On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:31:34 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Mon, 2 May 2005 13:19:33 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:
I am not arguing that the FCC should do ANYTHING!!! Well, other than
assist the people in using "THEIR" radio spectrum... the radio spectrum
is NOT theirs to do anything with!!!

Then neither is your car. I hope you won't

mind if I "borrow" it. You don't mind a little mud
do you?

Dave

"Sandbagger"


A valid comparison can not be reached when you present an intangible vs
a tangible.

The fact that you refuse to view radio spectrum as "tangible" is not
my problem.

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

On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:29:43 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Tue, 03 May 2005 01:53:26 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
But in criminal court the state must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt in order to gain a

guilty verdict. You are presumed innocent until
then. Traffic court is not quite the same. While

they may not specifically say it this way, the

fact that you got a ticket, is evidence of guilt,

and you have to try your best to prove that

you're not guilty.



In Florida, if one has a clean license (no tickets on record) and is
issued a simple traffic ticket, such as for exceeding the speed limit
(but less than 15 mph over the legal limit, as speeding more than 15 mph
over the limit requires a mandatory court appearance) and challenges it
in court, the ticket is practically always dismissed.




The word of one cop is enough, in most

cases, to render a "guilty" verdict, unless

you're damn lucky and can somehow "prove"

your innocence.

You are assuming the majority of tickets issued are not dismissed.

I do not have statistics on this, but from my (again nameless) police
friends, I am told that most times the tickets stand, as long as the
cop appears, and the offense is not easily disputable. That's why, in
Pa, they normally give you 5 - 10 MPH over the speed limit, so as to
eliminate the dispute over accuracies. In many cases the cop does not
appear, and you can consider that a "gimme". But there's no way to
predict who will show and in which case.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

The car, as is the radio spectrum, mine!!!
My car is NOT the DMV's, my radio spectrum is NOT the FCC's....

Regards,
John

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 2 May 2005 13:19:33 -0700, "John Smith"
| wrote:
|
| I am not arguing that the FCC should do ANYTHING!!! Well, other than
assist
| the people in using "THEIR" radio spectrum... the radio spectrum is NOT
| theirs to do anything with!!!
|
|
| Then neither is your car. I hope you won't mind if I "borrow" it. You
| don't mind a little mud do you?
|
| Dave
| "Sandbagger"

On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:50:49 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 03 May 2005 01:53:26 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

While they may not
specifically say it this way, the fact that you got a ticket, is
evidence of guilt, and you have to try your best to prove that you're
not guilty. The word of one cop is enough, in most cases, to render a
"guilty" verdict, unless you're damn lucky and can somehow "prove"
your innocence

Um Dave, when the officer hands the book to you and says "sign here"
he always says: " This is not an admission of guilt, but a promissory to
appear in court", so how does your statement apply?

In Pa, you sign to acknowledge receipt of the citation. You then have
the choice to either plead guilty and remit the amount of the fine to
the address included. Or, you can plead "not guilty" and take your
chances fighting in court. But unless you have some means of actually
proving your innocence beyond that of playing he said- he said with a
cop, you pretty much have the cards stacked against you. Oh, and you
will be assessed court costs in addition to your fine if found guilty.


If you didn't do anything wrong, you have the RIGHT to appear in
court, present your evidence to the JUDGE and let him make the
decision, not a bunch of people sitting around a table, drinking
coffee, eating donuts and then saying....."um, this guy said SH*T,
let's fine him..........$25,000.00, yeah, that's a good amount"

Whether or not you did something wrong or not may be open to
subjective interpretation. Most cops would not bother to write someone
a ticket for not coming completely to a stop and waiting the required
3 seconds before proceeding at a stop sign. But the point between
what's an acceptable stop and one that's not, is a subjective gray
area, and not one that you will usually win. Most traffic law issues
are not always black and white. Yes, if you actually feel that you
were unfairly targeted, you might be tempted to fight. But if you are
still guilty of violating the letter of the law, if not the intent,
you might find it a tough battle.

On the other hand, if you **** off a cop and he pulls you over and
"invents" a few charges to stick you with, you will still have a hard
time proving that you did not commit them unless, of course, the cop
in question has a history of abusing his power in such a way.

Is this fair? No. But is it a fact of life? Certainly.



You have a better chance of beating a ticket if your inocent than
an FCC fine, at least you appear before a Judge and you can request
a jury trial, try to do that with a FCC NAL.

You can fight an NAL as well. In most cases the FCC gives fair warning
before handing out the NAL. If you heed the warning, in most cases
that will be the end of it. I haven't read any accounts of people
popped by the FCC who weren't guilty of the offense charged. In most
cases, their "defense" consists of crying poor, or somehow trying to
justify their actions. Some of the excuses given are quite laughable.


Why play word games? The end result is the same. The accuser has to
prove his innocence, by discrediting the evidence against him. The cop
is not required to demonstrate 6 different ways from Sunday how the
accuser is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". He only has to show up
and testify that the accuser ran such and such red light, and it's his
word against the accuser's. So who does the court tend to believe? How
is this a "presumption of innocence"?

What word games? The officer presents his evidence, then you have your
turn, do you think that just because he's a police officer he's always
right?

No, he's not always right, but he's more credible in the eyes of the
court than Joe Average Citizen. Cops are viewed with a certain amount
of public trust. If it comes down to a battle of testimony between
you and the cop, the court will side with the cop in most cases.

If you present the correct type of evidence, witness's, you will be found
innocent.

Tell me, just how great are your chances of having an impartial
witness around when you need them, or having some other form of
concrete exculpatory evidence?

You are talking how things should be in theory. I'm talking about how
they are in reality. In an ideal world, all innocent people would
never be accused or wrongly convicted of a crime. The real world
paints an entirely different picture. I'm not saying it's right. I'm
just acknowledging that it happens.


I'm waiting until the FCC gets into the Satellite radio scene.


I'm waiting until the FCC starts regulating the internet.


It's coming.


That's a very sad statement Dave, if you can't regulate what you
hear and watch, you have to have the governmet do it for you.
A clear case.......... Lack of self control.

It's an unfortunate truth that there are some people out there that
can't exercise self control and, by their lack of respect for others,
pollute the public venues with inappropriate behavior. Barring
vigilante justice, government intervention is often the only sensible
alternative.

Ironically, I tend to be a "minimal governmental intrusion" advocate.
But as more and more people adopt an "in your face" attitude with
respect to their perceived rights, I start to understand the need for
stricter controls.


Homosexuality is a disorder of the brain. Not much different than
schizophrenia, bipolar, or a host of other disorders. We should be
looking for ways to treat and correct it, not for reasons to excuse
it.


LOL!!!! Dr. Sigmund Hall is in the office..... Too funny

You disagree? You obviously haven't read the studies on the subject.



A marriage is a symbolic ritual of bonding that occurs between
biologically compatible couples. There can be no natural procreation
in a homosexual union. So yes, those values ARE diminished.


Symbolic Yes. I'm not sure what you mean by "biologically compatible"
Do you mean, if your gay, you can't be a compatible couple?

You cannot procreate, which is the whole point of marriage and family.


Don't get me wrong Dave, I agree with you on "Gay marriage", I think
your words are wrong though.

In what way?


Too much stuff to comment on here Dave, you have got way to much time
on your hands, I for one have to get to work, see yaa.

I'm already here. I'm on lunch right now. My day is 2/3rds over. This
small distraction is hardly a dent in my work day.


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

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:31:34 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

ANYTHING!!! Well, other than assist the
people in using "THEIR" radio spectrum... the
radio spectrum is NOT theirs to do anything
with!!!

Then neither is your car. I hope you won't

mind if I "borrow" it. You don't mind a little mud
do you?

Dave

"Sandbagger"

A valid comparison can not be reached when you present an intangible vs
a tangible.

The fact that you refuse to view radio

.spectrum as "tangible" is not my problem.

Nope, it certainly isn't. But the fact that you do not understand the
definition of "tangible" certainly is your problem.

Dave

?."Sandbagger"

n3cvj

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:50:49 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 03 May 2005 01:53:26 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

While they may not
specifically say it this way, the fact that you got a ticket, is
evidence of guilt, and you have to try your best to prove that you're
not guilty. The word of one cop is enough, in most cases, to render a
"guilty" verdict, unless you're damn lucky and can somehow "prove"
your innocence

Um Dave, when the officer hands the book to you and says "sign here"
he always says: " This is not an admission of guilt, but a promissory to
appear in court", so how does your statement apply?

In Pa, you sign to acknowledge receipt of the citation. You then have
the choice to either plead guilty and remit the amount of the fine to
the address included. Or, you can plead "not guilty" and take your
chances fighting in court. But unless you have some means of actually
proving your innocence beyond that of playing he said- he said with a
cop, you pretty much have the cards stacked against you. Oh, and you
will be assessed court costs in addition to your fine if found guilty.


Same here. Yes, if you don't do your homework and submit
the evidence correctly, you are at the mercy of the court. Of
course if your guilty, why would you be there? If not, do
your homework, present a good case with evidence & witness's
and you will be found innocent.


If you didn't do anything wrong, you have the RIGHT to appear in
court, present your evidence to the JUDGE and let him make the
decision, not a bunch of people sitting around a table, drinking
coffee, eating donuts and then saying....."um, this guy said SH*T,
let's fine him..........$25,000.00, yeah, that's a good amount"

Whether or not you did something wrong or not may be open to
subjective interpretation. Most cops would not bother to write someone
a ticket for not coming completely to a stop and waiting the required
3 seconds before proceeding at a stop sign.

Why not? if they didn't wait, they could get the ticket. You have
"unnamed" cops that are friends, do they tell you that they only
ticket people that they see, 100% do something wrong? If they
say yes, they are probably lying.

But the point between
what's an acceptable stop and one that's not, is a subjective gray
area, and not one that you will usually win.

That's some of my point. If he really didn't see you not stop, he's
guessing. If so, then you have your witness's, do your homework
and present it accordingly. I was sighted once for that offence,
there was no way he could have seen me stop, let alone not stop.
I took my pictures, measurements and showed in court that there
was no way that the officer could have seen me stop, let alone run
the stop sign from the position he said he was in. I won, and I was
only 18 years old then.

Most traffic law issues
are not always black and white. Yes, if you actually feel that you
were unfairly targeted, you might be tempted to fight. But if you are
still guilty of violating the letter of the law, if not the intent,
you might find it a tough battle.


Maybe, but if your speedo is off, you can go to court, show that
it was off and also show that it was repaired, most of the time the
judge will dismiss the case.

On the other hand, if you **** off a cop and he pulls you over and
"invents" a few charges to stick you with, you will still have a hard
time proving that you did not commit them unless, of course, the cop
in question has a history of abusing his power in such a way.

Maybe again. But if you have someone with you, that type of stuff
is less likely to happen (witness factor)


Is this fair? No. But is it a fact of life? Certainly.



You have a better chance of beating a ticket if your inocent than
an FCC fine, at least you appear before a Judge and you can request
a jury trial, try to do that with a FCC NAL.

You can fight an NAL as well. In most cases the FCC gives fair warning
before handing out the NAL.

Warnings are not NAL, so there is nothing to fight.

If you heed the warning, in most cases
that will be the end of it. I haven't read any accounts of people
popped by the FCC who weren't guilty of the offense charged.

It doesn't matter Dave, you can't fight a NAL, you either pay it
or have a lein on your property or wages garnished.

In most
cases, their "defense" consists of crying poor, or somehow trying to
justify their actions. Some of the excuses given are quite laughable.

Same as a real court.



Why play word games? The end result is the same. The accuser has to
prove his innocence, by discrediting the evidence against him. The cop
is not required to demonstrate 6 different ways from Sunday how the
accuser is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". He only has to show up
and testify that the accuser ran such and such red light, and it's his
word against the accuser's. So who does the court tend to believe? How
is this a "presumption of innocence"?

What word games? The officer presents his evidence, then you have your
turn, do you think that just because he's a police officer he's always
right?

No, he's not always right, but he's more credible in the eyes of the
court than Joe Average Citizen.

Why? He's a person just like anyone else. His credibility rides on
what he presents and how he does it, just like you.

Cops are viewed with a certain amount
of public trust. If it comes down to a battle of testimony between
you and the cop, the court will side with the cop in most cases.

Again, if you did something wrong, why waste the time of the courts,
but if you are innocent and present your case in a legit way, you
will probably get off.


If you present the correct type of evidence, witness's, you will be found
innocent.

Tell me, just how great are your chances of having an impartial
witness around when you need them, or having some other form of
concrete exculpatory evidence?

I made a right hand turn onto another street, I proceeded into the
right side of the lane partially into the bike lane (legal if with-in
a certain distance of the intersection). Cop saw it and gave me a
ticket for passing on the right. I showed with both video, pictures
and measurements, after the officer said I passed on the right some
1000 to 1300' before the intersection. That being said I would have had
to pass him on the right before the previous light (I had turned onto the
road in front of him, so how did I pass him?) I was found innocent
via US mail and the judge enclosed a note saying that I had come to
the court very well prepared with my evidence in proper sequence.


You are talking how things should be in theory. I'm talking about how
they are in reality. In an ideal world, all innocent people would
never be accused or wrongly convicted of a crime. The real world
paints an entirely different picture. I'm not saying it's right. I'm
just acknowledging that it happens.

Sorry, in the real world I'll bet you more people that do the right thing
while in court get off more than you think.



I'm waiting until the FCC gets into the Satellite radio scene.


I'm waiting until the FCC starts regulating the internet.


It's coming.


That's a very sad statement Dave, if you can't regulate what you
hear and watch, you have to have the governmet do it for you.
A clear case.......... Lack of self control.

It's an unfortunate truth that there are some people out there that
can't exercise self control and, by their lack of respect for others,
pollute the public venues with inappropriate behavior.

If you don't like Stern, change the channel, if you don't like Queer
eye for the straight guy, don't watch it, but don't ask the government
to stand in and say " this is bad, people don't want to watch this,
take it off the air. You would have culture shock if you ever get
over to Europe.

Barring
vigilante justice, government intervention is often the only sensible
alternative.

So when the public is tired of seeing televangelist all day and night,
politicians are tired of it, it's ok to bar them from TV? Because you
don't have the common sense to turn it off or change channels?
That's messed up, you had better hope that the country never gets
to that stage.


Ironically, I tend to be a "minimal governmental intrusion" advocate.
But as more and more people adopt an "in your face" attitude with
respect to their perceived rights, I start to understand the need for
stricter controls.


Homosexuality is a disorder of the brain. Not much different than
schizophrenia, bipolar, or a host of other disorders. We should be
looking for ways to treat and correct it, not for reasons to excuse
it.


LOL!!!! Dr. Sigmund Hall is in the office..... Too funny

You disagree? You obviously haven't read the studies on the subject.



Nor do I care too, it's not anything that I'm concerned about.


A marriage is a symbolic ritual of bonding that occurs between
biologically compatible couples. There can be no natural procreation
in a homosexual union. So yes, those values ARE diminished.


Symbolic Yes. I'm not sure what you mean by "biologically compatible"
Do you mean, if your gay, you can't be a compatible couple?

You cannot procreate, which is the whole point of marriage and family.


Hummm, maybe, but it's not the only reason for marriage.



Don't get me wrong Dave, I agree with you on "Gay marriage", I think
your words are wrong though.

In what way?

I think they can have what ever type of saying they want, but marriage is
and
has always been between a man & a woman, not a man & man or woman &
woman.



Too much stuff to comment on here Dave, you have got way to much time
on your hands, I for one have to get to work, see yaa.

I'm already here. I'm on lunch right now. My day is 2/3rds over. This
small distraction is hardly a dent in my work day.


Well I have bigger things to do than this group, so time is more precious
to me.


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


Landshark


--
__
o /' )
/' ( ,
__/' ) .' `;
o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ;
_.--' b) LANDSHARK ``--...____. .'
( _. )). `-._
`\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'.
`---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.;
`-` `

On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:00:00 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
The difference between you and I is only a matter of degree. When you
make relative value judgements, this is the danger you run into. When
you apply logic in the justification for allowing certain behaviors,
the same logic can be applied to a successive list of increasingly
abhorrent behaviors and practices. It comes down to what you are
willing to tolerate. Once you start down that slippery slope, there's
no turning back, without abandoning your logic and adopting some sort
of "bigotry".


That "degree of morality" is established by society, not you, and not
any religious activist group. The overwhelming majority of people
(99%) feel that murder, sex crimes, etc are 'immoral'. But there
isn't much of a majority condemning homosexuality. -That's- how you
make a "relative value judgment".


snip
A mere half-century ago there were some people who didn't like the
idea of treating black people as equals. They especially didn't want
blacks to be able to vote. Some even used the argument that a black
vote would diminish the value of their own vote, which was a weak
rationalization of their racist attitudes.

You are confusing racism with morality. They're not the same, even if
some of the methods seem similar.


Now -there's- a quote for the Dave Hall hall-of-shame.


snip
If you lead a monogamous lifestyle and do not engage in dangerous
recreational habits, your chances of contracting AIDS is minuscule.


HIV doesn't care if you are gay or straight. And maybe you missed the
boat on this one too, but a lot of people got the disease from blood
transfusions. So if you are going to suggest that AIDS is a disease
that is contracted only by evil people then you are even more ignorant
than you have so far demonstrated.


Science therefore vindicated the gay community. But it also exposed
people to their own misperceptions about homosexuality. Apparently you
weren't paying attention.

I was paying attention. To the facts.

There are many who believe that AIDS is the work of God, sent to
punish those who engage in "unworthy" behavior. It's easy for those
who have little faith in a supreme being to deny this possibility. But
it's interesting in where the highest percentages of HIV cases are,
and what activities place people at the most risk. Coincidence?


I was wrong about you, Dave. I thought you were intelligent but a
little misguided. Now I see that you are a certifiable holy-roller
racist whacko.


snip
Well, kick back and pop a
brew, Dave, because this is America,

A nation founded by Christian people based on Christian doctrine, even
if the 1st amendment decries that there is no "official" state
sponsored religion.


Not just the First Amendment, Dave. The concept is reflected in the
main body of the Constitution; "...no religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States," a clause which was unanimously adopted by the
Constitutional Convention.

This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom (as
well as other important principles). After being forced by England to
practice only one religion (the religion of the state), the new
Americans wanted people to have the freedom to practice religion
according to their belief, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam,
Bhuddism, Taoism, Monoanimism..... or even no religion at all.

The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state.


and you have the right to
practice your religion as you see fit -- just let the rest of us do
the same.

As long as what you do doesn't infringe on what I do or diminish the
values that this country was originally founded on.


Gay marriage doesn't change your legal rights and responsibilities. It
doesn't change your tax filing status. It doesn't give your kids birth
defects. It doesn't invalidate your will. It doesn't change your life
insurance policy premiums, or any other bills you pay. It doesn't
change the color of your house, the mileage of your car, or how fast
the weeds grow in your garden. It doesn't affect you in any way except
the way you feel.

And -you- are responsible for the way you feel, not -anybody- else.
There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates how a person should
feel. If gay marriage weakens the value of your marriage, it does so
only because you let it, and that's nobody's fault but your own.

If your bigoted brain had any intelligence you would realize that gay
marriage would -strengthen- the value of your marriage because it
provides a contrast to your own definition of the union. But that's
not the case. You just hate homosexuals. It's as simple as that, isn't
it, Dave?


snip
..... Or do you support the position
of right-wing conservative Christians who say (by their actions) that
any participation of fags in America's free-market economy should be
supressed?

Sometimes politics is at odds with economic considerations. Sometimes
you have to cut off your own nose to make a much larger point. That's
called "principle"


A simple 'yes' would have sufficed.


snip
The "right" choice is any choice that isn't unconstitutional.

The constitution is relative as well. It was framed by Christian
people with their religious inspired morality contained within its
wording.


You have obviously never read it.


snip
If you choose to reject science and
logic, that's your business.

Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of a creator or, more
generally, the concept of intelligent design. Our whole ecosystem, the
intricate specialization of the various functions of our bodies and
other aspects of nature are far too complex to have occurred and
evolved at random. There is simply not enough order in chaos for this
to happen.


I see you slept through history -and- science.


If I'm wrong then you can rest assured
that I'll pay for my indiscretions -- but that's -my- business, not
your's.

Yes, it is. But it's my business if you try to poison others by
"immoral" thinking. And hence we have the classic "moral dilemma".


No, it's -not- your business if I try to "poison" others by stating
that I'm an atheist. You have just as much right to declare that you
are a Christian (or whatever warped permutation of religion you have
adopted to validate your "core beliefs"). And no group of Christians,
no matter how large, has the right to impose it's version of morality
on me. This is 21st Century America, not the dark ages or the Spanish
Inquisition. But it -is- your business to abide by the Constitution
the United States, which clearly states that religion has no place in
this government. If that makes you feel bad, tuff ****. Learn to live
with it or get out. I would highly recommend the latter.


snip
These "Christians" really need to start practicing what they
preach. Or at least how to live and let live.

Not when abhorrent behavior is cancerous to their way of life. They
have a right to fight for what they believe in, just as much as those
who would throw traditional morality to the wind in support of the
latest hedonistic pop-culture fad.


Rock and roll is here to stay, Dave.


snip
Once again you are confused, Dave. It was statutory law that initiated
the Constitutional challenge. The statute was -overthrown- by the
Supreme Court, not established.

Exactly. But what right should a branch of government which is
supposed to interpret and apply the law, have in making or overturning
standing law? That is the job for the legislature.


Oh dear god, you really don't have any clue about how the government
works, do you? Three branches of government? Checks and balances?
Seperataion of powers? But why should I be suprised -- you haven't
even read the Constitution.


And case law is just as much 'law' as
statutory law because of the system of 'checks and balances' -- to
suggest that a law is something less because it is a "judicial ruling"
is completely bogus.

I call it "overstepping their bounds". No law that is made by the
legislature should be struck down by a panel of judges without debate,
which should include the legislature who passed the law in the first
place.


When I realize that people like you vote, it comes as no suprise that
Bush was re-elected..... he has great appeal with the ignorant.

It's clear that you never learned the basics of your own government.
Just like you never learned the basics of electronics. The problem is
that you can't possibly make an informed decision about who to vote
for if you don't even know the job description! Climb down off your
morality horse and learn about your own country before you wage a holy
war against other Americans. And yes, even homosexuals can be American
citizens. Does that diminish the value of your citizenship? If it does
then you know what you can do, don't you Dave?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

JEEEEZZZZZZ ENOUGH OF THIS GARBAGE. Lets get back to CB'in and
Freebanding. QSL? insert roger beep and\or noise toy here

On Tue, 3 May 2005 17:29:19 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:


A valid comparison can not be reached when you present an intangible vs
a tangible.

The fact that you refuse to view radio
.spectrum as "tangible" is not my problem.


Nope, it certainly isn't. But the fact that you do not understand the
definition of "tangible" certainly is your problem.

You asked for it. Pay particular attention to definition #3:


tan·gi·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tnj-bl)
adj.

1 a. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the
skin.
b. Possible to touch.
c. Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible
evidence.
2. Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the
plan.
3. Law. That can be valued monetarily: tangible property.


Is not the RF spectrum given a monetary value by virtue of the FCC
auctioning it off to the highest commercial bidders?

That makes it a tangible asset. No different than a piece of property.

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

On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:39:13 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

The car, as is the radio spectrum, mine!!!
My car is NOT the DMV's, my radio spectrum is NOT the FCC's....


The FCC owns the rights to the radio spectrum in this country. They
are the ones authorized to sell spectrum to people with a legitimate
need. It's no different than government owned land.

Your car is yours as is your radio gear. But the privilege to operate
both is granted by the government, and can be revoked for the proper
cause.

Another way to look at it. You own your car, but not the roads you
drive on. You may own your radio, but not the airwaves you broadcast
on.


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