| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
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. |
|
#3
August 20th 04, 08:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:15:14 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: Part Deux I thought the last thread was a little short..... I'm attempting to pacify your quest for brevity 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. I concern myself with real word issues. I don;t have time to sit around entertaing "what-if's" in the world. _ 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 turn 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. Yes,,accountability and civility according to YOUR beliefs, not the law. You have already demonstrated your disain and disagreeing with the law that allows anonymity in life, most recently, to usenet and CB. _ 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"? There are no "us", as you are alone in your radical beliefs. No one else feels "held hostage" or "forced" concerning their freedom of choice to partake in usenet, only 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? 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? Yea, you already established that the same entity (the FCC) you say we should all obey can be mistaken when it comes to Dogie's bust, but they couldn't possibly be mistaken in not repealing their poorly constructed dx rule. AS always, you take an issue and slant it toward your own agenda, invoking it (the FCC) as one we should obey, but not necessarily believe. More hypocrisy. _ Once we establish that it is him, then he should have his access revoked for behaving in an inappropriate manner. Well, there you have it. It is not up to YOU to establish anything. His antics have been reporeted many times by the many on this group and he has lost several accesses to this group over the years. Yet, it is not up to any "we" to establish his wrong doing,,,that is the job of his isp, and when they find such, as they had in the past, they take action,,not you, despite the status you seek. _ 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. No, it is a command grasp of basic English. You said "we". "We" is not singular. Again, I ask who you refer in addition to yourself? 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. No,,you said how do "we" come forward if "we" don;t know who you are. Not many really care WHO I am in addition to yourself, Now, I ask again, who else do you profess to caring about my identity as much as yourself? _ 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. Oh, I NEVER said I wanted you to come forward,,,just the opposite, you said you were coming to Florida. My invite hasn' changed. Anyone that wishes or "wants" to look me up can do do. If I was concerned about you, then I would travel to you, but this isn't the case. YOU apparently want to come forward, so come on down. _ I mean Florida is a big state (assuming that is where you really live) Well then, if you have doubts, perhaps you better reconsider. _ Many know where I live. I am incredibly easy to find, as Doctor X recently found. Does Dr. X know where you live? Dr. X never asked. Does anyone? Oh yesiree 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. More of your far-removed delusions. I have ordered apparatus from two separate regular businesses on this group, one place twice. That makes two businesses in addition to those I have met from this group that "know" me. See Davie, these people don't give a damn as they don't have the motives you telegraph with your intentions to "spread around" personal information. This is undertaken by those like yourself. _ 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. Mickey Mouse is like a six foot rat to little toddlers. I'm 90 minutes from Orlando. Provide me a cell phone number like Keith did and I'll call you, if that's what you wish. I'll give you precise directions. In fact, if you rent a room in Tampa Bay for a day, I'll take you and show you the way Florida was millions of years ago. Some areas remain untouched. _ 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. =A0 _ 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. Which was what? Law? Breaking the law? Offending you isn't necessarily against the law. _ 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. I didn't make that priority,,,the law did. The law outweighs your demand for what you interpret as civilized behavior. 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. What you misinterpret as clashing rights is not illegal. |
|
#4
August 23rd 04, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:08:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:15:14 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: Part Deux I thought the last thread was a little short..... I'm attempting to pacify your quest for brevity Thank you. 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. I concern myself with real word issues. I don;t have time to sit around entertaing "what-if's" in the world. I can respect that. I also "live" in the here and now, but I like to ponder the future and potential situations. Like playing chess, you have to keep a few moves ahead of your opponent and try to anticipate where they will be going. 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 turn 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. Yes,,accountability and civility according to YOUR beliefs, not the law. You have already demonstrated your disain and disagreeing with the law that allows anonymity in life, most recently, to usenet and CB. The law does not allow a person to use anonymity to adversely affect the rights of other people. That seems to be something you have trouble understanding. There are no absolutes when it comes to rights. Rights are always relative, and subject to compromises, when they clash with the rights of other people. 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"? There are no "us", as you are alone in your radical beliefs. No one else feels "held hostage" or "forced" concerning their freedom of choice to partake in usenet, only you. How can you make such a definitive statement? How can you be so sure that I am, in fact, "alone"? You tend to make these blatantly absolute statements quite frequently, when there is no possible way you can speak with any authority on the subject. You might want to do a Google search on the issues of privacy, the internet, anonymity and the law regarding these things, and you will find that quite a few people are looking to change the way things are done. 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? Yea, you already established that the same entity (the FCC) you say we should all obey can be mistaken when it comes to Dogie's bust, but they couldn't possibly be mistaken in not repealing their poorly constructed dx rule. Woah, lets not put words in my mouth. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the FCC should remove the DX limitation. If it were up to me, they should allow unlimited DX, allow 100 watts of power, and open the band from 26.000 Mhz to 28.000 Mhz. AS always, you take an issue and slant it toward your own agenda, invoking it (the FCC) as one we should obey, but not necessarily believe. More hypocrisy. Well, yea, if you assume to know what I think, as opposed to what I really think. _ Once we establish that it is him, then he should have his access revoked for behaving in an inappropriate manner. Well, there you have it. It is not up to YOU to establish anything. His antics have been reporeted many times by the many on this group and he has lost several accesses to this group over the years. Yet, it is not up to any "we" to establish his wrong doing,,,that is the job of his isp, and when they find such, as they had in the past, they take action,,not you, despite the status you seek. I don't care who does it, as long as it's done. _ 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. No, it is a command grasp of basic English. You said "we". "We" is not singular. Again, I ask who you refer in addition to yourself? 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. No,,you said how do "we" come forward if "we" don;t know who you are. Not many really care WHO I am in addition to yourself, Now, I ask again, who else do you profess to caring about my identity as much as yourself? Your paranoia is showing again. I use the term "We" as this is a public forum, which includes more people than you and I. That makes it a "we" issue. 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. Oh, I NEVER said I wanted you to come forward Perhaps you've forgotten your own quote from a few paragraphs above: " I invite anyone who has a problem with me to come forward." Do I not count as "anyone"? ,,,just the opposite, you said you were coming to Florida. After you made your invite to "come forward". My invite hasn' changed. Anyone that wishes or "wants" to look me up can do do. Look you up? How is one supposed to do that when you are not forthcoming with certain pertinent information? If I was concerned about you, then I would travel to you, but this isn't the case. YOU apparently want to come forward, so come on down. I'm merely calling your bluff. You know that I live an impractical driving distance from you, so you feel relatively safe, in making that claim. Now that you have an opportunity to make good on your invite, you start, ever so slightly, to back pedal. I'm guessing that you will find some way to wiggle out of any chance of a face-to-face meeting, as it would blow the lid off of your secret life. I mean Florida is a big state (assuming that is where you really live) Well then, if you have doubts, perhaps you better reconsider. Many know where I live. I am incredibly easy to find, as Doctor X recently found. Does Dr. X know where you live? Dr. X never asked. So he doesn't know. Although you implied such in your last statement above. Does anyone? Oh yesiree 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. More of your far-removed delusions. I have ordered apparatus from two separate regular businesses on this group, one place twice. That makes two businesses in addition to those I have met from this group that "know" me. We only have your word for that, so it is as meaningless as you claim my accounts are of the CBer who got popped in Norristown. Besides, anyone can use an anonymous PO box or other address to conduct business. They don't even need a real name as long as the payment is real. See Davie, these people don't give a damn as they don't have the motives you telegraph with your intentions to "spread around" personal information. This is undertaken by those like yourself. They probably don't know it was you they were dealing with either. I have found through many years of experience on CB, that one of the best ways to rid a channel of a belligerent anonymous troublemaker, was to simply locate them and then make that information public. Once they are unmasked, they tend to give up causing trouble, since they are basically cowards. 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. Mickey Mouse is like a six foot rat to little toddlers. My daughter just wants to ride Space Mountain, and see all the sights. I'm 90 minutes from Orlando. Provide me a cell phone number like Keith did and I'll call you, if that's what you wish. I don't own a cell phone. But I might bring a 2 meter H.T. There are several 2 meter repeaters in the greater Tampa area. You already know my callsign. I'll give you precise directions. In fact, if you rent a room in Tampa Bay for a day, I'll take you and show you the way Florida was millions of years ago. Some areas remain untouched. I've seen some of those areas. I'm no newby to Florida, although I tend to prefer the east coast. I almost moved to Melborne 14 years ago. I might even stop at my favorite steak house, Farmer Jones Red Barn in Lakeland. I hope they're still there. 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. If it is a simple matter of subjectivity and value judgement, then I agree with you. But when the exercising of your rights negatively impacts on the rights of others, the line becomes drawn, and some sort of compromise is in order. Remember, you rights are not worth any more (or less) than anyone else's rights. You have no exclusivity. It has everything to do with the core issue. Which was what? Law? Breaking the law? Offending you isn't necessarily against the law. We aren't talking about a simple case of "offending" me. 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. I didn't make that priority,,,the law did. The law has done no such thing. In fact, laws are being crafted right now to deal with this relatively new forum for abuse, and to protect the rights of people who are victimized by anonymous people who hide to escape retribution. The law outweighs your demand for what you interpret as civilized behavior. 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. What you misinterpret as clashing rights is not illegal. The truth in that statements depends on the details of the infraction. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#5
August 23rd 04, 07:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
POOF! Ok, Dave,,,I'm back,,,let's resume where we left off...........
From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:08:57 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:15:14 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: Part Deux I thought the last thread was a little short..... I'm attempting to pacify your quest for brevity Thank you. 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 first 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. I concern myself with real word issues. I don't have time to sit around entertaing "what-if's" in the world. I can respect that. I also "live" in the here and now, but I like to ponder the future and potential situations. Like playing chess, you have to keep a few moves ahead of your opponent and try to anticipate where they will be going. - I like chess, but pool's my thang. 9 Ball, if you will. 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 turn 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. Yes,,accountability and civility according to YOUR beliefs, not the law. You have already demonstrated your disain and disagreeing with the law that allows anonymity in life, most recently, to usenet and CB. The law does not allow a person to use anonymity to adversely affect the rights of other people. That seems to be something you have trouble understanding. I understand just fine. You think you have some sort of right to operate free from whatever it is you call "adversely effecting your rights", whether or not what you refer to as a "right" is affected legally or not. - There are no absolutes when it comes to rights. Rights are always relative, and subject to compromises, when they clash with the rights of other people. No,,rights are not relative. You are undermining the inherent, not relative rights afforded us as US citizens. Rights are NOT subject to compromises as they are specifically, not relatively spelled out in the US Constitution. - 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"? There are no "us", as you are alone in your radical beliefs. No one else feels "held hostage" or "forced" concerning their freedom of choice to partake in usenet, only you. _ How can you make such a definitive statement? How can you be so sure that I am, in fact, "alone"? You tend to make these blatantly absolute statements quite frequently, when there is no possible way you can speak with any authority on the subject. I can and do speak with authority on the subject. I know exactly what the public likes and dislikes covering a broad spectrum. I know when there is a news worthy event the public enjoys reading about, I know what information they are seeking and what is not important. I know how much is too much information and I know how much is not enough. This is necessary criteria when dealing with the public as I do in such a manner. My broad experience catering to the general public as both A) my client and b) audience for many years affirms what you claim the opposite. _ You might want to do a Google search on the issues of privacy, the internet, anonymity and the law regarding these things, and you will find that quite a few people are looking to change the way things are done. I'm on the front lines of the threats to personal privacy and the protection of media sources, but thanks for the head's up. Here's the skinnny, No doubt there are those seeking to do such things and it began with the assault on the US Constitution by Bush after taking office.These movements you speak of will fade after November when us freedom lovers tell GW Bush "You're Fired!" - 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? Yea, you already established that the same entity (the FCC) you say we should all obey can be mistaken when it comes to Dogie's bust, but they couldn't possibly be mistaken in not repealing their poorly constructed dx rule. Woah, lets not put words in my mouth. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the FCC should remove the DX limitation. If it were up to me, they should allow unlimited DX, allow 100 watts of power, and open the band from 26.000 Mhz to 28.000 Mhz. =A0 The 100 watts issue doesn't even faze me,,,I don't need it, but I can appreciate many others need for it in the hills. Besides, 100 watts will make me a big gun on the bowl g. - =A0AS always, you take an issue and slant it toward your own agenda, invoking it (the FCC) as one we should obey, but not necessarily believe. More hypocrisy. Well, yea, if you assume to know what I think, as opposed to what I really think. While I don't profess to know what you think, I do know it's not in the majority. And you have done just that, taking the FCC and invoking that we should blindly follow their rules, even if the rules are wrong. On the other hand, you have made an argument that even though the FCC claimed Dogie was guilty via his listing on the Rain Report for jamming, his innocence may still be very possible. This shows you blindly follow the FCC when it suits you, but question their authority when it does not, even when enforcing the rules you claimed we should blindly follow. _ =A0=A0Once we establish that it is him, then he should have his access revoked for behaving in an inappropriate manner. Well, there you have it. It is not up to YOU to establish anything. His antics have been reporeted many times by the many on this group and he has lost several accesses to this group over the years. Yet, it is not up to any "we" to establish his wrong doing,,,that is the job of his isp, and when they find such, as they had in the past, they take action,,not you, despite the status you seek. I don't care who does it, as long as it's done. _ 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. No, it is a command grasp of basic English. You said "we". "We" is not singular. Again, I ask who you refer in addition to yourself? =A0=A0All 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. No,,you said how do "we" come forward if "we" don't know who you are. Not many really care WHO I am in addition to yourself, Now, I ask again, who else do you profess to caring about my identity as much as yourself? - Your paranoia is showing again. Paranoia doesn't have an open door policy. Paranoia is seeking personal and off-topic information on someone you debate on usenet. - I use the term "We" as this is a public forum, which includes more people than you and I. That makes it a "we" issue. Not concerning this issue, it doesn't. _ 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. Oh, I NEVER said I wanted you to come forward Perhaps you've forgotten your own quote from a few paragraphs above: " I invite anyone who has a problem with me to come forward." Do I not count as "anyone"? Certainly. If one has a problem with me, they will come to me, as it is THEIR want, not mine. You certainly couldn't expect someone to come to you because *you* have the problem. _ ,,,just the opposite, you said you were coming to Florida. After you made your invite to "come forward". My invite hasn' changed. Anyone that wishes or "wants" to look me up can do do. Look you up? How is one supposed to do that when you are not forthcoming with certain pertinent information? Already told you. Send me your cell number,,I'll guide you in. This is my second attempt at assisting you. - If I was concerned about you, then I would travel to you, but this isn't the case. YOU apparently want to come forward, so come on down. I'm merely calling your bluff. No bluff to call. I have made more than a few accomodating offers of which you continue to offer additional excuses. You know that I live an impractical driving distance from you, so you feel relatively safe, in making that claim. Now that you have an opportunity to make good on your invite, you start, ever so slightly, to back pedal. I'm guessing that you will find some way to wiggle out of any chance of a face-to-face meeting, as it would blow the lid off of your secret life. Cell number. =A0=A0I mean Florida is a big state (assuming that is where you really live) Well then, if you have doubts, perhaps you better reconsider. _ Many know where I live. I am incredibly easy to find, as Doctor X recently found. Does Dr. X know where you live? Dr. X never asked. So he doesn't know. Although you implied such in your last statement above. No,,I said I am incredibly easy to find, not that Dr. X knew where I lived as you improperly implied. Does anyone? Oh yesiree 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. "Spreads around?" Are you for real? Only people like you give a damn about "spreading around" personal information of those they debate on usenet. Most have enough on the ball that simple things such as usenet anonymity doesn't upset them or effect them to the point of threatening to not only seek out their personal information, but to "spread it around". _ More of your far-removed delusions. I have ordered apparatus from two separate regular businesses on this group, one place twice. That makes two businesses in addition to those I have met from this group that "know" me. - We only have your word for that, so it is as meaningless as you claim my accounts are of the CBer who got popped in Norristown. (shrug),,fine and dandy. I'm not worried about who believes me or not...never was. Besides, anyone can use an anonymous PO box or other address to conduct business. They don't even need a real name as long as the payment is real. I always purchase by cc as it offers great protection. Name required. _ =A0=A0See Davie, these people don't give a damn as they don't have the motives you telegraph with your intentions to "spread around" personal information. This is undertaken by those like yourself. _ They probably don't know it was you they were dealing with either. It was I the businesses emailed after reading my posts, so there is no question they know who they were dealing. In fact, I received many emails for the same offer, but went with who I thought was the best choice, not necessarily the cheapest. - I have found through many years of experience on CB, that one of the best ways to rid a channel of a belligerent anonymous troublemaker, was to simply locate them and then make that information public. Once they are unmasked, they tend to give up causing trouble, since they are basically cowards. What trouble would you be referring or implying that fits this analogy? - 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. Mickey Mouse is like a six foot rat to little toddlers. My daughter just wants to ride Space Mountain, and see all the sights. =A0 Call ahead and make sure it's not closed for maintenance as it always is these days. - =A0I'm 90 minutes from Orlando. Provide me a cell phone number like Keith did and I'll call you, if that's what you wish. I don't own a cell phone. But I might bring a 2 meter H.T. There are several 2 meter repeaters in the greater Tampa area. You already know my callsign. No dice. Assuming I had a call, there is no way I would volunteer such information to another hammie who has already expressed his problem with me and threatened to "spread around" any personal information he can locate, assuming he can break the impotent streak he has had attempting same for the past how many years. - Give me your room number and the hotel you are staying and I'll call you. This is now the third attempt I am making to accomodate you and you appear, however so slightly, to begin yet another back pedal. - I'll give you precise directions. In fact, if you rent a room in Tampa Bay for a day, I'll take you and show you the way Florida was millions of years ago. Some areas remain untouched. I've seen some of those areas. I'm no newby to Florida, although I tend to prefer the east coast. I almost moved to Melborne 14 years ago. I might even stop at my favorite steak house, Farmer Jones Red Barn in Lakeland. I hope they're still there. I have relatives in Palm Beach and have surfed Melbourne in the past, in addition to Jupiter and Cocoa. Other than that, I prefer the clear water and white sands the west coast offers. - Anonymity is the enabler for people to act inappropriately, and rudely. - 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. If it is a simple matter of subjectivity and value judgement, then I agree with you. But when the exercising of your rights negatively impacts on the rights of others, the line becomes drawn, and some sort of compromise is in order. Only we weren't speaking of infringing on anther's rights,,,,*you* entered that into the equation when you expressed your belief against anonymity on the internet. You wish to infringe on another's right (taking away the right to be anonymous on the internet) merely because you feel it MAY lead to abuse. That's Orwellian and anti-American. Remember, you rights are not worth any more (or less) than anyone else's rights. You have no exclusivity. It has everything to do with the core issue. Which was what? Law? Breaking the law? Offending you isn't necessarily against the law. We aren't talking about a simple case of "offending" me. But we were. YOU have the problem with anonymity. No one else is having a cow over the issue on this group, so it indeed does offend you, so much to the point, that you have made it clear that you wish it were no longer so. _ 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. I did no such thing. You have no "right" to expect what you call "civilized" behavior. Show a single document that supports this delusion. The law has done no such thing. In fact, laws are being crafted right now to deal with this relatively new forum for abuse, and to protect the rights of people who are victimized by anonymous people who hide to escape retribution. The law outweighs your demand for what you interpret as civilized behavior. =A0=A0When those rights clash, something has to give. You have been asked over and over again and have yet to reply,,what rights of yours have been infringed upon or do you consider "clashing" with your rights by my postings? You seem to have made your choice, even though you keep dancing around it and not quite ready to directly admit to it. What you misinterpret as clashing rights is not illegal. The truth in that statements depends on the details of the infraction. Anonymity is what originally set you off on a tangent about such behavior clashing with your rights, which you have yet to define. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#6
August 23rd 04, 08:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Woah, lets not put words in my mouth. I wholeheartedly agree with you
that the FCC should remove the DX limitation. If it were up to me, they should allow unlimited DX, allow 100 watts of power, and open the band from 26.000 Mhz to 28.000 Mhz. I agree that the FCC should remove the DX limitation, it was a bad idea to begin with. I somewhat agree on the 100 watts, but there needs to be some rules such as NO class C amps, or better yet 10 watts AM and 100 watts SSB. No way should they EVER open up the freebands. Some of us freebanders (me) spend 80% of our radio time on these freqs. and we (me) do not want the general population of CBers using up our (mine) bandwidth. |
|
#7
August 23rd 04, 08:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| 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
