|
On Fri, 06 May 2005 00:06:12 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:44:26 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:20:49 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Dave Hall (N3CVJ) wrote: Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of a creator or, more generally, the concept of intelligent design. Science is based on logic. Nowhere does science support your position. Well, one of two possibilities exist. Either the earth cooled, formed water, created primordial amino acids which somehow morphed into single celled life, which then somehow determined the need to further specialize and diversify, and all species evolved from there. Somehow they knew that we'd need plants to make oxygen, for the animals that need it. Some species would become food for others. All of this raises many questions, the biggest of which is what force drove these single celled organisms to improve and specialize themselves? What drives evolution? Can accidental random mutation answer these questions satisfactorily. That's about the most ignorant pseudo-scientific argument I have ever heard in favor of creationsim. If you are going to play biochemist at least show a little knowledge of the subject. You could at least address the fact that an imbalance in a complex equilibrium will result in a more complex equilibrium. Or that an ocean full of primordial soup doesn't just sit there and stew in a state of homeostatis -- it's under a constant barrage from a large number of ionizing radiations that can change it's chemistry. After a couple billion years it's hardly inconceivable that symbiotic relationships not only could exist on a planetary scale, but that a threshold of self-sustaining complexity could occur. In fact, it's far more plausible than concluding that everything was willed into existence by some super-ghost. Your anti-God bias is showing. You would rather believe that the complexity of our ecosystem occurred due to just the right random, combinations of factors and events to produce all the diversified species, which all have a key part to play in the total picture, rather than consider the likelihood that an intelligent force was somehow responsible for guiding it. The other possibility is that our existence was carefully guided by an intelligent force. Applying Occam's razor, which scenario is easier to believe? See above. Yes, see above. snip But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may mistake for "random". But what motivates natural evolution? Who decides whether a mutation is "beneficial" or not? Natural selection, otherwise known as survival of the fittest, assumes that gene mutations which result in a "better" species, would survive while the "lesser' versions of the species would die out. Yet, it is said that homo-sapiens evolved from apes. Why then are apes still around if we are the "new and improved" version of the ape? Evolution only explains a small part of the puzzle. But what drives evolution? If random mutations are the basis for evolution, then what prevents "bad mutations" or several different mutations from leading us down even more diverse paths? A little concept called "survival of the fittest". Then why are smaller mammals still here? Why are apes still here? Why do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul? Natural selection only answers some of those questions. Only if you slept through the class like you did during American History and Social Studies. I have an open mind. Something you evidently do not. There is much scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution. I am not trying to discount it at all. Quite the opposite, I totally endorse the concept of evolution. The difference is that I believe that evolution was "helped" along by an outside intelligence. Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations? It very well might be. It's all part of the bigger plan. Like I said, I totally accept the concepts of evolution. I just believe that the process has been "managed" by a higher order intelligence, the definition of which, has yet to be revealed. I am not advocating any specific religious interpretation of "God", only that one exists. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Thu, 05 May 2005 23:35:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:32:11 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug. And if you and your partner are monogamous, this is highly unlikely. Unless your partner is infected. Which won't likely happen if you are both monogamous. snip Not just the First Amendment, Dave. The concept is reflected in the main body of the Constitution; "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," a clause which was unanimously adopted by the Constitutional Convention. Yet the democrats are using this exact criteria to DENY appointees to the court. In their minds, a strong belief in faith should be regarded as a reason to disqualify someone from serving in public office. You are -totally- off your rocker, Dave. Am I? I guess you haven't been following the struggle for the appointment of judicial nominees. It is quite obvious that the ones who the dems oppose the most are people with a strong religious faith. Some light reading for you to come up to speed on this issues. http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/?cat=3 http://quante.blogspot.com/2005/04/y...-morality.html http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...l_politics.php Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens, maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration. Why? Carter's administration has no relevance to this discussion. snip The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state. Not "officially", Or "unofficially". The majority of Christian citizens would probably disagree. Despite the fact that this majority of Christian citizens is not a majority of American citizens, seperation of church and state is not subject to a majority vote. There is no mandated "separation of church and state". Only an establishment clause prohibiting a state sponsored religion. I think this page says it best: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues but our whole government is littered with Christian references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings. As well as religious symbols of other faiths. Such as? Go search the net for a picture of the wall behind the Supreme Court bench. The swearing on the Bible, And here's proof that you have never read the Constitution -- the passage I quoted above is in direct reference to the requirement for an Oath of Affirmation. What passage have you quoted? Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution? Yes, have you? What passage are you referring? And how does that diminish the fact that swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning? Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation. No, but it is used in every court case, to "swear in" a witness. The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly what you claim. Then why is it still being done on a daily basis? It was added because, at the time, some states had oaths that required the person entering office to declare a belief in God or a "divine inspiration". Such an oath was a "religious test" that was required to qualify for the office, and excluded anyone that didn't share the same religious beliefs. This violated the seperation of church and state, so the clause was added to prohibit such tests, and the office would be available to any citizen -despite- religious beliefs. We're talking about court cases here, not job applications. snip If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, Not true. You are not keeping current. http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the rate of marriage: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf You should read the link I posted again. The very first line tells the story. The divorce rate is only 9.6%. and a large number of people get married more than once. There is also the issue of polygamy -- if you are going to claim that marriage is a religious value or that it is traditionally monogamous then you better change your tune because that's not the case. For example, King Solomon (a "servant of God") had 600 wives and 900 concubines... or was it 900 wives and 600 concubines.... whichever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that the "traditional Christian marriage" is just as much a farce in definition as it is in practice; and gay marriage has far less impact on it's "value" than legalized divorce, secular ceremonies, Joseph Smith, or even the holy doctrine of your own faith. Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors. It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave. No, it's a logical fallacy. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm If the foundation of your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that would affect the value of marriage. Not if they have little in common, other than the idea of marriage itself. And after such a comparison, gay marriage is -barely- significant, if at all. When you base your conclusion on a false premise, I can understand your error. Yet you are whining about it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant factors. So, because there might be other factors which may be more significant, we should ignore the small ones? That's the same sort of twisted logic that freebanders use to justify illegal radio pirating. Bad is bad no matter how large or small it may be. The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals. Once again, your chain of logic is based on flawed conclusions based on fallacious logic, and your own internal bias. snip The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does not mean that a gay marriage should be now. I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical. So we should abandon all moral values now since they may change sometime in the future? snip Referring back to your "college degree" analogy, if the standards are lowered then my degree becomes more valuable. Only to you. Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of the gate -- than someone with a lesser education. But YOU will have to prove that. After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has diminished in value. Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way. Most people will eventually see it that way. But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'. Yes, but you will have to "educate" those who will quickly forget that. Here's another analogy: If some of the auto makers start making cars of lower quality, what happens to the value of the vehicles made by other manufacturers? Duh. That's not a good analogy in this situation. For this analogy to be applicable, you would have to offer 2 different "marriage systems". One allowing gays, and one not. Then a relative value comparison between two distinct entities can accurately be assessed. I'm not going to make justifications for your bigotry, Dave. Then settle for a good analogy. The one you presented was not a good comparison for the reasons I gave. How you feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own marriage. It just might. snip I also noticed that you snipped the part of your last response where you called me a "holy roller religious wacko". After retrospection, I'm sure you realized that in making such a statement, you are practicing the very same intolerance and bigotry for other viewpoints as you had accused me of doing, thereby exposing your own hypocrisy. But I did notice. I snipped a lot of stuff. Unlike you, I have to work for a living, and I simply don't have the time to play your game. Excuses excuses.......... So if you want to start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other crap you use to water down the topics. I water down the topics? Pointing out your own intolerance and hypocrisy is very much pertinent to the discussion as it becomes testimony as to your objectivity and credibility on this subject. Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good, Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable. Even if it's bad? Moron. What's the matter Frank? Are you that incapable of participating in an open discussion that challenges your preconceived notions? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
Dave:
I actually agree with much of what you are about--and you have demonstrated a high understanding and ability to use logic effectively... I diverge from your thought on "the radio spectrum"... I am endowed to full use of the radio spectrum by my creator--however, in the interest of public good and organization--I am willing to provide my public servants with a necessary portion of this spectrum so they may carry out business which is beneficial to the citizens of the United States.... and IS the BUSINESS of THE CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES... I am also open to them providing a section of this spectrum to specialized hobbies and for experimentation... however, the majority of it is mine--to share with my other citizens, since it as much endowed to them by their creator (whether they recognize him/her or not)... the public needs much expanded education programs in the use and exercise of their radio spectrum--that is where gov't should spend their efforts... control and governing of the citizens flows from the people, to the congress, and back to the people--it does not flow from an elite of group of governing citizens to the people... ..... this simply needs to be straightened out... Warmest regards, John -- When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!! "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... | On Fri, 6 May 2005 11:19:50 -0400, (I | AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: | | The FCC owns the rights to the radio | spectrum in this country. | | That is ludicrous. They do not. They merely are charged with | administrating such. The spectrum does not stop at the borders. | | .No, but while inside the borders, you will pay | (Sometimes dearly) the FCC for the right to | play on the airwaves. | | | | So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no | damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few | paltry bucks.. | | Illegally. Just as there are people who trespass on private or | otherwise posted land, and never get caught either. But it's still | illegal. | | | Ask any cell phone company | owner/administrator. | | | Your selection of cell phone admins does not discount the countless | freebanders, cbers or hammies who play on it for free or on the extreme | cheap. | | Illegally, or on bands where public access is set aside. Much like a | public park. | | | They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum | to people with a legitimate need. It's no | different than government owned land. | | Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were | already taught. | | Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways | that are similar are what I am talking about. It's | a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of | spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes | for outrageous amounts. If the FCC was not in | the position to claim "ownership" of that | spectrum, how could they auction it off? | | | | By virtue of administration. Auctions are held daily all over the place. | They do not own what they auction, but like the FCC, are merely charged | with the administering of such. | | Semantics. | | | Your car is yours as is your radio gear. But the | privilege to operate both is granted by the | government, and can be revoked for the | proper cause. | | Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate | my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so. | | Right! On you own land. But venture out on | .the public street, and they have all the | authority. Same goes for radio. If you can | somehow prevent your signal from escaping | the borders of your property (Which is covered | by FCC Part 15), you could do what you want. | | | Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law? | | Pushing which law and in what way? | | | Once those signals escape into the public | venue, they are under the control of the | federal government. | | | | How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over | such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can | tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public | broadcast? | | Most of those situations employ carrier current transmitters which | radiate only a short distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby | limiting range beyond the intended service area. The biggest uses for | this technique is on college campuses, travel, and road alert systems. | | As you know, RF degrades gradually and it is impossible to "brick | wall" stop a broadcast at the limits of physical property. But unless | you are very close, you will likely not hear a carrier current | transmission. | | | Another way to look at it, You own your car, | but not the roads you drive on. | | Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars. | | And administered by the government. | | You may own your radio, but not the airwaves | you broadcast on. | | Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe. | | For all practical purposes, yes they do in this | country. | You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond | the confines of your own property. | | That is what the cb does. | | Yes, but the authorization to operate a CB is a "privilege", not a | "right". | | You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the | government in the proxy of the FCC. | | | This "privilege" is availabe to anyone, so how can it be referred a | privilege? | | Not true. You have to be a U.S. citizen, and not convicted of other | FCC rule violations. | | | I know you elitist hammies believe this to be true about your | ticket, but it simply does not apply to cb, as practically any American | citizen is granted the "right" to broadcast, via a cb, simply by | ownership of one. This does not exactly equate to any "privilege". | | Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the rules governing each | service, and find out for yourself. Despite the relative ease by which | a person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a "right" to do so, | it is a privilege granted by the FCC, as the service is authorized by | rule, even if a license is not required. | | | As a | condition of that privilege comes your | responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in | various FCC parts depending on which | service you are using. | You may not like it, but that's the way it is. | | | | Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right | now and have said so on many occasion. | | Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they should be, and freeload.... | er, freebanders get away with trespassing on other government | administered frequencies with little chance of getting caught. But | that doesn't mean that it's legal or proper. | | | They rightly and deservedly go | after those they deem the most important and damaging to our hobby. | | You mean those who project the highest profile, or those who impact | operators who paid dearly for the right to use their part of the | spectrum. | | | It | is yourself that does not like the "way it is" nor agree with it. | | Well, that's true. I do wish the FCC had more teeth. | | Dave | "Sandbagger" | http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 6 May 2005 10:40:38 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Self taught based on nothing more than personal thought you mistakenly refer as empirical observation isn't a valid method. Why not? Because opinion does not equate empirical data. It is far too complex to have evolved totally randomly. (That's an argument used by primitive civilations to explain things which they do not understand. If you want to be a part of an enlightened society, the first thing you need to learn is that complexity does not require divine providence. But if that concept is beyond your level of comprehension you can always take up astrology, voodoo, crystal ball gazing..... or even republican economics.) The ancients sacrificed each other to the "Gods" of the sky when they were angry (thunder, heavy storms)...same goes for the Gods of the sea, the four winds, etc. St. Elmo's Fire was attributed to the Gods by the old salts and still is in superstitious circles of the old time fishermen... Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.... It wasn't referred as magic. The more answers you learn, the more questions you discover. It's a never ending quest. Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj At least I'm enjoying the ride. |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 6 May 2005 11:19:50 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: The FCC owns the rights to the radio spectrum in this country. That is ludicrous. They do not. They merely are charged with administrating such. The spectrum does not stop at the borders. .No, but while inside the borders, you will pay (Sometimes dearly) the FCC for the right to play on the airwaves. (So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few paltry bucks..) Illegally. Just as there are people who trespass on private or otherwise posted land, and never get caught either. Physical trespass can carry a *criminal* charge..talking on the freeband can not. Once again, this is the difference between what constitutes a criminal act vs a civil act. The penalties are not the same. But it's still illegal. (shrug),,,,which has -never- been contested by anyone here, yet, for some curious reason unbeknownst to all but yourself, you have taken it upon yourself to assume status and annoint yourself some sort of imaginary right to confront others concerning their non-criminal act. I would hedge zero times have you actually confronted a real criminal or law breaker in the act and in person. _ Ask any cell phone company owner/administrator. Your selection of cell phone admins does not discount the countless freebanders, cbers or hammies who play on it for free or on the extreme cheap. Illegally, And legally. or on bands where public access is set aside. Or not. Don't forget many of the freqs that have been abandoned. I'll reiterate what you already found in google on many occasion,,,,,education is the key. Much like a public park. Nothing like a public park, as breaking the law you speak of (trespass) can result in criminal charges, unlike talking on the freeband. This concept has proved nearly impossible for you to grasp. Perhaps it because you so vehemently disagree with the law. They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum to people with a legitimate need. It's no different than government owned land. Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were already taught. Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways that are similar are what I am talking about. But,,,,,,it's not It's a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes for outrageous amounts. If the FCC was not in the position to claim "ownership" of that spectrum, how could they auction it off? By virtue of administration. Auctions are held daily all over the place. They do not own what they auction, but like the FCC, are merely charged with the administering of such. Semantics. No,,facts. You can't call facts you disagree with "semantics". Your car is yours as is your radio gear. But the privilege to operate both is granted by the government, and can be revoked for the proper cause. Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so. Right! On you own land. But venture out on . the public street, and they have all the authority. Same goes for radio. Again,,,,,(sigh),,the analogy of the car is invalid as it can result in criminal charges, while operating on the freeband does not. If you can somehow prevent your signal from escaping the borders of your property (Which is covered by FCC Part 15), you could do what you want. Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law? Pushing which law and in what way? Transmitting, albeit, under the guise of part 15, to a much broader audience than permitted. Once those signals escape into the public venue, they are under the control of the federal government. How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public broadcast? Most of those situations employ carrier current transmitters which radiate only a short distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby limiting range beyond the intended service area. The biggest uses for this technique is on .college campuses, travel, and road alert systems. Yes,,,but my question remains and is still valid. As you know, RF degrades gradually and it is impossible to "brick wall" stop a broadcast at the limits of physical property. But unless you are very close, you will likely not hear a carrier current transmission. Or on an unobstructed waterway with a visual on the proper/transmitter. Another way to look at it, You own your car, but not the roads you drive on. Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars. And administered by the government. You may own your radio, but not the airwaves you broadcast on. Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe. For all practical purposes, yes they do in this country. You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond the confines of your own property. That is what the cb does. Yes, but the authorization to operate a CB is a "privilege", not a "right". You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the government in the proxy of the FCC. This "privilege" is availabe to anyone, so how can it be referred a privilege? =A0=A0Not true. You have to be a U.S. citizen, and not convicted of other FCC rule violations. =A0 Ok,,proverbially "everyone". _ =A0I know you elitist hammies believe this to be true about your ticket, but it simply does not apply to cb, as practically any American citizen is granted the "right" to broadcast, via a cb, simply by ownership of one. This does not exactly equate to any "privilege". Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the rules governing each service, and find out for yourself. Despite the relative ease by which a person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a "right" to do so, it is a privilege granted by the FCC, as the service is authorized by rule, even if a license is not required. And if that law were serious, one would NOT be able to buy, plug and play. What stops an immigrant from using a cb? Nothing,,they all se them in the fruit fields. As a condition of that privilege comes your responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in various FCC parts depending on which service you are using. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right now and have said so on many occasion. Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they should be, and freeload.... er, freebanders get away with trespassing on other government administered frequencies with little chance of getting caught. But that doesn't mean that it's legal or proper. Again, not one person ever made such a claim in all my years of visiting thse pages. Just who is it you are trying to convince? - They rightly and deservedly go after those they deem the most important and damaging to our hobby. You mean those who project the highest profile, or those who impact operators who paid dearly for the right to use their part of the spectrum. Those who present a direct safety issue. _ It is yourself that does not like the "way it is" nor agree with it. Well, that's true. I do wish the FCC had more teeth. They have plenty of teeth. Their bite is interested in chomping away with censorship of television. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
On Tue, 10 May 2005 08:14:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug. And if you and your partner are monogamous, this is highly unlikely. Unless your partner is infected. Which won't likely happen if you are both monogamous. And virgins. snip Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens, maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration. Why? Carter's administration has no relevance to this discussion. Sure it does. You made a reference to the Democrats. Carter is a Democrat, isn't he? Ok, so he doesn't hold an office right now. But how many Democrats currently holding office are athiests? By their own admissions, not many. Your argument is bogus -- I think Jeanine Garafalo (sp?) had it right: The conservative's definition of 'liberal' is any judge that upholds the law. Or something like that. snip There is no mandated "separation of church and state". Only an establishment clause prohibiting a state sponsored religion. Since you refuse to read it yourself, here's that clause from First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Sounds to me like that is a mandate defining the seperation of church and state. Or are you going to argue that a bird with a flat bill and webbed feet that flys, swims, quacks, and waddles when it walks isn't a duck because the word "duck" isn't engraved anywhere on its body? I think this page says it best: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues Too liberal for ya, huh Dave? snip The swearing on the Bible, And here's proof that you have never read the Constitution -- the passage I quoted above is in direct reference to the requirement for an Oath of Affirmation. What passage have you quoted? Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution? Yes, have you? What passage are you referring? The same passage I have been referring to all along -- Article VI. Since you haven't read it, let me quote if for you, and in full: "All Debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation. "This Constituion, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. You now have no excuse for such stupid questions. And how does that diminish the fact that swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning? Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation. No, but it is used in every court case, to "swear in" a witness. Once again you demonstrate your ignorance by talking of things about which you know little or nothing: An oath on the bible is used in every court but not for every person. There are different oaths for different faiths -- there is even an oath for athiests and agnostics. The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly what you claim. Then why is it still being done on a daily basis? Because you watch too much TV. It was added because, at the time, some states had oaths that required the person entering office to declare a belief in God or a "divine inspiration". Such an oath was a "religious test" that was required to qualify for the office, and excluded anyone that didn't share the same religious beliefs. This violated the seperation of church and state, so the clause was added to prohibit such tests, and the office would be available to any citizen -despite- religious beliefs. We're talking about court cases here, not job applications. We're talking about the seperation of church and state. snip If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, Not true. You are not keeping current. http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the rate of marriage: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf You should read the link I posted again. The very first line tells the story. The divorce rate is only 9.6%. You sure did sleep a lot in school. It's clear that you don't understand statistics either. I don't have Excell (well, I have it, I just don't have it installed because I never used it when I did), so I downloaded the equivalent PDF file: http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.pdf This is nothing but a breakdown of marriage -status-, not the marriage and divorce rates. You can't calculate marriage and divorce rates from this data for the simple fact that many people are, or have been, married more than once. You are also ignoring the fact that the divorce rate says nothing by itself. According to the CDC, during the year 2003 there were 7.5 marriages per thousand people. There were also 3.8 divorces per thousand people. This means (to anyone that can handle 5th grade math) that the divorce rate is half (50.7%) the rate of marriage. And here's the fun part, Dave: Since half of all marriages end in divorce, and if the majority of citizens are right-wing conservative Christians that hold marriage to be a sacred value, then there sure are a lot of hypocrites that call themselves Christians. As for the "tradition" of marriage, remember that the filibuster has been an American tradition for almost 200 years. IOW, you are a hypocrite, Dave. and a large number of people get married more than once. There is also the issue of polygamy -- if you are going to claim that marriage is a religious value or that it is traditionally monogamous then you better change your tune because that's not the case. For example, King Solomon (a "servant of God") had 600 wives and 900 concubines... or was it 900 wives and 600 concubines.... whichever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that the "traditional Christian marriage" is just as much a farce in definition as it is in practice; and gay marriage has far less impact on it's "value" than legalized divorce, secular ceremonies, Joseph Smith, or even the holy doctrine of your own faith. Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors. It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave. No, it's a logical fallacy. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm You are trying to build an inductive argument using information that only tells one side of the story (and heavily biased in favor of your conclusion). I merely presented some information that you conveniently overlooked. And it so happens that your premise loses almost all of it's weight when -all- the facts are known. If the foundation of your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that would affect the value of marriage. Not if they have little in common, other than the idea of marriage itself. The common denominator is the value of marriage. That alone makes such issues relevant to the discussion and exposes your argument as nothing more than an exercise in bigotry. And that's no different than KKK tactics which use the very same type of lame justifications to defend racism (religion, tradition, morality, etc.). snip Yet you are whining about it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant factors. So, because there might be other factors which may be more significant, we should ignore the small ones? That's the same sort of twisted logic that freebanders use to justify illegal radio pirating. If what you say were true then CB radio would be all over the news. It isn't. OTOH, opposition to gay marriage -is- all over the news, and that's because of all the attention it's given. If gay marriage is getting all this attention because it threatens the value of marriage then there would be much -greater- attention to the divorce rate (and there would probably be a few right-wing fanatic groups lobbying to outlaw divorce). But, in fact, there -isn't- any political outcry against divorce. The only reasonable conclusion is that these factions of "Christianity" (at least one of which I'm sure you are a member) are hypocrites that are practicing church-sponsored bigotry. Bad is bad no matter how large or small it may be. Well, what's worse, Dave: A couple homos getting married? or a large group of bigots trying to subvert the Constitution under the guise of Christianity? The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals. Once again, your chain of logic is based on flawed conclusions based on fallacious logic, and your own internal bias. When will you get it through your thick Republican head that bias has nothing to do with it, Dave? I'm not homo, I don't have any friends that are homo, I don't like "Queer Eye" or "Will & Grace"..... and personally, I find the homosexual lifestyle somewhat repulsive. But there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits two gays from getting married if that's how they get their kicks. So it's not my place to judge. And that would be even -more- true if I was a Christian, the doctrine being that you should forgive others of their sins (assuming you see homosexuality as a sin), and that judgment should be left to God. You hate gays. So do a lot of other people. Big deal. But my "bias" leans towards the Constitution, not my aversion to homosexuality. They have the same rights as me, and I treat them with the same amount of respect that I do anyone else whether I like them or not. That's the difference between tolerance and bigotry. I am tolerant. You are not. You are a bigot. snip The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does not mean that a gay marriage should be now. I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical. So we should abandon all moral values now since they may change sometime in the future? Well gee Dave, we probably should, now that you suggested it, huh? Idiot. snip Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of the gate -- than someone with a lesser education. But YOU will have to prove that. Easy enough. It's called a "diploma". After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has diminished in value. Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way. Most people will eventually see it that way. I don't think so, Dave. I really think that most people have more smarts than you give them credit for. But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'. Yes, but you will have to "educate" those who will quickly forget that. There's no point in trying to educate people who refuse to look at the facts objectively and make reasonable and logical conclusions. The only reason I continue to try is because you aren't the only person reading my posts. And it's nice to know that your ignorance is being recorded for posterity. snip Then settle for a good analogy. The one you presented was not a good comparison for the reasons I gave. I'll consider a good analogy when you provide a good reason. How you feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own marriage. It just might. No, it won't. And when you make your next regular visit to your doctor, tell him that you want to back off the dosage on those anti-depressants. snip I also noticed that you snipped the part of your last response where you called me a "holy roller religious wacko". After retrospection, I'm sure you realized that in making such a statement, you are practicing the very same intolerance and bigotry for other viewpoints as you had accused me of doing, thereby exposing your own hypocrisy. But I did notice. I snipped a lot of stuff. Unlike you, I have to work for a living, and I simply don't have the time to play your game. Excuses excuses.......... Financial responsibilities, time that could be used more productively......... If you cut in half the time you waste on the computer and spent that extra time reading the Constitution you could probably cut in half the time you waste on the computer. So if you want to start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other crap you use to water down the topics. I water down the topics? Pointing out your own intolerance and hypocrisy is very much pertinent to the discussion as it becomes testimony as to your objectivity and credibility on this subject. Sounds great! So when do you plan to implement your new policy? Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good, Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable. Even if it's bad? Moron. What's the matter Frank? Are you that incapable of participating in an open discussion that challenges your preconceived notions? You thrive on being publically disgraced, don't you? inevitable -- [ Latin, 'in', not + 'evitabilis', avoidable] that which cannot be avoided; certain to happen. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:39:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Your anti-God bias is showing. You would rather believe that the complexity of our ecosystem occurred due to just the right random, combinations of factors and events to produce all the diversified species, which all have a key part to play in the total picture, rather than consider the likelihood that an intelligent force was somehow responsible for guiding it. There's nothing "random" about it -- when you consider that the bell curve consists of a population as great as the number of events that occur in the Universe within any period of time, it becomes utterly -ridiculous- to think that life requires divine intervention. And if there -is- evidence of guidance by some intelligent force, it's far more likely that this "force" is not God but some sort of ETI. May the force be with you, Dave! snip But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may mistake for "random". But what motivates natural evolution? Natural variation, and adaptability to a dynamic environment. Who decides whether a mutation is "beneficial" or not? Natural selection, otherwise known as survival of the fittest, assumes that gene mutations which result in a "better" species, would survive while the "lesser' versions of the species would die out. Yet, it is said that homo-sapiens evolved from apes. Why then are apes still around if we are the "new and improved" version of the ape? Because you assume that the "'lesser' versions of the species would die out", which is not necessarily the case. There can be many circumstances where a variation doesn't compete for the same resources as it's progenitor. This explains why there are so many speices of birds that have but slight variations -- many birds are migratory. And so are many species of primates. Evolution only explains a small part of the puzzle. No, you have only -learned- a small part of the puzzle. snip ......Why do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul? Evolution is science. The questions you ask are philosophical. But before you start putting the human race on a pedestal, maybe you better think twice about what you assume are the differences between humans and other animals. snip Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations? It very well might be. It's all part of the bigger plan. Like I said, I totally accept the concepts of evolution. I just believe that the process has been "managed" by a higher order intelligence, the definition of which, has yet to be revealed. I am not advocating any specific religious interpretation of "God", only that one exists. The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of variations that can occur in the processes of evolution. Neither do the scientists that study it. But the scientists don't insert God into the equation whenever something doesn't add up -- they look for other factors and they usually find them. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
It might surprise you, Steven Hawkings (possibly the greatest mind alive--if
not--close) often refers to "God" when chatting and writing about his thoughts... I don't know Steven's present stand on the existance of "God", however, I do NOT think he has claimed his/her/its' existance is impossible... Steven is quite aware of the fact that probability and statistics make it very hard for evolution to be the sole reason for our state of existance... Here is a link to some of his musings and quotes, a search of the net will provide mo http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physic...en-Hawking.htm Warmest regards, John -- When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!! "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... | On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:39:33 -0400, Dave Hall | wrote in : | | snip | Your anti-God bias is showing. You would rather believe that the | complexity of our ecosystem occurred due to just the right random, | combinations of factors and events to produce all the diversified | species, which all have a key part to play in the total picture, | rather than consider the likelihood that an intelligent force was | somehow responsible for guiding it. | | | There's nothing "random" about it -- when you consider that the bell | curve consists of a population as great as the number of events that | occur in the Universe within any period of time, it becomes utterly | -ridiculous- to think that life requires divine intervention. And if | there -is- evidence of guidance by some intelligent force, it's far | more likely that this "force" is not God but some sort of ETI. May the | force be with you, Dave! | | | snip | But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and | selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may | mistake for "random". | | But what motivates natural evolution? | | | Natural variation, and adaptability to a dynamic environment. | | | Who decides whether a mutation | is "beneficial" or not? Natural selection, otherwise known as | survival of the fittest, assumes that gene mutations which result in a | "better" species, would survive while the "lesser' versions of the | species would die out. Yet, it is said that homo-sapiens evolved from | apes. Why then are apes still around if we are the "new and improved" | version of the ape? | | | Because you assume that the "'lesser' versions of the species would | die out", which is not necessarily the case. There can be many | circumstances where a variation doesn't compete for the same resources | as it's progenitor. This explains why there are so many speices of | birds that have but slight variations -- many birds are migratory. And | so are many species of primates. | | | Evolution only explains a small part of the puzzle. | | | No, you have only -learned- a small part of the puzzle. | | | snip | ......Why | do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that | allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming | of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul? | | | Evolution is science. The questions you ask are philosophical. But | before you start putting the human race on a pedestal, maybe you | better think twice about what you assume are the differences between | humans and other animals. | | | snip | Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the | possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations? | | It very well might be. It's all part of the bigger plan. Like I said, | I totally accept the concepts of evolution. I just believe that the | process has been "managed" by a higher order intelligence, the | definition of which, has yet to be revealed. I am not advocating any | specific religious interpretation of "God", only that one exists. | | | The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of | variations that can occur in the processes of evolution. Neither do | the scientists that study it. But the scientists don't insert God into | the equation whenever something doesn't add up -- they look for other | factors and they usually find them. | | | | | | | | | | ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- | http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups | ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:24:10 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote in : It might surprise you, Steven Hawkings (possibly the greatest mind alive--if not--close) often refers to "God" when chatting and writing about his thoughts... I don't know Steven's present stand on the existance of "God", however, I do NOT think he has claimed his/her/its' existance is impossible... Steven is quite aware of the fact that probability and statistics make it very hard for evolution to be the sole reason for our state of existance... Here is a link to some of his musings and quotes, a search of the net will provide mo http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physic...en-Hawking.htm Stephen Hawking could be considered to be the contemporary equivalent of John Tyndall, a scientist about 100 years ago that was popular because of his ability to communicate scientific principles to the masses, but was consistently (and safely) a decade or two behind the current state of mainstream research. For example, the theory that matter is composed of spherical waves is nothing new. It was even proposed (and subsequently ridiculed) in Tyndall's day. There has always been criticizm of the big-bang theory which, after several decades, is finally receiving due attention. And the Michelson-Morley experiment is -only now- getting a second look by the mainstream scientific community because of attention drawn to the logical fallacy used by the experimenters to reach their conclusion. Until now their conclusion was accepted as fact because it was the foundation of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, and nobody dared criticize -that- man despite his own admissions that he might have been wrong. Which brings us to the -real- problem..... The politics of science is often more important than the science itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get their names in the journals. And while I may not agree with some of the currently accepted scientific theories or conclusions, nothing in science is written in stone -- it is theory that is subject to change upon new discoveries that are being made all the time, and will continue to be made as long as there are people who are less than fully satisfied with the current level of understanding. With that in mind, it's easy to see how so many profound discoveries were made by malcontents living under religious authoritarian governments. In my opinion, there should be a seperation of science and state just like there is (supposed to be) a seperation of church and state. I think Galileo might agree with me on that one. As to whether life exists by accident or design, feel free to believe what you want. It's clear that science is far more complex than any one person can possibly comprehend, so to believe that the Universe works on purely scientific principles is, like any religion, simply a matter of faith. I place my faith not just in science, but also in the logical priciples upon which the scientific process works. The current state of science may not be perfect but at least it continues to grow and evolve, seeking deeper understandings of why things are the way they are, instead of stagnating like so many religious beliefs that were stalled by the blind acceptance of myths, legends, traditions and ancient literature. How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it -does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Tue, 10 May 2005 16:03:16 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: (So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few paltry bucks..) Illegally. Just as there are people who trespass on private or otherwise posted land, and never get caught either. Physical trespass can carry a *criminal* charge..talking on the freeband can not. There are criminal provisions in the communications act of 1934. 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 and societal irresponsibility of engaging in the acts. Once again, this is the difference between what constitutes a criminal act vs a civil act. The penalties are not the same. But it's still illegal. (shrug),,,,which has -never- been contested by anyone here, yet, for some curious reason unbeknownst to all but yourself, you have taken it upon yourself to assume status and annoint yourself some sort of imaginary right to confront others concerning their non-criminal act. The FCC rules do carry criminal as well as civil penalties should they choose to apply them, if the case warrants it. 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. Ask any cell phone company owner/administrator. Your selection of cell phone admins does not discount the countless freebanders, cbers or hammies who play on it for free or on the extreme cheap. Illegally, And legally. Hams and legal CB'ers perhaps. But not freebanders. 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". There are many abandoned buildings around. But you are still not allowed to trespass there. I'll reiterate what you already found in google on many occasion,,,,,education is the key. Much like a public park. Nothing like a public park, as breaking the law you speak of (trespass) can result in criminal charges, unlike talking on the freeband. Look at FCC regs again. There are certainly criminal penalties associated with them. Ask your buddy "Bob-noxious" about the criminal penalties associated with pirate radio. This concept has proved nearly impossible for you to grasp. Perhaps it because you so vehemently disagree with the law. Your whole justification revolves around your perception that unless a law has serious, visible teeth, then it doesn't deserve our respect, and we are justified in ignoring it. That is anti-social behavior. They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum to people with a legitimate need. It's no different than government owned land. Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were already taught. Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways that are similar are what I am talking about. But,,,,,,it's not It's a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes for outrageous amounts. If the FCC was not in the position to claim "ownership" of that spectrum, how could they auction it off? By virtue of administration. Auctions are held daily all over the place. They do not own what they auction, but like the FCC, are merely charged with the administering of such. Semantics. No,,facts. You can't call facts you disagree with "semantics". You want to talk about facts? The facts are that the FCC can and does auction off chunks of spectrum to commercial entities to use. They also regulate those chunks. They also set aside some spectrum for "public use". Yes, they administer it, as an arm and representative proxy of the U.S. government. So, while the FCC might not directly "own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does. Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so. Right! On you own land. But venture out on . the public street, and they have all the authority. Same goes for radio. Again,,,,,(sigh),,the analogy of the car is invalid as it can result in criminal charges, while operating on the freeband does not. Yes it can. If you can somehow prevent your signal from escaping the borders of your property (Which is covered by FCC Part 15), you could do what you want. Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law? Pushing which law and in what way? Transmitting, albeit, under the guise of part 15, to a much broader audience than permitted. Well, look into any "low power" pirate broadcaster. Some have tried to claim that their power is legal (even if their antennas are not). Once those signals escape into the public venue, they are under the control of the federal government. How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public broadcast? Most of those situations employ carrier current transmitters which radiate only a short distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby limiting range beyond the intended service area. The biggest uses for this technique is on .college campuses, travel, and road alert systems. Yes,,,but my question remains and is still valid. The reality is that even a carrier current system needs to be authorized by the FCC. So a radio system capable of covering a 2500 acre church camp would need FCC permission to operate. As you know, RF degrades gradually and it is impossible to "brick wall" stop a broadcast at the limits of physical property. But unless you are very close, you will likely not hear a carrier current transmission. Or on an unobstructed waterway with a visual on the proper/transmitter. Another way to look at it, You own your car, but not the roads you drive on. Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars. And administered by the government. You may own your radio, but not the airwaves you broadcast on. Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe. For all practical purposes, yes they do in this country. You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond the confines of your own property. That is what the cb does. Yes, but the authorization to operate a CB is a "privilege", not a "right". You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the government in the proxy of the FCC. This "privilege" is availabe to anyone, so how can it be referred a privilege? **Not true. You have to be a U.S. citizen, and not convicted of other FCC rule violations. Ok,,proverbially "everyone". But it's not "everyone". Even though the CB radio service is authorized by rule, there are still restrictions (albeit small) on its use. It's not a "right", it's a "privilege". *I know you elitist hammies believe this to be true about your ticket, but it simply does not apply to cb, as practically any American citizen is granted the "right" to broadcast, via a cb, simply by ownership of one. This does not exactly equate to any "privilege". Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the rules governing each service, and find out for yourself. Despite the relative ease by which a person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a "right" to do so, it is a privilege granted by the FCC, as the service is authorized by rule, even if a license is not required. And if that law were serious, one would NOT be able to buy, plug and play. What stops an immigrant from using a cb? Nothing,,they all se them in the fruit fields. This is true, the FCC isn't checking the immigration status of every CB operator, and it won't come up unless the person is cited for other rule violations. It's sort of like the seatbelt law in many states. You can't get stopped for it alone, but if you are stopped for another violation, they can cite you for failing to wear a seatbelt at the same time. Again, it seems that you justify ignoring rules based on the unlikelihood of being cited. As a condition of that privilege comes your responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in various FCC parts depending on which service you are using. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right now and have said so on many occasion. Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they should be, and freeload.... er, freebanders get away with trespassing on other government administered frequencies with little chance of getting caught. But that doesn't mean that it's legal or proper. Again, not one person ever made such a claim in all my years of visiting thse pages. Just who is it you are trying to convince? But you guys who are operating illegally are using all sort of excuses to justify or downplay this illegality. The fact that the FCC isn't actively pursuing freebanders, is not a justification or a silent nod allowing you to operate there. They rightly and deservedly go after those they deem the most important and damaging to our hobby. You mean those who project the highest profile, or those who impact operators who paid dearly for the right to use their part of the spectrum. Those who present a direct safety issue. Very few people fall into this category. It is yourself that does not like the "way it is" nor agree with it. Well, that's true. I do wish the FCC had more teeth. They have plenty of teeth. Their bite is interested in chomping away with censorship of television. It's much easier for them to enforce. They don't have to track down anyone. They can administer from their offices. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
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. 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. -- 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. 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"? May the force be with you, Dave! It always has been. 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. What drives that purpose? 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. If the purpose of evolution is gradual improvement or a species, then the "old" should die off as it is replaced by the "new". 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? 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. 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. ......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. But before you start putting the human race on a pedestal, maybe you better think twice about what you assume are the differences between humans and other animals. Are you suggesting that other animal species are capable of possessing similar intellectual capabilities as we have? In some cases certain primate species have displayed social structures which transcend simple instinctive behavior. They have also been observed fashioning crude tools to obtain food. Dolphins and whales seem to communicate with a rudimentary language. But not one other species can do it all, in the same way that we do. snip Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations? It very well might be. It's all part of the bigger plan. Like I said, I totally accept the concepts of evolution. I just believe that the process has been "managed" by a higher order intelligence, the definition of which, has yet to be revealed. I am not advocating any specific religious interpretation of "God", only that one exists. The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of variations that can occur in the processes of evolution. I don't accept the theory that if you place a group of monkeys in a cage with a bunch of typewriters that they'll eventually write every great piece of literary works. 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. 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. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: The politics of science is often more important than the science itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get their names in the journals. There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily the result of man's influence over the environment. In fact there has been clear evidence that this planet has experienced major cyclical climatic changes over the eons. The current warming trend may just be a part of that process, and man's contribution to it may be much less significant than what the environmental alarmists would lead us to believe. How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it -does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts. Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
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. There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for years and years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS. Monogamous doesn't mean act like a slut throughout your "formative" years and then decide to "stay with one person at age 30. 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. Congratulations! Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
Well, that is certainly "YOUR OPINION"--I see little else there...
Interesting you should cram Steven into such a small bottle--where are you lecturing this year--if it will be in a city close--I may come and see what you have to say... Warmest regards, John -- Sit down the six pack--step away!!! ... and go do something... "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... | On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:24:10 -0700, "John Smith" | wrote in | : | | It might surprise you, Steven Hawkings (possibly the greatest mind alive--if | not--close) often refers to "God" when chatting and writing about his | thoughts... I don't know Steven's present stand on the existance of "God", | however, I do NOT think he has claimed his/her/its' existance is | impossible... | | Steven is quite aware of the fact that probability and statistics make it | very hard for evolution to be the sole reason for our state of existance... | | Here is a link to some of his musings and quotes, a search of the net will | provide mo | http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physic...en-Hawking.htm | | | Stephen Hawking could be considered to be the contemporary equivalent | of John Tyndall, a scientist about 100 years ago that was popular | because of his ability to communicate scientific principles to the | masses, but was consistently (and safely) a decade or two behind the | current state of mainstream research. For example, the theory that | matter is composed of spherical waves is nothing new. It was even | proposed (and subsequently ridiculed) in Tyndall's day. There has | always been criticizm of the big-bang theory which, after several | decades, is finally receiving due attention. And the Michelson-Morley | experiment is -only now- getting a second look by the mainstream | scientific community because of attention drawn to the logical fallacy | used by the experimenters to reach their conclusion. Until now their | conclusion was accepted as fact because it was the foundation of | Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, and nobody dared criticize | -that- man despite his own admissions that he might have been wrong. | Which brings us to the -real- problem..... | | The politics of science is often more important than the science | itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of | global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the | environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing | more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get | their names in the journals. And while I may not agree with some of | the currently accepted scientific theories or conclusions, nothing in | science is written in stone -- it is theory that is subject to change | upon new discoveries that are being made all the time, and will | continue to be made as long as there are people who are less than | fully satisfied with the current level of understanding. With that in | mind, it's easy to see how so many profound discoveries were made by | malcontents living under religious authoritarian governments. In my | opinion, there should be a seperation of science and state just like | there is (supposed to be) a seperation of church and state. I think | Galileo might agree with me on that one. | | As to whether life exists by accident or design, feel free to believe | what you want. It's clear that science is far more complex than any | one person can possibly comprehend, so to believe that the Universe | works on purely scientific principles is, like any religion, simply a | matter of faith. I place my faith not just in science, but also in the | logical priciples upon which the scientific process works. The current | state of science may not be perfect but at least it continues to grow | and evolve, seeking deeper understandings of why things are the way | they are, instead of stagnating like so many religious beliefs that | were stalled by the blind acceptance of myths, legends, traditions and | ancient literature. | | How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it | -does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts. | | | | | | | | ----== 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 =---- |
Dave:
You said, "So, while the FCC might not directly "own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does." This is grossly mis-leading!!! The gov't owns NOTHING!!!! They are a group of indivduals who are elected, appointed, and hired to do the citizens business. They have a job to do--if they either cannot or will not do it without becomming self-serving employees--they simply need fired. These public servants, from the president on down, need to be worried about what the citizens of this country need and want--and what the citizens of this country are telling them to do. Just like if I hired an employee to help me in a private business--they are directly answerable to their employers... What the gov't needs to do is set aside a bit of the radio spectrum for use in conducing the citizens business--some for commercial use--some for hobby-expermental use... and the rest IS THE CITIZENS!!!!! Warmest regards, John -- Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... | On Tue, 10 May 2005 16:03:16 -0400, (I | AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: | | (So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no | damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few | paltry bucks..) | | Illegally. Just as there are people who | | trespass on private or otherwise posted land, | | and never get caught either. | | Physical trespass can carry a *criminal* charge..talking on the freeband | can not. | | There are criminal provisions in the communications act of 1934. 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 and societal irresponsibility of engaging in the acts. | | Once again, this is the difference between what constitutes a | criminal act vs a civil act. The penalties are not the same. | | But it's still illegal. | | (shrug),,,,which has -never- been contested by anyone here, yet, for | some curious reason unbeknownst to all but yourself, you have taken it | upon yourself to assume status and annoint yourself some sort of | imaginary right to confront others concerning their non-criminal act. | | The FCC rules do carry criminal as well as civil penalties should they | choose to apply them, if the case warrants it. | | | 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. | | | Ask any cell phone company | owner/administrator. | | Your selection of cell phone admins does not | discount the countless freebanders, cbers or | hammies who play on it for free or on the | extreme cheap. | | Illegally, | | | | And legally. | | Hams and legal CB'ers perhaps. But not freebanders. | | | 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". There are many abandoned buildings | around. But you are still not allowed to trespass there. | | | I'll | reiterate what you already found in google on many | occasion,,,,,education is the key. | | Much like a public park. | | | Nothing like a public park, as breaking the law you speak of (trespass) | can result in criminal charges, unlike talking on the freeband. | | Look at FCC regs again. There are certainly criminal penalties | associated with them. Ask your buddy "Bob-noxious" about the criminal | penalties associated with pirate radio. | | | This | concept has proved nearly impossible for you to grasp. Perhaps it | because you so vehemently disagree with the law. | | Your whole justification revolves around your perception that unless a | law has serious, visible teeth, then it doesn't deserve our respect, | and we are justified in ignoring it. That is anti-social behavior. | | | | They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum | to people with a legitimate need. It's no | different than government owned land. | | Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were | already taught. | | Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways | that are similar are what I am talking about. | | | But,,,,,,it's not | | It's a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of | spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes | for outrageous amounts. If the FCC was not in | the position to claim "ownership" of that | spectrum, how could they auction it off? | | By virtue of administration. Auctions are held daily all over the place. | They do not own what they auction, but like the FCC, are merely charged | with the administering of such. | | Semantics. | | No,,facts. You can't call facts you disagree with "semantics". | | You want to talk about facts? The facts are that the FCC can and does | auction off chunks of spectrum to commercial entities to use. They | also regulate those chunks. They also set aside some spectrum for | "public use". Yes, they administer it, as an arm and representative | proxy of the U.S. government. So, while the FCC might not directly | "own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does. | | | Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate | my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so. | | Right! On you own land. But venture out on . | the public street, and they have all the | authority. Same goes for radio. | | | Again,,,,,(sigh),,the analogy of the car is invalid as it can result in | criminal charges, while operating on the freeband does not. | | Yes it can. | | | If you can somehow prevent your signal from | escaping the borders of your property (Which | is covered by FCC Part 15), you could do | what you want. | | | Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law? | | Pushing which law and in what way? | | Transmitting, albeit, under the guise of part 15, to a much broader | audience than permitted. | | Well, look into any "low power" pirate broadcaster. Some have tried to | claim that their power is legal (even if their antennas are not). | | | Once those signals escape into the public | venue, they are under the control of the | federal government. | | How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over | such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can | tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public | broadcast? | | Most of those situations employ carrier current | transmitters which radiate only a short | distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby | limiting range beyond the intended service | area. The biggest uses for this technique is on | .college campuses, travel, and road alert | systems. | | | Yes,,,but my question remains and is still valid. | | The reality is that even a carrier current system needs to be | authorized by the FCC. So a radio system capable of covering a 2500 | acre church camp would need FCC permission to operate. | | As you know, RF degrades gradually and it is | impossible to "brick wall" stop a broadcast at | the limits of physical property. But unless you | are very close, you will likely not hear a carrier | current transmission. | | | | Or on an unobstructed waterway with a visual on the proper/transmitter. | | Another way to look at it, You own your car, | but not the roads you drive on. | | Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars. | | And administered by the government. | You may own your radio, but not the airwaves | you broadcast on. | | Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe. | | For all practical purposes, yes they do in this | country. | You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond | the confines of your own property. | | That is what the cb does. | | Yes, but the authorization to operate a CB is a | "privilege", not a "right". | You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the | government in the proxy of the FCC. | | This "privilege" is availabe to anyone, so how can it be referred a | privilege? | | Not true. You have to be a U.S. citizen, and | not convicted of other FCC rule violations. | | Ok,,proverbially "everyone". | | But it's not "everyone". Even though the CB radio service is | authorized by rule, there are still restrictions (albeit small) on its | use. It's not a "right", it's a "privilege". | | | I know you elitist hammies believe this to be true about your ticket, | but it simply does not apply to cb, as practically any American citizen | is granted the "right" to broadcast, via a cb, simply by ownership of | one. This does not exactly equate to any "privilege". | | Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the | rules governing each service, and find out for | yourself. Despite the relative ease by which a | person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a | "right" to do so, it is a privilege granted by the | FCC, as the service is authorized by rule, | even if a license is not required. | | | And if that law were serious, one would NOT be able to buy, plug and | play. What stops an immigrant from using a cb? Nothing,,they all se them | in the fruit fields. | | This is true, the FCC isn't checking the immigration status of every | CB operator, and it won't come up unless the person is cited for other | rule violations. It's sort of like the seatbelt law in many states. | You can't get stopped for it alone, but if you are stopped for another | violation, they can cite you for failing to wear a seatbelt at the | same time. | | Again, it seems that you justify ignoring rules based on the | unlikelihood of being cited. | | | As a | condition of that privilege comes your | responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in | various FCC parts depending on which | service you are using. | You may not like it, but that's the way it is. | | Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right | now and have said so on many occasion. | | Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they | should be, and freeload.... er, freebanders get | away with trespassing on other government | administered frequencies with little chance of | getting caught. But that doesn't mean that it's | legal or proper. | | Again, not one person ever made such a claim in all my years of visiting | thse pages. Just who is it you are trying to convince? | | But you guys who are operating illegally are using all sort of excuses | to justify or downplay this illegality. The fact that the FCC isn't | actively pursuing freebanders, is not a justification or a silent nod | allowing you to operate there. | | | They rightly and deservedly go | after those they deem the most important and damaging to our hobby. | | You mean those who project the highest | profile, or those who impact operators who | paid dearly for the right to use their part of the | spectrum. | | Those who present a direct safety issue. | | Very few people fall into this category. | | It | is yourself that does not like the "way it is" nor agree with it. | | Well, that's true. I do wish the FCC had more | teeth. | | They have plenty of teeth. Their bite is interested in chomping away | with censorship of television. | | It's much easier for them to enforce. They don't have to track down | anyone. They can administer from their offices. | | | Dave | "Sandbagger" | http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj | |
On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:13:37 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: Which won't likely happen if you are both monogamous. And virgins. And your point? snip Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens, maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration. Why? Carter's administration has no relevance to this discussion. Sure it does. You made a reference to the Democrats. Yes, that it primarily the left who are spearheading an intensified effort to remove all signs of religion from government processes, even though most have been around since this country was founded. Carter is a Democrat, isn't he? Ok, so he doesn't hold an office right now. But how many Democrats currently holding office are athiests? By their own admissions, not many. Your argument is bogus -- I think Jeanine Garafalo (sp?) had it right: The conservative's definition of 'liberal' is any judge that upholds the law. Or something like that. Jeanine Garafalo is a hopelessly biased liberal on a liberal radio network which is failing miserably. snip There is no mandated "separation of church and state". Only an establishment clause prohibiting a state sponsored religion. Since you refuse to read it yourself, here's that clause from First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Sounds to me like that is a mandate defining the seperation of church and state. No, it's an establishment clause that states (quite plainly) that congress shall not establish an "official" religion, and may not prevent anyone from exercising their own personal religious beliefs. Nowhere can you state accurately that that statement implies that there shall be no religious influences in the day to day operation of the government. Maybe you did read the constitution, but you don't seem to understand it. I think this page says it best: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues Too liberal for ya, huh Dave? Much. They are taking this to an extreme. And here again, you are displaying yet another of your contradictions. You who claim to support the constitution and the wisdom of our forefathers (who were all religious people), yet now advocate that we go above and beyond the definitions called for in the constitution, and to totally eradicate all religious influences from our government, even though they have been intrinsically intertwined in it from the start. What passage have you quoted? Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution? Yes, have you? What passage are you referring? The same passage I have been referring to all along -- Article VI. Since you haven't read it, let me quote if for you, and in full: "All Debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation. "This Constituion, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. You now have no excuse for such stupid questions. You've never participated in a jury trial have you? And how does that diminish the fact that swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning? Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation. No, but it is used in every court case, to "swear in" a witness. Once again you demonstrate your ignorance by talking of things about which you know little or nothing: An oath on the bible is used in every court but not for every person. There are different oaths for different faiths -- there is even an oath for athiests and agnostics. I've never seen any such offering. At least in the court trials that I've been a part of. I imagine if someone made enough of a stink about it, the "PC" police would provide an acceptable substitute. The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly what you claim. Then why is it still being done on a daily basis? Because you watch too much TV. No, I participate in the REAL world. It was added because, at the time, some states had oaths that required the person entering office to declare a belief in God or a "divine inspiration". Such an oath was a "religious test" that was required to qualify for the office, and excluded anyone that didn't share the same religious beliefs. This violated the seperation of church and state, so the clause was added to prohibit such tests, and the office would be available to any citizen -despite- religious beliefs. We're talking about court cases here, not job applications. We're talking about the seperation of church and state. snip If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, Not true. You are not keeping current. http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the rate of marriage: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf You should read the link I posted again. The very first line tells the story. The divorce rate is only 9.6%. You sure did sleep a lot in school. It's clear that you don't understand statistics either. When you're under the gun, you insult your opposition. It's not an elegant debate tactic Frank, and it sure doesn't buy you any points. I don't have Excell (well, I have it, I just don't have it installed because I never used it when I did), so I downloaded the equivalent PDF file: http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.pdf This is nothing but a breakdown of marriage -status-, not the marriage and divorce rates. Marital status is a more accurate reflection of the institution of marriage. You can't calculate marriage and divorce rates from this data for the simple fact that many people are, or have been, married more than once. And some people remain married for 50 years. Once they are married, they are not counted again in "marriage rates" but they still count as a matter of marital status. Marital status gives a much better picture of the state of marriage as it is. You are also ignoring the fact that the divorce rate says nothing by itself. According to the CDC, during the year 2003 there were 7.5 marriages per thousand people. There were also 3.8 divorces per thousand people. This means (to anyone that can handle 5th grade math) that the divorce rate is half (50.7%) the rate of marriage. But that doesn't take into consideration the marriages from previous years who are STILL married, but not counted as a new marriage. And here's the fun part, Dave: Since half of all marriages end in divorce, and if the majority of citizens are right-wing conservative Christians that hold marriage to be a sacred value, then there sure are a lot of hypocrites that call themselves Christians. Half of all marriages do not end in divorce. Only 9.6% of the population is divorced. As for the "tradition" of marriage, remember that the filibuster has been an American tradition for almost 200 years. IOW, you are a hypocrite, Dave. As are you Frank. You're just on the other side of the coin. Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors. It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave. No, it's a logical fallacy. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm You are trying to build an inductive argument using information that only tells one side of the story (and heavily biased in favor of your conclusion). I merely presented some information that you conveniently overlooked. And it so happens that your premise loses almost all of it's weight when -all- the facts are known. But your method is still drawing a false analogy. If the foundation of your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that would affect the value of marriage. Not if they have little in common, other than the idea of marriage itself. The common denominator is the value of marriage. That alone makes such issues relevant to the discussion and exposes your argument as nothing more than an exercise in bigotry. Based on your own hypocritical bias. And that's no different than KKK tactics which use the very same type of lame justifications to defend racism (religion, tradition, morality, etc.). Another false analogy fallacy. You're just full of them. Yet you are whining about it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant factors. So, because there might be other factors which may be more significant, we should ignore the small ones? That's the same sort of twisted logic that freebanders use to justify illegal radio pirating. If what you say were true then CB radio would be all over the news. It isn't. OTOH, opposition to gay marriage -is- all over the news, and that's because of all the attention it's given. If gay marriage is getting all this attention because it threatens the value of marriage then there would be much -greater- attention to the divorce rate (and there would probably be a few right-wing fanatic groups lobbying to outlaw divorce). But, in fact, there -isn't- any political outcry against divorce. Because it's only 9.6% of the population. Your conclusion is erroneous because your premise is flawed. The only reasonable conclusion is that these factions of "Christianity" (at least one of which I'm sure you are a member) are hypocrites that are practicing church-sponsored bigotry. Had enough of the false analogy fallacies, so you've switched to the false dilemma fallacy? Bad is bad no matter how large or small it may be. Well, what's worse, Dave: A couple homos getting married? or a large group of bigots trying to subvert the Constitution under the guise of Christianity? The only people trying to subvert the constitution are left wing liberals who are attempting to derive new meanings from words which the rest of us have understood and upheld for the last 200+ years. The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals. Once again, your chain of logic is based on flawed conclusions based on fallacious logic, and your own internal bias. When will you get it through your thick Republican head that bias has nothing to do with it, Dave? Because it does Frank. Even if you won't admit it (even to yourself). I'm not homo, I don't have any friends that are homo, I don't like "Queer Eye" or "Will & Grace"..... and personally, I find the homosexual lifestyle somewhat repulsive. And you call me a bigot? But there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits two gays from getting married if that's how they get their kicks. There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits you from marrying Dolly the cloned sheep either. But other "rules" would have a problem with it. Your problem is that you see the constitution as the be all and end all of all rules and laws. The constitution does not address each and every life situation that could have been foreseen 200+ years ago. So it's not my place to judge. And that would be even -more- true if I was a Christian, the doctrine being that you should forgive others of their sins (assuming you see homosexuality as a sin), and that judgment should be left to God. It's one thing to forgive sin. It's totally another to condone and encourage further participation in it. A Christian would forgive someone who stole their car. But that doesn't mean the law should be changed to allow theft. You hate gays. No, I don't. If I hated gays, I'd want them exterminated. So do a lot of other people. Big deal. But my "bias" leans towards the Constitution, not my aversion to homosexuality. They have the same rights as me, and I treat them with the same amount of respect that I do anyone else whether I like them or not. So then based on your "faith" in the constitution, you'd have no objection to pedophiles having the right to marry? That's the difference between tolerance and bigotry. I am tolerant. No, you are not. You are a hypocrite. You "tolerate" things you have a personal agreement with or indifference to. But you have little tolerance for those who do not share your viewpoint. The reckless assigning of vitriolic names like "bigot" is proof of that. You are not. You are a bigot. No, I am someone who values traditional morality. snip The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does not mean that a gay marriage should be now. I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical. So we should abandon all moral values now since they may change sometime in the future? Well gee Dave, we probably should, now that you suggested it, huh? That's basically what you are proposing. Once you start down that slippery slope of justifying deviant, abhorrent behavior, it becomes only a matter of subjective degree where you draw the line between acceptance and rejection. Idiot. You are certainly acting like one. snip Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of the gate -- than someone with a lesser education. But YOU will have to prove that. Easy enough. It's called a "diploma". But you will have to go to the pains to prove it. It will not be readily apparent. Perhaps you can wear your diploma on your head so everyone would see it. After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has diminished in value. Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way. Most people will eventually see it that way. I don't think so, Dave. I really think that most people have more smarts than you give them credit for. It's not a matter of smarts, it's a matter of contemporary educational standards. But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'. Yes, but you will have to "educate" those who will quickly forget that. There's no point in trying to educate people who refuse to look at the facts objectively and make reasonable and logical conclusions. The only reason I continue to try is because you aren't the only person reading my posts. And it's nice to know that your ignorance is being recorded for posterity. My "ignorance" is only a matter of your bigoted intolerance and bias and manifested by your pompous arrogance. snip Then settle for a good analogy. The one you presented was not a good comparison for the reasons I gave. I'll consider a good analogy when you provide a good reason. Always an excuse...... How you feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own marriage. It just might. No, it won't. And when you make your next regular visit to your doctor, tell him that you want to back off the dosage on those anti-depressants. More personal insults. You really are losing this debate..... Excuses excuses.......... Financial responsibilities, time that could be used more productively. Like in a more gainful job than tending bar........ ........ If you cut in half the time you waste on the computer and spent that extra time reading the Constitution you could probably cut in half the time you waste on the computer. I've read the constitution many times over. We spent a whole course in high school studying it. There is NOTHING that you can tell me about the constitution. But I'll admit, I find it amusing that you try. The time I spend on the computer is minuscule. When you are parked on a T1 line, you can take breaks and drink a cup or two between tasks while getting a little entertainment. And I don't have to mix drinks or smell cigarettes and bad breath doing it. So if you want to start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other crap you use to water down the topics. I water down the topics? Pointing out your own intolerance and hypocrisy is very much pertinent to the discussion as it becomes testimony as to your objectivity and credibility on this subject. Sounds great! So when do you plan to implement your new policy? What new policy? Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good, Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable. Even if it's bad? Moron. What's the matter Frank? Are you that incapable of participating in an open discussion that challenges your preconceived notions? You thrive on being publically disgraced, don't you? No, I thrive on making you disgrace yourself. inevitable -- [ Latin, 'in', not + 'evitabilis', avoidable] that which cannot be avoided; certain to happen. I am fully aware of the definition of the word Frank. Don't patronize me. I challenge the notion that change is inevitable. What you are embracing is the idea of predetermination. Something I would not expect from a existential atheist. If we can effect change, should we not have the responsibility to prevent change that would promote demoralization? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 10 May 2005 16:03:16 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: (So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few paltry bucks..) Illegally. Just as there are people who trespass on private or otherwise posted land, and never get caught either. Physical trespass can carry a *criminal* charge..talking on the freeband can not. There are criminal provisions in the communications act of 1934. We are speaking of freebanders on the eleven meter band. 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. and 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? =A0Once again, this is the difference between what constitutes a criminal act vs a civil act. The penalties are not the same. But it's still illegal. (shrug),,,,which has -never- been contested by anyone here, yet, for some curious reason unbeknownst to all but yourself, you have taken it upon yourself to assume status and annoint yourself some sort of imaginary right to confront others concerning their non-criminal act. 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. _ 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,,a 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? Ask any cell phone company owner/administrator. Your selection of cell phone admins does not discount the countless freebanders, cbers or hammies who play on it for free or on the extreme cheap. Illegally, And legally. Hams and legal CB'ers perhaps. But not freebanders. Yuh,, 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. 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, etc. See above for examples of a form of citizen eminent domain. _ I'll reiterate what you already found in google on many occasion,,,,,education is the key. Much like a public park. Nothing like a public park, as breaking the law you speak of (trespass) can result in criminal charges, unlike talking on the freeband. Look at FCC regs again. There are certainly criminal penalties associated with them. There is,,,but not with simple dx or freebanding. Ask your buddy "Bob-noxious" about the criminal penalties associated with pirate radio. Another realm. _ This concept has proved nearly impossible for you to grasp. Perhaps it because you so vehemently disagree with the law. Your whole justification revolves around your perception that unless a law has serious, visible teeth, then it doesn't deserve our respect, and we are justified in ignoring it. What justification? The fact that you continue to incorrectly claim I justified anything over the years has dogged you. That is anti-social behavior. So is the behavior of sports fanatics and religious zealots, both a very real part of the fabric that weaves America. But most people understand tolerance is a necessary gem to a successful America and certain acts are placed in to proper perspective by the majority...a perfect example is the majority of the populace do not consider speeders "criminals" like yourself. They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum to people with a legitimate need. It's no different than government owned land. Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were already taught. .Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways that are similar are what I am talking about. But,,,,,,it's not. It's a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes for outrageous amounts. If the FCC was not in the position to claim "ownership" of that spectrum, how could they auction it off? By virtue of administration. Auctions are held daily all over the place. They do not own what they auction, but like the FCC, are merely charged with the administering of such. Semantics. No,,facts. You can't call facts you disagree with "semantics". You want to talk about facts? The facts are that the FCC can and does auction off chunks of spectrum to commercial entities to use. They also regulate those chunks. They also set aside some spectrum for "public use". Yes, they administer it, as an arm and representative proxy of the U.S. government. Who is charged with administering what belongs to the public via their tax dollars. Not much different than an auction. So, while the FCC might not directly "own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does. Nope. The citizens of the US "own" the airwaves by virtue of their tax dollars paying for all that is related to it. _ Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so. Right! On you own land. But venture out on . the public street, and they have all the authority. Same goes for radio. Again,,,,,(sigh),,the analogy of the car is invalid as it can result in criminal charges, while operating on the freeband does not. Yes it can. Only when combined with other acts. If you feel simple freebanding (the context of which we speak) carries criminal charges, feel free to cite the passage or an example,,even one. If you can somehow prevent your signal from escaping the borders of your property (Which is covered by FCC Part 15), you could do what you want. Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law? Pushing which law and in what way? Transmitting, albeit, under the guise of part 15, to a much broader audience than permitted. Well, look into any "low power" pirate broadcaster. Some have tried to claim that their power is legal (even if their antennas are not). Once one is pirating, any legal guise under Part 15 vanishes. Once those signals escape into the public venue, they are under the control of the federal government. How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public broadcast? Most of those situations employ carrier current transmitters which radiate only a short distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby limiting range beyond the intended service area. The biggest uses for this technique is on .college campuses, travel, and road alert systems. Yes,,,but my question remains and is still valid. The reality is that even a carrier current system needs to be authorized by the FCC. So a radio system capable of covering a 2500 acre church camp would need FCC permission to operate. Sure,,,,,but again,,,if one was to zero in and receive the signal from property not owned by the entity transmitting under Part 15, what then? Isn't this a technical violation? As you know, RF degrades gradually and it is impossible to "brick wall" stop a broadcast at the limits of physical property. But unless you are very close, you will likely not hear a carrier current transmission. Or on an unobstructed waterway with a visual on the proper/transmitter. .Another way to look at it, You own your car, but not the roads you drive on. Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars. And administered by the government. You may own your radio, but not the airwaves you broadcast on. Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe. For all practical purposes, yes they do in this country. You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond the confines of your own property. That is what the cb does. Yes, but the authorization to operate a CB is a "privilege", not a "right". You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the government in the proxy of the FCC. This "privilege" is availabe to anyone, so how can it be referred a privilege? =A0=A0Not true. You have to be a U.S. citizen, and not convicted of other FCC rule violations. Ok,,proverbially "everyone". But it's not "everyone". Even though the CB radio service is authorized by rule, there are still restrictions (albeit small) on its use. It's not a "right", it's a "privilege". =A0 I know you elitist hammies believe this to be true about your ticket, but it simply does not apply to cb, as practically any American citizen is granted the "right" to broadcast, via a cb, simply by ownership of one. This does not exactly equate to any "privilege". Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the rules governing each service, and find out for yourself. Despite the relative ease by which a person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a "right" to do so, it is a privilege granted by the FCC, as the service is authorized by rule, even if a license is not required. And if that law were serious, one would NOT be able to buy, plug and play. What stops an immigrant from using a cb? Nothing,,they all se them in the fruit fields. This is true, the FCC isn't checking the immigration status of every CB operator, The immigration use was but one example. There are countless more of how anyone can use a cb simply by purchasing one off the shelf or from anotehr party. and it won't come up unless the person is cited for other rule violations. It's sort of like the seatbelt law in many states. You can't get stopped for it alone, but if you are stopped for another violation, they can cite you for failing to wear a seatbelt at the same time. Yea,,well they just changed the law here,,they can pull one over for not wearing it,,it's no longer a secondary offense (in Fl) , but a primary offense. Again, it seems that you justify ignoring rules based on the unlikelihood of being cited. When I began selectively ignoring specific rules for a specific purpose (which happens to be THE definition of civil disobedience), most weren't even aware such rules existed, which nullifies any possible position presented by yourself regarding ignoring rules on the unlikelihood of not being cited. In fact, when cbers were sliding up one or in between to "channel 22a", most had no clue it was illegal. As a condition of that privilege comes your responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in various FCC parts depending on which service you are using. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right now and have said so on many occasion. Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they should be, The country disagrees with you, simply by virtue of what the FCC enforces. and freeload.... er, freebanders get away with trespassing on other government administered frequencies with little chance of getting caught. Because it's ractically a non-issue with the majority of Americans. But that doesn't mean that it's legal or proper. Again, not one person ever made such a claim in all my years of visiting thse pages. Just who is it you are trying to convince? But you guys who are operating illegally are using all sort of excuses to justify or downplay this illegality. Then you should have no problem illustrating substance concerning your accusations, but you have failed to do so to date regarding any of these "guys" you incorrectly invoke. The fact that the FCC isn't actively pursuing freebanders, is not a justification or a silent nod allowing you to operate there. They rightly and deservedly go after those they deem the most important and damaging to our hobby. You mean those who project the highest profile, or those who impact operators who paid dearly for the right to use their part of the spectrum. Those who present a direct safety issue. Very few people fall into this category. All hammies who jam repeaters and talk where they are not permitted (on the hammie band) fall into this category. It is yourself that does not like the "way it is" nor agree with it. Well, that's true. I do wish the FCC had more teeth. They have plenty of teeth. Their bite is interested in chomping away with censorship of television. It's much easier for them to enforce. Actually, the hammies are much easier to enforce. They don't have to track down anyone. "Tracking down" in the manner you believe is a thing of the past. The High Frequency Directional Finder in Laurel, Maryland pinpoints transmissions anywhere in the country immediately with no effort. Ask Scott about it. They can administer from their offices. Yet,,they choose not to concerning all but those deemed the most important regarding enforcement. Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj |
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. _ =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. 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. _ 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. Your claim that monogamy decreases the chance of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past history. 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 een 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. 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. Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj |
|
|
What is wrong with correcting the law... instead of applying patches to a
worn out system? Write your congressman today!!! Most of these ancient institutions and methods were created when people were still afraid of electricity--thought it took a genius to use radio--INDEED--the ignorant masses viewed radio as almost "Magic!" Times have changed, kids run 10 watt Ghz transmitters on 2100 Mhz and tear up business wireless networks for miles--important business and public communications are affected--these kids need an outlet for their energies.... The world has changed drastically--the laws still reflect stoneage beliefs and structure... Warmest regards, John -- Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something... "I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message ... From: (Dave Hall) Yes, that it primarily the left who are spearheading an intensified effort to remove all signs of religion from government processes, even though most have been around since this country was founded. So has crime. What is wrong with seeking to remove that of which the law clearly defines? You are one of the most vocal in this group to redundantly invoke that just because something is practiced far and wide doesn't make it legal or right,,,,but of course, it does when you agree with it. |
Oh no, he is nothing special alright... I imagine your IQ has been tested
and blows him away... 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 hold many as close personal friends--the rich exchange you have with them keeps you quite up to date--I can tell from your text... Nope, no one would ever confuse you with an "Arm-Chair-Genius." Warmest regards, John -- Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something... "I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message ... From: (John Smith) Well, that is certainly "YOUR OPINION"--I see little else there... Interesting you should cram Steven into such a small bottle--where are you lecturing this year--if it will be in a city close--I may come and see what you have to say... Warmest regards, John -- Sit down the six pack--step away!!! ... and go do something... _ He was a novelty in the eighties, but is nowhere near those who are considered tops in the field these days. He is no longer the "go to" guy regarding space philosophy and astro physics. The guy is more a cultural icon than definitive authority on any matter. |
On Wed, 11 May 2005 06:40:20 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Dave: You said, "So, while the FCC might not directly "own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does." This is grossly mis-leading!!! The gov't owns NOTHING!!!! Well then they are certainly operating as if they do. They collect the proceeds from spectrum auctions. That makes the government a de-facto owner of this commodity. They are a group of indivduals who are elected, appointed, and hired to do the citizens business. They have a job to do--if they either cannot or will not do it without becomming self-serving employees--they simply need fired. Evidently the "citizens",collectively, do not see the problem with the FCC administering the airwaves in the manner than they currently do. These public servants, from the president on down, need to be worried about what the citizens of this country need and want--and what the citizens of this country are telling them to do. By and large, the citizens are not screaming for mass chunks of radio spectrum to use. Just like if I hired an employee to help me in a private business--they are directly answerable to their employers... What the gov't needs to do is set aside a bit of the radio spectrum for use in conducing the citizens business--some for commercial use--some for hobby-expermental use... and the rest IS THE CITIZENS!!!!! To do what with? Besides, after you divide up the spectrum between legitimate commercial services (which are usually available to the citizens as in cell phone and wireless internet), public services (police, fire, EMS etc.) government entities (FBI, USGS, Forest service, military etc.) and hobby use (Ham and CB), there isn't much left. That's why the FCC operates as it does. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
Well, yeah, property is pretty scarce out there .5 Mhz to tens or hundreds
of Ghz... hardly a spare megahertz anywhere... and yeah, a quick tune across just a 30 Mhz sw is proof this is all in use and quite congested... ....but, I don't think so... and the citizens do own the spectrum--even if a dicatator claims it in a foreign land--he is mistaken--and even if a whole gov't claims it--they are mistaken... even if the public servants of the USA think it is theirs--they are mistaken... Really, this truth is so obivious I can't even imagine anyone arguing it... although some may hold "religious views" on it, or be willing to wage "holy wars" over it to serve their self-serving reasons, beliefs... Warmest regards, John -- Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... | On Wed, 11 May 2005 06:40:20 -0700, "John Smith" | wrote: | | Dave: | | You said, "So, while the FCC might not directly | "own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does." | | This is grossly mis-leading!!! The gov't owns NOTHING!!!! | | Well then they are certainly operating as if they do. They collect the | proceeds from spectrum auctions. That makes the government a de-facto | owner of this commodity. | | | They are a group | of indivduals who are elected, appointed, and hired to do the citizens | business. They have a job to do--if they either cannot or will not do it | without becomming self-serving employees--they simply need fired. | | Evidently the "citizens",collectively, do not see the problem with the | FCC administering the airwaves in the manner than they currently do. | | These public servants, from the president on down, need to be worried about | what the citizens of this country need and want--and what the citizens of | this country are telling them to do. | | By and large, the citizens are not screaming for mass chunks of radio | spectrum to use. | | | Just like if I hired an employee to help me in a private business--they are | directly answerable to their employers... | | What the gov't needs to do is set aside a bit of the radio spectrum for use | in conducing the citizens business--some for commercial use--some for | hobby-expermental use... and the rest IS THE CITIZENS!!!!! | | To do what with? Besides, after you divide up the spectrum between | legitimate commercial services (which are usually available to the | citizens as in cell phone and wireless internet), public services | (police, fire, EMS etc.) government entities (FBI, USGS, Forest | service, military etc.) and hobby use (Ham and CB), there isn't much | left. | | That's why the FCC operates as it does. | | Dave | "Sandbagger" | http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:06:41 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Tue, 10 May 2005 16:03:16 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: (So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few paltry bucks..) Illegally. Just as there are people who trespass on private or otherwise posted land, and never get caught either. Physical trespass can carry a *criminal* charge..talking on the freeband can not. There are criminal provisions in the communications act of 1934. We are speaking of freebanders on the eleven meter band. Who are radio pirates, operating unauthorized radio transmitters. The provisions in the communications act of 1934 do not differentiate which bands unauthorized transmitters can incur criminal penalties. 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. 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. and societal irresponsibility of engaging in the acts. * 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. 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 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,,a 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, and I cannot do that. I have, on occasion, prevented speeding by paralleling someone in the right lane holding the legal speed limit. Besides, speeding is not a criminal offense, it's a simple summary offense. What it may or may not lead to is irrelevant, and calls for speculation. 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. I wonder if someone has tried that tactic on the FCC in regard to the freeband area of 11 meters. The principle is similar. 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. See above for examples of a form of citizen eminent domain. Yes, and I'm waiting to see someone attempt to use this reasoning to obtain the legal authorization of the freeband _ I'll reiterate what you already found in google on many occasion,,,,,education is the key. Much like a public park. Nothing like a public park, as breaking the law you speak of (trespass) can result in criminal charges, unlike talking on the freeband. Look at FCC regs again. There are certainly criminal penalties associated with them. There is,,,but not with simple dx or freebanding. Again, the regs do not differentiate which bands will carry those criminal penalties for unauthorized use. Simple dx on the legal 40 channels is a nothing citation. But couple it with running on unauthorized freqs, and the severity increases. The only thing you have in your favor is that the FCC is not motivated enough to do much about it. It's not that it's any less illegal, it's only that they don't care enough. Ask your buddy "Bob-noxious" about the criminal penalties associated with pirate radio. Another realm. No, it's not. Not in principle. The only thing that's different is that Bob's visibility to commercial (paying) interests is what forces the FCC to pay closer attention. _ This concept has proved nearly impossible for you to grasp. Perhaps it because you so vehemently disagree with the law. Your whole justification revolves around your perception that unless a law has serious, visible teeth, then it doesn't deserve our respect, and we are justified in ignoring it. What justification? The fact that you continue to incorrectly claim I justified anything over the years has dogged you. Then what would you call it. When you claim that freebanding is a simple infraction, that's a justification. Would you still freeband if the FCC actively pursued freebanders and fined them heavily? That is anti-social behavior. So is the behavior of sports fanatics and religious zealots, both a very real part of the fabric that weaves America. In what way? But most people understand tolerance is a necessary gem to a successful America and certain acts are placed into proper perspective by the majority...a perfect example is the majority of the populace do not consider speeders "criminals" like yourself. I don't either. Speeding is not a criminal offense. I never stated otherwise. You were the one who compared speeders to "real" criminals a few lines above, not me. No,,facts. You can't call facts you disagree with "semantics". You want to talk about facts? The facts are that the FCC can and does auction off chunks of spectrum to commercial entities to use. They also regulate those chunks. They also set aside some spectrum for "public use". Yes, they administer it, as an arm and representative proxy of the U.S. government. Who is charged with administering what belongs to the public via their tax dollars. Not much different than an auction. Then why is the public not seeing the proceeds of these sales? So, while the FCC might not directly "own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does. Nope. The citizens of the US "own" the airwaves by virtue of their tax dollars paying for all that is related to it. I would argue that the sale of that same bandwidth pays for much of the FCC's budget. Only when combined with other acts. If you feel simple freebanding (the context of which we speak) carries criminal charges, feel free to cite the passage or an example,,even one. What is "simple" freebanding? Again, I refer you to the com act of 1934 and associated regulations regarding unauthorized transmitters. Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law? Pushing which law and in what way? Transmitting, albeit, under the guise of part 15, to a much broader audience than permitted. Well, look into any "low power" pirate broadcaster. Some have tried to claim that their power is legal (even if their antennas are not). Once one is pirating, any legal guise under Part 15 vanishes. You can legally operate a part 15 transmitter on the broadcast band. I built one such transmitter when I was a kid. But the antenna restrictions specified no longer than a 5 foot wire. I could hear my "station" up to about a block away. How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public broadcast? Most of those situations employ carrier current transmitters which radiate only a short distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby limiting range beyond the intended service area. The biggest uses for this technique is on .college campuses, travel, and road alert systems. Yes,,,but my question remains and is still valid. The reality is that even a carrier current system needs to be authorized by the FCC. So a radio system capable of covering a 2500 acre church camp would need FCC permission to operate. Sure,,,,,but again,,,if one was to zero in and receive the signal from property not owned by the entity transmitting under Part 15, what then? Isn't this a technical violation? That depends on the circumstances. An authorized carrier current station operating within the technical requirements is not responsible for incidental radiation beyond it's physical boundaries. Cordless phones are part 15 devices, yet they can carry beyond your property lines. Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the rules governing each service, and find out for yourself. Despite the relative ease by which a person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a "right" to do so, it is a privilege granted by the FCC, as the service is authorized by rule, even if a license is not required. And if that law were serious, one would NOT be able to buy, plug and play. What stops an immigrant from using a cb? Nothing,,they all se them in the fruit fields. This is true, the FCC isn't checking the immigration status of every CB operator, The immigration use was but one example. There are countless more of how anyone can use a cb simply by purchasing one off the shelf or from anotehr party. Well, that's a big glaring example of how reality can defy or obstruct the rules. The fact that this happens does not diminish the letter of the law. One could say that the presence of a law which is unenforceable is grounds for its revocation. Maybe that time is now. and it won't come up unless the person is cited for other rule violations. It's sort of like the seatbelt law in many states. You can't get stopped for it alone, but if you are stopped for another violation, they can cite you for failing to wear a seatbelt at the same time. Yea,,well they just changed the law here,,they can pull one over for not wearing it,,it's no longer a secondary offense (in Fl) , but a primary offense. I believe that's true in Pa, as well now. But it's still secondary in other states. Again, it seems that you justify ignoring rules based on the unlikelihood of being cited. When I began selectively ignoring specific rules for a specific purpose (which happens to be THE definition of civil disobedience), most weren't even aware such rules existed, which nullifies any possible position presented by yourself regarding ignoring rules on the unlikelihood of not being cited. In fact, when cbers were sliding up one or in between to "channel 22a", most had no clue it was illegal. I have a hard time believing that these bright, intelligent CB operators would be so ignorant as to the legality of what they were doing. In any case, ignorance of the law is no excuse. In those days, as a condition of your CB license (You did have a license right?), it was required that you read and understand the part 95 rule book. You couldn't plead ignorance, without opening yourself to the charge of making a false statement on your license registration form. No one in my area ever believed that sliding through channels outside of the 23 standard channels was in any way legal. We took our chances based on the unlikelihood of getting popped. Had there been more busts, most of us would have been too scared to venture out of band. In fact there were regular rumors that the FCC was "in town" and many of us toned down our antics, hid the amps in the garage, and stayed on the legal channels, at least until the "alert" passed. The point being that we all knew exactly what we were doing then. As a condition of that privilege comes your responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in various FCC parts depending on which service you are using. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right now and have said so on many occasion. Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they should be, The country disagrees with you, simply by virtue of what the FCC enforces. No, the FCC disagrees with me. The last time I looked, the rank and file citizen has no input on what the FCC considers a priority. and freeload.... er, freebanders get away with trespassing on other government administered frequencies with little chance of getting caught. Because it's ractically a non-issue with the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans forgot about CB radio when Burt Reynold's hair turned gray, and computers and cell phones satiated their gadget fix. But you guys who are operating illegally are using all sort of excuses to justify or downplay this illegality. Then you should have no problem illustrating substance concerning your accusations, but you have failed to do so to date regarding any of these "guys" you incorrectly invoke. What substance do you want? Do you deny that people other than you operate illegally, and don't care about it? Those who present a direct safety issue. Very few people fall into this category. All hammies who jam repeaters and talk where they are not permitted (on the hammie band) fall into this category. How does jamming a repeater create a safety issue? how do illegal freebanding hams create a safety issue over than of illegal CB freebanders (As if there really is a difference?) They have plenty of teeth. Their bite is interested in chomping away with censorship of television. It's much easier for them to enforce. Actually, the hammies are much easier to enforce. Not really. they still have to physically identify the illegal operator. That means moving beyond the confines of their cushy offices. "Tracking down" in the manner you believe is a thing of the past. The High Frequency Directional Finder in Laurel, Maryland pinpoints transmissions anywhere in the country immediately with no effort. Ask Scott about it. If true, then your buddy "Bob" should be dropping loads in his pants right now. You cannot pinpoint transmissions from a single point. It requires at least 3 points to do with any accuracy. Why do you think there are so many GPS satellites in position in order to find a precise bearing? There was a rumor a few years back, and in fact I knew a guy who once claimed to work on this system, where the GPS satellites could be made to work "in reverse" and pinpoint any radio transmission emanating from earth with the same accuracy as a GPS. But I cannot verify this. Dave "Sandbagger" j |
On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:38:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) Yes, that it primarily the left who are spearheading an intensified effort to remove all signs of religion from government processes, even though most have been around since this country was founded. So has crime. What is wrong with seeking to remove that of which the law clearly defines? Nothing, if that's indeed the case. But those religious influences are adorned all over our government buildings and in our government business. Why is it only now do certain people find exception to it? You are one of the most vocal in this group to redundantly invoke that just because something is practiced far and wide doesn't make it legal or right,,,,but of course, it does when you agree with it. When it's not illegal, I agree with it. The fact is that despite recent misinterpretations of the establishment clause in the constitution by left wing zealots, we have had religious influences in our government from the very beginning. I would argue that it was those influences which made this country one of strong moral and ethical principles. It's no coincidence that the decline in governmental ethics and morality correspond with efforts to eradicate religious influences from our lives. There was once a day when democrats and republicans practiced a little thing called compromise. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:29:58 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) 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. * 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. 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. There is nothing honorable or otherwise noteworthy about becoming sexually active in your teenaged years, despite the image that the major media outlets try to paint to those overly impressionable teenagers. _ *There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for years and years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS. Which means nothing if you've never been exposed to it. 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. 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. 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. Your 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. 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. 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. 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 ;-) 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. Those who contract the disease have only themselves, by virtue of their activities, to blame in most cases. I am quite certain that my risk of contracting AIDS is less than my chances of getting hit by a meteor. I am far more concerned with cancer and heart disease as these pose a much greater risk to the members of my family. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 11 May 2005 09:45:42 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:13:37 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: Which won't likely happen if you are both monogamous. And virgins. And your point? My point is that you are an idiot if you think AIDS is limited to sinners. snip Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens, maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration. Why? Carter's administration has no relevance to this discussion. Sure it does. You made a reference to the Democrats. Yes, that it primarily the left who are spearheading an intensified effort to remove all signs of religion from government processes, even though most have been around since this country was founded. Like I said befo Better late than never. But if you want to know why -now- instead of 20 or 100 years ago, just take a look at the demographics of the Republican base. They have turned their party into the "unofficial" party of the conservative Christians because it's an easy crowd, and they are trying to make every election a vote about religious convictions instead of government issues. The idea is certainly creative, but it will eventually fail because people don't want the government meddling with their religious freedoms. Carter is a Democrat, isn't he? Ok, so he doesn't hold an office right now. But how many Democrats currently holding office are athiests? By their own admissions, not many. Your argument is bogus -- I think Jeanine Garafalo (sp?) had it right: The conservative's definition of 'liberal' is any judge that upholds the law. Or something like that. Jeanine Garafalo is a hopelessly biased liberal on a liberal radio network which is failing miserably. True on both counts. But her statement was still accurate. snip There is no mandated "separation of church and state". Only an establishment clause prohibiting a state sponsored religion. Since you refuse to read it yourself, here's that clause from First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Sounds to me like that is a mandate defining the seperation of church and state. No, it's an establishment clause that states (quite plainly) that congress shall not establish an "official" religion, That's only part of the scope. Read it again: The Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws that would -respect- any religion. More specifically, they can't help create a religious institution, nor can they prevent them from existing. If some people want to establish a religion that worships Satan, or Baal, or even Thomas Edison, there's nothing the government can do to about it one way or another. THAT'S what it means. And that -includes- prohibiting Congress from making the US an "unofficial" Christian state whether it be by tradition or by majority. Seperation of church and state is the -only- way to preserve the right of religious freedom for everyone, and the First Amendment does exactly that. and may not prevent anyone from exercising their own personal religious beliefs. At least you got -that- part right. Nowhere can you state accurately that that statement implies that there shall be no religious influences in the day to day operation of the government. Influence is not law, nor is it a majority vote (as exampled on a regular basis by corporate lobbyists and SIGs). Maybe you did read the constitution, but you don't seem to understand it. I think this page says it best: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues Too liberal for ya, huh Dave? Much. They are taking this to an extreme. And here again, you are displaying yet another of your contradictions. You who claim to support the constitution and the wisdom of our forefathers (who were all religious people), All of them? Careful, Dave..... yet now advocate that we go above and beyond the definitions called for in the constitution, and to totally eradicate all religious influences from our government, even though they have been intrinsically intertwined in it from the start. Despite the horrendous grammatical construction of your claim, what part of the Constitution requires, or even -suggests-, that religious influence should play any role in the government? There is ONLY ONE reference that could even come -close- to what you claim, and that would be in the final Article, where the date of its ratification is written as "...the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord...". That's quite a stretch, Dave. What passage have you quoted? Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution? Yes, have you? What passage are you referring? The same passage I have been referring to all along -- Article VI. Since you haven't read it, let me quote if for you, and in full: "All Debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation. "This Constituion, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. You now have no excuse for such stupid questions. You've never participated in a jury trial have you? As a matter of fact I have. I have been sworn as a juror twice, a few times as a witness, four times as a complaintant, and even a couple times as a defendant. I also swore an oath when I enlisted. And every time I took an oath it was an oath that was administered to atheists. Usually, the phrase "so help me God" is replaced by something along the lines of, "under penalty of perjury in the State of so-and-so", or something along those lines. I have also heard Jews and Muslims take oaths that are different than those taken by people calling themselves Christians. And if -you- haven't heard these oaths then -you- haven't spent much time in a -real- courtroom. So get your face out of the TV and learn about the -real- world instead of accepting as fact anything you see or hear on "CSI Fargo", "Jury Crossing" or whatever Hollywood rendition of 'forensics' you waste your time watching. And how does that diminish the fact that swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning? Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation. No, but it is used in every court case, to "swear in" a witness. Once again you demonstrate your ignorance by talking of things about which you know little or nothing: An oath on the bible is used in every court but not for every person. There are different oaths for different faiths -- there is even an oath for athiests and agnostics. I've never seen any such offering. At least in the court trials that I've been a part of. I imagine if someone made enough of a stink about it, the "PC" police would provide an acceptable substitute. Unless you are an idiot and are handling your case pro-se, you will be called by an attorney who will ask you, prior to the hearing, if you have any problem with swearing an oath on the Bible. That's his/her job. Even in small claims court where you don't have an attorney, the court gives you an instruction pamphlet that tells you about different oaths that are used depending on your religious beliefs; all you have to do is mention it to the court clerk and they will give you the appropriate oath. No "stink" required. The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly what you claim. Then why is it still being done on a daily basis? Because you watch too much TV. No, I participate in the REAL world. That's why you don't know **** about what happens in a REAL courtroom, huh? snip If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, Not true. You are not keeping current. http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the rate of marriage: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf You should read the link I posted again. The very first line tells the story. The divorce rate is only 9.6%. You sure did sleep a lot in school. It's clear that you don't understand statistics either. When you're under the gun, you insult your opposition. It's not an elegant debate tactic Frank, and it sure doesn't buy you any points. I don't have Excell (well, I have it, I just don't have it installed because I never used it when I did), so I downloaded the equivalent PDF file: http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.pdf This is nothing but a breakdown of marriage -status-, not the marriage and divorce rates. Marital status is a more accurate reflection of the institution of marriage. You can't calculate marriage and divorce rates from this data for the simple fact that many people are, or have been, married more than once. And some people remain married for 50 years. Once they are married, they are not counted again in "marriage rates" but they still count as a matter of marital status. Marital status gives a much better picture of the state of marriage as it is. You really -are- an idiot, aren't you? Heck, and I thought I was just being snotty..... I made the statement that "nearly half of all marriages end in divorce". This is easily verified by any kid that watched two or more episodes of Sesame Street: Compare the marriage rate to the divorce rate. If you have 100 marriages and 50 of them end because of divorce, it is obvious -- even to the most casual observer -- that half of those marriages ended in divorce. What the marriage status data -can't- tell is the number of times a person gets married in a given year, or the number of people who are married and divorced within the same year. But I would really like to see how you divined a 9.6% divorce rate from that data -- it should be good for a laugh. You are also ignoring the fact that the divorce rate says nothing by itself. According to the CDC, during the year 2003 there were 7.5 marriages per thousand people. There were also 3.8 divorces per thousand people. This means (to anyone that can handle 5th grade math) that the divorce rate is half (50.7%) the rate of marriage. But that doesn't take into consideration the marriages from previous years who are STILL married, but not counted as a new marriage. If people married in previous years have a lower rate of divorce then the divorce rate is -higher- among recent marriages. Or vice-versa. The figures are still valid no matter how you slice it -- half of all marriages end up in divorce. Period. And here's the fun part, Dave: Since half of all marriages end in divorce, and if the majority of citizens are right-wing conservative Christians that hold marriage to be a sacred value, then there sure are a lot of hypocrites that call themselves Christians. Half of all marriages do not end in divorce. Only 9.6% of the population is divorced. Let's assume for a moment that your figure is accurate: Ok, then what percentage of the population is still married? And how did you calculate those numbers? As for the "tradition" of marriage, remember that the filibuster has been an American tradition for almost 200 years. IOW, you are a hypocrite, Dave. As are you Frank. You're just on the other side of the coin. I knew you couldn't address that statement directly, but I -didn't- think you would toss it off with a comment so abstractly stupid as "You're just on the other side of the coin". Shame on me. Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors. It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave. No, it's a logical fallacy. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm You are trying to build an inductive argument using information that only tells one side of the story (and heavily biased in favor of your conclusion). I merely presented some information that you conveniently overlooked. And it so happens that your premise loses almost all of it's weight when -all- the facts are known. But your method is still drawing a false analogy. My method didn't "draw" -any- analogies. Or don't you even know the definition of 'analogy'? If the foundation of your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that would affect the value of marriage. Not if they have little in common, other than the idea of marriage itself. The common denominator is the value of marriage. That alone makes such issues relevant to the discussion and exposes your argument as nothing more than an exercise in bigotry. Based on your own hypocritical bias. Based on the facts. The fact is that the Bible (God) not only allows polygamy, but quite literally -encourages- taking of more than one wife -as well as- ****ing any receptive concubines. That "tradition" dates back to well before Abraham and continues to this day in many cultures, including some factions of Christianity. That's a fact, -not- the product of my "hypocritical bias". And that's no different than KKK tactics which use the very same type of lame justifications to defend racism (religion, tradition, morality, etc.). Another false analogy fallacy. You're just full of them. Nothing false about it. You wear the same feathers. You can take any of your arguments, substitute the word "gay marriage" for "******", and you sound just like a klansman without a pillow-case hiding his face. Yet you are whining about it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant factors. So, because there might be other factors which may be more significant, we should ignore the small ones? That's the same sort of twisted logic that freebanders use to justify illegal radio pirating. If what you say were true then CB radio would be all over the news. It isn't. OTOH, opposition to gay marriage -is- all over the news, and that's because of all the attention it's given. If gay marriage is getting all this attention because it threatens the value of marriage then there would be much -greater- attention to the divorce rate (and there would probably be a few right-wing fanatic groups lobbying to outlaw divorce). But, in fact, there -isn't- any political outcry against divorce. Because it's only 9.6% of the population. Your conclusion is erroneous because your premise is flawed. Your statistics are flawed, and so is your argument: If all of those alleged 9.6% divorcees were Christians (which they are not, but let's assume for the moment that they are), then that's at least 9.6% of the church that doesn't value marriage as much as you claim. OTOH, if all those 9.6% are -not- Christians then that's a significant chunk of the -rest- of the population that doesn't share your concerns. Either way, if 9.6% of the population were rapists or arsonists, you can bet that there would be a HUGE ruckus from the other 90.4%. But I don't hear a huge ruckus, Dave -- only a few very loud, obnoxious, holier-than-thou zealots trying to force -their- interpretation of 'morality' on the majority. The only reasonable conclusion is that these factions of "Christianity" (at least one of which I'm sure you are a member) are hypocrites that are practicing church-sponsored bigotry. Had enough of the false analogy fallacies, so you've switched to the false dilemma fallacy? Keep reaching for the stars, Dave -- maybe some day you'll catch one. Bad is bad no matter how large or small it may be. Well, what's worse, Dave: A couple homos getting married? or a large group of bigots trying to subvert the Constitution under the guise of Christianity? The only people trying to subvert the constitution are left wing liberals who are attempting to derive new meanings from words which the rest of us have understood and upheld for the last 200+ years. Which words are those, Dave? The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals. Once again, your chain of logic is based on flawed conclusions based on fallacious logic, and your own internal bias. When will you get it through your thick Republican head that bias has nothing to do with it, Dave? Because it does Frank. Even if you won't admit it (even to yourself). I'm not homo, I don't have any friends that are homo, I don't like "Queer Eye" or "Will & Grace"..... and personally, I find the homosexual lifestyle somewhat repulsive. And you call me a bigot? I do. You are. But there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits two gays from getting married if that's how they get their kicks. There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits you from marrying Dolly the cloned sheep either. But other "rules" would have a problem with it. I'm pretty sure they would since I think beastiality is illegal in every state (except Texas, and maybe Montana). Your problem is that you see the constitution as the be all and end all of all rules and laws. It is the "Law of the Land", like it or not. The constitution does not address each and every life situation that could have been foreseen 200+ years ago. That's why it has a provision for amendment. That's why it's considered to be a "living document". And I can't believe you slept through -that- in school -- did you sit in the back of the class? Have a learning disorder? Home-schooled by ignorant parents? I mean, come on Dave -- this is **** that immigrants are required to learn before they can become citizens. Or do you still have your green card? So it's not my place to judge. And that would be even -more- true if I was a Christian, the doctrine being that you should forgive others of their sins (assuming you see homosexuality as a sin), and that judgment should be left to God. It's one thing to forgive sin. It's totally another to condone and encourage further participation in it. "It's one thing to allow inter-racial marriage. It's totally another to condone and encourage further participation in it." See? A Christian would forgive someone who stole their car. But that doesn't mean the law should be changed to allow theft. Does gay marriage deprive you of your car? Come to think of it, you are still avoiding the big question: how does gay marriage deprive you of your rights, Dave? You hate gays. No, I don't. If I hated gays, I'd want them exterminated. You basically want to 'exterminate' any legal homosexual marriage. So you hate legal homosexual marriage. But the only difference between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage is the sexual preference of the partners. Therefore, the source of your hatred can -only- be attributed to homosexuality. You hate gays. You are a bigot, Dave. So do a lot of other people. Big deal. But my "bias" leans towards the Constitution, not my aversion to homosexuality. They have the same rights as me, and I treat them with the same amount of respect that I do anyone else whether I like them or not. So then based on your "faith" in the constitution, you'd have no objection to pedophiles having the right to marry? Pedophiles have rights, too. If they can live their lives without violating the law or infringing on the rights of others, great, I couldn't care less what they do. So how does gay marriage infringe on -your- rights, Dave? That's the difference between tolerance and bigotry. I am tolerant. No, you are not. You are a hypocrite. You "tolerate" things you have a personal agreement with or indifference to. But you have little tolerance for those who do not share your viewpoint. The reckless assigning of vitriolic names like "bigot" is proof of that. But you -are- a bigot. Other people live their lives in a way that is none of your business. Yet you feel that some of their choices are intolerable and that they should be prohibited from exercising the same rights and freedoms you enjoy simply because they don't comply with your definition of 'tradition'. In a nutshell, they are different and you want them to stop being different because you don't like it. If that doesn't fall within the definition of 'bigotry' then I don't know what does. And for the record, I have great tolerance for just about everything; even Bush, and even stupidity. But I have little or no tolerance for ignorance. You are not. You are a bigot. No, I am someone who values traditional morality. I'm sure the same has been said by many klansman in defense of their racism. snip The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does not mean that a gay marriage should be now. I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical. So we should abandon all moral values now since they may change sometime in the future? Well gee Dave, we probably should, now that you suggested it, huh? That's basically what you are proposing. Once you start down that slippery slope of justifying deviant, abhorrent behavior, it becomes only a matter of subjective degree where you draw the line between acceptance and rejection. That line is drawn by society. It is not drawn by me, by you, or by a few poorly-educated homophobes that would probably draw a bead on some other 'deviant' behavior if they were to win this battle. The problem is that if they are allowed to get their way, nobody knows what group will be next or where they will stop. And if you think that "ethnic cleansing" or some other form of genocide is ridiculous, go to the library and study up on pre-WWII Germany, or Eastern Europe after the fall of the USSR -- or read about Africa in the news of today. You propose to allow a few fanatic groups the ability to dictate religion, morality, or even tradition -- now THAT'S a slippery slope! Idiot. You are certainly acting like one. You are acting like a third grader that's losing an argument in the schoolyard -- complete with witty comebacks that I haven't heard since the day I watched that Pee-Wee Herman movie. snip Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of the gate -- than someone with a lesser education. But YOU will have to prove that. Easy enough. It's called a "diploma". But you will have to go to the pains to prove it. It will not be readily apparent. Perhaps you can wear your diploma on your head so everyone would see it. Wouldn't it be much easier to include a copy with my resume? And wouldn't it be much easier to admit that you are wrong instead of trying to come up with ridiculous scenarios in an attempt to win an argument? After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has diminished in value. Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way. Most people will eventually see it that way. I don't think so, Dave. I really think that most people have more smarts than you give them credit for. It's not a matter of smarts, it's a matter of contemporary educational standards. Speaking of which, what's the name of that tech school you claim to have attended, Dave? But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'. Yes, but you will have to "educate" those who will quickly forget that. There's no point in trying to educate people who refuse to look at the facts objectively and make reasonable and logical conclusions. The only reason I continue to try is because you aren't the only person reading my posts. And it's nice to know that your ignorance is being recorded for posterity. My "ignorance" is only a matter of your bigoted intolerance and bias and manifested by your pompous arrogance. Big words only work if you know how to use them correctly. snip Then settle for a good analogy. The one you presented was not a good comparison for the reasons I gave. I'll consider a good analogy when you provide a good reason. Always an excuse...... The only excuses tendered on this topic have been yours; I claimed that 4 years of education is better than 2 years, and you have tried every excuse in the book to refute it. So far none of them have worked, not even the "always an excuse" excuse. Got any new excuses? Maybe something from "Pee-Wee Herman's Big Book of Excuses"? Heck, if you can't even read the Constitution, what reason is there to think that you can understand children's literature..... How you feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own marriage. It just might. No, it won't. And when you make your next regular visit to your doctor, tell him that you want to back off the dosage on those anti-depressants. More personal insults. You really are losing this debate..... Just bored. It would be much more interesting if you could stay on topic and present facts and logical arguments. Maybe then I wouldn't be so inclined to comment on your lack of emotional stability. Excuses excuses.......... Financial responsibilities, time that could be used more productively. Like in a more gainful job than tending bar........ Actually, I was thinking about starting up a yard-care biz. Pays pretty well, lots of exercise (which would make my doctor happy), and a heck of a lot more fun than changing kegs, carding teenies and 86'ing obnoxious drunks. I might give it a go as soon as I can figure out why my weed-whacker keeps overheating. Maybe it's vapor-lock..... ........ If you cut in half the time you waste on the computer and spent that extra time reading the Constitution you could probably cut in half the time you waste on the computer. I've read the constitution many times over. We spent a whole course in high school studying it. There is NOTHING that you can tell me about the constitution. HAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, right. That's why I had to quote Article VI to show you where it prohibits a religious test. Sure, Dave -- you know -everything- there is to know about the Constitution, I'm sure. So what part says that the US is a Christian state? Where does the Constitution require or suggest that religious influence should play -any- role in the government? But I'll admit, I find it amusing that you try. And how does gay marriage infringe on your rights? The time I spend on the computer is minuscule. When you are parked on a T1 line, you can take breaks and drink a cup or two between tasks while getting a little entertainment. And I don't have to mix drinks or smell cigarettes and bad breath doing it. That's funny because I'm a heavy smoker. But I don't think anyone is smelling my breath when I type on the computer. Not unless there is some technology in my computer that I don't know about -- cyber-smell or something like that. Is that why they have T1 and T3 lines? Or is it just so you can download the porno pics faster? Heck, I'd get a T1 line for -that-! So if you want to start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other crap you use to water down the topics. I water down the topics? Pointing out your own intolerance and hypocrisy is very much pertinent to the discussion as it becomes testimony as to your objectivity and credibility on this subject. Sounds great! So when do you plan to implement your new policy? What new policy? Dave,..... oh, forget it. You wouldn't understand it anyway. Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good, Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable. Even if it's bad? Moron. What's the matter Frank? Are you that incapable of participating in an open discussion that challenges your preconceived notions? You thrive on being publically disgraced, don't you? No, I thrive on making you disgrace yourself. inevitable -- [ Latin, 'in', not + 'evitabilis', avoidable] that which cannot be avoided; certain to happen. I am fully aware of the definition of the word Frank. Don't patronize me. I challenge the notion that change is inevitable. Then your challenge is a lost cause from the get-go. Should you succeed in preventing anything from changing, that in and of itself is a change because the norm is change. Therefore you have defeated your own objective by 'changing the rate of change'. And even if you dismiss that as nothing more than a temporal card-trick, the fact remains that events happen beyond the control of humans, that cannot be prevented. Volcanos, hurricanes, asteroids, earthquakes..... change is inevitable. It's a fact. What you are embracing is the idea of predetermination. Something I would not expect from a existential atheist. Existentialism is not fatalism. If you are going to dive into that end of the philosophical pool you should at least grab DesCartes for a floatation device or you -will- sink. If we can effect change, should we not have the responsibility to prevent change that would promote demoralization? That's a neat idea, but Bush already tried that angle -- he failed because there were no WMDs. And if that flew over your head like everything else so far, go find someone that can explain it to you. Isn't there an Amish settlement in your area? ----== 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, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: The politics of science is often more important than the science itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get their names in the journals. There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily the result of man's influence over the environment. Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof. In fact there has been clear evidence that this planet has experienced major cyclical climatic changes over the eons. The current warming trend may just be a part of that process, and man's contribution to it may be much less significant than what the environmental alarmists would lead us to believe. That's what I was talking about when I said "the politics of science". How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it -does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts. Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset. Gee, and I thought you said that you were a realist. ----== 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, 11 May 2005 08:32:45 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:13:43 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:39:33 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Your anti-God bias is showing. You would rather believe that the complexity of our ecosystem occurred due to just the right random, combinations of factors and events to produce all the diversified species, which all have a key part to play in the total picture, rather than consider the likelihood that an intelligent force was somehow responsible for guiding it. There's nothing "random" about it Well, no, that's my whole point. Something has to "guide" the development of life. Why? Something has to make the decision whether 2 legs are better than four, and whether a fifth finger makes for a more effective tool, yet 6 fingers is overkill etc. Why must it be decided? Why can't it just evolve that way because that's what happens to work best? Do you think that rain must come from God because we don't know how it gets into the sky? ....oh, wait a sec, we -do- know how it gets into the sky. Bad example. So do you think that the Earth is at the center of the Univ..... uh, forget that one, Galileo really shamed the church when he proved that the Earth orbits the Sun. Ok, how about this: The rainbow -must- be proof of God because it...... nope, Newton shot that one down in flames. Well how about music? God must have invented music, right? After all, how did birds learn how to sing? oops, another bad example...... Gee Dave, it sure looks like all of God's "creations" are slowly being discovered to be nothing more than natural phenomena. Except maybe for Michael Jackson. -- when you consider that the bell curve consists of a population as great as the number of events that occur in the Universe within any period of time, it becomes utterly -ridiculous- to think that life requires divine intervention. You're just too hung up of formal religion. It's preventing you to consider the possibility. Just because a certain part of the ocean is unexplored doesn't mean it's inhabited with monsters. -You- are too hung up on religion to realize that randomness (aka, 'chaos') is nothing more than a term used to describe the collective effect of dynamic systems that are either so numerous or complex that their components -have yet- to be isolated and identified. That doesn't mean a seemingly random process -doesn't- have a logical and scientific explanation, only that the process is as yet unidentified. And if you can't understand that much then you probably still check under your bed every night for the boogie man. And if there -is- evidence of guidance by some intelligent force, it's far more likely that this "force" is not God but some sort of ETI. Well now, you ARE making progress. You opened your mind for a split second. Tell me Frank, what is the definition of "God"? ROTFLMMFAO!!! You aren't suggesting that God is a collective of little grey humanoids from the planet Zorkon, are you? Beam me up, Scotty! May the force be with you, Dave! It always has been. OB1 has taught you well, young Jedi. But here is something you must know: I am your father, Dave. At least that's what your mother told me after she lost two other paternity suits. snip But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may mistake for "random". But what motivates natural evolution? Natural variation, and adaptability to a dynamic environment. Based on what criteria? There has to be a purpose for life. Why? Because you say so? Because you can't figure out what to do with your life? Or did you adopt that idea as part of a twelve-step program? What drives that purpose? When Moses asked God what the people should call him, God responded, "I am that I am." IOW, God exists for the sake of himself. For us mortals it isn't much different -- life is spent propogating ourselves. For human males that consists of impregnating as many females as possible, hence the common characteristic of men to "love 'em and leave 'em", and their willingness to screw just about anything that is receptive to their advances. The female reproductive role is more complex. Traditionally it has been to nurture and protect the larvae until they can be kicked out of the house. This explains why some women are gold-diggers (money = security, taken to an extreme). Ironically, monogomy isn't common with humans, their behavior being more like some species of birds. The female chooses a mate that is a 'provider', one she feels is also competent in a nurturing role. Yet she seeks a different male for breeding, looking for characteristics such as aggressiveness and healthiness, and other attributes that are carried genetically and will give her offspring a better chance at survival. With two 'mates' she gets the best of both worlds, since one male with all those traits is nearly impossible to find. Meanwhile, the males are just trying to dip their wicks anywhere they can. BTW, this isn't my theory. It's from a well-documented study on human behavior that has been supported by numerous independent studies. But if you need to find a purpose that transcends natural biology, try the simple fact that we -can- transcend biology. That, by itself, as a "purpose" for life, is reflected heavily in the Bhuddist faith and to some extent with the Hindu. The 'challenge' of life, therefore, is to overcome our animal instincts and attain a higher level of being. Flip the coin and you have people that think you should live hard and die young. It's doubtful that they have any regrets since they don't have much time to think about such things. Of course you could always take a perspective from Monty Python, but I think Monty Python itself is reason enough to live. And what else is important is what goes through your mind in your final moments of life. Did you make the right choices? Could you have done any better? Will anyone remember you for who you really are? And are you sure they really -do- know who you are? But that's assuming, of course, that anyone cares if you are on your death bed. If you ever visit a nursing home you will find that it's more common for people to die alone, especially if they don't have money or property to pass on in their will. Will that be the case with you? Or will your "loved ones" view your life more intrinsically? And will you have doubts about life after death, or will you resign yourself to lies that you used to convince yourself one way or the other so you wouldn't have to worry about it? Which brings me to my own philosophy regarding the matter: It's hard to evaluate life until you have something to compare it to. Most people who have come close to death consider it a life-altering experience, and their lives are improved afterwards. It's not a good idea to die just so you can live better, but at least you can explore the ideas and perspectives of some of the best minds on the subject. For that line of philosophy I would recommend yet another good book: "Thinking Through Death" by Dr. Scott Kramer. If you want a copy just drop me an email, I have a couple spares. Who decides whether a mutation is "beneficial" or not? Natural selection, otherwise known as survival of the fittest, assumes that gene mutations which result in a "better" species, would survive while the "lesser' versions of the species would die out. Yet, it is said that homo-sapiens evolved from apes. Why then are apes still around if we are the "new and improved" version of the ape? Because you assume that the "'lesser' versions of the species would die out", which is not necessarily the case. If not, then that's negates much of the evolutionary theory. I don't recall that being part of the theory at all. The theory is that variations which can adapt to a changing environment will survive -irrespective- of their origins. If the purpose of evolution is gradual improvement or a species, then the "old" should die off as it is replaced by the "new". That's only an assumption on your part because you have never studied the subject. If you -had- studied the subject you would know better than to make such an ignorant remark. There can be many circumstances where a variation doesn't compete for the same resources as it's progenitor. This explains why there are so many speices of birds that have but slight variations -- many birds are migratory. And so are many species of primates. This explains subtle variations within a specific species, but that doesn't explain how a bird came to be in the first place. Are you proposing that a winged creature suddenly appeared by accident, as a mutation from a land-based critter, and it proliferated all by itself. What taught it to fly in the first place? How could a genetic anomaly take into consideration the dynamics of flight? I suppose I should start with Rocky and Bulwinkle. You see, Rocky is a "flying squirrel". They don't really fly, but glide from one place to another using skin that has overgrown. The skin probably evolved because the critters kept falling out of the trees, and the species with the variation of loose skin allowed more of them to survive the falls. Easy enough. The next logical step would be an variation of their "wings" that would allow them to glide for longer periods of time, and over greater distances. Perhaps even a variation where muscle movement gives a little extra flight time. Eventually, over a few hundred thousand years and thousands of generations, there will probably be a squirrel that can really fly. But you propose that one day there was a rat, then a miracle occured and *poof* there was a bat? I don't think so, Dave. Evolution only explains a small part of the puzzle. No, you have only -learned- a small part of the puzzle. This is true. There are very few facts and a whole host of theories which cropped up to try to explain the facts. Such is science. Some theories will be dismissed while others will be proven as fact. And it's doubtful that divine providence will be a factor in any scientific theory. The theory of intelligent design is no more far-fetched than the idea that life began here spontaneously and proliferated into a diverse eco system, totally at random. You are assuming that "life began here spontaneously" and evolved "totally at random". Research strongly suggests that neither are true. ......Why do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul? Evolution is science. The questions you ask are philosophical. Yes, but it all relates in the bigger picture. Talk to Skippy about your "bigger picture" cause that type of BS doesn't wash with me. I don't even buy into the concept of a "grand unified theory". But before you start putting the human race on a pedestal, maybe you better think twice about what you assume are the differences between humans and other animals. Are you suggesting that other animal species are capable of possessing similar intellectual capabilities as we have? In some cases certain primate species have displayed social structures which transcend simple instinctive behavior. They have also been observed fashioning crude tools to obtain food. Dolphins and whales seem to communicate with a rudimentary language. But not one other species can do it all, in the same way that we do. So you have noticed that animals are different and have different characteristics. Congratulations. What you -haven't- learned that the same is true within the human species. Yes, animals possess some intellectual capabilities. Beavers are pretty good engineers, and nobody can tell me that their behavior is purely instinctual since the circumstances for every beaver dam are different, and requires some intelligence in order to build those "crude" tools. Did you know that dolphins have sex just for fun? They also seem to learn things faster and easier than most teenage humans. And just about every animal has some form of communication, not just dolphins and a few others. Ants communicate with chemicals, bees communicate by 'dancing', dogs communicate by ****ing on trees and smelling each others butts, etc, etc. But on the other hand, why would anyone think that human behavior is anything more than extentions of natural instinct? Everything we do somehow revolves around basic natural urges, whether it be breathing, sleeping, eating, sex, reproduction, dying, etc. Probably the only two characteristics that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is our propensity to destroy ourselves and our ability to show mercy. But then again, the former doesn't differentiate us from lemmings, and the latter is more a recognition of the futility of life than it is a divine influence. Either way, man can be just as cruel as nature and frequently proves that to be a fact. So what's the difference between man and animal? Human arrogance in thinking he is something more than just another product of nature. snip Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations? It very well might be. It's all part of the bigger plan. Like I said, I totally accept the concepts of evolution. I just believe that the process has been "managed" by a higher order intelligence, the definition of which, has yet to be revealed. I am not advocating any specific religious interpretation of "God", only that one exists. The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of variations that can occur in the processes of evolution. I don't accept the theory that if you place a group of monkeys in a cage with a bunch of typewriters that they'll eventually write every great piece of literary works. I don't either. Whose theory was that? They might type out every letter that is contained within those works, but they will not get the order correct. Such is the nature of chaos and randomness. It lacks structure, direction, and order, and those elements are required for meaningful results to occur. Again, who suggested that such a thing was possible? Neither do the scientists that study it. But the scientists don't insert God into the equation whenever something doesn't add up -- they look for other factors and they usually find them. There are still far too many unanswered questions to discount the theory of intelligent design. Discount it? No. But neither does it mean that we should jump to that conclusion because we haven't learned everything we can. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:06:41 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Tue, 10 May 2005 16:03:16 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: (So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few paltry bucks..) Illegally. Just as there are people who trespass on private or otherwise posted land, and never get caught either. Physical trespass can carry a *criminal* charge..talking on the freeband can not. There are criminal provisions in the communications act of 1934. We are speaking of freebanders on the eleven meter band. Who are radio pirates, operating unauthorized radio transmitters. The provisions in the communications act of 1934 do not differentiate which bands unauthorized transmitters can incur criminal penalties. 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. 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. 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? _ 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? I 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. A perfect example of you hypocritically breaking the law to commit an act of what you mistakenly believe upholds another. Besides, speeding is not a criminal offense, it's a simple summary offense. And the cb infractions are civil in nature, not criminal. What 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. Speculation is acceptable only when invoked by yourself to suppport your hypocrisy. 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. I 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. 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. I always said you had a serious ego and self-esteem problem. The mere admittance that you held yourself in such company confirms such. _ See above for examples of a form of citizen eminent domain. 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'll reiterate what you already found in google on many occasion,,,,,education is the key. Much like a public park. Nothing like a public park, as breaking the law you speak of (trespass) can result in criminal charges, unlike talking on the freeband. Look at FCC regs again. There are certainly criminal penalties associated with them. There is,,,but not with simple dx or freebanding. Again, the regs do not differentiate which bands will carry those criminal penalties for unauthorized use. Simple dx on the legal 40 channels is a nothing citation. But couple it with running on unauthorized freqs, and the severity increases. Your words: "What it may or may not lead to is irrelevant, 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. It'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. |
Ask your buddy "Bob-noxious" about the
criminal penalties associated with pirate radio. Another realm. No, it's not. Not in principle. We are speaking of cut and dry law,,you know,,,,reality. The only thing that's different is that Bob's visibility to commercial (paying) interests is what forces the FCC to pay closer attention. And enact harsher penalties compared to the cb/freeband. Read the rules you claim to comprehend for crying out loud.._ This concept has proved nearly impossible for you to grasp. Perhaps it because you so vehemently disagree with the law. .Your whole justification revolves around your perception that unless a law has serious, visible teeth, then it doesn't deserve our respect, and we are justified in ignoring it. What justification? The fact that you continue to incorrectly claim I justified anything over the years has dogged you. Then what would you call it. Call what? When you claim that freebanding is a simple infraction, that's a justification. It's a realty,,much unlike the manner you incorrectly claim speeding is a summary offense (over 15 mph of the posted limit and it is no longer a sumary offense,,,in Fl AND other states). But this serevs to illustrate you either A) invoke only the portion of the law you want or B) invoke only the portion of the law you understand. Would you still freeband if the FCC actively pursued freebanders and fined them heavily? You said they did ever since your breakdown occurred in this group. What a change of view. in fact, I am proud to have been a part of usenet history in which you have done so many flips in your life. That is anti-social behavior. I don't know about anti-social, but it certainly is unbecoming or indicative of one who is easily swayed in their core beliefs, especially when it was done by one of your age..several times. _ So is the behavior of sports fanatics and religious zealots, both a very real part of the fabric that weaves America. In what way? Breaking the law,,isn't that what you refer to as "anti-social" behavior? But then again, you have astutely illustrated you had no concept of the definition or the term "civil disobedience" and needed proper instruction regarding such..your problem is you disagree with how it is applied and in your rush to condemn the act, gaffed by attacking the very real and longstanding American and patriotic concept of civil disobedience. But most people understand tolerance is a necessary gem to a successful America and certain acts are placed into proper perspective by the majority...a perfect example is the majority of the populace do not consider speeders "criminals" like yourself. I don't either. Speeding is not a criminal offense. Another position of whcih you chose opposite end of the argument when taught. I'm proud of you. I never stated otherwise. You were the one who compared speeders to "real" criminals a few lines above, not me. Umm...you invoked speeding as a misplaced analogy on many occasion. Introducing a subject and crying foul when another uses it for a comparison is hypocritica. Do not introduce a subject if you do not wish it picked proeprly apart by others. You should have learned this with your unsolicited invocation of un-named sources and un-confirmed claims. The fact that you feel strong enough concerning a subject to claim such things but not provide for them, is telling. _ No,,facts. You can't call facts you disagree with "semantics". You want to talk about facts? The facts are that the FCC can and does auction off chunks of spectrum to commercial entities to use. They also regulate those chunks. They also set aside some spectrum for "public use". Yes, they administer it, as an arm and representative proxy of the U.S. government. Who is charged with administering what belongs to the public via their tax dollars. Not much different than an auction. Then why is the public not seeing the proceeds of these sales? Gee Dave,,they are..in the form of regulation and enforcement. You looking for some type procedural handout from an entity simply since it is tax dollar supported? That is the most hypocritical thing a republican can say,,,,I'm with Frank..you slept through class. So, while the FCC might not directly "own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does. _ Only when combined with other acts. If you feel simple freebanding (the context of which we speak) carries criminal charges, feel free to cite the passage or an example,,even one. What is "simple" freebanding? Again, I refer you to the com act of 1934 and associated regulations regarding unauthorized transmitters. The portion regarding unauthorized transmitters goes right out the window, Dave. Why can't you understand that? You incorrectly assume freebanders are all using unauthorized transmitters. How do you get through life with so many false assumptions responsible for your oft repeated gaffes? _ Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law? Pushing which law and in what way? Transmitting, albeit, under the guise of part 15, to a much broader audience than permitted. Well, look into any "low power" pirate broadcaster. Some have tried to claim that their power is legal (even if their antennas are not). Once one is pirating, any legal guise under Part 15 vanishes. You can legally operate a part 15 transmitter on the broadcast band. That invalidates your statement, then. If one is legal, why did you mistakenly refer to such as a pirate? You said "check into any low power pirate". I built one such transmitter when I was a kid. But the antenna restrictions specified no longer than a 5 foot wire. I could hear my "station" up to about a block away. How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public broadcast? Most of those situations employ carrier current transmitters which radiate only a short distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby limiting range beyond the intended service area. The biggest uses for this technique is on .college campuses, travel, and road alert systems. Yes,,,but my question remains and is still valid. The reality is that even a carrier current system needs to be authorized by the FCC. So a radio system capable of covering a 2500 acre church camp would need FCC permission to operate. Sure,,,,,but again,,,if one was to zero in and receive the signal from property not owned by the entity transmitting under Part 15, what then? Isn't this a technical violation? That depends on the circumstances. I gave you the circumstances. An authorized carrier current station operating within the technical requirements is not responsible for incidental radiation beyond it's physical boundaries. My parameters clearly defined the circumstances and the receiving end proved the example was not incidental but fixed and regular. Cordless phones are part 15 devices, yet they can carry beyond your property lines. Cordless phones are no required anywhere in the rules to stop transmitting at the end of your property. How did you make such a glaring error and from what rule did you misinterpret this? Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the rules governing each service, and find out for yourself. Despite the relative ease by which a person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a "right" to do so, it is a privilege granted by the FCC, as the service is authorized by rule, even if a license is not required. And if that law were serious, one would NOT be able to buy, plug and play. What stops an immigrant from using a cb? Nothing,,they all se them in the fruit fields. This is true, the FCC isn't checking the immigration status of every CB operator, The immigration use was but one example. There are countless more of how anyone can use a cb simply by purchasing one off the shelf or from anotehr party. Well, that's a big glaring example of how reality can defy or obstruct the rules. The fact that this happens does not diminish the letter of the law. What is happening (reality) has nothing to do with what the law says. I'm curious as to how you continue to always wind up back at making such an obscure and remote invalid connection between the two. One could say that the presence of a law which is unenforceable is grounds for its revocation. Maybe that time is now. and it won't come up unless the person is cited for other rule violations. Some rulesand laws need no changing because they are rightly not enforced..like blue laws still on the books. It's sort of like the seatbelt law in many states. You can't get stopped for it alone, but if you are stopped for another violation, they can cite you for failing to wear a seatbelt at the same time. Yea,,well they just changed the law here,,they can pull one over for not wearing it,,it's no longer a secondary offense (in Fl) , but a primary offense. I believe that's true in Pa, as well now. But it's still secondary in other states. Again, it seems that you justify ignoring rules based on the unlikelihood of being cited. When I began selectively ignoring specific rules for a specific purpose (which happens to be THE definition of civil disobedience), most weren't even aware such rules existed, which nullifies any possible position presented by yourself regarding ignoring rules on the unlikelihood of not being cited. In fact, when cbers were sliding up one or in between to "channel 22a", most had no clue it was illegal. I have a hard time believing that these bright, intelligent CB operators would be so ignorant as to the legality of what they were doing. Yea..all those kids tinkering and swapping crystals really took to regs and rules with their Archer walkie-talkies like a scholarly piece. Again, reality takes precedence over your beliefs. In any case, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Don't you find it the least bit curious that only you feel obsessively and unreasonaly compelled to seek reasons why people do things.....especially cbers and freebanders, of all things. In those days, as a condition of your CB license (You did have a license right?), Not until the mid seventies and not for several years. it was required that you read and understand the part 95 rule book. How many kids read that wit their WT's they got under the tree? You couldn't plead ignorance, without opening yourself to the charge of making a false statement on your license registration form. There was no need.you are entertaining somethhing that ever occurred,,,the FCC didn't mess with kids funning around with swapping crystals, Dave, no matter how illegal it was. No one in my area ever believed that sliding through channels outside of the 23 standard channels was in any way legal. We took our chances based on the unlikelihood of getting popped. Had there been more busts, most of us would have been too scared to venture out of band. In fact there were regular rumors that the FCC was "in town" and many of us toned down our antics, hid the amps in the garage, and stayed on the legal channels, at least until the "alert" passed. Hahaha,,based on nothing more than a phantom voice on the air. At least you remain true to one core belief,...it a strange voice on the radio that compelled you to move to the spirit back then, now it's a strange cartoon name on the internet. The point being that we all knew exactly what we were doing then. Some of us know what we are doing now. As a condition of that privilege comes your responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in various FCC parts depending on which service you are using. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right now and have said so on many occasion. Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they should be, The country disagrees with you, simply by virtue of what the FCC enforces. No, the FCC disagrees with me. The last time I looked, the rank and file citizen has no input on what the FCC considers a priority. Umm..they do. Please check the manner in which a grievance is filed. Such are not reserved exclusively for those who get busted and fined......in fact, that is but a single application. and freeload.... er, freebanders get away with trespassing on other government administered frequencies with little chance of getting caught. Because it's practically a non-issue with the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans forgot about CB radio when Burt Reynold's hair turned gray, and computers and cell phones satiated their gadget fix. Which is why your personal bane remains a non-issue among the majority of the world. But you guys who are operating illegally are using all sort of excuses to justify or downplay this illegality. Then you should have no problem illustrating substance concerning your accusations, but you have failed to do so to date regarding any of these "guys" you incorrectly invoke. What substance do you want? Do you deny that people other than you operate illegally, and don't care about it? Stay with me, Dave. You not being provided a satisfactory explanation of why people do what they do simply because of the reality you are owed nothing by anyone, does not equate anyone justifying anything. _ Then who should they go after Those who present a direct safety issue. Very few people fall into this category. All hammies who jam repeaters and talk where they are not permitted (on the hammie band) fall into this category. How does jamming a repeater create a safety issue? You're an extra class hammie,,wait,,let me check,,N3CVJ,,,,yep,,you're an extra class hammie and can;t comprehend why jamming a repeater can present a safety issue? Classic and indicative of one who ironically is licensed for communications but knows little of it. how do illegal freebanding hams create a safety issue over than of illegal CB freebanders (As if there really is a difference?) I never said they should go after illegal freebanding hammies..you are losing your train of thought again.. - They have plenty of teeth. Their bite is interested in chomping away with censorship of television. It's much easier for them to enforce. Actually, the hammies are much easier to enforce. Not really. they still have to track down the illegal operator. That means moving beyond the confines of their cushy offices. "Tracking down" in the manner you believe is a thing of the past. The High Frequency Directional Finder in Laurel, Maryland pinpoints transmissions anywhere in the country immediately with no effort. Ask Scott about it. If true, Then read about it if you don't want to ask Scott. then your buddy "Bob" should be dropping loads in his pants right now. Not at all. The technology is there so..I have to be careful how I say this,,,,,,,,,a sort of roving watered down signal is there. Those involved with B-o-B are confident his extremely selective transmissions will not be pinpointed,,and even if one or two were,,,,by the time they acted upon it,,,too late. You cannot pinpoint transmissions from a single point. It requires at least 3 points to do with any accuracy. Why do you think there are so many GPS satellites in position in order to find a precise bearing? Ummmm..instead of arguing with me, you may try reading about this technology in Laurel, MD, you claim doesn't exist. There was a rumor a few years back, and in fact I knew a guy who once claimed to work on this system, where the GPS satellites could be made to work "in reverse" and pinpoint any radio transmission emanating from earth with the same accuracy as a GPS. But I cannot verify this. What do you think the Titan rocket is? Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ |
On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:35 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: The politics of science is often more important than the science itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get their names in the journals. There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily the result of man's influence over the environment. Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof. No there isn't, for the simple reason that we do not have enough climatic history to determine just how and when the climate shifts normally as a reference before we can accurately gauge the additional effects of humans. How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it -does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts. Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset. Gee, and I thought you said that you were a realist. I am. But I'm not so close minded that I'm just going to "accept" that I exist and not ponder why. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:39:37 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:35 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: The politics of science is often more important than the science itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get their names in the journals. There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily the result of man's influence over the environment. Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof. No there isn't...... Yes, there is. Ice cores are an excellent record of climatic history, and are good for over 500,000 years. How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it -does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts. Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset. Gee, and I thought you said that you were a realist. I am. But I'm not so close minded that I'm just going to "accept" that I exist and not ponder why. What part of existentialism dictates that one must must not "ponder" their own existence? ----== 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 Thu, 12 May 2005 10:34:14 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: There are criminal provisions in the communications act of 1934. We are speaking of freebanders on the eleven meter band. Who are radio pirates, operating unauthorized radio transmitters. The provisions in the communications act of 1934 do not differentiate which bands unauthorized transmitters can incur criminal penalties. 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. The point is that just because a law is not actively enforced does not mean that it's ok to break 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. **and societal irresponsibility of engaging in the acts. * 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. 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. 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. 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? I 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? 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. 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. What 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. 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. 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. I 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. So I'm curious why you brought it up in that context. 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. Everyone can repent, even you. It's not too late to atone for the error of your ways. See above for examples of a form of citizen eminent domain. 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. 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. 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? 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? It'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...... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
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" |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com