| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Hey Twist!!!!
Got the hatches battened down? I hope you guys get lucky with this one.
Maybe the overnight Cuba crossing will give you a break. At any rate, good luck, and keep your head down!!!!! |
"AKC KennelMaster" wrote in message ... | Got the hatches battened down? I hope you guys get lucky with this one. | Maybe the overnight Cuba crossing will give you a break. At any rate, good | luck, and keep your head down!!!!! | Ditto, Twist. Hope you don't get tore up too bad down there. |
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:37:07 GMT, "AKC KennelMaster"
wrote: Got the hatches battened down? I hope you guys get lucky with this one. Maybe the overnight Cuba crossing will give you a break. At any rate, good luck, and keep your head down!!!!! Assuming, of course, that he really lives there....... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:07:20 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:37:07 GMT, "AKC KennelMaster" wrote: Got the hatches battened down? I hope you guys get lucky with this one. Maybe the overnight Cuba crossing will give you a break. At any rate, good luck, and keep your head down!!!!! Assuming, of course, that he really lives there....... Of course he does. What on earth would make you think he lied? -----= 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! =----- |
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 22:50:12 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:07:20 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:37:07 GMT, "AKC KennelMaster" wrote: Got the hatches battened down? I hope you guys get lucky with this one. Maybe the overnight Cuba crossing will give you a break. At any rate, good luck, and keep your head down!!!!! Assuming, of course, that he really lives there....... Of course he does. What on earth would make you think he lied? Gee, I don't know...... An anonymous NIC, no accountability, several lies spewed forth, a sociopathic personality. I guess he's beyond reproach..... What was I thinking? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
|
From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:07:20 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:37:07 GMT, "AKC KennelMaster" wrote: Got the hatches battened down? I hope you guys get lucky with this one. Maybe the overnight Cuba crossing will give you a break. At any rate, good luck, and keep your head down!!!!! - Assuming, of course, that he really lives there....... Of course he does. What on earth would make you think he lied? Agreed. One should look no further than your brilliant logic that says I'm a hammie named Roger Wiseman in West Virginia and pull double duty as another hammie Extra named Dave McCambell on the east coast of Florida. In both instances, you insisted you were right. What makes us think you lied? -----=3D Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =3D----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----=3D=3D |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 22:50:12 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:07:20 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:37:07 GMT, "AKC KennelMaster" wrote: Got the hatches battened down? I hope you guys get lucky with this one. Maybe the overnight Cuba crossing will give you a break. At any rate, good luck, and keep your head down!!!!! Assuming, of course, that he really lives there....... - Of course he does. What on earth would make you think he lied? - Gee, I don't know...... An anonymous NIC, no accountability, several lies spewed forth, a sociopathic personality. I guess he's beyond reproach..... What was I thinking? Dave N3CVJ "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj CB IS anonymous, it's going to stay that way, get over the gastric pain it causes you. That one would seek to mete out "accountability" for posting one's opinion in usenet illustrates a freak, dude! What type accountability is it you wish to foster upon those who dare say something on usenet with which you may disagree? And to answer your question,,,you weren't thinking, Davie, you never do,,,,it's what is responsible for your foot in mouth disease and unfettered anger toward cb anonymity. You gave up your anonymity and are ****ed at those who didn't,,,,,who had the smarts to follow their ISP suggestions and all security experts and NOT post on the internet with their real name to a group dealing with a hobby where no ones identity is revealed. Add to the fact that you can no longer partake in your old haunts and dx on cb because someone would probably turn your azz in...if you weren't such a jerkoff and were cool with people, you could operate with no fear and talk dx on cb with the rest of us who enjoy it. |
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote: CB IS anonymous, it's going to stay that way, get over the gastric pain it causes you. And that is the main reason why there are so many malcontents on there. 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. 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. It doesn't take any special courage or daring to make inflammatory comments while hiding behind an anonymous handle. Why should anyone take what a person like that says seriously, when they don't have the character to identify themselves? 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. Having your identity known, at least tempers the temptation to act like a retard. And to answer your question,,,you weren't thinking, Davie, you never do,,,,it's what is responsible for your foot in mouth disease and unfettered anger toward cb anonymity. You gave up your anonymity and are ****ed at those who didn't Not at all. I stand behind what I say, and I have the credibility and accountability to say so in a serious and mature manner. If I misbehave like the hordes of anonymous posters on this group, it becomes a simple matter to rectify the situation. Not so when you're anonymous and take advantage of the many network tools to conceal your origin. So it allows "bad" people to continue to be "bad". ,,,,,who had the smarts to follow their ISP suggestions and all security experts and NOT post on the internet with their real name to a group dealing with a hobby where no ones identity is revealed. No one has suggested anything of the sort. The only thing that they warn is not to give out personal information such as social security numbers and such. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Add to the fact that you can no longer partake in your old haunts and dx on cb because someone would probably turn your azz in...if you weren't such a jerkoff and were cool with people, you could operate with no fear and talk dx on cb with the rest of us who enjoy it. I never liked talking DX on CB after the first hundred or so contacts that I made almost 30 years ago. DX is nothing more than a source of irritation to me, as the noise level prevents comfortable local chit-chatting. Any desire that I might have to talk long distance can easily be taken care of LEGALLY on the ham bands, so your conjecture is like many of your others, just plain wrong. BTW, Who is Kim T. Hall? Oh, and you might not believe this, but I'm glad that you survived the storm. I don't like to see bad things happen to anyone. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: CB IS anonymous, it's going to stay that way, get over the gastric pain it causes you. And that is the main reason why there are so many malcontents on there. Perhaps, perhaps not, but that is neither here nor there, and a problem of yours. Stop trying to make it someone elses problem. 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. _ 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? 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. Why should anyone take what a person like that says seriously, when they don't have the character to identify themselves? Depends what you define as "identify". In your case, you ask for names, backgrounds, etc, of those who you disagree with on usenet. And perhaps, just,,perhaps, because the entire world of security experts SAY SO? _ 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. At the very least, if this occurred, one could surely prove such and illustrate the passage in the person's isp that relates to such behavior and the service will take action. 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. _ And to answer your question,,,you weren't thinking, Davie, you never do,,,,it's what is responsible for your foot in mouth disease and unfettered anger toward cb anonymity. You gave up your anonymity and are ****ed at those who didn't Not at all. I stand behind what I say, You do? Shall we take those inquiries one at a time concerning those unanswered claims you were asked to provide for? You said a cber was busted in your area awhile back and went through the courts. I politely called you on it and asked you to provide some of this "credibility" you speak of and demand of the rest of the usenet world. You became insultive and began attacking myself and going off-topic without providing anything but lipservice. You have failed to produce any of this "credibility' you demand of others, concerning your claim. and I have the credibility Not on the Philly cber issue you don't, and not on the Phelps antenna issue you don't, and,,,,ah, that's enough to keep you foaming at the mouth and rabidly attacking me for a few days. and accountability to say so in a serious and mature manner. If I misbehave like the hordes of anonymous posters on this group, it becomes a simple matter to rectify the situation. It's not up to you Davie, to rectify anything. THAT'S your problem...you think it is. Not so when you're anonymous and take advantage of the many network tools to conceal your origin. So it allows "bad" people to continue to be "bad". No,,the internet does not "allow" people to do anything. PEOPLE allow themselves to be involved in such fiascos. You are illustrating the risks of the internet perfectly with your citing "bad" people,,,,,all the more reason to follow the internet security experts advice, Davie. Just because one doesn't post with their real name, Davie, doesn't make them "baaad" people. In fact, it makes them a little more clued in than you on the dangers of the internet and these "bad" people you speak of. _ ,,,,,who had the smarts to follow their ISP suggestions and all security experts and NOT post on the internet with their real name to a group dealing with a hobby where no ones identity is revealed. No one has suggested anything of the sort. The only thing that they warn is not to give out personal information such as social security numbers and such. Most people know their real name is personal information. See how far removed your beliefs are from the moral majority.. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. That is an old cliche used by authoritarians the world over to cast doubt on the motives of civil libertarians that actually care about such things as privacy. The cliche is also often used as a means to shut off debate on the actual issue, since no one wants other people to think they may have something to hide. This plays on the psyche of people and was used by the Nazis for psychological warfare on their own people expected of being dissidents. Such anti-american insinuation that one may have something to hide merely for not posting their real name to the internet as their user name will not stop me from defending privacy rights that belong to you as well,, as an American, even if you don't appreciate your liberties or take advantage of them. _ Add to the fact that you can no longer partake in your old haunts and dx on cb because someone would probably turn your azz in...if you weren't such a jerkoff and were cool with people, you could operate with no fear and talk dx on cb with the rest of us who enjoy it. I never liked talking DX on CB after the first hundred or so contacts that I made almost 30 years ago. DX is nothing more than a source of irritation to me, as the noise level prevents comfortable local chit-chatting. Fine, No one faults you for it. But for you to come out here and constantly complain about what bothers you over and over concerning cb, and tell others who really do enjoy cb and dx what is wrong with them doing it, in a cb group, no less, illustrates your motives, whether you are aware of your own behavior or not. Any desire that I might have to talk long distance can easily be taken care of LEGALLY on the ham bands, so your conjecture is like many of your others, just plain wrong. The hammie bands are dead for HF DX,,they got nothing on eleven meter, including freeband. BTW, Who is Kim T. Hall? Exactly. Oh, and you might not believe this, but I'm glad that you survived the storm. I don't like to see bad things happen to anyone. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv Why would I not believe that? Only subhumans wish ill will on others for stating their opinions. |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: CB IS anonymous, it's going to stay that way, get over the gastric pain it causes you. And that is the main reason why there are so many malcontents on there. Perhaps, perhaps not, but that is neither here nor there, and a problem of yours. Stop trying to make it someone elses problem. It's everyone's problem unless, of course, you are one of the malcontents who enjoys ruining other people's fun. Even the youngest, still wet-behind-the-ears hooligan will tell you that they tend to partake in more mischief if they have less of a chance of being caught. It's sad that your trust in fellow man has eroded to such a point. Most of us look for the good in people, not the bad. I look for the good in people too. It's a shame that it's getting harder and harder to find. Wanting to believe that some people are good, does not change the fact that a great number are bad. I am a realist, I deal with reality, not how I'd like it to be. That one would seek to mete out "accountability" for posting one's opinion in usenet illustrates a freak, dude! Not at all. If you are attempting to pass yourself and your opinions off in a serious discussion, with any sort of credibility, you have to be accountable for what you say. In a group dedicated to mere posting concerning an anonymous hobby, what type accountability and credibility do you seek? How long have you looked to cb venues seeking "serious" discussion? So then, you are of the opinion that this forum should be nothing more than an unimpeded free-for-all with no rules or decorum? Discussions about technical topics should be taken at face value, without the parties displaying their credentials? It doesn't take any special courage or daring to make inflammatory comments while hiding behind an anonymous handle. No doubt about it. Same can be said for radio. Merely possessing your hammie call doesn't abdicate you from being anonymous if you wanted. Same goes for this forum. People identify on ham radio for a reason. People don't identify on CB for the same reason. I have far more to be suspicious of, when someone is afraid to identify themselves. I have to wonder what they are hiding from. Why should anyone take what a person like that says seriously, when they don't have the character to identify themselves? Depends what you define as "identify". In your case, you ask for names, backgrounds, etc, of those who you disagree with on usenet. I have NEVER asked for specific personal details. However, a person's name, and their credentials will establish their expertise in related topics. Who would you be most likely to believe on matters of radio, someone firmly established in the art, with a good education and background, or someone with the vague identifier: "Rubber Duck"? And perhaps, just,,perhaps, because the entire world of security experts SAY SO? That is a bit of an exaggeration and a stretch of the truth. _ What type accountability is it you wish to foster upon those who dare say something on usenet with which you may disagree? There is nothing wrong with a healthy disagreement. But when you make unfounded character assassinations against those you disagree with and then run and hide behind your cloak of anonymity, that's not the sign of a mature person. If it were a true character assassination and something was injurous or libelous, and IF you actually believed that bull**** and cared enough to actually want to do something about it, there are simple channels to follow and remedy the situation. Are you suggesting that there are ways to identify someone who takes serious steps to hide their identity? Or are you saying that we all should just have to deal with abusive insulting and libelous comments because they are not worth the trouble to pursue seriously? I believe in the example of not saying something on a forum, that you wouldn't have the cajones to say to someone's face. The fact is that being anonymous eliminates the small chance that the person you may insult might someday show up at your door to have you "explain" yourself in person, thereby removing that little bit of polite restraint you might otherwise have. Anonymity is the enabler for people to act inappropriately, and rudely. Using the excuse that privacy overrides acting in a civilized manner is weak IMHO. At the very least, if this occurred, one could surely prove such and illustrate the passage in the person's isp that relates to such behavior and the service will take action. Usually ISP's will not yank someone's account unless they become serious problems. Simply speaking one's opinion (however insulting or rude) is still a 1st amendment right, and ISP's are reluctant to go down that road. Having your identity known, at least tempers the temptation to act like a retard. And goes against everything the world of security experts and all isp's tell you. As far as I know, acting like "a retard" is perfectly legal, but if you had your way, anything you deemed 'acting like a retard" would most certainly be illegal. Acting rude, inconsiderate, or anti-social, is also not illegal, but it's not something a civilized person would do in a public forum. Why should this newsgroup be treated any differently than an in-person venue? I would not want to make these activities "illegal". If you want to act like a retard, by all means, go for it! But we all have the right to know who it is that is acting like the retard so that they can properly face the repercussions that that type of behavior brings. That's what I mean by accountability. If you had to "face the music" for acting inappropriately, you would eventually adopt an incentive to NOT act that way. The quality of the forums would increase considerably. _ And to answer your question,,,you weren't thinking, Davie, you never do,,,,it's what is responsible for your foot in mouth disease and unfettered anger toward cb anonymity. You gave up your anonymity and are ****ed at those who didn't Not at all. I stand behind what I say, You do? Shall we take those inquiries one at a time concerning those unanswered claims you were asked to provide for? You said a cber was busted in your area awhile back and went through the courts. I politely called you on it and asked you to provide some of this "credibility" you speak of and demand of the rest of the usenet world. You became insultive and began attacking myself and going off-topic without providing anything but lipservice. You have failed to produce any of this "credibility' you demand of others, concerning your claim. Gee, that's not the way I remember it. I remember making the claim that some I knew personally was popped by local cops for interference relating to his CB radio. You challenged the validity of my claim, first by trying to find some sort of difference between "a suburb of" and "suburban", suggesting that I was lying. When you failed to find any information on the incident (Due to the mistake that you made in assuming that "suburban philly" meant that it was within the city limits), you again tried to insinuate that because you couldn't understand what the difference in locations were, you again inferred that I was lying. Even when I told you the exact town, you were unable to find anything, which is not surprising considering how poorly the town keeps records.. But what have you actually proven? You have proven that: A. You can't differentiate between the suburbs, suburban, and within city limits. You covered this mistake by implying that I was making the whole thing up. B. That you were unable to locate any information on the subject. (note that this doesn't mean that there isn't any) I am telling it as someone who was there who knew the party involved. I know what happened. If that isn't enough for you, then so be it. and I have the credibility Not on the Philly cber issue you don't, and not on the Phelps antenna issue you don't, and,,,,ah, that's enough to keep you foaming at the mouth and rabidly attacking me for a few days. Defending my position and questioning your logic is hardly "attacking" you on a personal level. That you cannot understand how someone would not understand your initial reference to an antenna that was part of a 10 year old repeater system, and took my apparent unfamiliarity as a sign of lying is not my problem. and accountability to say so in a serious and mature manner. If I misbehave like the hordes of anonymous posters on this group, it becomes a simple matter to rectify the situation. It's not up to you Davie, to rectify anything. THAT'S your problem...you think it is. It should be every person's responsibility to "rectify" the problem in order to preserve civility. Not so when you're anonymous and take advantage of the many network tools to conceal your origin. So it allows "bad" people to continue to be "bad". No,,the internet does not "allow" people to do anything. PEOPLE allow themselves to be involved in such fiascos. When you give people the means to be "bad" why should you be surprised when they act on it? You are illustrating the risks of the internet perfectly with your citing "bad" people,,,,,all the more reason to follow the internet security experts advice, Davie. Just because one doesn't post with their real name, Davie, doesn't make them "baaad" people. No, that in itself doesn't. I never said that all people who post anonymously are "bad", but it is by far more tempting for them to be, rather than if they are easily identified. ,,,,,who had the smarts to follow their ISP suggestions and all security experts and NOT post on the internet with their real name to a group dealing with a hobby where no ones identity is revealed. No one has suggested anything of the sort. The only thing that they warn is not to give out personal information such as social security numbers and such. Most people know their real name is personal information. See how far removed your beliefs are from the moral majority.. It takes more than a person's name to invoke identity theft. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. That is an old cliche used by authoritarians the world over to cast doubt on the motives of civil libertarians that actually care about such things as privacy. The cliche is also often used as a means to shut off debate on the actual issue, since no one wants other people to think they may have something to hide. This plays on the psyche of people and was used by the Nazis for psychological warfare on their own people expected of being dissidents. Such anti-american insinuation that one may have something to hide merely for not posting their real name to the internet as their user name will not stop me from defending privacy rights that belong to you as well,, as an American, even if you don't appreciate your liberties or take advantage of them. A wonderful speech, but the truth of the comment remains. If you have nothing to hide, you are more likely to be up front about your motives. People who insist on anonymity are suspicious right from the start. What is it about their presence, ideas, or opinion would predicate a need to remain anonymous? That implies a nefarious motive. Add to the fact that you can no longer partake in your old haunts and dx on cb because someone would probably turn your azz in...if you weren't such a jerkoff and were cool with people, you could operate with no fear and talk dx on cb with the rest of us who enjoy it. I never liked talking DX on CB after the first hundred or so contacts that I made almost 30 years ago. DX is nothing more than a source of irritation to me, as the noise level prevents comfortable local chit-chatting. Fine, No one faults you for it. You have. But for you to come out here and constantly complain about what bothers you over and over concerning cb, and tell others who really do enjoy cb and dx what is wrong with them doing it,in a cb group, no less, illustrates your motives, whether you are aware of your own behavior or not. And just what are "my motives" if you going to be presumptuous as to suggest that you might know? Perhaps, It's just that I remember (fondly) how CB radio was in the 1970's. People played loose and fast with the rules, but despite all that, they were civil (most of the time) and the ratio of constructive or good clean fun conversations to idiots was far greater than it is today. Maybe, my biggest flaw is hoping that the FCC, through legislation and enforcement, will do what people's inner conscience and morality fail to do, and that is act civilly and considerately. Any desire that I might have to talk long distance can easily be taken care of LEGALLY on the ham bands, so your conjecture is like many of your others, just plain wrong. The hammie bands are dead for HF DX,,they got nothing on eleven meter, including freeband. Hello? There is nothing magical about propagation on 11 meters. If 11 meters is open then 10, 12, and 15 are also open. When 11 isn't open, I can still talk on 20, 40, 80 and 160 meters. If you want DX, there's no more consistent place to find it than on one of the several ham bands. When the sunspot cycle is high, 11 is wide open, and talking DX is like shooting fish in a barrel. But right now, the cycle is low, and DX opportunities are sporadic. I'm betting that I'll find more DX opportunities on the H.F bands than you will solely on 11 at the current time. BTW, Who is Kim T. Hall? Exactly. Exactly what? Or is that whom? Oh, and you might not believe this, but I'm glad that you survived the storm. I don't like to see bad things happen to anyone. http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Why would I not believe that? Only subhumans wish ill will on others for stating their opinions. So at least I'm higher than a subhuman on your scale eh? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: CB IS anonymous, it's going to stay that way, get over the gastric pain it causes you. And that is the main reason why there are so many malcontents on there. Perhaps, perhaps not, but that is neither here nor there, and a problem of yours. Stop trying to make it someone elses problem. It's everyone's problem unless, of course, you are one of the malcontents who enjoys ruining other people's fun. CB is not like that in my area. We have one channel with the lulu's,,the rest yield great local roundtables and everyone radio-wise pretty much knows everyone else. Being so close to Philthy, I can understand why CB must be mess in your area. Those people are vile. Even the youngest, still wet-behind-the-ears hooligan will tell you that they tend to partake in more mischief if they have less of a chance of being caught. It's sad that your trust in fellow man has eroded to such a point. Most of us look for the good in people, not the bad. I look for the good in people too. It's a shame that it's getting harder and harder to find. Yup, it is, but that doesn't shake my faith of always seeing the glass half full and noting the good instead of the bad in most cases..that's why it's called "faith". Wanting to believe that some people are good, does not change the fact that a great number are bad. I am a realist, I deal with reality, not how I'd like it to be. Not true at all. You subscribe to socialist views and rhetoric,,,this is NOT how America is, but how you wish it would be. The majority of American's (THANK GOD) do not subscribe to your bull**** about allowing the authorities and anyone else an open book to your life "if you don't have anything to hide". _ That one would seek to mete out "accountability" for posting one's opinion in usenet illustrates a freak, dude! Not at all. If you are attempting to pass yourself and your opinions off in a serious discussion, with any sort of credibility, you have to be accountable for what you say. In a group dedicated to mere posting concerning an anonymous hobby, what type accountability and credibility do you seek? How long have you looked to cb venues seeking "serious" discussion? So then, you are of the opinion that this forum should be nothing more than an unimpeded free-for-all with no rules or decorum? Please try not to answer a question with a question. How long have you looked to anonymous cb venues on the internet seeking "serious" discussion? Discussions about technical topics should be taken at face value, without the parties displaying their credentials? Now you're catching on. No credentials needed for usenet posting, nor is the "identity", that has you reeling. It doesn't take any special courage or daring to make inflammatory comments while hiding behind an anonymous handle. No doubt about it. Same can be said for radio. Merely possessing your hammie call doesn't abdicate you from being anonymous if you wanted. Same goes for this forum. People identify on ham radio for a reason. Yea,,,,,,it's the law. People don't identify on CB for the same reason. Wrong. One is NOT required to identify on CB. I have far more to be suspicious of, when someone is afraid to identify themselves. That is your right. And it's the majority of the rest of the world's right to be suspicious of you seeking another's identity on usenet, especially when you didn't listen to the world of security experts when they told you not to post publicly to the internet with your personal information. There indeed are areas of the internet that a certain amount of identity is required, but usenet, especially a cb group, is not one of them. This is a very rare concern that has no relation to your life and voiced only by a bitter few. I have to wonder what they are hiding from. Why should anyone take what a person like that says seriously, when they don't have the character to identify themselves? Depends what you define as "identify". =A0=A0In your case, you ask for names, backgrounds, etc, of those who you disagree with on usenet. I have NEVER asked for specific personal details. However, a person's name, and their credentials will establish their expertise in related topics. Who would you be most likely to believe on matters of radio, someone firmly established in the art, with a good education and background, or someone with the vague identifier: "Rubber Duck"? Not even a valiant attempt. Some of those "good educations" you refer have posted directions on how to destroy your radio in the form of mods. This is exactly the reason one should take everything on the internet with a grain of salt. Apparently, you believe otherwise. _ And perhaps, just,,perhaps, because the entire world of security experts SAY SO? =A0 =A0That is a bit of an exaggeration and a stretch of the truth. No, it's not at all. _ What type accountability is it you wish to foster upon those who dare say something on usenet with which you may disagree? There is nothing wrong with a healthy disagreement. But when you make unfounded character assassinations against those you disagree with and then run and hide behind your cloak of anonymity, that's not the sign of a mature person. If it were a true character assassination and something was injurous or libelous, and IF you actually believed that bull**** and cared enough to actually want to do something about it, there are simple channels to follow and remedy the situation. Are you suggesting that there are ways to identify someone who takes serious steps to hide their identity? If unfounded character assassinations (libel) was committed, absolutely. Or are you saying that we all should just have to deal with abusive insulting and libelous comments because they are not worth the trouble to pursue seriously? You said that. If my emotions were to take over, I would simply trn the thing off and walk away. No one is forcing you to partake in what you view as an injurous electronic arena. It is your choice. I believe in the example of not saying something on a forum, that you wouldn't have the cajones to say to someone's face. Very noble. Many agree with you. Obviously, those like Dogie, do not. The fact is that being anonymous eliminates the small chance that the person you may insult might someday show up at your door to have you "explain" yourself in person, thereby removing that little bit of polite restraint you might otherwise have. I have incredible restraint and am overly polite, even to you in many instances when you began reambling off-topic with insult. I invite anyone who has a problem with me to come forward....of course, those who do, encapsulate the very idea you are railing against...not identifying themselevs, only it doesn't bother me like it does you. I have an open door policy and will meet anyone from this group for coffee, fishing, or to continue our rec.radio.cb debates. So far, I have met several from this forum and plan on meeting more. If I didn't fish for the day, and we didn't talk about politics or cb, I am certain you and I would get along just fine on the boat for an afternoon ride talking of nothing but hammie radio. Anonymity is the enabler for people to act inappropriately, and rudely. Using the excuse that privacy overrides acting in a civilized manner is weak IMHO. No one suggested such..but the gist of it, is that American's are afforded the right to act like idiots, even it offends you to no end. Using the excuse that it ought be over-ridden is what is weak. _ At the very least, if this occurred, one could surely prove such and illustrate the passage in the person's isp that relates to such behavior and the service will take action. Usually ISP's will not yank someone's account unless they become serious problems. Well, that's what you were talking about, Davie..those serious "malcontents", I believe was the word you used. Simply speaking one's opinion (however insulting or rude) is still a 1st amendment right, and ISP's are reluctant to go down that road. You weren't talking of an opinion, Davie, you spoke of character assassination. Having your identity known, at least tempers the temptation to act like a retard. And goes against everything the world of security experts and all isp's tell you. As far as I know, acting like "a retard" is perfectly legal, but if you had your way, anything you deemed 'acting like a retard" would most certainly be illegal. Acting rude, inconsiderate, or anti-social, is also not illegal, but it's not something a civilized person would do in a public forum. Therein lies the answer to what ails you. Not all people in public forums are civilized. Nevertheless, these traits you consider uncivilized, exist in these "bad" people you speak of, and unfortunately the word is made up of good AND bad people. Why should this newsgroup be treated any differently than an in-person venue? I happen to agree with you on this item, but why should others be forced or made to conform to our view? They shouldn't. I would not want to make these activities "illegal". If you want to act like a retard, by all means, go for it! But we all have the right to know who it is that is acting like the retard so that they can properly face the repercussions that that type of behavior brings. No,,you don't have the right to know the identity of one just because you feel he is acting like a retard. But,,keeping with this thought you put forward, you just described exactly what happened to Dogie. That's what I mean by accountability. If you had to "face the music" for acting inappropriately, you would eventually adopt an incentive to NOT act that way. The quality of the forums would increase considerably. What you feel constitutes "quality" is the opposite of what many others feel. The loss of personal privacy in this world is never an improvement in the quality of anything. _ And to answer your question,,,you weren't thinking, Davie, you never do,,,,it's what is responsible for your foot in mouth disease and unfettered anger toward cb anonymity. You gave up your anonymity and are ****ed at those who didn't Not at all. I stand behind what I say, You do? Shall we take those inquiries one at a time concerning those unanswered claims you were asked to provide for? You said a cber was busted in your area awhile back and went through the courts. I politely called you on it and asked you to provide some of this "credibility" you speak of and demand of the rest of the usenet world. You became insultive and began attacking myself and going off-topic without providing anything but lipservice. You have failed to produce any of this "credibility' you demand of others, concerning your claim. Gee, that's not the way I remember it. We can post those posts one by one, if the need be. Same with the Phelps. Perhaps it will jog your failing memory. I remember making the claim that some I knew personally was popped by local cops for interference relating to his CB radio. You challenged the validity of my claim, AFTER you refused to cite a credible source, and only after did I "challenge the validity" of your claim. first by trying to find some sort of difference between "a suburb of" and "suburban", suggesting that I was lying. You are lying now. YOU were the one to invoke the word "suburb", not I, and you invoked it when the heat got to hot and you realized, like said, the court documents would confirm your story. I note you originally claimed it happened IN Philthadelphia, and when I pressed on, you began the back pedal and insults, playing games and getting elusive and only then invoking "suburban" Philly. You provided nothing to this day concerning this alleged case except more posts full of lipservice and smoke.. When you failed to find any information AFTER you claimed it was in Philly, and AFTER you failed to provide anything at all concerning this case other than your lipservice. on the incident (Due to the mistake that you made in assuming that "suburban philly" meant that it was within the city limits), you again tried to insinuate that because you couldn't understand what the difference in locations were, Makes no difference. You provided nothing but insult towards myself and offtopic rants when asked for a single source of credibility showing this occurred. You presented nothing. you again inferred that I was lying. You were, and are. Even when I told you the exact town, You never said the exact town and if you did, you NEVER linked it with the case you claim occurred or in the same thread. Since you claim otherwise, force feed me some crow, Davie, and show the world where you told me what town the cber got busted in and went to court. Just another in that long line of unsubstantiated bull****,,,, you were unable to find anything, which is not surprising considering how poorly the town keeps records.. But what have you actually proven? That you can't correctly "recall" what occurred in past posts, but we all realized that with your goof on the Phelps that you claimed you owned, then when asked about your Phelps a few years later, replied "What Phelps? I WISH I had a Phelps Stationmaster"...LOL,,THAT was the exact antenna you claimed you owned a few years earler. You have proven that: A. You can't differentiate between the suburbs, suburban, and within city limits. You covered this mistake by implying that I was making the whole thing up. No mistake. Nothing but lipservice regaridng this item. B. That you were unable to locate any information on the subject. (note that this doesn't mean that there isn't any) Your ASSuming ignorance in getting in the way of your sense. I looked for nothing on any "subject". I specifically looked for the case you cited as receiving a citation. It never happened. I am telling it as someone who was there who knew the party involved. I know what happened. If that isn't enough for you, then so be it. Hehe,,it's not me,,it's the law of the land when it comes right down to it,,the burden of proof is always on the claimant. It is not like a scientist yelling "The world is flat. I dare you to disprove me....haha". One doesn't need disprove another's ramblings concerning their own specialty. In such cases, one merely asks them for their proof and watches them fall apart. and I have the credibility Not on the Philly cber issue you don't, and not on the Phelps antenna issue you don't, and,,,,ah, that's enough to keep you foaming at the mouth and rabidly attacking me for a few days. Defending my position and questioning your logic is hardly "attacking" you on a personal level. When you continue to say "I know it happened and it isn't enough for *you*,,that is making it personal, as once again, I didn't make the rules of society, I merely conform to them and in society, the burden of proof is on the claimant, that's just the way it is That you cannot understand how someone would not understand your initial reference to an antenna that was part of a 10 year old repeater system, and took my apparent unfamiliarity as a sign of lying is not my problem. Of course it is. You have already demonstrated you are not familiar with curent FCC law regarding the governing of CB. Now, how many CBer's and hammies present that are posting regs like yourself, can not remember an antenna they had, especially if it was part of THEIR repeater system. In fact, the majority can recall just about every radio set-up they ever had. I grew up in a home with a moonraker IV many years ago. If someone asked me "still have the moonraker?".....I would have immediately recalled the antenna to mind and so would the majority of radio ops. But not you. If one doesnt lie, one needs not worry about remembering such bull****. and accountability to say so in a serious and mature manner. If I misbehave like the hordes of anonymous posters on this group, it becomes a simple matter to rectify the situation. It's not up to you Davie, to rectify anything. THAT'S your problem...you think it is. It should be every person's responsibility to "rectify" the problem in order to preserve civility. You said you are realist,yet here you sit posting the opposite and telling us how "it SHOULD be", right after posting you don't partake in such behavior. See? Your bull**** is so deep, you can't recall what you wrote a few paragraphs ago. Not so when you're anonymous and take advantage of the many network tools to conceal your origin. So it allows "bad" people to continue to be "bad". No,,the internet does not "allow" people to do anything. PEOPLE allow themselves to be involved in such fiascos. When you give people the means to be "bad" why should you be surprised when they act on it? Are you daft? I'm not the one complaining about such things,,,*you* are. You are the only one complaining about behavior and people's acts. Add to this your invoking the mythical Voob man to illustrate one of your non-points, then turn around and invaildate yourself with the claim concerning posts with no positive personal identity. You need a very long vacation, Davie. _ You are illustrating the risks of the internet perfectly with your citing "bad" people,,,,,all the more reason to follow the internet security experts advice, Davie. Just because one doesn't post with their real name, Davie, doesn't make them "baaad" people. No, that in itself doesn't. I never said that all people who post anonymously are "bad", but it is by far more tempting for them to be, rather than if they are easily identified. Now you are concerning yourself with the temptations to your fellow man caused by anonynmity on the internet. If this is what you need concern yourself with, you lead a blessed life. - ,,,,,who had the smarts to follow their ISP suggestions and all security experts and NOT post on the internet with their real name to a group dealing with a hobby where no ones identity is revealed. No one has suggested anything of the sort. The only thing that they warn is not to give out personal information such as social security numbers and such. Most people know their real name is personal information. See how far removed your beliefs are from the moral majority.. It takes more than a person's name to invoke identity theft. That is only one of the reasons for warning against such practice. And no, it doesn't take anything more than person's anme for identity theft on usenet (ANOTHER reason for keeping info secure), and that is exactly why your full name is considered "personal" inormation by all except yourself. Another reason for you to take what you read on the intetrnet with a grain of salt. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. That is an old cliche used by authoritarians the world over to cast doubt on the motives of civil libertarians that actually care about such things as privacy. The cliche is also often used as a means to shut off debate on the actual issue, since no one wants other people to think they may have something to hide. This plays on the psyche of people and was used by the Nazis for psychological warfare on their own people expected of being dissidents. Such anti-american insinuation that one may have something to hide merely for not posting their real name to the internet as their user name will not stop me from defending privacy rights that belong to you as well,, as an American, even if you don't appreciate your liberties or take advantage of them. A wonderful speech, but the truth of the comment remains. Wrong. Your entire point revolving around having nothing to hide is invalid and anti-American and is NOT the way we do things herte in the USA, at least, not yet. If you have nothing to hide, you are more likely to be up front about your motives. That's NOT what you said,,,you said if you have nothing to fear then you have nothing to hide, and THAT, my friend is Orwellian totalitarian bull****. People who insist on anonymity are suspicious right from the start. I give you Thomas Paine. What is it about their presence, ideas, or opinion would predicate a need to remain anonymous? Unfair retailiation by neanderthals who feel they have a right to decide how others should live. Unfair imposition by those who don't agree with what was written. Oppressive governments, like the one that is responsible for people like you being scared into giving up liberties in the name of temporary security. People who feel they are somehow owed an explanation by internet posters and retaliate with personal attacks concerning offtopic and inquiries of personal matters and lives. The reasons are endless. That implies a nefarious motive. Only to those seeking to curb liberties and freedoms. If the internet is so bad, why continue to harp about the place you continue to frequent? It's not like you are part of the solution or anythiing, as your posts are impotent when relating to what governs usenet posting concerning identity. _ Add to the fact that you can no longer partake in your old haunts and dx on cb because someone would probably turn your azz in...if you weren't such a jerkoff and were cool with people, you could operate with no fear and talk dx on cb with the rest of us who enjoy it. I never liked talking DX on CB after the first hundred or so contacts that I made almost 30 years ago. DX is nothing more than a source of irritation to me, as the noise level prevents comfortable local chit-chatting. Fine, No one faults you for it. You have. Cite it. Show it. Link it. Another incorrect claim (read: LIE) you said took place but never happened. But I understand your need for such fantasy as resorting to claiming I have faulted you for local chit chatting. It justifies your mania. _ But for you to come out here and constantly complain about what bothers you over and over concerning cb, and tell others who really do enjoy cb and dx what is wrong with them doing it,in a cb group, no less, illustrates your motives, whether you are aware of your own behavior or not. And just what are "my motives" if you going to be presumptuous as to suggest that you might know? Nothing at all presumptious conerning your constant problems with all that cb has to offer. You never post anything positive relating to CB,,,just always complaining about it in some manner or another. When you're not complaining about the CB, you're busy fancying yourself as looking at the outdated mode of communication as some type valid representation as a "reflection of society" as a whole. And when you're not doing THAT, you're busy not remembering what you said in past posts. Perhaps, It's just that I remember (fondly) how CB radio was in the 1970's. Yea,,well so do I, but if you can't lend a hand get out of the road 'cause your old world is rapidly aging. So you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone, for the times, they are a changin'. People played loose and fast with the rules, but despite all that, they were civil (most of the time) and the ratio of constructive or good clean fun conversations to idiots was far greater than it is today. Not where I live. CB is pretty cool where I live and has been for some time. Maybe, my biggest flaw is hoping that the FCC, through legislation and enforcement, will do what people's inner conscience and morality fail to do, and that is act civilly and considerately. The government has no business in legislating personal morality when another is not harmed. If you're offended, shut it off, close the book, walk away. Any desire that I might have to talk long distance can easily be taken care of LEGALLY on the ham bands, so your conjecture is like many of your others, just plain wrong. The hammie bands are dead for HF DX,,they got nothing on eleven meter, including freeband. Hello? There is nothing magical about propagation on 11 meters. If 11 meters is open then 10, 12, and 15 are also open. Once again,,they got nothing (in other words, there is no comparison) on eleven meter. The crowds simply aren't there to make the contacts as they are on 11. When 11 isn't open, I can still talk on 20, 40, 80 and 160 meters. If you want DX, there's no more consistent place to find it than on one of the several ham bands. Depends what you define as DX. I prefer HF DX, no repeaters, my own low power and rig. Nothing but me and mutha' nature. When the sunspot cycle is high, 11 is wide open, and talking DX is like shooting fish in a barrel. Shooting fish in a barrel was pioneered by repeaters for HF DX not cb. Get it right. 11 meter is much more difficult than 10 meter repeater contacts. But right now, the cycle is low, and DX opportunities are sporadic. I'm betting that I'll find more DX opportunities on the H.F bands than you will solely on 11 at the current time. BTW, Who is Kim T. Hall? Exactly. Exactly what? Or is that whom? Either way will work. Oh, and you might not believe this, but I'm glad that you survived the storm. I don't like to see bad things happen to anyone. http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Why would I not believe that? Only subhumans wish ill will on others for stating their opinions. So at least I'm higher than a subhuman on your scale eh? Oh yea. I think you're one who gets caught p in the moment while posting. Dave N3CVJ "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: CB IS anonymous, it's going to stay that way, get over the gastric pain it causes you. And that is the main reason why there are so many malcontents on there. Perhaps, perhaps not, but that is neither here nor there, and a problem of yours. Stop trying to make it someone elses problem. It's everyone's problem unless, of course, you are one of the malcontents who enjoys ruining other people's fun. CB is not like that in my area. We have one channel with the lulu's,,the rest yield great local roundtables and everyone radio-wise pretty much knows everyone else. Being so close to Philthy, I can understand why CB must be mess in your area. Those people are vile. Yes they are. Ironically, in my new area, there is one channel with any decent local activity. But as luck would have it, the people on the channel rarely just "talk". They are usually involved with showing off another new noise toy, or engaging in the verbal equivalent of WWF smackdown. The rest of the band is pretty much dead now. I'd love to have it they way you have described. Even the youngest, still wet-behind-the-ears hooligan will tell you that they tend to partake in more mischief if they have less of a chance of being caught. It's sad that your trust in fellow man has eroded to such a point. Most of us look for the good in people, not the bad. I look for the good in people too. It's a shame that it's getting harder and harder to find. Yup, it is, but that doesn't shake my faith of always seeing the glass half full and noting the good instead of the bad in most cases..that's why it's called "faith". I tend to look at a glass that has 50% contents as half full also. The problem is that when running across people, with respect to morality and consideration, it seems that the glass is slowly dropping below 50%, and it's hard to see the positive side. Wanting to believe that some people are good, does not change the fact that a great number are bad. I am a realist, I deal with reality, not how I'd like it to be. Not true at all. You subscribe to socialist views and rhetoric,,,this is NOT how America is, but how you wish it would be. You know, I really have to laugh when you accuse me of being a socialist. That is so far off track it's really funny. I am the biggest fan of the free market, capitalism, freedom, and personal responsibility. Hell, I'm voting for Bush, that's about as far away from a socialist as you can get. The majority of American's (THANK GOD) do not subscribe to your bull**** about allowing the authorities and anyone else an open book to your life "if you don't have anything to hide". As I stated before, I am a big supporter of the concept of freedom. But with the RIGHT of freedom, comes the RESPONSIBILITY to follow the rules of civilized society. It's not a free ride. If a significant percentage of the population fails to recognize their responsibility as a member of this civilized society, then their rights should be proportionally removed as well. If people choose to hide behind the freedom and "right" of privacy in order to commit crimes or subvert the moral framework of society, then I am in favor of plugging those loopholes in our Constitution which allows this type of malcontented behavior to proliferate. People who live honest, righteous lives have nothing to worry about, as nothing will change. Only those with something to hide (or lose) will have any fear. When I see people complaining loudly about this logic, I have to wonder what it is that they are hiding........ _ That one would seek to mete out "accountability" for posting one's opinion in usenet illustrates a freak, dude! Not at all. If you are attempting to pass yourself and your opinions off in a serious discussion, with any sort of credibility, you have to be accountable for what you say. In a group dedicated to mere posting concerning an anonymous hobby, what type accountability and credibility do you seek? How long have you looked to cb venues seeking "serious" discussion? Please try not to answer a question with a question. How long have you looked to anonymous cb venues on the internet seeking "serious" discussion? As long as I have been here. I am an engineer, and I've been repairing and working on radios for close to 30 years, so I have an interest in serious technical topics, as they relate to CB. So now it's your turn: So then, you are of the opinion that this forum should be nothing more than an unimpeded free-for-all with no rules or decorum? Discussions about technical topics should be taken at face value, without the parties displaying their credentials? Now you're catching on. No credentials needed for usenet posting, nor is the "identity", that has you reeling. So as someone looking for technical information, you should take "bad" advice at face value, without even the hint that it might be "bad" advice? What accountability is there if someone takes someone's "bad" advice and in the process ruins a once perfectly good radio? It doesn't take any special courage or daring to make inflammatory comments while hiding behind an anonymous handle. No doubt about it. Same can be said for radio. Merely possessing your hammie call doesn't abdicate you from being anonymous if you wanted. Same goes for this forum. People identify on ham radio for a reason. Yea,,,,,,it's the law. Hmmm.... The law states that it's illegal to talk on the freeband, yet it doesn't stop you. With hams (At least the good ones), following the rules is not just a requirement, it's part of preserving the service as a usable venue for the many facets that the service offers. People don't identify on CB for the same reason. Wrong. One is NOT required to identify on CB. No, they are not required to. But the fact that many go out of their way to conceal who they are, imply a certain suspicious motive. I have far more to be suspicious of, when someone is afraid to identify themselves. That is your right. And it's the majority of the rest of the world's right to be suspicious of you seeking another's identity on usenet, especially when you didn't listen to the world of security experts when they told you not to post publicly to the internet with your personal information. I have nothing to hide. One might wonder about you though. What dark secret prevents you from revealing who you are? There indeed are areas of the internet that a certain amount of identity is required, but usenet, especially a cb group, is not one of them. This is a very rare concern that has no relation to your life and voiced only by a bitter few. Again, if there is no accountability, then there is nothing to prevent the forum for degenerating into spam postings, vulgar language, and general lack of respect. Sound familiar? Do you LIKE what this forum has become? I have to wonder what they are hiding from. Why should anyone take what a person like that says seriously, when they don't have the character to identify themselves? Depends what you define as "identify". **In your case, you ask for names, backgrounds, etc, of those who you disagree with on usenet. I have NEVER asked for specific personal details. However, a person's name, and their credentials will establish their expertise in related topics. Who would you be most likely to believe on matters of radio, someone firmly established in the art, with a good education and background, or someone with the vague identifier: "Rubber Duck"? Not even a valiant attempt. Some of those "good educations" you refer have posted directions on how to destroy your radio in the form of mods. This is exactly the reason one should take everything on the internet with a grain of salt. Apparently, you believe otherwise. But, you see, if someone posted a well written, but "poison" mod as a dupe to unsuspecting CBers, then that person needs to held accountable for that. Thank you for making my case for me. And perhaps, just,,perhaps, because the entire world of security experts SAY SO? *That is a bit of an exaggeration and a stretch of the truth. No, it's not at all. I have not read anywhere where any "expert" tells you not to post on a forum with your real name. The do caution you not to reveal too many details, like SSN, credit card info, or other unrelated personal details. I don't ask for any more detail than what a callsign lookup on QRZ.com would provide. _ What type accountability is it you wish to foster upon those who dare say something on usenet with which you may disagree? There is nothing wrong with a healthy disagreement. But when you make unfounded character assassinations against those you disagree with and then run and hide behind your cloak of anonymity, that's not the sign of a mature person. If it were a true character assassination and something was injurous or libelous, and IF you actually believed that bull**** and cared enough to actually want to do something about it, there are simple channels to follow and remedy the situation. Are you suggesting that there are ways to identify someone who takes serious steps to hide their identity? If unfounded character assassinations (libel) was committed, absolutely. How? When people hide behind anonymous remailers, servers, public WIFI access nodes, and NAT routers, how can you find out exactly who they are? Or are you saying that we all should just have to deal with abusive insulting and libelous comments because they are not worth the trouble to pursue seriously? You said that. I'm asking if that is how you feel? If my emotions were to take over, I would simply trn the thing off and walk away. No one is forcing you to partake in what you view as an injurous electronic arena. It is your choice. The same "turn it to the left" mentality that abusive CBers use to force good people off of the CB band? Decent people should be forced to yield to malcontents, rather than fight back? I believe in the example of not saying something on a forum, that you wouldn't have the cajones to say to someone's face. Very noble. Many agree with you. Obviously, those like Dogie, do not. Doug has personal issues of his own. I suspect they transcend those of radio operation. The fact is that being anonymous eliminates the small chance that the person you may insult might someday show up at your door to have you "explain" yourself in person, thereby removing that little bit of polite restraint you might otherwise have. I have incredible restraint and am overly polite, even to you in many instances when you began reambling off-topic with insult. I invite anyone who has a problem with me to come forward. How does one "come forward" if we don't know who you are or where you live? ...of course, those who do, encapsulate the very idea you are railing against...not identifying themselevs, only it doesn't bother me like it does you. I have an open door policy and will meet anyone from this group for coffee, fishing, or to continue our rec.radio.cb debates. Ok, I'm coming to Orlando in October. I might make a detour to Tampa. Where do you want to meet? So far, I have met several from this forum and plan on meeting more. If I didn't fish for the day, and we didn't talk about politics or cb, I am certain you and I would get along just fine on the boat for an afternoon ride talking of nothing but hammie radio. Nothing wrong about talking about CB. I love the hobby (at least in the old days), and I could tell you a few good stories. But in order for you to talk authoritatively about hammie radio, that would imply that you are a ham yourself (or at least should be). You've implied similar before. The fact that you won't admit it one way or the other probably speaks more about your fear of identification, considering your admitted behavior on the freeband. Don't worry, I have a whole website full of past antics, and no one has busted me yet. As I've said before, I have nothing to hide...... Anonymity is the enabler for people to act inappropriately, and rudely. Using the excuse that privacy overrides acting in a civilized manner is weak IMHO. No one suggested such..but the gist of it, is that American's are afforded the right to act like idiots, even it offends you to no end. Using the excuse that it ought be over-ridden is what is weak. So then you assert that an American's right to act like an anti-social idiot deserves more consideration than other people's right to expect civilized behavior in public places? At the very least, if this occurred, one could surely prove such and illustrate the passage in the person's isp that relates to such behavior and the service will take action. Usually ISP's will not yank someone's account unless they become serious problems. Well, that's what you were talking about, Davie..those serious "malcontents", I believe was the word you used. Simply speaking one's opinion (however insulting or rude) is still a 1st amendment right, and ISP's are reluctant to go down that road. You weren't talking of an opinion, Davie, you spoke of character assassination. Character assassination is either based on truth, or opinion. If the claims are true then they deserve to be brought out. If they are simply opinions, then it becomes a process to determine whether there was any "real" damage done. Again this becomes complicated if people "hide" well. Having your identity known, at least tempers the temptation to act like a retard. And goes against everything the world of security experts and all isp's tell you. As far as I know, acting like "a retard" is perfectly legal, but if you had your way, anything you deemed 'acting like a retard" would most certainly be illegal. Acting rude, inconsiderate, or anti-social, is also not illegal, but it's not something a civilized person would do in a public forum. Therein lies the answer to what ails you. Not all people in public forums are civilized. Nevertheless, these traits you consider uncivilized, exist in these "bad" people you speak of, and unfortunately the word is made up of good AND bad people. So then what is your conclusion? Should good people be turned away from public forums (Both radio and internet) by the behavior of the bad people? Do good people not have some right to protection from the worst of the bad people? Isn't this in the best interest of society? Is the right of privacy so important that you would allow it to supersede keeping public places to at least a minimum amount of decorum? Why should this newsgroup be treated any differently than an in-person venue? I happen to agree with you on this item, but why should others be forced or made to conform to our view? They shouldn't. Why not? Personal freedom does not (or should not) extend to the ruination of other people's freedom or right of access. I would not want to make these activities "illegal". If you want to act like a retard, by all means, go for it! But we all have the right to know who it is that is acting like the retard so that they can properly face the repercussions that that type of behavior brings. No,,you don't have the right to know the identity of one just because you feel he is acting like a retard. If the behavior is continual and affects more than just one person, then that changes things. But,,keeping with this thought you put forward, you just described exactly what happened to Dogie. As it should be. Everyone who acts in that manner should be removed from society where they can no longer harm the activities of others. That's what I mean by accountability. If you had to "face the music" for acting inappropriately, you would eventually adopt an incentive to NOT act that way. The quality of the forums would increase considerably. What you feel constitutes "quality" is the opposite of what many others feel. The loss of personal privacy in this world is never an improvement in the quality of anything. Why? Why should it matter if people know who you are? Are you THAT paranoid? You do? Shall we take those inquiries one at a time concerning those unanswered claims you were asked to provide for? You said a cber was busted in your area awhile back and went through the courts. I politely called you on it and asked you to provide some of this "credibility" you speak of and demand of the rest of the usenet world. You became insultive and began attacking myself and going off-topic without providing anything but lipservice. You have failed to produce any of this "credibility' you demand of others, concerning your claim. Gee, that's not the way I remember it. We can post those posts one by one, if the need be. Same with the Phelps. Perhaps it will jog your failing memory. I remember making the claim that some I knew personally was popped by local cops for interference relating to his CB radio. You challenged the validity of my claim, AFTER you refused to cite a credible source, and only after did I "challenge the validity" of your claim. I don't have a credible source. I didn't "find" the incident. I was personally involved with it. first by trying to find some sort of difference between "a suburb of" and "suburban", suggesting that I was lying. You are lying now. YOU were the one to invoke the word "suburb", not I, and you invoked it when the heat got to hot and you realized, like said, the court documents would confirm your story. I note you originally claimed it happened IN Philthadelphia, I never EVER claimed that it happened IN philthy. Never. I said that it happened in SUBURBAN (Meaning in the suburbs) of Philly. Why I chose that wording instead of just saying that it happened in Norristown, should be obvious. This is an international forum. Ask someone from another geographical area if they're ever heard of a relatively small town (such as Norristown) and they will most likely not. But mention a popular city as a geographical point of reference, and it's another story. and when I pressed on, you began the back pedal What you call "back pedal" I call "clarification. Nothing changed except the precise wording. and insults, playing games and getting elusive and only then invoking "suburban" Philly. You provided nothing to this day concerning this alleged case except more posts full of lipservice and smoke.. What more do you want? I told you all the details. I never knew the defendant's last name (part of that anonymity aspect of CB) only that the name he went by was "Floyd" (Which from other people, is his middle name, his fist name is Anthony). It happened in Norristown Pa (A suburb of philly) in the late 90's. When you failed to find any information AFTER you claimed it was in Philly, I never claimed it was IN philly. You will not find any post which claims that. That you feel that suburban philly means the same thing as IN philly was your mistake. and AFTER you failed to provide anything at all concerning this case other than your lipservice. I don't need to go through the trouble to pacify you. If you want to go through the trouble to request (at your cost) microfiche records, then go for it. But because you can't find it on the internet, does not mean that it doesn't exist, nor that I "lied" about it. you again inferred that I was lying. You were, and are. Nope. It was the truth. I only wish I had a way to prove it to you, so you can feel as foolish as you should. Even when I told you the exact town, You never said the exact town and if you did, you NEVER linked it with the case you claim occurred or in the same thread. Since you claim otherwise, force feed me some crow, Davie, and show the world where you told me what town the cber got busted in and went to court. Just another in that long line of unsubstantiated bull****,,,, You asked for it, you got it: Enjoy your crow.... http://groups.google.com/groups?q=No...x.net&rnum= 1 you were unable to find anything, which is not surprising considering how poorly the town keeps records.. But what have you actually proven? That you can't correctly "recall" what occurred in past posts, but we all realized that with your goof on the Phelps that you claimed you owned, then when asked about your Phelps a few years later, replied "What Phelps? I WISH I had a Phelps Stationmaster"...LOL,,THAT was the exact antenna you claimed you owned a few years earler. 7 or 8 years earlier. An antenna that was a part of a repeater system, not my own shack. B. That you were unable to locate any information on the subject. (note that this doesn't mean that there isn't any) Your ASSuming ignorance in getting in the way of your sense. I looked for nothing on any "subject". I specifically looked for the case you cited as receiving a citation. It never happened. You can't look for something and expect to find much without key particulars, like the defendant's name, which I can't give you as I didn't know all of it. Not all information is available on the internet. I am telling it as someone who was there who knew the party involved. I know what happened. If that isn't enough for you, then so be it. Hehe,,it's not me,,it's the law of the land when it comes right down to it,,the burden of proof is always on the claimant. It is not like a scientist yelling "The world is flat. I dare you to disprove me....haha". One doesn't need disprove another's ramblings concerning their own specialty. In such cases, one merely asks them for their proof and watches them fall apart. It's true as far as I'm concerned. You made it one of your life's goals to disprove it. If you want to believe that I lied, then feel free. It doesn't make nay difference to me, or to the guy who had to pay a fine because of it Defending my position and questioning your logic is hardly "attacking" you on a personal level. When you continue to say "I know it happened and it isn't enough for *you*,,that is making it personal, as once again, I didn't make the rules of society, I merely conform to them and in society, the burden of proof is on the claimant, that's just the way it is. Yet you ignore certain other rules of society when it suits you. Pardon me if I don't buy this high road of societal responsibility you are attempting to drive on. That you cannot understand how someone would not understand your initial reference to an antenna that was part of a 10 year old repeater system, and took my apparent unfamiliarity as a sign of lying is not my problem. Of course it is. You have already demonstrated you are not familiar with curent FCC law regarding the governing of CB. Now, how many CBer's and hammies present that are posting regs like yourself, can not remember an antenna they had, especially if it was part of THEIR repeater system. Quite a few. Especially when hit with a quick question from out in left field. I don't look at the repeater system's equipment as "my personal station". In fact, the majority can recall just about every radio set-up they ever had. I grew up in a home with a moonraker IV many years ago. If someone asked me "still have the moonraker?".....I would have immediately recalled the antenna to mind and so would the majority of radio ops. But not you. If one doesnt lie, one needs not worry about remembering such bull****. I never had a stationmaster as part of my antenna system, so I won't remember it. and accountability to say so in a serious and mature manner. If I misbehave like the hordes of anonymous posters on this group, it becomes a simple matter to rectify the situation. It's not up to you Davie, to rectify anything. THAT'S your problem...you think it is. It should be every person's responsibility to "rectify" the problem in order to preserve civility. You said you are realist,yet here you sit posting the opposite and telling us how "it SHOULD be", right after posting you don't partake in such behavior. Nothing hypocritical about it at all. It's one thing to live and work in the real world, and deal with it as such. It's another to ponder how to correct the ills of society. I recognize the faults of society and deal with them within my limits. But that doesn't prevent me from looking for a better solution See? Your bull**** is so deep, you can't recall what you wrote a few paragraphs ago. You are so confrontational and literal that you take every small nuance difference as a contradiction. _ You are illustrating the risks of the internet perfectly with your citing "bad" people,,,,,all the more reason to follow the internet security experts advice, Davie. Just because one doesn't post with their real name, Davie, doesn't make them "baaad" people. No, that in itself doesn't. I never said that all people who post anonymously are "bad", but it is by far more tempting for them to be, rather than if they are easily identified. Now you are concerning yourself with the temptations to your fellow man caused by anonynmity on the internet. If this is what you need concern yourself with, you lead a blessed life. There is a difference between identifying the source of a problem and "concern" for it. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Wrong. Your entire point revolving around having nothing to hide is invalid and anti-American and is NOT the way we do things herte in the USA, at least, not yet. If you have nothing to hide, you are more likely to be up front about your motives. That's NOT what you said,,,you said if you have nothing to fear then you have nothing to hide, and THAT, my friend is Orwellian totalitarian bull****. No, I said if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. I shouldn't have to explain the nuances to you. If you have nothing to hide, you are more likely to be up front and honest (That is the "fear"). People who insist on anonymity are suspicious right from the start. I give you Thomas Paine. I don't want him. What is it about their presence, ideas, or opinion would predicate a need to remain anonymous? Unfair retailiation by neanderthals who feel they have a right to decide how others should live. Woah! So you believe that it is unfair that people who state their position should be held accountable? People should be allowed to lob anonymous rhetoric bombs for little more than disruption of society, without repercussions? We all have rights, and we all have responsibilities. You have as much of a voice in policy as I do. But if you want to be taken seriously, have the balls to sign your name to the bottom. Unfair imposition by those who don't agree with what was written. Oppressive governments, like the one that is responsible for people like you being scared into giving up liberties in the name of temporary security. People who feel they are somehow owed an explanation by internet posters and retaliate with personal attacks concerning offtopic and inquiries of personal matters and lives. The reasons are endless. And equally valid. You have yet to justify a good reason why someone should be allowed to hide behind a cloak of anonymity. If their intentions are serious and worthy of note, then they have nothing to fear by attaching their name to the bottom. Conversely, why should anyone take seriously anything written by someone who doesn't have the intellectual fortitude to sign their name to it.? That implies a nefarious motive. Only to those seeking to curb liberties and freedoms. If the internet is so bad, why continue to harp about the place you continue to frequent? It's not like you are part of the solution or anythiing, as your posts are impotent when relating to what governs usenet posting concerning identity. Interestingly, I am involved on a peripheral basis, with the proposed technology changes which would make internet identification automatic. It would eliminate security concerns for people engaged in internet commerce. It would also reduce or eliminate spammers, criminals, and other purveyors of the dark side of the internet. So I am somewhat a part of the eventual solution. Any desire that I might have to talk long distance can easily be taken care of LEGALLY on the ham bands, so your conjecture is like many of your others, just plain wrong. The hammie bands are dead for HF DX,,they got nothing on eleven meter, including freeband. Hello? There is nothing magical about propagation on 11 meters. If 11 meters is open then 10, 12, and 15 are also open. Once again,,they got nothing (in other words, there is no comparison) on eleven meter. The crowds simply aren't there to make the contacts as they are on 11. And that is a BAD thing? I prefer quality to quantity. I prefer to have an hour long QSO with a DX station without having to swat at the DX chasers like flys who are constantly barging in on frequency. When 11 isn't open, I can still talk on 20, 40, 80 and 160 meters. If you want DX, there's no more consistent place to find it than on one of the several ham bands. Depends what you define as DX. I prefer HF DX, no repeaters, my own low power and rig. Nothing but me and mutha' nature. Why would someone consider operating through a repeater as DX? On the HF ham bands DX is normally considered anything that is not stateside. On VHF and higher, DX could be 100 miles, or the moon. When the sunspot cycle is high, 11 is wide open, and talking DX is like shooting fish in a barrel. Shooting fish in a barrel was pioneered by repeaters for HF DX not cb. Who is talking about repeaters? Where are there repeaters on any band below 10 meters? Get it right. 11 meter is much more difficult than 10 meter repeater contacts. How difficult can it be when you have all those "crowds"? But right now, the cycle is low, and DX opportunities are sporadic. I'm betting that I'll find more DX opportunities on the H.F bands than you will solely on 11 at the current time. BTW, Who is Kim T. Hall? Exactly. Exactly what? Or is that whom? Either way will work. Evasive are we? So who is Kim T. Hall? A relation of mine perhaps? One that you found through some sort of internet search? That's the funny thing about having a name like mine. I might as well be anonymous as common as the name is. It's hard to sift through all the information your searches come up with when you enter my name in. Oh, and you might not believe this, but I'm glad that you survived the storm. I don't like to see bad things happen to anyone. Why would I not believe that? Only subhumans wish ill will on others for stating their opinions. So at least I'm higher than a subhuman on your scale eh? Oh yea. I think you're one who gets caught p in the moment while posting. So you believe that there's some hope for me eh? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: I can't help note but you have begun your games again, selectively snipping questions you pose and have great difficulty when given replies with which you disagree. Editing your gaffes so that they no longer appear illustrates only that you not only recognize such self-created buffoonery, but go to great lengths to attempt to conceal it. By introducing the behavior of selective snipping and editing of your replies, you have intentionally compromised the thread. What you fail to comprehend is such behavior merely serves to facilitate your own degrading commmunicative skills. _ CB IS anonymous, it's going to stay that way, get over the gastric pain it causes you. And that is the main reason why there are so many malcontents on there. Perhaps, perhaps not, but that is neither here nor there, and a problem of yours. Stop trying to make it someone elses problem. It's everyone's problem unless, No, it's not everyone's problem,,it's YOUR problem. Not everyone sees CB as full of malcontents. Some see hammies like yourself as the malcontents for feeling you have some sort inalienable right to demand cbers jump through the same hoops you must jump through regarding hammie radio. of course, you are one of the malcontents who enjoys ruining other people's fun. CB is not like that in my area. We have one channel with the lulu's,,the rest yield great local roundtables and everyone radio-wise pretty much knows everyone else. Being so close to Philthy, I can understand why CB must be mess in your area. Those people are vile. Yes they are. Ironically, in my new area, there is one channel with any decent local activity. But as luck would have it, the people on the channel rarely just "talk". They are usually involved with showing off another new noise toy, or engaging in the verbal equivalent of WWF smackdown. The rest of the band is pretty much dead now. I'd love to have it they way you have described. Then what is preventing from you from getting on that channel and speaking your mind to those people as you do on here concerning your radical and minority beliefs. After all, that would make you proactive instead of reactive like you have always been here, and I am certain we can count on you to offer your beliefs to those on the air using those noise toys that have you bleeding from the ears and nose, because we all know you believe in saying the same things here as you would face to face. Try it with the noise toys and on the radio with these people,,tell them they are the equivalent of the WWF. Report back. Even the youngest, still wet-behind-the-ears hooligan will tell you that they tend to partake in more mischief if they have less of a chance of being caught. It's sad that your trust in fellow man has eroded to such a point. Most of us look for the good in people, not the bad. I look for the good in people too. It's a shame that it's getting harder and harder to find. Yup, it is, but that doesn't shake my faith of always seeing the glass half full and noting the good instead of the bad in most cases..that's why it's called "faith". I tend to look at a glass that has 50% contents as half full also. Not with CB, society, the FCC, and personal privacy rights you don't The problem is that when running across people, with respect to morality and consideration, it seems that the glass is slowly dropping below 50%, and it's hard to see the positive side. That IS a problem of yours, no doubt. I still find the majority of people to be good hearted. Must be southern thing (shrug),,if I'm wrong, I'm sure a yankee will correct me to say it is you that are wrong and that people, even in the north, are generally good people. Wanting to believe that some people are good, does not change the fact that a great number are bad. I am a realist, I deal with reality, not how I'd like it to be. Not true at all. You subscribe to socialist views and rhetoric,,,this is NOT how America is, but how you wish it would be. You know, I really have to laugh when you accuse me of being a socialist. It's true, In fact, this is another of those little times that I will not only remind you that we have had this conversation long ago and many times, but that in what remains one of my more favorite exchanges with you, you not only embrace socialist beliefs, but go as far as to DEFEND those beliefs and offer several reasons WHY you believe that bull****. That is so far off track it's really funny. You not being aware of how snowballed this adminsitration has sheople like you isn't at all funny, it's frighteningly pathetic. I am the biggest fan of the free market, capitalism, freedom, and personal responsibility. Hell, I'm voting for Bush, that's about as far away from a socialist as you can get. I'll make this very simple. Bush swore with his hand upon the Bible that he would uphold and protect the constitution. Immediately after taking office, he launched an assault upon it. His reasons for doing so are irrelevant, as are yours. _ The majority of American's (THANK GOD) do not subscribe to your bull**** about allowing the authorities and anyone else an open book to your life "if you don't have anything to hide". As I stated before, I am a big supporter of the concept of freedom. Except when it comes to others exercising THEIR freedoms that you think should be curbed,,such as the right to anonymity on the internet, just for starters. But with the RIGHT of freedom, comes the RESPONSIBILITY to follow the rules of civilized society. It's not a free ride. Ride? What is this ride you speak of? You have rambled from speaking of anonymity on the net, (one's right) and your problems with it saying one shouldn;t have that right, and once again linked CB to society and presented your problems with all three in discombobulated fashion. You still need that vacation, Dave. If a significant percentage of the population fails to recognize their responsibility as a member of this civilized society, then their rights should be proportionally removed as well. 3% of the population of the US HAVE been "proportionally removed" due to poorly constructed laws that created non-violent criminals. We have more incarcerations than any other country on Earth. Keeping with your radical and oppressive beliefs, we must have the worst, evil, people to be found on the planet, eh? If people choose to hide behind the freedom and "right" of privacy in order to commit crimes or subvert the moral framework of society, then I am in favor of plugging those loopholes in our Constitution which allows this type of malcontented behavior to proliferate. Again, Thank God the majority do not share your belief. Free society is not perfect and those "loopholes" will always be there in order to make a free society work. Plugging what you wrongly refer to as "loopholes" in the US Constitution does nothing but take away rights of ALL Americans, whether they choose to exercise those rights or not. Just because you choose not to, you damn sure don't have the right to tell others that they should not be able to exercise same and as it stands now, such is the law. People who live honest, righteous lives have nothing to worry about, as nothing will change. Bull****. Over 50 people have been exonerated by DNA this year alone for crimes they were wrongly accused. Just last week a man was released from death row after 22 years when a DNA completely abdicated and absolved him from the murder for which he was doing time. I won't even bother to inform you of the rate of crooked cops in cities like LA and NY, as you are myopically not aware and it is apparent that you feel these innocent victims who lose their lives and families are just the acceptable kill and error ratio. Only those with something to hide (or lose) will have any fear. Again, bull****. When I see people complaining loudly about this logic, I have to wonder what it is that they are hiding........ And when people see you demanding personal identity of usenet posters which goes against all advice from experts and security experts and privacy experts, especially when taken into consideration the usenet group is dedicated to CB, an anonymous hobby, the majorty has to wonder why it is you seek such personal information as it is not relevant to anyone but yourself in this group.. _ That one would seek to mete out "accountability" for posting one's opinion in usenet illustrates a freak, dude! Not at all. If you are attempting to pass yourself and your opinions off in a serious discussion, with any sort of credibility, you have to be accountable for what you say. In a group dedicated to mere posting concerning an anonymous hobby, what type accountability and credibility do you seek? How long have you looked to cb venues seeking "serious" discussion? So then, you are of the opinion that this forum should be nothing more than an unimpeded free-for-all with no rules or decorum? Please try not to answer a question with a question. How long have you looked to anonymous cb venues on the internet seeking "serious" discussion? As long as I have been here. I am an engineer, and I've been repairing and working on radios for close to 30 years, so I have an interest in serious technical topics, as they relate to CB. Well, there is yet another problem of yours that you answered yourself. Since you see this specific forum as such a poor venue, you need to look to other places for your needs, 'casue you been at it for years here pitching your bitch about CB yet you still haven't figured out that you are not going to to control others actions. Of course, you can invoke that "fence sitter" that never posts and claim you are trying to reach this mythical creature. Perhaps that will allow you to believe a slight victory and you won't feel like you are waging a fight that "has to start somewhere" to clean up radio to the point you wish it. So now it's your turn: So then, you are of the opinion that this forum should be nothing more than an unimpeded free-for-all with no rules or decorum? I do not concern myself with the manner in which usenet is constructed. You have so many problems with this group, but crying about what you don't like is reactive, Dave. It won't change a thing. I mean, now you're alluding to the manner in which this group is governed..somehing totally transparent to you or I and beyond your ability to do anything about. Have you ever realized you spend a great deal of time worrying about something over which you have no control? Of course, you do. It drives you to frustration and it manifests here. Discussions about technical topics should be taken at face value, without the parties displaying their credentials? Now you're catching on. No credentials needed for usenet posting, nor is the "identity", that has you reeling. So as someone looking for technical information, you should take "bad" advice at face value, without even the hint that it might be "bad" advice? What accountability is there if someone takes someone's "bad" advice and in the process ruins a once perfectly good radio? No accountabilty, which is why the internet and isps and usenet have discalimers you agree to prior to being able to access such information. You are really wound tighter than a slinky, Dave. You tend to forget, deliberate, bad information has been posted here by a certain hammie scumbag, that gave directions on how to ruin a radio,,,, disguised as a mod. Sorry you feel what you find on usenet and the internet is so credible. No wonder you are voting for Bush, as only the gullible are doing so. It doesn't take any special courage or daring to make inflammatory comments while hiding behind an anonymous handle. No doubt about it. Same can be said for radio. Merely possessing your hammie call doesn't abdicate you from being anonymous if you wanted. Same goes for this forum. People identify on ham radio for a reason. Yea,,,,,,it's the law. Hmmm.... The law states that it's illegal to talk on the freeband, yet it doesn't stop you. Freebanding has nothing to do with hammies identifying "on ham radio for a reason". Try and remain on your invoked topic. You claimed people identify on the hammie radio for the same reason,,,,,you're wrong. It's the law to identify on hammie radio, it is NOT the law to identify on usenet or cb, but you have really been confused with the law lately, as it relates to CB. With hams (At least the good ones), following the rules is not just a requirement, it's part of preserving the service as a usable venue for the many facets that the service offers. People don't identify on CB for the same reason. Wrong. One is NOT required to identify on CB. No, they are not required to. But the fact that many go out of their way to conceal who they are, imply a certain suspicious motive. Heheh,,,,of course they do, that is what one is supposed to do on cb,,,conceal their personal identity. You really don't know much about anything CB related. I have far more to be suspicious of, when someone is afraid to identify themselves. That is your right. And it's the majority of the rest of the world's right to be suspicious of you seeking another's identity on usenet, especially when you didn't listen to the world of security experts when they told you not to post publicly to the internet with your personal information. I have nothing to hide. One might wonder about you though. What dark secret prevents you from revealing who you are? Oh, I have no problem revealing who I am...in person. What great fear stops you from completing your mission concerning my personal information? If you wanted to know that bad, you would come down and meet me like others have..unless, of course, you have some dark secret fear, preventing you from doing so, and you would rather whine and cry here about something so bloody off-topic that only you are consumed with it. In that way, there is no danger of you having to live up to your word and saying things in person instead of on usenet that are offtopic, such as personal information. _ There indeed are areas of the internet that a certain amount of identity is required, but usenet, especially a cb group, is not one of them. This is a very rare concern that has no relation to your life and voiced only by a bitter few. Again, if there is no accountability, then there is nothing to prevent the forum for degenerating into spam postings, vulgar language, and general lack of respect. Sound familiar? Sure does, ,,,, as only you are heretically demanding accountablilty from usenet internet strangers. Lets see,,,,who would you start with? LMOA.....you're fallen and twisted yourself again, dude.. Do you LIKE what this forum has become? =A0=A0 I do. I have met many good folks, I have daily emails with regs, I have anything in the manner of radio, cb, hammie equipment I could possibly want, and I owe much of it to this group. tyvm. I have to wonder what they are hiding from. Why should anyone take what a person like that says seriously, when they don't have the character to identify themselves? Depends what you define as "identify". =A0=A0In your case, you ask for names, backgrounds, etc, of those who you disagree with on usenet. I have NEVER asked for specific personal details. Sure you have. You have inquired as to my work on past occasion, what town I live in, my name, my call sign,,,why, in fact, you have overly concerned yourslef with my identity for years and you;re still doing it..look at the lenght of this thread,,,all because you are still experiencing growing pains because the law regarding internet use is not the way you wish it. Another example of what you want and not the way the realism exists. However, a person's name, and their credentials will establish their expertise in related topics. Who would you be most likely to believe on matters of radio, someone firmly established in the art, with a good education and background, or someone with the vague identifier: "Rubber Duck"? Not even a valiant attempt. Some of those "good educations" you refer have posted directions on how to destroy your radio in the form of mods. This is exactly the reason one should take everything on the internet with a grain of salt. Apparently, you believe otherwise. But, you see, if someone posted a well written, but "poison" mod as a dupe to unsuspecting CBers, then that person needs to held accountable for that. Thank you for making my case for me. No, they DON'T need held accountable for that. If you read your user agreements when accessig the internet and usenet and all that governs such, you would find disclaimers for such info. This is where your socialist views and censorship are magnified. You have maintained in the past that, for example, instructions for homemade bombs (just for a SINGLE of endless examples) should be censored. Your argument is weak. If the information is out there, you want the person that put the information out there to be "held accountable. Since that is the way you feel, why did you agree to the terms of usenet access via your isp ? Since you no longer agree to the terms of service, you should inform your isp of your decision. _ And perhaps, just,,perhaps, because the entire world of security experts SAY SO? That is a bit of an exaggeration and a stretch o f the truth. No, it's not at all. I have not read anywhere where any "expert" tells you not to post on a forum with your real name. Not surprised. You haven't read the laws in over twenty years governing CB radio, and you haven't read your terms of services, either. The do caution you not to reveal too many details, like SSN, credit card info, or other unrelated personal details. Wrong,,,they do not say 'details",,,they say "personal information" and your semantic slide is not achieving the shift for which you were reaching. I don't ask for any more detail than what a callsign lookup on QRZ.com would provide. Yet, you carry on and invoke your own version of what usenet SHOULD be and how YOU feel it should operate when you are denied this information. Despite your claim, your views are NOT those of a realist, but of one who clamors for a way in which it simply isn't. |
(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: I can't help note but you have begun your games again, selectively snipping questions Deer Lowered!!! Someone should snip this ****ing scroll.. Webtv blows for usenet, Twist. :) |
"Steveo" wrote in message
... (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: I can't help note but you have begun your games again, selectively snipping questions Deer Lowered!!! Someone should snip this ****ing scroll.. Webtv blows for usenet, Twist. :) Yeah Twist. WebTV can't be the only provider in your area. ick! :-) -Dr.X (makin' noise in the sand pile) |
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. |
Sorry Dave, had to run out for awhile. Let us carry on,,,,
Part III From: N3CVJ Why should this newsgroup be treated any differently than an in-person venue? I happen to agree with you on this item, but why should others be forced or made to conform to our view? They shouldn't. Why not? Because they have the same rights as we do. Personal freedom does not (or should not) extend to the ruination of other people's freedom or right of access. And usenet does neither, nor does CB. Your argument makes the point against the Patriot Act quite nicely, though. I would not want to make these activities "illegal". If you want to act like a retard, by all means, go for it! But we all have the right to know who it is that is acting like the retard so that they can properly face the repercussions that that type of behavior brings. No,,you don't have the right to know the identity of one just because you feel he is acting like a retard. If the behavior is continual and affects more than just one person, then that changes things. Well now, the word "if" and the entrance of injurous posts constitutes an entirely new concept and has no relation to you claiming you have the right to know one's identity on usenet merely because you feel he is "acting like a retard". Nice shuffle, but it non-effective. But,,keeping with this thought you put forward, you just described exactly what happened to Dogie. As it should be. Everyone who acts in that manner should be removed from society where they can no longer harm the activities of others. Wrong." Acting like a retard" is not illegal. That's what I mean by accountability. If you had to "face the music" for acting inappropriately, you would eventually adopt an incentive to NOT act that way. The quality of the forums would increase considerably. What you feel constitutes "quality" is the opposite of what many others feel. The loss of personal privacy in this world is never an improvement in the quality of anything. Why? Why should it matter if people know who you are? Are you THAT paranoid? Why is none of your concern. Why I choose to exercise my American birthrights is none of your concern. Once again, you are owed no explanation. _ Shall we take those inquiries one at a time concerning those unanswered claims you were asked to provide for? You said a cber was busted in your area awhile back and went through the courts. I politely called you on it and asked you to provide some of this "credibility" you speak of and demand of the rest of the usenet world. You became insultive and began attacking myself and going off-topic without providing anything but lipservice. You have failed to produce any of this "credibility' you demand of others, concerning your claim. Gee, that's not the way I remember it. We can post those posts one by one, if the n eed be. Same with the Phelps. Perhaps it will jog your failing memory. I remember making the claim that some I knew personally was popped by local cops for interference relating to his CB radio. You challenged the validity of my claim, AFTER you refused to cite a credible source, and only after did I "challenge the validity" of your claim. I don't have a credible source. I didn't "find" the incident. I was personally involved with it. Of course you don't and of course you were. There are those who insist they were abducted by aliens who also have no credible source. first by trying to find some sort of difference between "a suburb of" and "suburban", suggesting that I was lying. You are lying now. YOU were the one to invoke the word "suburb", not I, and you invoked it when the heat got to hot and you realized, like said, the court documents would confirm your story. I note you originally claimed it happened IN Philthadelphia, I never EVER claimed that it happened IN philthy. Never. I said that it happened in SUBURBAN (Meaning in the suburbs) of Exactly. And then you invoked Norristown, which is NOT a suburb of Philthy, NOT on any area maps of Philthy, and pays no bills or taxes to Philthy, and has no mail go through Philthy. It meets NONE of the criteria for a suburb of Philthy, ,,in fact, it's nowhere near Philthy.. Philly. Why I chose that wording instead of just saying that it happened in Norristown, should be obvious. It was. This is an international forum. Ask someone from another geographical area if they're ever heard of a relatively small town (such as Norristown) and they will most likely not. But mention a popular city as a geographical point of reference, and it's another story. =A0 This being an international forum doesn't stop you from invoking domestic (American) law, so you can;t invoke it as a defense for your beahvior now. _ =A0and when I pressed on, you began the back pedal What you call "back pedal" I call "clarification. Nothing changed except the precise wording. and insults, playing games and getting elusive and only then invoking "suburban" Philly. You provided nothing to this day concerning this alleged case except more posts full of lipservice and smoke.. What more do you want? Umm....perhaps this credibility you always speak of . You hold one who doesn't respond to your demands for personal information as not credible on usenet. The rest of the world holds one who makes claims with no substantiation as not credible. I told you all the details. I never knew the defendant's last name (part of that anonymity aspect of CB) only that the name he went by was "Floyd" (Which from other people, is his middle name, his fist name is Anthony). It happened in Norristown Pa (A suburb of philly) in the late 90's. When you failed to find any information AFTER you claimed it was in Philly, I never claimed it was IN philly. Sure you did,,,here it is again: "This happened about 5 years ago IN suburban Philadelphia.." You will not find any post which claims that. See above. That you feel that suburban philly means the same thing as IN philly was your mistake. Wrong. That you called it that with, once again, nothing to substantiate it except your belief, does not consititute what makes a suburbia of a city. Once again, some of those parameters are which defines a suburb of a city are outlined above and Norristown meets none of them. _ and AFTER you failed to provide anything at all concerning this case other than your lipservice. I don't need to go through the trouble to pacify you. Now if only you could apply that concept to yourself when demanding personal information and accountability from others..... If you want to go through the trouble to request (at your cost) microfiche records, No need. As far as a court of law would be concerned, I have presented the burden of proof that your claims were false. I have been "pacified" over this issue regardless or not of whether you feel that such is your decision. then go for it. But because you can't find it on the internet, does not mean that it doesn't exist, The internet is but a single entity and only you assume such. nor that I "lied" about it. you again inferred that I was lying. You were, and are. Nope. It was the truth. I only wish I had a way to prove it to you, so you can feel as foolish as you should. You are the one unable to provide for your claims. That you feel another should feel foolish for your inability to do so is troubling. Even when I told you the exact town, You never said the exact town and if you did, you NEVER linked it with the case you claim occurred or in the same thread. Since you claim otherwise, force feed me some crow, Davie, and show the world where you told me what town the cber got busted in and went to court. Just another in that long line of unsubstantiated bull****,,,, You asked for it, you got it: Enjoy your crow.... http://groups.google.com/groups?q=3D...oup:rec.radio= cb+author:Dave+author:Hall&hl=3Den&lr=3D&ie=3DUTF-8&c2coff=3D1&selm=3D3E4= 93556.2BA%40worldlynx.net&rnum=3D1 There it is again,,,,Norristown, a town that has nothing to do with Philadelphia except in your mind. You will find nothing anywhere denoting Norristown as even remotely associated as a suburb of Philthy. The more claims you make, the more you are unable to provide for. you were unable to find anything, which is not surprising considering how poorly the town keeps records.. But what have you actually proven? That you can't correctly "recall" what occurred in past posts, but we all realized that with your goof on the Phelps that you claimed you owned, then when asked about your Phelps a few years later, replied "What Phelps? I WISH I had a Phelps Stationmaster"...LOL,,THAT was the exact antenna you claimed you owned a few years earler. 7 or 8 years earlier. An antenna that was a part of a repeater system, not my own shack. Not "a" repeater system,,,YOUR repeater system. You referred to it as "my repeater". B. That you were unable to locate any information on the subject. (note that this doesn't mean that there isn't any) Your ASSuming ignorance in getting in the way of your sense. I looked for nothing on any "subject". I specifically looked for the case you cited as receiving a citation. It never happened. You can't look for something and expect to f ind much without key particulars, like the defendant's name, which I can't give you as I didn't know all of it. YOU not being able to doesn't mean others are unable. And sure I can, dave,,,I can do just that with the very simple process of elimination. You start with the town and backtrack to the corresponding year or two which you already gave us indirectly,,from there, one eliminates all charges except for discorderly conduct. From there, it's a matter of checking those charged with the offense in the corresponding time frame and walla walla,,,,,,,,,,and that is but one way of many and by far the easiest. Not all information is available on the internet. Exactly, so I have no clue why you continue to assume it is. I am telling it as someone who was there who knew the party involved. I know what happened. If that isn't enough for you, then so be it. Hehe,,it's not me,,it's the law of the land when it comes right down to it,,the burden of proof is always on the claimant. It is not like a scientist yelling "The world is flat. I dare you to disprove me....haha". One doesn't need disprove another's ramblings concerning their own specialty. In such cases, one merely asks them for their proof and watches them fall apart. It's true as far as I'm concerned. You made it one of your life's goals to disprove it. Actually, I merely asked you to provide for it and instead of simply saying you are unable (as I have always maintained), like you finally did today, you insuted me with a barrage of off-topic remarks. Your life's goals are much more pertinent than mine here, as you consider bitching on the internet usenet groups a means of contributing to changing that of which you don't like and disagree. If you want to believe that I lied, then feel free. It doesn't make nay difference to me, or to the guy who had to pay a fine because of it Defending my position and questioning your logic is hardly "attacking" you on a personal level. ` |
"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. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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 |
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:18:11 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote: Sorry Dave, had to run out for awhile. Let us carry on,,,, I enjoy the civil tone. As long as it stays this way, I'm cool. Part III From: N3CVJ Why should this newsgroup be treated any differently than an in-person venue? I happen to agree with you on this item, but why should others be forced or made to conform to our view? They shouldn't. Why not? Because they have the same rights as we do. Personal freedom does not (or should not) extend to the ruination of other people's freedom or right of access. And usenet does neither, nor does CB. When legally operating people are shouted off of CB radio by illegal stations "squashing mud ducks", their right of access has been infringed. On Usenet, no one can "squash" a "mud duck" every one is allowed to voice their opinions. But there are no restraints for those who can't maintain a civil tone. Your argument makes the point against the Patriot Act quite nicely, though. In what way? I would not want to make these activities "illegal". If you want to act like a retard, by all means, go for it! But we all have the right to know who it is that is acting like the retard so that they can properly face the repercussions that that type of behavior brings. No,,you don't have the right to know the identity of one just because you feel he is acting like a retard. There would be no question about whether or not someone is acting like a retard. This is beyond the subjective opinion of one user over another. If the behavior is continual and affects more than just one person, then that changes things. Well now, the word "if" and the entrance of injurous posts constitutes an entirely new concept and has no relation to you claiming you have the right to know one's identity on usenet merely because you feel he is "acting like a retard". Nice shuffle, but it non-effective. What did you think I meant when I used the term "acting like a retard"? A simple disagreement of opinion does not qualify as "acting like a retard". Someone who acts like a retard is someone who contributes nothing positive and verbally harasses the regular users to the point that they take the fun out of participation. But,,keeping with this thought you put forward, you just described exactly what happened to Dogie. As it should be. Everyone who acts in that manner should be removed from society where they can no longer harm the activities of others. Wrong." Acting like a retard" is not illegal. Neither is listening to loud rap music outside. But do it at 1:00 Am and guaranteed the cops will be there to "oppress" your right, for the betterment of the rest of the community. That's what I mean by accountability. If you had to "face the music" for acting inappropriately, you would eventually adopt an incentive to NOT act that way. The quality of the forums would increase considerably. What you feel constitutes "quality" is the opposite of what many others feel. The loss of personal privacy in this world is never an improvement in the quality of anything. Why? What would you do differently if suddenly we all knew who you were? It certainly wouldn't change how I interact as I'm already up-front about who I am. Why? Why should it matter if people know who you are? Are you THAT paranoid? Why is none of your concern. But is undoubtedly the whole reason why you defend this notion so vehemently. Why I choose to exercise my American birthrights is none of your concern. Once again, you are owed no explanation. That you would flaunt you rights as an excuse to allow people to victimize other people at the expense of their rights is also telling. I remember making the claim that some I knew personally was popped by local cops for interference relating to his CB radio. You challenged the validity of my claim, AFTER you refused to cite a credible source, and only after did I "challenge the validity" of your claim. I don't have a credible source. I didn't "find" the incident. I was personally involved with it. Of course you don't and of course you were. There are those who insist they were abducted by aliens who also have no credible source. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen. first by trying to find some sort of difference between "a suburb of" and "suburban", suggesting that I was lying. You are lying now. YOU were the one to invoke the word "suburb", not I, and you invoked it when the heat got to hot and you realized, like said, the court documents would confirm your story. I note you originally claimed it happened IN Philthadelphia, I never EVER claimed that it happened IN philthy. Never. I said that it happened in SUBURBAN (Meaning in the suburbs) of Exactly. And then you invoked Norristown, which is NOT a suburb of Philthy, NOT on any area maps of Philthy, and pays no bills or taxes to Philthy, and has no mail go through Philthy. It meets NONE of the criteria for a suburb of Philthy, ,,in fact, it's nowhere near Philthy.. It IS a suburb of philly, as it resides in an area which surrounds the city area. In any case it was your hangup of semantics that caused you to look in the wrong place. The worst you can accuse me of is incorrectly stating the location. It doesn't change the particulars. Oh, and thank you for admitting that I DID provide the name of the exact town. Philly. Why I chose that wording instead of just saying that it happened in Norristown, should be obvious. This is an international forum. Ask someone from another geographical area if they're ever heard of a relatively small town (such as Norristown) and they will most likely not. But mention a popular city as a geographical point of reference, and it's another story. This being an international forum doesn't stop you from invoking domestic (American) law, so you can;t invoke it as a defense for your beahvior now. American law applies to me as I am a citizen of America. But as a referential courtesy to those who don't line in "my neck of the woods" I used general locational terms. I never intended to be detail specific at the time I posted it. That you took it as such is a failing on your part. What more do you want? Umm....perhaps this credibility you always speak of . You hold one who doesn't respond to your demands for personal information as not credible on usenet. The rest of the world holds one who makes claims with no substantiation as not credible. I told you all the details. I never knew the defendant's last name (part of that anonymity aspect of CB) only that the name he went by was "Floyd" (Which from other people, is his middle name, his fist name is Anthony). It happened in Norristown Pa (A suburb of philly) in the late 90's. When you failed to find any information AFTER you claimed it was in Philly, I never claimed it was IN philly. Sure you did,,,here it is again: "This happened about 5 years ago IN suburban Philadelphia.." Suburban philadelphia is not the same thing as being in the city of philadelphia. If I had intended to state that it was in the city I would have said "in the city of Philadelphia". You still won't admit your mistake. That you feel that suburban philly means the same thing as IN philly was your mistake. Wrong. That you called it that with, once again, nothing to substantiate it except your belief, does not consititute what makes a suburbia of a city. Once again, some of those parameters are which defines a suburb of a city are outlined above and Norristown meets none of them. Not in the minds of the people who live here, all of whom refer to themselves as living in the suburbs of phila. Even as far out in the sticks as I now live even the news media refers to this area as the "philadelphia suburbs". But I guess all these people are wrong and you are right? If I was making the whole thing up, do you think I would waste so much time on semantics? What difference does it make now? You know where exactly it happened now, so to continue to argue the point now is counterproductive and wasteful of bandwidth. If you want to go through the trouble to request (at your cost) microfiche records, No need. As far as a court of law would be concerned, I have presented the burden of proof that your claims were false. I have been "pacified" over this issue regardless or not of whether you feel that such is your decision. This is the internet remember, there is no accountability. So anything that anyone says is already suspect. You are the one unable to provide for your claims. That you feel another should feel foolish for your inability to do so is troubling. Even when I told you the exact town, You never said the exact town and if you did, you NEVER linked it with the case you claim occurred or in the same thread. Since you claim otherwise, force feed me some crow, Davie, and show the world where you told me what town the cber got busted in and went to court. Just another in that long line of unsubstantiated bull****,,,, You asked for it, you got it: Enjoy your crow.... http://groups.google.com/groups?q=No...x.net&rnum= 1 There it is again,,,,Norristown, a town that has nothing to do with Philadelphia except in your mind. You will find nothing anywhere denoting Norristown as even remotely associated as a suburb of Philthy. Except by the people who live here. I don't purport to know what the people in the greater Tampa area should refer to themselves as, so I would expect that you not be so presumptuous as to assume the same from my area. Not "a" repeater system,,,YOUR repeater system. You referred to it as "my repeater". I built it. I am a 1/3 of an owner of it. It is NOT located at my You can't look for something and expect to f ind much without key particulars, like the defendant's name, which I can't give you as I didn't know all of it. YOU not being able to doesn't mean others are unable. And sure I can, dave,,,I can do just that with the very simple process of elimination. You start with the town and backtrack to the corresponding year or two which you already gave us indirectly,,from there, one eliminates all charges except for discorderly conduct. From there, it's a matter of checking those charged with the offense in the corresponding time frame and walla walla,,,,,,,,,,and that is but one way of many and by far the easiest. Not disorderly conduct, it was disturbing the peace. Get it right. And you still assume that this information is on the internet. It may not be. The incident occurred in the 1996-1998 time frame Not all information is available on the internet. Exactly, so I have no clue why you continue to assume it is. Then use your "magic" to produce the info. Although once you find it, I suspect you will not admit it. You don't strike me as someone who takes being proven wrong all that well. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
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. |
NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Fri, Aug 20, 2004, 12:24pm (EDT-1) From:
=A0=A0 Dave Hall Group: =A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 Hey Twist!!!! Date: =A0=A0 Fri, Aug 20, 2004, 1:24pm Organization: =A0=A0 home.ptd.net/~n3cvj X-Trace: =A0=A0 sv3-ZDZ/moIrmAAEi+xOEPkNQVGmpvkmu7UF+wCz8filpRT0rxrGbml8wr 8WXZq8TijDCNdVOB= Dudrwlwnq!I9iQn+YEsbZkx4owgwo/IkTCiFZP6/GT2D3PBjsHcqSJGJWhi1QdS5sNcP3G5YEr= jUKQRIhan0X1!IG7P5lLLufM=3D X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.3.13 On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:18:11 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: Sorry Dave, had to run out for awhile. Let us carry on,,,, I enjoy the civil tone. As long as it stays this way, I'm cool. _ K...back again. Part III From: N3CVJ Why should this newsgroup be treated any differently than an in-person venue? I happen to agree with you on this item, but why should others be forced or made to conform to our view? They shouldn't. Why not? Because they have the same rights as we do. =A0=A0Personal freedom does not (or should not) extend to the ruination of other people's freedom or right of access. And usenet does neither, nor does CB. _ When legally operating people are shouted off of CB radio by illegal stations "squashing mud ducks", their right of access has been infringed. Please show me any document speaking of this a RIGHT to access you claims exist. On Usenet, no one can "squash" a "mud duck" every one is allowed to voice their opinions. But there are no restraints for those who can't maintain a civil tone. Nonetheless. civility is not a legal requirement, and once again, usenet "can not extend to the ruin of another's freedom." In fact, the ONLY thing that can lead to such a thing is a crime and/or incarceration _ Your argument makes the point against the Patriot Act quite nicely, though. In what way? Read the part you snipped, it illustrates it perfectly. _ I would not want to make these activities "illegal". If you want to act like a retard, by all means, go for it! But we all have the right to know who it is that is acting like the retard so that they can properly face the repercussions that that type of behavior brings. No,,you don't have the right to know the identity of one just because you feel he is acting like a retard. There would be no question about whether or not someone is acting like a retard. This is beyond the subjective opinion of one user over another. If the behavior is continual and affects more than just one person, then that changes things. Whatever. You STILL don't have the right to know the indentity of one merely because you lend your personal opinion that one is "acting like a retard". _ Well now, the word "if" and the entrance of injurous posts constitutes an entirely new concept and has no relation to you claiming you have the right to know one's identity on usenet merely because you feel he is "acting like a retard". Nice shuffle, but it non-effective. What did you think I meant when I used the term "acting like a retard"? Since you solidified how objective the term can be, it can actually mean whatever you wish it to mean. Nevertheless, because *YOU* feel one is acting in a certainmanner not in conformity with your beliefs gives you no right to know anything concerning their identity. _ A simple disagreement of opinion does not qualify as "acting like a retard". You are the one needing to qualify what he term *you* initiated as term extremely "objective". Someone who acts like a retard is someone who contributes nothing positive and verbally harasses the regular users to the point that they take the fun out of participation. That is ridiculous. "Retard" is a poitically incorrect offensive term for one who suffers from diminished mental capacity confirmed by a American licensed MD. _ But,,keeping with this thought you put forward, you just described exactly what happened to Dogie. As it should be. Everyone who acts in that manner should be removed from society where they can no longer harm the activities of others. Wrong." Acting like a retard" is not illegal. Neither is listening to loud rap music outside. Non-sequitur. But to show how incorrect you have been, it most certainly is illegal once it reaches levels that violate noise ordinances. The charge: Disturbing the peace. But do it at 1:00 Am and guaranteed the cops will be there to "oppress" your right, for the betterment of the rest of the community. Non-sequitur once again. One has no right to disturb the peace and if one chooses to do so, must be prepared for any consequence. That's what I mean by accountability. If you had to "face the music" for acting inappropriately, you would eventually adopt an incentive to NOT act that way. The quality of the forums would increase considerably. - What you feel constitutes "quality" is the opposite of what many others feel. The loss of personal privacy in this world is never an improvement in the quality of anything. Why? What would you do differently if suddenly we all knew who you were? It certainly wouldn't change how I interact as I'm already up-front about who I am. Why? Why should it matter if people know who you are? Are you THAT paranoid? Why is none of your concern. But is undoubtedly the whole reason why you defend this notion so vehemently. Don't give yourself so much credit. I have defended personal liberties long before encountering you. - Why I choose to exercise my American birthrights is none of your concern. Once again, you are owed no explanation. That you would flaunt you rights as an excuse to allow people to victimize other people at the expense of their rights is also telling. Perhaps if that is what I have done, there may be some validity to that. But since I have not done so, and only discussed such when continually pressed by those not unlike yourself who have nose problems and an admitted penchant for personal information in order to "spread it around", I am quite satisfied with just what is and isn't "telling" in this thread. _ I remember making the claim that some I knew personally was popped by local cops for interference relating to his CB radio. You challenged the validity of my claim, AFTER you refused to cite a credible source, and only after did I "challenge the validity" of your claim. I don't have a credible source. I didn't "find" the incident. I was personally involved with it. Of course you don't and of course you were. There are those who insist they were abducted by aliens who also have no credible source. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Well, yea, in the world of reality acceptance, it does. first by trying to find some sort of difference between "a suburb of" and "suburban", suggesting that I was lying. You are lying now. YOU were the one to invoke the word "suburb", not I, and you invoked it when the heat got too hot and you realized, like said, the court documents would confirm your story. I note you originally claimed it happened IN Philthadelphia, I never EVER claimed that it happened IN philthy. Never. I said that it happened in SUBURBAN (Meaning in the suburbs) of Exactly. And then you invoked Norristown, which is NOT a suburb of Philthy, NOT on any area maps of Philthy, and pays no bills or taxes to Philthy, and has no mail go through Philthy. It meets NONE of the criteria for a suburb of Philthy, ,,in fact, it's nowhere near Philthy.. It IS a suburb of philly, as it resides in an area which surrounds the city area. In any case it was your hangup of semantics that caused you to look in the wrong place. The worst you can accuse me of is incorrectly stating the location. It doesn't change the particulars. Your posts do not constitute particulars ofan incident that never occurred merely because you say it did. Oh, and thank you for admitting that I DID provide the name of the exact town. Oh, no problem, if that minor consolation worls for you, hail hail. The fact of the matter is, the town meets no parameters for what consitutes a suburb of a city. You feel merely because the closest big city is Philly, it constitutes that Norristown is a suburb? By what do you base this? Distance? What were you references? Again, you can cite nothing in this world that illustrtaes Norristown as a suburb of Philly, because it is not. Philly. Why I chose that wording instead of just saying that it happened in Norristown, should be obvious. =A0 It was. =A0This is an international forum. Ask someone from another geographical area if they're ever heard of a relatively small town (such as Norristown) and they will most likely not. But mention a popular city as a geographical point of reference, and it's another story. This being an international forum doesn't stop you from invoking domestic (American) law, so you can;t invoke it as a defense for your beahvior now. American law applies to me as I am a citizen of America. But you don't direct your posts about the law to yourself,,(well, sometime you do), you post them with abandon and no thought to other counties laws. But as a referential courtesy to those who don't line in "my neck of the woods" I used general locational terms. I never intended to be detail specific at the time I posted it. That you took it as such is a failing on your part. You had months to reply. You were asked many, many times to provide "specifics" (verbatim) of the case. That you responded with "Suburbian Philly" and now try to say you weren't responding with "detail specific" at the time you were asked, is *your* communication gaffe, because that is exactly what you were asked for.."specifics". Not anyone else's fault you can't answer correctly. What more do you want? Umm....perhaps this credibility you always speak of . You hold one who doesn't respond to your demands for personal information as not credible on usenet. The rest of the world holds one who makes claims with no substantiation as not credible. _ I told you all the details. I never knew the defendant's last name (part of that anonymity aspect of CB) only that the name he went by was "Floyd" (Which from other people, is his middle name, his fist name is Anthony). It happened in Norristown Pa (A suburb of philly) in the late 90's. When you failed to find any information AFTER you claimed it was in Philly, I never claimed it was IN philly. Sure you did,,,here it is again: "This happened about 5 years ago IN suburban Philadelphia.." Suburban philadelphia is not the same thing as being in the city of philadelphia. Correct. But suburbs of Philadelphia are inexplicably tied to the city it a suburb of, in one of many ways, a few of which you have now been informed. If I had intended to state that it was in the city I would have said "in the city of Philadelphia". =A0=A0You still won't admit your mistake. That you feel that suburban philly means the same thing as IN philly was your mistake. _ Wrong. That you called it that with, once again, nothing to substantiate it except your belief, does not consititute what makes a suburbia of a city. Once again, some of those parameters are which defines a suburb of a city are outlined above and Norristown meets none of them. _ Not in the minds of the people who live here, all of whom refer to themselves as living in the suburbs of phila. Even as far out in the sticks as I now live even the news media refers to this area as the "philadelphia suburbs". But I guess all these people are wrong and you are right? If they call Norristown a suburb of Philly, yes , they are wrong, and once again, stop being so personal, for it is not I that define the parameters of what constitutes a suburb of a city. For one, they must have a civic connection in some form. Norristown does not. In addition to you admitting how vile those Philthy folks are, you're telling the world the majority of folks in your area are ignorant, as well. If I was making the whole thing up, do you think I would waste so much time on semantics? Oh yea. This group has been witness to watching you talk out both sides of your mouth. What difference does it make now? Now that you admitted what I maintained after all this time, that you are unable to produce anything to sustantiate this claim, not a thing. _ You know where exactly it happened now, so to continue to argue the point now is counterproductive and wasteful of bandwidth. Correct. It should be reserved for your long rants illustrating your fancy for what you refer as internet psychology. If you want to go through the trouble to request (at your cost) microfiche records, No need. As far as a court of law would be concerned, I have presented the burden of proof that your claims were false. I have been "pacified" over this issue regardless or not of whether you feel that such is your decision. _ This is the internet remember, there is no accountability. So anything that anyone says is already suspect. You are the one unable to provide for your claims. That you feel another should feel foolish for your inability to do so is troubling. Even when I told you the exact town, You never said the exact town and if you did, you NEVER linked it with the case you claim occurred or in the same thread. Since you claim otherwise, force feed me some crow, Davie, and show the world where you told me what town the cber got busted in and went to court. Just another in that long line of unsubstantiated bull****,,,, You asked for it, you got it: Enjoy your crow.... http://groups.google.com/groups?q=3D...oup:rec.radio= cb+author:Dave+author:Hall&hl=3Den&lr=3D&ie=3DUTF-8&c2coff=3D1&selm=3D3E49= 3556.2BA%40worldlynx.net&rnum=3D1 - There it is again,,,,Norristown, a town that has nothing to do with Philadelphia except in your mind. You will find nothing anywhere denoting Norristown as even remotely associated as a suburb of Philthy. Except by the people who live here. Another claim of yours that is morose. I don't believe an entire community is illiterate in civics. I don't purport to know what the people in the greater Tampa area should refer to themselves as, so I would expect that you not be so presumptuous as to assume the same from my area. _ Ahhh,,but I am quite familiar with Philthy and the related area...actually, I am pretty familiar with Penna, NY and a host of other states. I have done quite a bit of traveling over the years and hung around Philthy for some time. _ _ You can't look for something and expect to f ind much without key particulars, like the defendant's name, which I can't give you as I didn't know all of it. YOU not being able to doesn't mean others are unable. And sure I can, dave,,,I can do just that with the very simple process of elimination. You start with the town and backtrack to the corresponding year or two which you already gave us indirectly,,from there, one eliminates all charges except for discorderly conduct. From there, it's a matter of checking those charged with the offense in the corresponding time frame and walla walla,,,,,,,,,,and that is but one way of many and by far the easiest. Not disorderly conduct, it was disturbing the peace. Get it right. Semantics. And you still assume that this information is on the internet. Whatever has you stuck on the internet as being the single informational tool in my work arsenal is incorrect, but seeing as you were told this before and still can't grasp it, this will be the last time I correct you on this matter. As always, you have the right to insist on remaining clueless and ignorant on such matters. It may not be. The incident occurred in the 1996-1998 time frame Not all information is available on the internet. Exactly, so I have no clue why you continue to assume it is. Then use your "magic" to produce the info. I am of the opinion it did not occur. You made the claim, substantiate it or just get past the fact that you finally admiitted you are unable. Although once you find it, I suspect you will not admit it. You don't strike me as someone who takes being proven wrong all that well. Well, that's ok, considering how many times you have been wrong lately. Dave N3CVJ "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
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 |
|
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 |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:21:10 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: Oh, I know what Philthy is about...been there many times. 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. 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. 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. 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,,,,, _ 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?? you realize that you can put a 3 piece suit on a pig, and he's still a pig. 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. See prevous sentence.. - Same on usenet. This is true. You try to tell a nut that he's nuts, and they'll swear you're crazy. - 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. 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 consi 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. _ =A0=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, You "postulated" that the FCC, who you profess we should blindly follow, may not have the facts of the case before telling the public one is guilty. I question your logic and intellect to blindly follow an agency who crafts law, yet you claim same agency could be incompetent in upholding said law. Do you not see the sheer hypocrisy of such talk? _ 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. - Now that might bring back some of the fun with cb that has eluded you for some time. =A0Heck, we have get togethers all the time here. On any given day one can tune in and hook up with countless fishermen all over the bay area,,many of them sitting in their cars chewing the fat while fishing. Those are some of the things I sorely miss. =A0After 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 p aycheck 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..... - Nothing to rationalize. This is cb, not audiophile FM 101 High Fidelity Broadcasting. What you can't get, because you been in with the snobs that have a hard-on for cb too long, is that many, many folks don't look at cb like you do and compare it to hammie radio. The only thing many folks are interested in is making contact, not quality. Like a stereo, some folks spend big bucks for symphonic reproduction, others do ok and opt for a clock radio. Different strokes, but here you are bashing those folks that may use a legal item as is their right, on cb, all because *you* disagree and dislike their choice. Tsk tsk. You don't have to be an audiophile. Correct,,but you apparently are, and are expressing difficulty grasping why others are not so concerned with these nuances. Some people are so distorted that they are actually hard to understand. Yet these same mentally challenged idiots think that they actually sound good! Excessive echo, class "C" amplifiers, too much mike gain, no limiters, excessive "swing" all contribute to overall poor audio quality. Many of these "mods" also contribute to adjacent channel interference and RFI. There is nothing even remotely redeemable about these actions. Echo is not legal. See above. Class "C" (or any other) amplifiers are not legal. Removing modulation limiters is not legal. Transmitter modifications are not legal. Generating RFI above the technical specifications is not legal. So I'm not bashing people for liking different things than I do. I'm bashing people for their displayed ignorance of good RF practice and for displaying an indifference to, or an outright contempt for, other people's right of access to the hobby. An echo mic is in no manner affecting any of your rights. You are still confusing the law with your preferences. Echo mics are legal. Email the FCC and ask them. _ Would you listen to a radio with a torn speaker? Poor analogy, as your equipment apparently is not the problem...but your personal preference with another's broadcast. You always have the righyt to change the channel, as your "rights" are not being infringed upon. Would it not bother you? See above. If it bothered me, I'd shut it off. _ 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. - No,,NOT in those cases, in YOUR personal experiences CB and society may be crumbling, but not to the rest of the world. What you experience is not the last word, far from it. Again you claim to know what the "majority" are thinking. You cannot possibly know what anyone else is thinking. Hehhe,,,,,,,correct,,,not in the manner youappear to be taking it,,not in an esp kind of way, but I indeed have the pulse of the public on a variety of issues. I *have* to. 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. Well, you are focusing on the urchins, not the good. I find most hams in my area to be good people. But you are focusing on the urchins, lending to the notion that you indeed have a preferecn to dwell on the bad instead of the good,,,IE.the "half empty" glass. _ 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. Interesting. Do you feel there are more hammies or cbers in this country? Not at all. Where would you get that idea? It was a multiple choice question. I tried qualifying such with "or". But there does seem to be more hams in my radio than there are local CBers. But that's an unfair comparison, due to the fact that many ham bands have long distance capability, and the sphere of my VHF coverage is much wider than the typical range for CB. Don;t be so paranoid,,,I compared nothing,,,,again, it was a multiple choice question. I can talk back to my old area with no problem on 2 meters. Yet I can hear no one over about a S3 on CB, from a similar distance. The cb hops in Tampa Bay, all the time, practically. There are more total Cbers in this country than hams (at least it used to be that way years ago), but the range of CB is relatively small and results in "pockets" of users, not all of which can be heard beyond their local range. =A0 - =A0You 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? I do. Do you still think (like you once posted) that a liberal and a libertarian are the same thing? _ A liberal and a libertarian are very much similar and the same. No, they are not. Liberals believe in big government oversight to handle the plethora of social programs that they feel we need to have shoved down our throats (At our tax expense). In fact extreme liberalism is what leads to socialism. No,,,that may be the currently attached definition by the terrified right, but I suggest you look up the definition of each...use any dictionary you prefer and come on back with a cut and paste. _ A libertarian believes in the smallest amount of government that can exist and still be effective. Extreme libertarian views lead to anarchy. Like the establishment of a free society? Like the Boston Tea Party? Like suffrage? Like equal rights? On it goes... Conservatives believe in somewhat limited government, and personal responsibility. Conservatives believe in strong law enforcement for those who cannot abide by the rules of society. Extreme conservatism leads to fascism. They BOTH advocate the maximum liberties permitted under the law which is the exact manner of which I referred the two. Wrong! You need to do some more reading........ Again,,,,I do not need a partisan party to redefine the term. History and the founding forefathers, in addition to Merriam Webster are those I choose to believe. That the right has been so effective in making terms mean something completely opposite of what it truly is (a liberal, of all examples) is frightening. When the US government begins using the term as an insult, those who follow such bull**** must be educated to all they have been falsely indoctrinated. You have been misled and lied to by Bush.....on many occassion. _ In fact, it is you and Frank who were shown not to know what a liberal is. Washington was a liberal. Our forefathers were liberals. This country was founded and built by liberlas. Today's liberal is someone who wants freedom for everyone, as long as it's according to their standards. Wrong, wrong, way wrong. This is what the right has attempted to redefine. That is what the right WANTS everyone to think and say, and those of you, like yourself, need structure in their life, direction, and pretty much told what to do and how to act and to conform to a single mindset (theirs). And to you and the Bush admin, anyone who expresses dissent (one of the most cherished American rights) automatically becomes an enemy of the admin. The Bush admin not only openly echoes Stalinism, but practices it....as Stalin said "those who are not with us are against us". _ A typical example is how the democrats had no problem with letting Michael Moore trash the president, but now scream foul when an independent group is now taking aim on Kerry. Moore can be sued if anything in his movie was untrue. No lawsuits after all this time. Conclusion,,,,,,,hmmmmm. Today's liberal is two faced, duplicitous, and hypocritical. Today's liberal wants the working man to pay for the habitually lazy. Higher taxes for richer people. Nope,,just their fair percentage of their income. In fact, when faced with actual percentages paid from their income, the top two percent of the wealthiest have the least taken out of their income (percentage wise) when compared to the bluecollar worker, even though in sheer dollars, they pay more. The irony of this revelation alone should be enough to serve as a wake-up call to the nation as the gap continues to widen between the levels of society, but nope,,we have smokescreens by those like you who are more concerned with redefining terms to encompass all who dare oppose the current Bush regime are its enemy. From those according to their means, to those according to their needs. Sound familiar? Try reading Karl Marx for the answer. You have succumbed to partisanship rhetoric of the right, where all who dare question or oppose the Bush admin, are labeled a liberal. The term has become, albeit incorrectly, an intentionally misplaced catch-all to encompass anyone who opposes the current admin. I've opposed bleeding heart liberals since the time I was aware enough to realize that they were undermining the traditional values that this country was founded on. Bush is the one undermining the values,,such as our rights...not the liberals. You can cite NO liberal that has EVER seeked to take away portions of our constitution. Liberals are the ones who would defend the "right" of someone to distribute kiddie porn, rather than acknowledge that this is a social disease. Social disease? whooooo.that's a liberal term, isn't it? But of course, we all know you made a boo-boo when using the term, 'cause the right locks up those with social diseases. - Please provide any exchanges that I have authored where I defended the concepts of socialism. I believe in limited government. Wrong, you favor government imposition and can't even see it. Not at all. I believe is responsibility an accountability. Accountability does not extend to you being one that another must account to, although you ahve attempted such on many occasion. You a re free to do what you will, (within the framework of a civilized society) but you are solely responsible for the effects of your actions (or inactions). Exactly,,,,,*I* am responsible for my actions, not you, so anything that I do, such as MY right to anonymity, has nothing to do with you, yet that doesn't stop you from claiming it shouldn't be permitted as it somehow imposes on these "rights" you have yet to define and say how it affected your suffering. |
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. |
|
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:10:51 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:21:10 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote: Oh, I know what Philthy is about...been there many times. 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. 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. 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). 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? That's a direct contrast to your comments about the people who "infest" Philthy. 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. 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. 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. you realize that you can put a 3 piece suit on a pig, and he's still a pig. 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 consi 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. But you and I both know that is not the intent of the users of the majority of these devices. Mot 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. 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. **You 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. * I stand corrected, Thank you. My respect for you just went up a few notches. You "postulated" that the FCC, who you profess we should blindly follow, may not have the facts of the case before telling the public one is guilty. I question your logic and intellect to blindly follow an agency who crafts law, yet you claim same agency could be incompetent in upholding said law. Do you not see the sheer hypocrisy of such talk? I can see how you might feel that way based on your perspective. But that's not reflective of reality. I never claim to "blindly" follow anyone. But there is a process to follow to have rules changed. It is not proper to just "ignore" rules that we don't personally agree with. One thing I DO believe in strongly is the concept that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Do you assume that someone is automatically guilty of a crime the instant he is arrested? The fact that Doug was cited (same as an arrest in this case) does not mean that all the evidence was in and a final determination was made (at least at the time I made my comments). Surely you have to acknowledge that Doug's behavior has managed to earn him quite a few enemies. What's to stop any one of them from "masquerading" as him in order to cause trouble and "frame" him as a form of payback? It's a distinct possibility. I admit that I am not privy to what evidence the FCC has or doesn't have in this case, and I could be way off base. 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. Now that might bring back some of the fun with cb that has eluded you for some time. *Heck, we have get togethers all the time here. On any given day one can tune in and hook up with countless fishermen all over the bay area,,many of them sitting in their cars chewing the fat while fishing. Those are some of the things I sorely miss. *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 p aycheck 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..... - Nothing to rationalize. This is cb, not audiophile FM 101 High Fidelity Broadcasting. What you can't get, because you been in with the snobs that have a hard-on for cb too long, is that many, many folks don't look at cb like you do and compare it to hammie radio. The only thing many folks are interested in is making contact, not quality. Like a stereo, some folks spend big bucks for symphonic reproduction, others do ok and opt for a clock radio. Different strokes, but here you are bashing those folks that may use a legal item as is their right, on cb, all because *you* disagree and dislike their choice. Tsk tsk. You don't have to be an audiophile. Correct,,but you apparently are, and are expressing difficulty grasping why others are not so concerned with these nuances. I will admit to being sensitive to audio quality. I can tell the sound of a Class "C" amplifier without even looking. Any device that changes the audio for the worse detracts from quality. I like to make my audio as close to a broadcast station as I can. I like what those guys on 80 meter AM have done with their setups. Some of those guys have audio that I am truly envious of. Some people are so distorted that they are actually hard to understand. Yet these same mentally challenged idiots think that they actually sound good! Excessive echo, class "C" amplifiers, too much mike gain, no limiters, excessive "swing" all contribute to overall poor audio quality. Many of these "mods" also contribute to adjacent channel interference and RFI. There is nothing even remotely redeemable about these actions. Echo is not legal. See above. Class "C" (or any other) amplifiers are not legal. Removing modulation limiters is not legal. Transmitter modifications are not legal. Generating RFI above the technical specifications is not legal. So I'm not bashing people for liking different things than I do. I'm bashing people for their displayed ignorance of good RF practice and for displaying an indifference to, or an outright contempt for, other people's right of access to the hobby. An echo mic is in no manner affecting any of your rights. You are still confusing the law with your preferences. Echo mics are legal. Email the FCC and ask them. I might do that. I cannot see how a device which is clearly intended to "amuse or entertain" could be considered legal, when the rules expressly prohibit them. But let me outline a few examples of how many of these "radio hotrods" do affect other people's right of access. 1. A radio which is running in excess of the legal power limit promotes a stronger signal. While this maybe be an advantage to the operator, he cannot control just how far his signal travels. Legally operating stations in the distance, now have a harder time communicating, because of the illegally produced signal. Those legal operators are having their right to access affected. 2. A radio which has had its modulation "clipped" the radio peaked, and uses a class "C" "modulator" amp to get that added "swing" is producing spurious audio harmonic content and splatter which makes their signal extend outside (sometimes very far) outside of the 10 Khz bandwidth of the CB channels. So when the operator transmits, he's not only dominating his own channel, be creates sufficient interference on others. Legally operating stations on those other channels, now have a harder time communicating, because of the illegally produced signal. Those legal operators are having their right to access affected. 3. A person operating a "peaked and clipped" CB into a class "C" amplifier generates spurious emission and higher harmonic content. People living in the vicinity of this illegal operator may have trouble using their entertainment devices (Broadcast radio, TV, computer) due to interference from those increased harmonics. Those people are having their right of access impeded. Would you listen to a radio with a torn speaker? Poor analogy, as your equipment apparently is not the problem...but your personal preference with another's broadcast. You always have the righyt to change the channel, as your "rights" are not being infringed upon. That depends. See my #2 above. Would it not bother you? See above. If it bothered me, I'd shut it off. But why should you have to? If you have a hobby or activity that normally brings you pleasure, and you are now faced with some undesirables which ruin your pleasure, why should you be always forced to be the one who has to yield to these people? If it were as simple as allocating certain channels for each activity and there were no such things as bleedover or interference, then your solution would be acceptable. But you know that that's not reality on CB. 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. No,,NOT in those cases, in YOUR personal experiences CB and society may be crumbling, but not to the rest of the world. What you experience is not the last word, far from it. Again you claim to know what the "majority" are thinking. You cannot possibly know what anyone else is thinking. Hehhe,,,,,,,correct,,,not in the manner youappear to be taking it,,not in an esp kind of way, but I indeed have the pulse of the public on a variety of issues. I *have* to. But no "pulse" or poll is completely reflective of reality. Polls are subject to political or social biases, and limited to the demographics of the participants. 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. Well, you are focusing on the urchins, not the good. I find most hams in my area to be good people. But you are focusing on the urchins, lending to the notion that you indeed have a preferecn to dwell on the bad instead of the good,,,IE.the "half empty" glass. Only if I am surrounded by "the bad" to the point where looking for the positive becomes a ridiculous exercise in insanity. 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. Interesting. Do you feel there are more hammies or cbers in this country? Not at all. Where would you get that idea? It was a multiple choice question. I tried qualifying such with "or". My mistake. I took it as a claim that there are more hams than Cbers. But there does seem to be more hams in my radio than there are local CBers. But that's an unfair comparison, due to the fact that many ham bands have long distance capability, and the sphere of my VHF coverage is much wider than the typical range for CB. Don;t be so paranoid,,,I compared nothing,,,,again, it was a multiple choice question. I can talk back to my old area with no problem on 2 meters. Yet I can hear no one over about a S3 on CB, from a similar distance. The cb hops in Tampa Bay, all the time, practically. Your topographical parameters make for an overall greater direct distance. In my area, there are numerous "hills" which bend and block signals, resulting in lopsided range, especially when operating mobile. There are more total Cbers in this country than hams (at least it used to be that way years ago), but the range of CB is relatively small and results in "pockets" of users, not all of which can be heard beyond their local range. _ Do you even know what a socialist is? I do. Do you still think (like you once posted) that a liberal and a libertarian are the same thing? A liberal and a libertarian are very much similar and the same. No, they are not. Liberals believe in big government oversight to handle the plethora of social programs that they feel we need to have shoved down our throats (At our tax expense). In fact extreme liberalism is what leads to socialism. No,,,that may be the currently attached definition by the terrified right, but I suggest you look up the definition of each...use any dictionary you prefer and come on back with a cut and paste. That is THE current understanding of what passes for modern liberalism in today's political climate. It's not a "right wing conspiracy". Liberals are the champions of the poor, the disenfranchised, the un and underemployed, minorities, and anyone else who feels that they're getting the "shaft" WRT the "American Dream". Liberals downplay the importance of personal responsibility, instead believing that people are all victims of circumstances, and that "corporations" are the root of all evil. They believe that government should play the part of "the great equalizer". THAT is the seed of socialism. _ A libertarian believes in the smallest amount of government that can exist and still be effective. Extreme libertarian views lead to anarchy. Like the establishment of a free society? Like the Boston Tea Party? Like suffrage? Like equal rights? On it goes... Like no rules and everyone's rights trampling on everyone else's. Conservatives believe in somewhat limited government, and personal responsibility. Conservatives believe in strong law enforcement for those who cannot abide by the rules of society. Extreme conservatism leads to fascism. They BOTH advocate the maximum liberties permitted under the law which is the exact manner of which I referred the two. Wrong! You need to do some more reading........ Again,,,,I do not need a partisan party to redefine the term. History and the founding forefathers, in addition to Merriam Webster are those I choose to believe. You, the one lecturing me that all rules should be "evergreen" and subject to revision as society and culture changes, are now sticking by a definition which is obsolete? That the right has been so effective in making terms mean something completely opposite of what it truly is (a liberal, of all examples) is frightening. Nothing frightening about it. It's reality. Liberals have been a key force in the undermining of traditional values for the last 30+ years. There are practices and activities which are almost common today that no one would even think of doing in the 1950's. You might think this is good. But I don't look at increased promiscuity, along with gratuitous sex and porn, the abandonment of traditional family roles etc, as a "good" thing. When the US government begins using the term as an insult, those who follow such bull**** must be educated to all they have been falsely indoctrinated. You have been misled and lied to by Bush.....on many occassion. I have been a strong conservative long before Bush came along. It's refreshing to see a decisive leader who is guided by principle rather than one who changes his position depending on the political winds at the time. _ In fact, it is you and Frank who were shown not to know what a liberal is. Washington was a liberal. Our forefathers were liberals. This country was founded and built by liberlas. Today's liberal is someone who wants freedom for everyone, as long as it's according to their standards. Wrong, wrong, way wrong. This is what the right has attempted to redefine. No that's the truth. Take the recent political events as an example. The left feels that it's perfectly fine and an expression of a person's 1st amendment for Michael Moore to create a "propagandamentary" trashing and distorting Bush's leadership. But now that the shoe is on the other foot and a group of veterans is disputing Kerry's Vietnam claims, the left screams bloody murder and has attempted legal intimidation to attempt to block the release of the (#1 on the Amazon.com best seller list) Swift boat book Unfit for Command, as well as the associated TV ads. So what happened to the Left's cherished respect for the 1st amendment? The answer is clear to those who are not blinded by partisan myopia. The left are hypocrites of the first degree. A typical example is how the democrats had no problem with letting Michael Moore trash the president, but now scream foul when an independent group is now taking aim on Kerry. Moore can be sued if anything in his movie was untrue. No lawsuits after all this time. Conclusion,,,,,,,hmmmmm. Many of F-911's conjectures have been disproven by the 911 commission report (I trust you've read it?). Kerry can do the same to the Swift Boat veterans. Yet he, instead of taking aim at the veterans themselves, has attempted to block distribution of their book and ads. Conclusion? Hmmm......... Today's liberal is two faced, duplicitous, and hypocritical. Today's liberal wants the working man to pay for the habitually lazy. Higher taxes for richer people. Nope,,just their fair percentage of their income. What's "fair" is purely subjective. I don't believe that anyone deserves special consideration. The tax rate should be flat. In fact, when faced with actual percentages paid from their income, the top two percent of the wealthiest have the least taken out of their income (percentage wise) when compared to the bluecollar worker, even though in sheer dollars, they pay more. The top 10% of wage earners pay over 60% of the total income tax revenue. The irony of this revelation alone should be enough to serve as a wake-up call to the nation as the gap continues to widen between the levels of society, but nope,,we have smokescreens by those like you who are more concerned with redefining terms to encompass all who dare oppose the current Bush regime are its enemy. Those who work hard and earn a place in the higher echelons of income should not be penalized for their success by being burdened by the baggage of those who lack the ambition to achieve similar success. From those according to their means, to those according to their needs. Sound familiar? Try reading Karl Marx for the answer. You have succumbed to partisanship rhetoric of the right, where all who dare question or oppose the Bush admin, are labeled a liberal. Liberals and their socialistic ideals have been "bad" for this country long before Bush came into power. The term has become, albeit incorrectly, an intentionally misplaced catch-all to encompass anyone who opposes the current admin. The answer is easy if you look at a few key facts. 1. Socialism is a concept of a social structure which dictates that government shall take from those according to their means, to those according to their needs. This is well documented. 2. Which political party in this country looks to take more taxes from those who achieve, to give back to those who don't? 3. A free market economy and true freedom involves less government involvement in personal lives allowing people to make greater choices. 4. Which party is seeking to increase government involvement in people's lives, by proposing government mandated education programs, healthcare oversight, preventing social security investment in private accounts, limiting gun ownership rights (Who needs the 2nd amendment?), and of course increasing taxes to pay for it all? I've opposed bleeding heart liberals since the time I was aware enough to realize that they were undermining the traditional values that this country was founded on. Bush is the one undermining the values,,such as our rights...not the liberals. You can cite NO liberal that has EVER seeked to take away portions of our constitution. Every liberal who favors gun control is trampling on the 2nd amendment. Liberals are the ones who would defend the "right" of someone to distribute kiddie porn, rather than acknowledge that this is a social disease. Social disease? whooooo.that's a liberal term, isn't it? But of course, we all know you made a boo-boo when using the term, 'cause the right locks up those with social diseases. As it should be. There are just some activities that should not be allowed. Freedom is not absolute. Please provide any exchanges that I have authored where I defended the concepts of socialism. I believe in limited government. Wrong, you favor government imposition and can't even see it. Not at all. I believe is responsibility an accountability. Accountability does not extend to you being one that another must account to, although you ahve attempted such on many occasion. I'm not electing myself Pope here. I'm just saying that people need to be held accountable (to someone or thing) for their actions. You a re free to do what you will, (within the framework of a civilized society) but you are solely responsible for the effects of your actions (or inactions). Exactly,,,,,*I* am responsible for my actions, not you, So how can you be held accountable to hold to your responsibility if there is no one there to make the determination? Claim's of "taking responsibility" are meaningless unless there is a mechanism to enforce it. so anything that I do, such as MY right to anonymity, has nothing to do with you, yet that doesn't stop you from claiming it shouldn't be permitted as it somehow imposes on these "rights" you have yet to define and say how it affected your suffering. You should have the right to remain anonymous as long as it does not cause undue problems for the harmony of the forum. Dave "Sandbagger" |
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. |
Twist/N3CVJ
Part Deux You "postulated" that the FCC, who you profess we should blindly follow, may not have the facts of the case before telling the public one is guilty. I question your logic and intellect to blindly follow an agency who crafts law, yet you claim same agency could be incompetent in upholding said law. Do you not see the sheer hypocrisy of such talk? I can see how you might feel that way based on your perspective. But that's not reflective of reality. It was your reality. I never claim to "blindly" follow anyone. But there is a process to follow to have rules changed. It is not proper to just "ignore" rules that we don't personally agree with. And until those rules are changed, you can not possibly have any reason for fantasizing the FCC was wrong in busting Dogie. As you say, that is the process. But you still don't see you espouse the process of the FCC, but you question their end result, meaning you have doubt concerning their competence in handling their responsibility. You tout their rules, then when one gets busted by their rules, you undermined the entire concept. _ One thing I DO believe in strongly is the concept that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Do you assume that someone is automatically guilty of a crime the instant he is arrested? Just the opposite. Until proven in a court of law. Once again, *you* are the one misusing the term "crime" when applied to radio rules, as they are not criminal infractions. See how the misuse and entrance of the term "crime" and "criminal" becomes distorted? The fact that Doug was cited (same as an arrest in this case) does not mean that all the evidence was in and a final determination was made (at least at the time I made my comments). I disagree. I hold that when the FCC reports one on the Rain Report for an infraction, NOT as merely receiving a warning notice for some alleged rule infraction, the evidence is in and the final determination of guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt, enough to satisfy any court of law. Surely you have to acknowledge that Doug's behavior has managed to earn him quite a few enemies. What's to stop any one of them from "masquerading" as him in order to cause trouble and "frame" him as a form of payback? It's a distinct possibility. I admit that I am not privy to what evidence the FCC has or doesn't have in this case, and I could be way off base. I do not believe for one second a bunch of folks are going to sign a sworn affidavit signed by a notary only to commit purgery in order to frame another. _ 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. Now that might bring back some of the fun with cb that has eluded you for some time. - =A0Heck, we have get togethers all the time here. On any given day one can tune in and hook up with countless fishermen all over the bay area,,many of them sitting in their cars chewing the fat while fishing. Those are some of the things I sorely miss. _ =A0After 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 p aycheck 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..... - Nothing to rationalize. This is cb, not audiophile FM 101 High Fidelity Broadcasting. What you can't get, because you been in with the snobs that have a hard-on for cb too long, is that many, many folks don't look at cb like you do and compare it to hammie radio. The only thing many folks are interested in is making contact, not quality. Like a stereo, some folks spend big bucks for symphonic reproduction, others do ok and opt for a clock radio. Different strokes, but here you are bashing those folks that may use a legal item as is their right, on cb, all because *you* disagree and dislike their choice. Tsk tsk. You don't have to be an audiophile. Correct,,but you apparently are, and are expressing difficulty grasping why others are not so concerned with these nuances. I will admit to being sensitive to audio quality. I can tell the sound of a Class "C" amplifier without even looking. Any device that changes the audio for the worse detracts from quality. I like to make my audio as close to a broadcast station as I can. I like what those guys on 80 meter AM have done with their setups. Some of those guys have audio that I am truly envious of. Hehe,,that commercial FM sound... Some people are so distorted that they are actually hard to understand. Yet these same mentally challenged idiots think that they actually sound good! Excessive echo, class "C" amplifiers, too much mike gain, no limiters, excessive "swing" all contribute to overall poor audio quality. Many of these "mods" also contribute to adjacent channel interference and RFI. There is nothing even remotely redeemable about these actions. Echo is not legal. See above. _ Class "C" (or any other) amplifiers are not legal. Removing modulation limiters is not legal. Transmitter modifications are not legal. Generating RFI above the technical specifications is not legal. So I'm not bashing people for liking different things than I do. I'm bashing people for their displayed ignorance of good RF practice and for displaying an indifference to, or an outright contempt for, other people's right of access to the hobby. An echo mic is in no manner affecting any of your rights. You are still confusing the law with your preferences. Echo mics are legal. Email the FCC and ask them. I might do that. I cannot see how a device which is clearly intended to "amuse or entertain" could be considered legal, when the rules expressly prohibit them. But let me outline a few examples of how many of these "radio hotrods" do affect other people's right of access. 1. A radio which is running in excess of the legal power limit promotes a stronger signal. While this maybe be an advantage to the operator, he cannot control just how far his signal travels. Legally operating stations in the distance, now have a harder time communicating, because of the illegally produced signal. Those legal operators are having their right to access affected. There doesn't seem to be any place at all where these "legal operators" are making any waves. I submit this is an extremely rare problem concerning cbers. 2. A radio which has had its modulation "clipped" the radio peaked, and uses a class "C" "modulator" amp to get that added "swing" is producing spurious audio harmonic content and splatter which makes their signal extend outside (sometimes very far) outside of the 10 Khz bandwidth of the CB channels. So when the operator transmits, he's not only dominating his own channel, be creates sufficient interference on others. Legally operating stations on those other channels, now have a harder time communicating, because of the illegally produced signal. Those legal operators are having their right to access affected. There is no right to access. You have the freedom to use a radio at will,,,you haev no right that said radio will be free from interference. You are discounting the problem is world wide, and as you said with our ops, the signal doesn't stop. Our ops, compared to the word ops, are an exterme minority when it comes to not complying with FCC cb radio rules. Even if you would have cbers obeying all rules at all times, it wouldn't make a noticeable dent in the noise and skip, except on channel 6, as its strictly American owned and operated g. 3. A person operating a "peaked and clipped" CB into a class "C" amplifier generates spurious emission and higher harmonic content. People living in the vicinity of this illegal operator may have trouble using their entertainment devices (Broadcast radio, TV, computer) due to interference from those increased harmonics. Those people are having their right of access impeded. Again, no one has such a "right of access" of "unimpedement". The mere fact that the devices say they MUST accept interference discounts any "right" concerning unimpedement and unfetttered use. Would you listen to a radio with a torn speaker? Poor analogy, as your equipment apparently is not the problem...but your personal preference with another's broadcast. You always have the righyt to change the channel, as your "rights" are not being infringed upon. That depends. See my #2 above. I did. Check out my reply. Would it not bother you? See above. If it bothered me, I'd shut it off. But why should you have to? Don't "have" to,,thats what comes with freedom of choice. _ If you have a hobby or activity that normally brings you pleasure, and you are now faced with some undesirables which ruin your pleasure, why should you be always forced to be the one who has to yield to these people? No one is forcing anyone to partake in the hobby. There is no "force going on. If it were as simple as allocating certain channels for each activity and there were no such things as bleedover or interference, then your solution would be acceptable. But you know that that's not reality on CB. What solution? If changing the channel or band doesn;t work, shut it off. 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. No,,NOT in those cases, in YOUR personal experiences CB and society may be crumbling, but not to the rest of the world. What you experience is not the last word, far from it. Again you claim to know what the "majority" are thinking. You cannot possibly know what anyone else is thinking. Hehhe,,,,,,,correct,,,not in the manner youappear to be taking it,,not in an esp kind of way, but I indeed have the pulse of the public on a variety of issues. I *have* to. But no "pulse" or poll is completely reflective of reality. Correct. Most polls carry a margin error of 3% give or take, but it's pretty damn close,,and indicative. . Polls are subject to political or social biases, and limited to the demographics of the participants. And the best thing we have to measure the current pulse of certain factions. Other factions have other manners of gauging such things. |
N3CVJ/Twist
Part III 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. Well, you are focusing on the urchins, not the good. I find most hams in my area to be good people. But you are focusing on the urchins, lending to the notion that you indeed have a preference to dwell on the bad instead of the good,,,IE.the "half empty" glass. Only if I am surrounded by "the bad" to the point where looking for the positive becomes a ridiculous exercise in insanity. =A0=A0I 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. Interesting. Do you feel there are more hammies or cbers in this country? Not at all. Where would you get that idea? It was a multiple choice question. I tried qualifying such with "or". My mistake. I took it as a claim that there are more hams than Cbers. But there does seem to be more hams in my radio than there are local CBers. But that's an unfair comparison, due to the fact that many ham bands have long distance capability, and the sphere of my VHF coverage is much wider than the typical range for CB. Don't be so paranoid,,,I compared nothing,,,,again, it was a multiple choice question. - I can talk back to my old area with no problem on 2 meters. Yet I can hear no one over about a S3 on CB, from a similar distance. The cb hops in Tampa Bay, all the time, practically. Your topographical parameters make for an overall greater direct distance. In my area, there are numerous "hills" which bend and block signals, resulting in lopsided range, especially when operating mobile. There are more total Cbers in this country than hams (at least it used to be that way years ago), but the range of CB is relatively small and results in "pockets" of users, not all of which can be heard beyond their local range. _ Do you even know what a socialist is? I do. Do you still think (like you once posted) that a liberal and a libertarian are the same thing? A liberal and a libertarian are very much similar and the same. No, they are not. Liberals believe in big government oversight to handle the plethora of social programs that they feel we need to have shoved down our throats (At our tax expense). In fact extreme liberalism is what leads to socialism. No,,,that may be the currently attached definition by the terrified right, but I suggest you look up the definition of each...use any dictionary you prefer and come on back with a cut and paste. That is THE current understanding of what passes for modern liberalism in today's political climate. Only in the right's political climate. In fact , the right is so clueless as to the pulse of the public, they are going to be scratching their azzes come November, saying honestly "What happened?" It's not a "right wing conspiracy". Liberals are the champions of the poor, Because the right has nothing but disdain for the poor. Someone has to come to their aid. disenfranchised, the un and underemployed, minorities, and anyone else who feels that they're getting the "shaft" WRT the "American Dream". Liberals downplay the importance of personal responsibility, Wrong, this is more rhetoric and poison from the right. Have you noticed the Bush admin has a name for ALL who oppose or question their motives? They have neat little terms for all those they pigeonhole. instead believing that people are all victims of circumstances, and that "corporations" are the root of all evil. They believe that government should play the part of "the great equalizer". THAT is the seed of socialism. I invoke the entire concept of "social" security. The seed of socialism is much more in tone with the Bush admin than ANY liberal. _ A libertarian believes in the smallest amount of government that can exist and still be effective. Extreme libertarian views lead to anarchy. Like the establishment of a free society? Like the Boston Tea Party? Like suffrage? Like equal rights? On it goes... Like no rules and everyone's rights trampling on everyone else's. Where did you see anarchy arrive in the US via a libertarian view? Could this be more of th e concept you dispalyed that we ought do away with something because it carries the potential for abuse? Conservatives believe in somewhat limited government, and personal responsibility. Conservatives believe in strong law enforcement for those who cannot abide by the rules of society. Extreme conservatism leads to fascism. - They BOTH advocate the maximum liberties permitted under the law which is the exact manner of which I referred the two. Wrong! You need to do some more reading........ Again,,,,I do not need a partisan party to redefine the term. History and the founding forefathers, in addition to Merriam Webster are those I choose to believe. You, the one lecturing me that all rules should be "evergreen" and subject to revision as society and culture changes, are now sticking by a definition which is obsolete? Where did I EVER say the la should be subject to revision? If I felt that way, I would work actively to change the dx rule, but I do not I selectively disregard the rule. I find it much more easier and less trouble. The dx rule isn't worth challenging. _ That the right has been so effective in making terms mean something completely opposite of what it truly is (a liberal, of all examples) is frightening. Nothing frightening about it. It's reality. When a political party believes it can take a defining word and change it's meaning after 228 years, that is not reality, far from it. Liberals have been a key force in the undermining of traditional values for the last 30+ years. There are practices and activities which are almost common today that no one would even think of doing in the 1950's. Same with the oppression of our rights. You might think this is good. But I don't look at increased promiscuity, along with gratuitous sex and porn, the abandonment of traditional family roles etc, as a "good" thing. Those were your first choices, not mine. _ When the US government begins using the term as an insult, those who follow such bull**** must be educated to all they have been falsely indoctrinated. You have been misled and lied to by Bush.....on many occassion. I have been a strong conservative long before Bush came along. As I was a staunch republican until Ronnie's second term when they began declaring war (economic, drugs, tariffs) on our own citizens. It's refreshing to see a decisive leader who is guided by principle rather than one who changes his position depending on the political winds at the time. It sure is, but too bad we don't have that choice this time around. _ In fact, it is you and Frank who were shown not to know what a liberal is. Washington was a liberal. Our forefathers were liberals. This country was founded and built by liberlas. Today's liberal is someone who wants freedom for everyone, as long as it's according to their standards. Wrong, wrong, way wrong. This is what the right has attempted to redefine. No that's the truth. Take the recent political events as an example. The left feels that it's perfectly fine and an expression of a person's 1st amendment for Michael Moore to create a "propagandamentary" trashing and distorting Bush's leadership. But now that the shoe is on the other foot and a group of veterans is disputing Kerry's Vietnam claims, the left screams bloody murder and has attempted legal intimidation to attempt to block the release of the (#1 on the Amazon.com best seller list) Swift boat book Unfit for Command, as well as the associated TV ads. So what happened to the Left's cherished respect for the 1st amendment? The answer is clear to those who are not blinded by partisan myopia. The left are hypocrites of the first degree. A typical example is how the democrats had no problem with letting Michael Moore trash the president, but now scream foul when an independent group is now taking aim on Kerry. Moore can be sued if anything in his movie was untrue. No lawsuits after all this time. Conclusion,,,,,,,hmmmmm. Many of F-911's conjectures have been isproven by the 911 commission report (I trust you've read it?). Sure I have. One question to you..have you seen the movie, or are you commenting on what you have been told, read, and hear? Kerry can do the same to the Swift Boat veterans. Yet he, instead of taking aim at the veterans themselves, has attempted to block distribution of their book and ads. Conclusion? Hmmm......... Conclusion is Kerry appears to be taking legal actions at untruths. Bush can't do the same because what Moore said he did is true. Don;t you believe for one microsecond that if Bush could have Moore's azz on a platter, he would. to think otherwise is naive, as Bush has been shown to be hotheaded, non-composed, non-articulate, a liar, and spiteful and retaliatory, and holds great disdain for Americans who express their Aemerican birthrights,,,the right to express displeasure with the president. Today's liberal is two faced, duplicitous, and hypocritical. Today's liberal wants the working man to pay for the habitually lazy. Higher taxes for richer people. Nope,,just their fair percentage of their income. What's "fair" is purely subjective. I don't believe that anyone deserves special consideration. See below, The tax rate should be flat. In fact, when faced with actual percentages paid from their income, the top two percent of the wealthiest have the least taken out of their income (percentage wise) when compared to the bluecollar worker, even though in sheer dollars, they pay more. The top 10% of wage earners pay over 60% of the total income tax revenue. And STILL it is NOT the same percetnage of their income as the blue collar and middle class workers,,it is MUCH less. =A0 =A0The irony of this revelation alone should be enough to serve as a wake-up call to the nation as the gap continues to widen between the levels of society, but nope,,we have smokescreens by those like you who are more concerned with redefining terms to encompass all who dare oppose the current Bush regime are its enemy. _ Those who work hard and earn a place in the higher echelons of income should not be penalized for their success by being burdened by the baggage of those who lack the ambition to achieve similar success. It's not a penalty to ask them to pay the same percentage of their income as the working class. From those according to their means, to those according to their needs. Sound familiar? Try reading Karl Marx for the answer. See above for solution. _ You have succumbed to partisanship rhetoric of the right, where all who dare question or oppose the Bush admin, are labeled a liberal. Liberals and their socialistic ideals have been "bad" for this country long before Bush came into power. No,,they have never been bad,,,,,that is why the great ones were elected over and over for the course of ther lives. And the term "liberal" was never more misrepresented than when Bush came into office, but then again, Bush misrepresents everything. _ The term has become, albeit incorrectly, an intentionally misplaced catch-all to encompass anyone who opposes the current admin. The answer is easy if you look at a few key acts. I agree,,,and the answer is November when Bush gets booted back to Texas. 1. Socialism is a concept of a social structure which dictates that government shall take from those according to their means, to those according to their needs. This is well documented. 2. Which political party in this country looks to take more taxes from those who achieve, to give back to those who don't? "MORE" is a relevant and subjective term when distribution is accounted for. 3. A free market economy and true freedom involves less government involvement in personal lives allowing people to make greater choices. Yet, Bush has taken away more choices and imposed more governmental intrusions (laws passed) than any other president. 4. Which party is seeking to increase government involvement in people's lives, By laws taking away rights disguised as protection from terrorists... by proposing government mandated education programs, healthcare oversight, Healthcare oversight is all Bush. So are drug prices. preventing social security investment in private accounts, Whooaa,,,messing with SS by this admin is going too far,,,they already screwed up the dru prices and health care to the point of no return, in fact, everything they touch turns to sh*t. limiting gun ownership rights (Who needs the 2nd amendment?), Or the fourth? and of course increasing taxes to pay for it all? That was Bush. Bush raised taxes for the state of Texas to build his new stadium for his ball team, and then after he got what he wanted, turned around and claimed hewas against raising taxes. You want a list of Bush flips? He has Kerry outnumbered 10 to 1 on flip flops. _ I've opposed bleeding heart liberals since the time I was aware enough to realize that they were undermining the traditional values that this country was founded on. Bush is the one undermining the values,,such as our rights...not the liberals. You can cite NO liberal that has EVER seeked to take away portions of our constitution. Every liberal who favors gun control is trampling on the 2nd amendment. I am always accused of being a liberal, yet I am a card carrying member of the NRA. And why is the second amendment so much more important than the fourth? You disregard the assaults on the fourth by Bush and Ashcroft. Liberals are the ones who would defend the "right" of someone to distribute kiddie porn, rather than acknowledge that this is a social disease. Social disease? whooooo.that's a liberal term, isn't it? But of course, we all know you made a boo-boo when using the term, 'cause the right locks up those with social diseases. As it should be. There are just some activities that should not be allowed. Freedom is not absolute. Yea? As it should be? No,,,you don't lock one up for alcoholism or gambling. Now you're professing something akin to the Nazis..locking up what you feel are undesirables. Please provide any exchanges that I have authored where I defended the concepts of socialism. I believe in limited government. Wrong, you favor government imposition and can't even see it. Not at all. I believe is responsibility an accountability. Accountability does not extend to you being one that another must account to, although you ahve attempted such on many occasion. I'm not electing myself Pope here. I'm just aying that people need to be held accountable (to someone or thing) for their actions. You a re free to do what you will, (within the framework of a civilized society) but you are solely responsible for the effects of your actions (or inactions). Exactly,,,,,*I* am responsible for my actions, not you, So how can you be held accountable to hold to your responsibility if there is no one there to make the determination? For what actions? Having the government watching citizens all the time in case they step out of line is akin to making something illegal because it has the potential for abuse......and I'm not surprised you take such a position. Claim's of "taking responsibility" are meaningless unless there is a mechanism to enforce it. There is..it's called the FCC, remember? You took issue with them when they enforced the rules you said we must follow. I gotta do some work on the boat. Be back later. |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:13 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com