RadioBanter - Beware of hams planting dis-information...

On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:32:45 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:13:43 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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

Well, no, that's my whole point. Something has to "guide" the
development of life.

Why?

Something has to make the decision whether 2 legs
are better than four, and whether a fifth finger makes for a more
effective tool, yet 6 fingers is overkill etc.

Why must it be decided? Why can't it just evolve that way because
that's what happens to work best? Do you think that rain must come
from God because we don't know how it gets into the sky? ....oh, wait
a sec, we -do- know how it gets into the sky. Bad example. So do you
think that the Earth is at the center of the Univ..... uh, forget that
one, Galileo really shamed the church when he proved that the Earth
orbits the Sun. Ok, how about this: The rainbow -must- be proof of God
because it...... nope, Newton shot that one down in flames. Well how
about music? God must have invented music, right? After all, how did
birds learn how to sing? oops, another bad example......

Gee Dave, it sure looks like all of God's "creations" are slowly being
discovered to be nothing more than natural phenomena. Except maybe for
Michael Jackson.

-- 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.

You're just too hung up of formal religion. It's preventing you to
consider the possibility.

Just because a certain part of the ocean is unexplored doesn't mean
it's inhabited with monsters. -You- are too hung up on religion to
realize that randomness (aka, 'chaos') is nothing more than a term
used to describe the collective effect of dynamic systems that are
either so numerous or complex that their components -have yet- to be
isolated and identified. That doesn't mean a seemingly random process
-doesn't- have a logical and scientific explanation, only that the
process is as yet unidentified. And if you can't understand that much
then you probably still check under your bed every night for the
boogie man.

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.

Well now, you ARE making progress. You opened your mind for a split
second. Tell me Frank, what is the definition of "God"?

ROTFLMMFAO!!! You aren't suggesting that God is a collective of little
grey humanoids from the planet Zorkon, are you? Beam me up, Scotty!

May the
force be with you, Dave!

It always has been.

OB1 has taught you well, young Jedi. But here is something you must
know: I am your father, Dave. At least that's what your mother told me
after she lost two other paternity suits.

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.

Based on what criteria? There has to be a purpose for life.

Why? Because you say so? Because you can't figure out what to do with
your life? Or did you adopt that idea as part of a twelve-step
program?

What
drives that purpose?

When Moses asked God what the people should call him, God responded,
"I am that I am." IOW, God exists for the sake of himself. For us
mortals it isn't much different -- life is spent propogating
ourselves. For human males that consists of impregnating as many
females as possible, hence the common characteristic of men to "love
'em and leave 'em", and their willingness to screw just about anything
that is receptive to their advances. The female reproductive role is
more complex. Traditionally it has been to nurture and protect the
larvae until they can be kicked out of the house. This explains why
some women are gold-diggers (money = security, taken to an extreme).

Ironically, monogomy isn't common with humans, their behavior being
more like some species of birds. The female chooses a mate that is a
'provider', one she feels is also competent in a nurturing role. Yet
she seeks a different male for breeding, looking for characteristics
such as aggressiveness and healthiness, and other attributes that are
carried genetically and will give her offspring a better chance at
survival. With two 'mates' she gets the best of both worlds, since one
male with all those traits is nearly impossible to find. Meanwhile,
the males are just trying to dip their wicks anywhere they can.

BTW, this isn't my theory. It's from a well-documented study on human
behavior that has been supported by numerous independent studies.

But if you need to find a purpose that transcends natural biology, try
the simple fact that we -can- transcend biology. That, by itself, as a
"purpose" for life, is reflected heavily in the Bhuddist faith and to
some extent with the Hindu. The 'challenge' of life, therefore, is to
overcome our animal instincts and attain a higher level of being.

Flip the coin and you have people that think you should live hard and
die young. It's doubtful that they have any regrets since they don't
have much time to think about such things.

Of course you could always take a perspective from Monty Python, but I
think Monty Python itself is reason enough to live.

And what else is important is what goes through your mind in your
final moments of life. Did you make the right choices? Could you have
done any better? Will anyone remember you for who you really are? And
are you sure they really -do- know who you are? But that's assuming,
of course, that anyone cares if you are on your death bed. If you ever
visit a nursing home you will find that it's more common for people to
die alone, especially if they don't have money or property to pass on
in their will. Will that be the case with you? Or will your "loved
ones" view your life more intrinsically? And will you have doubts
about life after death, or will you resign yourself to lies that you
used to convince yourself one way or the other so you wouldn't have to
worry about it? Which brings me to my own philosophy regarding the
matter:

It's hard to evaluate life until you have something to compare it to.
Most people who have come close to death consider it a life-altering
experience, and their lives are improved afterwards. It's not a good
idea to die just so you can live better, but at least you can explore
the ideas and perspectives of some of the best minds on the subject.
For that line of philosophy I would recommend yet another good book:
"Thinking Through Death" by Dr. Scott Kramer. If you want a copy just
drop me an email, I have a couple spares.

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.

If not, then that's negates much of the evolutionary theory.

I don't recall that being part of the theory at all. The theory is
that variations which can adapt to a changing environment will survive
-irrespective- of their origins.

If the
purpose of evolution is gradual improvement or a species, then the
"old" should die off as it is replaced by the "new".

That's only an assumption on your part because you have never studied
the subject. If you -had- studied the subject you would know better
than to make such an ignorant remark.

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.

This explains subtle variations within a specific species, but that
doesn't explain how a bird came to be in the first place. Are you
proposing that a winged creature suddenly appeared by accident, as a
mutation from a land-based critter, and it proliferated all by itself.
What taught it to fly in the first place? How could a genetic anomaly
take into consideration the dynamics of flight?

I suppose I should start with Rocky and Bulwinkle. You see, Rocky is a
"flying squirrel". They don't really fly, but glide from one place to
another using skin that has overgrown. The skin probably evolved
because the critters kept falling out of the trees, and the species
with the variation of loose skin allowed more of them to survive the
falls. Easy enough. The next logical step would be an variation of
their "wings" that would allow them to glide for longer periods of
time, and over greater distances. Perhaps even a variation where
muscle movement gives a little extra flight time. Eventually, over a
few hundred thousand years and thousands of generations, there will
probably be a squirrel that can really fly.

But you propose that one day there was a rat, then a miracle occured
and *poof* there was a bat? I don't think so, Dave.

Evolution only explains a small part of the puzzle.

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

This is true. There are very few facts and a whole host of theories
which cropped up to try to explain the facts.

Such is science. Some theories will be dismissed while others will be
proven as fact. And it's doubtful that divine providence will be a
factor in any scientific theory.

The theory of intelligent design is no more far-fetched than the idea
that life began here spontaneously and proliferated into a diverse eco
system, totally at random.

You are assuming that "life began here spontaneously" and evolved
"totally at random". Research strongly suggests that neither are true.

......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.

Yes, but it all relates in the bigger picture.

Talk to Skippy about your "bigger picture" cause that type of BS
doesn't wash with me. I don't even buy into the concept of a "grand
unified theory".

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.

Are you suggesting that other animal species are capable of possessing
similar intellectual capabilities as we have? In some cases certain
primate species have displayed social structures which transcend
simple instinctive behavior. They have also been observed fashioning
crude tools to obtain food. Dolphins and whales seem to communicate
with a rudimentary language. But not one other species can do it all,
in the same way that we do.

So you have noticed that animals are different and have different
characteristics. Congratulations. What you -haven't- learned that the
same is true within the human species.

Yes, animals possess some intellectual capabilities. Beavers are
pretty good engineers, and nobody can tell me that their behavior is
purely instinctual since the circumstances for every beaver dam are
different, and requires some intelligence in order to build those
"crude" tools. Did you know that dolphins have sex just for fun? They
also seem to learn things faster and easier than most teenage humans.
And just about every animal has some form of communication, not just
dolphins and a few others. Ants communicate with chemicals, bees
communicate by 'dancing', dogs communicate by ****ing on trees and
smelling each others butts, etc, etc.

But on the other hand, why would anyone think that human behavior is
anything more than extentions of natural instinct? Everything we do
somehow revolves around basic natural urges, whether it be breathing,
sleeping, eating, sex, reproduction, dying, etc. Probably the only two
characteristics that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom
is our propensity to destroy ourselves and our ability to show mercy.
But then again, the former doesn't differentiate us from lemmings, and
the latter is more a recognition of the futility of life than it is a
divine influence. Either way, man can be just as cruel as nature and
frequently proves that to be a fact.

So what's the difference between man and animal? Human arrogance in
thinking he is something more than just another product of nature.

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.

I don't accept the theory that if you place a group of monkeys in a
cage with a bunch of typewriters that they'll eventually write every
great piece of literary works.

I don't either. Whose theory was that?

They might type out every letter that
is contained within those works, but they will not get the order
correct. Such is the nature of chaos and randomness. It lacks
structure, direction, and order, and those elements are required for
meaningful results to occur.

Again, who suggested that such a thing was possible?

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.

There are still far too many unanswered questions to discount the
theory of intelligent design.

Discount it? No. But neither does it mean that we should jump to that
conclusion because we haven't learned everything we can.

----== 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 =----

Ask your buddy "Bob-noxious" about the

criminal penalties associated with pirate radio.
Another realm.

No, it's not. Not in principle.

We are speaking of cut and dry law,,you know,,,,reality.

The only thing that's different is that Bob's

visibility to commercial (paying) interests is

what forces the FCC to pay closer attention.

And enact harsher penalties compared to the cb/freeband. Read the rules
you claim to comprehend for crying out loud.._

This
concept has proved nearly impossible for you to grasp. Perhaps it
because you so vehemently disagree with the law.

.Your whole justification revolves around your

perception that unless a law has serious,

visible teeth, then it doesn't deserve our

respect, and we are justified in ignoring it.

What justification? The fact that you continue to incorrectly claim I
justified anything over the years has dogged you.

Then what would you call it.

Call what?

When you claim that freebanding is a simple

infraction, that's a justification.

It's a realty,,much unlike the manner you incorrectly claim speeding is
a summary offense (over 15 mph of the posted limit and it is no longer a
sumary offense,,,in Fl AND other states). But this serevs to illustrate
you either A) invoke only the portion of the law you want or B) invoke
only the portion of the law you understand.

Would you still freeband if the FCC actively

pursued freebanders and fined them heavily?

You said they did ever since your breakdown occurred in this group. What
a change of view. in fact, I am proud to have been a part of usenet
history in which you have done so many flips in your life.

That is anti-social behavior.

I don't know about anti-social, but it certainly is unbecoming or
indicative of one who is easily swayed in their core beliefs, especially
when it was done by one of your age..several times.
_
So is the behavior of sports fanatics and religious zealots, both a very
real part of the fabric that weaves America.

In what way?

Breaking the law,,isn't that what you refer to as "anti-social"
behavior? But then again, you have astutely illustrated you had no
concept of the definition or the term "civil disobedience" and needed
proper instruction regarding such..your problem is you disagree with how
it is applied and in your rush to condemn the act, gaffed by attacking
the very real and longstanding American and patriotic concept of civil
disobedience.
But most people understand
tolerance is a necessary gem to a successful America and certain acts
are placed into proper perspective by the majority...a perfect example
is the majority of the populace do not consider speeders "criminals"
like yourself.

I don't either. Speeding is not a criminal

offense.

Another position of whcih you chose opposite end of the argument when
taught. I'm proud of you.

I never stated otherwise. You were the one

who compared speeders to "real" criminals a

few lines above, not me.

Umm...you invoked speeding as a misplaced analogy on many occasion.
Introducing a subject and crying foul when another uses it for a
comparison is hypocritica. Do not introduce a subject if you do not wish
it picked proeprly apart by others. You should have learned this with
your unsolicited invocation of un-named sources and un-confirmed claims.
The fact that you feel strong enough concerning a subject to claim such
things but not provide for them, is telling.
_
No,,facts. You can't call facts you disagree with "semantics".

You want to talk about facts? The facts are

that the FCC can and does auction off chunks

of spectrum to commercial entities to use.

They also regulate those chunks. They also

set aside some spectrum for "public use". Yes,
they administer it, as an arm and

representative proxy of the U.S. government.

Who is charged with administering what belongs to the public via their
tax dollars. Not much different than an auction.

Then why is the public not seeing the

proceeds of these sales?

Gee Dave,,they are..in the form of regulation and enforcement. You
looking for some type procedural handout from an entity simply since it
is tax dollar supported? That is the most hypocritical thing a
republican can say,,,,I'm with Frank..you slept through class.

So, while the FCC might not directly "own" the

airwaves, the U.S. government does.

_
Only when combined with other acts. If you feel simple freebanding (the
context of which we speak) carries criminal charges, feel free to cite
the passage or an example,,even one.

What is "simple" freebanding? Again, I refer

you to the com act of 1934 and associated

regulations regarding unauthorized

transmitters.

The portion regarding unauthorized transmitters goes right out the
window, Dave. Why can't you understand that? You incorrectly assume
freebanders are all using unauthorized transmitters. How do you get
through life with so many false assumptions responsible for your oft
repeated gaffes?
_
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.

Well, look into any "low power" pirate

broadcaster. Some have tried to claim that

their power is legal (even if their antennas are

not).

Once one is pirating, any legal guise under Part 15 vanishes.

You can legally operate a part 15 transmitter

on the broadcast band.

That invalidates your statement, then. If one is legal, why did you
mistakenly refer to such as a pirate? You said "check into any low power
pirate".

I built one such transmitter when I was a kid.

But the antenna restrictions specified no

longer than a 5 foot wire.

I could hear my "station" up to about a block

away.

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.

The reality is that even a carrier current

system needs to be authorized by the FCC.

So a radio system capable of covering a 2500

acre church camp would need FCC

permission to operate.

Sure,,,,,but again,,,if one was to zero in and receive the signal from
property not owned by the entity transmitting under Part 15, what then?
Isn't this a technical violation?

That depends on the circumstances.

I gave you the circumstances.

An authorized carrier current station operating
within the technical requirements is not

responsible for incidental radiation beyond it's

physical boundaries.

My parameters clearly defined the circumstances and the receiving end
proved the example was not incidental but fixed and regular.

Cordless phones are part 15 devices, yet they

can carry beyond your property lines.

Cordless phones are no required anywhere in the rules to stop
transmitting at the end of your property. How did you make such a
glaring error and from what rule did you misinterpret this?

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.

This is true, the FCC isn't checking the

immigration status of every CB operator,

The immigration use was but one example. There are countless more of how
anyone can use a cb simply by purchasing one off the shelf or from
anotehr party.

Well, that's a big glaring example of how

reality can defy or obstruct the rules. The fact

that this happens does not diminish the letter

of the law.

What is happening (reality) has nothing to do with what the law says.
I'm curious as to how you continue to always wind up back at making such
an obscure and remote invalid connection between the two.

One could say that the presence of a law

which is unenforceable is grounds for its

revocation. Maybe that time is now.

and it won't come up unless the person is

cited for other rule violations.

Some rulesand laws need no changing because they are rightly not
enforced..like blue laws still on the books.

It's sort of like the seatbelt law in many states.

You can't get stopped for it alone, but if you

are stopped for another violation, they can cite
you for failing to wear a seatbelt at the same

time.

Yea,,well they just changed the law here,,they can pull one over for not
wearing it,,it's no longer a secondary offense (in Fl) , but a primary
offense.

I believe that's true in Pa, as well now. But it's

still secondary in other states.

Again, it seems that you justify ignoring rules

based on the unlikelihood of being cited.

When I began selectively ignoring specific rules for a specific purpose
(which happens to be THE definition of civil disobedience), most weren't
even aware such rules existed, which nullifies any possible position
presented by yourself regarding ignoring rules on the unlikelihood of
not being cited. In fact, when cbers were sliding up one or in between
to "channel 22a", most had no clue it was illegal.

I have a hard time believing that these bright,

intelligent CB operators would be so ignorant

as to the legality of what they were doing.

Yea..all those kids tinkering and swapping crystals really took to regs
and rules with their Archer walkie-talkies like a scholarly piece.
Again, reality takes precedence over your beliefs.

In any case, ignorance of the law is no

excuse.

Don't you find it the least bit curious that only you feel obsessively
and unreasonaly compelled to seek reasons why people do
things.....especially cbers and freebanders, of all things.

In those days, as a condition of your CB

license (You did have a license right?),

Not until the mid seventies and not for several years.

it was required that you read and understand

the part 95 rule book.

How many kids read that wit their WT's they got under the tree?

You couldn't plead ignorance, without

opening yourself to the charge of making a

false statement on your license registration

form.

There was no need.you are entertaining somethhing that ever
occurred,,,the FCC didn't mess with kids funning around with swapping
crystals, Dave, no matter how illegal it was.

No one in my area ever believed that sliding

through channels outside of the 23 standard

channels was in any way legal.

We took our chances based on the

unlikelihood of getting popped. Had there

been more busts, most of us would have been
too scared to venture out of band. In fact there
were regular rumors that the FCC was "in

town" and many of us toned down our antics,

hid the amps in the garage, and stayed on the

legal channels, at least until the "alert" passed.

Hahaha,,based on nothing more than a phantom voice on the air. At least
you remain true to one core belief,...it a strange voice on the radio
that compelled you to move to the spirit back then, now it's a strange
cartoon name on the internet.

The point being that we all knew exactly what

we were doing then.

Some of us know what we are doing now.

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,

The country disagrees with you, simply by virtue of what the FCC
enforces.

No, the FCC disagrees with me.

The last time I looked, the rank and file citizen

has no input on what the FCC considers a

priority.

Umm..they do. Please check the manner in which a grievance is filed.
Such are not reserved exclusively for those who get busted and
fined......in fact, that is but a single application.

and freeload.... er, freebanders get away with

trespassing on other government administered
frequencies with little chance of getting

caught.

Because it's practically a non-issue with the majority of Americans.

The majority of Americans forgot about CB

radio when Burt Reynold's hair turned gray,

and computers and cell phones satiated their

gadget fix.

Which is why your personal bane remains a non-issue among the majority
of the world.

But you guys who are operating illegally are

using all sort of excuses to justify or downplay

this illegality.

Then you should have no problem illustrating substance concerning your
accusations, but you have failed to do so to date regarding any of these
"guys" you incorrectly invoke.

What substance do you want? Do you deny

that people other than you operate illegally,

and don't care about it?

Stay with me, Dave. You not being provided a satisfactory explanation of
why people do what they do simply because of the reality you are owed
nothing by anyone, does not equate anyone justifying anything.
_

Then who should they go after

Those who present a direct safety issue.

Very few people fall into this category.

All hammies who jam repeaters and talk where they are not permitted (on
the hammie band) fall into this category.

How does jamming a repeater create a safety

issue?

You're an extra class hammie,,wait,,let me check,,N3CVJ,,,,yep,,you're
an extra class hammie and can;t comprehend why jamming a repeater can
present a safety issue? Classic and indicative of one who ironically is
licensed for communications but knows little of it.

how do illegal freebanding hams create a

safety issue over than of illegal CB

freebanders (As if there really is a difference?)

I never said they should go after illegal freebanding hammies..you are
losing your train of thought again..
-
They have plenty of teeth. Their bite is interested in chomping away
with censorship of television.

It's much easier for them to enforce.

Actually, the hammies are much easier to enforce.

Not really. they still have to track down

the illegal operator. That means moving

beyond the confines of their cushy offices.

"Tracking down" in the manner you believe is a thing of the past. The
High Frequency Directional Finder in Laurel, Maryland pinpoints
transmissions anywhere in the country immediately with no effort. Ask
Scott about it.

If true,

Then read about it if you don't want to ask Scott.

then your buddy "Bob" should be dropping

loads in his pants right now.

Not at all. The technology is there so..I have to be careful how I say
this,,,,,,,,,a sort of roving watered down signal is there. Those
involved with B-o-B are confident his extremely selective transmissions
will not be pinpointed,,and even if one or two were,,,,by the time they
acted upon it,,,too late.

You cannot pinpoint transmissions from a

single point. It requires at least 3 points to do

with any accuracy. Why do you think there are
so many GPS satellites in position in order to

find a precise bearing?

Ummmm..instead of arguing with me, you may try reading about this
technology in Laurel, MD, you claim doesn't exist.

There was a rumor a few years back, and in

fact I knew a guy who once claimed to work

on this system, where the GPS satellites could
be made to work "in reverse" and pinpoint any

radio transmission emanating from earth with

the same accuracy as a GPS. But I cannot

verify this.

What do you think the Titan rocket is?

Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ