| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
January 7th 05, 12:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
| Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
| Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
| Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
| How to improve reception | Equipment | |||
Threaded Mode
