|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:41 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:32:45 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:13:43 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:39:33 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Your anti-God bias is showing. You would rather believe that the complexity of our ecosystem occurred due to just the right random, combinations of factors and events to produce all the diversified species, which all have a key part to play in the total picture, rather than consider the likelihood that an intelligent force was somehow responsible for guiding it. There's nothing "random" about it Well, no, that's my whole point. Something has to "guide" the development of life. Why? Otherwise there would be no progress, only a random jumbling of unrelated mutations. Something has to determine which mutations are an "improvement", and whether those traits will be carried on. Something has to make the decision whether 2 legs are better than four, and whether a fifth finger makes for a more effective tool, yet 6 fingers is overkill etc. Why must it be decided? Why can't it just evolve that way because that's what happens to work best? What determines what works best? If, as you suggest, all advances in evolution occur as a random mutation (Which it would have to be if it were not deliberately introduced), what feedback mechanism exists to determine whether that single mutation will proliferate to other species, or even descendants of the same species? Do you think that rain must come from God because we don't know how it gets into the sky? ....oh, wait a sec, we -do- know how it gets into the sky. Bad example. So do you think that the Earth is at the center of the Univ..... uh, forget that one, Galileo really shamed the church when he proved that the Earth orbits the Sun. Ok, how about this: The rainbow -must- be proof of God because it...... nope, Newton shot that one down in flames. Well how about music? God must have invented music, right? After all, how did birds learn how to sing? oops, another bad example...... Gee Dave, it sure looks like all of God's "creations" are slowly being discovered to be nothing more than natural phenomena. Except maybe for Michael Jackson. So because some examples of physics can be accurately demonstrated, that there is no possibility of intelligent design and guidance? -- when you consider that the bell curve consists of a population as great as the number of events that occur in the Universe within any period of time, it becomes utterly -ridiculous- to think that life requires divine intervention. You're just too hung up of formal religion. It's preventing you to consider the possibility. Just because a certain part of the ocean is unexplored doesn't mean it's inhabited with monsters. Doesn't mean that it isn't either. -You- are too hung up on religion to realize that randomness (aka, 'chaos') is nothing more than a term used to describe the collective effect of dynamic systems that are either so numerous or complex that their components -have yet- to be isolated and identified. Random and chaos are exactly that, actions which occur with no pattern or forethought. That doesn't mean a seemingly random process -doesn't- have a logical and scientific explanation, only that the process is as yet unidentified. But you can't build order from chaos. At least not without some intelligence guiding it. And if you can't understand that much then you probably still check under your bed every night for the boogie man. Why? More false analogy fallacies? Because we know enough to determine that there is no "boogieman", does not mean that we know enough to discount the existence of "God". And if there -is- evidence of guidance by some intelligent force, it's far more likely that this "force" is not God but some sort of ETI. Well now, you ARE making progress. You opened your mind for a split second. Tell me Frank, what is the definition of "God"? ROTFLMMFAO!!! You aren't suggesting that God is a collective of little grey humanoids from the planet Zorkon, are you? Beam me up, Scotty! Why not? Is it not within the realm of possibilities that what we consider "God" may be a superior intelligence which created this planet for who knows what reason (Other than 42)? May the force be with you, Dave! It always has been. OB1 has taught you well, young Jedi. But here is something you must know: I am your father, Dave. At least that's what your mother told me after she lost two other paternity suits. Since it is likely that I am older than you, that is a physical impossibility. But the increasing personal insults is a sure sign that you have run out of facts and logic, and have resorted to ad-hominem to make you case. The best you can hope for in this discussion is a stalemate. There are simply not enough facts to make your case. snip But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may mistake for "random". But what motivates natural evolution? Natural variation, and adaptability to a dynamic environment. Based on what criteria? There has to be a purpose for life. Why? Because you say so? Because you can't figure out what to do with your life? Or did you adopt that idea as part of a twelve-step program? More insults? The fact is that you can't answer the question, and chose instead to mock me. You believe what you want to believe based on nothing more than pure faith, which is no different than what I do. But the difference is that you arrogantly insist that I am somehow "wrong". You tell yourself that facts and logic back you up, but the truth is that there are little facts available to make a positive determination on whether life here evolved purely at random, and without any outside influence. You further re-enforce your faith by telling yourself that the facts are out there, and that we just haven't found them yet. And while this is most likely true, you should be careful what you wish for. For the answers you seek may not be the ones you want to hear. What drives that purpose? When Moses asked God what the people should call him, God responded, "I am that I am." IOW, God exists for the sake of himself. Interesting that you quote something that you deny the existence of, to make a point. Of course the irony of that position was not lost on me. For us mortals it isn't much different -- life is spent propogating ourselves. For human males that consists of impregnating as many females as possible, hence the common characteristic of men to "love 'em and leave 'em", and their willingness to screw just about anything that is receptive to their advances. The female reproductive role is more complex. Traditionally it has been to nurture and protect the larvae until they can be kicked out of the house. This explains why some women are gold-diggers (money = security, taken to an extreme). That is a hopelessly jaded position to take. You basically stated that all males have an intrinsic excuse for infidelity, in that they are instinctively hard wired for such behavior. The fact that was can transcend instinctive behavior plays no part in this I guess.... Ironically, monogomy isn't common with humans, their behavior being more like some species of birds. And many mammals. The female chooses a mate that is a 'provider', one she feels is also competent in a nurturing role. Yet she seeks a different male for breeding, looking for characteristics such as aggressiveness and healthiness, and other attributes that are carried genetically and will give her offspring a better chance at survival. With two 'mates' she gets the best of both worlds, since one male with all those traits is nearly impossible to find. Meanwhile, the males are just trying to dip their wicks anywhere they can. BTW, this isn't my theory. It's from a well-documented study on human behavior that has been supported by numerous independent studies. I know all too well. The Learning Channel had an very interesting series on human behavior and covered this topic and the parallels in the animal world. I also used this information in a debate once with a hard core feminist, who was forwarding the " all men are pigs" notion, and defended their behavior as instinctive programming. Of course, I did it just for the reaction. I believe that using primitive instinctive traits to justify unacceptable social behavior is simply a lame excuse for those who have a weak will. But if you need to find a purpose that transcends natural biology, try the simple fact that we -can- transcend biology. That, by itself, as a "purpose" for life, is reflected heavily in the Bhuddist faith and to some extent with the Hindu. The 'challenge' of life, therefore, is to overcome our animal instincts and attain a higher level of being. Hence the enlightened and evolved call for a monogamous union. Flip the coin and you have people that think you should live hard and die young. It's doubtful that they have any regrets since they don't have much time to think about such things. No, I guess not. Of course you could always take a perspective from Monty Python, but I think Monty Python itself is reason enough to live. I was never that much of a Python fan. And what else is important is what goes through your mind in your final moments of life. What lies next. Did you make the right choices? Could you have done any better? Will anyone remember you for who you really are? And are you sure they really -do- know who you are? But that's assuming, of course, that anyone cares if you are on your death bed. If you ever visit a nursing home you will find that it's more common for people to die alone, especially if they don't have money or property to pass on in their will. Will that be the case with you? Or will your "loved ones" view your life more intrinsically? And will you have doubts about life after death, or will you resign yourself to lies that you used to convince yourself one way or the other so you wouldn't have to worry about it? Which brings me to my own philosophy regarding the matter: It's hard to evaluate life until you have something to compare it to. Most people who have come close to death consider it a life-altering experience, and their lives are improved afterwards. It's not a good idea to die just so you can live better, but at least you can explore the ideas and perspectives of some of the best minds on the subject. For that line of philosophy I would recommend yet another good book: "Thinking Through Death" by Dr. Scott Kramer. If you want a copy just drop me an email, I have a couple spares. See, this is what's so puzzling about you Frank. Once in a while you unload with a brilliant piece of perspective, which is at total odds with your status in life. You're one hell of an underachiever. Who decides whether a mutation is "beneficial" or not? Natural selection, otherwise known as survival of the fittest, assumes that gene mutations which result in a "better" species, would survive while the "lesser' versions of the species would die out. Yet, it is said that homo-sapiens evolved from apes. Why then are apes still around if we are the "new and improved" version of the ape? Because you assume that the "'lesser' versions of the species would die out", which is not necessarily the case. If not, then that's negates much of the evolutionary theory. I don't recall that being part of the theory at all. The theory is that variations which can adapt to a changing environment will survive -irrespective- of their origins. But what decides which mutation, many of which could adapt to the environment (a 3rd or 4th eye for instance), actually survives enough to become incorporated into the mainstream? If the purpose of evolution is gradual improvement or a species, then the "old" should die off as it is replaced by the "new". That's only an assumption on your part because you have never studied the subject. If you -had- studied the subject you would know better than to make such an ignorant remark. I have studied the subject and the questions I raise are analytical and logical in nature. Either evolution is designed to improve the species, or not. If it is, then what feedback determines what is actually an improvement. If not, then what does improve the species? There can be many circumstances where a variation doesn't compete for the same resources as it's progenitor. This explains why there are so many speices of birds that have but slight variations -- many birds are migratory. And so are many species of primates. This explains subtle variations within a specific species, but that doesn't explain how a bird came to be in the first place. Are you proposing that a winged creature suddenly appeared by accident, as a mutation from a land-based critter, and it proliferated all by itself. What taught it to fly in the first place? How could a genetic anomaly take into consideration the dynamics of flight? I suppose I should start with Rocky and Bulwinkle. You see, Rocky is a "flying squirrel". They don't really fly, but glide from one place to another using skin that has overgrown. The skin probably evolved because the critters kept falling out of the trees, and the species with the variation of loose skin allowed more of them to survive the falls. Then why do other squirrels not have loose skin? Do they not fall from trees as well? Why only the "flying" squirrel? And what determined whether that skin actually helped them, other those other squirrels who don't? Easy enough. The next logical step would be an variation of their "wings" that would allow them to glide for longer periods of time, and over greater distances. Perhaps even a variation where muscle movement gives a little extra flight time. Eventually, over a few hundred thousand years and thousands of generations, there will probably be a squirrel that can really fly. Better late than never? Birds already fly. Why would a squirrel need to fly now? What tactical advantage would that provide it over non-flying squirrels? Would those random mutations also thin its bones, and provide the proper lift/drag ratio in order to attain sustained flight? But you propose that one day there was a rat, then a miracle occured and *poof* there was a bat? I don't think so, Dave. Despite the fact that you don't "think" so, does not mean that that's exactly what might have happened. It's certainly easier to rationalize than a series of random mutations adding up to a viable new species. Evolution only explains a small part of the puzzle. No, you have only -learned- a small part of the puzzle. This is true. There are very few facts and a whole host of theories which cropped up to try to explain the facts. Such is science. Some theories will be dismissed while others will be proven as fact. And it's doubtful that divine providence will be a factor in any scientific theory. Again, your religious prejudice is blinding you from considering the likely notion of intelligent design and guidance. The theory of intelligent design is no more far-fetched than the idea that life began here spontaneously and proliferated into a diverse eco system, totally at random. You are assuming that "life began here spontaneously" and evolved "totally at random". Research strongly suggests that neither are true. The someone had to "plant" it. ......Why do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul? Evolution is science. The questions you ask are philosophical. Yes, but it all relates in the bigger picture. Talk to Skippy about your "bigger picture" cause that type of BS doesn't wash with me. I don't even buy into the concept of a "grand unified theory". Who is "Skippy"? So you have noticed that animals are different and have different characteristics. Congratulations. What you -haven't- learned that the same is true within the human species. Yea some are good and other not -so. But none can fly on their own. Yes, animals possess some intellectual capabilities. Beavers are pretty good engineers, and nobody can tell me that their behavior is purely instinctual since the circumstances for every beaver dam are different, and requires some intelligence in order to build those "crude" tools. Yea, it's called "teeth". Who taught them how to build those dams? Did you know that dolphins have sex just for fun? They are one of only two so far that seem to. Although I don't know how we can determine what passes for "fun" in the mind of a dolphin, since we cannot directly communicate with them. They also seem to learn things faster and easier than most teenage humans. Most animals learn to walk long before a human child. At age 1, many animals are much more intelligent and self sustaining than an equivalent aged human. So what's your point? And just about every animal has some form of communication, not just dolphins and a few others. Ants communicate with chemicals, bees communicate by 'dancing', dogs communicate by ****ing on trees and smelling each others butts, etc, etc. Rudimentary at best. Nothing as complex as what humans have achieved. But on the other hand, why would anyone think that human behavior is anything more than extentions of natural instinct? Everything we do somehow revolves around basic natural urges, whether it be breathing, sleeping, eating, sex, reproduction, dying, etc. Probably the only two characteristics that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is our propensity to destroy ourselves and our ability to show mercy. Boy are you cynically misguided. You think that all that humans do revolves around eating, sleeping and sex? What about those who create? Those who philosophize? Those who teach? Those who excel at physical activity? Those to seek answers to larger questions? Those who achieve greatness in any number of fields? But then again, the former doesn't differentiate us from lemmings, and the latter is more a recognition of the futility of life than it is a divine influence. Either way, man can be just as cruel as nature and frequently proves that to be a fact. So what you are in essence saying is that since we will all eventually die, what's the point of living? So what's the difference between man and animal? Human arrogance in thinking he is something more than just another product of nature. I'd like to think we are the most advanced product of the divine intelligence. It very well might be. It's all part of the bigger plan. Like I said, I totally accept the concepts of evolution. I just believe that the process has been "managed" by a higher order intelligence, the definition of which, has yet to be revealed. I am not advocating any specific religious interpretation of "God", only that one exists. The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of variations that can occur in the processes of evolution. I understand them perfectly. I just do not accept that complexity can result from randomness. I don't accept the theory that if you place a group of monkeys in a cage with a bunch of typewriters that they'll eventually write every great piece of literary works. I don't either. Whose theory was that? http://www.angelfire.com/in/hypnoson...e_Monkeys.html There are many others. I'm surprised that in that vast storehouse of knowledge that you claim to posses, that you have not stumbled on this before. They might type out every letter that is contained within those works, but they will not get the order correct. Such is the nature of chaos and randomness. It lacks structure, direction, and order, and those elements are required for meaningful results to occur. Again, who suggested that such a thing was possible? Look and see. Neither do the scientists that study it. But the scientists don't insert God into the equation whenever something doesn't add up -- they look for other factors and they usually find them. There are still far too many unanswered questions to discount the theory of intelligent design. Discount it? No. But neither does it mean that we should jump to that conclusion because we haven't learned everything we can. I conclude nothing of the sort. But I have an especially hard time accepting the totally at random theory of evolution, and prefer to believe that evolution was guided by an unseen intelligent force. We may disagree on the exact definition of that intelligence, and without facts, it's pointless to debate it beyond that point other than from a purely philosophical perspective. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:29:58 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:43:50 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: Which won't likely happen if you are both monogamous. Being monogamous with your wife/husband/partner has nothing to do with your past. Never said that it did. =A0 You said one will not likely catch AIDS if one practices monogamy. This would only hold true if both were virgins when getting married..,not practical when applied to present reality, as the vast majority have a sexual past history. And the less promiscuous that past is, the less likely that one will catch AIDS. No one ever said differently. That statement still does nothing to support or validate your erred comment that now practicing monogamy will likely prevent one from catching AIDS, as it discounts your past. You are unable to distinguish between the differences. Besides, you imply that it's next to impossible or, at the very least, unrealistic for someone to wait until marriage to engage in sexual relations. Yes, it is extremely unrealistic to expect the majority will suddenly adhere to abstinence. There is nothing honorable or otherwise noteworthy about becoming sexually active in your teenaged years, No one said differently.Where do you get these things? despite the image that the major media outlets try to paint to those overly impressionable teenagers. Oh yea,,,,your tv watching,,...._ _ =A0There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for years and years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS. Which means nothing if you've never been exposed to it. Please try and remain at least semi-relative to your comments. Monogamous doesn't mean act like a slut throughout your "formative" years and then decide to "stay with one person at age 30. That you consider a past sexual history equals "acting like a slut" reveals several interesting facts of your beliefs regarding this topic. Yes, it reveals that I don't believe that sex should be engaged as a casual activity. Again,, you are in left field positing yourself against comments only you make. There was no intention to make comprehending difficult for youslef, but you are doggedly determined. Sex is a part of an act of love, to be shared with someone who you have a much deeper emotional bond with. Not something for two people, who are barely friends, who are simply looking to kill a few hours. Man,,you have been losing more ground each day with your posts, Dave. I'm glad it's almost summer up there. Cabin fever and that winter depression sure took its toll this year on you. _ The ONLY "cure" is found in the prevention..in other words, abstaining from pre-marital sex then both parties getting a thorough CBC (complete blood count) prior to tying the knot. Now you are finally seeing the light. I've known this since 1980 when the disease was traced to a cave in Africa and suspected of being contracted from bat guano (the initial host.....believed by scholars) or a rhesus monkey. Google "The Hot Zone" and the parallels are there for the reading. Better yet, read the book. Now if only you could understand that monogamy today does not discount one's past, as the majority of people have a sexual past history prior to marriage and monogamy. That's part of the problem. =A0 =A0Your claim that monogamy decreases the chance of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past history. It's not an "all or nothing" proposition. You're losing yourself again. Onec again, your rattle has nothing to with my comment. Try again......-your- claim that monogamy decreases the chance of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past history. While total abstinence before marriage is a concept that's lost on this latest hedonistic generation, the simple truth is that the less partners you have had, the less your chances of catching AIDS. Again and over and over,, you are presenting an argument to which only yourself appears to be unconvinced. The type of partners you have had also affects your chances. Frequent patronage of prostitutes, for instance, greatly increases your chances of getting the disease. It would depend upon the act. For example, the chance of the transmission of AIDS while a man receives oral sex from a woman is lower than your chances of getting killed in an automobile accident. _ The "clean" mark was originally 5 years, then 10, then 15,,,it's now believed that 20 years is the "safe" mark regarding past sexual activity..in other words, if you have been monogamous for 20 years with your partner, and your partner has also been monogamous for that amount of time, the likelihood of contracting the virus decreases substantially, but is -still- not discounted totally. Better that than hooking up with someone who's rear end has seen more bedsheets than underwear. My wife and I recently celebrated our 20 year wedding anniversary. So I guess we're safe ;-) Only if you were both virgins when you married. _ Congratulations! I'd like to say the same regarding your beliefs of contracting this disease, but I think your moral beliefs are heavily biasing and preventing you from obtaining the facts regarding such. The facts are quite simple. The less sex you engage in, the lesser your chances of getting AIDS. Now try injecting reality into your equation. If it was as simple as you present, the AIDS epidemic would not exist. Those who contract the disease have only themselves, by virtue of their activities, to blame in most cases. The same can be said of your wife if she or your daughter contract lung cancer, asthma or pulmonary emboli related problems down the line because of her smoking while she was pregnant. If you are going to hold people to the flame for all their abhorrant behavior, you must begin in your own backyard, lest you have no right to confront others and your soap box is nothing more than a mirage. I am quite certain that my risk of contracting AIDS is less than my chances of getting hit by a meteor. Since no one can recall the last time one had been struck with a meteor, that's a hell of a scholarly and meritous claim. I am far more concerned with cancer and heart disease as these pose a much greater risk to the members of my family. Diseases that, in large part, can be blamed on your family members by virtue of their poor choices and actions..smoking. Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj |
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:34:14 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: If the FCC chose to do so, freebanders can be charged criminally. The fact that they have not chosen to do any more than sporadic citations, does not diminish the fact that they could if they chose to. Whoaaa.....you are invoking what does not take place, only what you pontificate can take place. Reality is,,it doesn't take place. End of story. Police do not usually cite people for Jaywalking, but they could at any time. Also reality,,but, stay relevant to reality and not what "may" happen. Dreaming is nice, but not reality. The point is that just because a law is not actively enforced does not mean that it's ok to break it. It does in many cases where the law is not enforced. Blue laws are but a single example,,,an example you felt so valid, you snipped it. But the point is that nothing will happen if you are never caught. But the fact that you are not likely to get caught does not diminish the illegality No one ever said it did. =A0=A0and societal irresponsibility of engaging in the acts. =A0 In order for you to claim such a "societal irresponsibility" exists, there first must exist a "societal responsibility" somehwere other than your mind regarding such (cb radio)....can you cite it? Societal responsibility goes far beyond CB radio. It goes hand in hand with morality, consideration, and just plain old fashioned good manners. Try again.....in regards to cb radio, please cite this non-existent "societal responsibility" concept that has you confounded. Not everything in life is codified, especially morality. Then you have no right to hold others to your view of what is and isn't acceptable, despite your claims to the contrary. If you need a specific guide on how to be a responsible citizen and a good neighbor, you can start with Miss Manners and work your way up from there. And since you admittedly can not comprehend why one jamming repeater frequencies canbe present a safety hazard, you should begin your radio education as relates to hammie radio, anew. The FCC rules do carry criminal as well as civil penalties should they choose to apply them, if the case warrants it. Please cite these criminal penalties referring the freeband or simple dx. Please refer to the communications act of 1934 and related parts. I went to the source. I see no criminal charges, merely civil charges. Can you cite this exception of which you speak? Start with Title IV, section 401 and work your way from there. Waffling will not distance yourself from your incorrect claim, David. I have yet to find a criminal charge for simple dxing. It does not exist. _ I would hedge zero times have you actually confronted a real criminal or law breaker in the act and in person. I certainly would if the opportunity presented itself. It presents itself daily to you in the form of speeders,,an act that can cause physical damage or death when violated, which carry real criminal pealties, unlike dxing or freebanding. When was the last time you confronted one and how was it done? If I were to confront one speeder, I'd have to confront all of them, A fallacy. and I cannot do that. There is a mitigating difference between "can't" and "won't". Even so...keeping with your claim,,..how is it you confront all freebanders and lawbreakers regarding cb and freebanding? =A0I have, on occasion, prevented speeding by paralleling someone in the right lane holding the legal speed limit. A massive ticket here in Florida, AND in Pa from what I read. Based on what charge? Left lane is for passing only. Again you don;t know the laws of your own state. A person is under no obligation, and in fact is prohibited from exceeding the posted speed limit regardless of which lane you are in. A perfect example of you hypocritically breaking the law to commit an act of what you mistakenly believe upholds another. I broke no law. You did. ASk your unnamed but often invoked nameless and numerous cop "friends". Besides, speeding is not a criminal offense, it's a simple summary offense. And the cb infractions are civil in nature, not criminal. Until they become habitual and flagrant. =A0 I use your own words: =A0What it may or may not lead to is irrelevant, and calls for speculation. ..except when you invoked the possibilities of cbers running huge power interfering with emergency communications in a long ago conversation. Of course, it isno linger irrelevant when you invoke such. Which happens. Speculation is acceptable only when invoked by yourself to suppport your hypocrisy. Nothing I have said is hypocritical. However you may wish to reexamine the context of which you pull your information before making invalid comparisons. Since Frank taught you the proper definition of "analogy", it really doesn't matter. or on bands where public access is set aside. Or not. Don't forget many of the freqs that have been abandoned. Abandoned does not mean "open". Right,,,it means not being used.To use your analogy regarding physical property,,,,if a lot or property is abandoned, and one tends the ground, takes care of it, and pays the tax on it for x amount of years, the often land becomes the property of the caretaker who has been taking care of it and paying the taxes. Squatters rights. And interesting angle. And a valid one. And for it to apply, then you would have to concede that radio spectrum is treated in the same way as "real" property. =A0 It doesn't apply to the radoio spectrum, which is what you are being properly instructed upon. =A0I wonder if someone has tried that tactic on the FCC in regard to the freeband area of 11 meters. The principle is similar. Only to your misguided education or beliefs or whatever is responsible for you not grasping such a concept. It has not been tried with the FCC because even the lowly cbers seem to comprehend the spectrum is 1) not owned by the FCC and 2) not tangible property. Then the concept of squatter's rights does not apply to radio spectrum. Only you said it did. So I'm curious why you brought it up in that context. To make you understand your error. There are many abandoned buildings around. But you are still not allowed to trespass there. Yet, many people use these abandon buildings on a regular basis with immunity. Bums,,,vagrants, crackheads, ..... Freebanders. I see the similarities. You really have a low opinion of yourself, Dave. No, not me, only scofflaws. I always said you had a serious ego and self-esteem problem. The mere admittance that you held yourself in such company confirms such. That was then, this is now. No matter. I could say my esteem is that of which my character was never held in the company of whcih you refer yourself, past or present. Everyone can repent, even you. Repent? To who? ANd for what? Is it a sin to talk on the freeband? Dave, you're losing nd, here. It's not too late to atone for the error of your ways. See above for examples of a form of civil disobedience.. Yes, and I'm waiting to see someone attempt to use this reasoning to obtain the legal authorization of the freeband Only you could. I've seen far more ridiculous claims come forth by misguided citizens against the government. So I would not be surprised if someone tried the "squatter's rights" angle with respect to radio spectrum. Most understand the concept can not be applied to such, You, on the other hand, are expressing great difficulty with the concept. Then again, some people would rather just operate illegally rather than going through the trouble to have an perceived unjust rule changed. Those people are simply weak. Like yourself,,,who is reactive but never proactive. Great analogy, The only thing you have in your favor is that the FCC is not motivated enough to do much about it. You have nothing in your favor. It's all blatant hypocrisy. What have I said, that could be considered hypocritical? too many things to list, but many regs have illustrated it for you,,,it;s not their fault you can;t comprehend it. Is operation on the freeband not illegal? Should the law not be respected? How many more excuses are you going to invent to hide, obfuscate, justify, or otherwise downplay the fact that you willingly ignore a federal law? =A0 It really galls you that you were never given any reasons, let alone conjured excuses of which onlu you hallucinate. =A0It's not that it's any less illegal, it's only that they don't care enough. Because it is rightly a non-issue to the majority, of which you clearly do not belong, leading to the fact that you are a minority wishing to dictate your beliefs to the masses. Doesn't work that way. Sort of like the democratic party trying to subvert the constitution by an abusive application of a filibuster to block judicial nominees...... You said you were behind all legal activities. You're a hypocrite. Fillibusters are legal. Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj |
Dave:
"Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to transmit anywhere." That is NOT what I said at all, they should ONLY be able to transmit in the radio spectrum which is theirs--off the top of my head, this would only, very roughly, be about one-half of the full radio spectrum... the other half split up between various other users... and the rest being used by citizens... .... without it being organized, and the necessary freqs set aside for the various uses... and the ridiculous restrictions... the result may well be--people transmitting all over the spectrum... but that is a rather insane system... Warmest regards, John -- Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... | On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:14:42 -0400, (I | AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: | | From: (John Smith) | Oh no, he is nothing special alright... I imagine | your IQ has been tested | | and blows him away... | | | Your "imagination" is limited only yourself. Nothing odd about how you | continue to prefer to change the topic to one of a poster instead of the | topic. You see, this is a flub of the communication-challenged. Denial | is not a river in Egypt. Try and remain focused on the topic and not | allow your personal emotions to dictate poor communication form. Once | again, remaining on topic is the preferred MO. If you continue to | struggle with such, you may wish to examine your present agenda. | | And, surely you have rubbed elbows with | | colleges such as he has, perhaps you even | | share many of the same friends--too bad | | about Carl Sagans' passing--I bet you miss | | him... | | | And my "bet" is proving more valid with each uncontrollable emotion of | yours that manifests in the most entertaining of manners. With a single | post, I have not only captivated yourr attention, but created an entity | of obsession so intense, your can focus on nothing but your newly chosen | "topic"...."me". (makes sign of cross, blesses the unsavory and newfound | church member wearing Halloween mask) . | | | and hold many as close personal friends-- | | Claiming you knew Sagan personally means nothing to the masses, so | forgive my curiosity for inquiring as to why you felt it to important to | mention? Feeling bad about yourself and needing a pick-me-up? LOL.. | | | the rich exchange you have with them keeps | | you quite up to date--I can tell from your text... | | | And the contingency can tell quite more from your multiple posts | "suddenly" (LMAO) focusing on nothing but myself. Now,,,THAT is the | defnition of rich,,but you continue with the gaffes, so it's more than | worth the entertainment. | | Nope, no one would ever confuse you with an | | "Arm-Chair-Genius." | | | Nor you with managing to remain on topic and focus on the subject | instead of changing it to one of a poster you became fixated upon with | your manias. Of course, people like yourself need reminded that usenet | participants should focus on subject matter and not that of the poster, | but like you said, no one would -ever- confuse you with someone who | comprehended proper communication etiquette. | | Warmest regards, | | John | | Right backatcha!! | | | Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed | to transmit anywhere. | | Dave | "Sandbagger" |
On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:47:29 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Dave: "Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to transmit anywhere." That is NOT what I said at all, they should ONLY be able to transmit in the radio spectrum which is theirs--off the top of my head, this would only, very roughly, be about one-half of the full radio spectrum... the other half split up between various other users... and the rest being used by citizens... ... without it being organized, and the necessary freqs set aside for the various uses... and the ridiculous restrictions... the result may well be--people transmitting all over the spectrum... but that is a rather insane system... Warmest regards, John On Tue, 10 May 2005 10:31:49 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: I am also open to them providing a section of this spectrum to specialized hobbies and for experimentation... however, the majority of it is mine is it half or the majority? |
Well, granting the "other users"--gov't, military, community transportation,
hobbists, etc... a whole half is probably over-kill--but better to be generous than not... Warmest regards, John -- Marbles can be used in models with excellent results! However, if forced to keep using all of mine up... I may end up at a disadvantage... I seem to have misplaced some!!! "Freeband sucks" wrote in message news:1116010170.3e6f1873b1407f9d5191a59369c56138@b ubbanews... | On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:47:29 -0700, "John Smith" | wrote: | | Dave: | | "Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to | transmit anywhere." | | That is NOT what I said at all, they should ONLY be able to transmit in the | radio spectrum which is theirs--off the top of my head, this would only, | very roughly, be about one-half of the full radio spectrum... the other | half split up between various other users... and the rest being used by | citizens... | | ... without it being organized, and the necessary freqs set aside for the | various uses... and the ridiculous restrictions... the result may well | be--people transmitting all over the spectrum... but that is a rather | insane system... | | Warmest regards, | John | | On Tue, 10 May 2005 10:31:49 -0700, "John Smith" | wrote: | | I am also open to them providing a section of this spectrum to | specialized hobbies and for experimentation... however, the majority | of it is mine | | is it half or the majority? |
Be kind to John.
I have been. I have treated him in kind response. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to transmit anywhere. David Hall Jr. N3CVJ "Sandbagger" Such an opinion appears nowhere except in forges and your repetitious references to such. The extent at which you defile yourself is nothing short of astonishing. |
|
On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:44:09 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Well, no, that's my whole point. Something has to "guide" the development of life. Why? Otherwise there would be no progress, only a random jumbling of unrelated mutations. Something has to determine which mutations are an "improvement", and whether those traits will be carried on. It seems pretty simple to me -- a frog with poisonous skin doesn't get eaten, and a tiger without teeth doesn't eat. It takes about as much intelligence to figure out which species survives as it does to figure out why. So why can't you figure it out? snip What determines what works best? If, as you suggest, all advances in evolution occur as a random mutation (Which it would have to be if it were not deliberately introduced), what feedback mechanism exists to determine whether that single mutation will proliferate to other species, or even descendants of the same species? When a mutation survives long enough to reproduce. Or was that a trick question? Do you think that rain must come from God because we don't know how it gets into the sky? ....oh, wait a sec, we -do- know how it gets into the sky. Bad example. So do you think that the Earth is at the center of the Univ..... uh, forget that one, Galileo really shamed the church when he proved that the Earth orbits the Sun. Ok, how about this: The rainbow -must- be proof of God because it...... nope, Newton shot that one down in flames. Well how about music? God must have invented music, right? After all, how did birds learn how to sing? oops, another bad example...... Gee Dave, it sure looks like all of God's "creations" are slowly being discovered to be nothing more than natural phenomena. Except maybe for Michael Jackson. So because some examples of physics can be accurately demonstrated, that there is no possibility of intelligent design and guidance? I didn't say anything of the sort. I said, but you can't understand, that when something isn't fully understood or remains undiscovered it isn't automatically considered to be an act of God. That process of thought may have been the 'tradition' for several thousand years but not any longer. At least not for most of us. -- when you consider that the bell curve consists of a population as great as the number of events that occur in the Universe within any period of time, it becomes utterly -ridiculous- to think that life requires divine intervention. You're just too hung up of formal religion. It's preventing you to consider the possibility. Just because a certain part of the ocean is unexplored doesn't mean it's inhabited with monsters. Doesn't mean that it isn't either. So because the possibility exists, we should conclude that those monsters -must- exist? Of course not. You -believe- they exist because that's what -you- want to believe. The rest of us hoist sail and go discover the facts. -You- are too hung up on religion to realize that randomness (aka, 'chaos') is nothing more than a term used to describe the collective effect of dynamic systems that are either so numerous or complex that their components -have yet- to be isolated and identified. Random and chaos are exactly that, actions which occur with no pattern or forethought. Haven't you been paying attention, Dave? Nothing occurs "with no pattern". The patterns are there, they are just too numerous or complex to identify. Weather was once thought to be random and/or chaotic. But thanks to people that are more intelligent than you we have learned patterns of weather well enough to predict, with some degree of certainty, what it will do in the future. That doesn't mean a seemingly random process -doesn't- have a logical and scientific explanation, only that the process is as yet unidentified. But you can't build order from chaos. At least not without some intelligence guiding it. Wrong. Nature if full of examples of where order grew out of chaos -without- intelligent guidance. It happens all the time. You can duplicate the process yourself with a child's science experiment: growing crystals. And if you can't understand that much then you probably still check under your bed every night for the boogie man. Why? More false analogy fallacies? Because we know enough to determine that there is no "boogieman", does not mean that we know enough to discount the existence of "God". That's the difference between you and me, Dave: You believe what you want to believe until it can be proven wrong (and sometimes even proof isn't enough). I, on the other hand, need proof -before- I'll believe in something so outlandish as an omniscient, omnipotent super-being that 'willed' the Universe into existence. And if there -is- evidence of guidance by some intelligent force, it's far more likely that this "force" is not God but some sort of ETI. Well now, you ARE making progress. You opened your mind for a split second. Tell me Frank, what is the definition of "God"? ROTFLMMFAO!!! You aren't suggesting that God is a collective of little grey humanoids from the planet Zorkon, are you? Beam me up, Scotty! Why not? Is it not within the realm of possibilities that what we consider "God" may be a superior intelligence which created this planet for who knows what reason (Other than 42)? Adams was pointing out that the Universe can't be reduced to a simple equation. I agree, but his implication was that there must be some divine influence, to which I don't agree. Adams is not an authority on the subject. And for you to cite his work in a context contrary to its meaning is proof that you are not an authority on Adams. May the force be with you, Dave! It always has been. OB1 has taught you well, young Jedi. But here is something you must know: I am your father, Dave. At least that's what your mother told me after she lost two other paternity suits. Since it is likely that I am older than you, that is a physical impossibility. But the increasing personal insults is a sure sign that you have run out of facts and logic, and have resorted to ad-hominem to make you case. The best you can hope for in this discussion is a stalemate. There are simply not enough facts to make your case. You keep on believing that, Dave. Include it in your bedtime prayers to the saucer men -- right after you make sure the boogie man isn't lurking under the bed. snip More insults? The fact is that you can't answer the question, and chose instead to mock me. What can I say -- your arguments are illogical and repetitive, you show no ability to think independently, your opinions are founded on ignorance, the 'facts' you present are fabrications based on your own assumptions, your vocabulary includes words you don't understand, and your rhetoric is no better than that of a grade-school bully. Yet you continue to put on your facade that you are somehow outsmarting me at every turn and refuse to see just how profoundly stupid you sound when you try. So how can I possibly resist? I mock you because you ask for it, Dave. In fact, I have been mocking you for months but you are too stupid to understand how. The difference is that now I've dumbed-down my remarks to a level low enough that you can see them for what they really are. You believe what you want to believe based on nothing more than pure faith, which is no different than what I do. But the difference is that you arrogantly insist that I am somehow "wrong". Because you -are- wrong, and here's a little experiment you can do to demonstrate just how wrong you are. First, find a wall made of brick or concrete. Then sit you butt down, pray to the saucer men, and ask them to turn the wall into jello. Draw upon your faith to believe that when you perform the next step in the experiment that the wall will most certainly be jello. Then curl up your little fist and hit the wall just as hard as you can. By the time the pain subsides you will understand that, even though you can -choose- to believe anything you want, facts define reality. You tell yourself that facts and logic back you up, but the truth is that there are little facts available to make a positive determination on whether life here evolved purely at random, and without any outside influence. You further re-enforce your faith by telling yourself that the facts are out there, and that we just haven't found them yet. And while this is most likely true, you should be careful what you wish for. For the answers you seek may not be the ones you want to hear. ......oh brother. What drives that purpose? When Moses asked God what the people should call him, God responded, "I am that I am." IOW, God exists for the sake of himself. Interesting that you quote something that you deny the existence of, The Bible doesn't exist? to make a point. Of course the irony of that position was not lost on me. For us mortals it isn't much different -- life is spent propogating ourselves. For human males that consists of impregnating as many females as possible, hence the common characteristic of men to "love 'em and leave 'em", and their willingness to screw just about anything that is receptive to their advances. The female reproductive role is more complex. Traditionally it has been to nurture and protect the larvae until they can be kicked out of the house. This explains why some women are gold-diggers (money = security, taken to an extreme). That is a hopelessly jaded position to take. You basically stated that all males have an intrinsic excuse for infidelity, in that they are instinctively hard wired for such behavior. The fact that was can transcend instinctive behavior plays no part in this I guess.... I never claimed it was an excuse, nor did I suggest that we can't overcome our instincts. snip BTW, this isn't my theory. It's from a well-documented study on human behavior that has been supported by numerous independent studies. I know all too well. The Learning Channel had an very interesting series on human behavior and covered this topic and the parallels in the animal world. I also used this information in a debate once with a hard core feminist, who was forwarding the " all men are pigs" notion, and defended their behavior as instinctive programming. Of course, I did it just for the reaction. I believe that using primitive instinctive traits to justify unacceptable social behavior is simply a lame excuse for those who have a weak will. Where did I suggest that instinctive behavior should be used to justify anything? Are you using that crystal ball again, Dave? But if you need to find a purpose that transcends natural biology, try the simple fact that we -can- transcend biology. That, by itself, as a "purpose" for life, is reflected heavily in the Bhuddist faith and to some extent with the Hindu. The 'challenge' of life, therefore, is to overcome our animal instincts and attain a higher level of being. Hence the enlightened and evolved call for a monogamous union. If that's your choice. snip Of course you could always take a perspective from Monty Python, but I think Monty Python itself is reason enough to live. I was never that much of a Python fan. I'm not suprised. snip See, this is what's so puzzling about you Frank. Once in a while you unload with a brilliant piece of perspective, which is at total odds with your status in life. You're one hell of an underachiever. Dr. Kramer probably wouldn't agree. Do you want the book or not? snip But what decides which mutation, many of which could adapt to the environment (a 3rd or 4th eye for instance), actually survives enough to become incorporated into the mainstream? Survival of the fittest. Variations that improve survivability are regenerated. Variations that are useless aren't regenerated because they hinder survivability; i.e, they are excess baggage. snip I have studied the subject and the questions I raise are analytical and logical in nature. Either evolution is designed to improve the species, or not. If it is, then what feedback determines what is actually an improvement. If not, then what does improve the species? Making sure that mutants like you don't reproduce. snip I suppose I should start with Rocky and Bulwinkle. You see, Rocky is a "flying squirrel". They don't really fly, but glide from one place to another using skin that has overgrown. The skin probably evolved because the critters kept falling out of the trees, and the species with the variation of loose skin allowed more of them to survive the falls. Then why do other squirrels not have loose skin? Do they not fall from trees as well? Why only the "flying" squirrel? And what determined whether that skin actually helped them, other those other squirrels who don't? Why do you need me to explain these things to you? Don't you have a brain? Can't you figure it out for yourself? Try it. Put yourself into a logical frame of mind, temporarily adopt my method of thought, and try answering your own question for once. Easy enough. The next logical step would be an variation of their "wings" that would allow them to glide for longer periods of time, and over greater distances. Perhaps even a variation where muscle movement gives a little extra flight time. Eventually, over a few hundred thousand years and thousands of generations, there will probably be a squirrel that can really fly. Better late than never? Birds already fly. Why would a squirrel need to fly now? What tactical advantage would that provide it over non-flying squirrels? Would those random mutations also thin its bones, and provide the proper lift/drag ratio in order to attain sustained flight? Why not? It worked with dinosaurs, didn't it? But you propose that one day there was a rat, then a miracle occured and *poof* there was a bat? I don't think so, Dave. Despite the fact that you don't "think" so, does not mean that that's exactly what might have happened. It's certainly easier to rationalize than a series of random mutations adding up to a viable new species. It's easier to believe in instantaneous transformation when your mind is too small to fathom the vast amounts of time nature has had to 'play God', so to speak. snip Again, your religious prejudice is blinding you from considering the likely notion of intelligent design and guidance. First of all, it's not "prejudice". I have 'prejudged' nothing. You, OTOH, have done exactly that -- you conclude that God is responsible for certain things -before- you have all the facts. Secondly, the idea of divine intervention is not "likely" at all since every phenomonon that was ever attributed to God is being discovered to have been caused by some natural process. Statistically, religion is dying. And it's too bad that people don't see that as a good thing -- or did you forget the part about the Babelfish? The theory of intelligent design is no more far-fetched than the idea that life began here spontaneously and proliferated into a diverse eco system, totally at random. You are assuming that "life began here spontaneously" and evolved "totally at random". Research strongly suggests that neither are true. The someone had to "plant" it. The rooster came first, eh? ......Why do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul? Evolution is science. The questions you ask are philosophical. Yes, but it all relates in the bigger picture. Talk to Skippy about your "bigger picture" cause that type of BS doesn't wash with me. I don't even buy into the concept of a "grand unified theory". Who is "Skippy"? One of the voodoo amp-techs that used to hang out in this group until he tried to explain the operation of a grounded-grid triode with: "it's part of a bigger picture". So you have noticed that animals are different and have different characteristics. Congratulations. What you -haven't- learned that the same is true within the human species. Yea some are good and other not -so. But none can fly on their own. I didn't know that was a requirement for species diversity. Yes, animals possess some intellectual capabilities. Beavers are pretty good engineers, and nobody can tell me that their behavior is purely instinctual since the circumstances for every beaver dam are different, and requires some intelligence in order to build those "crude" tools. Yea, it's called "teeth". Who taught them how to build those dams? Another loaded question: You are assuming that they needed to be taught. And by "'crude' tools" I was referring to the dams, not teeth. The fact remains that a certain amount of intelligence and ingenuity is required of the species in order to build such structures in such a wide variety of locations and circumstances. Which brings us back to the pertinent question: Which came first, the intelligence or the dam? According to -your- beliefs, the rooster came first. snip And just about every animal has some form of communication, not just dolphins and a few others. Ants communicate with chemicals, bees communicate by 'dancing', dogs communicate by ****ing on trees and smelling each others butts, etc, etc. Rudimentary at best. Nothing as complex as what humans have achieved. Assuming that's correct, are you suggesting that human complexity is what comprises a 'soul'? But on the other hand, why would anyone think that human behavior is anything more than extentions of natural instinct? Everything we do somehow revolves around basic natural urges, whether it be breathing, sleeping, eating, sex, reproduction, dying, etc. Probably the only two characteristics that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is our propensity to destroy ourselves and our ability to show mercy. Boy are you cynically misguided. You think that all that humans do revolves around eating, sleeping and sex? What about those who create? What makes you think that art and music are something other than extentions of instinctual behaviors? Animals attract mates with singing, dancing, showing their plumage, building nests, etc. It's also a method of communication that extends beyond verbal language. Those who philosophize? Ever read "The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam"? Those who teach? Procreation -- "It takes a village to raise a child." Those who excel at physical activity? Demonstrations of physical prowness, rutting, etc. Those to seek answers to larger questions? Isn't that the same as philosophy? Those who achieve greatness in any number of fields? Like politics? But then again, the former doesn't differentiate us from lemmings, and the latter is more a recognition of the futility of life than it is a divine influence. Either way, man can be just as cruel as nature and frequently proves that to be a fact. So what you are in essence saying is that since we will all eventually die, what's the point of living? No, but it's been suggested by others more than once. So what's the difference between man and animal? Human arrogance in thinking he is something more than just another product of nature. I'd like to think we are the most advanced product of the divine intelligence. Like I said befo You can believe what you want to believe but the facts define reality. snip The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of variations that can occur in the processes of evolution. I understand them perfectly. Then you have an understanding that exceeds that of the entire scientific community. I just do not accept that complexity can result from randomness. I'm assuming you mean 'order from chaos', but either way you are wrong. Just walk into any jewelry store and look at the diamonds. I don't accept the theory that if you place a group of monkeys in a cage with a bunch of typewriters that they'll eventually write every great piece of literary works. I don't either. Whose theory was that? http://www.angelfire.com/in/hypnoson...e_Monkeys.html There are many others. I'm surprised that in that vast storehouse of knowledge that you claim to posses, that you have not stumbled on this before. I have, I just didn't know who said it. snip There are still far too many unanswered questions to discount the theory of intelligent design. Discount it? No. But neither does it mean that we should jump to that conclusion because we haven't learned everything we can. I conclude nothing of the sort. That's -exactly- what you claim when you say that God is responsible for any missing evolutionary link. And you ignore the fact that those links are gradually being found. But I have an especially hard time accepting the totally at random theory of evolution, and prefer to believe that evolution was guided by an unseen intelligent force. We may disagree on the exact definition of that intelligence, and without facts, it's pointless to debate it beyond that point other than from a purely philosophical perspective. Great. Maybe now we can get back to the original topic. ----== 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 Fri, 13 May 2005 10:25:50 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:38:40 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) 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. You just said it was. You are second guessing only yourself. The "law" has been defined in regard to religious influences, since the inception of this country. It was not a problem in 1805, 1905, and 1955, so it should not be a problem in 2005. 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. In the case of religious influences in this country, the majority have accepted and endorsed it since the beginning. It's only now that a small, but vocal MINORITY that has a problem 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. That's rich..and wrong. No, it's not. You'd either have to be blind or hopelessly biased not to see it. Once again I ask you to explain how anything these "left wingers" say or do or interpret can matter at all regarding this issue while the republicans control the house and senate. In theory, it should mean nothing. But you know those obstructionist democrats trying to use a filibuster to leverage their minority into a controlling influence. Nevertheless, the misinterpretation has been all yours even though Frank neatly wrapped it all up and presented you with the facts clearly indicating congress shall keep the clause of separation of church and state intact. It was never there in the first place. At least not to the degree that the zealots are calling for now. Because you agree with the religious zealots and have on many occasion admitted that your moral views are to be fostered upon others and if they do not subscribe to your radical positions and admitted (on many occasion) socialistic tendencies, you mistakenly hold them as an enemy of yourself, seeking to take away that of which you believe. I and many others who are currently in the majority. You know, the ones who reelected G.W. Bush. I would argue that it was those influences which made this country one of strong moral and ethical principles. In one sentence you claim the moral and ethical principles of this country have degraded terribly and even said society was reflected on the air. Now you say the country is once again of strong moral fiber and ethical principle. No, I said that this country was FOUNDED on strong moral and ethical principles. You should learn to read for content, before making another of your erroneous conclusions. You flip flop more than Bush. No, you misinterpret and assume such as a result of your misinterpretations. I wouldn't go so far as to put it blatantly in those terms, but I do believe taking God and physical punishment out of the schools was a serious mistake. Then you and I do share some agreement in this area. But the reason why God was taken out of public schools was a direct result of anti-religious zealots trying to leverage an extreme interpretation of "separation of church and state" to accomplish this "unfortunate" feat. There was once a day when democrats and republicans practiced a little thing called compromise. There was also a day when the working guys of each party could think for themselves instead of widely swallowing their party line rhetoric and blaming those who aren't anywhere near leadership positions in this country for all the woes and incompetence of your own party. Such as? That is the most pedestrian act you have attempted to date. Scary thing is, you appear to actually believe yourself when you post such drivel. You simply can not handle the responsibility of the buck stopping with the leader you selected. What failures can be blamed on our leader? In other words, you seek to blame others when responsibility for your leader's action must be taken. Well, it might be nice to blame Bush for the failure of Social Security, but the democrats will not even allow his plan to come to a full vote, while offering nothing of their own to counter it. They'd rather just pretend that there's no problem (Even though prominent leaders of their own party were running around like chicken little about SS failing when Clinton was in office). Blaming another political party for the last four and a half years of confirmed failures illustrate you really have too great a deal to learn in order to effectively discuss the political process. Your opinion notwithstanding, there is not one thing you can definitively pin on Bush as a "failure". On the other hand, for the last 4 years, the democratic party has become the party of hatred and obstruction. If it looks smells or tastes like it came from a republican, their first instinct is to oppose it. Like I said before, before the extreme polarization of the political parties in Washington, you could actually get things done with a little compromise. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:22:08 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:44:09 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Well, no, that's my whole point. Something has to "guide" the development of life. Why? Otherwise there would be no progress, only a random jumbling of unrelated mutations. Something has to determine which mutations are an "improvement", and whether those traits will be carried on. It seems pretty simple to me -- a frog with poisonous skin doesn't get eaten, and a tiger without teeth doesn't eat. It takes about as much intelligence to figure out which species survives as it does to figure out why. So why can't you figure it out? Because for any improvement to be gauged as effective, there has to be a means of feedback. One mutated frog with poisonous skin will eventually die of it's own accord. So what determines whether this mutation is worthy of being carried on? snip What determines what works best? If, as you suggest, all advances in evolution occur as a random mutation (Which it would have to be if it were not deliberately introduced), what feedback mechanism exists to determine whether that single mutation will proliferate to other species, or even descendants of the same species? When a mutation survives long enough to reproduce. Or was that a trick question? But random mutations occur frequently. Many of them could conceivably reproduce. What decided which ones are beneficial, and which are merely "different"? Some new traits (like flight for instance) require more than one mutation to fully accomplish. What are the chances that each necessary mutation would occur in the same species randomly and at the same time to facilitate these new traits? What force drove water borne life to crawl out onto the shore? How could random mutations know the precise mutation to give those creatures the ability to breath air? Do you understand the nature of randomness? Randomness is exactly that. Things which occur for no reason. You may need lungs, but you might get a third eye, or longer fins. The minute you start looking into purpose driven mutations, you (however unwittingly) are accepting intelligent guidance. So because some examples of physics can be accurately demonstrated, that there is no possibility of intelligent design and guidance? I didn't say anything of the sort. I said, but you can't understand, that when something isn't fully understood or remains undiscovered it isn't automatically considered to be an act of God. That process of thought may have been the 'tradition' for several thousand years but not any longer. At least not for most of us. Yes, and some people may spend their whole lives looking for a "scientific" answer that will forever elude them, rather than admit that there are forces and events out there that we cannot explain. Just because a certain part of the ocean is unexplored doesn't mean it's inhabited with monsters. Doesn't mean that it isn't either. So because the possibility exists, we should conclude that those monsters -must- exist? No, but neither should we discard it. Of course not. You -believe- they exist because that's what -you- want to believe. The rest of us hoist sail and go discover the facts. That's great if the facts are there to find. We can tell, for instance that dinosaurs roamed the earth, that there were big climatic and geological changes over the years. But we cannot factually answer the question of why these things all happened, and what precipitated it all. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that it all started as a random happenstance. There are far too many variables and too much random chaos for this level of intricate sophistication to have occurred and evolved by any other means than intelligent design and guidance. We can argue about the definition of "god", or whether such cosmic intelligence warrants the label of "god", but as far as I'm concerned, such a force exists. The evidence is all around us. -You- are too hung up on religion to realize that randomness (aka, 'chaos') is nothing more than a term used to describe the collective effect of dynamic systems that are either so numerous or complex that their components -have yet- to be isolated and identified. Random and chaos are exactly that, actions which occur with no pattern or forethought. Haven't you been paying attention, Dave? Nothing occurs "with no pattern". The patterns are there, they are just too numerous or complex to identify. Is that the excuse you use to try to turn chaos into order? Do you see pictures in TV snow too? Weather was once thought to be random and/or chaotic. And to some degree it still is. Despite the modern level of technology that meteorologists have, they still cannot get a weather forecast right in most cases But thanks to people that are more intelligent than you we have learned patterns of weather well enough to predict, with some degree of certainty, what it will do in the future. We can determine within a certain level of error, what SHOULD happen. But despite computer models, the weather often makes unpredicted shifts. Which is why we sit here expecting a foot of snow, and get a dusting, or a rogue storm develops out of thin air and levels a block's worth of trees. That doesn't mean a seemingly random process -doesn't- have a logical and scientific explanation, only that the process is as yet unidentified. But you can't build order from chaos. At least not without some intelligence guiding it. Wrong. Nature if full of examples of where order grew out of chaos -without- intelligent guidance. How do you know there was no guidance if you cannot identify it? It happens all the time. You can duplicate the process yourself with a child's science experiment: growing crystals. There is nothing orderly about that. No two crystals grows exactly the same. And if you can't understand that much then you probably still check under your bed every night for the boogie man. Why? More false analogy fallacies? Because we know enough to determine that there is no "boogieman", does not mean that we know enough to discount the existence of "God". That's the difference between you and me, Dave: You believe what you want to believe until it can be proven wrong (and sometimes even proof isn't enough). No, I believe what makes the most sense based on the facts known and the principle of Occam's Razor. I, on the other hand, need proof -before- I'll believe in something so outlandish as an omniscient, omnipotent super-being that 'willed' the Universe into existence. Let's hope for your sake that you're right. ROTFLMMFAO!!! You aren't suggesting that God is a collective of little grey humanoids from the planet Zorkon, are you? Beam me up, Scotty! Why not? Is it not within the realm of possibilities that what we consider "God" may be a superior intelligence which created this planet for who knows what reason (Other than 42)? Adams was pointing out that the Universe can't be reduced to a simple equation. I agree, but his implication was that there must be some divine influence, to which I don't agree. Adams is not an authority on the subject. And for you to cite his work in a context contrary to its meaning is proof that you are not an authority on Adams. It was a joke son! Adams writes humor. Since it is likely that I am older than you, that is a physical impossibility. But the increasing personal insults is a sure sign that you have run out of facts and logic, and have resorted to ad-hominem to make you case. The best you can hope for in this discussion is a stalemate. There are simply not enough facts to make your case. You keep on believing that, Dave. Include it in your bedtime prayers to the saucer men No, that's Twisty. He talks to the Saucer men. I merely believe that considering the vastness of the universe, that it statistically improbable that life only exists here. snip More insults? The fact is that you can't answer the question, and chose instead to mock me. What can I say -- your arguments are illogical and repetitive, you show no ability to think independently, your opinions are founded on ignorance, the 'facts' you present are fabrications based on your own assumptions, your vocabulary includes words you don't understand, and your rhetoric is no better than that of a grade-school bully. Projecting again Frank? Where is your "logic"? You mock my "faith" with little more than your own "counterfaith". Yet you continue to put on your facade that you are somehow outsmarting me at every turn And only your own narcissistic arrogance continues to push you into coming back to get smacked down again and again. o how can I possibly resist? I mock you because you ask for it, Dave. In fact, I have been mocking you for months but you are too stupid to understand how. The difference is that now I've dumbed-down my remarks to a level low enough that you can see them for what they really are. Frank, you are merely a diversion from my otherwise challenging work schedule. You provide me with comic relief. You are so rigid and pompous, I can now totally understand why you "chose" to be a loner. Your "people skills" are seriously lacking. You believe what you want to believe based on nothing more than pure faith, which is no different than what I do. But the difference is that you arrogantly insist that I am somehow "wrong". Because you -are- wrong, Based on what factual evidence? and here's a little experiment you can do to demonstrate just how wrong you are. First, find a wall made of brick or concrete. Then sit you butt down, pray to the saucer men, and ask them to turn the wall into jello. Draw upon your faith to believe that when you perform the next step in the experiment that the wall will most certainly be jello. Then curl up your little fist and hit the wall just as hard as you can. It doesn't work that way. Intelligent design does not mean that we command magical powers. By the time the pain subsides you will understand that, even though you can -choose- to believe anything you want, facts define reality. I see how you spin your "facts". Because the cosmic intelligence chose not to respond to my "request", that means that it does not exist? I have a similar experiment for you Frank. Stand out in the middle of a field until you get hit by an asteroid. How long will you stand there until you conclude that asteroids don't exist? You tell yourself that facts and logic back you up, but the truth is that there are little facts available to make a positive determination on whether life here evolved purely at random, and without any outside influence. You further re-enforce your faith by telling yourself that the facts are out there, and that we just haven't found them yet. And while this is most likely true, you should be careful what you wish for. For the answers you seek may not be the ones you want to hear. .....oh brother. When reduced to the nuts and bolts of reality, this is all you can usually respond with. When Moses asked God what the people should call him, God responded, "I am that I am." IOW, God exists for the sake of himself. Interesting that you quote something that you deny the existence of, The Bible doesn't exist? I was referring to God. But if you need to find a purpose that transcends natural biology, try the simple fact that we -can- transcend biology. That, by itself, as a "purpose" for life, is reflected heavily in the Bhuddist faith and to some extent with the Hindu. The 'challenge' of life, therefore, is to overcome our animal instincts and attain a higher level of being. Hence the enlightened and evolved call for a monogamous union. If that's your choice. snip Of course you could always take a perspective from Monty Python, but I think Monty Python itself is reason enough to live. I was never that much of a Python fan. I'm not suprised. Now, I suppose, you'll dazzle us with your theory of how Python is the humor of the intellectual? snip See, this is what's so puzzling about you Frank. Once in a while you unload with a brilliant piece of perspective, which is at total odds with your status in life. You're one hell of an underachiever. Dr. Kramer probably wouldn't agree. Do you want the book or not? Frank, I can get as much information as I need right from the internet. It's a lot better than finding places to keep all those books. snip But what decides which mutation, many of which could adapt to the environment (a 3rd or 4th eye for instance), actually survives enough to become incorporated into the mainstream? Survival of the fittest. Variations that improve survivability are regenerated. Sometimes a mutation does not do anything to improve survivability. Do those not regenerate as well? Variations that are useless aren't regenerated because they hinder survivability; i.e, they are excess baggage. Perhaps not. Mutations such as a 3rd eye may not make any difference at all in survivability. snip I have studied the subject and the questions I raise are analytical and logical in nature. Either evolution is designed to improve the species, or not. If it is, then what feedback determines what is actually an improvement. If not, then what does improve the species? Making sure that mutants like you don't reproduce. Lacking a logical and reasoned answer, Frank predictably falls back on his tried and true tactic of insult. I suppose I should start with Rocky and Bulwinkle. You see, Rocky is a "flying squirrel". They don't really fly, but glide from one place to another using skin that has overgrown. The skin probably evolved because the critters kept falling out of the trees, and the species with the variation of loose skin allowed more of them to survive the falls. Then why do other squirrels not have loose skin? Do they not fall from trees as well? Why only the "flying" squirrel? And what determined whether that skin actually helped them, other those other squirrels who don't? Why do you need me to explain these things to you? Don't you have a brain? Can't you figure it out for yourself? Try it. Put yourself into a logical frame of mind, temporarily adopt my method of thought, and try answering your own question for once. I've been there and done all that Frank. Haven't you figured it out yet? I was where you are now. I asked the same questions, made the same observations, believed the same thing. I once believed that there wasn't a question out there that (if given enough time) science couldn't answer. Why do you think I keep giving you questions which you cannot answer other than to theorize? I chuckle watching you stumble, postulate, and then attack me while trying. I had a series of life changing events which then put other similar events into perspective. Since I am not one to believe in random coincidences, these occurrences, taken together, spelled out a specific and seemingly deliberate series of events which appeared to have a purpose. Every event that you undertake in life has specific consequences. Most people do not ponder such things, unless they have a reason to do so. But to put it simply, an event happened to me, which caused me to do something, which led to something else, and so on down the chain. Had those significant events not happened, I would be in a totally different place and situation right now. It all started with my premonition of my father's death the night before it happened when I was 9 years old. What science can explain E.S.P. and similar phenomena? What about ghosts? If life is simply random and meaningless? What explains short glimpses into the "great beyond"? Are all witnesses of ghosts mentally "out there"? What about people with accurate ESP predictions? The military was impressed enough with this that they had programs to develop "remote viewers" to spy on enemies. But for some reason, traditional "nuts and bolts" scientists stray away from such study, and, in fact, try to discredit those who do. Are you one of those close minded people who deal only with those subjects that you can touch and discount anything else? Easy enough. The next logical step would be an variation of their "wings" that would allow them to glide for longer periods of time, and over greater distances. Perhaps even a variation where muscle movement gives a little extra flight time. Eventually, over a few hundred thousand years and thousands of generations, there will probably be a squirrel that can really fly. Better late than never? Birds already fly. Why would a squirrel need to fly now? What tactical advantage would that provide it over non-flying squirrels? Would those random mutations also thin its bones, and provide the proper lift/drag ratio in order to attain sustained flight? Why not? It worked with dinosaurs, didn't it? You once again are assuming that it all happened at random. But you propose that one day there was a rat, then a miracle occured and *poof* there was a bat? I don't think so, Dave. Despite the fact that you don't "think" so, does not mean that that's exactly what might have happened. It's certainly easier to rationalize than a series of random mutations adding up to a viable new species. It's easier to believe in instantaneous transformation when your mind is too small to fathom the vast amounts of time nature has had to 'play God', so to speak. A few million years are but a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. But without purposeful guidance, there's about as much chance of our complex ecosystem developing totally at random, as there is that a bunch of monkeys can randomly type the complete works of Shakespeare. Again, your religious prejudice is blinding you from considering the likely notion of intelligent design and guidance. First of all, it's not "prejudice". I have 'prejudged' nothing. You have. You would rather believe unproven, and bordering on ridiculous theories rather than accept the possibility of an intelligent force. You, OTOH, have done exactly that -- you conclude that God is responsible for certain things -before- you have all the facts. Sometimes, there are forces at work that preclude the need for hard facts. Secondly, the idea of divine intervention is not "likely" at all since every phenomonon that was ever attributed to God is being discovered to have been caused by some natural process. That is totally wrong. Besides, what is a "natural process" anyway? If there is a God, then he can make any number of "natural processes" at his will. Statistically, religion is dying. And it's too bad that people don't see that as a good thing Why should that be a good thing? Religion has helped to rein in many primitive barbaric behaviors and helped civilization become refined and productive. Without such guidance, we wouldn't be much more than our animal cousins, living only for ourselves, and doing what we needed to do just to survive. Talk to Skippy about your "bigger picture" cause that type of BS doesn't wash with me. I don't even buy into the concept of a "grand unified theory". Who is "Skippy"? One of the voodoo amp-techs that used to hang out in this group until he tried to explain the operation of a grounded-grid triode with: "it's part of a bigger picture". A different bigger picture. Yes, animals possess some intellectual capabilities. Beavers are pretty good engineers, and nobody can tell me that their behavior is purely instinctual since the circumstances for every beaver dam are different, and requires some intelligence in order to build those "crude" tools. Yea, it's called "teeth". Who taught them how to build those dams? Another loaded question: You are assuming that they needed to be taught. And by "'crude' tools" I was referring to the dams, not teeth. The fact remains that a certain amount of intelligence and ingenuity is required of the species in order to build such structures in such a wide variety of locations and circumstances. Which brings us back to the pertinent question: Which came first, the intelligence or the dam? According to -your- beliefs, the rooster came first. So you believe that animals possess some analytical skills? Maybe so. One could also argue that animals were simply "Version 1.0, 2.05, and 3.01" of the species experiment. The sobering conclusion to that is that we humans are likely not the end result either. snip And just about every animal has some form of communication, not just dolphins and a few others. Ants communicate with chemicals, bees communicate by 'dancing', dogs communicate by ****ing on trees and smelling each others butts, etc, etc. Rudimentary at best. Nothing as complex as what humans have achieved. Assuming that's correct, are you suggesting that human complexity is what comprises a 'soul'? Not at all. The concept of a soul transcends traditional nuts and bolts science, and bridges such things as philosophy with parapsychology and spirituality, and yes, religion. Some people believe in reincarnation. The idea that our "souls" recycle our bodies and assume physical form here more than once. And some also theorize that these souls could be placed into animals as well. Hence the Hindu tradition of animal worship, the so-called "sacred cow". Before you totally poo-poo such a concept, you should research it a bit. There have been compelling studies of people who, under deep hypnosis, have recounted a past life with remarkable detail, which could not have been obtained through present day observation or research. If nothing else, it leaves one with more questions than answers. But on the other hand, why would anyone think that human behavior is anything more than extentions of natural instinct? Everything we do somehow revolves around basic natural urges, whether it be breathing, sleeping, eating, sex, reproduction, dying, etc. Probably the only two characteristics that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is our propensity to destroy ourselves and our ability to show mercy. Boy are you cynically misguided. You think that all that humans do revolves around eating, sleeping and sex? What about those who create? What makes you think that art and music are something other than extentions of instinctual behaviors? Animals attract mates with singing, dancing, showing their plumage, building nests, etc. It's also a method of communication that extends beyond verbal language. So concert musicians, renowned painters and sculptors, and even Martha Stewart are just looking to get laid? Those who philosophize? Ever read "The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam"? No, did you? Those who teach? Procreation -- "It takes a village to raise a child." Hillary Clinton? Please.... There is more to teaching than procreation. Those who excel at physical activity? Demonstrations of physical prowness, rutting, etc. Again, the purpose of such is not necessarily a function of sexual need. Those to seek answers to larger questions? Isn't that the same as philosophy? No, not always. Some are "scientists". Those who achieve greatness in any number of fields? Like politics? Great leaders. But you do seem to have some sort of deep rooted sexual issues. I'd check them out if I were you. Living alone has you fixating on sex. But then again, the former doesn't differentiate us from lemmings, and the latter is more a recognition of the futility of life than it is a divine influence. Either way, man can be just as cruel as nature and frequently proves that to be a fact. So what you are in essence saying is that since we will all eventually die, what's the point of living? No, but it's been suggested by others more than once. People with depressive negative psychological issues. Which brings up another biological point. We know that our lifespan is controlled by our genetics. Who determined what the optimal lifespan for a human should be? So what's the difference between man and animal? Human arrogance in thinking he is something more than just another product of nature. I'd like to think we are the most advanced product of the divine intelligence. Like I said befo You can believe what you want to believe but the facts define reality. I'm still waiting to see your "facts". So far all you have given is counter faith and hypotheses. snip The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of variations that can occur in the processes of evolution. I understand them perfectly. Then you have an understanding that exceeds that of the entire scientific community. I understand that they exist. I do not know their exact definitions. But I don't need to. I just do not accept that complexity can result from randomness. I'm assuming you mean 'order from chaos', but either way you are wrong. Just walk into any jewelry store and look at the diamonds. Which is just as wrong as your "growing crystal" analogy. Each specimen is unique in its virgin state. Jewelers cut and polish to some semblance of uniformity. I don't accept the theory that if you place a group of monkeys in a cage with a bunch of typewriters that they'll eventually write every great piece of literary works. I don't either. Whose theory was that? http://www.angelfire.com/in/hypnoson...e_Monkeys.html There are many others. I'm surprised that in that vast storehouse of knowledge that you claim to posses, that you have not stumbled on this before. I have, I just didn't know who said it. Does it really matter? snip There are still far too many unanswered questions to discount the theory of intelligent design. Discount it? No. But neither does it mean that we should jump to that conclusion because we haven't learned everything we can. I conclude nothing of the sort. That's -exactly- what you claim when you say that God is responsible for any missing evolutionary link. And you ignore the fact that those links are gradually being found. So what? Even if every link is found, that only proves that evolution occurred, but not what drives it. But I have an especially hard time accepting the totally at random theory of evolution, and prefer to believe that evolution was guided by an unseen intelligent force. We may disagree on the exact definition of that intelligence, and without facts, it's pointless to debate it beyond that point other than from a purely philosophical perspective. Great. Maybe now we can get back to the original topic. Like I said, a stalemate. Glad you finally understand. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:47:29 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Dave: "Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to transmit anywhere." That is NOT what I said at all, they should ONLY be able to transmit in the radio spectrum which is theirs--off the top of my head, this would only, very roughly, be about one-half of the full radio spectrum... the other half split up between various other users... and the rest being used by citizens... Forgive me then. I seemed to remember you first saying that ALL the spectrum belonged to the citizens. I'm sorry if I got that wrong. But if all of the spectrum doesn't belong to the citizens, then who does it belong to? ... without it being organized, and the necessary freqs set aside for the various uses... and the ridiculous restrictions... the result may well be--people transmitting all over the spectrum... but that is a rather insane system... I would agree, and it seems that you've modified your original proposal for "radio anarchy" to one of "looser regulation". Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Fri, 13 May 2005 04:11:08 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: 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. Yes, and that evidence shows the extent of the climatic shifts over that time period. What it does not show is what precipitated those changes, nor can it predict the additional effects of man's influence over the environment. 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? Existentialism is more concerned with "how", rather than "why". Well that also depends on which purveyor of modern existentialism you tend to follow. Dave "Sandbagger" |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:25:50 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:38:40 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) 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. You just said it was. You are second guessing only yourself. The "law" has been defined in regard to religious influences, since the inception of this country. It was not a problem in 1805, 1905, and 1955, so it should not be a problem in 2005. Only to those who are trapped in the past and who are afraid of and reject change and progress. But those religious influences are adorned all over our government buildings and in our government business. So are other religious symbols besides Christianity. Why is it only now do certain people find exception to it? You would have to ask one. My guess would be a certain faction is trying to cram their religious beliefs down otehr's throats. _ 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. In the case of religious influences in this country, the majority have accepted and endorsed it since the beginning. It's only now that a small, but vocal MINORITY that has a problem with it. You still demonstrate hypocrisy here,,.the reason you set forth for justifying it, valid to only yourself. When it's not illegal, I agree with it. Except when the law doesn't agree with your point of view or actions. You claim ignorance of the law is no excuse, but you arrogantly claim you break the law intentionally (holding up traffic in the passing lane, paralelling the car in the right lane) in order to enforce another law. Pa law states the left lane is for passing only. You're an uninformed (regarding the law in your own state) hypocrite. 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. That's rich..and wrong. Once again I ask you to explain how anything these "left wingers" say or do or interpret can matter at all regarding this issue while the republicans control the house and senate. No, it's not. You'd either have to be blind or hopelessly biased not to see it. Well, then feel free to ahead and explain away how these "left winger misinterpretations" affect religious laws when the republicans are the only party in charge of both the senate and the house....ie: the country. In theory, it should mean nothing. But you know those obstructionist democrats trying to use a filibuster to leverage their minority into a controlling influence. That's one biased opinion. The other side of the coin you seek to ignore is that the fillibuster is the last legal refuge to place an end to the republicans seeking to end and change laws that would prevent a one party rule...theirs. Nevertheless, the misinterpretation has been all yours even though Frank neatly wrapped it all up and presented you with the facts clearly indicating congress shall keep the clause of separation of church and state intact. It was never there in the first place. Denial is your best trait.,,but denial when presented proof is learned ignorance. At least not to the degree that the zealots are calling for now. The only zealots that mean anything are the ones in charge...repubs. =A0=A0Because you agree with the religious zealots and have on many occasion admitted that your moral views are to be fostered upon others and if they do not subscribe to your radical positions and admitted (on many occasion) socialistic tendencies, you mistakenly hold them as an enemy of yourself, seeking to take away that of which you believe. I and many others who are currently in the majority. You know, the ones who reelected G.W. Bush. The majority didn't vote, David. Someone with your caliber of education should know better, but then again, youare also of the rabid pack who continue to erroneously claim Bush had a mandate....if he did, it was with Jeff Gannon. I would argue that it was those influences which made this country one of strong moral and ethical principles. In one sentence you claim the moral and ethical principles of this country have degraded terribly and even said society was reflected on the air. Now you say the country is once again of strong moral fiber and ethical principle. No, I said that this country was FOUNDED on strong moral and ethical principles. No,,you said,,,"Which made this country one of strong moral fiber". You should learn to read for content, before making another of your erroneous conclusions. You flip flop more than Bush. No, you misinterpret and assume such as a result of your misinterpretations. The only misinterpretation here, is the initial impression I had of you and your education. I thought you were reasonably schooled at one point, until the several weeks, between your gaffes and unlearned comments regrading the law of your own state and the glaring holes in your civics and history knowledge, law knowledge, and FCC knowledge. _ I wouldn't go so far as to put it blatantly in those terms, but I do believe taking God and physical punishment out of the schools was a serious mistake. Then you and I do share some agreement in this area. But the reason why God was taken out of public schools was a direct result of anti-religious zealots trying to leverage an extreme interpretation of "separation of church and state" to accomplish this "unfortunate" feat. I disagree. One doesn't need be anti-religious in order to disagree with Christian dogma being displayed in public areas. This is your own short sightedness. There was once a day when democrats and republicans practiced a little thing called compromise. There was also a day when the working guys of each party could think for themselves instead of widely swallowing their party line rhetoric and blaming those who aren't anywhere near leadership positions in this country for all the woes and incompetence of your own party. Such as? Your entire religious argument regarding the left. That is the most pedestrian act you have attempted to date. Scary thing is, you appear to actually believe yourself when you post such drivel. You simply can not handle the responsibility of the buck stopping with the leader you selected. What failures can be blamed on our leader? Lately? Dharfur. N Korea. Providing adequate armor to the troops that would save lives. Balancing the budget...just for an immediate start. _ In other words, you seek to blame others when responsibility for your leader's action must be taken. .Well, it might be nice to blame Bush for the failure of Social Security, but the democrats will not even allow his plan to come to a full vote, There is no failure of SS, unless Bush is permitted to monkey with it. while offering nothing of their own to counter it. Lockbox. They'd rather just pretend that there's no problem (Even though prominent leaders of their own party were running around like chicken little about SS failing when Clinton was in office). Blaming another political party for the last four and a half years of confirmed failures illustrate you really have too great a deal to learn in order to effectively discuss the political process. Your opinion notwithstanding, My "opinion" that blaming the left for Bush failures illustrates you really have a great deal to learn is no opinion, but fact. there is not one thing you can definitively pin on Bush as a "failure". See above. On the other hand, for the last 4 years, the democratic party has become the party of hatred and obstruction. Demos have nothing to do with it. An attempt to cloud the topic that you keep failing with by invoking the left when faced with Bush failures is useless. - If it looks smells or tastes like it came from a republican, their first instinct is to oppose it. You continue to invoke demos for all the republican failures. Classic. Like I said before, before the extreme polarization of the political parties in Washington, you could actually get things done with a little compromise. And like I said, before your elected president successfully redefined and mis-defined the term "liberal" to mean anyone who dares oppose him, many repubs actually thought for themselves instead of buying into failed party rhetoric from which most intelligent and true GOP'er have distanced themselves. Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj |
On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:58:08 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:34:14 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: If the FCC chose to do so, freebanders can be charged criminally. The fact that they have not chosen to do any more than sporadic citations, does not diminish the fact that they could if they chose to. Whoaaa.....you are invoking what does not take place, only what you pontificate can take place. Reality is,,it doesn't take place. End of story. Reality is that it DOES take place. Only in very rare situations. Which, I'm sure you consider the same as never doing it. Police do not usually cite people for Jaywalking, but they could at any time. Also reality,,but, stay relevant to reality and not what "may" happen. Dreaming is nice, but not reality. As long as the law is on the books, you are required to follow it. Although there really are some silly laws that need to be done away with. Once that happens, then it's a different story. The point is that just because a law is not actively enforced does not mean that it's ok to break it. It does in many cases where the law is not enforced. Blue laws are but a single example,,,an example you felt so valid, you snipped it. So FCC rules are a "blue law" to you? 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. It's hard to quantify an abstract concept. But if you look real hard you can find out about such things as civic and societal responsibility, with regard to many aspect of our lives. These things are generic in how we live in a society. There needs not be one "special" to CB radio. Good manners and respect is proper in all that we do. Not everything in life is codified, especially morality. Then you have no right to hold others to your view of what is and isn't acceptable, despite your claims to the contrary. Well, if you want to lead the charge for immorality, then be my guest. But don't be surprised that those of us who still harbor some sense of morality, do what we can to stop you. If you need a specific guide on how to be a responsible citizen and a good neighbor, you can start with Miss Manners and work your way up from there. And since you admittedly can not comprehend why one jamming repeater frequencies can present a safety hazard, you should begin your radio education as relates to hammie radio, anew. Jamming a repeater which spends 98% of it's time as a home for hams to chew the fat on, is hardly a safety hazard. I agree that jamming a repeater is improper behavior, just like jamming CB channels with high power and on unauthorized channels. But there's no "safety hazard" there nay more than on any given CB channel. Please cite these criminal penalties referring the freeband or simple dx. Please refer to the communications act of 1934 and related parts. I went to the source. I see no criminal charges, merely civil charges. Can you cite this exception of which you speak? Start with Title IV, section 401 and work your way from there. Waffling will not distance yourself from your incorrect claim, David. I have yet to find a criminal charge for simple dxing. It does not exist. You keep playing word games, oh purveyor of waffling. The charge is not "simple DX". The charge is transmitting on unauthorized frequencies. 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? It's not my job to "confront" anyone. However I do present my opinion. *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? Left lane is for passing only. Again you don;t know the laws of your own state. Then perhaps you can tell me how someone can legally pass a car in the right lane that's already at the posted speed limit? .except when you invoked the possibilities of cbers running huge power interfering with emergency communications in a long ago conversation. Of course, it isno linger irrelevant when you invoke such. Which happens. Speculation is acceptable only when invoked by yourself to suppport your hypocrisy. Nothing I have said is hypocritical. However you may wish to reexamine the context of which you pull your information before making invalid comparisons. Since Frank taught you the proper definition of "analogy", it really doesn't matter. You two couldn't teach someone to find their rear ends with both hands. 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. It doesn't apply to the radoio spectrum, which is what you are being properly instructed upon. Then why did YOU bring it up? *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. Only you said it did. YOU brought it up. So I'm curious why you brought it up in that context. To make you understand your error. I made no error. There are many abandoned buildings around. But you are still not allowed to trespass there. Yet, many people use these abandon buildings on a regular basis with immunity. Bums,,,vagrants, crackheads, ..... Freebanders. I see the similarities. You really have a low opinion of yourself, Dave. No, not me, only scofflaws. I always said you had a serious ego and self-esteem problem. The mere admittance that you held yourself in such company confirms such. That was then, this is now. No matter. I could say my esteem is that of which my character was never held in the company of whcih you refer yourself, past or present. You could say that the moon is made of green cheese for all the difference it would make. Everyone can repent, even you. Repent? To who? ANd for what? Is it a sin to talk on the freeband? Dave, you're losing nd, here. You can correct yourself from your bad habits. It's not too late to atone for the error of your ways. See above for examples of a form of civil disobedience.. Civil disobedience is not a catch-all concept for scofflaws to use as an excuse to ignore laws that they, as individuals, have some deep rooted psychological issue with. Then again, some people would rather just operate illegally rather than going through the trouble to have an perceived unjust rule changed. Those people are simply weak. Like yourself,,,who is reactive but never proactive. Great analogy, I am not the one with the problem. I once wanted more bandwidth, I earned a ham license. No more problem. The only thing you have in your favor is that the FCC is not motivated enough to do much about it. You have nothing in your favor. It's all blatant hypocrisy. What have I said, that could be considered hypocritical? too many things to list, but many regs have illustrated it for you,,,it;s not their fault you can;t comprehend it. Yet you cannot list them. Another excuse. You and Frank are both full of lame excuses these days. You like to recklessly throw around the word "hypocritical", yet I am seriously beginning to believe that you have no idea what it truly means. 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 really galls you that you were never given any reasons, let alone conjured excuses of which onlu you hallucinate. I'll take that as another excuse, and a concession that you cannot counter the points that I presented. *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 have absolutely no idea who they are, or how they feel. of which you clearly do not belong, leading to the fact that you are a minority wishing to dictate your beliefs to the masses. Doesn't work that way. Sort of like the democratic party trying to subvert the constitution by an abusive application of a filibuster to block judicial nominees...... You said you were behind all legal activities. You're a hypocrite. Fillibusters are legal. Not in the manner in which they've been used as of late. Note another quick, reckless, and incorrect application of the word "hypocrite" Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
|
On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:56:31 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip See, this is what's so puzzling about you Frank. Once in a while you unload with a brilliant piece of perspective, which is at total odds with your status in life. You're one hell of an underachiever. Dr. Kramer probably wouldn't agree. Do you want the book or not? Frank, I can get as much information as I need right from the internet. It's a lot better than finding places to keep all those books. Hence the source of your ingnorance and the reason you find me to be so "puzzling". But you go right ahead and limit yourself to the internet for your sole source of information -- let me know when you find the winding specifications for an Ajax M-2-145T, or the firearm most preferred by Deep-River Jim, or why Bessie slashed up her own portrait. Find a link that explains why you can see the Douglas Firs towering above you in the middle of the woods on a pitch-black and starless night. Download the feelings of watching Israeli officers picking off Palistinian schoolkids running out of a burning building like they were ducks in a shooting gallery. I'm sure you can find a site that has the cyber-smell file of a Northwest sawmill. And I'm sure there's some adapter you can plug into the USB port that will let you enjoy the unmatched hospitality (and world-class pastries) offered by a family of Norwegians when all you did was ask to fill up your water can. The internet is fun but it's no substitute for books, people, nature, or direct experiences. But you think that you can get everything you need from your computer. You are a fool, Dave. ----== 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 Fri, 13 May 2005 11:58:08 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:34:14 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: If the FCC chose to do so, freebanders can be charged criminally. The fact that they have not chosen to do any more than sporadic citations, does not diminish the fact that they could if they chose to. Whoaaa.....you are invoking what does not take place, only what you pontificate can take place. Reality is,,it doesn't take place. End of story. Reality is that it DOES take place. Yet, you have not provided nothing for this claim other than reasons why you do not. Again, feel free to illustrate where one was criinally prosecuted fro the mere act of simple freebanding. Only in very rare situations. So rare, only you are aware of such. Which, I'm sure you consider the same as never doing it. Absence of proof when applied to your claims, is definitely proof of absence. Police do not usually cite people for Jaywalking, but they could at any time. Also reality,,but, stay relevant to reality and not what "may" happen. Dreaming is nice, but not reality. As long as the law is on the books, you are required to follow it. Yet, you are unable to distinguish between civil (cb) and criminal matters (everything else you invoked), despite being taught repeatedly. Although there really are some silly laws that need to be done away with. Once that happens, then it's a different story. Only to you. The point is that just because a law is not actively enforced does not mean that it's ok to break it. It does in many cases where the law is not enforced. Blue laws are but a single example,,,an example you felt so valid, you snipped it. So FCC rules are a "blue law" to you? Many of their rules are antiquated and should be done away. The fact they do not enforce certain rules is exactly -why- I do not become involved in actively seeking to change them. IF they enforced these laws, I would become proacative, as opposed to your self-righteous reactive approach. Such would be much more effective,,but you are tilting windmills, as they don't care. Channel 6 is a perfect example. That you experience TIA's over such facts, is beside the point. 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. It's hard to quantify an abstract concept. So stop trying, no one asked you to COUNT it, Dave. Frank nailed it,, you continue to use terms you have no clue what they mean and you apply your own incorrect definition to such. This disease took hold when you permitted Bush to incorrectly redefine "liberal" to the suckered masses that wax sympathetic to such an idiot. But if you look real hard you can find out about such things as civic and societal responsibility, with regard to many aspect of our lives. And if you look real hard you may find the proper definition of "quantify". These things are generic in how we live in a society. There needs not be one "special" to CB radio. Good manners and respect is proper in all that we do. So by breaking the law one is a criminal and not worthy of respect or good manners...of course such would not apply to yourself when you admittedly break Pa law and parallel a driver in the right lane in order to hold traffic back to the posted limit..as you're a hypocrite. A very ****ed off, one apparently. You need better things to do in the wee hours than the behavior that has you screwing up so poorly each day among our sacred and hallowed pages.. Not everything in life is codified, especially morality. Then you have no right to hold others to your view of what is and isn't acceptable, despite your claims to the contrary. Well, if you want to lead the charge for immorality, then be my guest. Such radical views are shared by only yourself, Bush, and Hitler. You were taught this once before when you posted right or wrong, you were behind Bush all the way. First, such totalitari Secondly, it was Hitler to who you are now reparaphrasing and adhering, as he also agreed with you that "If one is not with us, then they are against us" But don't be surprised that those of us who still harbor some sense of morality, do what we can to stop you. I've been asking you this for years...so since you are alluding to such again, in what manner are you proactive in stopping anybody from doing anything? I mean, besides breaking the law on the Pa roads like you do? And remember your earlier claim that what one says on usenet is paramount to a guilty plea in court (snicker). If you need a specific guide on how to be a responsible citizen and a good neighbor, you can start with Miss Manners and work your way up from there. And since you admittedly can not comprehend why one jamming repeater frequencies can present a safety hazard, you should begin your radio education as relates to hammie radio, anew. Jamming a repeater which spends 98% of it's time as a home for hams to chew the fat on, is hardly a safety hazard. The FCC disagrees with you. I agree that jamming a repeater is improper behavior, just like jamming CB channels with high power and on unauthorized channels. But there's no "safety hazard" there nay more than on any given CB channel. Ask the FCC, just like you did with the roger beep legality dilemma that had you all confused. - Please cite these criminal penalties referring the freeband or simple dx. Please refer to the communications act of 1934 and related parts. I went to the source. I see no criminal charges, merely civil charges. Can you cite this exception of which you speak? Start with Title IV, section 401 and work your way from there. Waffling will not distance yourself from your incorrect claim, David. I have yet to find a criminal charge for simple dxing. It does not exist. You keep playing word games, oh purveyor of waffling. The charge is not "simple DX". The charge is transmitting on unauthorized frequencies. 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? It's not my job to "confront" anyone. That's not what you said earlier. Flip-flop. However I do present my opinion. =A0I have, on occasion, prevented speeding by paralleling someone in the right lane holding the legal speed limit. A massive ticket here in Florida, AND in Pa from what I read. Based on what charge? Left lane is for passing only. Again you don't know the laws of your own state. Then perhaps you can tell me how someone can legally pass a car in the right lane that's already at the posted speed limit? Irrelevant. You were the one in the left lane and not passing,,,which is why you were breaking the law. Ignorance is no excuse. It's for passing only. The fact that you couldn't pass is the criteria for you to be in the right lane. Ask your unnamed, unsolicited but always invoked, unidentified "several cop friends" who continue to plague your mind with poor advice... _ except when you invoked the possibilities of cbers running huge power interfering with emergency communications in a long ago conversation. Of course, it isno linger irrelevant when you invoke such. Which happens. It has since then, It hadn't up until that point. And the person that did it all was a hammie like you..one who doesn't care about any other's rights except your own. 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. You broke the law, intentionally, and are beside yourself making excuses for your actions..in other words,,,you were forced to break the law...(mmmmph)...just like you do with your political views,,it was you who said "breaking the law is beaking the law, the hows and whys don't matter". Of course, except when you break the law. Since Frank taught you the proper definition of "analogy", it really doesn't matter. You two couldn't teach someone to find their rear ends with both hands. 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. It doesn't apply to the radio spectrum, which is what you are being properly instructed upon. Then why did YOU bring it up? =A0 You brought up physical property comparison,,,you used the car as an example. What's the matter with you these days, David? Is it being shown your mistakes so much that has you teething on crow, or is it something else g? 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. Only you said it did. YOU brought it up. Pay attention,,read it s-l-o-w,,read it over and over if you must. You brought up physical property (car) as a poor and invalid comparison to the spectrum. I referred back to your initial invoked statement regarding physical property, selecting another example (empty lots, buildings) to illustrate just how ridiculous are your failed comparisons. But that's ok, Dave, as now you seem to be thoroughly confused. So I'm curious why you brought it up in that context. To make you understand your error. I made no error. Sure you did. You initiated physical property as a poor and invalid comparison to the spectrum. I once made the comment "too bad ignorance isn't painful",,however, you realizing your errors, is apparently and obviously very painful. There are many abandoned buildings around. But you are still not allowed to trespass there. Yet, many people use these abandon buildings on a regular basis with immunity. Bums,,,vagrants, crackheads, ..... Freebanders. I see the similarities. You really have a low opinion of yourself, Dave. No, not me, only scofflaws. I always said you had a serious ego and self-esteem problem. The mere admittance that you held yourself in such company confirms such. That was then, this is now. No matter. I could say my esteem is that of which my character was never held in the company of whcih you refer yourself, past or present. You could say that the moon is made of green cheese for all the difference it would make. If it came from me, it would make all the difference in the world. You, on the other hand, are stuck with accepting the fact you will never have integrity among these pages. Everyone can repent, even you. Repent? To who? ANd for what? Is it a sin to talk on the freeband? Dave, you're losing ground, here. You can correct yourself from your bad habits. It's not too late to atone for the error of your ways. See above for examples of a form of civil disobedience.. Civil disobedience is not a catch-all concept for scofflaws to use as an excuse to ignore laws that they, as individuals, have some deep rooted psychological issue with. You're learning. It's applied very discriminating to select laws. Then again, some people would rather just operate illegally rather than going through the trouble to have an perceived unjust rule changed. Those people are simply weak. Like yourself,,,who is reactive but never proactive. Great analogy, I am not the one with the problem. You mentioned many problems you have with cb and hammie radio and freebanders and all kinds of things over the years. Need reminded, or would a list better serve you? I once wanted more bandwidth, I earned a ham license. No more problem. David Hall Jr. N3CVJ You also want more enforcement to non-important matters (as judged by the FCC),,but you're not going to get it. Again, there is a litany of things that plague you. Perhaps, now, with your latest flip-flop claim that you have no problems, you will again be looked to for radio advice (only time and your attitude will tell) and not have to use sock puppets to soothe your worn down and broken ego. But since it's all about what other's think with you, perhaps you have seen the light,,,but I doubt it. |
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? "When one breaks the law, the hows and whys don't matter. Ignorance is no excuse.'" So watching you attempt to devise a "why" to justify your law breaking, is pretty funny. _ Also, too many things to list, but many regs have illustrated it for you,,,it;s not their fault you can;t comprehend it. Yet you cannot list them. Eye for an eye. Tech school? Cop's names? Departements? Another excuse. Then stop with them already. You and Frank are both full of lame excuses these days. And anyone else who disagrees with you... You like to recklessly throw around the word "hypocritical", yet I am seriously beginning to believe that you have no idea what it truly means. I wouldn't doubt it, as you have been thoroughly schooled on many terms that leave the masses howling when you misapply them.."quantify" was great!!! =A0=A0Is 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 really galls you that you were never given any reasons, let alone conjured excuses of which only you hallucinate. I'll take that as another excuse, You have no choice but to take it the only way it is presented to you. Perfectly gift wrapped with a great big razzzzzzzzberry. and a concession that you cannot counter the points that I presented. =A0 By all means,,,again, the manner in which you take things has been shown to be so off that its a wonder anyone is left to correct you. 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, =A0=A0Of which you have absolutely no idea who they are, or how they feel. Make up your mind. Does the squeaky wheel get the grease or not? Oh,,I see,,only when it serves a failed point of which you are trying to lobby. Yes, the fact that the FCC does not deem such as important as yourself, most certainly reaffirms my position and my "idea". Sorry your ego is so damaged. _ you are a minority wishing to dictate your beliefs to the masses. Doesn't work that way. Sort of like the democratic party trying to subvert the constitution by an abusive application of a filibuster to block judicial nominees...... You said you were behind all legal activities. You're a hypocrite. Fillibusters are legal. Not in the manner in which they've been used as of late. Again, you show your lack of knowledge concerning the government of the US. In what specifically crafted law does the present use of the fillbuster to which you refer, indicate illegality? Note another quick, reckless, and incorrect application of the word "hypocrite" The shoe fits. David Hall Jr. "Sandbagger" N3CVJ |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:51:40 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: You said one will not likely catch AIDS if one practices monogamy. This would only hold true if both were virgins when getting married..,not practical when applied to present reality, as the vast majority have a sexual past history. And the less promiscuous that past is, the less likely that one will catch AIDS. No one ever said differently. That statement still does nothing to support or validate your erred comment that now practicing monogamy will likely prevent one from catching AIDS, as it discounts your past. You are unable to distinguish between the differences. So, you are of the theory that if you have a "sexual past" that it's not worth being more careful now? You reach your own incorrect conclusions concerning the majority of people of who you have disagreed. This is part of your flawed logic and communication deficit. I won't go in to detail (unless asked) as it has been shown throughout your posting history that you have one bitch of a time comprehending other's communications, indicating a severe deficit in one of your nodes. Your postings are littered with "So did you mean..."..."so what you really are saying...".."Just what did you mean?".... Sort of like the defeatist analogy, Exactly. You proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you are your own worst enemy. "Hell, I smoked for the last 10 years, so what's the point of stopping now?" Ask Kimberly. You fail to consider statistical probability. No,I counted it,,but you immediately discount it when applied to your self and posts. I said that the malicous sock puppets and your posts are the majority to accuse cbers of anarchy and use the term frequently. You asked "what of it"? I invoked your oft cried "statistical probability"...yet it ceased the postings. You also said there is no "george"..I invoked that leaves only you, as ONLY you and he have EVER posted about Amish country when I mentioned I visited there...statistical probability. It can not be selettively applied in corelation with your beliefs, David, as the word "statistical" connotates the opposite anddoes not take into account belief. The more partners you have, the more likely you will find one who has AIDS. Or green eyes. If you practice monogamy, There you go again,,invoking something that is not a reality. The fact is the majority of people have NOT practiced monogamy. even now, will greatly lower your overall chances of catching the disease. Besides, you imply that it's next to impossible or, at the very least, unrealistic for someone to wait until marriage to engage in sexual relations. Yes, it is extremely unrealistic to expect the majority will suddenly adhere to abstinence. Why? Sheeehs! Is the human race not capable of mastering its little urges? Apparently not, Dave, since you hold yourself above the rest. Let's put it another way, Abstinence is a great incentive to those who want to live, rather than risk contracting a deadly disease. Call it a matter of priority. No. Call it education. Education, as I have been telling you since your breakdown's appearance in this group, is the key to everything that plagues you. _ =A0There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for years and years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS. Which means nothing if you've never been exposed to it. Please try and remain at least semi-relative to your comments. I'm sorry your comprehensive skills are so poor. And that is getting funnier and funnier with each mistaken word you misuse in your posts. Sex is a part of an act of love, to be shared with someone who you have a much deeper emotional bond with. Not something for two people, who are barely friends, who are simply looking to kill a few hours. Man,,you have been losing more ground each day with your posts, Dave. How? I'm sorry if your morally bankrupt viewpoint clashes with my solid moral foundation. What's the matter, Dave? Things going on outside the group we should know about g? . But there's always hope for you. It's not too late to change. =A0Your claim that monogamy decreases the chance of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past history. It's not an "all or nothing" proposition. But that's exactly what it is. Stay celibate, or screw at your own risk. _ You're losing yourself again. No, I'm evidently losing you, as you once again failed to comprehend my point. Only because your sentence structure and points are valid only to yourself, illustrated in part, by your never-comprehending anyone who tries teaching you those things you don't already know. For some unknown reason, you become defensive when instructed or informed of a subject of whcih you are not familiar. Your feelings and ego become so hurt, you defensively defend the reasons -why- you present an incorrect position...(roger beeps) and incorrectly fool (into a false soothing state) your narcisstic self with statements that those who instructed you, were making lucky guesses. You're a mess, David, and on a downward spiral. I never saw one who actually suffers pain when they are wrong, until I came across yourself. I'll explain it again at a level you should be able to understand. Are you going to "quantify" it, for another's benefit, also, Dave? Monogamy may not 100% eliminate the risk of AIDS for those with a sordid sexual past, but it will REDUCE the chances of catching AIDS, as the risk exposure is minimized to a great degree. Once again, your rattle has nothing to with my comment. Try again......-your- claim that monogamy decreases the chance of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past history. You seem hell bent on confusing the term "decreases" with "eliminates". You seem hell bent on believing monogamy somehow reduces the chance of your past history affecting you. While total abstinence before marriage is a concept that's lost on this latest hedonistic generation, the simple truth is that the less partners you have had, the less your chances of catching AIDS. Again and over and over,, you are presenting an argument to which only yourself appears to be unconvinced. I admit it's tough trying to get through to someone with your apparent learning comprehension disability. _ It would depend upon the act. For example, the chance of the transmission of AIDS while a man receives oral sex from a woman is lower than your chances of getting killed in an automobile accident. Which means what in the grand scheme of .things? Which means the chance of catching AIDS from receiving head from a prostitute is no more greater than you catching it from having intercourse in your past. The facts are quite simple. The less sex you engage in, the lesser your chances of getting AIDS. That's bull****..unless, of course, in your self-titled, self-invoked, unsolicited puritan and high moral world, sex is defined only by the act of intercourse. Now try injecting reality into your equation. If it was as simple as you present, the AIDS epidemic would not exist. It's not my fault that a great percentage of the population does not take the AIDS issue seriously enough to override their hedonistic desires, and they continue to engage in risky sexual practices. Exactly, It's your fault for not having the cognitive ability to distinguish between reality and your conjured daydream of utopia and how it "ought to be". .such practice has dogged you for some time.. I have no pity for them if they learn the lesson the hard way. Same can be said for those who smoke in your family. Those who contract the disease have only themselves, by virtue of their activities, to blame in most cases. The same can be said of your wife if she or your daughter contract lung cancer, asthma or pulmonary emboli related problems down the line because of her smoking while she was pregnant. Ah, another hypocritical statement from someone who once claimed to be unconcerned with the personal lives of others. No hypocritical staetement at all. In fact, if your disability permitted you to remember all you initiate, you would find you were told on more than one occasion to take your personal issues to email or to remain on subject. This was your inititated game of getting personal. You were warned you would receive back what you hurl, only ten fold....something at which I am quite adept. To make it even more laughable, I can add this to the growing list of things you have worked to find out about me, which are 100% wrong. Which is why you have the need to explain it away,,,because only one thing matters to you,,what others think. My wife smoked up until she became pregnant. Then something (God?) changed her chemistry such that the taste of a cigarette became physically sickening. She quit immediately and never went back, and she's almost 6 years now smoke free. Gee Dave,,,that's not the way she told it,,,,but hey....you go on explaining away my mistakes, So you can add this to the growing list of gaffes that you have made about my personal life (Which you claimed to not care about) including: Abuse at the hands of my grandfather. Entered after your self-qualifications to make a diagnosis reserved only for physicians, however, your own mental diminished capacitive state record lifted the veil on your preoccupation with those you admire. My wife's name being Kimberly T. Hall. It is. My wife being a teacher. She was. My wife and I being separated/divorced. That was incorrect. The rest are true. You were separated. My not being allowed to see my daughter, except under supervision. (shrug) Something led to the counseling. My home address being wrong on my FCC license. It is wrong. It doesn't match your license plate. Do I have your express and implied and explicit permission to publicly post such information here and let the masses have their input? I'm sure there's more, but I can't remember all of them. You make far too many "oopses" to count. See above. If you are going to hold people to the flame for all their abhorrant behavior, you must begin in your own backyard, lest you have no right to confront others and your soap box is nothing more than a mirage. So you espouse that no one has any right to criticize events, or behavior based on the likelihood that they also have "baggage" of their own? Not when it comes down to the initiating party becoming so frustrated, they resort to threats. Gee, it's a good thing that the major media, and politicians don't have to abide by this, or .we'd hear nothing but quiet every day. The media deals with threats on a regular basis, which is why yours was laughed at. I am quite certain that my risk of contracting AIDS is less than my chances of getting hit by a meteor. Since no one can recall the last time one had been struck with a meteor, that's a hell of a scholarly and meritous claim. Exactly. I am far more concerned with cancer and heart disease as these pose a much greater risk to the members of my family. Diseases that, in large part, can be blamed on your family members by virtue of their poor choices and actions..smoking. Despite research that links certain lifestyle choices to increases in cancer or heart disease risk, there are also certain genetic predispositions. That can be changed with proper diet AND exercise from early on. This has been proved. There are no genetic predispositions to catching AIDS. Welllllllllll, since YOU brought it up,,,you made the claim gays are more prone to catching AIDS,,,and since scientists and researchers have found homosexuality to be a genetic trait, your claims continue to be flubs. AIDS risk can be reduced to minuscule levels if people would take the proactive step in modifying their lifestyles. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ But it was also -your- claim that one can not teach certain cultures anything..this was one of your arguments for bombing Afghanistan,,,,or was it Iraq? : ) |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:00:26 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: 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. The history of the earth's climate is well documented back to the begining of the earth's creation...grammar school basic earth and science taught this. Carbon dating confirms much and plays a large part of the techniques used to arrive at such widely accepted and mainstream taught scientific facts. Like I told Frank, science can tell us that, for instance, it was once tropical in Montana, and that Glaciers covered much of the northern United States during different time periods. This proves that the earth's climate has vacillated in a fairly wide range. But what this DOESN'T tell us is how much of the current global warming cycle can be attributed to natural cyclic climatic changes, and how much of it is a direct result of man made pollution. Sure it can, and does. The amount of many chemical releases in the atmosphere are mand made. Many are not man made. Some are both. However, science has methods of measuring each,,including natural occurring vs. manmade chemicals,,,such as methane gases. Without a point of reference, it is extremely difficult to positively determine how much we are changing the climate. The point of reference is the richness/ concentration of the gas. An example can be the amount of methane in a predetermined air sample. Higher concentrations of the gas can be attributed to manmade releases and emissions. It's elementary for anyone with a fair retainment value that took college science classes. _ Chloroflourocarbons released by the burning of fossil fuels is directly linked to global warming. Global warming was proved by the continual shrinkage of the polar ice cap confirmed by 24-7 high tech monitoring of such. Villages that reside in the frozen tundra watch their mountains of ice shrink each year. How much of that shrinkage would still be occurring without man made pollution? As you referred, the climate is thought to adhere to cycles, When the cycles suddenly deviate substantially from the norm, it's dedeucedly decided and accepted that something is amiss. When the glaciers continue shrinking at an alarming rate that deviates from the projected models of which you referred predictable climatic cycles, and the amount of junk released in the air we KNOW has increased,..it's widely accepted by even the republicans at this point. Do you even know what your own party says on this issue now, Dave? You appear to be aruing with -them-. _ You take issue with those free-thinkers and it moves you toward the goblin that you are unable to cast out and exercise of yourself. Once again, you don't get it (Why should I be surprised?). You won't be, because you continue to be on the defensive of everyone that corrects you. You find fault with all of them. It's not us, Dave, it's you. It's apparent it is glaringly painful when you are wrong and corrected, but dammit, man, its not personal. You want to get rid of what you refer to as "poorly crafted laws"? Then great! Go for it! No,,I love the laws and the manner in whcih they are enforced. They keep dicks like you off the freeband and allow the rest of us to play carefree and unfettered from you being reactive (oposed to proactive) from the confines of your own home, much as you do on the internet. It's yourself that has messed all over yourself time and again whining about the lack of enforcement. You have my support. But until then, you are bound to respect and obey the current laws as they stand. Regarding this law and dx, I discriminately and selectively invoke Civil Disobedience. Because you have difficulty comprehending the definitions of words these days, you may seek to "quantify",,,er,,,qualify it. Sorry,,,couldn't resist. David Hall Jr, ."Sandbagger" N3CVJ |
On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:46:48 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:56:31 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip See, this is what's so puzzling about you Frank. Once in a while you unload with a brilliant piece of perspective, which is at total odds with your status in life. You're one hell of an underachiever. Dr. Kramer probably wouldn't agree. Do you want the book or not? Frank, I can get as much information as I need right from the internet. It's a lot better than finding places to keep all those books. Hence the source of your ingnorance and the reason you find me to be so "puzzling". No, I find you puzzling because you are so pompous and arrogant about what you claim as "knowledge" yet, the application of such knowledge in your own life has been dismally short of achievement. You are either an accomplished liar, or a severe underachiever. For a guy who claims to know as much, and has done as much as you have claimed, all you have to show for yourself is a job as a bartender, driving a 20+ year old vehicle? You're a regular Cliff Clavin. Now you muse about starting a lawn care service. No offense to Steveo, but that's not exactly the skill level job that a man of your supposed "credentials" should be aspiring to. So, what's your (latest) excuse? A man who truly knows the things that you try to pass off to the rest of us here, would be in a high level engineering or marketing position, or perhaps a stint as a university professor, or maybe a government contractor. Or maybe you'd work with me. The bottom line Frank, is that you talk a great line, but you produce very little. I can tell that by the way you approach CB radio troubleshooting. You offer only generic troubleshooting 101 solutions to problems, which indicates that you have very little direct experience with actually repairing a CB radio, which have known problem areas. But you go right ahead and limit yourself to the internet for your sole source of information Once again you make assumptions, a repetitive pattern for you. I never said the internet was my SOLE source of information. But it is the fastest and easiest source of information on a variety of topics, especially current events. It was the internet, that first blew the lid off of "Rathergate", and exposed it as the propaganda smear that it was intended to be. The Blog has become a powerful tool to expose media bias and helps to parse the stories in order to gain the truth. Sure you can read about something in a book, but the internet is instantaneous, interactive, and ever evolving. There are decisive advantages to that. -- let me know when you find the winding specifications for an Ajax M-2-145T, or the firearm most preferred by Deep-River Jim, or why Bessie slashed up her own portrait. If I had any interest in those subjects, I'm sure I'd find them, assuming these people are significant. But while we're on the subject, I have found much information on the local history of my local area, and the trolley, rail, and canal lines that used to run through here over the turn of the century. I have found the horsepower specifications for the triple expansion 4 cylinder piston engines in the Titanic, as well as the Parson's Turbine center engine. I have tracked radio wave propagation, tides, a web cam of my favorite lake, and my friend's pool. There is nothing you can read in print, than can't be scanned into a web page, or pdf file. I have the complete Cisco router manuals on CD ROM. I have access to repeater user's groups where we can seek out and share each other's expertise to solve problems. The list is endless Frank. I might read an intriguing novel by the fireplace on a cool winter's night, but if it's information that I want, the fingers fly to the keyboard. Find a link that explains why you can see the Douglas Firs towering above you in the middle of the woods on a pitch-black and starless night. I'd rather just witness that myself first hand. I do a lot of camping you know. Download the feelings of watching Israeli officers picking off Palistinian schoolkids running out of a burning building like they were ducks in a shooting gallery. And what? You read that in a book? I've come close though. I have corresponded, via E-Mail, with U.S. army folks fighting in Iraq, in order to get their personal perspective on the situation. It's a far different picture than what the mainstream media wants us to think. I'm sure you can find a site that has the cyber-smell file of a Northwest sawmill. As I'm sure you can from a book. But you can go to a Home Depot and get a similar effect. And I'm sure there's some adapter you can plug into the USB port that will let you enjoy the unmatched hospitality (and world-class pastries) offered by a family of Norwegians when all you did was ask to fill up your water can. When have you been to Norway? Did you need to order some new imported beer for the bar? The internet is fun but it's no substitute for books, people, nature, or direct experiences. But you think that you can get everything you need from your computer. You are a fool, Dave. I never claimed to get ALL of my information from the internet. Only that I can research any topic that I wish on the internet and get the same or better information a heck of a lot quicker and easier than using the old fashioned method of buying (or borrowing) a book. You, on the other hand, need to get away from the left coast. It's really affecting your perception. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Tue, 17 May 2005 07:32:43 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:46:48 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:56:31 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip See, this is what's so puzzling about you Frank. Once in a while you unload with a brilliant piece of perspective, which is at total odds with your status in life. You're one hell of an underachiever. Dr. Kramer probably wouldn't agree. Do you want the book or not? Frank, I can get as much information as I need right from the internet. It's a lot better than finding places to keep all those books. Hence the source of your ingnorance and the reason you find me to be so "puzzling". No, I find you puzzling because you are so pompous and arrogant about what you claim as "knowledge" yet, the application of such knowledge in your own life has been dismally short of achievement. You are either an accomplished liar, or a severe underachiever. You ignore any other possibilities. For a guy who claims to know as much, and has done as much as you have claimed, all you have to show for yourself is a job as a bartender, driving a 20+ year old vehicle? Only if that's how you measure "achievement". I'm not that superficial. You're a regular Cliff Clavin. Even if I did work for the USPS, I'd rather deliver mail than pizzas. Now you muse about starting a lawn care service. No offense to Steveo, but that's not exactly the skill level job that a man of your supposed "credentials" should be aspiring to. By your standards. But you can't seem to understand that not everyone lives by your standards, Dave. So, what's your (latest) excuse? A man who truly knows the things that you try to pass off to the rest of us here, would be in a high level engineering or marketing position, Done that. Boring. or perhaps a stint as a university professor, Done that. Fun, but the pay sucks until you get tenure. or maybe a government contractor. No thanks, I've taken a look at a few government contracts. They barely fit the definition of "legally binding". Or maybe you'd work with me. Doubtful. I -order- pizzas, I don't deliver them. The bottom line Frank, is that you talk a great line, but you produce very little. I can tell that by the way you approach CB radio troubleshooting. You offer only generic troubleshooting 101 solutions to problems, which indicates that you have very little direct experience with actually repairing a CB radio, which have known problem areas. Uh-huh, that's why I narrowed the buzzing-radio problem down to the voltage regulator while you were busy defending your highly generalized assumption that the problem is "almost always caps", huh? But you go right ahead and limit yourself to the internet for your sole source of information Once again you make assumptions, a repetitive pattern for you. I never said the internet was my SOLE source of information. Wrong. You said, "I can get as much information as I need right from the internet." You can try and spin the semantics all you want but it means the same thing. But it is the fastest and easiest source of information on a variety of topics, especially current events. It was the internet, that first blew the lid off of "Rathergate", and exposed it as the propaganda smear that it was intended to be. The Blog has become a powerful tool to expose media bias and helps to parse the stories in order to gain the truth. Sure you can read about something in a book, but the internet is instantaneous, interactive, and ever evolving. There are decisive advantages to that. Speaking of 'media bias', are you keeping up-to-date on the status of one of your staunchly anti-gay, conservative Republicans that happens to be the mayor of my home town? http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/ -- let me know when you find the winding specifications for an Ajax M-2-145T, or the firearm most preferred by Deep-River Jim, or why Bessie slashed up her own portrait. If I had any interest in those subjects, I'm sure I'd find them, assuming these people are significant. I doubt you could find them even if you wanted to. But while we're on the subject, I have found much information on the local history of my local area, and the trolley, rail, and canal lines that used to run through here over the turn of the century. I have found the horsepower specifications for the triple expansion 4 cylinder piston engines in the Titanic, as well as the Parson's Turbine center engine. I have tracked radio wave propagation, tides, a web cam of my favorite lake, and my friend's pool. There is nothing you can read in print, than can't be scanned into a web page, or pdf file. Yet so much -hasn't- been scanned. I have the complete Cisco router manuals on CD ROM. I have access to repeater user's groups where we can seek out and share each other's expertise to solve problems. The list is endless Frank. It's far from endless, Dave. It doesn't even have endless potential. I might read an intriguing novel by the fireplace on a cool winter's night, but if it's information that I want, the fingers fly to the keyboard. Find a link that explains why you can see the Douglas Firs towering above you in the middle of the woods on a pitch-black and starless night. I'd rather just witness that myself first hand. I do a lot of camping you know. No, I don't know. If you haven't witnessed what I described then maybe you haven't done as much camping as you claim. Download the feelings of watching Israeli officers picking off Palistinian schoolkids running out of a burning building like they were ducks in a shooting gallery. And what? You read that in a book? No, I was there, fool. How long have you -really- been in this newsgroup? I've come close though. I have corresponded, via E-Mail, with U.S. army folks fighting in Iraq, in order to get their personal perspective on the situation. It's a far different picture than what the mainstream media wants us to think. You don't have a clue, Dave. I'm sure you can exercise your imagination, but there are experiences in combat situations that have no comparison or common frame of reference to pizza delivery drivers. I'm sure you can find a site that has the cyber-smell file of a Northwest sawmill. As I'm sure you can from a book. But you can go to a Home Depot and get a similar effect. It's not the same. It's like saying you know what a homemade apple pie tastes like because you once bought a Hostess pastry at the 7/11. And I'm sure there's some adapter you can plug into the USB port that will let you enjoy the unmatched hospitality (and world-class pastries) offered by a family of Norwegians when all you did was ask to fill up your water can. When have you been to Norway? 1984. Did you need to order some new imported beer for the bar? No, but I did buy a large 'Norwegian' Bud at a small grocery store. I think I still have the label stashed away somewhere. I also might have a couple labels from bottles of Maccabe beer from Israel. I'm pretty sure I have a couple phone tokens and a few sheckels in coins. The internet is fun but it's no substitute for books, people, nature, or direct experiences. But you think that you can get everything you need from your computer. You are a fool, Dave. I never claimed to get ALL of my information from the internet. Only that I can research any topic that I wish on the internet and get the same or better information a heck of a lot quicker and easier than using the old fashioned method of buying (or borrowing) a book. That's only true if the info is available on the net. So much info -isn't- on the net. You, on the other hand, need to get away from the left coast. It's really affecting your perception. "The West is the best". ----== 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 Hall" wrote in message ... Why is it only now do certain people find exception to it? You would have to ask one. My guess would be a certain faction is trying to cram their religious beliefs down otehr's throats. Those beliefs have been a part of our culture since this country was founded. The perception that religion is "suddenly" being "Crammed down other people's throats" is held by those who have been conspicuously absent from any religious influences in their lives and see any display of religion as excessive. Yet it is those same people who are the ones at odds with our society, as history will testify to. The problem is both sides. One person find offense with something of a religious over tone in government, he then finds the ACLU and wants it removed. Now the religious zealots start banging the drums in defense of religion. _ 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. In the case of religious influences in this country, the majority have accepted and endorsed it since the beginning. It's only now that a small, but vocal MINORITY that has a problem with it. When it's not illegal, I agree with it. Except when the law doesn't agree with your point of view or actions. You claim ignorance of the law is no excuse, but you arrogantly claim you break the law intentionally (holding up traffic in the passing lane, paralelling the car in the right lane) in order to enforce another law. Pa law states the left lane is for passing only. You're an uninformed (regarding the law in your own state) hypocrite. It is not illegal to run in the left lane as long as you are either passing or maintaining the posted speed limit. Do you honestly expect everyone to run in the right lane once they've hit the posted limit? That's ludicrous. Especially considering the volume of traffic in this area. I can't answer for PA, but in California you would get a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic. I've seen it, so please don't say it doesn't happen. Both of you are severe underachievers. I don't think so. I don't think you are either. I do think that you all are on the far end of political and religious spectrum, as such, this argument between you three will never end. Dave "Sandbagger" Landshark -- The internet is fun but it's no substitute for books, people, nature, or direct experiences. But you think that you can get everything you need from your computer, you are a fool. Frank Gililland |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 May 2005 10:09:54 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: The "law" has been defined in regard to religious influences, since the inception of this country. It was not a problem in 1805, 1905, and 1955, so it should not be a problem in 2005. Only to those who are trapped in the past and who are afraid of and reject change and progress. Not all change is actually "progress". Sure it is. What you are trying to convey is progress isn't always a good thing. But change is inevitable, and you are always playing cath-up. Hell, you are years behind in the knowledge of radio law and government law. It's a matter of some subjectivity depending on your perspective. But those religious influences are adorned all over our government buildings and in our government business. So are other religious symbols besides Christianity. Not many. Haha,,talk about subjective terms. Most are Christian. You have never been west of the Mississippi, obviously. Have you ever been west of Pa? But even so, it illustrates the influence of God, no matter what faith you choose to worship him with. So you worship Allah.,,,the same God you worship, but with a different name. Why is it only now do certain people find exception to it? You would have to ask one. My guess would be a certain faction is trying to cram their religious beliefs down otehr's throats. Those beliefs have been a part of our culture since this country was founded. But they were never FORCED until now. The perception that religion is "suddenly" being "Crammed down other people's throats" is held by those who have been conspicuously absent from any religious influences in their lives and see any display of religion as excessive. What a hypocrite you continue to be,,,you talk morebull**** than a fertilizer farm. One simple christian thing here, DAve.."Thou shall not judge". Yet it is those same people who are the ones at odds with our society, as history will testify to. Your beliefs are not in any way representative of society and society is very diversified, despite your zero toerance for those expressing different religious or lifestyles from your own. _ 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. In the case of religious influences in this country, the majority have accepted and endorsed it since the beginning. How was it endorsed? "Congress shall make no law........"..it was never endorsed, you just chose to misapply another term when you found yourself talking ahead of your brain. It's only now that a small, but vocal MINORITY that has a problem with it. Which you continue to blame for the Bush failures. _ You still demonstrate hypocrisy here,,.the reason you set forth for justifying it, valid to only yourself. You still demonstrate not knowing the meaning of the word hypocrisy. Nothing in my statement is hypocritical. When it's not illegal, I agree with it. Except when the law doesn't agree with your point of view or actions. You claim ignorance of the law is no excuse, but you arrogantly claim you break the law intentionally (holding up traffic in the passing lane, paralelling the car in the right lane) in order to enforce another law. Pa law states the left lane is for passing only. You're an uninformed (regarding the law in your own state) hypocrite. It is not illegal to run in the left lane as long as you are either passing or maintaining the posted speed limit. Wrong,,,it is not permitted to "cruise" in the right lane in Pa. Do you honestly expect everyone to run in the right lane once they've hit the posted limit? That's ludicrous. Especially considering the volume of traffic in this area. Your personal dislikes and opinions of the law are irrelevant to your hypocrisy of offering excuses why you break the law. Your words were "There is NO excuse for breaking the law. Ignorance is no excuse. The hows and whys are irrelevant. You break the law, you're a criminal. : And my favorite "If you don;t like the law, you are bound to obey them or lobby to have them legally changed". So go ahead David, instead of bitching about it and doing a siren's dance around your hypocrisy and crying about how the law is written and whining about traffic, take your own advice and change the law you break, you criminal, you. 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. That's rich..and wrong. No, it's not wrong. Just look at the Supreme court building and observe the sculpture of Moses holding the 10 commandments. And that is but one example of many. You snipped my post and to what you replied "no it's not"....you lost this point. Next subject. _ Well, then feel free to ahead and explain away how these "left winger misinterpretations" affect religious laws when the republicans are the only party in charge of both the senate and the house....ie: the country. If what you allege was the case, Allege? Are not the repubs in charge? Yet, you continue ot blame those whoare not in charge. Classic abdication of those responsible...your practicied behavior that is almost secod-nature to you. the whole "PC" movement would have been expunged from the country by now. It's not so simple to overturn a few decades of liberal indoctrination, Liberals founded this country. Your hatred towards such founding principles and favoring socialistic government is well documented. But at least the mainstream is now awake and aware of what had previously been a fairly low profile covert operation. Agree,..which is why the Bush approval rating in Iraq is nearing an all time low again. But now all the underhanded, erroneous, immoral, and hypocritical actions of the left are put up for all to see and to judge accordingly. Yet, the left's behavior has you so preoccupied when the repubs are in charge. It kills you. In theory, it should mean nothing. But you know those obstructionist democrats trying to use a filibuster to leverage their minority into a controlling influence. That's one biased opinion. The other side of the coin you seek to ignore is that the fillibuster is the last legal refuge to place an end to the republicans seeking to end and change laws that would prevent a one party rule...theirs. How? There is still a vote. Except ythe repubs seek to cancel the demos. In a vote,the majority rules. That's the way any vote works. I suppose you'd rather apply a "filibuster-ike" rule to challenge any majority vote. (sig) Frank taught you the origins of the filibuster. You continue to have hatred for more American designed security designed to protect us from such fascism. Maybe we should be filibustering the last election, so that you PEST sufferers could leverage your minority rule to place Kerry in office. See what a poor retainment value you employ.....your hatred is so rabid, you erreoneously referred to myself and Frank as demos and Kerry supporters. That downslide is really messing you up. That's all a filibuster is, a desperate attempt by the minority to overturn the wishes of the majority. That is only your misinterpretation of another definition. In fact, what makes this so shocking, is you were given the exact origination of the fillibuster in addition to its proper definition, but you are dogged determined to wallow in your own ignorance. So tell me, how is THAT any more fair, than having a straight up or down vote? And in typical democratic hypocrisy, the same people who are screaming to save the filibuster now, were on record as in favor of removing it, over ten years back, when the democrats were in the majority in congress. Nevertheless, the misinterpretation has been all yours even though Frank neatly wrapped it all up and presented you with the facts clearly indicating congress shall keep the clause of separation of church and state intact. It was never there in the first place. Denial is your best trait.,,but denial when presented proof is learned ignorance. Where is the proof? Your mistake (almost everytime you post this week) is in believing their is some type law doing just what the clause prohibits. There is NOTHING in the constitution which calls for the complete separation of church and state. All it does is prevent the establishment of a state sponsored or endorsed religion, Wait a second,,a few paragraphs above you said it WAS endorsed,,in fact,, that's the exact word you used,,let's see it again.. In the case of religious influences in this country, the majority have accepted and endorsed it since the beginning. HAhahhaa,,what a card you have become, largely opposing yourself and self-contradictions galore. and prevents the government from denying someone the right to observe their religion of choice. Nowhere does the constitution claim or imply that congress persons, the president, justices, or other people shall not be people of faith. No one said otherwise. Your deficit has you confused and focusing on topic only you invoke and conjure. But while you're at it, it also says nothing of your claim that such was "endorsed". Nor does it ban the practices of referring to God in an oath, or during any other proceeding of the government. See above concerning your conjured ramblings taken from outter space. Did you know that every session of congress begins with a prayer, lead by a staff preacher who is paid for by taxpayer dollars? Did you know that there are Bible verses etched in stone all over the federal buildings and monuments in D.C.? There are pictures of the 10 commandments inside the supreme court? And E Pluribus Unum is on the buck. There has NEVER been a complete separation of church and state in this government. Yes, there has. Your misinterpretation has you believing that a faith or belief is equal to an established or endorsed religion or church. The whole idea of any separation in the beginning was not to protect government from religion, it was to protect religion from government. And you arrived at such a conclusion exactly how....? Now go do some research before you buy into left wing propaganda. And that would be another erroneous claim that I am a demo or Kerry supporter,,,hmmm,,,,,it really bugs you when the repubs are made to answer for their incompetence, especially yours. The only zealots that mean anything are the ones in charge...repubs. =A0=A0Because you agree with the religious zealots and have on many occasion admitted that your moral views are to be fostered upon others and if they do not subscribe to your radical positions and admitted (on many occasion) socialistic tendencies, you mistakenly hold them as an enemy of yourself, seeking to take away that of which you believe. I and many others who are currently in the majority. You know, the ones who reelected G.W. Bush. The majority didn't vote, David. The majority of those who voted, voted for Bush. That's a far, far, cry from claiming a majority or a mandate. The ony mandate Bush had was with Jeff Gannon.. As for the rest, who's to say who they would have favored. Any speculation on your part, is just that. As yours. At least I'm not going around illustrating to the world I believe Bush had a mandate. Besides, those who don't play an active part in their government, have no right to complain about it. Such as you and your issues relating to radio of which your life has become largely reactive as opposed to proactivity. You eally sould take your own advice, but hypocrites rarely do. I would argue that it was those influences which made this country one of strong moral and ethical principles. In one sentence you claim the moral and ethical principles of this country have degraded terribly and even said society was reflected on the air. Now you say the country is once again of strong moral fiber and ethical principle. No, I said that this country was FOUNDED on strong moral and ethical principles. No,,you said,,,"Which made this country one of strong moral fiber". Yes, MADE as in FOUNDED, as in "past tense". I know you have trouble comprehending, but I didn't think I had to drop to this level to explain it to you. Only because you are the only one that understands yourself. The only misinterpretation here, is the initial impression I had of you and your education. I thought you were reasonably schooled at one point, until the several weeks, between your gaffes and unlearned comments regrading the law of your own state and the glaring holes in your civics and history knowledge, law knowledge, and FCC knowledge. |
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 05:40:36 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005 07:32:43 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:46:48 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:56:31 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip See, this is what's so puzzling about you Frank. Once in a while you unload with a brilliant piece of perspective, which is at total odds with your status in life. You're one hell of an underachiever. Dr. Kramer probably wouldn't agree. Do you want the book or not? Frank, I can get as much information as I need right from the internet. It's a lot better than finding places to keep all those books. Hence the source of your ingnorance and the reason you find me to be so "puzzling". No, I find you puzzling because you are so pompous and arrogant about what you claim as "knowledge" yet, the application of such knowledge in your own life has been dismally short of achievement. You are either an accomplished liar, or a severe underachiever. You ignore any other possibilities. Yes, I ignored many possibilities in order to focus on the two most likely PROBABILITIES. For a guy who claims to know as much, and has done as much as you have claimed, all you have to show for yourself is a job as a bartender, driving a 20+ year old vehicle? Only if that's how you measure "achievement". I'm not that superficial. Yea, we all know how superficial the pursuit of a person's greatest potential is. You're a regular Cliff Clavin. Even if I did work for the USPS, I'd rather deliver mail than pizzas. So would I. The bennies are pretty good when you work for the government. Now you muse about starting a lawn care service. No offense to Steveo, but that's not exactly the skill level job that a man of your supposed "credentials" should be aspiring to. By your standards. But you can't seem to understand that not everyone lives by your standards, Dave. Yea, I know, you're an underachiever by choice. That's what they all say....... So, what's your (latest) excuse? A man who truly knows the things that you try to pass off to the rest of us here, would be in a high level engineering or marketing position, Done that. Boring. or perhaps a stint as a university professor, Done that. Fun, but the pay sucks until you get tenure. An interesting comment from someone who just a few lines back claimed to be "not that superficial". or maybe a government contractor. No thanks, I've taken a look at a few government contracts. They barely fit the definition of "legally binding". Now, let's take a closer look at this, and expose just why these answers that you gave are highly unlikely. You once claimed that you were in the military in the mid 80's, then worked for a while. Then you went back to school (presumably because you had trouble finding a decent job). Now a BS program requires a 4 year course study at a minimum. Assuming you're not living at home sponging off mon and dad, you're going to have to work to make ends meet, which means a leaner curriculum, and a longer time frame. Personal experience has shown me that a night school BS degree can take up to 8 years to complete. But even so, you likely did not receive your degree until the 90's. Now, a BS in engineering does not, in itself qualify you to teach. You would also need additional education to receive a teaching certificate. Then there is the issue of experience. Most guys straight out of school are not worth a heck of a lot, and are usually hired at entry level positions in order to gain experience. During this time, you've also claimed to have worked as a broadcast engineer at 2 different radio stations (which is probably the only truth). So, in a period of time that spans no more than about 10 to 15 years, you want us to believe that you've been a broadcast engineer, worked in marketing and design engineering (even with no previous related experience), and taught at a university (Even without any teaching experience in "lower" educational institutions). Man, you're one busy guy Frank. So, I guess the stint tending bar is just a result of "burnout" from all that achieving? Either you just can't seem to figure out what you want to do for a living, or you like to tell tall tales. Or maybe you'd work with me. Doubtful. I -order- pizzas, I don't deliver them. Ah yes, the other defense mechanism typical from an underachiever with self esteem issues. It is certainly more comforting, to someone in your predicament, to accuse and believe that others are worse off than you are thereby justifying, to some degree, your own failures. So if you want to believe that I deliver pizza's for a living (And supporting a family, a large home, a boat, camper, and 3 vehicles on that salary) so that you can feel better about yourself, then I'll go along with it. Heck, I'd hate to think you went for the razor blades or the old rubber hose from the tailpipe on my account. The bottom line Frank, is that you talk a great line, but you produce very little. I can tell that by the way you approach CB radio troubleshooting. You offer only generic troubleshooting 101 solutions to problems, which indicates that you have very little direct experience with actually repairing a CB radio, which have known problem areas. Uh-huh, that's why I narrowed the buzzing-radio problem down to the voltage regulator while you were busy defending your highly generalized assumption that the problem is "almost always caps", huh? The final answer to that question was never realized. Your continued egotistical need to belittle me in that thread most likely chased the original poster away. But you go right ahead and limit yourself to the internet for your sole source of information Once again you make assumptions, a repetitive pattern for you. I never said the internet was my SOLE source of information. Wrong. You said, "I can get as much information as I need right from the internet." You can try and spin the semantics all you want but it means the same thing. Which means exactly that, I can get the factual information that I need from the internet. That does not mean that I get life EXPERIENCE from the internet, as you attempted to claim with later examples. But it is the fastest and easiest source of information on a variety of topics, especially current events. It was the internet, that first blew the lid off of "Rathergate", and exposed it as the propaganda smear that it was intended to be. The Blog has become a powerful tool to expose media bias and helps to parse the stories in order to gain the truth. Sure you can read about something in a book, but the internet is instantaneous, interactive, and ever evolving. There are decisive advantages to that. Speaking of 'media bias', are you keeping up-to-date on the status of one of your staunchly anti-gay, conservative Republicans that happens to be the mayor of my home town? http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/ No, I'm more interested in the criminal activities surrounding the associates of the democratic mayor of Philadelphia in a "Pay to play" scandal. It is, after all, more regionally relevant for me. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10995886.htm -- let me know when you find the winding specifications for an Ajax M-2-145T, or the firearm most preferred by Deep-River Jim, or why Bessie slashed up her own portrait. If I had any interest in those subjects, I'm sure I'd find them, assuming these people are significant. I doubt you could find them even if you wanted to. If that's truly the case, then it's equally likely that I'd have little interest. But while we're on the subject, I have found much information on the local history of my local area, and the trolley, rail, and canal lines that used to run through here over the turn of the century. I have found the horsepower specifications for the triple expansion 4 cylinder piston engines in the Titanic, as well as the Parson's Turbine center engine. I have tracked radio wave propagation, tides, a web cam of my favorite lake, and my friend's pool. There is nothing you can read in print, than can't be scanned into a web page, or pdf file. Yet so much -hasn't- been scanned. Key Word: "Yet". All I can say is that I sure wish I had the tools of the internet and computers back when I had to do term papers. The task would have been much less tedious and actually somewhat interesting, and fun. There will be a time, in the not so distant future, where all published works will be delivered in electronic format. Printed books will become museum attractions, for those desiring a return to the "quaint old days". I am currently involved in projects that enable much of the concept of a seamless central home voice, video, and data model. I have the complete Cisco router manuals on CD ROM. I have access to repeater user's groups where we can seek out and share each other's expertise to solve problems. The list is endless Frank. It's far from endless, Dave. It doesn't even have endless potential. Ok, so it's "virtually" (no pun) endless. I might read an intriguing novel by the fireplace on a cool winter's night, but if it's information that I want, the fingers fly to the keyboard. Find a link that explains why you can see the Douglas Firs towering above you in the middle of the woods on a pitch-black and starless night. I'd rather just witness that myself first hand. I do a lot of camping you know. No, I don't know. If you haven't witnessed what I described then maybe you haven't done as much camping as you claim. I have seen trees of all sorts towering over me at night. There's no mystery to this. Even on a moonless and cloudy night, there is still enough ambient light to show the silhouettes of the trees. Download the feelings of watching Israeli officers picking off Palistinian schoolkids running out of a burning building like they were ducks in a shooting gallery. And what? You read that in a book? No, I was there, fool. How long have you -really- been in this newsgroup? Oh, that's right, you were in the military. I've come close though. I have corresponded, via E-Mail, with U.S. army folks fighting in Iraq, in order to get their personal perspective on the situation. It's a far different picture than what the mainstream media wants us to think. You don't have a clue, Dave. So, are you claiming that these people are lying to me? People that I am related to or friends with? I'm sure you can exercise your imagination, but there are experiences in combat situations that have no comparison or common frame of reference to pizza delivery drivers. Ah, that underachiever's ego feel good justification rears its ugly head once again. It's curious (maybe not so) that you stoop to that level when you cannot counter my points with any facts. That leave nothing but insults. Your case gets weaker by the day. I'm sure you can find a site that has the cyber-smell file of a Northwest sawmill. As I'm sure you can from a book. But you can go to a Home Depot and get a similar effect. It's not the same. It's like saying you know what a homemade apple pie tastes like because you once bought a Hostess pastry at the 7/11. Assuming I have a desire to make an apple pie. And I'm sure there's some adapter you can plug into the USB port that will let you enjoy the unmatched hospitality (and world-class pastries) offered by a family of Norwegians when all you did was ask to fill up your water can. When have you been to Norway? 1984. Ah, another port of call for the traveling military grunt on Uncle Sam's nickel. It's a far different experience traveling, when you can stay at a 4 or 5 star hotel on the company tab. The downside though is that the food can get a bit rich and that tends to make the job of maintaining my boyish figure a bit more difficult ;-) I've never been to Norway, although I came close to hitting Amsterdam. I managed to get out of going because I didn't want to leave my wife and then infant daughter home alone for a few weeks. I don't like traveling to foreign countries anyway. Especially with the anti-American sentiment going around. But there are a lot of very nice U.S. cities that I've liked. Mostly I remember them due to interesting eateries the I've found there. The "Wattaburger" in Brownsville Texas, Dickies Ribs in Dallas, Farmer Jones' Red Barn in Lakeland Florida, Nandell's Inn in Seattle, The Airplane themed pub (the name escapes me) across from Mitchell airport in Milwaukee, and many others. We could talk about airports too. Even those folks in Denver and San Francisco want their pizza's delivered hot and fresh, even if it takes 5 hours to get there. Did you need to order some new imported beer for the bar? No, but I did buy a large 'Norwegian' Bud at a small grocery store. I think I still have the label stashed away somewhere. I also might have a couple labels from bottles of Maccabe beer from Israel. I'm pretty sure I have a couple phone tokens and a few sheckels in coins. Ah, souvenirs. I have a can of Junkanoo punch from the Bahamas, a can of Taiwan beer from Taipei, the strange looking "old fashioned" styled Coke bottle from Mexico (The water sucks in Mexico, but the Coca-Cola is much better). The internet is fun but it's no substitute for books, people, nature, or direct experiences. But you think that you can get everything you need from your computer. You are a fool, Dave. I never claimed to get ALL of my information from the internet. Only that I can research any topic that I wish on the internet and get the same or better information a heck of a lot quicker and easier than using the old fashioned method of buying (or borrowing) a book. That's only true if the info is available on the net. So much info -isn't- on the net. I agree, but I haven't run into that situation on the things that I am interested in. You, on the other hand, need to get away from the left coast. It's really affecting your perception. "The West is the best". The west is far too liberal. A weird blend of cynicism mixed with naive idealism. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Tue, 17 May 2005 13:45:31 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . Why is it only now do certain people find exception to it? You would have to ask one. My guess would be a certain faction is trying to cram their religious beliefs down otehr's throats. Those beliefs have been a part of our culture since this country was founded. The perception that religion is "suddenly" being "Crammed down other people's throats" is held by those who have been conspicuously absent from any religious influences in their lives and see any display of religion as excessive. Yet it is those same people who are the ones at odds with our society, as history will testify to. The problem is both sides. One person find offense with something of a religious over tone in government, he then finds the ACLU and wants it removed. Now the religious zealots start banging the drums in defense of religion. You are exactly right. That is why this is reaching a head. Someone finds something offensive, gets the muscle of a group such as the ACLU to have it removed (Like lame Holiday party names instead of Christians parties). It's not surprising that the people who support these traditions will fight to retain them. Except when the law doesn't agree with your point of view or actions. You claim ignorance of the law is no excuse, but you arrogantly claim you break the law intentionally (holding up traffic in the passing lane, paralelling the car in the right lane) in order to enforce another law. Pa law states the left lane is for passing only. You're an uninformed (regarding the law in your own state) hypocrite. It is not illegal to run in the left lane as long as you are either passing or maintaining the posted speed limit. Do you honestly expect everyone to run in the right lane once they've hit the posted limit? That's ludicrous. Especially considering the volume of traffic in this area. I can't answer for PA, but in California you would get a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic. I've seen it, so please don't say it doesn't happen. So, the alternative is to allow people to exceed the posted limit? That seem somewhat contradictory to me. So basically, the way the law is written, it pretty much forces people to break the speed limit in order to "justify" using the left lane? You do understand the logic here right? If you are legally bound to maintain the posted speed limit, then you cannot pass someone already doing the legal limit, and the great majority of traffic would be bound to remain in the right lane, except to pass those occasional slow pokes. I'm sure I don't need to explain heavy traffic to a California resident, but can you imagine if everyone tried to stay in the right lane? Both of you are severe underachievers. I don't think so. I don't think you are either. I do think that you all are on the far end of political and religious spectrum, as such, this argument between you three will never end. I am hardly a religious zealot. I don't even go to church. I am not even a practicing Christian. But I do believe in a "God" and I do believe in intelligent design, and I believe in keeping morality as a guide to responsible social behavior. I am for preserving proven tradition and do not believe that change is automatically a good thing. I am also a political conservative (As are you IIRC), and tend to favor smaller government, personal responsibility and accountability, a free market and a strong morality based system of law and order in order to punish those who cannot act properly in a civilized society. The arguments between Frank, Twisty and I are much more complex than a simple ideological disagreement. Twisty is twisty. His actions need no further explanation. Frank has been stung ever since I admitted that I supported Bush. A revelation that seems to have affected him personally. Frank has since been trying to prove that support of Bush (and republicans in general) is wrong based solely on his subjective opinion that only an idiot would support him so, consequently, he has been since trying to prove that I'm that idiot. But during the course of the ensuing "debates", Frank has revealed much about his personality, and has given me an insight into his own inner demons. I can now see why he and Twisty have found common ground. They both have a profound distrust of corporations and any form of "the establishment". And, if their level of knowledge and education is as they claim, they are both underachievers. Frank, who once claimed to teach college courses, and claims to hold a BS degree in engineering, working as a bartender. Twisty, who claims to be well versed in law, and an "accomplished" writer, takes snowbirds out to fish on a charter boat, and can't even afford a real computer. No wonder he hides behind an anonymous pseudonym. It had been fun from a purely psychological standpoint. But I am beginning to tire of this almost constant off-topic banter. I am actually longing for the days when we talked about amplifiers and mods to radios. I never guessed that a simple ideological disagreement would turn into several years worth of trash talking. Dave "Sandbagger" |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Except when the law doesn't agree with your point of view or actions. You claim ignorance of the law is no excuse, but you arrogantly claim you break the law intentionally (holding up traffic in the passing lane, paralelling the car in the right lane) in order to enforce another law. Pa law states the left lane is for passing only. You're an uninformed (regarding the law in your own state) hypocrite. It is not illegal to run in the left lane as long as you are either passing or maintaining the posted speed limit. Do you honestly expect everyone to run in the right lane once they've hit the posted limit? That's ludicrous. Especially considering the volume of traffic in this area. I can't answer for PA, but in California you would get a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic. I've seen it, so please don't say it doesn't happen. So, the alternative is to allow people to exceed the posted limit? That seem somewhat contradictory to me. So basically, the way the law is written, it pretty much forces people to break the speed limit in order to "justify" using the left lane? Nope, it's called impeding the flow of traffic. If the basic traffic flow is going 65 to 70mph and you get three cars all going 65mph. The back up behind is more of a hazard than the people breaking the basic speed law. (Big snip) Dave "Sandbagger" Landshark -- Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder? Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder. I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.'' This game that we animals play is a winner. |
On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:49:36 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Speaking of 'media bias', are you keeping up-to-date on the status of one of your staunchly anti-gay, conservative Republicans that happens to be the mayor of my home town? http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/ No, I'm more interested in the criminal activities surrounding the associates of the democratic mayor of Philadelphia in a "Pay to play" scandal. It is, after all, more regionally relevant for me. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10995886.htm Gee Dave, after all your sermons about morality -- you don't care about a pedophile that not only used his government office for cyber-sex but promised internships to young boys in exchange for 'dates'? What happened to your morality, Dave? Did it suddenly get lost because West is a conservative Republican? snip All I can say is that I sure wish I had the tools of the internet and computers back when I had to do term papers. The task would have been much less tedious and actually somewhat interesting, and fun. Where did you go to college, Dave? And BTW, what was the name of that tech school you claimed to have attended? Who does the majority party represent if not the majority? Where does the Constitution require, or even suggest, that religious influence should play any role in the government? How does gay and lesbian marriage infringe on your rights? ----== 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 Hall, N3CVJ wrote:
Now, let's take a closer look at this, and expose just why these answers that you gave are highly unlikely. You once claimed that you were in the military in the mid 80's, then worked for a while. Then you went back to school (presumably because you had trouble finding a decent job). Now a BS program requires a 4 year course study at a minimum. Frank was in the military (can earn you college credits) and it doesn't take 4 years minimum to get a BS degree. It is often done in 3 or less. In fact, there are many who do it in less time. Many major universities and schools have BS programs that take less than 4 years. |
Dave Hall, N3CVJ wrote:
(I can't answer for PA, but in California you would get a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic. I've seen it, so please don't say it doesn't happen. ) So, the alternative is to allow people to exceed the posted limit? You have no choice in the matter.It is not you that is permitted to enforce the trafficl laws, despite your need for assumed status over others. That seem somewhat contradictory to me. Only because you are ignorant of the law and express difficulty understanding it. Cruising in the left lane is illegal...period, Your feelings and objections are irrelevant. So basically, the way the law is written, it pretty much forces people to break the speed limit in order to "justify" using the left lane? Not at all. You are not to be in the left lane AT ALL unless you are passing. If the person in front of you in the right lane is doing the speed limit, you have no business in the left or passing lane. Now you are expressing difficulties comprehending your lawbreaking ways that illustrate your hypocrisy. You do understand the logic here right? The logic is that you lived ot be as old as you are but still are a hypocrite and can;t comprehend you are breaking the law and any "logic" you feel is related to your behavior is justification for you to break the law. If you are legally bound to maintain the posted speed limit, then you cannot pass someone already doing the legal limit, and the great majority of traffic would be bound to remain in the right lane, except to pass those occasional slow pokes. That is the law...very good, David. SSince you disagree with it so vehemently, it is suggested you take your own advice .."You are bound to adhere to the law. If you don't agree with it, lobby to have it changed. Breaking the law is no excuse." I'm sure I don't need to explain heavy traffic to a California resident, but can you imagine if everyone tried to stay in the right lane? The only thing imagined here is you believing you are not a hypocrite for your law breaking ways. According your own words, you're a criminal, also. |
Dave Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:
When you get your head handed to you with regard to one topic Pot,,kettle,,black. I'm not sure what has you hopping around like the easter bunny who has to take a very bad ****, but I can guess. Was it the application of your invoked "statistical probability" factor to yourself after you made the comment "there is no George"? Was it your goof concerning your misuse and misapplication of the word "Quantify"? Was it your self-contradiction where you first claimed an "endorsement" of religion by the people, then turned around in the same post and claimed there was no endorsement of such? Perhaps it was because you were accusing me of being wrong in all my claims concerning you, but refused to give explicit permission to post such "wrong" information. Then again, it could have been your claim that sex, in regards to catching an STD, is not an all or nothing proposition, when that is most certainly what it is,,,,,stay celibate or screw at your own risk. Or the Bush failures you asked for, was provided, then you vanished. Maybe it was that old habit you have of denying the existence of everything you are not aware, such as your claim that there is no reference point in which to measure global warming. then again, it could have been the fact that your own party acknowledges such, and just like your chosen hobby, you have no clue concerning those who govern your world. Then again, it was probably the fact you were conned into admitting you were a criminal (your word) by breaking Pa traffic law. Yep. You sure handed me my head. I can't wait for you to do it again. In the meantime, enoy your rest, take a few deep breaths, regroup, refresh, douche, powder, whatever you have to do to cleanse your wickedness and become a proper contributing member to society instead of a law breaking criminal who is on the level of crackheads and vagrants (also your words). |
On Wed, 18 May 2005 09:54:03 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in : Dave Hall, N3CVJ wrote: Now, let's take a closer look at this, and expose just why these answers that you gave are highly unlikely. You once claimed that you were in the military in the mid 80's, then worked for a while. Then you went back to school (presumably because you had trouble finding a decent job). Now a BS program requires a 4 year course study at a minimum. Frank was in the military (can earn you college credits) Yep. Tarheel U. has (had?) a program set up for jarheads in Camp Lejeune. and it doesn't take 4 years minimum to get a BS degree. It is often done in 3 or less. In fact, there are many who do it in less time. Many major universities and schools have BS programs that take less than 4 years. Dave would know that already if he actually attended college. ----== 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, 18 May 2005 14:56:11 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Wed, 18 May 2005 09:54:03 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in : Dave Hall, N3CVJ wrote: Now, let's take a closer look at this, and expose just why these answers that you gave are highly unlikely. You once claimed that you were in the military in the mid 80's, then worked for a while. Then you went back to school (presumably because you had trouble finding a decent job). Now a BS program requires a 4 year course study at a minimum. Frank was in the military (can earn you college credits) Yep. Tarheel U. has (had?) a program set up for jarheads in Camp Lejeune. and it doesn't take 4 years minimum to get a BS degree. It is often done in 3 or less. In fact, there are many who do it in less time. Many major universities and schools have BS programs that take less than 4 years. Dave would know that already if he actually attended college. Heck, you can earn a college "degree" these days without ever setting a foot in a classroom. But 20 years ago, that just wasn't the case. You had a certain amount of credits that you had to earn, and a required course curriculum. Yes, it was possible to do it in less than four years, but that required an overly ambitious fast-paced schedule. Most people are not up for that. Night school allowed people to avoid many of the "nonsense" courses, which were unrelated to your major, that the full time day programs usually required you to take. But the people who took the night school route usually were, like me, working full time during the day, and could not take as many courses per semester and, consequently, it could take close to 8 years to earn the B.S. Dave "Sandbagger" |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com