|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:41 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: 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? Otherwise there would be no progress, only a random jumbling of unrelated mutations. Something has to determine which mutations are an "improvement", and whether those traits will be carried on. 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? What determines what works best? If, as you suggest, all advances in evolution occur as a random mutation (Which it would have to be if it were not deliberately introduced), what feedback mechanism exists to determine whether that single mutation will proliferate to other species, or even descendants of the same species? 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. So because some examples of physics can be accurately demonstrated, that there is no possibility of intelligent design and guidance? -- 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. Doesn't mean that it isn't either. -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. Random and chaos are exactly that, actions which occur with no pattern or forethought. That doesn't mean a seemingly random process -doesn't- have a logical and scientific explanation, only that the process is as yet unidentified. But you can't build order from chaos. At least not without some intelligence guiding it. And if you can't understand that much then you probably still check under your bed every night for the boogie man. Why? More false analogy fallacies? Because we know enough to determine that there is no "boogieman", does not mean that we know enough to discount the existence of "God". 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! Why not? Is it not within the realm of possibilities that what we consider "God" may be a superior intelligence which created this planet for who knows what reason (Other than 42)? 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. Since it is likely that I am older than you, that is a physical impossibility. But the increasing personal insults is a sure sign that you have run out of facts and logic, and have resorted to ad-hominem to make you case. The best you can hope for in this discussion is a stalemate. There are simply not enough facts to make your case. 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? More insults? The fact is that you can't answer the question, and chose instead to mock me. You believe what you want to believe based on nothing more than pure faith, which is no different than what I do. But the difference is that you arrogantly insist that I am somehow "wrong". You tell yourself that facts and logic back you up, but the truth is that there are little facts available to make a positive determination on whether life here evolved purely at random, and without any outside influence. You further re-enforce your faith by telling yourself that the facts are out there, and that we just haven't found them yet. And while this is most likely true, you should be careful what you wish for. For the answers you seek may not be the ones you want to hear. 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. Interesting that you quote something that you deny the existence of, to make a point. Of course the irony of that position was not lost on me. 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). That is a hopelessly jaded position to take. You basically stated that all males have an intrinsic excuse for infidelity, in that they are instinctively hard wired for such behavior. The fact that was can transcend instinctive behavior plays no part in this I guess.... Ironically, monogomy isn't common with humans, their behavior being more like some species of birds. And many mammals. 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. I know all too well. The Learning Channel had an very interesting series on human behavior and covered this topic and the parallels in the animal world. I also used this information in a debate once with a hard core feminist, who was forwarding the " all men are pigs" notion, and defended their behavior as instinctive programming. Of course, I did it just for the reaction. I believe that using primitive instinctive traits to justify unacceptable social behavior is simply a lame excuse for those who have a weak will. 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. Hence the enlightened and evolved call for a monogamous union. 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. No, I guess not. Of course you could always take a perspective from Monty Python, but I think Monty Python itself is reason enough to live. I was never that much of a Python fan. And what else is important is what goes through your mind in your final moments of life. What lies next. 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. See, this is what's so puzzling about you Frank. Once in a while you unload with a brilliant piece of perspective, which is at total odds with your status in life. You're one hell of an underachiever. 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. But what decides which mutation, many of which could adapt to the environment (a 3rd or 4th eye for instance), actually survives enough to become incorporated into the mainstream? 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. I have studied the subject and the questions I raise are analytical and logical in nature. Either evolution is designed to improve the species, or not. If it is, then what feedback determines what is actually an improvement. If not, then what does improve the species? 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. Then why do other squirrels not have loose skin? Do they not fall from trees as well? Why only the "flying" squirrel? And what determined whether that skin actually helped them, other those other squirrels who don't? 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. Better late than never? Birds already fly. Why would a squirrel need to fly now? What tactical advantage would that provide it over non-flying squirrels? Would those random mutations also thin its bones, and provide the proper lift/drag ratio in order to attain sustained flight? 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. Despite the fact that you don't "think" so, does not mean that that's exactly what might have happened. It's certainly easier to rationalize than a series of random mutations adding up to a viable new species. 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. Again, your religious prejudice is blinding you from considering the likely notion of intelligent design and guidance. 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. The someone had to "plant" it. ......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". Who is "Skippy"? 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. Yea some are good and other not -so. But none can fly on their own. 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. Yea, it's called "teeth". Who taught them how to build those dams? Did you know that dolphins have sex just for fun? They are one of only two so far that seem to. Although I don't know how we can determine what passes for "fun" in the mind of a dolphin, since we cannot directly communicate with them. They also seem to learn things faster and easier than most teenage humans. Most animals learn to walk long before a human child. At age 1, many animals are much more intelligent and self sustaining than an equivalent aged human. So what's your point? 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. Rudimentary at best. Nothing as complex as what humans have achieved. 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. Boy are you cynically misguided. You think that all that humans do revolves around eating, sleeping and sex? What about those who create? Those who philosophize? Those who teach? Those who excel at physical activity? Those to seek answers to larger questions? Those who achieve greatness in any number of fields? 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 you are in essence saying is that since we will all eventually die, what's the point of living? So what's the difference between man and animal? Human arrogance in thinking he is something more than just another product of nature. I'd like to think we are the most advanced product of the divine intelligence. 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 understand them perfectly. I just do not accept that complexity can result from randomness. 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? http://www.angelfire.com/in/hypnoson...e_Monkeys.html There are many others. I'm surprised that in that vast storehouse of knowledge that you claim to posses, that you have not stumbled on this before. 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? Look and see. 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. I conclude nothing of the sort. But I have an especially hard time accepting the totally at random theory of evolution, and prefer to believe that evolution was guided by an unseen intelligent force. We may disagree on the exact definition of that intelligence, and without facts, it's pointless to debate it beyond that point other than from a purely philosophical perspective. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:29:58 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:43:50 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Which won't likely happen if you are both monogamous. Being monogamous with your wife/husband/partner has nothing to do with your past. Never said that it did. =A0 You said one will not likely catch AIDS if one practices monogamy. This would only hold true if both were virgins when getting married..,not practical when applied to present reality, as the vast majority have a sexual past history. And the less promiscuous that past is, the less likely that one will catch AIDS. No one ever said differently. That statement still does nothing to support or validate your erred comment that now practicing monogamy will likely prevent one from catching AIDS, as it discounts your past. You are unable to distinguish between the differences. Besides, you imply that it's next to impossible or, at the very least, unrealistic for someone to wait until marriage to engage in sexual relations. Yes, it is extremely unrealistic to expect the majority will suddenly adhere to abstinence. There is nothing honorable or otherwise noteworthy about becoming sexually active in your teenaged years, No one said differently.Where do you get these things? despite the image that the major media outlets try to paint to those overly impressionable teenagers. Oh yea,,,,your tv watching,,...._ _ =A0There 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. Which means nothing if you've never been exposed to it. Please try and remain at least semi-relative to your comments. Monogamous doesn't mean act like a slut throughout your "formative" years and then decide to "stay with one person at age 30. That you consider a past sexual history equals "acting like a slut" reveals several interesting facts of your beliefs regarding this topic. Yes, it reveals that I don't believe that sex should be engaged as a casual activity. Again,, you are in left field positing yourself against comments only you make. There was no intention to make comprehending difficult for youslef, but you are doggedly determined. Sex is a part of an act of love, to be shared with someone who you have a much deeper emotional bond with. Not something for two people, who are barely friends, who are simply looking to kill a few hours. Man,,you have been losing more ground each day with your posts, Dave. I'm glad it's almost summer up there. Cabin fever and that winter depression sure took its toll this year on you. _ 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. Now you are finally seeing the light. I've known this since 1980 when the disease was traced to a cave in Africa and suspected of being contracted from bat guano (the initial host.....believed by scholars) or a rhesus monkey. Google "The Hot Zone" and the parallels are there for the reading. Better yet, read the book. Now if only you could understand that monogamy today does not discount one's past, as the majority of people have a sexual past history prior to marriage and monogamy. That's part of the problem. =A0 =A0Your claim that monogamy decreases the chance of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past history. It's not an "all or nothing" proposition. You're losing yourself again. Onec again, your rattle has nothing to with my comment. Try again......-your- claim that monogamy decreases the chance of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past history. While total abstinence before marriage is a concept that's lost on this latest hedonistic generation, the simple truth is that the less partners you have had, the less your chances of catching AIDS. Again and over and over,, you are presenting an argument to which only yourself appears to be unconvinced. The type of partners you have had also affects your chances. Frequent patronage of prostitutes, for instance, greatly increases your chances of getting the disease. It would depend upon the act. For example, the chance of the transmission of AIDS while a man receives oral sex from a woman is lower than your chances of getting killed in an automobile accident. _ The "clean" mark was originally 5 years, then 10, then 15,,,it's now believed that 20 years is the "safe" mark regarding past sexual activity..in other words, if you have been monogamous for 20 years with your partner, and your partner has also been monogamous for that amount of time, the likelihood of contracting the virus decreases substantially, but is -still- not discounted totally. Better that than hooking up with someone who's rear end has seen more bedsheets than underwear. My wife and I recently celebrated our 20 year wedding anniversary. So I guess we're safe ;-) Only if you were both virgins when you married. _ Congratulations! I'd like to say the same regarding your beliefs of contracting this disease, but I think your moral beliefs are heavily biasing and preventing you from obtaining the facts regarding such. The facts are quite simple. The less sex you engage in, the lesser your chances of getting AIDS. Now try injecting reality into your equation. If it was as simple as you present, the AIDS epidemic would not exist. Those who contract the disease have only themselves, by virtue of their activities, to blame in most cases. The same can be said of your wife if she or your daughter contract lung cancer, asthma or pulmonary emboli related problems down the line because of her smoking while she was pregnant. If you are going to hold people to the flame for all their abhorrant behavior, you must begin in your own backyard, lest you have no right to confront others and your soap box is nothing more than a mirage. I am quite certain that my risk of contracting AIDS is less than my chances of getting hit by a meteor. Since no one can recall the last time one had been struck with a meteor, that's a hell of a scholarly and meritous claim. I am far more concerned with cancer and heart disease as these pose a much greater risk to the members of my family. Diseases that, in large part, can be blamed on your family members by virtue of their poor choices and actions..smoking. Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj |
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:34:14 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: If the FCC chose to do so, freebanders can be charged criminally. The fact that they have not chosen to do any more than sporadic citations, does not diminish the fact that they could if they chose to. Whoaaa.....you are invoking what does not take place, only what you pontificate can take place. Reality is,,it doesn't take place. End of story. Police do not usually cite people for Jaywalking, but they could at any time. Also reality,,but, stay relevant to reality and not what "may" happen. Dreaming is nice, but not reality. The point is that just because a law is not actively enforced does not mean that it's ok to break it. It does in many cases where the law is not enforced. Blue laws are but a single example,,,an example you felt so valid, you snipped it. But the point is that nothing will happen if you are never caught. But the fact that you are not likely to get caught does not diminish the illegality No one ever said it did. =A0=A0and societal irresponsibility of engaging in the acts. =A0 In order for you to claim such a "societal irresponsibility" exists, there first must exist a "societal responsibility" somehwere other than your mind regarding such (cb radio)....can you cite it? Societal responsibility goes far beyond CB radio. It goes hand in hand with morality, consideration, and just plain old fashioned good manners. Try again.....in regards to cb radio, please cite this non-existent "societal responsibility" concept that has you confounded. Not everything in life is codified, especially morality. Then you have no right to hold others to your view of what is and isn't acceptable, despite your claims to the contrary. If you need a specific guide on how to be a responsible citizen and a good neighbor, you can start with Miss Manners and work your way up from there. And since you admittedly can not comprehend why one jamming repeater frequencies canbe present a safety hazard, you should begin your radio education as relates to hammie radio, anew. The FCC rules do carry criminal as well as civil penalties should they choose to apply them, if the case warrants it. Please cite these criminal penalties referring the freeband or simple dx. Please refer to the communications act of 1934 and related parts. I went to the source. I see no criminal charges, merely civil charges. Can you cite this exception of which you speak? Start with Title IV, section 401 and work your way from there. Waffling will not distance yourself from your incorrect claim, David. I have yet to find a criminal charge for simple dxing. It does not exist. _ I would hedge zero times have you actually confronted a real criminal or law breaker in the act and in person. I certainly would if the opportunity presented itself. It presents itself daily to you in the form of speeders,,an act that can cause physical damage or death when violated, which carry real criminal pealties, unlike dxing or freebanding. When was the last time you confronted one and how was it done? If I were to confront one speeder, I'd have to confront all of them, A fallacy. and I cannot do that. There is a mitigating difference between "can't" and "won't". Even so...keeping with your claim,,..how is it you confront all freebanders and lawbreakers regarding cb and freebanding? =A0I have, on occasion, prevented speeding by paralleling someone in the right lane holding the legal speed limit. A massive ticket here in Florida, AND in Pa from what I read. Based on what charge? Left lane is for passing only. Again you don;t know the laws of your own state. A person is under no obligation, and in fact is prohibited from exceeding the posted speed limit regardless of which lane you are in. A perfect example of you hypocritically breaking the law to commit an act of what you mistakenly believe upholds another. I broke no law. You did. ASk your unnamed but often invoked nameless and numerous cop "friends". Besides, speeding is not a criminal offense, it's a simple summary offense. And the cb infractions are civil in nature, not criminal. Until they become habitual and flagrant. =A0 I use your own words: =A0What it may or may not lead to is irrelevant, and calls for speculation. ..except when you invoked the possibilities of cbers running huge power interfering with emergency communications in a long ago conversation. Of course, it isno linger irrelevant when you invoke such. Which happens. Speculation is acceptable only when invoked by yourself to suppport your hypocrisy. Nothing I have said is hypocritical. However you may wish to reexamine the context of which you pull your information before making invalid comparisons. Since Frank taught you the proper definition of "analogy", it really doesn't matter. or on bands where public access is set aside. Or not. Don't forget many of the freqs that have been abandoned. Abandoned does not mean "open". Right,,,it means not being used.To use your analogy regarding physical property,,,,if a lot or property is abandoned, and one tends the ground, takes care of it, and pays the tax on it for x amount of years, the often land becomes the property of the caretaker who has been taking care of it and paying the taxes. Squatters rights. And interesting angle. And a valid one. And for it to apply, then you would have to concede that radio spectrum is treated in the same way as "real" property. =A0 It doesn't apply to the radoio spectrum, which is what you are being properly instructed upon. =A0I wonder if someone has tried that tactic on the FCC in regard to the freeband area of 11 meters. The principle is similar. Only to your misguided education or beliefs or whatever is responsible for you not grasping such a concept. It has not been tried with the FCC because even the lowly cbers seem to comprehend the spectrum is 1) not owned by the FCC and 2) not tangible property. Then the concept of squatter's rights does not apply to radio spectrum. Only you said it did. So I'm curious why you brought it up in that context. To make you understand your error. There are many abandoned buildings around. But you are still not allowed to trespass there. Yet, many people use these abandon buildings on a regular basis with immunity. Bums,,,vagrants, crackheads, ..... Freebanders. I see the similarities. You really have a low opinion of yourself, Dave. No, not me, only scofflaws. I always said you had a serious ego and self-esteem problem. The mere admittance that you held yourself in such company confirms such. That was then, this is now. No matter. I could say my esteem is that of which my character was never held in the company of whcih you refer yourself, past or present. Everyone can repent, even you. Repent? To who? ANd for what? Is it a sin to talk on the freeband? Dave, you're losing nd, here. It's not too late to atone for the error of your ways. See above for examples of a form of civil disobedience.. Yes, and I'm waiting to see someone attempt to use this reasoning to obtain the legal authorization of the freeband Only you could. I've seen far more ridiculous claims come forth by misguided citizens against the government. So I would not be surprised if someone tried the "squatter's rights" angle with respect to radio spectrum. Most understand the concept can not be applied to such, You, on the other hand, are expressing great difficulty with the concept. Then again, some people would rather just operate illegally rather than going through the trouble to have an perceived unjust rule changed. Those people are simply weak. Like yourself,,,who is reactive but never proactive. Great analogy, The only thing you have in your favor is that the FCC is not motivated enough to do much about it. You have nothing in your favor. It's all blatant hypocrisy. What have I said, that could be considered hypocritical? too many things to list, but many regs have illustrated it for you,,,it;s not their fault you can;t comprehend it. Is operation on the freeband not illegal? Should the law not be respected? How many more excuses are you going to invent to hide, obfuscate, justify, or otherwise downplay the fact that you willingly ignore a federal law? =A0 It really galls you that you were never given any reasons, let alone conjured excuses of which onlu you hallucinate. =A0It's not that it's any less illegal, it's only that they don't care enough. Because it is rightly a non-issue to the majority, of which you clearly do not belong, leading to the fact that you are a minority wishing to dictate your beliefs to the masses. Doesn't work that way. Sort of like the democratic party trying to subvert the constitution by an abusive application of a filibuster to block judicial nominees...... You said you were behind all legal activities. You're a hypocrite. Fillibusters are legal. Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj |
Dave:
"Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to transmit anywhere." That is NOT what I said at all, they should ONLY be able to transmit in the radio spectrum which is theirs--off the top of my head, this would only, very roughly, be about one-half of the full radio spectrum... the other half split up between various other users... and the rest being used by citizens... .... without it being organized, and the necessary freqs set aside for the various uses... and the ridiculous restrictions... the result may well be--people transmitting all over the spectrum... but that is a rather insane system... Warmest regards, John -- Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... | On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:14:42 -0400, (I | AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: | | From: (John Smith) | Oh no, he is nothing special alright... I imagine | your IQ has been tested | | and blows him away... | | | Your "imagination" is limited only yourself. Nothing odd about how you | continue to prefer to change the topic to one of a poster instead of the | topic. You see, this is a flub of the communication-challenged. Denial | is not a river in Egypt. Try and remain focused on the topic and not | allow your personal emotions to dictate poor communication form. Once | again, remaining on topic is the preferred MO. If you continue to | struggle with such, you may wish to examine your present agenda. | | And, surely you have rubbed elbows with | | colleges such as he has, perhaps you even | | share many of the same friends--too bad | | about Carl Sagans' passing--I bet you miss | | him... | | | And my "bet" is proving more valid with each uncontrollable emotion of | yours that manifests in the most entertaining of manners. With a single | post, I have not only captivated yourr attention, but created an entity | of obsession so intense, your can focus on nothing but your newly chosen | "topic"...."me". (makes sign of cross, blesses the unsavory and newfound | church member wearing Halloween mask) . | | | and hold many as close personal friends-- | | Claiming you knew Sagan personally means nothing to the masses, so | forgive my curiosity for inquiring as to why you felt it to important to | mention? Feeling bad about yourself and needing a pick-me-up? LOL.. | | | the rich exchange you have with them keeps | | you quite up to date--I can tell from your text... | | | And the contingency can tell quite more from your multiple posts | "suddenly" (LMAO) focusing on nothing but myself. Now,,,THAT is the | defnition of rich,,but you continue with the gaffes, so it's more than | worth the entertainment. | | Nope, no one would ever confuse you with an | | "Arm-Chair-Genius." | | | Nor you with managing to remain on topic and focus on the subject | instead of changing it to one of a poster you became fixated upon with | your manias. Of course, people like yourself need reminded that usenet | participants should focus on subject matter and not that of the poster, | but like you said, no one would -ever- confuse you with someone who | comprehended proper communication etiquette. | | Warmest regards, | | John | | Right backatcha!! | | | Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed | to transmit anywhere. | | Dave | "Sandbagger" |
On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:47:29 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Dave: "Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to transmit anywhere." That is NOT what I said at all, they should ONLY be able to transmit in the radio spectrum which is theirs--off the top of my head, this would only, very roughly, be about one-half of the full radio spectrum... the other half split up between various other users... and the rest being used by citizens... ... without it being organized, and the necessary freqs set aside for the various uses... and the ridiculous restrictions... the result may well be--people transmitting all over the spectrum... but that is a rather insane system... Warmest regards, John On Tue, 10 May 2005 10:31:49 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: 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 is it half or the majority? |
Well, granting the "other users"--gov't, military, community transportation,
hobbists, etc... a whole half is probably over-kill--but better to be generous than not... Warmest regards, John -- Marbles can be used in models with excellent results! However, if forced to keep using all of mine up... I may end up at a disadvantage... I seem to have misplaced some!!! "Freeband sucks" wrote in message news:1116010170.3e6f1873b1407f9d5191a59369c56138@b ubbanews... | On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:47:29 -0700, "John Smith" | wrote: | | Dave: | | "Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to | transmit anywhere." | | That is NOT what I said at all, they should ONLY be able to transmit in the | radio spectrum which is theirs--off the top of my head, this would only, | very roughly, be about one-half of the full radio spectrum... the other | half split up between various other users... and the rest being used by | citizens... | | ... without it being organized, and the necessary freqs set aside for the | various uses... and the ridiculous restrictions... the result may well | be--people transmitting all over the spectrum... but that is a rather | insane system... | | Warmest regards, | John | | On Tue, 10 May 2005 10:31:49 -0700, "John Smith" | wrote: | | 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 | | is it half or the majority? |
Be kind to John.
I have been. I have treated him in kind response. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to transmit anywhere. David Hall Jr. N3CVJ "Sandbagger" Such an opinion appears nowhere except in forges and your repetitious references to such. The extent at which you defile yourself is nothing short of astonishing. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com