On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:48:46 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave Hall) wrote:
The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the
distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is
heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations
were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample
of any particular transmission could not be made.

Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter.

No, it doesn't. Dx is simply an enhancement of the atmosphere which
allows a signal to propagate farther then normal line of sight. It
does not add "splatter" to an otherwise clean signal.

Ah, that explains everything. So when a normal channel
has maybe 5 to 10 operators, add another 100 because of
skip conditions, of course there will be some running
clipped & mod radio's, you don't think that enhances
the splatter?

Not to any one single radio signal. You are confusing heterodyning
with splatter.


So therefore it can be assumed that a roger beep and (even more
definite) an echo box could be considered "entertainment" or
"amusement" devices and, as such, are specifically prohibited.

You can make the point that the FCC doesn't care enough to make a case
about these things, and I would probably agree with you. But the fact
remains that they are prohibited by the rules.

We've gone over this before Dave, your wrong.


I have referenced two part 95 rules which address both the issue of
permissible non-voice transmissions and also prohibited transmissions
which include devices which are used for entertainment and amusement.

Conversely there are no rules which specifically allow either a roger
beep (and other noise makers) or echo boxes. Since neither are defined
under permissible non-voice transmissions, it can reasonably be
concluded that these devices would be considered amusement or
entertainment devices, and as such prohibited.

You tell me I'm wrong, then please prove it by providing the rules
which allow these devices.

If I showed you CB radio's being sold BRAND NEW
with roger beeps, will that do?

It will tell me that there are a few companies which are willing to
play loose and fast with the rules, until they are spanked for it.
Galaxy radios are notorious for catering to the illegal freeband
market. It's no surprise that they push the limit. Knowing that the
FCC is not all that interested in small CB rule issues, they take the
gamble that they won't be judged. They're probably right....


There is still nothing in the rules which allow for devices that can
be considered entertainment.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:33:27 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


He's right, Dave. You can receive more than one skip signal from the
same transmission, and their phasing can cause intermodulation
distortion in any RF stage of your receiver.

No dice Frank. The effect you have described is commonly referred to
as "multipath".


a.k.a, "fading".


The differences in phase angles of the received
signals can cause either an addition to or a subtraction from the
fundamental signal. But it does not cause it to splatter.


No it doesn't, and that's not what I said. I said that a non-linear
stage in the receiver can turn that fading into what appears to be
splatter. If you want an example I have a couple cheap shortwave
radios that do exactly that; you pay for shipping and you can examine
them all you want.


You may very well have an example of what you've described. But that
doesn't mean that I do, or that I am incapable of distinguishing
between receiver quirks and actual on-air splatter caused by an
illegal transmitter. In many cases, I've used different radios (I have
enough of them) as well as test equipment to make my determination.

Do you really want to argue the point just because you're smarting
with me right now? You, of all people, know what an illegal operator
sounds like.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:30:42 GMT, "U Know Who"
wrote:


"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge"
wrote in message ...
Dave Hall wrote in
:

He's right, Dave. You can receive more than one skip signal from the
same transmission, and their phasing can cause intermodulation
distortion in any RF stage of your receiver.

No dice Frank. The effect you have described is commonly referred to
as "multipath". The differences in phase angles of the received
signals can cause either an addition to or a subtraction from the
fundamental signal. But it does not cause it to splatter. A special
form of this is called "selective fading" which can cause different
parts of the signal to fade differently, which can distort the audio.
But this is not "splatter, and will not make the signal "bleed" more.
Heck the HF ham bands are almost always utilizing skywave propagation.
If what you say were true, then the ham bands would be virtually
unusable due to all the signals splattering across the band. With the
exception of a few bad apples running some illegal equipment, this is
normally not a problem.

All that's required is
enough non-linearity in just one stage and the signals will modulate
each other.

I have never seen this happen in any of the quality receivers I've
owned over the years.

Unless the signal is in motion (doppler effect) the frequency will
remain the same even if the phase shifts. Since all the multipath
signal frequencies are the same, there will be no mixing products
generated.

If that were the case, then any group of signals, local or skip, would
do the same thing. That's not something that you'd want in a good
receiver. But you can't pin the faults of a bad receiver design on
atmospheric phenomenon.

This is almost as hokey as saying that a certain antenna will make you
sound "louder".

Propagation, like antennas, are passive. It only radiates or
re-radiates a signal. It does not modify it . If a signal is clean,
then the propagation will propagate it as such.

The result is what appears to be splatter but is really a
fault of the receiver. Happens all the time with cheap shortwave
radios.

Ah! But why do you assume that I have a "cheap shortwave radio"?

What happens when you put a low noise GasFET preamp behind a bandpass
filter and then into a spectrum analyzer? Surely you know what
splatter looks like on a spectral display?

And DX doesn't have to be up to get a good signal -- I have
heard many clear DX signals from seemingly dead bands.

A clear, and stable DX condition will not distort a radio signal.

A station which is backswinging wildly, with fuzzy distorted audio,
and splattering 3 channels in each direction, is running illegally,
regardless of the fact that the FCC hasn't yet cited them for it.

Yeah. So what? But was I LOUD?

You were 10-8 and straight across my duck pluckin' end that's for
cotton picken real. ;-)

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:48:46 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Lancer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave Hall) wrote:
The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the
distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is
heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations
were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample
of any particular transmission could not be made.

Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter.


The only thing DX has to do with DX splatter is that if "DX" isn't
running you wouldn't hear it.

Probably, but if you have a 100 radio's and a third of
them are running their modulation clipped, then you
will hear it even worse, correct?


Splatter or out of bounds emissions are those falling outside the
normal bandwidth of a signal and are the result of modulation.


Correct

DX doesn't cause splatter it allows it to propgate farther.

Correct. When you have a lot more radio's trying to talk
on one freq, don't you think that it will now increase your
adjacent channel splatter?

Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you are now making the case
that I cannot identify the exact station which is creating the
splatter due to the sheer number of competing stations. Ok, you have a
valid point in some cases. In many cases all you have is combined
"noise", and it's impossible to distinguish any one individual. On the
other hand, especially on channel 6, there is always one or two
stations which stand out head and shoulders above the pack. You can
plainly hear his splatter on adjacent channels. Those are the guys who
I base my observations on.

Remember, I never said that *all* the stations on channel 6 are
illegal, just the loud and proud ones.


Then there is also the issue of aggregate signal differences. If the
average noise/signal level on most of the 40 channels is running
around S8, and while on channel 6, it is +10db over S9, that suggests
that the average power level of the users there is at a higher level
than those on the other channels. Skip doesn't favor any one channel
(in a band as small as the CB band) over another so the conditions
should be the same on all the channels.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:21:28 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:33:27 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


He's right, Dave. You can receive more than one skip signal from the
same transmission, and their phasing can cause intermodulation
distortion in any RF stage of your receiver.

No dice Frank. The effect you have described is commonly referred to
as "multipath".


a.k.a, "fading".


The differences in phase angles of the received
signals can cause either an addition to or a subtraction from the
fundamental signal. But it does not cause it to splatter.


No it doesn't, and that's not what I said. I said that a non-linear
stage in the receiver can turn that fading into what appears to be
splatter. If you want an example I have a couple cheap shortwave
radios that do exactly that; you pay for shipping and you can examine
them all you want.


You may very well have an example of what you've described. But that
doesn't mean that I do, or that I am incapable of distinguishing
between receiver quirks and actual on-air splatter caused by an
illegal transmitter. In many cases, I've used different radios (I have
enough of them) as well as test equipment to make my determination.

Do you really want to argue the point just because you're smarting
with me right now? You, of all people, know what an illegal operator
sounds like.


Well gee Dave, I'm just suggesting there's another possibility for the
splatter instead of illegal behavior. You know, kinda like your
suggestions that there were other reasons for voting irregularities in
Ohio. How can you be so 'open minded' on one topic yet be so quick to
condemn on another?






----== 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 Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:54:35 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :



On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:55:38 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:16:34 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 09:27:09 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


And until Dave can provide an example where one of the allegedly
illegal operators he allegedly heard was found guilty, got an NAL, or
even admitted his guilt publically, then his allegations are nothing
more than his opinions, not facts.

So you are of the Twisted notion that a person is not breaking the
law until they are caught?


Hardly. What I am saying is that conviction requires proof, not
opinion.


Who's "convicting"? I made an observation, based on trained skills.
It's enough to tell me the truth.


And did make any observations, based on trained skills, when you
determined the "truth" about Kerry's military record?





----== 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 =---

NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, Jan 11, 2005, 6:54am (EST-1)
From: =A0Dave Hall Group: rec.radio.cb
Subject: =A0 How would you improve your CB? Date: =A0=A0 Tue, Jan 11,
2005, 7:54am Organization: =A0=A0 home.ptd.net/~n3cvj X-Trace: =A0=A0
sv3-q7SGue42H/vRaDYH4N3psNg3Qmw/YC9a4Dyd/tW5TMIxcpFlD4+wudF3VPa/NeT9FyEbxV=
riN7HTczS!F65LQgVvtLpIGvjN6QYn9fYhYdfeR1OY+JFqkVzh +LSmz4niczFJLmK8iGPsEdHl=
04Ir/DKOXiRl!a8QIrMaMCPE=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 1.3.22
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:32:19 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 16:48:36 -0500, n3cvj wrote:
Someday I may clue you in to just how a

psychological study of your posting habits was
included in someone I know's psychology

report on deviant behaviors.

That would be so rich, if you knew who the hell you were responding,

That'll never happen, since you have such a

paranoia about remaining anonymous.

Just can't help yourself,,,lmao.
Only you are concerned with the personal identity

Your identity is who you are.

That you mistake a user name as one's personal identity is your problem.

You said it yourself: "If I only knew who the

hell I was responding too"..... The implication,

of course, is that I would somehow recognize

you as someone I either know, or is someone

of some prestige or notoriety, which

commands some degree of respect.


Not necessarily, but such an implication is valid each time you attempt
to make me your (off) topic.

long as you choose to hide behind your

"cartoon character", we'll never know that, and
you remain an anonymous little twit, who lacks
the guts to come clean.


You were proved a coward, Dave. You had every opportunity to end your
nuances and obsessions concerning your penchant for who I may or may not
be when you mentioned you were coming to Disney and as always, you
disappeared when you were backed into a corner.



BTW, I'm not the one desperately trying to find
out little tidbits of information about other

people on here, like your erroneous claim that

my wife's name was "Kim T. Hall",



Kimberly T. Hall...
,
or who once claimed that you had it on good

authority that I'm a bitter divorced man, or that

I was "abused" by my grandfather at a young

age.

Nope,,,you were the one who initiated the off topic personal garbage and
excused your name calling behavior with "they were personal
observations" and other such bull**** pontifications. Now that the show
is on the other foot and you are on the receiving end of your own
mudslinging, you try to illustrate that such behavior was of my origin,
when it clearly began with you.


For someone who claims to care little about

personal information, you sure make efforts to

find it, even if it is wrong. Just another

example of your hypocrisy, and lies.

Wake up, Dave. Stop being so bitter with everyone involved in your life,
voluntary and otherwise.
Concerning your self-espoused accomplishments concerning the internet,
you sure have a cow over following internet safety protocol, security
experts advice, and basic isp groundrules for the internet. Very telling
is your dwelling on that of which you are not permitted. You're like a
spoiled child that keeps being told "no" over and over and all he can do
is cry about how unfair life is and blame others for his misery.

As opposed to you who, when told "no", just

do it anyway in disregard for the laws of

society?

Yes, exactly like that, because, despite your best attempts at
portraying otherwise, I have not complained here about the rules, unless
my opinion was specifically solicited and in tailored to two very
specific rules regarding dx and certain freqs.


And such is the double edged sword of

remaining anonymous.


Only I'm not anonymous, Dave...only you continue to miscue and assert
such.

If you really are

someone of worthiness, and respect, well

never know it,



The only person that has ever considered you as part of a "we" when
speaking for them is N8WWM. If you can name another, by all means, feel
free to expound...
But, as you know, the people you consider "we" in addition to
yourself, are in no position to judge, despite your self-elevational
status to judge, jury, and executioner.

Borrowing terms from Frank now?


How desperate you appear, Davie. Google "judge and jury" and you will
find I used the term on occasion. The addition of "executioner" fits
aptly (with a nod of acknowledgement to Frank) as you have condemned
many on this group as guilty with nothing more than your declaration of
such based on ignorance and misinformation.


You really are devoid of originality aren't you?
=A0
=A0Such delusions are what has you so angry over being kept so impotent
regarding that of which you are continually denied.

If that were true, it would be laughable.

The day that I let this newsgroup rule my life,

will be the day I leave.

Like the radio, I control what goes on.


And like your actions, are also contradictory and detached to reality.
It has always boiled down to a control issue with you and when you are
denied such control you get rather testy and begin blathering
incoherently about many things of which you have a great deal to learn.


I make you speak. When I'm done, I stop, until
I feel the need to slap your sociopathic self

around again. But you are blinded by your

own elevated sense of self worth to see that,

or be able to make such a judgement as to

who is really "impotent".

You still don't get it. The only time someone is

"impotent" is when they are ignored.



You have demonstrated on many occasion you see the glass as half empty
as opposed to half full. Such pessimistic views are of your nature and
characteristic of who you are. You are not expected to grasp any other
concept relating to the issue other than that of which you are of fixed
mind.


You can't control yourself enough to allow

that. By constantly responding to me, you

have guaranteed that I am anything but

"impotent".



The only thing demonstrated is your inability to apply cognitive
thinking to the issue of which it applies.


and you remain a newsgroup punch-clown,

Davie's feelings are hurt again,

You assume that I have feelings to hurt.

Your anger-laden posts are testament to such. Name calling and insults
are indicative of the last refuge of the incompetent, but hey,,,,you're
not only free to believe otherwise, but practically guaranteed.




You are the "Anti" Doug.

Yes, and you align yourself with him and have defended him on many
occasion.

Doug is more rational than you are.



You become more clear by the day.

All that comes from your fingers is double talk

and obfuscation. At least Doug is consistent,

even if warped.


Calling innocent people felons and criminals, and defending such
behavior as you and he have done on many, many occasion, when each of
you have committed your own share of "crimes" is not only NOT consistent
with logic, but is not consistent with the hammie creed, not consistent
with normal behavior, and not generally not consistent with anything
exccept being an azzhole lid.

It's all part of the fun for me.

It has been illustrated many times you find "fun" through your lying.

I have not lied about anything.

Sure you have, Davie, but you are free to soothe that status-starved
ego..

Your statements to the contrary is not proof,

but rather your desperation.


Your lies have been illustrated so many times, your head begins to
bobble and you babble incoherently.

On the other hand, you are the one who lies.

My fun is exposing you for what you are. By

attempting to place other people on the

defensive, it keeps the spotlight off of your

own transgressions, such as your blatant

disregard for federal law, which you claim, on

one hand, to respect, yet selectively ignore

when it suits you. Another glaring example of

your hypocrisy.


Oh, but your ignorance in holding all who go above the national
manadated speed limit of 70 MPH as a federal criminal is more fun than I
can ever provide this group. Tell the group where you went to college so
the world knows where not to send their kids.

For the record, I never said that I am a

licensed practitioner.

It hasn't prevented you from assuming the position and passing yourself
off as such in this group, as only a physician is qualified to make such
statements as you made...lol.....but of course you aren't a physician
Davie, =A0 "For the record",,,you simply are not qualified to make
judgements reserved for physicians only.

Anyone can make informed observations with

the proper background.

You don't need to be licensed to do it, until

you expect to get paid for it.


You made claims only a physician may first determine. Whether
remuneration is received or not, you are unqualified to make such
statements. Such are reserved ONLY for licensed physicians. Your
personal feelings regarding any qualifications you may or may not
possess, are irrelevant.


_
Such a candidate would never
have the need to foster what they think of themselves in an
unsolicitited and gratuitous manner such as your low self-esteem
dictates.

More double speak?



Nothing redundant in my posts, Davie, except when an issue needs
dissected in order for you to grasp it, Davie,. try to keep up.

It is easily observed that you have assigned a

much greater worth to what I do, than I,

myself, have ever stated. You are the one who
lied about my claiming to be a medical

professional.


Not at all. You were setting forth medical diagnosis' based on what you
were given to digest in a usenet group. Go ahead and expound on this
importance one places on what another says,,,or does.


You are the one who claimed that I am some

sort of master of the internet. I have never

made any such claims. The problem is YOU.

You lie like a rug.



Sure you did, You made several posts claiming how you were a network
admin and all this bull****, then when it was shown you were double
posting through this group, you denied it and had to be shown your
headers were from the college, that you THEN said you "used" to post
through via a "borrowed" (bull****) account.
When these headers were shown to you, you pleaded ignorant of internet
protocol and the like, claiming "I have no idea how such routing works".


I said that I enjoy

studying human psychology from my own

curiosity, as a hobby.



And your Walter Mitty status-starved self has deluded you into fancying
you share the same qualifications. You do not.
Nevertheless, you have permitted yourself to be reduced to fodder by
deluding yourself that you are as qualified as a licensed physician. You
are not.

I am qualified to see the virtually textbook

example of Anti-social personality disorder as

expressed by your actions here.


Actions? You mean these words that you said have no relation to your
life and world? The same words you said you showed (on more than one
occasion) to a colleague outside this group? The same words that you
said you left here when you turned off the internet, just like when you
turn off the radio? Are these the same "actions" that have you running
around like mad, trying to tell anyone, anyone who will listen, that you
really are in control?
Ah yes,,,THOSE actions,,,,


(Now is a good time to once again remind us

how this is only a "cartoon character", and not

who you really are) Uh huh.....



Well, Dave, in keeping with bringing you back o reality, the majority of
internet personalities are not who people "really are". Once again, your
angered resentment is because you ruined your reputation by coming on
here and treating people like a jack ass. If you had enough on the ball,
you would have treated people fairly and not judged them based on their
political views and values, whether you agree or not.

You respond in a

predictable manner, with anticipated

responses to carefully presented stimuli.

No wonder you and N8wwm get along so well. He posts about microchips
implanted in people with "programmed stimuli" and here you are echoing
his tripe.

Funny thing, he's right.


That's not funny, that's twisted of you, Davie.

You can't muster enough self control to not

respond to those "programmed stimuli". You

are like a moth drawn inexplicably to the

flame, which will end up being its demise.


That's an easy statement to make after I have been out here for years,
making a few posts per day, five days per week. You again, demonstrate
your lacking in communications and skill pertaining thereof. Your
attempt at using usenet as some sort of "programmed stimuli" to soothe
your damaged and status-starved ego, illustrates the difficulties
manifested by yourself when proper communications are required. Via
empirical observation and the powers vested in me by you and N8, I
hereby diagnose you as having a character flaw.


That's why we all laugh at you. You are all too

transparent and predictable. When I'm done

with you, I'll stop posting again. But you can't

resist getting in the last word.



Actually, the mere notion that you or N8 laughs at anyone, is all the
comedic relief one needs.

_
Your name calling, badgering of others and your disregard for any view
but your own
makes you the worst example
of a hammie society has to offer.

_
Actually, Dave, your ignorance among that of which you are licensed has
always angered you to the point of fostering your inner demons and
resentment on others.
You create controversy and then feed off of
the attention of others to bolster your own low self esteem. You do what
you want without due concern for the rights of others.




By operating on the freeband, you are neither

a CB'er nor a ham. You are nothing short of a

lawbreaking radio pirate. So what does that

say? Who are you to criticize the operating

habits of others when you have a closet full of

your own "issues"?



I criticized NO ONE at any time in here for their operating habits,
except for those like you and N8, who have falsely attacked many on this
group, through your own ignorance of the law.

More hypocrisy.


Yet, when your picture is presented to you,

"MY" picture? I'm not the one, nor is anyone else in this group OR the
hamme groups, seeing you as qualified as a physician, radio repair
tech,or anything else your dragging self-esteem needs dictate in order
to soothe itself...hehe...this is YOUR "picture" Davie.

One does not need to be a "qualified" anything
to see the obvious.


You have demonstrated not only do you not see the obvious, but have
trouble grasping it.

All one has to do is access the DSM-IV which

is available in many places on the internet,

and look up APD, and then compare the

symptoms with your past behavior (Which is

archived for posterity).


Is this where I should accuse you of paying homage to me for
plagiarizing my first used (n this group) wording of "preserved for
posterity" when speaking of google?
Ah, never mind, I am kind of growing fond of your psychosis which you
chose to share with the world.


The only one in denial is you. But like the old

saying: "When you try to tell a nut that he's

nuts, he'll swear that you're crazy."

Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ


Especially when the entire world sees you differently as you see
yourself.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:43:01 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On 07 Jan 2005 21:22:30 GMT, Steveo
wrote:
(Twistedhed) wrote: From:
(Dave=3DA0Hall) wrote: So, you're telling me that you can't listen to a
channel and pick out who the most blatant illegal operators are simply
by the sound of their rigs, and by the splatter they produce?
When the dx is running strong,
_
Donut matter. No one can tell me my S-Line is over-driven..even on local
ground wave. That said, there -are- way yonder too many splatter-masters
on 11 meters.

That depends on what you mean by

"over-driven"

Good Gawdomighty,,,,,,here comes N3CVJ to tell *you* what you meant by
"over-driven".
Davie applies his own definitions to words that everyone else has no
problem comprehending.

When your thought processes (and I use the

term loosely) are comprised of a series of

binary thought patterns,



Only you weren't addressing me. Pay attention.
But holding with that, you just made the comment in another post that
one can not possibly know what your thought process is, but of
interesting note is the self-professing notion that *you* are capable of
such a feat.

where everything is either black or white, I can
see why you might think that. But if you

actually KNEW something, (other than "CB

Science") you'd know that the term

"overdriven" has many applications, as

illustrated by my earlier response.

Dave

"Sandbagger"


Only you took issue with the term, Davie.

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(Twistedhed) wrote in news:24437-41E3D8B4-199
@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net:
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
The Fcc requires no jury of peers. reart 95
Tell that to N3CVJ and his buddy N8WWM. Davie lobbies hard telling the
world that just because the FCC told the world N8WWM was jamming
repeaters, it's not evidence of guilt.

It is not evidence of guilt they charged him

with nothing.



N3CVJ says otherwise. He said his empirical observations are evidence of
guilt.

and landshark said you must have a jury of

your peers decide you to be guilty.



Landshark is correct. However, with certain charges brought by the FCC,
exceptions abound.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:55:38 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:16:34 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 09:27:09 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
And until Dave can provide an example where one of the allegedly illegal
operators he allegedly heard was found guilty, got an NAL, or even
admitted his guilt publically, then his allegations are nothing more
than his opinions, not facts.
_
(So you are of the Twisted notion that a

person is not breaking the law until they are

caught?)
_
Hardly. What I am saying is that conviction
requires proof, not opinion.


Who's "convicting"? I made an observation,

based on trained skills. It's enough to tell me

the truth. For me to press charges would

require a higher level of proof. I am not trying

to go that route.

Dave

"Sandbagger"


This is where your astute knowledge of communications law comes in to
play. Regarding another's radio operation that bleeds you, you have no
option of "pressing charges".