| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
August 19th 04, 08:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#3
August 19th 04, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(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.  |
|
#4
August 19th 04, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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) |
|
#5
August 20th 04, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#6
August 20th 04, 04:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
#7
August 20th 04, 05:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#8
August 20th 04, 04:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#9
August 19th 04, 09:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#10
August 20th 04, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:15:14 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote: Part Deux I thought the last thread was a little short..... 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? The same way as many other criminals are caught. They brag to their friends and get turned in. That still doesn't address the basic technical issue of how people can anonymously post messages and e-mail using "public" internet access or through clever technical means to disguise their identity. A simple IP lookup is no guarantee that you will find the actual user. In the fist manner, I was under the impression you were speaking of this group. I'm talking about the internet in general. Since it is now apparent you are experiencing problems of this nature somewhere else, I suggest you consult an attorney. What would give you that idea? I'm talking purely hypothetically. 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? 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. Not forced to conform to "my" beliefs. Only that they maintain a certain level of accountability and by extension civility. 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. So you posit that decent people should be held hostage to the whims of these malcontents, and those of us who feel otherwise have "issues"? 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? If you are asking how Doug should be held accountable, first I'd have to ask; how do we know for sure that the person everyone thinks is Doug, really is? Once we establish that it is him, then he should have his access revoked for behaving in an inappropriate manner. 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? That is paranoia speaking. All that "We" refers to is anyone who happens to be a member of this group who would like the opportunity to "come forward". Nothing nefarious about it. Who I am and where I live is personal information, something you claimed you didn't seek. I don't need to know, but if you want me to "come forward" I do need to know some details. I mean Florida is a big state (assuming that is where you really live) Many know where I live. I am incredibly easy to find, as Doctor X recently found. Does Dr. X know where you live? Does anyone? Somehow I doubt it. You are a little too secretive about this. And you know all too well, that once one person finds out, it'll only be a matter of time before the information spreads around. 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. I'm flying, renting a car, no room to pack radios. Doing "Mickey Mouse" for my kid. _ 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. I figured as much. Much like I have, even if you might not see it that way from your perspective. **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? 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. It has everything to do with the core issue. You are attempting to make value judgements regarding the relative priority of the rights that people have. You have prioritized the right to privacy (and by extension enabled the unaccountable actions of malcontents) over the right of people to expect civilized behavior in public places. When those rights clash, something has to give. You seem to have made your choice, even though you keep dancing around it and not quite ready to directly admit to it. Ever hear the expression "The right to swing your fist ends just past my nose"? That's how you have to look at your rights. If the right to hide behind an anonymous cloak, adversely affects the sanctity of a public forum, then the right of anonymity needs to be curtailed to a degree than promotes a workable compromise. _ 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. You might want to ask New Jersey Governor McGreevey about that....... 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. Not if you can't identify the perp. 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., I'm sorry if trimming old posts bothers you. I'm not looking to get into the Guiness Book of records for the longest thread. I'm discussing points, and I'd like to keep it as brief as possible. Your WebTV browser is not helping in that regard either. 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. I am by far not the "only one". There are many people complaining about the anonymous nature of the internet and the ability it gives to people who cannot act any better than a gutter slug. These people have requested changes. The industry has responded. New standards and protocols are already in the works. Trust me, the days of the untraceable anonymous troll is numbered. 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. No, you are right about that. But when a significant majority of people become fed up with things as they are, and request changes, you can rest assured that things will happen. The court of law recently acknowledged that internet "crime" is new ground, that hasn't been properly codified, and that they are working on laws to address abuses of the public by this venue. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Trifilar winding -- twist or plait? | Antenna | |||
| Where's that military group, Twist? | CB | |||
| its all yours twist...........go and get it............ | CB | |||
| Twist | CB | |||
Hybrid Mode
