On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:49:09 +0100, "Peter"
wrote in :

"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.


Don't they allow an admission of guilt as evidence in the UK?


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.


True story.


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.


Are you speaking of "they" or just Doug?


That being said, there are some on this group who are pro-legal, some
who are against laws restricting freedom of communications,


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. 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.

Get this straight, Peter: You have freedoms, but those freedoms are
limited to the extent that you don't violate the rights of others. 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. You can drive a car -provided- you stay in
your own lane. Etc, etc. 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.
If there -is- such a law, US or UK, I invite you to post it.


and others
who walk the line between - believing that the law is often an ass, and
may not always be technically correct.


And that's very true -- some laws are, for the lack of a better term,
stupid. But there are ways to change laws. Legal ways. Ways that
neither require nor justify violating any 'stupid' law.


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.


The FCC has made it quite clear that the law applies only to the
-deliberate attempt- to exceed the distance limitations. I'll agree
that the laws governing the intended scope of CB radio are rarely
enforced. But that does not justify the violation of those laws.
Amateur radio is the proper service for the DX hobby, and is available
to anyone who can afford a happy meal and can memorize a few test
questions.


Here in the UK, when CB was first legalised, 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.


Was the law changed because of the de-facto standard? or because the
authority was presented with valid technical arguments that supported
the change? Was there an official explanation for the decision? If so,
got a link?


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?


Hey Ghandi, see above.


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.


Most politicians, like Michael Jackson, live inside a box and aren't
quite in touch with reality. Sometimes it takes an extreme act to draw
attention to an issue that is otherwise ignored. But the definition of
'extreme' doesn't include the word 'illegal'.







----== 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 =---