one, if the need be. Same with the
Phelps. Perhaps it will jog your failing memory.


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,



AFTER you refused to cite a credible source, and only after did I
"challenge the validity" of your claim.


first by trying to find some sort of difference

between "a suburb of" and "suburban",

suggesting that I was lying.



You are lying now. YOU were the one to invoke the word "suburb", not I,
and you invoked it when the heat got to hot and you realized, like said,
the court documents would confirm your story. I note you originally
claimed it happened IN Philthadelphia, and when I pressed on, you began
the back pedal and insults, playing games and getting elusive and only
then invoking "suburban" Philly. You provided nothing to this day
concerning this alleged case except more posts full of lipservice and
smoke..



When you failed to find any information



AFTER you claimed it was in Philly, and AFTER you failed to provide
anything at all concerning this case other than your lipservice.


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,


Makes no difference. You provided nothing but insult towards myself and
offtopic rants when asked for a single source of credibility showing
this occurred. You presented nothing.



you again inferred that I was lying.



You were, and are.


Even when I told you the exact town,


You never said the exact town and if you did, you NEVER linked it with
the case you claim occurred or in the same thread. Since you claim
otherwise, force feed me some crow, Davie, and show the world where you
told me what town the cber got busted in and went to court. Just another
in that long line of unsubstantiated bull****,,,,



you were

unable to find anything, which is not surprising
considering how poorly the town keeps

records..

But what have you actually proven?



That you can't correctly "recall" what occurred in past posts, but we
all realized that with your goof on the Phelps that you claimed you
owned, then when asked about your Phelps a few years later, replied
"What Phelps? I WISH I had a Phelps Stationmaster"...LOL,,THAT was the
exact antenna you claimed you owned a few years earler.





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.



No mistake. Nothing but lipservice regaridng this item.




B. That you were unable to locate any

information on the subject. (note that this

doesn't mean that there isn't any)




Your ASSuming ignorance in getting in the way of your sense. I looked
for nothing on any "subject". I specifically looked for the case you
cited as receiving a citation. It never happened.



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.



Hehe,,it's not me,,it's the law of the land when it comes right down to
it,,the burden of proof is always on the claimant. It is not like a
scientist yelling "The world is flat. I dare you to disprove
me....haha". One doesn't need disprove another's ramblings concerning
their own specialty. In such cases, one merely asks them for their proof
and watches them fall apart.



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.



When you continue to say "I know it happened and it isn't enough for
*you*,,that is making it personal, as once again, I didn't make the
rules of society, I merely conform to them and in society, the burden of
proof is on the claimant, that's just the way it is



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.




Of course it is. You have already demonstrated you are not familiar with
curent FCC law regarding the governing of CB. Now, how many CBer's and
hammies present that are posting regs like yourself, can not remember an
antenna they had, especially if it was part of THEIR repeater system. In
fact, the majority can recall just about every radio set-up they ever
had. I grew up in a home with a moonraker IV many years ago. If someone
asked me "still have the moonraker?".....I would have immediately
recalled the antenna to mind and so would the majority of radio ops. But
not you. If one doesnt lie, one needs not worry about remembering such
bull****.



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.



You said you are realist,yet here you sit posting the opposite and
telling us how "it SHOULD be", right after posting you don't partake in
such
behavior. See? Your bull**** is so deep, you can't recall what you wrote
a few paragraphs ago.



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?


Are you daft? I'm not the one complaining about such things,,,*you* are.
You are the only one complaining about behavior and people's acts. Add
to this your invoking the mythical Voob man to illustrate one of your
non-points, then turn around and invaildate yourself with the claim
concerning posts with no positive personal identity. You need a very
long vacation, Davie.


_
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.


Now you are concerning yourself with the temptations to your fellow man
caused by anonynmity on the internet. If this is what you need concern
yourself with, you lead a blessed life.
-
,,,,,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.



That is only one of the reasons for warning against such practice. And
no, it doesn't take anything more than person's anme for identity theft
on usenet (ANOTHER reason for keeping info secure), and that is exactly
why your full name is considered "personal" inormation by all except
yourself. Another reason for you to take what you read on the intetrnet
with a grain of salt.



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.



Wrong. Your entire point revolving around having nothing to hide is
invalid and anti-American and is NOT the way we do things herte in the
USA, at least, not yet.


If you have nothing to hide,

you are more likely to be up front about your

motives.



That's NOT what you said,,,you said if you have nothing to fear then you
have nothing to hide, and THAT, my friend is Orwellian totalitarian
bull****.





People who insist on anonymity are

suspicious right from the start.



I give you Thomas Paine.


What is it about their presence, ideas, or

opinion would predicate a need to remain

anonymous?



Unfair retailiation by neanderthals who feel they have a right to decide
how others should live. Unfair imposition by those who don't agree with
what was written. Oppressive governments, like the one that is
responsible for people like you being scared into giving up liberties in
the name of temporary security. People who feel they are somehow owed an
explanation by internet posters and retaliate with personal attacks
concerning offtopic and inquiries of personal matters and lives. The
reasons are endless.




That implies a nefarious motive.



Only to those seeking to curb liberties and freedoms. If the internet is
so bad, why continue to harp about the place you continue to frequent?
It's not like you are part of the solution or anythiing, as your posts
are impotent when relating to what governs usenet posting concerning
identity.

_
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.


Cite it. Show it. Link it. Another incorrect claim (read: LIE) you said
took place but never happened. But I understand your need for such
fantasy as resorting to claiming I have faulted you for local chit
chatting. It justifies your mania.
_
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?


Nothing at all presumptious conerning your constant problems with all
that cb has to offer. You never post anything positive relating to
CB,,,just always complaining about it in some manner or another. When
you're not complaining about the CB, you're busy fancying yourself as
looking at the outdated mode of communication as some type valid
representation as a "reflection of society" as a whole. And when you're
not doing THAT, you're busy not remembering what you said in past posts.


Perhaps, It's just that I remember (fondly) how
CB radio was in the 1970's.


Yea,,well so do I, but if you can't lend a hand get out of the road
'cause your old world is rapidly aging. So you better start swimming or
you'll sink like a stone, for the times, they are a changin'.


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.



Not where I live. CB is pretty cool where I live and has been for some
time.

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.



The government has no business in legislating personal morality when
another is not harmed.
If you're offended, shut it off, close the book, walk away.


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.



Once again,,they got nothing (in other words, there is no comparison) on
eleven meter. The crowds simply aren't there to make the contacts
as they are on 11.



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.



Depends what you define as DX. I prefer HF DX, no repeaters, my own low
power and rig. Nothing but me and mutha' nature.


When the sunspot cycle is high, 11 is wide

open, and talking DX is like shooting fish in a

barrel.


Shooting fish in a barrel was pioneered by repeaters for HF DX not cb.
Get it right. 11 meter is much more difficult than 10 meter repeater
contacts.


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?

Either way will work.


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?


Oh yea. I think you're one who gets caught p in the moment while
posting.



Dave

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"

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

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
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.


CB is not like that in my area. We have one channel with the lulu's,,the
rest yield great local roundtables and everyone radio-wise pretty much
knows everyone else. Being so close to Philthy, I can understand why CB
must be mess in your area. Those people are vile.

Yes they are. Ironically, in my new area, there is one channel with
any decent local activity. But as luck would have it, the people on
the channel rarely just "talk". They are usually involved with showing
off another new noise toy, or engaging in the verbal equivalent of WWF
smackdown. The rest of the band is pretty much dead now.
I'd love to have it they way you have described.


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.


Yup, it is, but that doesn't shake my faith of always seeing the glass
half full and noting the good instead of the bad in most cases..that's
why it's called "faith".

I tend to look at a glass that has 50% contents as half full also. The
problem is that when running across people, with respect to morality
and consideration, it seems that the glass is slowly dropping below
50%, and it's hard to see the positive side.


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.

Not true at all. You subscribe to socialist views and rhetoric,,,this is
NOT how America is, but how you wish it would be.

You know, I really have to laugh when you accuse me of being a
socialist. That is so far off track it's really funny. I am the
biggest fan of the free market, capitalism, freedom, and personal
responsibility. Hell, I'm voting for Bush, that's about as far away
from a socialist as you can get.


The majority of
American's (THANK GOD) do not subscribe to your bull**** about allowing
the authorities and anyone else an open book to your life "if you don't
have anything to hide".

As I stated before, I am a big supporter of the concept of freedom.
But with the RIGHT of freedom, comes the RESPONSIBILITY to follow the
rules of civilized society. It's not a free ride. If a significant
percentage of the population fails to recognize their responsibility
as a member of this civilized society, then their rights should be
proportionally removed as well. If people choose to hide behind the
freedom and "right" of privacy in order to commit crimes or subvert
the moral framework of society, then I am in favor of plugging those
loopholes in our Constitution which allows this type of malcontented
behavior to proliferate.

People who live honest, righteous lives have nothing to worry about,
as nothing will change. Only those with something to hide (or lose)
will have any fear. When I see people complaining loudly about this
logic, I have to wonder what it is that they are hiding........

_
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?





Please try not to answer a question with a question. How long have you
looked to anonymous cb venues on the internet seeking "serious"
discussion?

As long as I have been here. I am an engineer, and I've been repairing
and working on radios for close to 30 years, so I have an interest in
serious technical topics, as they relate to CB.

So now it's your turn:

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?



Now you're catching on. No credentials needed for usenet posting, nor is
the "identity", that has you reeling.

So as someone looking for technical information, you should take "bad"
advice at face value, without even the hint that it might be "bad"
advice? What accountability is there if someone takes someone's "bad"
advice and in the process ruins a once perfectly good radio?


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.


Yea,,,,,,it's the law.

Hmmm.... The law states that it's illegal to talk on the freeband, yet
it doesn't stop you. With hams (At least the good ones), following the
rules is not just a requirement, it's part of preserving the service
as a usable venue for the many facets that the service offers.


People don't identify on CB for the same
reason.


Wrong. One is NOT required to identify on CB.

No, they are not required to. But the fact that many go out of their
way to conceal who they are, imply a certain suspicious motive.


I have far more to be suspicious of, when
someone is afraid to identify themselves.



That is your right. And it's the majority of the rest of the world's
right to be suspicious of you seeking another's identity on usenet,
especially when you didn't listen to the world of security experts when
they told you not to post publicly to the internet with your personal
information.

I have nothing to hide. One might wonder about you though. What dark
secret prevents you from revealing who you are?


There indeed are areas of the internet that a certain
amount of identity is required, but usenet, especially a cb group, is
not one of them. This is a very rare concern that has no relation to
your life and voiced only by a bitter few.

Again, if there is no accountability, then there is nothing to prevent
the forum for degenerating into spam postings, vulgar language, and
general lack of respect. Sound familiar? Do you LIKE what this forum
has become?


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"?


Not even a valiant attempt.
Some of those "good educations" you refer have posted directions on how
to destroy your radio in the form of mods. This is exactly the reason
one should take everything on the internet with a grain of salt.
Apparently, you believe otherwise.

But, you see, if someone posted a well written, but "poison" mod as a
dupe to unsuspecting CBers, then that person needs to held accountable
for that. Thank you for making my case for me.

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.

No, it's not at all.

I have not read anywhere where any "expert" tells you not to post on a
forum with your real name. The do caution you not to reveal too many
details, like SSN, credit card info, or other unrelated personal
details.

I don't ask for any more detail than what a callsign lookup on QRZ.com
would provide.

_
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?

If unfounded character assassinations (libel) was committed, absolutely.

How? When people hide behind anonymous remailers, servers, public WIFI
access nodes, and NAT routers, how can you find out exactly who they
are?


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?



You said that.

I'm asking if that is how you feel?

If my emotions were to take over, I would simply trn the thing off and
walk away. No one is forcing you to partake in what you view as an
injurous electronic arena. It is your choice.

The same "turn it to the left" mentality that abusive CBers use to
force good people off of the CB band? Decent people should be forced
to yield to malcontents, rather than fight back?


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.


Very noble. Many agree with you. Obviously, those like Dogie, do not.

Doug has personal issues of his own. I suspect they transcend those of
radio operation.


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.


I have incredible restraint and am overly polite, even to you in many
instances when you began reambling off-topic with insult. I invite
anyone who has a problem with me to come forward.

How does one "come forward" if we don't know who you are or where you
live?


...of course, those who
do, encapsulate the very idea you are railing against...not identifying
themselevs, only it doesn't bother me like it does you. I have an open
door policy and will meet anyone from this group for coffee, fishing, or
to continue our rec.radio.cb debates.

Ok, I'm coming to Orlando in October. I might make a detour to Tampa.
Where do you want to meet?




So far, I have met several from
this forum and plan on meeting more. If I didn't fish for the day, and
we didn't talk about politics or cb, I am certain you and I would get
along just fine on the boat for an afternoon ride talking of nothing but
hammie radio.

Nothing wrong about talking about CB. I love the hobby (at least in
the old days), and I could tell you a few good stories. But in order
for you to talk authoritatively about hammie radio, that would imply
that you are a ham yourself (or at least should be). You've implied
similar before. The fact that you won't admit it one way or the other
probably speaks more about your fear of identification, considering
your admitted behavior on the freeband. Don't worry, I have a whole
website full of past antics, and no one has busted me yet. As I've
said before, I have nothing to hide......



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.


No one suggested such..but the gist of it, is that American's are
afforded the right to act like idiots, even it offends you to no end.
Using the excuse that it ought be over-ridden is what is weak.

So then you assert that an American's right to act like an anti-social
idiot deserves more consideration than other people's right to expect
civilized behavior in public places?


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.



Well, that's what you were talking about, Davie..those serious
"malcontents", I believe was the word you used.



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.

You weren't talking of an opinion, Davie, you spoke of character
assassination.

Character assassination is either based on truth, or opinion. If the
claims are true then they deserve to be brought out. If they are
simply opinions, then it becomes a process to determine whether there
was any "real" damage done. Again this becomes complicated if people
"hide" well.


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.

Therein lies the answer to what ails you. Not all people in public
forums are civilized. Nevertheless, these traits you consider
uncivilized, exist in these "bad" people you speak of, and unfortunately
the word is made up of good AND bad people.

So then what is your conclusion? Should good people be turned away
from public forums (Both radio and internet) by the behavior of the
bad people? Do good people not have some right to protection from the
worst of the bad people? Isn't this in the best interest of society?
Is the right of privacy so important that you would allow it to
supersede keeping public places to at least a minimum amount of
decorum?


Why should this newsgroup be treated any
differently than an in-person venue?

I happen to agree with you on this item, but why should others be forced
or made to conform to our view? They shouldn't.

Why not? Personal freedom does not (or should not) extend to the
ruination of other people's freedom or right of access.

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.


No,,you don't have the right to know the identity of one just because
you feel he is acting like a retard.

If the behavior is continual and affects more than just one person,
then that changes things.

But,,keeping with this thought you
put forward, you just described exactly what happened to Dogie.

As it should be. Everyone who acts in that manner should be removed
from society where they can no longer harm the activities of others.


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.


What you feel constitutes "quality" is the opposite of what many others
feel. The loss of personal privacy in this world is never an improvement
in the quality of anything.

Why? Why should it matter if people know who you are? Are you THAT
paranoid?


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.

We can post those posts one by one, if the need be. Same with the
Phelps. Perhaps it will jog your failing memory.


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,

AFTER you refused to cite a credible source, and only after did I
"challenge the validity" of your claim.

I don't have a credible source. I didn't "find" the incident. I was
personally involved with it.


first by trying to find some sort of difference
between "a suburb of" and "suburban",
suggesting that I was lying.



You are lying now. YOU were the one to invoke the word "suburb", not I,
and you invoked it when the heat got to hot and you realized, like said,
the court documents would confirm your story. I note you originally
claimed it happened IN Philthadelphia,

I never EVER claimed that it happened IN philthy. Never. I said that
it happened in SUBURBAN (Meaning in the suburbs) of Philly. Why I
chose that wording instead of just saying that it happened in
Norristown, should be obvious. This is an international forum. Ask
someone from another geographical area if they're ever heard of a
relatively small town (such as Norristown) and they will most likely
not. But mention a popular city as a geographical point of reference,
and it's another story.

and when I pressed on, you began
the back pedal

What you call "back pedal" I call "clarification. Nothing changed
except the precise wording.


and insults, playing games and getting elusive and only
then invoking "suburban" Philly. You provided nothing to this day
concerning this alleged case except more posts full of lipservice and
smoke..

What more do you want? I told you all the details. I never knew the
defendant's last name (part of that anonymity aspect of CB) only that
the name he went by was "Floyd" (Which from other people, is his
middle name, his fist name is Anthony). It happened in Norristown Pa
(A suburb of philly) in the late 90's.


When you failed to find any information

AFTER you claimed it was in Philly,

I never claimed it was IN philly. You will not find any post which
claims that. That you feel that suburban philly means the same thing
as IN philly was your mistake.


and AFTER you failed to provide
anything at all concerning this case other than your lipservice.

I don't need to go through the trouble to pacify you. If you want to
go through the trouble to request (at your cost) microfiche records,
then go for it. But because you can't find it on the internet, does
not mean that it doesn't exist, nor that I "lied" about it.


you again inferred that I was lying.



You were, and are.

Nope. It was the truth. I only wish I had a way to prove it to you, so
you can feel as foolish as you should.


Even when I told you the exact town,


You never said the exact town and if you did, you NEVER linked it with
the case you claim occurred or in the same thread. Since you claim
otherwise, force feed me some crow, Davie, and show the world where you
told me what town the cber got busted in and went to court. Just another
in that long line of unsubstantiated bull****,,,,

You asked for it, you got it: Enjoy your crow....


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=No...x.net&rnum= 1

you were

unable to find anything, which is not surprising
considering how poorly the town keeps

records..

But what have you actually proven?



That you can't correctly "recall" what occurred in past posts, but we
all realized that with your goof on the Phelps that you claimed you
owned, then when asked about your Phelps a few years later, replied
"What Phelps? I WISH I had a Phelps Stationmaster"...LOL,,THAT was the
exact antenna you claimed you owned a few years earler.

7 or 8 years earlier. An antenna that was a part of a repeater system,
not my own shack.


B. That you were unable to locate any
information on the subject. (note that this
doesn't mean that there isn't any)

Your ASSuming ignorance in getting in the way of your sense. I looked
for nothing on any "subject". I specifically looked for the case you
cited as receiving a citation. It never happened.

You can't look for something and expect to find much without key
particulars, like the defendant's name, which I can't give you as I
didn't know all of it. Not all information is available on the
internet.


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.



Hehe,,it's not me,,it's the law of the land when it comes right down to
it,,the burden of proof is always on the claimant. It is not like a
scientist yelling "The world is flat. I dare you to disprove
me....haha". One doesn't need disprove another's ramblings concerning
their own specialty. In such cases, one merely asks them for their proof
and watches them fall apart.

It's true as far as I'm concerned. You made it one of your life's
goals to disprove it. If you want to believe that I lied, then feel
free. It doesn't make nay difference to me, or to the guy who had to
pay a fine because of it


Defending my position and questioning your
logic is hardly "attacking" you on a personal
level.



When you continue to say "I know it happened and it isn't enough for
*you*,,that is making it personal, as once again, I didn't make the
rules of society, I merely conform to them and in society, the burden of
proof is on the claimant, that's just the way it is.

Yet you ignore certain other rules of society when it suits you.
Pardon me if I don't buy this high road of societal responsibility you
are attempting to drive on.

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.




Of course it is. You have already demonstrated you are not familiar with
curent FCC law regarding the governing of CB. Now, how many CBer's and
hammies present that are posting regs like yourself, can not remember an
antenna they had, especially if it was part of THEIR repeater system.

Quite a few. Especially when hit with a quick question from out in
left field. I don't look at the repeater system's equipment as "my
personal station".

In
fact, the majority can recall just about every radio set-up they ever
had. I grew up in a home with a moonraker IV many years ago. If someone
asked me "still have the moonraker?".....I would have immediately
recalled the antenna to mind and so would the majority of radio ops. But
not you. If one doesnt lie, one needs not worry about remembering such
bull****.

I never had a stationmaster as part of my antenna system, so I won't
remember it.


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.



You said you are realist,yet here you sit posting the opposite and
telling us how "it SHOULD be", right after posting you don't partake in
such behavior.

Nothing hypocritical about it at all. It's one thing to live and work
in the real world, and deal with it as such. It's another to ponder
how to correct the ills of society. I recognize the faults of society
and deal with them within my limits. But that doesn't prevent me from
looking for a better solution


See? Your bull**** is so deep, you can't recall what you wrote
a few paragraphs ago.

You are so confrontational and literal that you take every small
nuance difference as a contradiction.



_
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.


Now you are concerning yourself with the temptations to your fellow man
caused by anonynmity on the internet. If this is what you need concern
yourself with, you lead a blessed life.

There is a difference between identifying the source of a problem and
"concern" for it.

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




Wrong. Your entire point revolving around having nothing to hide is
invalid and anti-American and is NOT the way we do things herte in the
USA, at least, not yet.


If you have nothing to hide,
you are more likely to be up front about your
motives.



That's NOT what you said,,,you said if you have nothing to fear then you
have nothing to hide, and THAT, my friend is Orwellian totalitarian
bull****.

No, I said if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. I
shouldn't have to explain the nuances to you. If you have nothing to
hide, you are more likely to be up front and honest (That is the
"fear").


People who insist on anonymity are
suspicious right from the start.

I give you Thomas Paine.

I don't want him.


What is it about their presence, ideas, or
opinion would predicate a need to remain
anonymous?



Unfair retailiation by neanderthals who feel they have a right to decide
how others should live.

Woah! So you believe that it is unfair that people who state their
position should be held accountable? People should be allowed to lob
anonymous rhetoric bombs for little more than disruption of society,
without repercussions? We all have rights, and we all have
responsibilities. You have as much of a voice in policy as I do. But
if you want to be taken seriously, have the balls to sign your name to
the bottom.


Unfair imposition by those who don't agree with
what was written. Oppressive governments, like the one that is
responsible for people like you being scared into giving up liberties in
the name of temporary security. People who feel they are somehow owed an
explanation by internet posters and retaliate with personal attacks
concerning offtopic and inquiries of personal matters and lives. The
reasons are endless.

And equally valid. You have yet to justify a good reason why someone
should be allowed to hide behind a cloak of anonymity. If their
intentions are serious and worthy of note, then they have nothing to
fear by attaching their name to the bottom. Conversely, why should
anyone take seriously anything written by someone who doesn't have the
intellectual fortitude to sign their name to it.?


That implies a nefarious motive.



Only to those seeking to curb liberties and freedoms. If the internet is
so bad, why continue to harp about the place you continue to frequent?
It's not like you are part of the solution or anythiing, as your posts
are impotent when relating to what governs usenet posting concerning
identity.

Interestingly, I am involved on a peripheral basis, with the proposed
technology changes which would make internet identification automatic.
It would eliminate security concerns for people engaged in internet
commerce. It would also reduce or eliminate spammers, criminals, and
other purveyors of the dark side of the internet. So I am somewhat a
part of the eventual solution.



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.



Once again,,they got nothing (in other words, there is no comparison) on
eleven meter. The crowds simply aren't there to make the contacts
as they are on 11.

And that is a BAD thing? I prefer quality to quantity. I prefer to
have an hour long QSO with a DX station without having to swat at the
DX chasers like flys who are constantly barging in on frequency.


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.



Depends what you define as DX. I prefer HF DX, no repeaters, my own low
power and rig. Nothing but me and mutha' nature.

Why would someone consider operating through a repeater as DX?

On the HF ham bands DX is normally considered anything that is not
stateside. On VHF and higher, DX could be 100 miles, or the moon.

When the sunspot cycle is high, 11 is wide
open, and talking DX is like shooting fish in a
barrel.


Shooting fish in a barrel was pioneered by repeaters for HF DX not cb.

Who is talking about repeaters? Where are there repeaters on any band
below 10 meters?

Get it right. 11 meter is much more difficult than 10 meter repeater
contacts.

How difficult can it be when you have all those "crowds"?


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?

Either way will work.


Evasive are we? So who is Kim T. Hall?

A relation of mine perhaps? One that you found through some sort of
internet search? That's the funny thing about having a name like mine.
I might as well be anonymous as common as the name is. It's hard to
sift through all the information your searches come up with when you
enter my name in.


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.

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?


Oh yea. I think you're one who gets caught p in the moment while
posting.

So you believe that there's some hope for me eh?



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

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
I can't help note but you have begun your games again, selectively
snipping questions you pose and have great difficulty when given replies
with which you disagree. Editing your gaffes so that they no longer
appear illustrates only that you not only recognize such self-created
buffoonery, but go to great lengths to attempt to conceal it.
By introducing the behavior of selective snipping and editing of your
replies, you have intentionally compromised the thread. What you fail to
comprehend is such behavior merely serves to facilitate your own
degrading commmunicative skills.





_
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,


No, it's not everyone's problem,,it's YOUR problem. Not everyone sees CB
as full of malcontents. Some see hammies like yourself as the
malcontents for feeling you have some sort inalienable right to demand
cbers jump through the same hoops you must jump through regarding hammie
radio.


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


CB is not like that in my area. We have one channel with the lulu's,,the
rest yield great local roundtables and everyone radio-wise pretty much
knows everyone else. Being so close to Philthy, I can understand why CB
must be mess in your area. Those people are vile.


Yes they are. Ironically, in my new area, there

is one channel with any decent local activity.

But as luck would have it, the people on the

channel rarely just "talk". They are usually

involved with showing off another new noise

toy, or engaging in the verbal equivalent of

WWF smackdown. The rest of the band is

pretty much dead now. I'd love to have it they

way you have described.


Then what is preventing from you from getting on that channel and
speaking your mind to those people as you do on here concerning your
radical and minority beliefs. After all, that would make you proactive
instead of reactive like you have always been here, and I am certain we
can count on you to offer your beliefs to those on the air using those
noise toys that have you bleeding from the ears and nose, because we all
know you believe in saying the same things here as you would face to
face. Try it with the noise toys and on the radio with these
people,,tell them they are the equivalent of the WWF. Report back.



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.


Yup, it is, but that doesn't shake my faith of always seeing the glass
half full and noting the good instead of the bad in most cases..that's
why it's called "faith".


I tend to look at a glass that has 50% contents
as half full also.


Not with CB, society, the FCC, and personal privacy rights you don't



The problem is that when running across

people, with respect to morality and

consideration, it seems that the glass is slowly
dropping below 50%, and it's hard to see the

positive side.




That IS a problem of yours, no doubt. I still find the majority of
people to be good hearted. Must be southern thing (shrug),,if I'm wrong,
I'm sure a yankee will correct me to say it is you that are wrong and
that people, even in the north, are generally good people.



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.


Not true at all. You subscribe to socialist views and rhetoric,,,this is
NOT how America is, but how you wish it would be.


You know, I really have to laugh when you

accuse me of being a socialist.


It's true, In fact, this is another of those little times that I will
not only remind you that we have had this conversation long ago and many
times, but that in what remains one of my more favorite exchanges with
you, you not only embrace socialist beliefs, but go as far as to DEFEND
those beliefs and offer several reasons WHY you believe that bull****.


That is so far off track it's really funny.


You not being aware of how snowballed this adminsitration has sheople
like you isn't at all funny, it's frighteningly pathetic.


I am the

biggest fan of the free market, capitalism,

freedom, and personal responsibility. Hell, I'm

voting for Bush, that's about as far away from

a socialist as you can get.



I'll make this very simple. Bush swore with his hand upon the Bible that
he would uphold and protect the constitution. Immediately after taking
office, he launched an assault upon it. His reasons for doing so are
irrelevant, as are yours.

_
The majority of
American's (THANK GOD) do not subscribe to your bull**** about allowing
the authorities and anyone else an open book to your life "if you don't
have anything to hide".


As I stated before, I am a big supporter of the

concept of freedom.


Except when it comes to others exercising THEIR freedoms that you think
should be curbed,,such as the right to anonymity on the internet, just
for starters.




But with the RIGHT of freedom, comes the

RESPONSIBILITY to follow the rules of

civilized society. It's not a free ride.



Ride? What is this ride you speak of? You have rambled from speaking of
anonymity on the net, (one's right) and your problems with it saying one
shouldn;t have that right, and once again linked CB to society and
presented your problems with all three in discombobulated fashion. You
still need that vacation, Dave.




If a significant percentage of the population

fails to recognize their responsibility as a

member of this civilized society, then their

rights should be proportionally removed as

well.




3% of the population of the US HAVE been "proportionally removed" due to
poorly constructed laws that created non-violent criminals. We have more
incarcerations than any other country on Earth. Keeping with your
radical and oppressive beliefs, we must have the worst, evil, people to
be found on the planet, eh?







If people choose to hide behind the freedom

and "right" of privacy in order to commit crimes
or subvert the moral framework of society,

then I am in favor of plugging those loopholes

in our Constitution which allows this type of

malcontented behavior to proliferate.




Again, Thank God the majority do not share your belief. Free society is
not perfect and those "loopholes" will always be there in order to make
a free society work. Plugging what you wrongly refer to as "loopholes"
in the US Constitution does nothing but take away rights of ALL
Americans, whether they choose to exercise those rights or not. Just
because you choose not to, you damn sure don't have the right to tell
others that they should not be able to exercise same and as it stands
now, such is the law.




People who live honest, righteous lives have

nothing to worry about, as nothing will change.


Bull****. Over 50 people have been exonerated by DNA this year alone for
crimes they were wrongly accused. Just last week a man was released from
death row after 22 years when a DNA completely abdicated and absolved
him from the murder for which he was doing time. I won't even bother to
inform you of the rate of crooked cops in cities like LA and NY, as you
are myopically not aware and it is apparent that you feel these innocent
victims who lose their lives and families are just the acceptable kill
and error ratio.




Only those with something to hide (or lose) will
have any fear.


Again, bull****.


When I see people complaining loudly about

this logic, I have to wonder what it is that they

are hiding........


And when people see you demanding personal identity of usenet posters
which goes against all advice from experts and security experts and
privacy experts, especially when taken into consideration the usenet
group is dedicated to CB, an anonymous hobby, the majorty has to wonder
why it is you seek such personal information as it is not relevant to
anyone but yourself in this group..




_
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?


Please try not to answer a question with a question. How long have you
looked to anonymous cb venues on the internet seeking "serious"
discussion?


As long as I have been here. I am an

engineer, and I've been repairing and working

on radios for close to 30 years, so I have an

interest in serious technical topics, as they

relate to CB.





Well, there is yet another problem of yours that you answered yourself.
Since you see this specific forum as such a poor venue, you need to look
to other places for your needs, 'casue you been at it for years here
pitching your bitch about CB yet you still haven't figured out that you
are not going to to control others actions. Of course, you can invoke
that "fence sitter" that never posts and claim you are trying to reach
this mythical creature. Perhaps that will allow you to believe a slight
victory and you won't feel like you are waging a fight that "has to
start somewhere" to clean up radio to the point you wish it.




So now it's your turn:

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?


I do not concern myself with the manner in which usenet is constructed.
You have so many problems with this group, but crying about what you
don't like is reactive, Dave. It won't change a thing. I mean, now
you're alluding to the manner in which this group is governed..somehing
totally transparent to you or I and beyond your ability to do anything
about. Have you ever realized you spend a great deal of time worrying
about something over which you have no control? Of course, you do. It
drives you to frustration and it manifests here.



Discussions about technical topics should be

taken at face value, without the parties

displaying their credentials?


Now you're catching on. No credentials needed for usenet posting, nor is
the "identity", that has you reeling.


So as someone looking for technical

information, you should take "bad" advice at

face value, without even the hint that it might

be "bad" advice? What accountability is there

if someone takes someone's "bad" advice and

in the process ruins a once perfectly good

radio?



No accountabilty, which is why the internet and isps and usenet have
discalimers you agree to prior to being able to access such information.
You are really wound tighter than a slinky, Dave. You tend to forget,
deliberate, bad information has been posted here by a certain hammie
scumbag, that gave directions on how to ruin a radio,,,, disguised as a
mod. Sorry you feel what you find on usenet and the internet is so
credible. No wonder you are voting for Bush, as only the gullible are
doing so.




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.

Yea,,,,,,it's the law.

Hmmm.... The law states that it's illegal to talk

on the freeband, yet it doesn't stop you.


Freebanding has nothing to do with hammies identifying "on ham radio for
a reason". Try and remain on your invoked topic. You claimed people
identify on the hammie radio for the same reason,,,,,you're wrong. It's
the law to identify on hammie radio, it is NOT the law to identify on
usenet or cb, but you have really been confused with the law lately, as
it relates to CB.


With hams (At least the good ones), following

the rules is not just a requirement, it's part of

preserving the service as a usable venue for

the many facets that the service offers.

People don't identify on CB for the same

reason.



Wrong. One is NOT required to identify on CB.


No, they are not required to. But the fact that

many go out of their way to conceal who they

are, imply a certain suspicious motive.


Heheh,,,,of course they do, that is what one is supposed to do on
cb,,,conceal their personal identity. You really don't know much about
anything CB related.



I have far more to be suspicious of, when

someone is afraid to identify themselves.


That is your right. And it's the majority of the rest of the world's
right to be suspicious of you seeking another's identity on usenet,
especially when you didn't listen to the world of security experts when
they told you not to post publicly to the internet with your personal
information.


I have nothing to hide. One might wonder

about you though. What dark secret prevents

you from revealing who you are?



Oh, I have no problem revealing who I am...in person. What great fear
stops you from completing your mission concerning my personal
information? If you wanted to know that bad, you would come down and
meet me like others have..unless, of course, you have some dark secret
fear, preventing you from doing so, and you would rather whine and cry
here about something so bloody off-topic that only you are consumed with
it. In that way, there is no danger of you having to live up to your
word and saying things in person instead of on usenet that are offtopic,
such as personal information.


_
There indeed are areas of the internet that a certain amount of identity
is required, but usenet, especially a cb group, is not one of them. This
is a very rare concern that has no relation to your life and voiced only
by a bitter few.


Again, if there is no accountability, then there

is nothing to prevent the forum for

degenerating into spam postings, vulgar

language, and general lack of respect. Sound

familiar?



Sure does, ,,,, as only you are heretically demanding accountablilty
from usenet internet strangers. Lets see,,,,who would you start with?
LMOA.....you're fallen and twisted yourself again, dude..



Do you LIKE what this forum has become?
=A0=A0


I do. I have met many good folks, I have daily emails with regs, I have
anything in the manner of radio, cb, hammie equipment I could possibly
want, and I owe much of it to this group. tyvm.


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".
=A0=A0In your case, you ask for names, backgrounds, etc, of those who
you disagree with on usenet.


I have NEVER asked for specific personal

details.



Sure you have. You have inquired as to my work on past occasion, what
town I live in, my name, my call sign,,,why, in fact, you have overly
concerned yourslef with my identity for years and you;re still doing
it..look at the lenght of this thread,,,all because you are still
experiencing growing pains because the law regarding internet use is not
the way you wish it. Another example of what you want and not the way
the realism exists.


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"?


Not even a valiant attempt.
Some of those "good educations" you refer have posted directions on how
to destroy your radio in the form of mods. This is exactly the reason
one should take everything on the internet with a grain of salt.
Apparently, you believe otherwise.


But, you see, if someone posted a well written,
but "poison" mod as a dupe to unsuspecting

CBers, then that person needs to held

accountable for that. Thank you for making my
case for me.




No, they DON'T need held accountable for that. If you read your user
agreements when accessig the internet and usenet and all that governs
such, you would find disclaimers for such info. This is where your
socialist views and censorship are magnified. You have maintained in the
past that, for example, instructions for homemade bombs (just for a
SINGLE of endless examples) should be censored. Your argument is weak.
If the information is out there, you want the person that put the
information out there to be "held accountable. Since that is the way you
feel, why did you agree to the terms of usenet access via your isp ?
Since you no longer agree to the terms of service, you should inform
your isp of your decision.


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

That is a bit of an exaggeration and a stretch o

f the truth.

No, it's not at all.

I have not read anywhere where any "expert"

tells you not to post on a forum with your real

name.


Not surprised. You haven't read the laws in over twenty years governing
CB radio, and you haven't read your terms of services, either.



The do caution you not to reveal too many

details, like SSN, credit card info, or other

unrelated personal details.



Wrong,,,they do not say 'details",,,they say "personal information" and
your semantic slide is not achieving the shift for which you were
reaching.



I don't ask for any more detail than what a

callsign lookup on QRZ.com would provide.






Yet, you carry on and invoke your own version of what usenet SHOULD be
and how YOU feel it should operate when you are denied this information.
Despite your claim, your views are NOT those of a realist, but of one
who clamors for a way in which it simply isn't.

(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
I can't help note but you have begun your games again, selectively
snipping questions

Deer Lowered!!! Someone should snip this ****ing scroll..

Webtv blows for usenet, Twist.

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
I can't help note but you have begun your games again, selectively
snipping questions

Deer Lowered!!! Someone should snip this ****ing scroll..

Webtv blows for usenet, Twist.

Yeah Twist. WebTV can't be the only provider in your area. ick! :-)

-Dr.X (makin' noise in the sand pile)

From: (Dr.X)
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
I can't help note but you have begun your games again, selectively
snipping questions
_
Deer Lowered!!! Someone should snip this ****ing scroll..
Webtv blows for usenet, Twist.
_
Yeah Twist. WebTV can't be the only provider in your area. ick! :-)
-Dr.X (makin' noise in the sand pile)
_
Hahaha,,,nope,,,but I'm pretty damn sure they are the only ones who are
GUARANTEED virus proof. Plus, they don't screw around with attempted
hackers,,,,they are excellent at informing the right networks when the
need arises.

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
I can't help note but you have begun your games again, selectively
snipping questions

Deer Lowered!!! Someone should snip this ****ing scroll..

Webtv blows for usenet, Twist.

Second that!


Landshark


--
Hard things are put in our way,
not to stop us, but to call out our
courage and strength.

From: (Steveo)
(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
I can't help note but you have begun your games again, selectively
snipping questions
Deer Lowered!!! Someone should snip this ****ing scroll..

Webtv blows for usenet, Twist.


Yea, the long posts get kind of fun to follow, but TIVO is too slow g.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:25:07 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave*Hall)
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:
I can't help note but you have begun your games again, selectively
snipping questions you pose and have great difficulty when given replies
with which you disagree. Editing your gaffes so that they no longer
appear illustrates only that you not only recognize such self-created
buffoonery, but go to great lengths to attempt to conceal it.
By introducing the behavior of selective snipping and editing of your
replies, you have intentionally compromised the thread. What you fail to
comprehend is such behavior merely serves to facilitate your own
degrading commmunicative skills.

I snip the fat, as this thread has already grown to the point where it
is no longer comfortable to follow. I snip the oldest parts first.
There is no "game" involved. Brevity is a virtue. One you have yet to
appreciate, it would seem.


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,


No, it's not everyone's problem,,it's YOUR problem. Not everyone sees CB
as full of malcontents.

I guess in all honesty, it is highly geography dependant. Trust me, in
my area, there are a great many malcontents. I apologize to the fine
CBers in your area, if they are not of the same (im)moral caliber.


Some see hammies like yourself as the
malcontents for feeling you have some sort inalienable right to demand
cbers jump through the same hoops you must jump through regarding hammie
radio.

What "hoops" are there to just acting in a civilly responsible manner?


CB is not like that in my area. We have one channel with the lulu's,,the
rest yield great local roundtables and everyone radio-wise pretty much
knows everyone else. Being so close to Philthy, I can understand why CB
must be mess in your area. Those people are vile.


Yes they are. Ironically, in my new area, there
is one channel with any decent local activity.
But as luck would have it, the people on the
channel rarely just "talk". They are usually
involved with showing off another new noise
toy, or engaging in the verbal equivalent of
WWF smackdown. The rest of the band is
pretty much dead now. I'd love to have it they
way you have described.


Then what is preventing from you from getting on that channel and
speaking your mind to those people as you do on here concerning your
radical and minority beliefs.

Nothing. I've done it already. But what good will it do? All it does
it cause further arguments. You try to tell a nut that he's nuts, and
they'll swear you're crazy. Finally I realize that it's no use. Why
would I want to change a bunch of complete morons into people I'd want
to associate with, if that's even remotely possible? You can't make an
idiot into a normal person, so why try? Birds of a feather stick
together. My only hope is that a group of decent people will decide to
start another channel that I would be happy to participate in. I'm
already working on a CB reunion for some of the old crew that I've
contacted. This might spawn a "retro net" where we fire up that
vintage gear for some old fashioned CB fun.


After all, that would make you proactive
instead of reactive like you have always been here, and I am certain we
can count on you to offer your beliefs to those on the air using those
noise toys that have you bleeding from the ears and nose, because we all
know you believe in saying the same things here as you would face to
face. Try it with the noise toys and on the radio with these
people,,tell them they are the equivalent of the WWF. Report back.

Been there, done that. How do you rationalize the detrimental effects
of distorted audio, such as that produced by an echo mike, to someone
who has that "kid on Christmas" look on his face at the discovery of
his latest toy (that he probably spend half his fast food paycheck
for)? He doesn't care that it makes his audio hard to understand. He
just thinks it's "cool". Must be something in the water around
here.....


Yup, it is, but that doesn't shake my faith of always seeing the glass
half full and noting the good instead of the bad in most cases..that's
why it's called "faith".


I tend to look at a glass that has 50% contents
as half full also.


Not with CB, society, the FCC, and personal privacy rights you don't

Because, in those cases, the glass in much less than 50% full.

The problem is that when running across
people, with respect to morality and
consideration, it seems that the glass is slowly
dropping below 50%, and it's hard to see the
positive side.


That IS a problem of yours, no doubt. I still find the majority of
people to be good hearted. Must be southern thing (shrug),,if I'm wrong,
I'm sure a yankee will correct me to say it is you that are wrong and
that people, even in the north, are generally good people.

That all depends on which circles you run in. I find most hams in my
area to be good people. I find my neighbors to be good people. I can't
say the same for the "seedier" towns, or the trash that populates the
most popular CB channel.


Not true at all. You subscribe to socialist views and rhetoric,,,this is
NOT how America is, but how you wish it would be.


You know, I really have to laugh when you

accuse me of being a socialist.

It's true, In fact, this is another of those little times that I will
not only remind you that we have had this conversation long ago and many
times, but that in what remains one of my more favorite exchanges with
you, you not only embrace socialist beliefs, but go as far as to DEFEND
those beliefs and offer several reasons WHY you believe that bull****.

Do you even know what a socialist is? Do you still think (like you
once posted) that a liberal and a libertarian are the same thing?

Please provide any exchanges that I have authored where I defended the
concepts of socialism. I believe in limited government. I believe in
personal responsibility (and accountability). I believe that
government should not restrict access and actions, but should
prosecute those who abuse their rights.


That is so far off track it's really funny.


You not being aware of how snowballed this adminsitration has sheople
like you isn't at all funny, it's frighteningly pathetic.

Only if you have your own partisan beliefs and buy into the rhetoric
from equally clueless detractors.

I am the
biggest fan of the free market, capitalism,
freedom, and personal responsibility. Hell, I'm
voting for Bush, that's about as far away from
a socialist as you can get.



I'll make this very simple. Bush swore with his hand upon the Bible that
he would uphold and protect the constitution. Immediately after taking
office, he launched an assault upon it. His reasons for doing so are
irrelevant, as are yours.

He did nothing to the Constitution. He merely granted the same powers
currently afforded to law enforcement, to those involved with the
fight against terrorism. Have you read the entire Patriot act? I have,
and I find nothing in it that isn't necessary if we want to improve
our chances against those who take advantage of our lax security to do
us harm.

_
The majority of
American's (THANK GOD) do not subscribe to your bull**** about allowing
the authorities and anyone else an open book to your life "if you don't
have anything to hide".

You have no way of knowing what the majority of Americans, CBers, Hams
or anyone else thinks or wants. Unless of course, you're omnipotent.
You only know what YOU want and the small circle of people you
associate want.


As I stated before, I am a big supporter of the
concept of freedom.

Except when it comes to others exercising THEIR freedoms that you think
should be curbed,,such as the right to anonymity on the internet, just
for starters.

There is no good reason why someone needs to hide. You can't give me a
good reason why someone deserves the right to be able to hide from
others. Especially when that right threatens the rights of other
people to the expectation of civil discourse.

When that right conflicts with the right to expect civility and
accountability in public places then I favor civility and
accountability.


But with the RIGHT of freedom, comes the
RESPONSIBILITY to follow the rules of
civilized society. It's not a free ride.


Ride? What is this ride you speak of? You have rambled from speaking of
anonymity on the net, (one's right) and your problems with it saying one
shouldn;t have that right, and once again linked CB to society and
presented your problems with all three in discombobulated fashion. You
still need that vacation, Dave.

I'm sorry you cannot put the pieces together to form the big picture.
All rights come with corresponding responsibilities. You can't hide
behind a right, without being expected to be responsible enough to not
abuse it. That's what I mean by "no free ride".


If a significant percentage of the population
fails to recognize their responsibility as a
member of this civilized society, then their
rights should be proportionally removed as
well.




3% of the population of the US HAVE been "proportionally removed" due to
poorly constructed laws that created non-violent criminals. We have more
incarcerations than any other country on Earth. Keeping with your
radical and oppressive beliefs, we must have the worst, evil, people to
be found on the planet, eh?

Maybe we do. When we allow people the option to abuse the system, is
it any wonder that there will be a percentage of people who do?
Criminals have reneged on their responsibilities and therefore had
their rights suspended. That is as it should be.


If people choose to hide behind the freedom
and "right" of privacy in order to commit crimes
or subvert the moral framework of society,
then I am in favor of plugging those loopholes
in our Constitution which allows this type of
malcontented behavior to proliferate.




Again, Thank God the majority do not share your belief.

Prove to me that this is a true statement.

Free society is
not perfect and those "loopholes" will always be there in order to make
a free society work. Plugging what you wrongly refer to as "loopholes"
in the US Constitution does nothing but take away rights of ALL
Americans, whether they choose to exercise those rights or not. Just
because you choose not to, you damn sure don't have the right to tell
others that they should not be able to exercise same and as it stands
now, such is the law.

As long as people use these loopholes against society, our nation is
diminished in quality of life.


People who live honest, righteous lives have
nothing to worry about, as nothing will change.


Bull****. Over 50 people have been exonerated by DNA this year alone for
crimes they were wrongly accused.

Non-sequiter. This has nothing to do with anonymity.


Just last week a man was released from
death row after 22 years when a DNA completely abdicated and absolved
him from the murder for which he was doing time. I won't even bother to
inform you of the rate of crooked cops in cities like LA and NY, as you
are myopically not aware and it is apparent that you feel these innocent
victims who lose their lives and families are just the acceptable kill
and error ratio.

You are talking about apples and oranges. We were talking about the
right to anonymity and how that right can disrupt a civil discourse.
Now you are trying to link this to abuses and mistakes in the criminal
justice system. They do not equate. If people are truly innocent they
do not deserve to be incarcerated. But if they are guilty, they
deserve their punishment. But the biggest question I have is how do
these incidents relate to the right of anonymity?




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?

Please try not to answer a question with a question. How long have you
looked to anonymous cb venues on the internet seeking "serious"
discussion?


As long as I have been here. I am an
engineer, and I've been repairing and working
on radios for close to 30 years, so I have an
interest in serious technical topics, as they
relate to CB.


Well, there is yet another problem of yours that you answered yourself.
Since you see this specific forum as such a poor venue, you need to look
to other places for your needs, 'casue you been at it for years here
pitching your bitch about CB yet you still haven't figured out that you
are not going to to control others actions. Of course, you can invoke
that "fence sitter" that never posts and claim you are trying to reach
this mythical creature. Perhaps that will allow you to believe a slight
victory and you won't feel like you are waging a fight that "has to
start somewhere" to clean up radio to the point you wish it.


CB radio is full of "CB science" myths, which claim fantastic
improvements in performance. I am one of a few on here who will throw
cold water on these myths and debunk them with proven R.F. practices
when I can. This benefits anyone who might have been contemplating
spending a good chunk of cash on something that WILL disappoint them.
I've had 30 years of experience, and I know generally what works and
what doesn't.

So now it's your turn:
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?


I do not concern myself with the manner in which usenet is constructed.
You have so many problems with this group, but crying about what you
don't like is reactive, Dave. It won't change a thing. I mean, now
you're alluding to the manner in which this group is governed..somehing
totally transparent to you or I and beyond your ability to do anything
about. Have you ever realized you spend a great deal of time worrying
about something over which you have no control? Of course, you do. It
drives you to frustration and it manifests here.

I didn't ask you whether or not you concern yourself with regulating
the forum. I asked if you think it SHOULD be an unimpeded
free-for-all.


Discussions about technical topics should be
taken at face value, without the parties
displaying their credentials?


Now you're catching on. No credentials needed for usenet posting, nor is
the "identity", that has you reeling.


So as someone looking for technical
information, you should take "bad" advice at
face value, without even the hint that it might
be "bad" advice? What accountability is there
if someone takes someone's "bad" advice and
in the process ruins a once perfectly good
radio?



No accountabilty, which is why the internet and isps and usenet have
discalimers you agree to prior to being able to access such information.
You are really wound tighter than a slinky, Dave. You tend to forget,
deliberate, bad information has been posted here by a certain hammie
scumbag, that gave directions on how to ruin a radio,,,, disguised as a
mod. Sorry you feel what you find on usenet and the internet is so
credible. No wonder you are voting for Bush, as only the gullible are
doing so.

So now you are proposing that all information found on the internet is
suspect? Then what GOOD is it, if you can't trust what you read? All
the more reason for a greater accountability. Thank you again for
making yet another point for me.



People identify on ham radio for a reason.

Yea,,,,,,it's the law.

Hmmm.... The law states that it's illegal to talk
on the freeband, yet it doesn't stop you.


Freebanding has nothing to do with hammies identifying "on ham radio for
a reason".

But we are talking about the law. Why is it a given that hams follow
the law with respect to ID'ing, yet it's ok to ignore the law WRT
freebanding?

Try and remain on your invoked topic.

I am, it's not my fault you don't see the relationship.

Wrong. One is NOT required to identify on CB.


No, they are not required to. But the fact that
many go out of their way to conceal who they
are, imply a certain suspicious motive.


Heheh,,,,of course they do, that is what one is supposed to do on
cb,,,conceal their personal identity. You really don't know much about
anything CB related.

Why would concealing one's identity on CB be any more important than
someone doing so on the ham band? Isn't privacy important there? Once
again, the anonymous appeal of CB implies a potentially sinister
motive.



I have nothing to hide. One might wonder
about you though. What dark secret prevents
you from revealing who you are?



Oh, I have no problem revealing who I am...in person. What great fear
stops you from completing your mission concerning my personal
information?

What "mission" is that? You are confusing me with Frank. I'm not the
one who's looking for information on you. I just wonder why you hide
behind a cloak of anonymity.


If you wanted to know that bad, you would come down and
meet me like others have..unless, of course, you have some dark secret
fear, preventing you from doing so, and you would rather whine and cry
here about something so bloody off-topic that only you are consumed with
it. In that way, there is no danger of you having to live up to your
word and saying things in person instead of on usenet that are offtopic,
such as personal information.

Like I posted before, I'll be in Orlando in October. When and where do
you want to meet?

Do you LIKE what this forum has become?
**


I do.

So you like the barrage of "homo" spam, the bickering, the name
calling, the cessation of most of the technical discussions? The
rude, confrontational demeanor expressed by many of the participants?


I have met many good folks, I have daily emails with regs, I have
anything in the manner of radio, cb, hammie equipment I could possibly
want, and I owe much of it to this group. tyvm.

Who have you met personally? I'd like to see them come forward and
confirm it.


I have NEVER asked for specific personal

details.



Sure you have. You have inquired as to my work on past occasion, what
town I live in, my name, my call sign,,,why, in fact, you have overly
concerned yourslef with my identity for years and you;re still doing
it.

I only inquired about your occupation when you made claims of being a
"professional writer" one time, and then in the "information gathering
business" (ironic occupation for someone who claims to relish privacy)
on another occasion, and then a charter boat captain yet again. There
are some inconsistencies which indicate deception.


.look at the lenght of this thread,

Yet you lambast me for trying to clean it up and reduce the overall
length.

,,all because you are still
experiencing growing pains because the law regarding internet use is not
the way you wish it. Another example of what you want and not the way
the realism exists.

No, I'm just seeking a civil discussion with you to discover why you
hold such subversive views, and why it is so important to you that you
be allowed to hide behind a cloak of anonymity. I am keeping my tone
civil although I've noticed you starting to become personally
insulting. When you cross that line, I'm finished.

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"?


Not even a valiant attempt.
Some of those "good educations" you refer have posted directions on how
to destroy your radio in the form of mods. This is exactly the reason
one should take everything on the internet with a grain of salt.
Apparently, you believe otherwise.


But, you see, if someone posted a well written,
but "poison" mod as a dupe to unsuspecting
CBers, then that person needs to held
accountable for that. Thank you for making my
case for me.




No, they DON'T need held accountable for that.

If there is no accountability then there is no means to insure
accuracy or civility. That is a bad thing IMHO. It lessens the
usefulness of the internet. Without accountability, the internet is
little more than a playground for the socially deviate and pornography
starved people to slither though and disrupt.



If you read your user
agreements when accessig the internet and usenet and all that governs
such, you would find disclaimers for such info. This is where your
socialist views and censorship are magnified.

There is nothing socialist about demanding accountability. And
demanding accountability is not censorship. Nobody is suggesting that
people be prevented from engaging in any activity, only the we all
know who it is that's doing it.


You have maintained in the
past that, for example, instructions for homemade bombs (just for a
SINGLE of endless examples) should be censored.

I never said that this information should be censored. Only that those
who USE this information should be prosecuted.

Your argument is weak.

It would be, if it were the truth.

If the information is out there, you want the person that put the
information out there to be "held accountable.

Well, the liberals in this country are all about the idea of
deflecting responsibility to other (deeper pocket) entities. Holding
bar owners responsible for a drunk patron becoming involved in a DUI
accident. How would this be any different?

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

Part Deux
From N3CVJ:
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?


If unfounded character assassinations (libel) was committed, absolutely.


How? When people hide behind anonymous

remailers, servers, public WIFI access nodes,

and NAT routers, how can you find out exactly
who they are?


Do some homework on the wealth of information out there,,,visit some of
the hacker sites and groups,,,how do you think the launchers of serious
virus' are tracked down? In the fist manner, I was under the impression
you were speaking of this group. Since it is now apparent you are
experiencing problems of this nature somewhere else, I suggest you
consult an attorney. They give free consults. If you need one
specializing in internet related issues in your area, I will be more
than happy to point you in the right direction.


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?


You said that.

I'm asking if that is how you feel?


If my emotions were to take over, I would simply trn the thing off and
walk away. No one is forcing you to partake in what you view as an
injurous electronic arena. It is your choice.


The same "turn it to the left" mentality that

abusive CBers use to force good people off of

the CB band?



The very idea that you feel "forced" by another has moved you to the
point of wanting to force others to conform to your beliefs,,,nice.



Decent people should be forced to yield to

malcontents, rather than fight back?



That is a personal decision and an apparent unresolved issue that
plagues you.


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.


Very noble. Many agree with you. Obviously, those like Dogie, do not.


Doug has personal issues of his own.


....and he fostered his personal issues on this group. Again, I ask of
you, how would you he be held accountable for such behavior that you
continue to rail against?

I

suspect they transcend those of radio

operation.

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.


I have incredible restraint and am overly polite, even to you in many
instances when you began reambling off-topic with insult. I invite
anyone who has a problem with me to come forward.


How does one "come forward" if we don't

know who you are or where you live?

"We" lends the notion you are aware of someone, other than you, who
shares your incredible identity obsessions and problem regarding
myself. Care to specify?
Who I am and where I live is personal information, something you claimed
you didn't seek.
Many know where I live. I am incredibly easy to find, as Doctor X
recently found.



Of course, those who
do, encapsulate the very idea you are railing
against...not identifying themselevs, only it doesn't bother me like it
does you. I have an open door policy and will meet anyone from this
group for coffee, fishing, or to continue our rec.radio.cb debates.


Ok, I'm coming to Orlando in October. I might

make a detour to Tampa. Where do you want

to meet?



My house. Are you driving? Bring a radio. I'll guide you right to my
front door from the interstate.


_
So far, I have met several from
this forum and plan on meeting more. If I didn't fish for the day, and
we didn't talk about politics or cb, I am certain you and I would get
along just fine on the boat for an afternoon ride talking of nothing but
hammie radio.

Nothing wrong about talking about CB. I love

the hobby (at least in the old days), and I

could tell you a few good stories. But in order

for you to talk authoritatively about hammie

radio, that would imply that you are a ham

yourself (or at least should be). You've implied
similar before. The fact that you won't admit it

one way or the other probably speaks more

about your fear of identification, considering

your admitted behavior on the freeband.



No doubt about it. Using the freeband always runs the risk of being
identified.
But you can rest easy realizing that I just may, perhaps, have the best
of both worlds and have for years.


Don't worry, I have a whole website full of past
antics, and no one has busted me yet. As I've

said before, I have nothing to hide......



Nevertheless, this is not the law and doesn't apply to the majority.


=A0=A0Anonymity is the enabler for people to act

inappropriately, and rudely. Using the excuse

that privacy overrides acting in a civilized

manner is weak IMHO.



No one suggested such..but the gist of it, is that American's are
afforded the right to act like idiots, even it offends you to no end.
Using the excuse that it ought be over-ridden is what is weak.


So then you assert that an American's right to

act like an anti-social idiot deserves more

consideration than other people's right to

expect civilized behavior in public places?




You said that. You're wandering. You are confusing consideration with
rights. There are very many things I can do well within my rights that
offend you, in fact, I have no problem offending you with my legal
rights merely because you disagree with them and my right to exercise
them.

_
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.

You weren't talking of an opinion, Davie, you spoke of character
assassination.


Character assassination is either based on

truth, or opinion.



Wrong. Truth is not character assassination.


If the claims are true then they deserve to be

brought out. If they are simply opinions, then it
becomes a process to determine whether

there was any "real" damage done. Again this

becomes complicated if people "hide" well.



But easily enforceable via a court of law.


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.



Therein lies the answer to what ails you. Not all people in public
forums are civilized.
Nevertheless, these traits you consider
uncivilized, exist in these "bad" people you speak of, and unfortunately
the word is made up of good AND bad people.


So then what is your conclusion?


That you have problems following your own claims and posts and have damn
near destroyed the thread with your snips and edits.,


Should good

people be turned away from public forums

(Both radio and internet) by the behavior of

the bad people?


Your words. In fact, you are the only one seeking to do away with what
you perceive as "bad" people,,,those that do not conform to your idea of
identifying themselves.



Do good people not have some right to

protection from the worst of the bad people?

Isn't this in the best interest of society? Is the

right of privacy so important that you would

allow it to supersede keeping public places to

at least a minimum amount of decorum?




It's not in my hands or yours, no matter how bad you wish you had that
type control on usenet.