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?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

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.

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"

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 =---

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".

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Nope. They are not guilty of breaking any law until
a jury of their peers find them guilty with the evidence
given them through the judicial process. Not because
someone says "because they are on that channel,
they must be breaking the law".

Landshark


--
Some of them are living an illusion
Bounded by the darkness of their minds,
In their eyes it's nation against nation,
With racial pride, sad hearts they hide,
Thinking only of themselves,
They shun the light,
They think they're right
Living in the empty shells.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:48:47 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
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?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Nope. They are not guilty of breaking any law until
a jury of their peers find them guilty with the evidence
given them through the judicial process.

That's complete B.S.! You are guilty of a crime the minute you commit
it. The fact that in order for you to be incarcerated or otherwise
punished for that crime requires a guilty verdict, does not negate
your original infraction.

This is an excuse often given by people who try to justify their
selective disregard of certain laws they don't like.


Not because
someone says "because they are on that channel,
they must be breaking the law".

No, not because they are on the channel, but because they are on the
channel and displaying certain verifiable traits which indicate the
illegality of their transmissions.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Dave Hall wrote:
verifiable traits which indicate the
illegality of their transmissions.

****in' cooling fan sounds usually give me away. Dang.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:48:47 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
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?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Nope. They are not guilty of breaking any law until
a jury of their peers find them guilty with the evidence
given them through the judicial process.

That's complete B.S.! You are guilty of a crime the minute you commit
it.

Oh.... So someone is guilty automatically when YOUR trained
"skills" tell you so. I can tell you have never served on a jury.



The fact that in order for you to be incarcerated or otherwise
punished for that crime requires a guilty verdict, does not
negate your original infraction.

What infraction was that? YOUR trained "skills" in traffic
laws? Trained "skills" in FCC enforcement? Trained
"skills" in evidence gathering, law enforcement, law?


This is an excuse often given by people who try to justify their
selective disregard of certain laws they don't like.


Nope, that is the LAW of the land. Like it or not, you are
innocent until proving guilty, otherwise it's just called
vigilantism. That's why the peace officer (who is trained to observe, not
JUDGE) writes the ticket, you go to COURT to fight the ticket (in front of a
JUDGE, who usually is a lawyer
and or has been a peace officer) if you are innocent, if not
you pay the fine or do the time.


Not because
someone says "because they are on that channel,
they must be breaking the law".

No, not because they are on the channel, but because they are on the
channel and displaying certain verifiable traits which indicate the
illegality of their transmissions.


Wow, your trained "skills" tell you by the signal, no df'ng,
no power readings in front of the offenders house that he
is illegal? AMAZING!

Now, you have an individual, he's driving erratic, weaving
in & out of traffic. You pull them over, order them out
of the car, speech is slurred, they are unsteady while standing,
eye lids are drooping, your trained "skills" tell you HE'S
DRUNK! Arrest him, take him to jail, no blood test, no
breath test, throw em into the drunk tank, right!

Dave
"Sandbagger"


Landshark


--
The world is good-natured to people
who are good natured.