On Fri, 6 May 2005 11:19:50 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

The FCC owns the rights to the radio
spectrum in this country.

That is ludicrous. They do not. They merely are charged with
administrating such. The spectrum does not stop at the borders.

.No, but while inside the borders, you will pay
(Sometimes dearly) the FCC for the right to
play on the airwaves.



So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no
damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few
paltry bucks..

Illegally. Just as there are people who trespass on private or
otherwise posted land, and never get caught either. But it's still
illegal.


Ask any cell phone company
owner/administrator.


Your selection of cell phone admins does not discount the countless
freebanders, cbers or hammies who play on it for free or on the extreme
cheap.

Illegally, or on bands where public access is set aside. Much like a
public park.


They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum
to people with a legitimate need. It's no
different than government owned land.

Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were
already taught.

Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways
that are similar are what I am talking about. It's
a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of
spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes
for outrageous amounts. If the FCC was not in
the position to claim "ownership" of that
spectrum, how could they auction it off?



By virtue of administration. Auctions are held daily all over the place.
They do not own what they auction, but like the FCC, are merely charged
with the administering of such.

Semantics.


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.

Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate
my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so.

Right! On you own land. But venture out on
.the public street, and they have all the
authority. Same goes for radio. If you can
somehow prevent your signal from escaping
the borders of your property (Which is covered
by FCC Part 15), you could do what you want.


Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law?

Pushing which law and in what way?


Once those signals escape into the public
venue, they are under the control of the
federal government.



How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over
such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can
tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public
broadcast?

Most of those situations employ carrier current transmitters which
radiate only a short distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby
limiting range beyond the intended service area. The biggest uses for
this technique is on college campuses, travel, and road alert systems.

As you know, RF degrades gradually and it is impossible to "brick
wall" stop a broadcast at the limits of physical property. But unless
you are very close, you will likely not hear a carrier current
transmission.


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

Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars.

And administered by the government.

You may own your radio, but not the airwaves
you broadcast on.

Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe.

For all practical purposes, yes they do in this
country.
You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond
the confines of your own property.

That is what the cb does.

Yes, but the authorization to operate a CB is a "privilege", not a
"right".

You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the
government in the proxy of the FCC.


This "privilege" is availabe to anyone, so how can it be referred a
privilege?

Not true. You have to be a U.S. citizen, and not convicted of other
FCC rule violations.


I know you elitist hammies believe this to be true about your
ticket, but it simply does not apply to cb, as practically any American
citizen is granted the "right" to broadcast, via a cb, simply by
ownership of one. This does not exactly equate to any "privilege".

Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the rules governing each
service, and find out for yourself. Despite the relative ease by which
a person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a "right" to do so,
it is a privilege granted by the FCC, as the service is authorized by
rule, even if a license is not required.


As a
condition of that privilege comes your
responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in
various FCC parts depending on which
service you are using.
You may not like it, but that's the way it is.



Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right
now and have said so on many occasion.

Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they should be, and freeload....
er, freebanders get away with trespassing on other government
administered frequencies with little chance of getting caught. But
that doesn't mean that it's legal or proper.


They rightly and deservedly go
after those they deem the most important and damaging to our hobby.

You mean those who project the highest profile, or those who impact
operators who paid dearly for the right to use their part of the
spectrum.


It
is yourself that does not like the "way it is" nor agree with it.

Well, that's true. I do wish the FCC had more teeth.

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

On Fri, 06 May 2005 00:06:12 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:44:26 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:20:49 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote:
Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of
a creator or, more generally, the concept of

intelligent design.


Science is based on logic. Nowhere does science support your position.

Well, one of two possibilities exist. Either the earth cooled, formed
water, created primordial amino acids which somehow morphed into
single celled life, which then somehow determined the need to further
specialize and diversify, and all species evolved from there. Somehow
they knew that we'd need plants to make oxygen, for the animals that
need it. Some species would become food for others. All of this raises
many questions, the biggest of which is what force drove these single
celled organisms to improve and specialize themselves? What drives
evolution? Can accidental random mutation answer these questions
satisfactorily.


That's about the most ignorant pseudo-scientific argument I have ever
heard in favor of creationsim. If you are going to play biochemist at
least show a little knowledge of the subject. You could at least
address the fact that an imbalance in a complex equilibrium will
result in a more complex equilibrium. Or that an ocean full of
primordial soup doesn't just sit there and stew in a state of
homeostatis -- it's under a constant barrage from a large number of
ionizing radiations that can change it's chemistry. After a couple
billion years it's hardly inconceivable that symbiotic relationships
not only could exist on a planetary scale, but that a threshold of
self-sustaining complexity could occur. In fact, it's far more
plausible than concluding that everything was willed into existence by
some super-ghost.

Your anti-God bias is showing. You would rather believe that the
complexity of our ecosystem occurred due to just the right random,
combinations of factors and events to produce all the diversified
species, which all have a key part to play in the total picture,
rather than consider the likelihood that an intelligent force was
somehow responsible for guiding it.



The other possibility is that our existence was carefully guided by an
intelligent force. Applying Occam's razor, which scenario is easier
to believe?


See above.

Yes, see above.



snip
But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and
selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may
mistake for "random".

But what motivates natural evolution? Who decides whether a mutation
is "beneficial" or not? Natural selection, otherwise known as
survival of the fittest, assumes that gene mutations which result in a
"better" species, would survive while the "lesser' versions of the
species would die out. Yet, it is said that homo-sapiens evolved from
apes. Why then are apes still around if we are the "new and improved"
version of the ape?

Evolution only explains a small part of the puzzle.


But what drives evolution? If random mutations are the basis for
evolution, then what prevents "bad mutations" or several different
mutations from leading us down even more diverse paths?


A little concept called "survival of the fittest".

Then why are smaller mammals still here? Why are apes still here? Why
do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that
allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming
of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul?


Natural selection only answers some of those questions.


Only if you slept through the class like you did during American
History and Social Studies.

I have an open mind. Something you evidently do not.


There is much scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution.
I am not trying to discount it at all. Quite the opposite, I totally
endorse the concept of evolution. The difference is that I believe
that evolution was "helped" along by an outside intelligence.


Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the
possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations?

It very well might be. It's all part of the bigger plan. Like I said,
I totally accept the concepts of evolution. I just believe that the
process has been "managed" by a higher order intelligence, the
definition of which, has yet to be revealed. I am not advocating any
specific religious interpretation of "God", only that one exists.


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

On Thu, 05 May 2005 23:35:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:32:11 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug.

And if you and your partner are monogamous, this is highly unlikely.


Unless your partner is infected.

Which won't likely happen if you are both monogamous.


snip
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.

Yet the democrats are using this exact criteria to DENY appointees to
the court. In their minds, a strong belief in faith should be regarded
as a reason to disqualify someone from serving in public office.


You are -totally- off your rocker, Dave.

Am I? I guess you haven't been following the struggle for the
appointment of judicial nominees. It is quite obvious that the ones
who the dems oppose the most are people with a strong religious
faith.

Some light reading for you to come up to speed on this issues.

http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/?cat=3

http://quante.blogspot.com/2005/04/y...-morality.html

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...l_politics.php


Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens,
maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration.

Why? Carter's administration has no relevance to this discussion.


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

Not "officially",


Or "unofficially".

The majority of Christian citizens would probably disagree.


Despite the fact that this majority of Christian citizens is not a
majority of American citizens, seperation of church and state is not
subject to a majority vote.

There is no mandated "separation of church and state". Only an
establishment clause prohibiting a state sponsored religion.


I think this page says it best:

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues


but our whole government is littered with Christian
references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings.


As well as religious symbols of other faiths.

Such as?


Go search the net for a picture of the wall behind the Supreme Court
bench.


The swearing
on the Bible,


And here's proof that you have never read the Constitution -- the
passage I quoted above is in direct reference to the requirement for
an Oath of Affirmation.

What passage have you quoted?


Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution?

Yes, have you? What passage are you referring?



And how does that diminish the fact that
swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian
influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning?


Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation.

No, but it is used in every court case, to "swear in" a witness.

The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly
what you claim.

Then why is it still being done on a daily basis?

It was added because, at the time, some states had
oaths that required the person entering office to declare a belief in
God or a "divine inspiration". Such an oath was a "religious test"
that was required to qualify for the office, and excluded anyone that
didn't share the same religious beliefs. This violated the seperation
of church and state, so the clause was added to prohibit such tests,
and the office would be available to any citizen -despite- religious
beliefs.

We're talking about court cases here, not job applications.


snip
If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you
have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half
of all marriages end in divorce,

Not true. You are not keeping current.

http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls


No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census
Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take
place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And
for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the
rate of marriage:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf


You should read the link I posted again. The very first line tells the
story. The divorce rate is only 9.6%.


and a large number of people get
married more than once. There is also the issue of polygamy -- if you
are going to claim that marriage is a religious value or that it is
traditionally monogamous then you better change your tune because
that's not the case. For example, King Solomon (a "servant of God")
had 600 wives and 900 concubines... or was it 900 wives and 600
concubines.... whichever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that
the "traditional Christian marriage" is just as much a farce in
definition as it is in practice; and gay marriage has far less impact
on it's "value" than legalized divorce, secular ceremonies, Joseph
Smith, or even the holy doctrine of your own faith.


Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making
unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors.


It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave.

No, it's a logical fallacy.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm

If the foundation of
your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's
both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that
would affect the value of marriage.

Not if they have little in common, other than the idea of marriage
itself.

And after such a comparison, gay
marriage is -barely- significant, if at all.

When you base your conclusion on a false premise, I can understand
your error.


Yet you are whining about
it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant
factors.

So, because there might be other factors which may be more
significant, we should ignore the small ones? That's the same sort of
twisted logic that freebanders use to justify illegal radio pirating.

Bad is bad no matter how large or small it may be.


The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do
with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals.

Once again, your chain of logic is based on flawed conclusions based
on fallacious logic, and your own internal bias.


snip
The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does
not mean that a gay marriage should be now.


I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional
Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical.

So we should abandon all moral values now since they may change
sometime in the future?


snip
Referring back to your "college degree" analogy, if the standards are
lowered then my degree becomes more valuable.

Only to you.


Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that
meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of
the gate -- than someone with a lesser education.

But YOU will have to prove that.


After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS
degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by
doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM
Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the
current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of
study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large
will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has
diminished in value.


Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way.

Most people will eventually see it that way.

But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra
years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'.

Yes, but you will have to "educate" those who will quickly forget
that.


Here's another analogy:
If some of the auto makers start making cars of lower quality, what
happens to the value of the vehicles made by other manufacturers? Duh.

That's not a good analogy in this situation. For this analogy to be
applicable, you would have to offer 2 different "marriage systems".
One allowing gays, and one not. Then a relative value comparison
between two distinct entities can accurately be assessed.


I'm not going to make justifications for your bigotry, Dave.

Then settle for a good analogy. The one you presented was not a good
comparison for the reasons I gave.


How you
feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but
yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a
couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own
marriage.

It just might.

snip
I also noticed that you snipped the part of your last response where
you called me a "holy roller religious wacko". After retrospection,
I'm sure you realized that in making such a statement, you are
practicing the very same intolerance and bigotry for other viewpoints
as you had accused me of doing, thereby exposing your own hypocrisy.

But I did notice.


I snipped a lot of stuff. Unlike you, I have to work for a living, and
I simply don't have the time to play your game.

Excuses excuses..........


So if you want to
start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your
posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other
crap you use to water down the topics.

I water down the topics? Pointing out your own intolerance and
hypocrisy is very much pertinent to the discussion as it becomes
testimony as to your objectivity and credibility on this subject.


Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good,


Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable.


Even if it's bad?


Moron.

What's the matter Frank? Are you that incapable of participating in an
open discussion that challenges your preconceived notions?

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

Dave:

I actually agree with much of what you are about--and you have demonstrated
a high understanding and ability to use logic effectively...

I diverge from your thought on "the radio spectrum"...

I am endowed to full use of the radio spectrum by my creator--however, in
the interest of public good and organization--I am willing to provide my
public servants with a necessary portion of this spectrum so they may carry
out business which is beneficial to the citizens of the United States....
and IS the BUSINESS of THE CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES...

I am also open to them providing a section of this spectrum to specialized
hobbies and for experimentation... however, the majority of it is mine--to
share with my other citizens, since it as much endowed to them by their
creator (whether they recognize him/her or not)... the public needs much
expanded education programs in the use and exercise of their radio
spectrum--that is where gov't should spend their efforts...

control and governing of the citizens flows from the people, to the
congress, and back to the people--it does not flow from an elite of group of
governing citizens to the people...

..... this simply needs to be straightened out...

Warmest regards,
John
--
When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 6 May 2005 11:19:50 -0400, (I
| AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
|
| The FCC owns the rights to the radio
| spectrum in this country.
|
| That is ludicrous. They do not. They merely are charged with
| administrating such. The spectrum does not stop at the borders.
|
| .No, but while inside the borders, you will pay
| (Sometimes dearly) the FCC for the right to
| play on the airwaves.
|
|
|
| So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no
| damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few
| paltry bucks..
|
| Illegally. Just as there are people who trespass on private or
| otherwise posted land, and never get caught either. But it's still
| illegal.
|
|
| Ask any cell phone company
| owner/administrator.
|
|
| Your selection of cell phone admins does not discount the countless
| freebanders, cbers or hammies who play on it for free or on the extreme
| cheap.
|
| Illegally, or on bands where public access is set aside. Much like a
| public park.
|
|
| They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum
| to people with a legitimate need. It's no
| different than government owned land.
|
| Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were
| already taught.
|
| Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways
| that are similar are what I am talking about. It's
| a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of
| spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes
| for outrageous amounts. If the FCC was not in
| the position to claim "ownership" of that
| spectrum, how could they auction it off?
|
|
|
| By virtue of administration. Auctions are held daily all over the place.
| They do not own what they auction, but like the FCC, are merely charged
| with the administering of such.
|
| Semantics.
|
|
| 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.
|
| Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate
| my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so.
|
| Right! On you own land. But venture out on
| .the public street, and they have all the
| authority. Same goes for radio. If you can
| somehow prevent your signal from escaping
| the borders of your property (Which is covered
| by FCC Part 15), you could do what you want.
|
|
| Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law?
|
| Pushing which law and in what way?
|
|
| Once those signals escape into the public
| venue, they are under the control of the
| federal government.
|
|
|
| How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over
| such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can
| tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public
| broadcast?
|
| Most of those situations employ carrier current transmitters which
| radiate only a short distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby
| limiting range beyond the intended service area. The biggest uses for
| this technique is on college campuses, travel, and road alert systems.
|
| As you know, RF degrades gradually and it is impossible to "brick
| wall" stop a broadcast at the limits of physical property. But unless
| you are very close, you will likely not hear a carrier current
| transmission.
|
|
| Another way to look at it, You own your car,
| but not the roads you drive on.
|
| Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars.
|
| And administered by the government.
|
| You may own your radio, but not the airwaves
| you broadcast on.
|
| Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe.
|
| For all practical purposes, yes they do in this
| country.
| You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond
| the confines of your own property.
|
| That is what the cb does.
|
| Yes, but the authorization to operate a CB is a "privilege", not a
| "right".
|
| You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the
| government in the proxy of the FCC.
|
|
| This "privilege" is availabe to anyone, so how can it be referred a
| privilege?
|
| Not true. You have to be a U.S. citizen, and not convicted of other
| FCC rule violations.
|
|
| I know you elitist hammies believe this to be true about your
| ticket, but it simply does not apply to cb, as practically any American
| citizen is granted the "right" to broadcast, via a cb, simply by
| ownership of one. This does not exactly equate to any "privilege".
|
| Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the rules governing each
| service, and find out for yourself. Despite the relative ease by which
| a person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a "right" to do so,
| it is a privilege granted by the FCC, as the service is authorized by
| rule, even if a license is not required.
|
|
| As a
| condition of that privilege comes your
| responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in
| various FCC parts depending on which
| service you are using.
| You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
|
|
|
| Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right
| now and have said so on many occasion.
|
| Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they should be, and freeload....
| er, freebanders get away with trespassing on other government
| administered frequencies with little chance of getting caught. But
| that doesn't mean that it's legal or proper.
|
|
| They rightly and deservedly go
| after those they deem the most important and damaging to our hobby.
|
| You mean those who project the highest profile, or those who impact
| operators who paid dearly for the right to use their part of the
| spectrum.
|
|
| It
| is yourself that does not like the "way it is" nor agree with it.
|
| Well, that's true. I do wish the FCC had more teeth.
|
| Dave
| "Sandbagger"
| http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 6 May 2005 10:40:38 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
Self taught based on nothing more than personal thought you mistakenly
refer as empirical observation isn't a valid method.

Why not?

Because opinion does not equate empirical data.

It is far too complex to have evolved totally

randomly.

(That's an argument used by primitive civilations to explain things
which they do not understand. If you want to be a part of an enlightened
society, the first thing you need to learn is that complexity does not
require divine providence. But if that concept is beyond your level of
comprehension you can always take up astrology, voodoo, crystal ball
gazing..... or even republican economics.)


The ancients sacrificed each other to the "Gods" of the sky when they
were angry (thunder, heavy storms)...same goes for the Gods of the sea,
the four winds, etc. St. Elmo's Fire was attributed to the Gods by the
old salts and still is in superstitious circles of the old time
fishermen...

Any sufficiently advanced technology is

indistinguishable from magic....



It wasn't referred as magic.

The more answers you learn, the more

questions you discover. It's a never ending

quest.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj


At least I'm enjoying the ride.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 6 May 2005 11:19:50 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
The FCC owns the rights to the radio

spectrum in this country.

That is ludicrous. They do not. They merely are charged with
administrating such. The spectrum does not stop at the borders.

.No, but while inside the borders, you will pay

(Sometimes dearly) the FCC for the right to

play on the airwaves.

(So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no
damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few
paltry bucks..)

Illegally. Just as there are people who

trespass on private or otherwise posted land,

and never get caught either.

Physical trespass can carry a *criminal* charge..talking on the freeband
can not. Once again, this is the difference between what constitutes a
criminal act vs a civil act. The penalties are not the same.

But it's still illegal.

(shrug),,,,which has -never- been contested by anyone here, yet, for
some curious reason unbeknownst to all but yourself, you have taken it
upon yourself to assume status and annoint yourself some sort of
imaginary right to confront others concerning their non-criminal act. I
would hedge zero times have you actually confronted a real criminal or
law breaker in the act and in person.
_
Ask any cell phone company

owner/administrator.

Your selection of cell phone admins does not
discount the countless freebanders, cbers or
hammies who play on it for free or on the
extreme cheap.

Illegally,



And legally.

or on bands where public access is

set aside.


Or not. Don't forget many of the freqs that have been abandoned. I'll
reiterate what you already found in google on many
occasion,,,,,education is the key.

Much like a public park.


Nothing like a public park, as breaking the law you speak of (trespass)
can result in criminal charges, unlike talking on the freeband. This
concept has proved nearly impossible for you to grasp. Perhaps it
because you so vehemently disagree with the law.

They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum

to people with a legitimate need. It's no

different than government owned land.

Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were
already taught.

Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways

that are similar are what I am talking about.


But,,,,,,it's not

It's a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of

spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes

for outrageous amounts. If the FCC was not in
the position to claim "ownership" of that

spectrum, how could they auction it off?

By virtue of administration. Auctions are held daily all over the place.
They do not own what they auction, but like the FCC, are merely charged
with the administering of such.

Semantics.

No,,facts. You can't call facts you disagree with "semantics".

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.

Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate
my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so.

Right! On you own land. But venture out on .

the public street, and they have all the

authority. Same goes for radio.


Again,,,,,(sigh),,the analogy of the car is invalid as it can result in
criminal charges, while operating on the freeband does not.

If you can somehow prevent your signal from

escaping the borders of your property (Which

is covered by FCC Part 15), you could do

what you want.


Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law?

Pushing which law and in what way?

Transmitting, albeit, under the guise of part 15, to a much broader
audience than permitted.



Once those signals escape into the public

venue, they are under the control of the

federal government.

How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over
such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can
tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public
broadcast?

Most of those situations employ carrier current
transmitters which radiate only a short

distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby

limiting range beyond the intended service

area. The biggest uses for this technique is on
.college campuses, travel, and road alert

systems.


Yes,,,but my question remains and is still valid.


As you know, RF degrades gradually and it is

impossible to "brick wall" stop a broadcast at

the limits of physical property. But unless you

are very close, you will likely not hear a carrier
current transmission.



Or on an unobstructed waterway with a visual on the proper/transmitter.

Another way to look at it, You own your car,

but not the roads you drive on.

Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars.

And administered by the government.

You may own your radio, but not the airwaves

you broadcast on.

Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe.

For all practical purposes, yes they do in this

country.

You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond

the confines of your own property.

That is what the cb does.

Yes, but the authorization to operate a CB is a
"privilege", not a "right".

You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the

government in the proxy of the FCC.

This "privilege" is availabe to anyone, so how can it be referred a
privilege?

=A0=A0Not true. You have to be a U.S. citizen, and

not convicted of other FCC rule violations.
=A0


Ok,,proverbially "everyone".


_
=A0I know you elitist hammies believe this to be true about your ticket,
but it simply does not apply to cb, as practically any American citizen
is granted the "right" to broadcast, via a cb, simply by ownership of
one. This does not exactly equate to any "privilege".

Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the
rules governing each service, and find out for

yourself. Despite the relative ease by which a

person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a

"right" to do so, it is a privilege granted by the

FCC, as the service is authorized by rule,

even if a license is not required.


And if that law were serious, one would NOT be able to buy, plug and
play. What stops an immigrant from using a cb? Nothing,,they all se them
in the fruit fields.

As a

condition of that privilege comes your

responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in

various FCC parts depending on which

service you are using.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right
now and have said so on many occasion.

Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they

should be, and freeload.... er, freebanders get

away with trespassing on other government

administered frequencies with little chance of

getting caught. But that doesn't mean that it's

legal or proper.



Again, not one person ever made such a claim in all my years of visiting
thse pages. Just who is it you are trying to convince?
-
They rightly and deservedly go
after those they deem the most important and damaging to our hobby.

You mean those who project the highest

profile, or those who impact operators who

paid dearly for the right to use their part of the

spectrum.



Those who present a direct safety issue.
_
It
is yourself that does not like the "way it is" nor agree with it.

Well, that's true. I do wish the FCC had more

teeth.

They have plenty of teeth. Their bite is interested in chomping away
with censorship of television.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 05 May 2005 23:35:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:32:11 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :
snip
(No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug. )

And if you and your partner are monogamous,
this is highly unlikely.

(Unless your partner is infected.)


Which won't likely happen if you are both

monogamous.


Being monogamous with your wife/husband/partner has nothing to do with
your past. There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for
years and years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly
appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases
until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS. The ONLY "cure" is found in
the prevention..in other words, abstaining from pre-marital sex then
both parties getting a thorough CBC (complete blood count) prior to
tying the knot.

On Tue, 10 May 2005 08:14:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug.

And if you and your partner are monogamous, this is highly unlikely.


Unless your partner is infected.

Which won't likely happen if you are both monogamous.


And virgins.


snip
Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens,
maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration.

Why? Carter's administration has no relevance to this discussion.


Sure it does. You made a reference to the Democrats. Carter is a
Democrat, isn't he? Ok, so he doesn't hold an office right now. But
how many Democrats currently holding office are athiests? By their own
admissions, not many. Your argument is bogus -- I think Jeanine
Garafalo (sp?) had it right: The conservative's definition of
'liberal' is any judge that upholds the law. Or something like that.


snip
There is no mandated "separation of church and state". Only an
establishment clause prohibiting a state sponsored religion.


Since you refuse to read it yourself, here's that clause from First
Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Sounds to me
like that is a mandate defining the seperation of church and state. Or
are you going to argue that a bird with a flat bill and webbed feet
that flys, swims, quacks, and waddles when it walks isn't a duck
because the word "duck" isn't engraved anywhere on its body?


I think this page says it best:

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues


Too liberal for ya, huh Dave?


snip
The swearing
on the Bible,


And here's proof that you have never read the Constitution -- the
passage I quoted above is in direct reference to the requirement for
an Oath of Affirmation.

What passage have you quoted?


Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution?

Yes, have you? What passage are you referring?


The same passage I have been referring to all along -- Article VI.
Since you haven't read it, let me quote if for you, and in full:

"All Debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution as under the Confederation.

"This Constituion, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members
of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States.

You now have no excuse for such stupid questions.


And how does that diminish the fact that
swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian
influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning?


Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation.

No, but it is used in every court case, to "swear in" a witness.


Once again you demonstrate your ignorance by talking of things about
which you know little or nothing: An oath on the bible is used in
every court but not for every person. There are different oaths for
different faiths -- there is even an oath for athiests and agnostics.


The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly
what you claim.

Then why is it still being done on a daily basis?


Because you watch too much TV.


It was added because, at the time, some states had
oaths that required the person entering office to declare a belief in
God or a "divine inspiration". Such an oath was a "religious test"
that was required to qualify for the office, and excluded anyone that
didn't share the same religious beliefs. This violated the seperation
of church and state, so the clause was added to prohibit such tests,
and the office would be available to any citizen -despite- religious
beliefs.

We're talking about court cases here, not job applications.


We're talking about the seperation of church and state.


snip
If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you
have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half
of all marriages end in divorce,

Not true. You are not keeping current.

http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls


No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census
Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take
place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And
for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the
rate of marriage:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf


You should read the link I posted again. The very first line tells the
story. The divorce rate is only 9.6%.


You sure did sleep a lot in school. It's clear that you don't
understand statistics either. I don't have Excell (well, I have it, I
just don't have it installed because I never used it when I did), so I
downloaded the equivalent PDF file:

http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.pdf

This is nothing but a breakdown of marriage -status-, not the marriage
and divorce rates. You can't calculate marriage and divorce rates from
this data for the simple fact that many people are, or have been,
married more than once.

You are also ignoring the fact that the divorce rate says nothing by
itself. According to the CDC, during the year 2003 there were 7.5
marriages per thousand people. There were also 3.8 divorces per
thousand people. This means (to anyone that can handle 5th grade math)
that the divorce rate is half (50.7%) the rate of marriage.

And here's the fun part, Dave: Since half of all marriages end in
divorce, and if the majority of citizens are right-wing conservative
Christians that hold marriage to be a sacred value, then there sure
are a lot of hypocrites that call themselves Christians.

As for the "tradition" of marriage, remember that the filibuster has
been an American tradition for almost 200 years. IOW, you are a
hypocrite, Dave.


and a large number of people get
married more than once. There is also the issue of polygamy -- if you
are going to claim that marriage is a religious value or that it is
traditionally monogamous then you better change your tune because
that's not the case. For example, King Solomon (a "servant of God")
had 600 wives and 900 concubines... or was it 900 wives and 600
concubines.... whichever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that
the "traditional Christian marriage" is just as much a farce in
definition as it is in practice; and gay marriage has far less impact
on it's "value" than legalized divorce, secular ceremonies, Joseph
Smith, or even the holy doctrine of your own faith.


Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making
unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors.


It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave.

No, it's a logical fallacy.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm


You are trying to build an inductive argument using information that
only tells one side of the story (and heavily biased in favor of your
conclusion). I merely presented some information that you conveniently
overlooked. And it so happens that your premise loses almost all of
it's weight when -all- the facts are known.


If the foundation of
your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's
both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that
would affect the value of marriage.

Not if they have little in common, other than the idea of marriage
itself.


The common denominator is the value of marriage. That alone makes such
issues relevant to the discussion and exposes your argument as nothing
more than an exercise in bigotry. And that's no different than KKK
tactics which use the very same type of lame justifications to defend
racism (religion, tradition, morality, etc.).


snip
Yet you are whining about
it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant
factors.

So, because there might be other factors which may be more
significant, we should ignore the small ones? That's the same sort of
twisted logic that freebanders use to justify illegal radio pirating.


If what you say were true then CB radio would be all over the news. It
isn't. OTOH, opposition to gay marriage -is- all over the news, and
that's because of all the attention it's given. If gay marriage is
getting all this attention because it threatens the value of marriage
then there would be much -greater- attention to the divorce rate (and
there would probably be a few right-wing fanatic groups lobbying to
outlaw divorce). But, in fact, there -isn't- any political outcry
against divorce. The only reasonable conclusion is that these factions
of "Christianity" (at least one of which I'm sure you are a member)
are hypocrites that are practicing church-sponsored bigotry.


Bad is bad no matter how large or small it may be.


Well, what's worse, Dave: A couple homos getting married? or a large
group of bigots trying to subvert the Constitution under the guise of
Christianity?


The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do
with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals.

Once again, your chain of logic is based on flawed conclusions based
on fallacious logic, and your own internal bias.


When will you get it through your thick Republican head that bias has
nothing to do with it, Dave? I'm not homo, I don't have any friends
that are homo, I don't like "Queer Eye" or "Will & Grace"..... and
personally, I find the homosexual lifestyle somewhat repulsive. But
there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits two gays from
getting married if that's how they get their kicks. So it's not my
place to judge. And that would be even -more- true if I was a
Christian, the doctrine being that you should forgive others of their
sins (assuming you see homosexuality as a sin), and that judgment
should be left to God.

You hate gays. So do a lot of other people. Big deal. But my "bias"
leans towards the Constitution, not my aversion to homosexuality. They
have the same rights as me, and I treat them with the same amount of
respect that I do anyone else whether I like them or not. That's the
difference between tolerance and bigotry. I am tolerant. You are not.
You are a bigot.


snip
The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does
not mean that a gay marriage should be now.


I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional
Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical.

So we should abandon all moral values now since they may change
sometime in the future?


Well gee Dave, we probably should, now that you suggested it, huh?
Idiot.


snip
Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that
meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of
the gate -- than someone with a lesser education.

But YOU will have to prove that.


Easy enough. It's called a "diploma".


After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS
degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by
doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM
Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the
current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of
study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large
will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has
diminished in value.


Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way.

Most people will eventually see it that way.


I don't think so, Dave. I really think that most people have more
smarts than you give them credit for.


But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra
years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'.

Yes, but you will have to "educate" those who will quickly forget
that.


There's no point in trying to educate people who refuse to look at the
facts objectively and make reasonable and logical conclusions. The
only reason I continue to try is because you aren't the only person
reading my posts. And it's nice to know that your ignorance is being
recorded for posterity.


snip
Then settle for a good analogy. The one you presented was not a good
comparison for the reasons I gave.


I'll consider a good analogy when you provide a good reason.


How you
feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but
yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a
couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own
marriage.

It just might.


No, it won't. And when you make your next regular visit to your
doctor, tell him that you want to back off the dosage on those
anti-depressants.


snip
I also noticed that you snipped the part of your last response where
you called me a "holy roller religious wacko". After retrospection,
I'm sure you realized that in making such a statement, you are
practicing the very same intolerance and bigotry for other viewpoints
as you had accused me of doing, thereby exposing your own hypocrisy.

But I did notice.


I snipped a lot of stuff. Unlike you, I have to work for a living, and
I simply don't have the time to play your game.

Excuses excuses..........


Financial responsibilities, time that could be used more
productively......... If you cut in half the time you waste on the
computer and spent that extra time reading the Constitution you could
probably cut in half the time you waste on the computer.


So if you want to
start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your
posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other
crap you use to water down the topics.

I water down the topics? Pointing out your own intolerance and
hypocrisy is very much pertinent to the discussion as it becomes
testimony as to your objectivity and credibility on this subject.


Sounds great! So when do you plan to implement your new policy?


Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good,


Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable.


Even if it's bad?


Moron.

What's the matter Frank? Are you that incapable of participating in an
open discussion that challenges your preconceived notions?


You thrive on being publically disgraced, don't you?

inevitable -- [ Latin, 'in', not + 'evitabilis', avoidable] that
which cannot be avoided; certain to happen.







----== 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 =----

On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:39:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Your anti-God bias is showing. You would rather believe that the
complexity of our ecosystem occurred due to just the right random,
combinations of factors and events to produce all the diversified
species, which all have a key part to play in the total picture,
rather than consider the likelihood that an intelligent force was
somehow responsible for guiding it.


There's nothing "random" about it -- when you consider that the bell
curve consists of a population as great as the number of events that
occur in the Universe within any period of time, it becomes utterly
-ridiculous- to think that life requires divine intervention. And if
there -is- evidence of guidance by some intelligent force, it's far
more likely that this "force" is not God but some sort of ETI. May the
force be with you, Dave!


snip
But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and
selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may
mistake for "random".

But what motivates natural evolution?


Natural variation, and adaptability to a dynamic environment.


Who decides whether a mutation
is "beneficial" or not? Natural selection, otherwise known as
survival of the fittest, assumes that gene mutations which result in a
"better" species, would survive while the "lesser' versions of the
species would die out. Yet, it is said that homo-sapiens evolved from
apes. Why then are apes still around if we are the "new and improved"
version of the ape?


Because you assume that the "'lesser' versions of the species would
die out", which is not necessarily the case. There can be many
circumstances where a variation doesn't compete for the same resources
as it's progenitor. This explains why there are so many speices of
birds that have but slight variations -- many birds are migratory. And
so are many species of primates.


Evolution only explains a small part of the puzzle.


No, you have only -learned- a small part of the puzzle.


snip
......Why
do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that
allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming
of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul?


Evolution is science. The questions you ask are philosophical. But
before you start putting the human race on a pedestal, maybe you
better think twice about what you assume are the differences between
humans and other animals.


snip
Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the
possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations?

It very well might be. It's all part of the bigger plan. Like I said,
I totally accept the concepts of evolution. I just believe that the
process has been "managed" by a higher order intelligence, the
definition of which, has yet to be revealed. I am not advocating any
specific religious interpretation of "God", only that one exists.


The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of
variations that can occur in the processes of evolution. Neither do
the scientists that study it. But the scientists don't insert God into
the equation whenever something doesn't add up -- they look for other
factors and they usually find them.









----== 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 =----

It might surprise you, Steven Hawkings (possibly the greatest mind alive--if
not--close) often refers to "God" when chatting and writing about his
thoughts... I don't know Steven's present stand on the existance of "God",
however, I do NOT think he has claimed his/her/its' existance is
impossible...

Steven is quite aware of the fact that probability and statistics make it
very hard for evolution to be the sole reason for our state of existance...

Here is a link to some of his musings and quotes, a search of the net will
provide mo
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physic...en-Hawking.htm

Warmest regards,
John
--
When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:39:33 -0400, Dave Hall
| wrote in :
|
| snip
| Your anti-God bias is showing. You would rather believe that the
| complexity of our ecosystem occurred due to just the right random,
| combinations of factors and events to produce all the diversified
| species, which all have a key part to play in the total picture,
| rather than consider the likelihood that an intelligent force was
| somehow responsible for guiding it.
|
|
| There's nothing "random" about it -- when you consider that the bell
| curve consists of a population as great as the number of events that
| occur in the Universe within any period of time, it becomes utterly
| -ridiculous- to think that life requires divine intervention. And if
| there -is- evidence of guidance by some intelligent force, it's far
| more likely that this "force" is not God but some sort of ETI. May the
| force be with you, Dave!
|
|
| snip
| But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and
| selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may
| mistake for "random".
|
| But what motivates natural evolution?
|
|
| Natural variation, and adaptability to a dynamic environment.
|
|
| Who decides whether a mutation
| is "beneficial" or not? Natural selection, otherwise known as
| survival of the fittest, assumes that gene mutations which result in a
| "better" species, would survive while the "lesser' versions of the
| species would die out. Yet, it is said that homo-sapiens evolved from
| apes. Why then are apes still around if we are the "new and improved"
| version of the ape?
|
|
| Because you assume that the "'lesser' versions of the species would
| die out", which is not necessarily the case. There can be many
| circumstances where a variation doesn't compete for the same resources
| as it's progenitor. This explains why there are so many speices of
| birds that have but slight variations -- many birds are migratory. And
| so are many species of primates.
|
|
| Evolution only explains a small part of the puzzle.
|
|
| No, you have only -learned- a small part of the puzzle.
|
|
| snip
| ......Why
| do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that
| allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming
| of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul?
|
|
| Evolution is science. The questions you ask are philosophical. But
| before you start putting the human race on a pedestal, maybe you
| better think twice about what you assume are the differences between
| humans and other animals.
|
|
| snip
| Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the
| possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations?
|
| It very well might be. It's all part of the bigger plan. Like I said,
| I totally accept the concepts of evolution. I just believe that the
| process has been "managed" by a higher order intelligence, the
| definition of which, has yet to be revealed. I am not advocating any
| specific religious interpretation of "God", only that one exists.
|
|
| The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of
| variations that can occur in the processes of evolution. Neither do
| the scientists that study it. But the scientists don't insert God into
| the equation whenever something doesn't add up -- they look for other
| factors and they usually find them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----== 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
=----