"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:
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

"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/

"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 =---