From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:03:40 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:
(I think I have been both, freebander/ham, all I think I have seen is
that the freebanders have more fun. )

That depends on your definition of "fun".

Actually, it depends on -your-definition of fun.

(Also, I think the radio spectrum is for the use of all, there needs to
be a good slice of radio spectrum set aside for freebanders, indeed, set
aside for "We the People!" )

There is. 40 channels worth. There's also FRS
and MURS too.

Yea,,those freqs are good, too.

(Unfortunately, the hams have just become a self-serving bunch holding
much of the spectrum to their hobby... they like nice clear spaces of
spectrum where they and a few buddies carry on conversations like old
women around a bridge table. )

Are you a ham?

Irrelevant. One needs not be a football player to note correct
observations of the game. One needs not be a baseball player, or even
know anything about baseball, in order to correctly state illegal drugs
(steroids) are rampant.

If not, then where do you get your

stereotypical information?

Perhaps the technique you claim to employ flawlessly to arrive at such
derivatives works for others, too. Empirical observation, you called
it.. Turn on the radio and give a listen.

(Unless one feels himself a child who needs a parent telling them what
they CAN'T do--it is time for a change of thinking here... )

Ah, another one who can't live under the rules

of society.

It's not a coincidence those whose views with which you disagree are
always referred by yourself as one who can not conform or love by the
rules of society. It's always the other person, never you, that has
problems with society, despite -your- position always being the
minority.
Taking into consideration your comments concerning cbers as federal
criminals, and that because one merely SPEAKS (or in this case, posts)
of talking dx, it somehow constitutes and equals the same as a guilty
plea in a court of law, and it has never been more crystal clear that
not only do you not have a clue concerning how the laws work, but you
clearly do not share the mindset of the majority, or in this case, as
you say "society".

(I think the FCC needs to support radio use amongst the citizens of this
country, not a self-serving group who feel themselves more deserving and
special... )

What do "the citizens" do to deserve such

treatment?

"Deserve" has nothing to do with it. Life isn't always fair and people
don't always get what they deserve. In fact, your bellowings above
reiterate your pompous and arrogant
position that hammies are somehow more "deserving" simply by virtue of
their sending a few bucks in to get a license. Newsflash: you are no
more "deserving" of the right to transmit than a cber.


(I think we all need a better form of radio spectrum use--one which
conforms to the people, NOT makes the people conform to ridiculous
rules... )

Making subjective value judgments is a flaw in
your logic.


LOL...yet, all those subjective judgements you make of others based on
nothing more than your mistaken perception and interpretation of
self-taught empirical observations, is not, somehow.


Those "ridiculous" rules are there for a reason.
Tell us the reason for the dx rule relating to cb.

They're not there to ruin your fun, they are

there to ensure that all radio users have a fair

chance and equal access.


Your claim that ALL radio users have a fair chance is not valid. Think
about it a few weeks and you may realize why.

(And, I think a whole lot more... but basically it all revolves around
my seeing hams as self-serving/control-freaks who have a good thing
going--and are getting away with it...

Well, lets see, hams do have to pass a test to

prove some level of technical proficiency.


What level of technical competence is gained by obtaining the nocode
license?


That is worth a lot more than simply doing -

Nothing! Hams earned the right to that "good

thing".


You are assuming everyone shares your opinion that getting a hammie
license is something earned, like an accomplishment. For children or the
learning impaired, this may be true. For the (ahem), majority of
citizens, it is no accomplishment. Getting a driver's license takes more
studying. Most people do not feel obtaining a driver's license is any
major accomplishment (again, this makes exceptions for children, the
infirm or handicaps, or the learning impaired, foreigners, etc.) and is
simply another manner of paying a governmental fee for a privilege.

And it's not an exclusive club either!


Make up your mind..you first cite how this group "earned" something by
the simple process of paying a fee, whcih you claim makes one "entitled"
to benefits others are not, then you claim obtaining a license makes one
technically competent. If such were true (it isn't), all who held a
license would be "technically competent", equaling, by default, an
"exclusive" group (those licensed AND competent). Neither is true.

You are welcome to earn the privilege and join
the ranks. The problem is that you want what

they have, but don't want to work to earn it.


Most here recognized your problem for what it is. It is you that wants
what many of us have,,the ability to do both (cb, dx, and hammie-play),
only you screwed up your chance so now you cry about other's actions
concerning what you can no longer get away with..

It's no different than a welfare slacker

complaining that their hard working neighbor

owns a nice house and a BMW, and laments

that "they have a good thing and are getting

away with it".


Perfect analogy. When it was you that was on that welfare only a few
short years ago, it most certianly was different, as you have spent much
time trying to explain away why it is acceptable for you to participate
in such behavior when you saw fit, but no one else.


Yet he somehow feels that he deserves the

same considerations while doing nothing to

earn it.


You are projecting your own personal feelings. That you felt that way
during your illegal operations doesn't mean anyone else shares your
position. In fact, as has been demonstrated time and time again, no one
shares your position concerning this.

You probably feel that the rich don't deserve

.what they have either.


Again, what one deserves is irrelevant...try and remain focused and not
allow your hammie-induced dementia to cloud your already skewered
"subjective" judgements that you blame on others.

When you work for and earn a privilege (as

opposed to crying and whining for it) you tend

to respect what it stands for.


Here we go with your Rodey Dangerfield dilemma. You get no respect
because you have demonstrated you "deserve" none. Your licensure status
means ****, regarding respect. This is part of your problem that governs
your actions and bizarre behavior among these pages. You hilariously
cling to this mythical idea you conjured that you somehow are deserving
of respect because you have a license. You're not.


That is why most hams are more aware of,

and tend to follow more closely, the rules of

the radio service.



"Most hams"? Certainly you arn't invoking more of this "subjective
logic" you claim illegitimizes any point you are attempting.

Like your first car. If you earned the money to

buy your first car by years of paper routes and
cutting lawns, you will be more likely to take

care of it, than if Dad just gave the car to you.



But of course, More of your self-projection. Some of us comprehend value
and the origination of the item is irrelevant. In fact, just the
opposite is often true. If your mother gave you a car, would you not be
MORE apt to take care of it? Other's don't often share your personal
projections, Davie, you are a minority with your freaked up beliefs.
Many would be more apt to take care of something a parent gave, not
less.


The problem is that you want the privileges of

ham radio, but do not want to work for it.


Again, this is your projection of your personal
thinking regarding why -you- did such things,,mistakenly feeling you can
subjectively but correctly claim such subjective logic is valid only
when you utilize it is the joke and you are the punch line.


The test is not that difficult.

It's not at all difficult.

Here is where

guys like you then claim that they could easily

pass the test, but they don't "want to", and

then cite all sorts of "issues" about the politics

of ham radio that they find repulsive.


No one on this group has ever said they find hammie radio repulsive,
only elitist pricks like yourself that ruin hammie radio's reputation
for others..

Yea, hams don't use roger beeps, noise toys,

echo boxes, and they don't normally cuss

every other word.

It's the difference between a

broadway play and WWE smackdown.


LMAO,,you take this hobby way too serious. No wonder you are always
constipated when posting. According to you,posts on usenet equal a
guilty plea in a court of law, and now hammie radio equals a broadway
play. Your linkage needs adjusted, again.


Not that there's anything wrong with WWE

smackdown. But you don't expect those who

want to watch a broadway play to have to put

up with the antics of the WWE. That's what

choice is about.



Ahhh,,but you self-righteously feel those who enjoy the latter should
have respect for the other simply because you say so. Doesn't work out
that way, though, and the problem is manifested in your..complaints
concerning such.

So now, you want the privileges of ham radio,

More subjective logic from you...those privileges are already there for
many of us. Just because you never learned how to competently enjoy both
worlds, you mistakenly feel others are as ignorant as yourself.


without earning them, and without the

presence of some people who may think and

act a little differently than you do.



You are deluding yourself.

So you want the FCC to kick hams off the ham
bands and then turn the service over to a

bunch of unlicensed, lawless individuals to

turn into the RF equivalent of the wild, wild

west?



Poor poor David. You need do something regarding these continued
self-conjured hallucinations you continue to suffer. Try reading only
what is there and placing an end to your subjective assumptions of what
you think.

Does that about sum it up for you?


That summed it up for you. Only you mentioned such ignorance.

Forgetting about the technical issues that

would certainly crop up, do you think this is a

good plan?


Your proposition are incredibly shallow.

Even if, hypothetically, the FCC were to create
a "legal" freeband service from say, 26-28

Mhz, there would still be those who would

venture outside of those limits.

For those people, it's not about having fun on

a radio service, but about the thrill of breaking

the law, in much the same way that a 17 year

old drinks.



More self-projection based only on personal experience.

There's a certain psychological thrill


(snip)

Go back to your shrink, Dave. You have impressed no one with your
self-qualifications regarding your much invoked but always erroneous pop
psychology.


Dave

."Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:12:55 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On 26 Apr 2005 20:17:23 -0700, "CB outlaw"
wrote:
(That is EXCACTLY the point I was making a long time ago (in a galaxy
radio far far away) The truckers on 28.085 is channel 19 on most export
radios on Band f or g or d or c or....... you get my point,
hams!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!=A0)

What point was that?

Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

That most freebanders do not enter the hammie bands, despite Oxendine's
and your sock protests against cbers.

The law does not distinguish between

ignorance and intent.

The law has nothing to do with the poster's point of which you inquired
and asked to have explained. Invoking such reveals the extent you need
explaining.

=A0=A0=A0=A0The facts are that there ARE illegal

intruders

on 10 meters.

No one ever said otherwise.

The how's and why's are irrelevant.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

If that were true, export radios that covered those freqs wouldn't be a
problem. K4KDH Jerry Oxendine very much disagrees with you on this
point, as do the majority of radio society participants and hammies, as
export radios are blamed for the majority of the intrusions of which you
speak.
You're welcome.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:19:51 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:24:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :


the commission usually sends a warning to an alleged
violator prior to issuing an NAL. If the warning is ignored then the
subsequent NAL is prosecuted as a violation that was done both
willingly and -intentionally-.

Ok, you win that one. That is usually the case.


The facts
are that there ARE illegal intruders on 10 meters. The how's and why's
are irrelevant.


Intent is -very- relevant because some of those dopes don't know that
they are operating illegally.

(and there are those who think we should open up the whole spectrum to
dopes like that. A perfect example of why there are licenses and
rules)

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. At least it didn't used to be. With
all the liberals running around looking to paint every lawbreaker as a
victim, I guess ignorance might be a legitimate excuse now.


I see it a little differently: When we the people are subject to
mountains of laws that can be fully understood only by an army of
lawyers, ignorance can be a very reasonable excuse in many cases. It's
simply impractical (and nearly impossible) for the average citizen to
know and understand all the laws that apply to every circumstance.

I agree, the law was never intended to be so complicated that only a
legal expert can comprehend all the nuances of it. I tend to believe
that lawyers do this deliberately to justify and continue their
existence.

Even worse is when a seemingly cut and dry law get's "what-if'd" to
death in a courtroom battle of hypotheticals which may never occur.
This is why you are required to sign dozens of forms for what should
be a simple transaction in many cases.

And many of those that -do- know they
are illegal are not aware of the severity of the consequences if they
get caught.

Since you saw fit to bring violent crimes into the picture in the
beginning, I'll refer back to them when I make the point that someone
claiming that he didn't know the gun was loaded, would hardly be
absolved of the crime of killing someone based on that excuse alone.


It has happened.

Sure it has happened. When someone desperately wants to escape for
responsibility, they (and by proxy, their lawyer) will do and try
anything to get them off. The absurdity of such defense tactics, just
makes me shake my head.


But even when it didn't, the lack of intent has
certainly been a factor in determining the punishment.

Well sure, killing someone completely by accident is a far different
thing than deliberately murdering someone.

But what I was talking about, but probably didn't use the best example
in doing so, is that you can't kill someone in cold blood and then
claim that you didn't know it was wrong or illegal, and expect much
leniency.

The same thing applies to radio operation to some degree. The claim
that you didn't know you were running on an illegal frequency may not
hold much water, since the FCC requires that you read and understand
the rules before operating, and by the act of your operation, they
assume that you know the rules. It's sort of the same language they
use for software licenses. "By installing this product, you agree to
the terms of the license" etc.

I hate to bring this up, since I can't "prove it", but I once read an
account in a CB magazine (It may have been S9's Washington Outlook),
back in the day, which covered FCC busts of illegal CB'ers. This one
bust involved a group of SSB'ers who had formed a club on a freeband
channel. One of the guys who was busted made a claim that he didn't
know he was operating illegally, since the radio he was using had been
purchased by another person, who had (unbeknownst to him allegedly)
swapped a standard channel crystal (it was a 23 channel rig) for one
which would produce an illegal channel. The operator further claimed
that he assumed he was operating on channel 23 (or whatever it
actually was, I don't remember), as that is what his channel selector
showed. The FCC didn't buy his story, based on other evidence that
indicated that he was all too aware of what was going on.


Hence the FCC's pre-NAL warning letter to notify them that
such operation is illegal and subject to heavy penalties, giving them
the opportunity to rectify their ignorance before they get popped for
several thousand dollars.

Do you get a warning when you get pulled over for speeding? Sometimes
you do, sometimes not. Do you get a warning when you rob a bank? Rape
someone? Assault? Do you get a chance to claim ignorance and promise
that you won't do it again?


There is a defense known as 'justifiable homocide'. I understand that
it's rarely used, but it has been a successful defense in some cases.

Yes, there is a "justifiable homicide" defense. Usually this works
best in abusive domestic situations, where severe emotional and
physical abuse leads to violence as the only solution. By definition,
self defense is also considered a justifiable homicide.

But justifiable homicide is not the same thing as claiming ignorance
of the existence of homicide law.


It's true that the FCC usually sends out warning notices first, but
they don't have to. That's called discretion (the better part of
valor).


Actually, they do need to send out those notices in almost all cases.
The reason behind it is the FCC's pseudo-constitutional system of law
enforcement and the need to establish "willful and malicious" conduct
of the violator. This bypasses the criminal court system, forwards the
forfeiture order directly to the DOJ for collection, and pre-empts
evasion of payment if the violator files for bankruptcy -- an NAL is a
debt that cannot be discharged under any chapter of bankruptcy law. If
the debt -was- dischargeable then the FCC would be forced to file an
adversarial complaint and subsequently defend their law enforcement
practices in Federal court, which is something they have no intention
of doing because they would lose.


This is interesting. The FCC has in the past taken certain violators
to criminal court. In the vast majority of cases though, you are
correct. There would seem to be some threshold which determines their
course of action.

What I am especially curious about is your assertion that if the FCC
took a clear violator to federal court that they would lose. Why do
you feel that way? I would presume that once the FCC decided to act
upon a violator that they would have enough evidence to prove their
case.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:25:36 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
I think you should stay away from those magic
mushrooms.....

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

You can deny it to your little black heart's content, but the fact
remains many cbers get licenses (especialy the no-codes) only to return
to the cb and freeband.

I won't try to argue that point as I agree that

some people conceivably do "return" (or never
left in the first place) to the CB and freeband.

I'm still somewhat active on both to this day.


So, you began breaking the law again by returning to the freeband after
you told the group you no longer do so because you "grew up" and are
setting responsible behavior patterns for your daughter by folllowing
the law.

-
Some of those who obtained licenses can
never go back because their voices are too easily recognized and their
hammie "friends" will report their ass for freebanding.

I'm not so sure that this is as prevalent as you

claim.
=A0

That's cool...but entertain, for a moment, if you would, the notion you
are subscribing. If you do not believe me, then you mistakenly believe
the FCC is actively patrolling the air for violators. This info can be
found simply by extolling a little leg work.....but I'm telling you, the
FCC does NOT actively patrol the air seeking violations by hammies or
cbers.
_
=A0They end up being
****ed off (then issed upon) hammies.

You discount the possibility that while exposed
to ham radio, that many people find respect

for the rules, and have a change of attitude.



I didn't discount it at all, as I know what you say to be true, but what
I say is just as true. Members belong to both camps.
_
The anger toward such freebanders can be seen in your own posts.

Despite your many claims, I harbor no "anger".
Stating facts that doesn't sit well with you, is

not the same thing as "anger".

Stating facts has you chasing your tail with semantics. You call people
criminals with nothing more than your mistaken ignorance that "saying it
on usenet is the same as a guilty plea in a court of law". Although you
have been given the correct information regarding the judicial system,
you continue to mistakenly believe you may publicly refer to one as a
criminal even if they were not convicted in a court of law. THIS, is
fact.
_
Several
years ago you were making posts chastising hammies as being too uptight
and uppity and technical who look down on cbers.

Because in many cases, it's true.



Not "in many cases"..you stated "For the most part" in your post when
you referred to the hammies... using the same sterotyping you just
hypocritically took another to task for employing. .

There are hams who are stuffy and uptight.

But they are legal. The converse is also true.

Many outlaw CB'ers feel that they have a right

to do just what (and where) they please

without due regard for the rights of anyone

else.


Same is true with many hammies, yet for some reason, you do not voice
your concern for those you hold in higher regards, higher esteem,,,you
know,,those who are supposed to lead by example. In other words, you
**** all over the hammie creed.

RFI, direct interference, and public nuisance

issues do not seem to affect them.


"Them" is not limited exclusively to cb users.

=A0=A0Either behavior is reprehensible, and I've

defended each respective group when on the

receiving end of such stereotypical prejudice.

Yet, you continue to employ it yourself.

Lately it's the hams who are unfairly on the

receiving end of this prejudice.


Why is it unfair to illustrate the same behavior
committed by hammies that you complain about when committed by cbers?
_
During your admitted
freebanding and illegal operating years, not once will you find a post
by yourself calling others names or expressing nosey concern for other
people's business that does not affect you.

I still don't. I'm not the one trying desperately

to find out personal information (often

incorrectly like the name of my wife) about

other people.


Yes, you were. In fact, you initiated the personal info game with me and
everyone knows it. You were told long ago to stay out of the personal,
off-topic arena. Once you violate this, you have nothing to say when
your initiated behavior is returned.

Also worthy of note is the time you spend

reviewing my 10 year span of messages to

this newsgroup. One might consider that as

bordering on obsession.


One might, but I have a photographic memory. There,, now there's another
little tidbit of information for you to wallow in. I remember just about
everything, and in most cases you refer, I merely have to type in the
pertinent key words of your past posts and voila!....no time at all
spent other than three clicks right to the passage needed to illustrate
your incorrectness, hypocrisy, and double-talk, and lies.

_
However, after having your
clock cleaned in reec.radio.cb by cbers for your oft extended hypocrisy,

reec (reek?) a freudian slip?

Which speaks volumes of how you think.

You are not qualified to make that

determination.


Yet, based on your unsolicited self-qualifications regarding psychology,
you somehow present yourself as qualified to determine whether others
are qualified for anything.
_
That you attribute such behavior (name calling, attacking those who
merely dx or freeband) to "growing up", illustrates the fact you were an
incredible late bloomer and extremely slow learner who hasn't fully
matured yet, as your behavior continued well in to your thirties.

Well, then if I'm still "growing up", then you

have yet to start because you are still

engaged in that illegal behavior.


As are you, according to your statement above at the beginning of this
post.

If you consider bringing reality into focus in the
same manner as a simple unfounded

ad-hominem attack, then I can see your issue.

Reality is you are not permitted to refer one a criinal based on nothing
more than your ignorance regarding the laws of the land, yet, this
somehow presents a great inner difficult struggle for you, regarding the
comprehension of such a simple concept that is solidified by law. In
fact, you still are
illegal and have no right to say anything to
anyone,


I assume you have some proof of this? Yea I

know, you have tons of proof, but you're not

about to post it.


No Dave, that isn't the standard reply, but I'll remind you since you
strugge with memory impairment. You initiated unsolicited claims,,many
of them. When challenged for proof, you declined for personal reasons.
You are still free to provide proof for any of your unasnwered claims,
and then, as proper decorum and communicative technique dictates, will
have your inquiries answered with proof in turn. You continue to
struggle with such simple techniques of proper communication, but it
does illustrate perfectly what i have always maintained,,,that some of
those licensed for communications, know the lease about it.
_
=A0=A0as for starters, the address you provided the
FCC is not your primary residence and the fact that you fail to correct
this matter with the FCC even after being informed you are illegal,
leaves you no credibility with anything you may say regarding other's
actions.

You really, REALLY need to go back to

whatever source of information gathering you

use and either fire them, demand your money

back, or something. Because, quite frankly,

you are embarrassing yourself every time you

make these erroneous claims. My listed

address in the FCC database is exactly my

primary (only) residence. I am doing nothing

illegal.

So the real question is, Who do you think I

really am (today)? What do you think is my

"real" address?

Not concerned with your personal world, Dave,,that;s reserved for you to
cause yourself great pains concerning others.


The only thing I can figure is that the

commonality of my name (Next after Smith

and Jones), has you so confused, that you

believe I'm someone different than who I

actually am (There are 3 Dave Hall's in my

company's phone directory, talk about

confusion).



Agreed. Perhaps you can explain how you mistakenly feel your unsolicited
but invoked claim regarding a company directory relates to anything, but
then again, keeping with your continued behavior that when you are not
aware of something, it must not exist, speaks volumes.

The fact that my phone number is unlisted

removes me from many people searches.


You go on thinking that.

That also explains why you keep insisting that
my wife's name is "Kimberly

T. Hall", and that she's a "teacher".


She may not teach now, but she tried to at elast once.

In

conclusion, you continue to trust unreliable

sources which provide you erroneous

information and then accuse others of things

.which are incorrect. It is not my credibility that
is in question here, it's yours.

But wait? Wasn't it you who just accused ME

of trying to obtain people's personal

information?

It was also myself that instructed you years ago that off-topic personal
information is not relevant to these pages, and were instructed that you
should practice the golden rule, in other words, do not do to others
that you do not want done to yourself, but you continued with off-topic
personal information. When it is returned to its place of origination,
you cry foul.

And you call me hypocritical. Sheesh.......

Nothing hypocitiical at all about giving you back your initiated
behavior. In fact, you were warned on many occasion that this is what
your initiated behavior would degrade to. Again, if the information is
incorrect, ignore it and toss it out the window...but for some obvious
reasons, you chose to bitch about it.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

From: (John=A0Smith)
I wonder if God will punish them?

Look at the given examples. We have an extra who must be spoon fed by
the contingency. Even though he was informed by the majority of regs
concerning the law, he steadfastly refused to believe anyone at all,
illustrating the arrogance and disdain he embraces toward anyone else's
knowledge relating to radio and radio law. (chuckle) yes,,I say these
types most certainly are punished.

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)

LOL there he goes again accusing innocent

people. why not come to my house pussy boy

Ill pay the gas

Off you go now,,disappear for a week and reappear the day Dave Hall
comes back, why don't you : )

Open your eyes, if you haven't noticed MANY don't seem to have any respect
for the law--pay attention. If it isn't the same in your city I am happy
for you--but here it is just getting damn dangerous!!!
The downright silly decisions the judges are making is ONE MAJOR cause, the
youngsters are laughing behind judges backs...
Would you even begin to attempt to convince me that you get anything more
than the justice you can afford?
Those lawyers are not going to be bothered with freebanders/CB'ers--they
simply don't have the type of money the lawyers need to fill their
pockets....

Get real...

Regards,
John

Those hams are just about to get one BIG surprise...
Those export radios are ending up in Mexico, with BIG Liinears!
I hope all those hams can speak Spanish. And, furthere south, the South
American skip should just get better and better! grin

Regards,
John

You waste your time, attempting to show logic to Dave, he is obivously a ham
or "ham groupie."
He is just here to stop any progressive changes--write your congressmen!!!
Anyway, whether he does what he does or not--the winds of change begin to
blow....

Regards,
John

From: (John=A0Smith)
You waste your time, attempting to show logic

to Dave, he is obivously a ham or "ham

groupie."

He is just here to stop any progressive

changes--write your congressmen!!! Anyway,

whether he does what he does or not--the

winds of change begin to blow....

Regards,

John


Dave is capable of giving good entertainment when he remains cool, stays
on topic, and steers clear of emotional outbursts.