|
Well, you are just ONE BIG argument for more control. The least gov't is
the best gov't, 400 million people need the radio spectrum more than a handful of hams and the public servants we have hired to the people business. Write your congressman today! He will do nothing unless he knows there is a problem! Regards, John |
"John Smith" wrote:
I think too much text probably confuses old steveo, we should just keep our thext to "yes" and "no" for him... Regards, John Top posting nit-wit "John Smith" has nothing to say anyway. |
KB3BEJ chrissy the sissy busch
wrote: Steveo is the only assclown to complain about top posters STFU, sissy. Since December 12 2004 pam wrote: I live in Long Island and I am a ****** pam wrote: Listen I dont speak on dougs behalf pam wrote: Your wife liked how i act, she said I am a bigger man than you, in more ways than one. pam wrote: where is your address assclown I have a plane ticket waiting for a destination. pam wrote: Hey Randy your not tookeen with the bitches didnt you just get dumped by your old lady? I heard it was for cheating on her, with a sheep. pam wrote: That would be Steve parks wife she sucks a mean cock down in the medina school yards. .. 10-4 pam wrote: Of course it is a forge these cbers are real moron's pam wrote: Hey Steveo, why dont you reach down between your legs and see if you have any balls pam wrote: come to your house unexpectedly and punk slap you. pam wrote: correctional Facility i am locked up. pam wrote: beat it Nagger,beat it nagger your reaching again.. Nagger you are a liar, they say i am george busch now what is it nagger boi, pam wrote: he is a rolling rock drinker and Lancer is a cum slurper. Now watch him trip over himself repying to this message. pam wrote: LOL ice cold Piece of **** Nagger you are too funny pam wrote: you ****in queer asshole. You are a transexual lover pam wrote: cocksucker your a ****ing Nagger pam wrote: you ****ing assclown pussy by loser... There isnt a god damn thing yoiu can do about it except whimper and cry like the big faggot you are.. hey Steve Parks,,, go **** yopurself you no nutsack loser. pam wrote: thats because mondays you are off sucking dick for a living. pam wrote: I am not a rascist I am a skin head. pam wrote: I banged his old lady and it smelled like the suez canal pam wrote: besides I have a trojan on your computer and I know when you post, ever heard ofsub seven?? pam wrote: Perhaps I have her pussy smells like a bad clam bake, face it you like men and everything about them. pam wrote: yeah now suck my dick you assclown. pam wrote: Now hurry run along and sent those complaints to comcast. pam wrote: after you tear it up for awhile, yes it smells like men's dick. pam wrote: Insane in the membrane. pam wrote: Well pussy boi Parks your wife seems to think I got something on you, get over it. she wants a man, not you. pam wrote: That is real funny you stupid piece of dog **** pam wrote: you limp wristed faggot. In an effort to suck dick pam wrote: did you have semen in your eye Land****? pam wrote: You queer assclown pam wrote: do you enjoy sucking his dick that nuch, you cant get the taste out of your mouth? pam wrote: you ****ing clueless douchebag. pam wrote: You suck and lancer swallows. pam wrote: **** you you asshole I hope your christmas tree drys out and burns down your trailer. pam wrote: Sorry asspunk, this doesnt get brought to a vote pam wrote: exactly i dont you stupid **** pam wrote: sorry dick with ears pam wrote: you sure do care you are menstrating over it. pam wrote: I hope you overdose on New years Randy, on oxycotnin. pam wrote: yeah your wife keeps me busy too. she guzzles my nuts. pam wrote: guess again ass**** pam wrote: And what I once said, "Randy you are an asshole" pam wrote: LOL, you ****ing sissy... pam wrote: i am not a sock puppet but you are pam wrote: smooth cold nyc get off of my tip pam wrote: Hey Jim, Put your finger up your ass and spin around. pam wrote: Geo, I can accept that. But, you are one as well. pam wrote: steveo taslks **** without ever backing it up oh yes pam wrote: rec.radio.cb assholes are out in full force pam wrote: Negro please pam wrote: Why not show some real balls besides steves on your neck pam wrote: I know you wont to pussy to do so. pam wrote: Yeah you used to *beat* your meat pam wrote: i didnt post to this threads until now, ass**** pam wrote: "WA3MOJ takes corncob up ass" i didnt post to this threads until now, ass**** pam wrote: you ****ed up asshole. Blow me, again pam wrote: iLL BET TOO MANY TO COUNT HE GETS INTOXICATED ON CUM. pam wrote: you jackoff steveo while staring AT PICS OF MEN. pam wrote: your a ****ing jew aren't you? pam wrote: thats not george you clueless ass**** pam wrote: You Gay ****ing jerkoff you were with a Transexual this weekend. pam wrote: read what the **** I tpye pam wrote: are you ****ing drunk you stupid ass**** pam wrote: I said that from the ****ing start you drunken asshole. pam wrote: go sniff some more toilets seat your delerious pam wrote: if you cant see this quit masterbATING YOUR EYESITE WILL COMEBACK pam wrote: This is not grammar class you ****ing dick with ears pam wrote: did yur mother have anything that lived? pam wrote: Frank you really are suckinfg twistys dick hard these days pam wrote: are you befriendung him for other reasons we dont know about yet, either way your make me sick pam wrote: Frank Twistedhed Gilliand advocates law breaking when he wrote: "If you have a scanner, spend a few days listening in on some of your neighbors' telephone conversations. You might be suprised." pam wrote: Again you have to reply and are a drugged up clueless assclown,as usual. pam wrote: I am speaking of the state in general now go **** yourself dave McCampbell pam wrote: go tell your lies to another assclown like your wife now she is a real **** from what i hear. pam wrote: wa3moj doesnt even post to this NG you dick sucking faggot. pam wrote: No one is on your leg dickhead, now go suck some more dick pam wrote: hahaha you are truely clueless you ass loving faggot. That is a 100% lie pam wrote: his wife is out getting banged while he sits at homne on the usenet pam wrote: No that i ****ed your ex- old lady was better. |
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 07:22:08 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Well, you are just ONE BIG argument for more control. No, I'm for reasonable control for the greater public good. At least until people (and your examples aren't helping me to believe it) can demonstrate that they can handle the responsibility alone. So far, in every example, less regulation leads to chaos. The least gov't is the best gov't, To an extent, I agree. But a total absence of rules and laws is an extreme that I cannot support. 400 million people need the radio spectrum more than a handful of hams and the public servants we have hired to the people business. Why do 400 million people "need" radio spectrum? What spectrum "needs" are not currently being addressed? Ham radio is not an exclusive club. ANY one of those "400 million" are welcome to join, provided they agree to follow the rules. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
You get the question backwards...
Why do these public servants need most of "MY" radio spectrum, I am against giving the garbage collector more than a couple of chans too... Hams don't need special treatment, they can share with the rest of the people... giving them those bits of paper with "Licence" written on it just confuses 'em and makes 'em feel "special", if they were all that special, we would spend more and put 'em in "special education classes." We don't need to design people to fit radios, we need to design radios to fit people--it is easy to see how that got backwards--back when everyone was afraid of electricity and radio had a "mysterious" quality I can see how a bunch of under-educated people set this up--but today things are much different... We need to shake the hams and FCC out of the rut which has been established... I am telling you, "Write, email, fax or otherwise contact your congressman today!!!" Regards, John |
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:25:36 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: I think you should stay away from those magic mushrooms..... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj You can deny it to your little black heart's content, but the fact remains many cbers get licenses (especialy the no-codes) only to return to the cb and freeband. I won't try to argue that point as I agree that some people conceivably do "return" (or never left in the first place) to the CB and freeband. I'm still somewhat active on both to this day. Some of those who obtained licenses can never go back because their voices are too easily recognized and their hammie "friends" will report their ass for freebanding. I'm not so sure that this is as prevalent as you claim. They end up being ****ed off (then issed upon) hammies. You discount the possibility that while exposed to ham radio, that many people find respect for the rules, and have a change of attitude. The anger toward such freebanders can be seen in your own posts. Despite your many claims, I harbor no "anger". Stating facts that doesn't sit well with you, is not the same thing as "anger". Several years ago you were making posts chastising hammies as being too uptight and uppity and technical who look down on cbers. Because in many cases, it's true. There are hams who are stuffy and uptight. But they are legal. The converse is also true. Many outlaw CB'ers feel that they have a right to do just what (and where) they please without due regard for the rights of anyone else. RFI, direct interference, and public nuisance issues do not seem to affect them. Either behavior is reprehensible, and I've defended each respective group when on the receiving end of such stereotypical prejudice. Lately it's the hams who are unfairly on the receiving end of this prejudice. During your admitted freebanding and illegal operating years, not once will you find a post by yourself calling others names or expressing nosey concern for other people's business that does not affect you. I still don't. I'm not the one trying desperately to find out personal information (often incorrectly like the name of my wife) about other people. Also worthy of note is the time you spend reviewing my 10 year span of messages to this newsgroup. One might consider that as bordering on obsession. However, after having your clock cleaned in reec.radio.cb by cbers for your oft extended hypocrisy, reec (reek?) a freudian slip? You are not qualified to make that determination. Your ability to be objective is compromised by your subjective bias. you began to take on a different persona. That you attribute such behavior (name calling, attacking those who merely dx or freeband) to "growing up", illustrates the fact you were an incredible late bloomer and extremely slow learner who hasn't fully matured yet, as your behavior continued well in to your thirties. Well, then if I'm still "growing up", then you have yet to start because you are still engaged in that illegal behavior. If you consider bringing reality into focus in the same manner as a simple unfounded ad-hominem attack, then I can see your issue. But they're not the same. In fact, you still are illegal and have no right to say anything to anyone, I assume you have some proof of this? Yea I know, you have tons of proof, but you're not about to post it. as for starters, the address you provided the FCC is not your primary residence and the fact that you fail to correct this matter with the FCC even after being informed you are illegal, leaves you no credibility with anything you may say regarding other's actions. You really, REALLY need to go back to whatever source of information gathering you use and either fire them, demand your money back, or something. Because, quite frankly, you are embarrassing yourself every time you make these erroneous claims. My listed address in the FCC database is exactly my primary (only) residence. I am doing nothing illegal. So the real question is, Who do you think I really am (today)? What do you think is my "real" address? The only thing I can figure is that the commonality of my name (Next after Smith and Jones), has you so confused, that you believe I'm someone different than who I actually am (There are 3 Dave Hall's in my company's phone directory, talk about confusion). The fact that my phone number is unlisted removes me from many people searches. That also explains why you keep insisting that my wife's name is "Kimberly T. Hall", and that she's a "teacher". In conclusion, you continue to trust unreliable sources which provide you erroneous information and then accuse others of things which are incorrect. It is not my credibility that is in question here, it's yours. But wait? Wasn't it you who just accused ME of trying to obtain people's personal information? And you call me hypocritical. Sheesh....... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On 27 Apr 2005 11:50:19 -0700, "CB outlaw"
wrote: If you don't get the point, then your dumber than a rock!!!! anyone that makes a response to post and doesn't quote the original post so that we know what the hell you are talking about is dumber than a ****ing ice cube!!!! |
|
If you don't get the point, then your dumber than a rock!!!!
|
I wonder if God will punish them? Or, only the ones attempting to keep 10
meters as it is? And, I am puzzled just how to rate this "crime" on a one-to-ten scale--against, murder, rape, child molestation, grand theft, and spitting on the sidewalk... Regards, John |
John Smith wrote: You my friend, are an idiot!!! wow mk5000 "The April 21 show will go on as scheduled, the band's promoter aid Tuesday. More than 50,000 tickets were sold for the first show, raising $850,000 for a $5 million endowment the band is creating through its Bama Works fund, which supports community service organizations in central Virginia."--assoc press |
It's ok, don't worry--be happy!!!
If you are either unwilling or unable to follow from post-to-post, if you can't set up your newreader to organize the thread into main posts with subposts--so you can intelligently follow it--it is all probably a moot point anyway.... Regards, John |
On 26 Apr 2005 20:17:23 -0700, "CB outlaw"
wrote: That is EXCACTLY the point I was making a long time ago (in a galaxy radio far far away) The truckers on 28.085 is channel 19 on most export radios on Band f or g or d or c or....... you get my point, hams!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What point was that? Dave "Sandbagger" Reply Thats the point, 10-4 |
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:42:45 -0400, after sulking for many days in
exile and no longer feeling the sting of embarrasment over his many previous demonstrations of ignorance, Dave Hall armed himself with a wet noodle and jumped back into the battle with: On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:12:55 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On 26 Apr 2005 20:17:23 -0700, "CB outlaw" wrote: That is EXCACTLY the point I was making a long time ago (in a galaxy radio far far away) The truckers on 28.085 is channel 19 on most export radios on Band f or g or d or c or....... you get my point, hams!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What point was that? Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ That most freebanders do not enter the hammie bands, despite Oxendine's and your sock protests against cbers. The law does not distinguish between ignorance and intent. It most certainly does. It's the difference between premeditated murder and negligent manslaughter. Although homocide has nothing to do with the FCC, the commission usually sends a warning to an alleged violator prior to issuing an NAL. If the warning is ignored then the subsequent NAL is prosecuted as a violation that was done both willingly and -intentionally-. The facts are that there ARE illegal intruders on 10 meters. The how's and why's are irrelevant. Intent is -very- relevant because some of those dopes don't know that they are operating illegally. And many of those that -do- know they are illegal are not aware of the severity of the consequences if they get caught. Hence the FCC's pre-NAL warning letter to notify them that such operation is illegal and subject to heavy penalties, giving them the opportunity to rectify their ignorance before they get popped for several thousand dollars. As usual, Dave, you are clueless. ----== 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 Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:09:43 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: I wonder if God will punish them? Why would God even care? Or, only the ones attempting to keep 10 meters as it is? Why shouldn't they? And, I am puzzled just how to rate this "crime" on a one-to-ten scale--against, murder, rape, child molestation, grand theft, and spitting on the sidewalk... Ah, another one who attempts to justify breaking the law by down playing the relative importance of it. It's an indication of a person's moral compass, by what point they consider a law to be "trivial" enough to ignore. By your logic, we should probably draw a line through all crimes below the "violent" level, since they are "no big deal" in the grand scheme of things. Then once those crimes have been ignored, we can then reclassify all violent crimes as well, and the slippery slope begins..... It's not such a leap for an ultra liberal ACLU- type lawyer to interpret the prosecution of someone's criminal actions as an infringement of some perceived "right". Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:37:35 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: That most freebanders do not enter the hammie bands, despite Oxendine's and your sock protests against cbers. The law does not distinguish between ignorance and intent. It most certainly does. It's the difference between premeditated murder and negligent manslaughter. I was not talking about those crimes. I was referring to illegal intrusion into radio spectrum allocated for a specific purpose. Although homocide has nothing to do with the FCC, Then why bring it up? the commission usually sends a warning to an alleged violator prior to issuing an NAL. If the warning is ignored then the subsequent NAL is prosecuted as a violation that was done both willingly and -intentionally-. Ok, you win that one. That is usually the case. The facts are that there ARE illegal intruders on 10 meters. The how's and why's are irrelevant. Intent is -very- relevant because some of those dopes don't know that they are operating illegally. (and there are those who think we should open up the whole spectrum to dopes like that. A perfect example of why there are licenses and rules) Ignorance of the law is no excuse. At least it didn't used to be. With all the liberals running around looking to paint every lawbreaker as a victim, I guess ignorance might be a legitimate excuse now. And many of those that -do- know they are illegal are not aware of the severity of the consequences if they get caught. Since you saw fit to bring violent crimes into the picture in the beginning, I'll refer back to them when I make the point that someone claiming that he didn't know the gun was loaded, would hardly be absolved of the crime of killing someone based on that excuse alone. Hence the FCC's pre-NAL warning letter to notify them that such operation is illegal and subject to heavy penalties, giving them the opportunity to rectify their ignorance before they get popped for several thousand dollars. Do you get a warning when you get pulled over for speeding? Sometimes you do, sometimes not. Do you get a warning when you rob a bank? Rape someone? Assault? Do you get a chance to claim ignorance and promise that you won't do it again? It's true that the FCC usually sends out warning notices first, but they don't have to. That's called discretion (the better part of valor). Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: Steveo wrote in : KB3BEJ chrissy the sissy busch wrote: Steveo is the only assclown to complain about top posters STFU, sissy. LOL there he goes again accusing innocent people. There's nothing innocent about you, Chris. why not come to my house pussy boy Ill pay the gas I'd get the same response from you that I got from your hero. http://img141.echo.cx/my.php?image=d...sefugly4un.jpg |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:24:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:37:35 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: That most freebanders do not enter the hammie bands, despite Oxendine's and your sock protests against cbers. The law does not distinguish between ignorance and intent. It most certainly does. It's the difference between premeditated murder and negligent manslaughter. I was not talking about those crimes. I was referring to illegal intrusion into radio spectrum allocated for a specific purpose. Although homocide has nothing to do with the FCC, Then why bring it up? Because it has some parallels to the topic. the commission usually sends a warning to an alleged violator prior to issuing an NAL. If the warning is ignored then the subsequent NAL is prosecuted as a violation that was done both willingly and -intentionally-. Ok, you win that one. That is usually the case. The facts are that there ARE illegal intruders on 10 meters. The how's and why's are irrelevant. Intent is -very- relevant because some of those dopes don't know that they are operating illegally. (and there are those who think we should open up the whole spectrum to dopes like that. A perfect example of why there are licenses and rules) Ignorance of the law is no excuse. At least it didn't used to be. With all the liberals running around looking to paint every lawbreaker as a victim, I guess ignorance might be a legitimate excuse now. I see it a little differently: When we the people are subject to mountains of laws that can be fully understood only by an army of lawyers, ignorance can be a very reasonable excuse in many cases. It's simply impractical (and nearly impossible) for the average citizen to know and understand all the laws that apply to every circumstance. And many of those that -do- know they are illegal are not aware of the severity of the consequences if they get caught. Since you saw fit to bring violent crimes into the picture in the beginning, I'll refer back to them when I make the point that someone claiming that he didn't know the gun was loaded, would hardly be absolved of the crime of killing someone based on that excuse alone. It has happened. But even when it didn't, the lack of intent has certainly been a factor in determining the punishment. Hence the FCC's pre-NAL warning letter to notify them that such operation is illegal and subject to heavy penalties, giving them the opportunity to rectify their ignorance before they get popped for several thousand dollars. Do you get a warning when you get pulled over for speeding? Sometimes you do, sometimes not. Do you get a warning when you rob a bank? Rape someone? Assault? Do you get a chance to claim ignorance and promise that you won't do it again? There is a defense known as 'justifiable homocide'. I understand that it's rarely used, but it has been a successful defense in some cases. It's true that the FCC usually sends out warning notices first, but they don't have to. That's called discretion (the better part of valor). Actually, they do need to send out those notices in almost all cases. The reason behind it is the FCC's pseudo-constitutional system of law enforcement and the need to establish "willful and malicious" conduct of the violator. This bypasses the criminal court system, forwards the forfeiture order directly to the DOJ for collection, and pre-empts evasion of payment if the violator files for bankruptcy -- an NAL is a debt that cannot be discharged under any chapter of bankruptcy law. If the debt -was- dischargeable then the FCC would be forced to file an adversarial complaint and subsequently defend their law enforcement practices in Federal court, which is something they have no intention of doing because they would lose. ----== 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 =---- |
steveParkspussbag wrote:
Steveo wrote in news:20050428075700.315 : There's nothing innocent about you, Chris. I thought I was george..LOL you clueless jackass... George is your old man. It's a plain shame you had to drag his name in here while using his puter. I'd get the same response from you that I got from your hero. http://img141.echo.cx/my.php?image=d...sefugly4un.jpg I doubt that you dont have the gumption to try me assclown. Funny. That's what your hero thought the last time he invited me over. -------------------------------------------------------- From:N8WWM Auntie Keyclown ) Subject: calling out Peepeeholic View: Complete Thread (4 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb Date: 2001-08-08 09:09:21 PST Hey Peepeeholic: Yes I am in Toledo. I have plenty of down home hospitality for you or ANY of the other queens in here who wish to stir up some mess. You wanna come by and visit? I will be delighted to send you back to the MISTAKE ON THE LAKE with a thought in your mind that it was a real dumb idea. Imagine, Peepeeholic...Imagine...You come to my place and star some junk...I put you face down and hurtin extreme, take pics of you laying there with a bumped up noggin, and post 'em to the NG. I relish you coming by. I am good in the callbook, just as I told your wife, the trainedpuppet. Have not had this much fun since I used to go cuttin' coax and building jamming oscillators back when I was 16 yrs old. ------------------------------*--------------------------- |
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:12:55 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On 26 Apr 2005 20:17:23 -0700, "CB outlaw" wrote: (That is EXCACTLY the point I was making a long time ago (in a galaxy radio far far away) The truckers on 28.085 is channel 19 on most export radios on Band f or g or d or c or....... you get my point, hams!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!=A0) What point was that? Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ That most freebanders do not enter the hammie bands, despite Oxendine's and your sock protests against cbers. The law does not distinguish between ignorance and intent. The law has nothing to do with the poster's point of which you inquired and asked to have explained. Invoking such reveals the extent you need explaining. =A0=A0=A0=A0The facts are that there ARE illegal intruders on 10 meters. No one ever said otherwise. The how's and why's are irrelevant. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ If that were true, export radios that covered those freqs wouldn't be a problem. K4KDH Jerry Oxendine very much disagrees with you on this point, as do the majority of radio society participants and hammies, as export radios are blamed for the majority of the intrusions of which you speak. You're welcome. |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:19:51 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:24:02 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : the commission usually sends a warning to an alleged violator prior to issuing an NAL. If the warning is ignored then the subsequent NAL is prosecuted as a violation that was done both willingly and -intentionally-. Ok, you win that one. That is usually the case. The facts are that there ARE illegal intruders on 10 meters. The how's and why's are irrelevant. Intent is -very- relevant because some of those dopes don't know that they are operating illegally. (and there are those who think we should open up the whole spectrum to dopes like that. A perfect example of why there are licenses and rules) Ignorance of the law is no excuse. At least it didn't used to be. With all the liberals running around looking to paint every lawbreaker as a victim, I guess ignorance might be a legitimate excuse now. I see it a little differently: When we the people are subject to mountains of laws that can be fully understood only by an army of lawyers, ignorance can be a very reasonable excuse in many cases. It's simply impractical (and nearly impossible) for the average citizen to know and understand all the laws that apply to every circumstance. I agree, the law was never intended to be so complicated that only a legal expert can comprehend all the nuances of it. I tend to believe that lawyers do this deliberately to justify and continue their existence. Even worse is when a seemingly cut and dry law get's "what-if'd" to death in a courtroom battle of hypotheticals which may never occur. This is why you are required to sign dozens of forms for what should be a simple transaction in many cases. And many of those that -do- know they are illegal are not aware of the severity of the consequences if they get caught. Since you saw fit to bring violent crimes into the picture in the beginning, I'll refer back to them when I make the point that someone claiming that he didn't know the gun was loaded, would hardly be absolved of the crime of killing someone based on that excuse alone. It has happened. Sure it has happened. When someone desperately wants to escape for responsibility, they (and by proxy, their lawyer) will do and try anything to get them off. The absurdity of such defense tactics, just makes me shake my head. But even when it didn't, the lack of intent has certainly been a factor in determining the punishment. Well sure, killing someone completely by accident is a far different thing than deliberately murdering someone. But what I was talking about, but probably didn't use the best example in doing so, is that you can't kill someone in cold blood and then claim that you didn't know it was wrong or illegal, and expect much leniency. The same thing applies to radio operation to some degree. The claim that you didn't know you were running on an illegal frequency may not hold much water, since the FCC requires that you read and understand the rules before operating, and by the act of your operation, they assume that you know the rules. It's sort of the same language they use for software licenses. "By installing this product, you agree to the terms of the license" etc. I hate to bring this up, since I can't "prove it", but I once read an account in a CB magazine (It may have been S9's Washington Outlook), back in the day, which covered FCC busts of illegal CB'ers. This one bust involved a group of SSB'ers who had formed a club on a freeband channel. One of the guys who was busted made a claim that he didn't know he was operating illegally, since the radio he was using had been purchased by another person, who had (unbeknownst to him allegedly) swapped a standard channel crystal (it was a 23 channel rig) for one which would produce an illegal channel. The operator further claimed that he assumed he was operating on channel 23 (or whatever it actually was, I don't remember), as that is what his channel selector showed. The FCC didn't buy his story, based on other evidence that indicated that he was all too aware of what was going on. Hence the FCC's pre-NAL warning letter to notify them that such operation is illegal and subject to heavy penalties, giving them the opportunity to rectify their ignorance before they get popped for several thousand dollars. Do you get a warning when you get pulled over for speeding? Sometimes you do, sometimes not. Do you get a warning when you rob a bank? Rape someone? Assault? Do you get a chance to claim ignorance and promise that you won't do it again? There is a defense known as 'justifiable homocide'. I understand that it's rarely used, but it has been a successful defense in some cases. Yes, there is a "justifiable homicide" defense. Usually this works best in abusive domestic situations, where severe emotional and physical abuse leads to violence as the only solution. By definition, self defense is also considered a justifiable homicide. But justifiable homicide is not the same thing as claiming ignorance of the existence of homicide law. It's true that the FCC usually sends out warning notices first, but they don't have to. That's called discretion (the better part of valor). Actually, they do need to send out those notices in almost all cases. The reason behind it is the FCC's pseudo-constitutional system of law enforcement and the need to establish "willful and malicious" conduct of the violator. This bypasses the criminal court system, forwards the forfeiture order directly to the DOJ for collection, and pre-empts evasion of payment if the violator files for bankruptcy -- an NAL is a debt that cannot be discharged under any chapter of bankruptcy law. If the debt -was- dischargeable then the FCC would be forced to file an adversarial complaint and subsequently defend their law enforcement practices in Federal court, which is something they have no intention of doing because they would lose. This is interesting. The FCC has in the past taken certain violators to criminal court. In the vast majority of cases though, you are correct. There would seem to be some threshold which determines their course of action. What I am especially curious about is your assertion that if the FCC took a clear violator to federal court that they would lose. Why do you feel that way? I would presume that once the FCC decided to act upon a violator that they would have enough evidence to prove their case. Dave "Sandbagger" |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:25:36 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: I think you should stay away from those magic mushrooms..... Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj You can deny it to your little black heart's content, but the fact remains many cbers get licenses (especialy the no-codes) only to return to the cb and freeband. I won't try to argue that point as I agree that some people conceivably do "return" (or never left in the first place) to the CB and freeband. I'm still somewhat active on both to this day. So, you began breaking the law again by returning to the freeband after you told the group you no longer do so because you "grew up" and are setting responsible behavior patterns for your daughter by folllowing the law. - Some of those who obtained licenses can never go back because their voices are too easily recognized and their hammie "friends" will report their ass for freebanding. I'm not so sure that this is as prevalent as you claim. =A0 That's cool...but entertain, for a moment, if you would, the notion you are subscribing. If you do not believe me, then you mistakenly believe the FCC is actively patrolling the air for violators. This info can be found simply by extolling a little leg work.....but I'm telling you, the FCC does NOT actively patrol the air seeking violations by hammies or cbers. _ =A0They end up being ****ed off (then issed upon) hammies. You discount the possibility that while exposed to ham radio, that many people find respect for the rules, and have a change of attitude. I didn't discount it at all, as I know what you say to be true, but what I say is just as true. Members belong to both camps. _ The anger toward such freebanders can be seen in your own posts. Despite your many claims, I harbor no "anger". Stating facts that doesn't sit well with you, is not the same thing as "anger". Stating facts has you chasing your tail with semantics. You call people criminals with nothing more than your mistaken ignorance that "saying it on usenet is the same as a guilty plea in a court of law". Although you have been given the correct information regarding the judicial system, you continue to mistakenly believe you may publicly refer to one as a criminal even if they were not convicted in a court of law. THIS, is fact. _ Several years ago you were making posts chastising hammies as being too uptight and uppity and technical who look down on cbers. Because in many cases, it's true. Not "in many cases"..you stated "For the most part" in your post when you referred to the hammies... using the same sterotyping you just hypocritically took another to task for employing. . There are hams who are stuffy and uptight. But they are legal. The converse is also true. Many outlaw CB'ers feel that they have a right to do just what (and where) they please without due regard for the rights of anyone else. Same is true with many hammies, yet for some reason, you do not voice your concern for those you hold in higher regards, higher esteem,,,you know,,those who are supposed to lead by example. In other words, you **** all over the hammie creed. RFI, direct interference, and public nuisance issues do not seem to affect them. "Them" is not limited exclusively to cb users. =A0=A0Either behavior is reprehensible, and I've defended each respective group when on the receiving end of such stereotypical prejudice. Yet, you continue to employ it yourself. Lately it's the hams who are unfairly on the receiving end of this prejudice. Why is it unfair to illustrate the same behavior committed by hammies that you complain about when committed by cbers? _ During your admitted freebanding and illegal operating years, not once will you find a post by yourself calling others names or expressing nosey concern for other people's business that does not affect you. I still don't. I'm not the one trying desperately to find out personal information (often incorrectly like the name of my wife) about other people. Yes, you were. In fact, you initiated the personal info game with me and everyone knows it. You were told long ago to stay out of the personal, off-topic arena. Once you violate this, you have nothing to say when your initiated behavior is returned. Also worthy of note is the time you spend reviewing my 10 year span of messages to this newsgroup. One might consider that as bordering on obsession. One might, but I have a photographic memory. There,, now there's another little tidbit of information for you to wallow in. I remember just about everything, and in most cases you refer, I merely have to type in the pertinent key words of your past posts and voila!....no time at all spent other than three clicks right to the passage needed to illustrate your incorrectness, hypocrisy, and double-talk, and lies. _ However, after having your clock cleaned in reec.radio.cb by cbers for your oft extended hypocrisy, reec (reek?) a freudian slip? Which speaks volumes of how you think. You are not qualified to make that determination. Yet, based on your unsolicited self-qualifications regarding psychology, you somehow present yourself as qualified to determine whether others are qualified for anything. _ That you attribute such behavior (name calling, attacking those who merely dx or freeband) to "growing up", illustrates the fact you were an incredible late bloomer and extremely slow learner who hasn't fully matured yet, as your behavior continued well in to your thirties. Well, then if I'm still "growing up", then you have yet to start because you are still engaged in that illegal behavior. As are you, according to your statement above at the beginning of this post. If you consider bringing reality into focus in the same manner as a simple unfounded ad-hominem attack, then I can see your issue. Reality is you are not permitted to refer one a criinal based on nothing more than your ignorance regarding the laws of the land, yet, this somehow presents a great inner difficult struggle for you, regarding the comprehension of such a simple concept that is solidified by law. In fact, you still are illegal and have no right to say anything to anyone, I assume you have some proof of this? Yea I know, you have tons of proof, but you're not about to post it. No Dave, that isn't the standard reply, but I'll remind you since you strugge with memory impairment. You initiated unsolicited claims,,many of them. When challenged for proof, you declined for personal reasons. You are still free to provide proof for any of your unasnwered claims, and then, as proper decorum and communicative technique dictates, will have your inquiries answered with proof in turn. You continue to struggle with such simple techniques of proper communication, but it does illustrate perfectly what i have always maintained,,,that some of those licensed for communications, know the lease about it. _ =A0=A0as for starters, the address you provided the FCC is not your primary residence and the fact that you fail to correct this matter with the FCC even after being informed you are illegal, leaves you no credibility with anything you may say regarding other's actions. You really, REALLY need to go back to whatever source of information gathering you use and either fire them, demand your money back, or something. Because, quite frankly, you are embarrassing yourself every time you make these erroneous claims. My listed address in the FCC database is exactly my primary (only) residence. I am doing nothing illegal. So the real question is, Who do you think I really am (today)? What do you think is my "real" address? Not concerned with your personal world, Dave,,that;s reserved for you to cause yourself great pains concerning others. The only thing I can figure is that the commonality of my name (Next after Smith and Jones), has you so confused, that you believe I'm someone different than who I actually am (There are 3 Dave Hall's in my company's phone directory, talk about confusion). Agreed. Perhaps you can explain how you mistakenly feel your unsolicited but invoked claim regarding a company directory relates to anything, but then again, keeping with your continued behavior that when you are not aware of something, it must not exist, speaks volumes. The fact that my phone number is unlisted removes me from many people searches. You go on thinking that. That also explains why you keep insisting that my wife's name is "Kimberly T. Hall", and that she's a "teacher". She may not teach now, but she tried to at elast once. In conclusion, you continue to trust unreliable sources which provide you erroneous information and then accuse others of things .which are incorrect. It is not my credibility that is in question here, it's yours. But wait? Wasn't it you who just accused ME of trying to obtain people's personal information? It was also myself that instructed you years ago that off-topic personal information is not relevant to these pages, and were instructed that you should practice the golden rule, in other words, do not do to others that you do not want done to yourself, but you continued with off-topic personal information. When it is returned to its place of origination, you cry foul. And you call me hypocritical. Sheesh....... Nothing hypocitiical at all about giving you back your initiated behavior. In fact, you were warned on many occasion that this is what your initiated behavior would degrade to. Again, if the information is incorrect, ignore it and toss it out the window...but for some obvious reasons, you chose to bitch about it. Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj |
|
|
Open your eyes, if you haven't noticed MANY don't seem to have any respect
for the law--pay attention. If it isn't the same in your city I am happy for you--but here it is just getting damn dangerous!!! The downright silly decisions the judges are making is ONE MAJOR cause, the youngsters are laughing behind judges backs... Would you even begin to attempt to convince me that you get anything more than the justice you can afford? Those lawyers are not going to be bothered with freebanders/CB'ers--they simply don't have the type of money the lawyers need to fill their pockets.... Get real... Regards, John |
Those hams are just about to get one BIG surprise...
Those export radios are ending up in Mexico, with BIG Liinears! I hope all those hams can speak Spanish. And, furthere south, the South American skip should just get better and better! grin Regards, John |
You waste your time, attempting to show logic to Dave, he is obivously a ham
or "ham groupie." He is just here to stop any progressive changes--write your congressmen!!! Anyway, whether he does what he does or not--the winds of change begin to blow.... Regards, John |
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:34:48 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Open your eyes, if you haven't noticed MANY don't seem to have any respect for the law--pay attention. So you're saying it's ok to ignore the law as long as there are a bunch of others as morally bankrupt? Justification by consensus? If it isn't the same in your city I am happy for you--but here it is just getting damn dangerous!!! Radio operators are dangerous? The downright silly decisions the judges are making is ONE MAJOR cause, the youngsters are laughing behind judges backs... Which is when we need less bleeding heart liberal judges and more hard nose, by the book style conservative ones. Would you even begin to attempt to convince me that you get anything more than the justice you can afford? It's not about justice you can afford, it's about the justice you truly deserve. Those lawyers are not going to be bothered with freebanders/CB'ers--they simply don't have the type of money the lawyers need to fill their pockets.... Then I guess if the FCC ever decides to really crack down on illegal radio ops, they should be concerned then? Dave "Sandbagger" |
Your arguments ALL would call for a CHANGE!--I am simply stating what IS...
GET REAL! Regards, John |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:15:07 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:25:36 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: I think you should stay away from those magic mushrooms..... Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj You can deny it to your little black heart's content, but the fact remains many cbers get licenses (especialy the no-codes) only to return to the cb and freeband. I won't try to argue that point as I agree that some people conceivably do "return" (or never left in the first place) to the CB and freeband. I'm still somewhat active on both to this day. So, you began breaking the law again by returning to the freeband after you told the group you no longer do so because you "grew up" and are setting responsible behavior patterns for your daughter by folllowing the law. No, I am not on the freeband. I am active on both Ham radio AND CB. Leave it to you to draw the wrong conclusion from a statement. But then again, that's how you are. - Some of those who obtained licenses can never go back because their voices are too easily recognized and their hammie "friends" will report their ass for freebanding. I'm not so sure that this is as prevalent as you claim. * That's cool...but entertain, for a moment, if you would, the notion you are subscribing. If you do not believe me, then you mistakenly believe the FCC is actively patrolling the air for violators. This info can be found simply by extolling a little leg work.....but I'm telling you, the FCC does NOT actively patrol the air seeking violations by hammies or cbers. Just how do you KNOW that? *They end up being ****ed off (then issed upon) hammies. You discount the possibility that while exposed to ham radio, that many people find respect for the rules, and have a change of attitude. I didn't discount it at all, as I know what you say to be true, but what I say is just as true. Members belong to both camps. Yet you lambast me for my change in attitude. The anger toward such freebanders can be seen in your own posts. Despite your many claims, I harbor no "anger". Stating facts that doesn't sit well with you, is not the same thing as "anger". Stating facts has you chasing your tail with semantics. You call people criminals with nothing more than your mistaken ignorance that "saying it on usenet is the same as a guilty plea in a court of law". An admission of guilt is an admission of guilt. This is not a court of law. There is no judge or jury. If you admit to partaking in an illegal activity, then you did it. Anything more is simply a formality. Although you have been given the correct information regarding the judicial system, you continue to mistakenly believe you may publicly refer to one as a criminal even if they were not convicted in a court of law. You do not need to be convicted of an action to make the reality of that action known. You continue to fall back on the flawed concept that you're only guilty when caught and convicted. As if you really are not breaking the law because the feds never witnessed you doing it. That's as absurd as the philosophical question of whether a tree still makes noise when it falls in the forest, and no one was there to hear it. Several years ago you were making posts chastising hammies as being too uptight and uppity and technical who look down on cbers. Because in many cases, it's true. Not "in many cases"..you stated "For the most part" in your post when you referred to the hammies... using the same sterotyping you just hypocritically took another to task for employing. . So now you're back to your old game of obfuscation and semantic word games. There are hams who are stuffy and uptight. But they are legal. The converse is also true. Many outlaw CB'ers feel that they have a right to do just what (and where) they please without due regard for the rights of anyone else. Same is true with many hammies, But they are not here claiming any perceived right to do so. yet for some reason, you do not voice your concern for those you hold in higher regards, higher esteem,,,you know,,those who are supposed to lead by example. So, you posit that because there is a certain percentage of "bad hams" who break the rules, that that gives you a right to do it on the freeband? RFI, direct interference, and public nuisance issues do not seem to affect them. "Them" is not limited exclusively to cb users. No, but responsible radio operators on either service, will cooperate to minimize such issues. **Either behavior is reprehensible, and I've defended each respective group when on the receiving end of such stereotypical prejudice. Yet, you continue to employ it yourself. Not at all. Lately it's the hams who are unfairly on the receiving end of this prejudice. Why is it unfair to illustrate the same behavior committed by hammies that you complain about when committed by cbers? Because as a matter of percentage, the number of law breaking hams compared to licensed users, is much smaller than the amount of illegal operators compared to legal CB'ers. Everyone on the freeband is illegal. You don't need fancy equipment to figure it out. Mere presence of a station there is all that is needed to make the very accurate empirical observation. On the other hand, a ham running twice the power output on 75 meters would not be readily apparent to someone listening as the signal would only be 3db stronger. During your admitted freebanding and illegal operating years, not once will you find a post by yourself calling others names or expressing nosey concern for other people's business that does not affect you. I still don't. I'm not the one trying desperately to find out personal information (often incorrectly like the name of my wife) about other people. Yes, you were. In fact, you initiated the personal info game with me and everyone knows it. You were told long ago to stay out of the personal, off-topic arena. Once you violate this, you have nothing to say when your initiated behavior is returned. I did nothing of the sort. I attempted no such action against you or anyone else. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Believe me, if you were that important enough to make me want to find out information, I would have. And trust me, it would not be wrong. Also worthy of note is the time you spend reviewing my 10 year span of messages to this newsgroup. One might consider that as bordering on obsession. One might, but I have a photographic memory. Yes, but you weren't around here when those beginning posts were first left almost 10 years ago. You had to deliberately review them. Besides, that "photographic memory" of yours is flawed, otherwise you would be accusing me of things that I never did. Such as claiming the case against Doug was "withdrawn", or that Keith was somehow involved, or any other such accusation you have confused with another person (or just plain invented) and then tried to attribute to me. There,, now there's another little tidbit of information for you to wallow in. I remember just about everything, and in most cases you refer, I merely have to type in the pertinent key words of your past posts and voila!....no time at all spent other than three clicks right to the passage needed to illustrate your incorrectness, hypocrisy, and double-talk, and lies. Sure, that's why you keep making those glaring errors. _ However, after having your clock cleaned in reec.radio.cb by cbers for your oft extended hypocrisy, reec (reek?) a freudian slip? Which speaks volumes of how you think. On a higher plain than you? Probably. That you attribute such behavior (name calling, attacking those who merely dx or freeband) to "growing up", illustrates the fact you were an incredible late bloomer and extremely slow learner who hasn't fully matured yet, as your behavior continued well in to your thirties. Well, then if I'm still "growing up", then you have yet to start because you are still engaged in that illegal behavior. As are you, according to your statement above at the beginning of this post. Your initial error continues to be compounded. And even when corrected, I'm sure you'll still come back sometime in the future and claim that I "admitted" to still actively freebanding. In fact, you still are illegal and have no right to say anything to anyone, I assume you have some proof of this? Yea I know, you have tons of proof, but you're not about to post it. No Dave, that isn't the standard reply, but I'll remind you since you strugge with memory impairment. You initiated unsolicited claims,,many of them. When challenged for proof, you declined for personal reasons. You are still free to provide proof for any of your unasnwered claims, and then, as proper decorum and communicative technique dictates, will have your inquiries answered with proof in turn. Like I said........ You have no proof. **as for starters, the address you provided the FCC is not your primary residence and the fact that you fail to correct this matter with the FCC even after being informed you are illegal, leaves you no credibility with anything you may say regarding other's actions. You really, REALLY need to go back to whatever source of information gathering you use and either fire them, demand your money back, or something. Because, quite frankly, you are embarrassing yourself every time you make these erroneous claims. My listed address in the FCC database is exactly my primary (only) residence. I am doing nothing illegal. So the real question is, Who do you think I really am (today)? What do you think is my "real" address? Not concerned with your personal world, Dave,,that;s reserved for you to cause yourself great pains concerning others. You are the one making the personal claims. It obviously concerns you. Your words say one thing, but your actions betray your true motivations. The only thing I can figure is that the commonality of my name (Next after Smith and Jones), has you so confused, that you believe I'm someone different than who I actually am (There are 3 Dave Hall's in my company's phone directory, talk about confusion). Agreed. Perhaps you can explain how you mistakenly feel your unsolicited but invoked claim regarding a company directory relates to anything, It's an example of just how common my name is. It's the ultimate irony for someone like you, who craves anonymity. You go to great pains to hide who you are, while I gladly reveal my name. Yet even when armed with that information, your efforts to seek further information about me have proved to be dismal failures. When you have a name as common as mine, you really can hide in plain sight. Perhaps now you will finally "get it"....... The fact that my phone number is unlisted removes me from many people searches. You go on thinking that. Oh so you have looked? Call me sometime then big boy...... That also explains why you keep insisting that my wife's name is "Kimberly T. Hall", and that she's a "teacher". She may not teach now, but she tried to at elast once. Yea, ok, whatever you say. In conclusion, you continue to trust unreliable sources which provide you erroneous information and then accuse others of things .which are incorrect. It is not my credibility that is in question here, it's yours. But wait? Wasn't it you who just accused ME of trying to obtain people's personal information? It was also myself that instructed you years ago that off-topic personal information is not relevant to these pages, Yet here you are demonstrating to the world just how much effort you go through to do just that when you make personal information comments about other people. And lest you try to use the excuse that it's my fault, how many people have you accused Frank of being over the years? And you call me hypocritical. Sheesh....... Nothing hypocitiical at all about giving you back your initiated behavior. Bad behavior is inexcusable regardless of who started it. When you were growing up and in school, it didn't matter who started the fight, you BOTH got suspended. Both are equally culpable. Using the excuse; "Well, he started it!" is truly feeble and a poor justification for your own foibles. In fact, you were warned on many occasion that this is what your initiated behavior would degrade to. But I never claimed or threatened to find out personal information about anyone. Again, if the information is incorrect, ignore it and toss it out the window...but for some obvious reasons, you chose to bitch about it. Only to illustrate your obvious hypocrisy Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:04:46 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (John*Smith) You waste your time, attempting to show logic to Dave, he is obivously a ham or "ham groupie." He is just here to stop any progressive changes--write your congressmen!!! Anyway, whether he does what he does or not--the winds of change begin to blow.... Regards, John Dave is capable of giving good entertainment when he remains cool, stays on topic, and steers clear of emotional outbursts. Why thank you! That's the closest thing to a compliment that I've seen in a while. Now how 'bout a big hug? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
I am afraid Dave is not even good entertainment... more of a
boring/repetitive slug... He reminds me of an old woman with nothing better to do than harass anyone in disagreement with them. .. a Chihuahua, nipping at ones ankles--best ignored. However, when not here, he is most likely in his mobile, pursuing truckers (complete with a rotating caution light on his trunk and wearing a bunch of pseudo-official badges, patches and ball caps purchased at ham fests), I suppose it is better to have him here than out annoying the truckers, at least they can get some honest work done then! grin Regards, John |
Yeah, we know that is YOUR opinion... big deal...
John |
Read my above post, it is still valid here...
Regards, John |
Read my top, new, post, still valid here...
John |
Uh, from now on, just refer to my first post on this subject, or attempt to
memorize it--it is only ONE LINE FOR CRISSAKES!!! John |
Forget that!
Just write this down on a piece of paper, "REMEMBER! Next doctors visit, ask him about a medication for Alzheimers." And, pin it on your chest! John |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com