On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:20:16 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:52:39 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:25:10 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

N3CVJ wrote:
I no longer partake in those activities. I grew
up Twist, plain and simple. Now, when will
you?

That's a good thing you don't partake in those activities anymore,
Dave...as I NEVER took part in those activities cited by you,,bragging
about your radio that caused severe bleed,,,laughing about the
intentional intereference the bleed caused,,telling people to buy a
bandaid when you were bleeding,,,..

I don't expect you to understand the dynamics of the local CB
population back then, but any interference that I deliberately did to
anyone back then was to those who were asking for it,


Dave = judge, jury and executioner.

No different than anyone else on the band back then.


in the form of a
payback (You know all about paybacks right?). Plus, I was a teenager
then. That should explain everything. I knew way more about radio
back then than my maturity level could control.


And I thought -I- was arrogant.

And you would be correct.


snip
It would seem that you still need to mature enough to learn respect
for the law...


Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much.

C'mon now Frank, you're letting your sour grapes partisanship cloud
your objectivity......


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:41:27 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On 06 Jan 2005 22:14:13 GMT, Steveo
wrote in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much.

You voted for him too, Frank.


No I didn't. Not in 2000 and not in 2004. I did support him after the
first election mainly because I was supporting his office. I still
support the office, just not the man.


Any vote for Nader, was one less vote
for the waffle king.


That's a propaganda tactic first used by both sides when Perot was an
unknown variable.

Actually there was a lot of truth in it. Perot syphoned quite a few
votes away from Bush 1. Heck I almost voted for him. His straight up
non-nonsense business approach to the economy was refreshing and
resonated with fiscal conservatives.

The reverse can be applied to Nader. He appeals to the hard core left,
who, for whatever reason don't think the democratic party has gotten
liberal enough (Chilling thought). It's a fairly safe bet that if
Nader had not been on the ticket that MOST of his votes would have
probably gone to Kerry.

Since Nader did not make as big of a splash as Perot did, his total
effect on the eventual election outcome is speculative. But to deny
that there was any effect is myopic.


Let me make this perfectly clear: A vote for anybody
that isn't an ass or an elephant is a vote against both those parties.

One party more than the other depending on which political ideology of
the third party who manages to rise up out of the noise floor of write
in status.


And to lay blame on people who voted third-party is a pretentious
crock of ****.

To deny the influence of those third party vote syphoners is equally
ludicrous.


Don't believe me? Just wait until the next election for
WA governor, when the Republicans are going to use the same bull****
excuse claiming it was the third-party candidates that stole their
victory.

No, it was clever democratic operatives who (after a few recounts)
managed to manufacture enough extra votes to swing the election their
way.

Where's your cry of voter fraud there Frank?


The best part is, you knew Ralphie had a snow
balls chance in hell of being elected. Was Nader even on the ballot,
or did you have to write him in?


He was most certainly on the ballot, as were the candidates for the
Green and Libertarian parties, and a few others.

Nader was denied a place on the ballot in Pa. He didn't have enough
legitimate petitioners. Although the Libertarian candidate, Badnarick,
managed to make it....


This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't
vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win.

So you are the "anti-voter"?


As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit
and curse the darkness".


There's also a saying about standing in the middle of a crowded
highway......


Don't get me wrong, the whole principle of a democratic government
should embrace as many political candidates as they can. Third (and
4th) parties are a good thing. But in all practicality, they are alone
in a sea of red and blue. Even if a third party candidate were to win
the office of president, they'd be opposed by both sides of congress.

And that's really the catch 22. Many people contemplate their votes.
They may like what a 3rd party candidates says, but realizes that they
stand little chance of winning. So the question becomes, should they
vote for someone who they ideologically agree with the most, or the
candidate who somewhat agrees with you, but who has a better chance of
actually winning?

Is it better to completely lose your chance to influence the direction
of this country or is it better to at least get SOME of your political
views represented?

That is the voter conundrum.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:25:08 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't
vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win.
As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit
and curse the darkness".

That's what the Republicans said when they sued to make sure Ralph got on
the ballot. Odd that. g

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/n...e_20040826.htm


If a third-party candidate was expected to take votes from the
Republicans you can bet that the roles would be reversed.

And they were in '92.........

The two big
parties will do whatever they think will get them the votes, even if
it means supressing a vote for a third-party candidate.

You acknowledge this, yet you tried to deny that third party
candidates had any effect on the outcome of the election.


The only thing
this proves is that neither one of the parties have any interest in
free and open elections, which is what I have been saying all along,
and also why I don't vote for either of them.

So which is it then Frank? Do third party candidates shift votes away
from "the big 2" or not?


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:07:25 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:38:10 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:16:33 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

So you are denying that the majority of the

"big

radios" on Channel 6 are running any sort of

high power?


Apparently, that is a an argument you are having with yourself.

No, you are trying to claim that there are no illegal operators on 6,
based on your rejection to my claim that what I can hear on almost a
daily basis is in fact illegal.


I'm sure some of them are illegal, but my surity is not fact.

Why not? Are you claiming that empirical observation is not
sufficient? Are you now promoting the concept that if you are not
"right there" and personally witnessed an illegal transmission that
you can't factually determine that it was what it was?

Is your zeal to trounce me over my opposing political views blinding
your objectivity with regard to radio issues, which you have far
better knowledge of?


Your personal feelings are not "facts".

No but my trained observations skills can be considered as strong
evidence to the positive.


Trained observation skills = Tarot cards.

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? Would it help you to
know that a spectrum analyzer connected to the I.F. of a receiver
confirmed my initial observation?

I never claimed to be able to make a quantitative evaluation, only a
determination that the transmissions were illegal.


Making a personal opinion that "channel 6 harbors the dregs of society"

Yes, that part is my personal opinion.


Why is -this- your personal opinion and not fact?

Because it is simply my opinion. What constitutes a "dreg" is
subjective.


What happened to your "trained observation skills"?

They are limited to technical evaluations of radio signals, which is
NOT subjective.


and claiming it is nothing short of empiracle evidence that illegalities
occur is jovial.

That you once again think that you can somehow claim that these
illegal operators do not exist is ludicrous.


Nobody suggested that illegal operators don't exist. The question is
your standard of proof, that what you claim to be illegal
transmissions are illegal IN FACT, not in your opinion or belief.

If you hear a loud noise and turn around to see a souped up car
buzzing down the road at a high rate of speed, far above the posted
speed limit for that road, would you not be able to determine as a
fact that the car was being operated illegally?

No, you could not determine just how fast the car was traveling, but
you could easily tell from the excessive noise, and the rate of speed
as compared to the other (legal) cars, that this one was illegal.

If you are attempting to discount empirical observation as an invalid
method to determining facts, then there are a whole lot of scientists
who will be sorely disappointed. Starting with paleontologists all the
way to astronomers.


We don't agree politically Frank. That much is true. But don't let
that one facet taint your objectivity in other subjects.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:46:41 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote in
:

what is the difference between the bias on an AB1 and
an AB2


Class ab2 an amplifier with higher bias than the class ab1 amplifier.



Or better yet, what is the difference between the bias on an AB1 and
an AB2? (transistor amp)


No such animal those numbers are for tube use only

1 indicating that the tube does not draw any grid current, and 2
indicates that the grid voltage is above 0 volts and a positive grid
voltage, causes the grid to draw current.







Why did you snip the original post apart where you told Dave to bias
his transistor amp bias to .6 volts to run class AB1?

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:50:47 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 02:41:05 GMT, Lancer wrote in
.com:

snip
Still up to your eyeballs in snow? Our weather has been really wierd,
it was 70 Wednesday morning, and 20 this morning.


You're down there in Texas, right? So what's this I hear about Houston
being declared the city with the fattest people in the US?



Didn't see that, I know it would suck to be overweight in Houston.
the summer heat and humidity in Houston is terrible...

On 07 Jan 2005 02:52:34 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

Lancer wrote:
Still up to your eyeballs in snow? Our weather has been really wierd,
it was 70 Wednesday morning, and 20 this morning.

Nah, we've had warmer weather and rain/sleet/slush lately. Did plow from
midnight till 9 this morning tho..needed a big azz'd squeegee instead of a
plow.. You're right, very strange weather patterns.

How did your SW radio Christmas present go over?

I gave it to him, but didn't notice someone had soldered the contacts
shut on the mode switch. It still works, I just need to track down a
new switch for it. He's having a ball with it, likes it even better
than the videos games he got..

Lancer wrote:
On 07 Jan 2005 02:52:34 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

Lancer wrote:
Still up to your eyeballs in snow? Our weather has been really wierd,
it was 70 Wednesday morning, and 20 this morning.

Nah, we've had warmer weather and rain/sleet/slush lately. Did plow from
midnight till 9 this morning tho..needed a big azz'd squeegee instead of
a plow.. You're right, very strange weather patterns.

How did your SW radio Christmas present go over?

I gave it to him, but didn't notice someone had soldered the contacts
shut on the mode switch. It still works, I just need to track down a
new switch for it. He's having a ball with it, likes it even better
than the videos games he got..

Cool..now you've created a monster! :D

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:16:33 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
So you are denying that the majority of the

"big

radios" on Channel 6 are running any sort of

high power?

Apparently, that is a an argument you are having with yourself.

No, you are trying to claim that there are no

illegal operators on 6, based on your rejection

to my claim that what I can hear on almost a

daily basis is in fact illegal.


I claimed nothing of the sort. I claimed only that
your claim is bull****, which it is.
Your personal feelings are not facts, despite how many times you invoke
them as such. Let's look at it again since you still can not grasp it.
You said

`channel 6, which is notorious for harboring

the dregs of society, who regularly run high

power, is all the "evidence" I need, to

determine that the station in question is in fact,
llegal."



Once again, your personal feelings are not facts. That illegal operation
occurs on such a channel was never contested by myself, despite your
deperate attempt at trying to say it was. I merely claimed your ersonal
feelings cited above are in no manner "evidence".
The FCC knows the reputation of channel 6 also, only they have protocol
to determine if someone is breaking the law, not personal feelings they
refer to as "empirical evidence" as you do.
Your personal feelings are not "facts".

No but my trained observations skills can be

considered as strong evidence to the positive.



No,,,it can not. It is personal testimony to be taken into
consideration. It is intangible and can not be entered as evidence, only
supporting testimony. Huge difference where the law is concerned, but
with your demonstrated hate and disdain for the law and your fellow
hammie and cb operators, it's crystal clear you have no clue of the law
that pertains and governs your chosen hobby. You demonstrated this when
you held roger beeps and echo illegal on cb because you "couldn't find a
rule that permitted them".



Yes, that part is my personal opinion.

See what you can learn when you are force fed? At the beginning of this
thread, you claimed it was fact, now, after proper instruction, you
admit it is "personal opinion". Good show.
_
and claiming it is nothing short of empiracle
evidence that illegalities occur is jovial.

That you once again think that you can

somehow claim that these illegal operators do

not exist is ludicrous.


You're unglued, davie, You *need* such a distraction, but sucks for you
I said nothing of the sort. Try again,

You're getting more sloppy and desperate by

the day.......

Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

Such intense projection, Dave.
To someone that is so used to looking up at everyone else, like
yourself, it might appear that way. Repeat failures at attempting to
place words in other's mouths to obfuscate your incompetence isn't lost
on anyone, Dave.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:10:13 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
My "point" was illustrated yesterday when you said this:
_
N3CVJ wrote:
I do not shoot skip. I don't LIKE skip. When I

used to use an amplifier, it was to GET OVER

or chase it off the channel

But this next post was made when you were using that amplifier...

After talking skip internationally on the

freeband channels, on SSB, I gradually lose

interest in skip
_
Different time periods.

Right, the claim about when you USED to use an amp it wasn't to talk
skip, was made the other day. The claim about you talking skip with
your amplifier was made long ago. It illustrates your statement the
other day was bull****.....but a mere lie in another of your long list
of self-perjuries.


I've been in CB for 35 years now.

God, you really do have to be spoon fed

everything in order to understand it..........

Dave

"Sandbagger"


That's pretty funny considering only you are having difficulty with your
communication skills at this level and are madly trying to misattribute
things that were never said to others.
Besides, it doesn;t take a rocket scientist to understand the kind of
operator you are,,,you already admitted to being the worse kind of
operator that exists.The adage that "a leopard does not change his
spots" is confirmed by your self-contradictions and lies which you find
yourself always caught up in.