| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Frank Gilliland wrote:
Whoa there, Peter! Who in this group -- Doug included -- has ever -supported- any law that restricts the freedom of communication? Or the right to freedom of speech? Nobody, as far as I can remember. Google for a memory jog. I remember comments being made by nocodes that cb should be done away with. Such a law would restrict that freedom. If you are suggesting that the laws governing radio communications are a violation of the right to free speech then you are WAY wrong because that has already been thrown out in both the courts -and- in this newsgroup. Tell it to Howard Stern or Bubba the Love Sponge. Their recent RECORD fines from the FCC are testament to the law restricting exactly what speech may be broadcast and how screwed up the law actually is. A few examples,,,, one radio station may use an offensive term, but another radio station may not say the same thing,,,,,this dj can say this, but that dj over there can't say it. It's ok to say this on late night radio, but if you say it in the morning, we're going to fine you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it's screwed up so bad and Stern took Powell to task for it the other day. Now daddy Powell is ****ed at Stern. Get this straight, Peter: You have freedoms, but those freedoms are limited Limited equals restricted. to the extent that you don't violate the rights of others. Freedom of speech will always be tested in the courts, thank God. What you consider violating the rights of others, others may disagree. For example, what may offend you may not offend another, especially where speech and/or obscenity law is defined. You have freedom of movement -provided- you don't tresspass on someone else's property. You have the freedom of speech -provided- you don't cause a public nuisance. No, the word "nuisance" is to be found nowhere in either of the recent record fines against Stern and BTLS (btls.com). You can drive a car -provided- you stay in your own lane. Etc, etc. ..resulting in possible serious injury and/or death, none which can be attained via what another may deem offensive or illegal speech. Your freedoms, including the freedom to communicate, are not restricted except to the extent needed to provide those same freedoms to everyone and not violate the rights of others. As noted above. |
From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:33:03 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote in : Frank Gilliland wrote: Whoa there, Peter! Who in this group -- Doug included -- has ever -supported- any law that restricts the freedom of communication? Or the right to freedom of speech? Nobody, as far as I can remember. _ Google for a memory jog. I remember comments being made by nocodes that cb should be done away with. Such a law would restrict that freedom. You are confusing the message with the messenger -- CB radio is not a freedom. The right to say what you will on it most certainly is. Taking it away would certainly "restrict the freedom OF communication". If CB radio is ever nixed (and I hope it isn't), you would still be free to communicate, just not via CB radio. If you are suggesting that the laws governing radio communications are a violation of the right to free speech then you are WAY wrong because that has already been thrown out in both the courts -and- in this newsgroup. Tell it to Howard Stern or Bubba the Love Sponge. Their recent RECORD fines from the FCC are testament to the law restricting exactly what speech may be broadcast and how screwed up the law actually is. A few examples,,,, one radio station may use an offensive term, but another radio station may not say the same thing,,,,,this dj can say this, but that dj over there can't say it. It's ok to say this on late night radio, but if you say it in the morning, we're going to fine you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it's screwed up so bad and Stern took Powell to task for it the other day. Now daddy Powell is ****ed at Stern. Again, there's the difference between the message and messenger. There is a similar confusion whenever a radio station decides not to play a particular song for whatever reason. When that happens there is always a crowd that whines about censorship. But if their cries had any validity, every station would be forced to play every song from every artist since the beginning of time just so some Perry Como fan doesn't throw a fit. You and I both know it comes down to legalized, large scale payola. _ Get this straight, Peter: You have freedoms, but those freedoms are limited Limited equals restricted. ....stay within context.... to the extent that you don't violate the rights of others. Freedom of speech will always be tested in the courts, thank God. What you consider violating the rights of others, others may disagree. For example, what may offend you may not offend another, especially where speech and/or obscenity law is defined. And that's why the rights of citizens are defined in the Constitution. Yes, even the Constitution is subject to interpretation, but that's the job of the judicial system. So far that system has done a pretty good job. Not perfect, but pretty good. Yes, I agree, but one of the "bads" we must take in order to have the "goods" is the current incarnation of the FCC. You have freedom of movement -provided- you don't tresspass on someone else's property. You have the freedom of speech -provided- you don't cause a public nuisance. No, the word "nuisance" is to be found nowhere in either of the recent record fines against Stern and BTLS (btls.com). It was just an example, and it wasn't even intended to be specific to radio. Radio is not the only venue for speech, as Howie has recently learned. Sirius, isn't it? You can drive a car -provided- you stay in your own lane. Etc, etc. resulting in possible serious injury and/or death, ....and therefore violating the rights of someone else. none which can be attained via what another may deem offensive or illegal speech. It's not a matter of degrees. The right to free speech does not equate to the right to life, or the right to vote, to freedom of religion, to peaceably assemble, to keep and bear arms, etc. It's a matter of government legislating morality. They knew they were fighting a losing battle when they allowed "We may not be able to define obscenity, but we know it when we see it." The US is behind the times when compared to the rest of the world and what is deemed acceptable broadcast. The Janet Jackson thing and its fallout was a social step backwards. And most importantly, the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Your freedoms, including the freedom to communicate, are not restricted except to the extent needed to provide those same freedoms to everyone and not violate the rights of others. As noted above. My compliments on your choice to adopt the generally accepted method of Usenet quoting. It happens time to time. ----=3D=3D Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News=3D=3D---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---=3D |
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:56:51 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote in : snip since the beginning of time just so some Perry Como fan doesn't throw a fit. You and I both know it comes down to legalized, large scale payola. Bingo. snip that's the job of the judicial system. So far that system has done a pretty good job. Not perfect, but pretty good. Yes, I agree, but one of the "bads" we must take in order to have the "goods" is the current incarnation of the FCC. Slightly OT, here's an interesting tidbit I read last night: It was JFK who signed the bill permitting the FCC to levy fines for minor violations without due process. The fines were $100 per violation with a maximum of $500 (Popular Electronics, September 1962). I also read that the distance rules were established for two reasons: First, the Canadian hams were still using 11m; and second, to discourage the use of CB radio as a method of international communication, which was a big deal during the cold war. Well, the cold war is over, and the internet is crossing the communication barriers between borders much more than CB ever could. It's time the FCC took a second look at that rule. ...... Radio is not the only venue for speech, as Howie has recently learned. Sirius, isn't it? I'm sure he thinks it is....:-O You can drive a car -provided- you stay in your own lane. Etc, etc. resulting in possible serious injury and/or death, ....and therefore violating the rights of someone else. none which can be attained via what another may deem offensive or illegal speech. It's not a matter of degrees. The right to free speech does not equate to the right to life, or the right to vote, to freedom of religion, to peaceably assemble, to keep and bear arms, etc. It's a matter of government legislating morality. They knew they were fighting a losing battle when they allowed "We may not be able to define obscenity, but we know it when we see it." The US is behind the times when compared to the rest of the world and what is deemed acceptable broadcast. The Janet Jackson thing and its fallout was a social step backwards. It's a matter of government enforcement of current moral standards to public venues. Non-public venues are wide open to free speech, as cable TV and the internet prove millions of times each day. And while the internet and cable TV may be considered to be public venues by some, the broadcast stations have, and will always have, a much broader public domain simply because they are not subscriber-based services. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:12:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:56:51 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote in : Yes, I agree, but one of the "bads" we must take in order to have the "goods" is the current incarnation of the FCC. Slightly OT, here's an interesting tidbit I read last night: It was JFK who signed the bill permitting the FCC to levy fines for minor violations without due process. The fines were $100 per violation with a maximum of $500 (Popular Electronics, September 1962). I also read that the distance rules were established for two reasons: First, the Canadian hams were still using 11m; and second, to discourage the use of CB radio as a method of international communication, which was a big deal during the cold war. Well, the cold war is over, and the internet is crossing the communication barriers between borders much more than CB ever could. It's time the FCC took a second look at that rule. You forget that there was/is an ITU requirement that "international" two way radio services require the operator to have a knowledge of Morse Code. That was a primary reason why long distance contacts were prohibited on CB. Dave "Sandbagger" |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:12:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:56:51 -0400, (Twistedhed) wrote in : Yes, I agree, but one of the "bads" we must take in order to have the "goods" is the current incarnation of the FCC. Slightly OT, here's an interesting tidbit I read last night: It was JFK who signed the bill permitting the FCC to levy fines for minor violations without due process. The fines were $100 per violation with a maximum of $500 (Popular Electronics, September 1962). I also read that the distance rules were established for two reasons: First, the Canadian hams were still using 11m; and second, to discourage the use of CB radio as a method of international communication, which was a big deal during the cold war. Well, the cold war is over, and the internet is crossing the communication barriers between borders much more than CB ever could. It's time the FCC took a second look at that rule. You forget that there was/is an ITU requirement that "international" two way radio services require the operator to have a knowledge of Morse Code. That was a primary reason why long distance contacts were prohibited on CB. Hi Dave, The ITU treaty agreement applied to the amateur radio, not the CB. I found this out when Alan Dixon petitioned the FCC to drop the 155.3 mi. rule, RM-9807. Which leads me to... Over the past few mos., every candidate/incumbent for public office has sent a campaign flyer of some sort and we've all had out mailboxes filled with this stuff. One of the best things we can do for the CB is to set up a form letter asking said candidate/incumbent to "inquire" about dropping the 155.3 mi. limit for the CB radio service and why the FCC acknowledged that the majority of CBers were in favor of this yet chose to cater to a few private interest groups. Simply fill in the name and address and send this to every candidate/incumbent who sends you a flyer. All that's really needed is for them to make a casual inquiry. Having now been somewhat involved with lobbying and witnessing how these "inquiries" are generated, I can say with some certainty that ten (Yep, just 10.) letters usually warrants a casual phone call or letter. Try researching how the amateur radio vanity call program came into existence...just a letter to the right desk (Non-FCC) after having an official RM-petition turned down. It's an amusing story in any case and demonstrates what can be accomplished if more than a few people get of their duffs and just make an effort. -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384 QRP ARCI #11782 |
You forget that there was/is an ITU requirement that "international" two
way radio services require the operator to have a knowledge of Morse Code. That was a primary reason why long distance contacts were prohibited on CB. Dave "Sandbagger" _ The ITU clause never applied to cb. |
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:48:35 GMT, "Bert Craig"
wrote: You forget that there was/is an ITU requirement that "international" two way radio services require the operator to have a knowledge of Morse Code. That was a primary reason why long distance contacts were prohibited on CB. Hi Dave, The ITU treaty agreement applied to the amateur radio, not the CB. I found this out when Alan Dixon petitioned the FCC to drop the 155.3 mi. rule, RM-9807. Which leads me to... As it was explained to me some time ago, the ITU requirement covered ALL personal two-way radio services (Including ham, CB, land mobile, maritime etc.) This was even given as one reason why the FCC was not willing to eliminate the 150 mile limit for CB. They basically "passed the buck" by stating that they were prevented by international law from making a change which would allow the CB service to have contacts which could be international. If that's no longer correct, there there is really no reason to keep the 155 mile limit. Over the past few mos., every candidate/incumbent for public office has sent a campaign flyer of some sort and we've all had out mailboxes filled with this stuff. One of the best things we can do for the CB is to set up a form letter asking said candidate/incumbent to "inquire" about dropping the 155.3 mi. limit for the CB radio service and why the FCC acknowledged that the majority of CBers were in favor of this yet chose to cater to a few private interest groups. With all the really major issues surrounding this year's campaign, I doubt if something so relatively trivial in nature would be given much consideration. Dave "Sandbagger" |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:48:35 GMT, "Bert Craig" wrote: You forget that there was/is an ITU requirement that "international" two way radio services require the operator to have a knowledge of Morse Code. That was a primary reason why long distance contacts were prohibited on CB. Hi Dave, The ITU treaty agreement applied to the amateur radio, not the CB. I found this out when Alan Dixon petitioned the FCC to drop the 155.3 mi. rule, RM-9807. Which leads me to... As it was explained to me some time ago, the ITU requirement covered ALL personal two-way radio services (Including ham, CB, land mobile, maritime etc.) This was even given as one reason why the FCC was not willing to eliminate the 150 mile limit for CB. They basically "passed the buck" by stating that they were prevented by international law from making a change which would allow the CB service to have contacts which could be international. If that's no longer correct, there there is really no reason to keep the 155 mile limit. That's what was told to me at first too, until Alan enlightened me and the difference between the amateur radio vs. land mobile service as they relate to the ITU was clarified. (No pun intended.) Over the past few mos., every candidate/incumbent for public office has sent a campaign flyer of some sort and we've all had out mailboxes filled with this stuff. One of the best things we can do for the CB is to set up a form letter asking said candidate/incumbent to "inquire" about dropping the 155.3 mi. limit for the CB radio service and why the FCC acknowledged that the majority of CBers were in favor of this yet chose to cater to a few private interest groups. With all the really major issues surrounding this year's campaign, I doubt if something so relatively trivial in nature would be given much consideration. That's the beauty of it, Dave. It wouldn't take "much" consideration at all. BTW, when an elected official receives more than nine letters/calls regarding ANY issue, it ceases to be "trivial in nature"...that, from the horses mouth. Remember, all that's needed is a casual inquiry. Did you check out the origins of the amateur vanity call program? -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384 QRP ARCI #11782 |
"Peter" wrote:
I get the idea that you select a certain part and twist Him and dogie worship Twist. Hell, we -ALL- worship Twist! :-& lol -- http://NewsReader.Com 30GB/Month |
From: (Peter)
"Twistedhed" wrote in message ... resulting in possible serious injury and/or death, none which can be attained via what another may deem offensive or illegal speech. _ Hi Twisty. Yo' Brain! The problem with some people is that, in spite of having two eyes, two ears - but just one mouth - they still use their yapper more than their ears, eyes, and brains put together. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they don't have a brain or that it doesn't work... but it doesn't matter how good the engine is or much you rev it if you have left the gearbox in neutral. I NEVER said I agree with any of those opinions, just that they exist among some people - different people have different outlooks on life. It must therefor fair to say that arguing with me that those opinions are not valid is about as much use as farting into a wind tunnel. Not sure what post you are replying to, but my reply was regarding the analogy of driving a car. I certainly was never attempting to convey that you agreed or disgreed with any of the above. If they want to argue that those opinions do not exist, that everyone believes in the same notion of right and wrong, then that's different... then either everyone on the group is a Keyclown or there are no Keyclowns. Either way, they can retire from the group in the safe knowledge that we all agree. You know, Twisty, my Son has recently hit *that* age. You know the age, where they suddeny find any taboo subject to be either cool or downright funny. At that age, swearing is great fun and anyone they don't like has to be "gay". If someone who is accused of being gay touches something, that object becomes "full of gayness". Touch it, and you will become gay. At that age, they have the ultimate get out clause for any situation that they wish to avoid... I remember those days. Went through them a few times. =A0 =A0=A0=A0"Could you go to the shop for me, Son?" =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"Going to the shop is gay!!" =A0=A0=A0=A0"Time to go to school, Son" =A0 =A0=A0=A0"School is gay!!" =A0 =A0=A0=A0"You can go out to play when you have done your homework" =A0 "Homework is gay" Yea,,,what I experienced was pretty muh the same thing. I've heard the "gay" term from the boys and "pathetic" from the girls, but as far as overuse went, the girls won hands down. While the boys may say "That player is really gay on their team",,,the girls would say "Like, that gay player, on that, like, gay team, is like, really gay." Unfortunately, some people clearly never get beyond that stage - they are destined live their lives with the mentality of a child. =A0=A0 Agreed. It's the Sluggo Syndrome. Maturation ceases prematurely for whatever reason. =A0=A0"It's getting late, Dad, time for you to get back to the retirement home" =A0 "The retirement home is gay!!" Regards, Peter. Had a dream about dxing across the big pond last night....must be time to dust off the equipment after hardly being touched all summer. I have a few things to do, but I'm hoping to be in tip-top radio shape by Christmas. Freakin' hurricane Jean put some water where I didn't want it and I got to replacing and shoring up some things and you know how that goes..ended up redoing just about everything. Peace. |
"Twistedhed" wrote in message
... .resulting in possible serious injury and/or death, none which can be attained via what another may deem offensive or illegal speech. Hi Twisty. The problem with some people is that, in spite of having two eyes, two ears - but just one mouth - they still use their yapper more than their ears, eyes, and brains put together. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they don't have a brain or that it doesn't work... but it doesn't matter how good the engine is or much you rev it if you have left the gearbox in neutral. I NEVER said I agree with any of those opinions, just that they exist among some people - different people have different outlooks on life. It must therefor fair to say that arguing with me that those opinions are not valid is about as much use as farting into a wind tunnel. If they want to argue that those opinions do not exist, that everyone believes in the same notion of right and wrong, then that's different... then either everyone on the group is a Keyclown or there are no Keyclowns. Either way, they can retire from the group in the safe knowledge that we all agree. You know, Twisty, my Son has recently hit *that* age. You know the age, where they suddeny find any taboo subject to be either cool or downright funny. At that age, swearing is great fun and anyone they don't like has to be "gay". If someone who is accused of being gay touches something, that object becomes "full of gayness". Touch it, and you will become gay. At that age, they have the ultimate get out clause for any situation that they wish to avoid... "Could you go to the shop for me, Son?" "Going to the shop is gay!!" "Time to go to school, Son" "School is gay!!" "You can go out to play when you have done your homework" "Homework is gay" Unfortunately, some people clearly never get beyond that stage - they are destined live their lives with the mentality of a child. "It's getting late, Dad, time for you to get back to the retirement home" "The retirement home is gay!!" Regards, Peter. |
"U Know Who" wrote in
message ... And he speaks in the 3rd person about himself. Delusional? You be the judge. As long as people will listen and respond, he will keep playing his playground games in this group. Do yourself a favor, killfile the poor sad bar-steward. Regards, Peter http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/ |
"DR. Death" wrote...
"Peter" wrote in message ... Post snipped for brevity... against laws restricting freedom of communications "freedom of communications" only pertains to verbal communications not radio or TV ect. I can only surmise you believe you have rights in this issue the same as others believe they have the right to drive a car. Please go back to the parts you snipped, AND READ THEM. Where do I say that I believe I have such rights, or that I believe in certain freedoms? I note that, although I refer to some people being "pro-legal", you do not accuse me of referring to myself at that point. I get the idea that you select a certain part and twist it to mean something different, so that you can feel the need to argue over something. To back up your argument, you take PART of a sentence totally out of context to use as a suggestion that I am on a certain side. Peter. |
"Peter" wrote in message
news:41888d4e.0@entanet... "DR. Death" wrote... "Peter" wrote in message ... Post snipped for brevity... against laws restricting freedom of communications "freedom of communications" only pertains to verbal communications not radio or TV ect. I can only surmise you believe you have rights in this issue the same as others believe they have the right to drive a car. Please go back to the parts you snipped, AND READ THEM. Where do I say that I believe I have such rights, or that I believe in certain freedoms? I note that, although I refer to some people being "pro-legal", you do not accuse me of referring to myself at that point. I get the idea that you select a certain part and twist it to mean something different, so that you can feel the need to argue over something. To back up your argument, you take PART of a sentence totally out of context to use as a suggestion that I am on a certain side. Peter. OK, here is the entire post. I only snipped it because it was the only part I felt a need to respond to. I still stand behind my original post that transmitting on C.B. is not a right but a privilege, just like driving a car. It is not a right under the constitution it is a privilege. I did not suggest in my post that you were on ANY side. You read that into it YOURSELF. "Peter" wrote in message ... "harvey" wrote in message ... ok after a few monhts of reading here and some digging, my assumptions are thus: keyclowns: snip The theory is that Keyclowns are illegal CBers, and Antikeyclowns those who oppose illegal CB. However, that is all just a cover for the truth. Some people are just hell bent against CB and those who use it - as demonstrated by their inability to post CB related messages, and their use of the term "keyclown" being aimed at anyone they dislike - without any proof of any kind that they use any illegal CB of any kind. The homosexual hate messages are just the physical manifestation of the mental problems within the minds of those who hate some people so much that they will chase them around trying to anoy them. Rather than trying to make their own lives better and more enjoyable, they wish to make other people as unhappy and mentally unwell as themselves. Although they try to mask what they are with some claim to respect for the law, they are often unmasked as their own criminal activities or "brushes" with the FCC or police are made public. That being said, there are some on this group who are pro-legal, some who are against laws restricting freedom of communications, and others who walk the line between - believing that the law is often an ass, and may not always be technically correct. This is the part in which you make reference to "freedom of communication". If you can show me where in the constitution that mentions C.B. radio or any court decisions upholding freedom of communication by way of C.B. radio, I will retract my statement and issue an apology. For example, distance rules. In America, you have a "No DX" rule. If you do not reply to a signal, does that mean it did not go over that distance? This law is often seen as a technically unsound and legally unenforceable law. Here in the UK, when CB was first legalized, our Government opted to restrict distance with tech spec rather than trust to some "no DX" rule. What they did was to put in rules regarding antenna length and height from the ground. Those who stuck within the law were radiating 4 Watts of RF at a height well below that of radio and TV equipment, and often caused interference. It was soon worked out that, to avoid harmful interference and grief, the way to go was NOT what the law said. The rule was broken everywhere, and never enforced. Eventually, the government saw their error, removed the height rule and relaxed the length rule, allowing us bigger homebase antennas at any height within local planning rules. Some say that stupid laws often needs a hard push before they will be changed, and illegal action becomes necessary - would the RA have removed that height rule if CBers had not proved it wrong by their illegal use? Would the UK Government even be considering changing outdated and extremely sexist family law if it was not for the illegal actions of Batman and Robin? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...bsection=world http://www.itv.com/news/index_1789720.html http://www.fathers-4-justice.org I wouldn't have liked to be the person who had to make the call to the queen... "Sorry to bother you, your majesty... but Batman is on your ledge, and he's asking to speak to you." Aparently she watched it on TV. Regards, Peter. http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/ |
"Peter" wrote:
I never seem to find the time to get the big antenna back up, I will have to make the time - before the snow gets here. Good luck with the antenna, Peter. Oh btw, your clock seems to be wrong. Take Care. |
"Twistedhed" wrote in message
... Not sure what post you are replying to, but my reply was regarding the analogy of driving a car. I certainly was never attempting to convey that you agreed or disgreed with any of the above. I was referring to other people, who seemed to reply to my post as if I was claiming some desire to break laws. Had a dream about dxing across the big pond last night....must be time to dust off the equipment after hardly being touched all summer. I have a few things to do, but I'm hoping to be in tip-top radio shape by Christmas. Freakin' hurricane Jean put some water where I didn't want it and I got to replacing and shoring up some things and you know how that goes..ended up redoing just about everything. I never seem to find the time to get the big antenna back up, I will have to make the time - before the snow gets here. Regards, Peter http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/ |
From: (Peter)
"Twistedhed" wrote in message ... Not sure what post you are replying to, but my reply was regarding the analogy of driving a car. I certainly was never attempting to convey that you agreed or disgreed with any of the above. I was referring to other people, who seemed to reply to my post as if I was claiming some desire to break laws. Ah, you know how it is,,the two who delude themselves with imagined Phd status are ready to tell you all about yourself, for no charge, on the internet, in a semi-obscure cb group. You can't buy this sort of entertainment without contributing to the Jim Henson Memorial Fund. I never seem to find the time to get the big antenna back up, I will have to make the time - before the snow gets here. Brrrr...making me shiver just thinking about it. We just shut the A/C off not long ago....camping and hunting season is here (finally). From this month through March,,,,nothing is finer than this here latitude and longitude. While the great white north shivers, I'm doing the Jimmy Buffet thing. Send me your freaks,,,I mean "freqs", when you get your ears up and on. Regards, Peter http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/ |
"Steveo" wrote...
Oh btw, your clock seems to be wrong. Every now and then my systems seem to lose time or go back to 1997... causing OE to delete messages in the cache. I had noticed that my time zone appears to be off, it should now be corrected, but my clock appears to be about right. If you are looking at the two time stamps, the ISP is stampint the time that the message goes through their server. Regards, Peter http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/ |
"Peter" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote... Oh btw, your clock seems to be wrong. Every now and then my systems seem to lose time or go back to 1997... causing OE to delete messages in the cache. I had noticed that my time zone appears to be off, it should now be corrected, but my clock appears to be about right. If you are looking at the two time stamps, the ISP is stampint the time that the message goes through their server. I looks right now. Your last post was way off so it was sorted out of place over here. No biggie. |
"Steveo" wrote in message
... I looks right now. Your last post was way off so it was sorted out of place over here. No biggie. Newsreaders tend to sort by the time the message was typed rather than posting time as given by the NNTP server. Generally, I go through posts just before sending them. That time I did not post them immediately, so it showed a difference between the creation and posting time stamps. I suppose we could start a debate on which time stamp news readers should sort by :~) Regards, Peter http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/ |
"Peter" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message ... I looks right now. Your last post was way off so it was sorted out of place over here. No biggie. Newsreaders tend to sort by the time the message was typed rather than posting time as given by the NNTP server. Generally, I go through posts just before sending them. That time I did not post them immediately, so it showed a difference between the creation and posting time stamps. Ah, it may have something to do with using your noose reader offline. I suppose we could start a debate on which time stamp news readers should sort by :~) That might be like coax length. :) |
"DR. Death" wrote in message
... I did not suggest in my post that you were on ANY side. If you agree that I am not taking any sides, why argue the validity of such views? Why did you only feel it necessary to argue against one side, without consideration that I mentioned all sides? I don't see any "keyclowns" whining about my mention of the pro-legal issues. The OP never asked what the law said, they referred to the arguments here and the "gay" posts... my post was a reply to that issue, not some attempt to argue against pro-legal or keyclown beliefs. However, if you feel offended in some way, I suspect you may belong to the other group - those who never grew up and still act like children with "gay" remarks. Such people are only using the "pro-legal" label as a cover for the fact that they are trolls. They don't really care about those issues, they just like filling the group with angry posts. They make the term "legal CB" seem like a dirty word, as if anyone who is pro-legal has to be a ****. If they felt that it would get more arguments going, they would happily take the "keyclown" label and argue that side. The problem is that some people continue to be baited by those trolls, when killfiling them would be the best option. "Peter" wrote in message ... That being said, there are some on this group who are pro-legal, some who are against laws restricting freedom of communications, and others who walk the line between - believing that the law is often an ass, and may not always be technically correct. This is the part in which you make reference to "freedom of communication". If you can show me where in the constitution that mentions C.B. radio Could you show me where I refer to "the constitution"? I didn't think so, I refererred to some people believing in such freedoms. I decided to humour you, and look up the words in my English dictionary and there is no mention of the constitution or court actions... what a surprise. So, I did a Google search on "frredom of communications"... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...tnG=Goog le+S earch Great list of sites, but no links to the constitution... nothing to suggest that the term is defined by the constitution or an American court. So I decided to look up the constitution... http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ion.table.html Maybe you could show me the part which refers to freedom of communications, or defines English language. While you are at it, maybe you can show the part which says that people cannot believe that some things should be different... maybe a court case showing that you are a criminal just for having a different idea of what is right. If so, someone had better arrest Arnie and his supporters for holding beliefs contrary to Article 2... http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...articleii.html Can you show how that constitition applies to me? Remember, this is "rec.radio.cb"... not "usa.radio.cb". Maybe you think that anything not labeled as belonging to a specific nation automatically belongs to America. Is this not how many criminals think, if it is not clearly marked as belonging to someone, you can freely take it and call it yours? Peter. |
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:47:07 -0000, "Peter"
wrote in 41a199d1.0@entanet: "DR. Death" wrote in message ... I did not suggest in my post that you were on ANY side. If you agree that I am not taking any sides, why argue the validity of such views? Why did you only feel it necessary to argue against one side, without consideration that I mentioned all sides? I don't see any "keyclowns" whining about my mention of the pro-legal issues. The OP never asked what the law said, they referred to the arguments here and the "gay" posts... my post was a reply to that issue, not some attempt to argue against pro-legal or keyclown beliefs. However, if you feel offended in some way, I suspect you may belong to the other group - those who never grew up and still act like children with "gay" remarks. Such people are only using the "pro-legal" label as a cover for the fact that they are trolls. They don't really care about those issues, they just like filling the group with angry posts. They make the term "legal CB" seem like a dirty word, as if anyone who is pro-legal has to be a ****. If they felt that it would get more arguments going, they would happily take the "keyclown" label and argue that side. The problem is that some people continue to be baited by those trolls, when killfiling them would be the best option. Agreed. "Peter" wrote in message ... That being said, there are some on this group who are pro-legal, some who are against laws restricting freedom of communications, and others who walk the line between - believing that the law is often an ass, and may not always be technically correct. This is the part in which you make reference to "freedom of communication". If you can show me where in the constitution that mentions C.B. radio Could you show me where I refer to "the constitution"? I didn't think so, I refererred to some people believing in such freedoms. I decided to humour you, and look up the words in my English dictionary and there is no mention of the constitution or court actions... what a surprise. So, I did a Google search on "frredom of communications"... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...tnG=Goog le+S earch Great list of sites, but no links to the constitution... nothing to suggest that the term is defined by the constitution or an American court. So I decided to look up the constitution... http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ion.table.html Maybe you could show me the part which refers to freedom of communications, or defines English language. While you are at it, maybe you can show the part which says that people cannot believe that some things should be different... maybe a court case showing that you are a criminal just for having a different idea of what is right. How about a case from the US Supreme Court? "Freedom of the press may protect criticism and agitation for modification or repeal of laws, but it does not extend to protection of him who counsels and encourages the violation of the law as it exists. The Constitution was adopted to preserve our Government, not to serve as a protecting screen for those who while claiming its privileges seek to destroy it." If so, someone had better arrest Arnie and his supporters for holding beliefs contrary to Article 2... http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...articleii.html What does the executive branch have to do with this discussion? Can you show how that constitition applies to me? Remember, this is "rec.radio.cb"... not "usa.radio.cb". The philosophies between our countries are not so very different, and neither are the laws. Maybe you think that anything not labeled as belonging to a specific nation automatically belongs to America. Is this not how many criminals think, if it is not clearly marked as belonging to someone, you can freely take it and call it yours? Despite the fact that the vast majority of users on this newsgroup are in the US, who (besides yourself) has suggested that this newsgroup is -limited- to the US? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:44 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com