From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:10:51 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:21:10 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
You are entitled to see things from the other

side of the glass, as it were. But there is a big

difference. Us "snobby" hams are not

interfering with other hams while pursuing our

fringe activities, and insisting that our "right" to
pursue it, overrides everyone else rights to

enjoy their piece of the hobby.

Neither do I, but you continue to try and pigeonhole me as such for
merely posting of freeband activity and dx, yet, nothing in my posts has
ever had a remote relation to what you falsely promote.

You like to accuse me of making things

personal, but in this case (as in many) you

mistake my general summation for a direct

critique of your personal habits.


No mistake and you have made much more than "general summations"
directed toward myself over the years. There was nothing general
concerning your posts.


I'm sure your operation is fairly low impact, but
there are others who are not so cognizant of

their impact on others (or worse, they don't

care).




Yep,,,there rare indeed. Many with licenses, many without.


Yes, there are hams who do, but I do not

associate with them.

What "hoops" are there to just acting in a

civilly responsible manner?


Read again: "same hoops you must jump through regarding hammie radio".
That you responded with hammie radio as an example in acting civilly
responsible is not the best example you could have chosen,,in fact, it's
a poor one

Again, like on CB, this is largely

geographically dependant.

Despite your belief of it being geographically dependendent (it's
not,,,,there are good and bad everywhere in both services)it doesn't
validate your contrived gaffe.

So now you deny that geography and

demographics play a major part in determining
the percentage of Good/Bad operators in a

particular location?




Absolutely not. Eliminate "particular location". A more accurate
statement would be "Good and bad people exist everywhere and are not
bound by geography." I don't for one minute subscribe to the fact that
there are more bad people in one big city than in another big city of
the same size.



That's a direct contrast to your comments

about the people who "infest" Philthy.



Hehehe,,,I don't think I used the term "infest", but "nest" would be a
word I would use to describe their sub-existing. I do think people from
Philthy and NY tend to wear their heart on their sleeve a bit more than
the rest of the country,,IE: very vocal. Now apply the malcontents from
these cities and add a radio...it seems like a city of idiots,..no?
But it doesn't make them any worse than the worst any other city has to
offer, but as they are more vocal, add a device that furthers what is
already a very vocal opinion, and it can sem worse than other cities.
I'm not the one that holds cb as a reflection of society.

But I will say, that I've personally witnessed far
more rule abuses on CB than on ham radio.

Again, your personal views and beliefs have been demonstrated to be in
the minority,,,,,

They have not been "demonstrated" to be

anything of the sort. Because YOU claim them
to be does not make them so.



They have been demonstrated. Example #1: You feel anonymity should not
be afforded internet participants. The mere fact that the laws (crafted
by the moral majority) reflect just the opposite, illustrtates you are
in the minority with your belief. Example #2: No one here erroneously
considers talking dx a felony. Again, it is your right to engage in
whimsical beliefs, but you are alone in such belief. That you have been
informed such is not a felony merely served to confuse you, not being
able to distinguish between civil and criminal court proceeedings. This
is with the minority, as the majority are clued in and educated
regarding the hobby of which they are engaged. It is not a good idea to
participate in anything that has the potential for legal repercussions
unless one is informed of the risks and understands the penalties
involved and is willing to accept such parameters. But having a concise
comprehension of the law is necessary. Clearly, you do not.


I can hear more rule violations after listening

to 5 minutes on CB channel 6 than I can hear

in a week's worth of ham radio. That's the

plain truth, and for you to deny or spin it is

clearly a bias on your part.




I have no problem with what you believe, as long as you don't attempt to
pass it off as fact or representative of the majority, as you attempted
with the much contrived statement that there are more rule violators on
cb than hammie radio. Reminding you of how incorrect this statement
actually is had you qualify your remarks to now say *you* can hear more
rule violations on cb than on hammie radio. Again, way too many
variables and factors involved for you to say "cb has more rule
violators than hammie radio".

_
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?

I've asked that of you concerning here and your answer was always along
the lines of "you have got to start somewhere" and "someone has got to
take a stand". It appears you shy aways from live real-time
confrontation you claimed would take place in the same manner in which
you conduct yourself on usenet.


I don't "shy away" but at some point you have

to realize that it's an unwinnable situation,


At the risk of being called a cad and yelling "na na nee nee boo
boo,toldjaso"....you'e been told that for years by myself and others.
What point was the epiphany you experienced??


The point where I realized that you can't make
an idiot into a normal person. It's

counterproductive to try. It's better to seek out

little oasis' of sanity in the cesspool, than

trying to clean it up.




Well, that didn't take but a few years now, did it? And that was the
gist of what I and others have been trying to tell you for years.



you realize that you can put a 3 piece suit on a
pig, and he's still a pig.



Yes. Look at the well dressed pigs running the country.


Even if I convince the

idiots that their echo boxes and distorted class
"C" amplifiers sound like crap, they're still

idiots.

All it does it cause further arguments.

In all fairness and I'm not being cruel or mean or malicious, but coming
from one who holds talking dx is technically a felony, and that roger
beeps are illegal on cb, that doesn't mean much.

Roger beeps were at one time classified as an
"amusement" device, and as such was

prohibited in 95.413 (6).


I doubt roger beeps were ever classified as such and as a result,
illegal on cb, but even if that were so,,,many things "used" to be a
certain way,,,,,it's no longer. It's a brave, new world*.
_

While it is true that I cannot find a rule which

specifically addresses these devices, I can

neither find any information which specifically

allows them, along the same lines as selective
call tones are specifically outlined in 95.412

(b).

Since there isn't a definitive rule in place, you

can make the case that they are, in fact, legal

(or at the very least not worthy of

consideration). But it seems funny that this

feature has not appeared on most mainstream
legal radios.

-
I do believe some of the newer legal radios most certainly have them.

I have been informed of some. But I remain

skeptical of their type acceptance, and

whether the FCC will allow it to continue. But

time will tell.

Echo boxes are a totally different issue. They

fall clearly into the classification of

"amusement or entertainment" devices and as
such are specifically prohibited by 95.413.



I disagree, but let's assume you right on this item. I would challenge
the validity of this on several counts,,,the most obvious being the fact
that sound and broadcast engineers use echo (not repeat, but slight
reverb echo) on FM broadcasts for many commercials and ads for a
specific reason,,,,it gets noticed and is often more recognizeable and
often louder. As such, one could make the argument, it is an audio
"enhancer", not entertainment device, and with the myriad of broadcast
sound engineers backing my case, I would feel extremely confident
handling my own situation, if this were it. As you now are most astutely
aware, what you consider enhancement and what I consider enhancement is
now very much subjective. Again, ask Phil Kane what must take place now
(once this case is challenged). The FCC would have to rule (FIRST, and
before any further prosecution) what constitutes "amusement devices" and
specifically address the echo issue, just as they recently ruled what
constitutes broadcast obscenity.
-

Ok, I like the way you've presented this. You

make a good argument that a certain amount

of reverb enhances audio quality and adds

"depth". I totally agree with you on this point. If
the current batch of "echo toys" were sold as

devices which ONLY added enough reverb to

accomplish the effect you've described, then I

would agree that the device was an

"enhancement" device in much the same way

as an audio compressor. But that would

eliminate "repeater" type echos.





Interesting. Where would the line be drawn? At one complete repeat? Two?



But you and I both know that is not the intent

of the users of the majority of these devices.




Maybe.....I have heard the folks messing with them and repeating over
and over...but then again, like my fave AM audio, it has barely a tinge,
almost the "double voiceover" effect, but no repeat. In fact, one can
barely tell.



Most have them set way beyond the point of

"audio enhancement" and well into the point of
audio distortion. They run them for the "cool"

effects, and not as a range extender.




Yea,,well truckers have the right to play and entertain themselves on
those long trips, at least until they outlaw such items.



Intent is the key point here.

There is also a burden of proof issue as well.

The FCC can make a broad determination as

to any device which is "added" to a CB radio.

It is up to the makers of the device to

demonstrate that the device does not cause or
promote illegal operation.
-
=A0You can't make an idiot into a normal person,

so why try? Birds of a feather stick together. -

Which is why you have defended Dogie and attempted to present an
incredibly spaced out and fantasized case for Keith framing him, even
though the FCC busted him for jamming.

I never accused Keith of framing Doug. I wish

you would look back on your links and realize

that. I postulated that it was possible that he

might have been framed, but I never accused

any one person of doing it.
=A0
I stand corrected,

Thank you. My respect for you just went up a

few notches.



The fact remains, you hold the FCC as an entity whose rules should be
blindly followed, but then question the same agency's integrity when
they enforce those rules.
This is getting long, again.
Going to Part Deux.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:24:21 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote in :

snip
Echo boxes are a totally different issue. They

fall clearly into the classification of

"amusement or entertainment" devices and as
such are specifically prohibited by 95.413.



I disagree, but let's assume you right on this item. I would challenge
the validity of this on several counts,,,the most obvious being the fact
that sound and broadcast engineers use echo (not repeat, but slight
reverb echo) on FM broadcasts for many commercials and ads for a
specific reason,,,,it gets noticed and is often more recognizeable and
often louder. As such, one could make the argument, it is an audio
"enhancer", not entertainment device, and with the myriad of broadcast
sound engineers backing my case, I would feel extremely confident
handling my own situation, if this were it. As you now are most astutely
aware, what you consider enhancement and what I consider enhancement is
now very much subjective. Again, ask Phil Kane what must take place now
(once this case is challenged). The FCC would have to rule (FIRST, and
before any further prosecution) what constitutes "amusement devices" and
specifically address the echo issue, just as they recently ruled what
constitutes broadcast obscenity.
-

Ok, I like the way you've presented this. You

make a good argument that a certain amount

of reverb enhances audio quality and adds

"depth". I totally agree with you on this point. If
the current batch of "echo toys" were sold as

devices which ONLY added enough reverb to

accomplish the effect you've described, then I

would agree that the device was an

"enhancement" device in much the same way

as an audio compressor. But that would

eliminate "repeater" type echos.





Interesting. Where would the line be drawn? At one complete repeat? Two?


This might help:

http://www.trueaudio.com/at_echo.htm



The fact remains, you hold the FCC as an entity whose rules should be
blindly followed, but then question the same agency's integrity when
they enforce those rules.


Nobody is suggesting that laws should be blindly followed, but you
have claimed that that laws should be openly violated -because- you
question their integrity. That's not the way it works, Twist. Try
reading the First Amendment.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Nobody is suggesting that laws should be blindly followed, but you
have claimed that that laws should be openly violated -because- you
question their integrity. That's not the way it works, Twist. Try
reading the First Amendment.


Hi Frank and Twist, I have a truce with the AKC now..I really never
thought it could happen.

Peace to all radio operators.

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Nobody is suggesting that laws should be

blindly followed,



Sure they did. Following a law merely because it exists is "blindly
following".


but you have claimed that that laws should be

openly violated


You're lying, Frank. Nowhere have I ever stated laws should be open
violated. How come every time you disagree with someone, you have to lie
about them? I mean, we already know you had a forced extraction in which
you admit to lying all the time in this group, but you really ought
examine what compels such behavior. You have issues, Frank.


-because- you question their integrity. That's

not the way it works, Twist. Try reading the

First Amendment.


Put down the whiskey, Frank, and get back on the wagon. When you share
with this group that you quit drinking because of the problems it
brought you, then subsequently post to this group and alert us you fell
off the wagon again, your lies and posts are recognized for what they
a manifestations of your personal demons and you dealing with them
the only manner in which you know.
The First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights
prohibiting Congress from interfering with the freedom of religion,
speech, assembly, or petition. That you find a relation to selectively
violating dx law is testament to the damage you undoubtedly are aware
alcohol has had upon yourself, in addition to the "problems" you have
acknowledged creating (via alcohol).

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:01:08 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Nobody is suggesting that laws should be

blindly followed,



Sure they did. Following a law merely because it exists is "blindly
following".


www.google.com


but you have claimed that that laws should be

openly violated


You're lying, Frank. Nowhere have I ever stated laws should be open
violated. How come every time you disagree with someone, you have to lie
about them? I mean, we already know you had a forced extraction in which
you admit to lying all the time in this group, but you really ought
examine what compels such behavior. You have issues, Frank.


www.google.com


-because- you question their integrity. That's

not the way it works, Twist. Try reading the

First Amendment.


Put down the whiskey, Frank, and get back on the wagon. When you share
with this group that you quit drinking because of the problems it
brought you, then subsequently post to this group and alert us you fell
off the wagon again, your lies and posts are recognized for what they
a manifestations of your personal demons and you dealing with them
the only manner in which you know.


......and you tell -me- to quit lying.....


The First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights
prohibiting Congress from interfering with the freedom of religion,
speech, assembly, or petition. That you find a relation to selectively
violating dx law is testament to the damage you undoubtedly are aware
alcohol has had upon yourself, in addition to the "problems" you have
acknowledged creating (via alcohol).


You flew right past it, Twist....."or petition". The First Amendment
give you the right "to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances", which means you have a legal and direct course of action
to try and change any law you think is unfair. That is a right which
goes above and beyond all the other rights that you are guaranteed to
insure that the government remains a democracy. But if the petition is
denied, you -don't- have the right to ignore that law. And you -don't-
have the right to selectively ignore any law just because you are a
spoiled little child and are too lazy to follow the legal procedure
for change.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

From: Frank Gilliland
You flew right past it, Twist....."or petition". The
First Amendment give you the right "to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances",


Only I have none of these "grievances" you speak of.


which means you have a legal and direct

course of action to try and change any law you
think is unfair.



It's a non-issue with myself. It's so mundane, a law that is never
enforced isn't worth the bother you suggest.


That is a right which goes above and beyond

all the other rights that you are guaranteed to

insure that the government remains a

democracy.



Ee are not a democracy, we are a republic.


But if the petition is denied, you -don't- have

the right to ignore that law. And you -don't-

have the right to selectively ignore any law just
because you are a spoiled little child and are

too lazy to follow the legal procedure for

change.



I have the "right" to do anything I choose and if those who enforce the
law feel my acts are infringing on others or breaking the law, the law
has the right to make me accountable. If experiencing pain over cbers
talking dx is all you have to entertain and concern
yourself,,,,,congratulations.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:57:32 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote in :

From: Frank Gilliland
You flew right past it, Twist....."or petition". The
First Amendment give you the right "to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances",


Only I have none of these "grievances" you speak of.


Don't hand me that line, Twist -- you have been whining about
something or other ever since you started posting, Twist. Lately it
has been Bush's illegal regime, before that it was Leland's threats,
before that it was the virtues of illegal operation, etc, etc. You are
nothing but a legal whine-bot, and a hypocritical one at that since
you complain about the alleged transgressions of others while boasting
about your own lawless behavior.


which means you have a legal and direct

course of action to try and change any law you
think is unfair.



It's a non-issue with myself. It's so mundane, a law that is never
enforced isn't worth the bother you suggest.


That is a right which goes above and beyond

all the other rights that you are guaranteed to

insure that the government remains a

democracy.



Ee are not a democracy, we are a republic.


Call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that the people are in
control of the government (at least, they -would- be in control if
they weren't so apathetic).


But if the petition is denied, you -don't- have

the right to ignore that law. And you -don't-

have the right to selectively ignore any law just
because you are a spoiled little child and are

too lazy to follow the legal procedure for

change.



I have the "right" to do anything I choose and if those who enforce the
law feel my acts are infringing on others or breaking the law, the law
has the right to make me accountable. If experiencing pain over cbers
talking dx is all you have to entertain and concern
yourself,,,,,congratulations.


Oh yeah, I forgot you get your legal advice from the school of natural
law, where where 'civilization' is a conspiracy of the weak to opress
those who would otherwise exercise their natural 'right' to rob them
blind.

So shouldn't you be busy thumbing your way to NY with your other
anarchist buddies to crash a political convention? Or did you manage
to save enough money to take the bus?





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:57:32 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote in :
From: Frank Gilliland
You flew right past it, Twist....."or petition". The
First Amendment give you the right "to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances",


Only I have none of these "grievances" you speak of.


Don't hand me that line, Twist -- you have

been whining about something or other ever

since you started posting, Twist. Lately it has

been Bush's illegal regime,


Over half the country is "whining about Bush's illegal regime".
Singularly blaming me for your problems, as usual, is not the answer.



before that it was Leland's threats, before that

it was the virtues of illegal operation, etc, etc.

You are nothing but a legal whine-bot,


That's pretty funny. You toss all kinds of fecal matter Frank, but as
always, you continue to miss your mark. Try and remain semi-believable.
Claiming I complain about "virtues of illegal operation" serves up your
alcholism quite nicely. Now, try and get over dwelling on what Twisted
does and thinks concerning Bush and everything else and you may begin a
road to recovery and self-healing.


and a

hypocritical one at that since you complain

about the alleged transgressions of others

while boasting about your own lawless

behavior.



Because you have neither the communication skill nor interpretive skill
to distinguish that the mere mention and posting on a cb usenet group of
freebanding and dx does not constitute "boasting". Find a sponsor,
Frank. You worry about things of which you are impotent. Perhaps it is
why you are so hostile and angry all the time.


which means you have a legal and direct

course of action to try and change any law you
think is unfair.


It's a non-issue with myself. It's so mundane, a law that is never
enforced isn't worth the bother you suggest.

That is a right which goes above and beyond

all the other rights that you are guaranteed to

insure that the government remains a

democracy.


We are not a democracy, we are a republic.


Call it whatever you want,



I called it what it is. *You* called it whatever you wanted.



but the fact remains that the people are in

control of the government


I am glad you are recalling basic grammar school civics, Frank.



(at least, they

-would- be in control if they weren't so

apathetic).

But if the petition is denied, you -don't- have

the right to ignore that law. And you -don't-

have the right to selectively ignore any law just
because you are a spoiled little child and are

too lazy to follow the legal procedure for

change.




I have the "right" to do anything I choose and if those who enforce the
law feel my acts are infringing on others or breaking the law, the law
has the right to make me accountable. If experiencing pain over cbers
talking dx is all you have to entertain and concern
yourself,,,,,congratulations.




Oh yeah, I forgot you get your legal advice

from the school of natural law,



You forgot? Well then, it should be of no consequence and incredibly
easy for you to tell the masses where you managed to recall this tidbit
from, if any place other than your own conjured delusions.



where where 'civilization' is a conspiracy of the
weak to opress those who would otherwise

exercise their natural 'right' to rob them blind.



Wow, Frank,,watching that type rant and rave one would make the guess
you were humdinging on whiskey. too bad you aren't a happy drunk. You
folks who get mean when you drink are assh*les.


So shouldn't you be busy thumbing your way

to NY with your other anarchist buddies to

crash a political convention? Or did you

manage to save enough money to take the

bus?


I'm not the one that posted to the group I was having financial problems
and couldn't afford bus or air fare..*you* did.

-----=3D Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored-