On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:24:10 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote in
:

It might surprise you, Steven Hawkings (possibly the greatest mind alive--if
not--close) often refers to "God" when chatting and writing about his
thoughts... I don't know Steven's present stand on the existance of "God",
however, I do NOT think he has claimed his/her/its' existance is
impossible...

Steven is quite aware of the fact that probability and statistics make it
very hard for evolution to be the sole reason for our state of existance...

Here is a link to some of his musings and quotes, a search of the net will
provide mo
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physic...en-Hawking.htm


Stephen Hawking could be considered to be the contemporary equivalent
of John Tyndall, a scientist about 100 years ago that was popular
because of his ability to communicate scientific principles to the
masses, but was consistently (and safely) a decade or two behind the
current state of mainstream research. For example, the theory that
matter is composed of spherical waves is nothing new. It was even
proposed (and subsequently ridiculed) in Tyndall's day. There has
always been criticizm of the big-bang theory which, after several
decades, is finally receiving due attention. And the Michelson-Morley
experiment is -only now- getting a second look by the mainstream
scientific community because of attention drawn to the logical fallacy
used by the experimenters to reach their conclusion. Until now their
conclusion was accepted as fact because it was the foundation of
Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, and nobody dared criticize
-that- man despite his own admissions that he might have been wrong.
Which brings us to the -real- problem.....

The politics of science is often more important than the science
itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
their names in the journals. And while I may not agree with some of
the currently accepted scientific theories or conclusions, nothing in
science is written in stone -- it is theory that is subject to change
upon new discoveries that are being made all the time, and will
continue to be made as long as there are people who are less than
fully satisfied with the current level of understanding. With that in
mind, it's easy to see how so many profound discoveries were made by
malcontents living under religious authoritarian governments. In my
opinion, there should be a seperation of science and state just like
there is (supposed to be) a seperation of church and state. I think
Galileo might agree with me on that one.

As to whether life exists by accident or design, feel free to believe
what you want. It's clear that science is far more complex than any
one person can possibly comprehend, so to believe that the Universe
works on purely scientific principles is, like any religion, simply a
matter of faith. I place my faith not just in science, but also in the
logical priciples upon which the scientific process works. The current
state of science may not be perfect but at least it continues to grow
and evolve, seeking deeper understandings of why things are the way
they are, instead of stagnating like so many religious beliefs that
were stalled by the blind acceptance of myths, legends, traditions and
ancient literature.

How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it
-does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Tue, 10 May 2005 16:03:16 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

(So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no
damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few
paltry bucks..)

Illegally. Just as there are people who

trespass on private or otherwise posted land,

and never get caught either.

Physical trespass can carry a *criminal* charge..talking on the freeband
can not.

There are criminal provisions in the communications act of 1934. But
the point is that nothing will happen if you are never caught. But the
fact that you are not likely to get caught does not diminish the
illegality and societal irresponsibility of engaging in the acts.

Once again, this is the difference between what constitutes a
criminal act vs a civil act. The penalties are not the same.

But it's still illegal.

(shrug),,,,which has -never- been contested by anyone here, yet, for
some curious reason unbeknownst to all but yourself, you have taken it
upon yourself to assume status and annoint yourself some sort of
imaginary right to confront others concerning their non-criminal act.

The FCC rules do carry criminal as well as civil penalties should they
choose to apply them, if the case warrants it.


I would hedge zero times have you actually confronted a real criminal or
law breaker in the act and in person.

I certainly would if the opportunity presented itself.


Ask any cell phone company
owner/administrator.

Your selection of cell phone admins does not
discount the countless freebanders, cbers or
hammies who play on it for free or on the
extreme cheap.

Illegally,



And legally.

Hams and legal CB'ers perhaps. But not freebanders.


or on bands where public access is
set aside.


Or not. Don't forget many of the freqs that have been abandoned.

Abandoned does not mean "open". There are many abandoned buildings
around. But you are still not allowed to trespass there.


I'll
reiterate what you already found in google on many
occasion,,,,,education is the key.

Much like a public park.


Nothing like a public park, as breaking the law you speak of (trespass)
can result in criminal charges, unlike talking on the freeband.

Look at FCC regs again. There are certainly criminal penalties
associated with them. Ask your buddy "Bob-noxious" about the criminal
penalties associated with pirate radio.


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

Your whole justification revolves around your perception that unless a
law has serious, visible teeth, then it doesn't deserve our respect,
and we are justified in ignoring it. That is anti-social behavior.



They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum
to people with a legitimate need. It's no
different than government owned land.

Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were
already taught.

Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways
that are similar are what I am talking about.


But,,,,,,it's not

It's a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of
spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes
for outrageous amounts. If the FCC was not in
the position to claim "ownership" of that
spectrum, how could they auction it off?

By virtue of administration. Auctions are held daily all over the place.
They do not own what they auction, but like the FCC, are merely charged
with the administering of such.

Semantics.

No,,facts. You can't call facts you disagree with "semantics".

You want to talk about facts? The facts are that the FCC can and does
auction off chunks of spectrum to commercial entities to use. They
also regulate those chunks. They also set aside some spectrum for
"public use". Yes, they administer it, as an arm and representative
proxy of the U.S. government. So, while the FCC might not directly
"own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does.


Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate
my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so.

Right! On you own land. But venture out on .
the public street, and they have all the
authority. Same goes for radio.


Again,,,,,(sigh),,the analogy of the car is invalid as it can result in
criminal charges, while operating on the freeband does not.

Yes it can.


If you can somehow prevent your signal from
escaping the borders of your property (Which
is covered by FCC Part 15), you could do
what you want.


Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law?

Pushing which law and in what way?

Transmitting, albeit, under the guise of part 15, to a much broader
audience than permitted.

Well, look into any "low power" pirate broadcaster. Some have tried to
claim that their power is legal (even if their antennas are not).


Once those signals escape into the public
venue, they are under the control of the
federal government.

How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over
such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can
tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public
broadcast?

Most of those situations employ carrier current
transmitters which radiate only a short
distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby
limiting range beyond the intended service
area. The biggest uses for this technique is on
.college campuses, travel, and road alert
systems.


Yes,,,but my question remains and is still valid.

The reality is that even a carrier current system needs to be
authorized by the FCC. So a radio system capable of covering a 2500
acre church camp would need FCC permission to operate.

As you know, RF degrades gradually and it is
impossible to "brick wall" stop a broadcast at
the limits of physical property. But unless you
are very close, you will likely not hear a carrier
current transmission.



Or on an unobstructed waterway with a visual on the proper/transmitter.

Another way to look at it, You own your car,
but not the roads you drive on.

Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars.

And administered by the government.
You may own your radio, but not the airwaves
you broadcast on.

Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe.

For all practical purposes, yes they do in this
country.
You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond
the confines of your own property.

That is what the cb does.

Yes, but the authorization to operate a CB is a
"privilege", not a "right".
You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the
government in the proxy of the FCC.

This "privilege" is availabe to anyone, so how can it be referred a
privilege?

**Not true. You have to be a U.S. citizen, and
not convicted of other FCC rule violations.

Ok,,proverbially "everyone".

But it's not "everyone". Even though the CB radio service is
authorized by rule, there are still restrictions (albeit small) on its
use. It's not a "right", it's a "privilege".


*I know you elitist hammies believe this to be true about your ticket,
but it simply does not apply to cb, as practically any American citizen
is granted the "right" to broadcast, via a cb, simply by ownership of
one. This does not exactly equate to any "privilege".

Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the
rules governing each service, and find out for
yourself. Despite the relative ease by which a
person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a
"right" to do so, it is a privilege granted by the
FCC, as the service is authorized by rule,
even if a license is not required.


And if that law were serious, one would NOT be able to buy, plug and
play. What stops an immigrant from using a cb? Nothing,,they all se them
in the fruit fields.

This is true, the FCC isn't checking the immigration status of every
CB operator, and it won't come up unless the person is cited for other
rule violations. It's sort of like the seatbelt law in many states.
You can't get stopped for it alone, but if you are stopped for another
violation, they can cite you for failing to wear a seatbelt at the
same time.

Again, it seems that you justify ignoring rules based on the
unlikelihood of being cited.


As a
condition of that privilege comes your
responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in
various FCC parts depending on which
service you are using.
You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right
now and have said so on many occasion.

Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they
should be, and freeload.... er, freebanders get
away with trespassing on other government
administered frequencies with little chance of
getting caught. But that doesn't mean that it's
legal or proper.

Again, not one person ever made such a claim in all my years of visiting
thse pages. Just who is it you are trying to convince?

But you guys who are operating illegally are using all sort of excuses
to justify or downplay this illegality. The fact that the FCC isn't
actively pursuing freebanders, is not a justification or a silent nod
allowing you to operate there.


They rightly and deservedly go
after those they deem the most important and damaging to our hobby.

You mean those who project the highest
profile, or those who impact operators who
paid dearly for the right to use their part of the
spectrum.

Those who present a direct safety issue.

Very few people fall into this category.

It
is yourself that does not like the "way it is" nor agree with it.

Well, that's true. I do wish the FCC had more
teeth.

They have plenty of teeth. Their bite is interested in chomping away
with censorship of television.

It's much easier for them to enforce. They don't have to track down
anyone. They can administer from their offices.


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

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

On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:39:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Your anti-God bias is showing. You would rather believe that the
complexity of our ecosystem occurred due to just the right random,
combinations of factors and events to produce all the diversified
species, which all have a key part to play in the total picture,
rather than consider the likelihood that an intelligent force was
somehow responsible for guiding it.


There's nothing "random" about it

Well, no, that's my whole point. Something has to "guide" the
development of life. Something has to make the decision whether 2 legs
are better than four, and whether a fifth finger makes for a more
effective tool, yet 6 fingers is overkill etc.

-- when you consider that the bell
curve consists of a population as great as the number of events that
occur in the Universe within any period of time, it becomes utterly
-ridiculous- to think that life requires divine intervention.

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

And if
there -is- evidence of guidance by some intelligent force, it's far
more likely that this "force" is not God but some sort of ETI.

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


May the
force be with you, Dave!

It always has been.

snip
But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and
selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may
mistake for "random".

But what motivates natural evolution?


Natural variation, and adaptability to a dynamic environment.

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


Who decides whether a mutation
is "beneficial" or not? Natural selection, otherwise known as
survival of the fittest, assumes that gene mutations which result in a
"better" species, would survive while the "lesser' versions of the
species would die out. Yet, it is said that homo-sapiens evolved from
apes. Why then are apes still around if we are the "new and improved"
version of the ape?


Because you assume that the "'lesser' versions of the species would
die out", which is not necessarily the case.

If not, then that's negates much of the evolutionary theory. If the
purpose of evolution is gradual improvement or a species, then the
"old" should die off as it is replaced by the "new".


There can be many
circumstances where a variation doesn't compete for the same resources
as it's progenitor. This explains why there are so many speices of
birds that have but slight variations -- many birds are migratory. And
so are many species of primates.

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


Evolution only explains a small part of the puzzle.

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

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

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


......Why
do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that
allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming
of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul?


Evolution is science. The questions you ask are philosophical.

Yes, but it all relates in the bigger picture.

But
before you start putting the human race on a pedestal, maybe you
better think twice about what you assume are the differences between
humans and other animals.

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

snip
Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the
possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations?

It very well might be. It's all part of the bigger plan. Like I said,
I totally accept the concepts of evolution. I just believe that the
process has been "managed" by a higher order intelligence, the
definition of which, has yet to be revealed. I am not advocating any
specific religious interpretation of "God", only that one exists.


The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of
variations that can occur in the processes of evolution.

I don't accept the theory that if you place a group of monkeys in a
cage with a bunch of typewriters that they'll eventually write every
great piece of literary works. They might type out every letter that
is contained within those works, but they will not get the order
correct. Such is the nature of chaos and randomness. It lacks
structure, direction, and order, and those elements are required for
meaningful results to occur.

Neither do
the scientists that study it. But the scientists don't insert God into
the equation whenever something doesn't add up -- they look for other
factors and they usually find them.

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

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

The politics of science is often more important than the science
itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
their names in the journals.

There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily
the result of man's influence over the environment. In fact there has
been clear evidence that this planet has experienced major cyclical
climatic changes over the eons. The current warming trend may just be
a part of that process, and man's contribution to it may be much less
significant than what the environmental alarmists would lead us to
believe.


How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it
-does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts.


Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:43:50 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

Which won't likely happen if you are both

monogamous.


Being monogamous with your wife/husband/partner has nothing to do with
your past.

Never said that it did.

There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for
years and years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly
appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases
until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS.

Monogamous doesn't mean act like a slut throughout your "formative"
years and then decide to "stay with one person at age 30.


The ONLY "cure" is found in
the prevention..in other words, abstaining from pre-marital sex then
both parties getting a thorough CBC (complete blood count) prior to
tying the knot.

Now you are finally seeing the light. Congratulations!

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

Well, that is certainly "YOUR OPINION"--I see little else there...

Interesting you should cram Steven into such a small bottle--where are you
lecturing this year--if it will be in a city close--I may come and see what
you have to say...

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six pack--step away!!! ... and go do something...

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:24:10 -0700, "John Smith"
| wrote in
| :
|
| It might surprise you, Steven Hawkings (possibly the greatest mind
alive--if
| not--close) often refers to "God" when chatting and writing about his
| thoughts... I don't know Steven's present stand on the existance of
"God",
| however, I do NOT think he has claimed his/her/its' existance is
| impossible...
|
| Steven is quite aware of the fact that probability and statistics make it
| very hard for evolution to be the sole reason for our state of
existance...
|
| Here is a link to some of his musings and quotes, a search of the net
will
| provide mo
| http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physic...en-Hawking.htm
|
|
| Stephen Hawking could be considered to be the contemporary equivalent
| of John Tyndall, a scientist about 100 years ago that was popular
| because of his ability to communicate scientific principles to the
| masses, but was consistently (and safely) a decade or two behind the
| current state of mainstream research. For example, the theory that
| matter is composed of spherical waves is nothing new. It was even
| proposed (and subsequently ridiculed) in Tyndall's day. There has
| always been criticizm of the big-bang theory which, after several
| decades, is finally receiving due attention. And the Michelson-Morley
| experiment is -only now- getting a second look by the mainstream
| scientific community because of attention drawn to the logical fallacy
| used by the experimenters to reach their conclusion. Until now their
| conclusion was accepted as fact because it was the foundation of
| Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, and nobody dared criticize
| -that- man despite his own admissions that he might have been wrong.
| Which brings us to the -real- problem.....
|
| The politics of science is often more important than the science
| itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
| global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
| environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
| more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
| their names in the journals. And while I may not agree with some of
| the currently accepted scientific theories or conclusions, nothing in
| science is written in stone -- it is theory that is subject to change
| upon new discoveries that are being made all the time, and will
| continue to be made as long as there are people who are less than
| fully satisfied with the current level of understanding. With that in
| mind, it's easy to see how so many profound discoveries were made by
| malcontents living under religious authoritarian governments. In my
| opinion, there should be a seperation of science and state just like
| there is (supposed to be) a seperation of church and state. I think
| Galileo might agree with me on that one.
|
| As to whether life exists by accident or design, feel free to believe
| what you want. It's clear that science is far more complex than any
| one person can possibly comprehend, so to believe that the Universe
| works on purely scientific principles is, like any religion, simply a
| matter of faith. I place my faith not just in science, but also in the
| logical priciples upon which the scientific process works. The current
| state of science may not be perfect but at least it continues to grow
| and evolve, seeking deeper understandings of why things are the way
| they are, instead of stagnating like so many religious beliefs that
| were stalled by the blind acceptance of myths, legends, traditions and
| ancient literature.
|
| How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it
| -does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
| http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
| ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

Dave:

You said, "So, while the FCC might not directly
"own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does."

This is grossly mis-leading!!! The gov't owns NOTHING!!!! They are a group
of indivduals who are elected, appointed, and hired to do the citizens
business. They have a job to do--if they either cannot or will not do it
without becomming self-serving employees--they simply need fired.

These public servants, from the president on down, need to be worried about
what the citizens of this country need and want--and what the citizens of
this country are telling them to do.

Just like if I hired an employee to help me in a private business--they are
directly answerable to their employers...

What the gov't needs to do is set aside a bit of the radio spectrum for use
in conducing the citizens business--some for commercial use--some for
hobby-expermental use... and the rest IS THE CITIZENS!!!!!

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 10 May 2005 16:03:16 -0400, (I
| AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
|
| (So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no
| damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few
| paltry bucks..)
|
| Illegally. Just as there are people who
|
| trespass on private or otherwise posted land,
|
| and never get caught either.
|
| Physical trespass can carry a *criminal* charge..talking on the freeband
| can not.
|
| There are criminal provisions in the communications act of 1934. But
| the point is that nothing will happen if you are never caught. But the
| fact that you are not likely to get caught does not diminish the
| illegality and societal irresponsibility of engaging in the acts.
|
| Once again, this is the difference between what constitutes a
| criminal act vs a civil act. The penalties are not the same.
|
| But it's still illegal.
|
| (shrug),,,,which has -never- been contested by anyone here, yet, for
| some curious reason unbeknownst to all but yourself, you have taken it
| upon yourself to assume status and annoint yourself some sort of
| imaginary right to confront others concerning their non-criminal act.
|
| The FCC rules do carry criminal as well as civil penalties should they
| choose to apply them, if the case warrants it.
|
|
| I would hedge zero times have you actually confronted a real criminal or
| law breaker in the act and in person.
|
| I certainly would if the opportunity presented itself.
|
|
| Ask any cell phone company
| owner/administrator.
|
| Your selection of cell phone admins does not
| discount the countless freebanders, cbers or
| hammies who play on it for free or on the
| extreme cheap.
|
| Illegally,
|
|
|
| And legally.
|
| Hams and legal CB'ers perhaps. But not freebanders.
|
|
| or on bands where public access is
| set aside.
|
|
| Or not. Don't forget many of the freqs that have been abandoned.
|
| Abandoned does not mean "open". There are many abandoned buildings
| around. But you are still not allowed to trespass there.
|
|
| I'll
| reiterate what you already found in google on many
| occasion,,,,,education is the key.
|
| Much like a public park.
|
|
| Nothing like a public park, as breaking the law you speak of (trespass)
| can result in criminal charges, unlike talking on the freeband.
|
| Look at FCC regs again. There are certainly criminal penalties
| associated with them. Ask your buddy "Bob-noxious" about the criminal
| penalties associated with pirate radio.
|
|
| This
| concept has proved nearly impossible for you to grasp. Perhaps it
| because you so vehemently disagree with the law.
|
| Your whole justification revolves around your perception that unless a
| law has serious, visible teeth, then it doesn't deserve our respect,
| and we are justified in ignoring it. That is anti-social behavior.
|
|
|
| They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum
| to people with a legitimate need. It's no
| different than government owned land.
|
| Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were
| already taught.
|
| Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways
| that are similar are what I am talking about.
|
|
| But,,,,,,it's not
|
| It's a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of
| spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes
| for outrageous amounts. If the FCC was not in
| the position to claim "ownership" of that
| spectrum, how could they auction it off?
|
| By virtue of administration. Auctions are held daily all over the place.
| They do not own what they auction, but like the FCC, are merely charged
| with the administering of such.
|
| Semantics.
|
| No,,facts. You can't call facts you disagree with "semantics".
|
| You want to talk about facts? The facts are that the FCC can and does
| auction off chunks of spectrum to commercial entities to use. They
| also regulate those chunks. They also set aside some spectrum for
| "public use". Yes, they administer it, as an arm and representative
| proxy of the U.S. government. So, while the FCC might not directly
| "own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does.
|
|
| Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate
| my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so.
|
| Right! On you own land. But venture out on .
| the public street, and they have all the
| authority. Same goes for radio.
|
|
| Again,,,,,(sigh),,the analogy of the car is invalid as it can result in
| criminal charges, while operating on the freeband does not.
|
| Yes it can.
|
|
| If you can somehow prevent your signal from
| escaping the borders of your property (Which
| is covered by FCC Part 15), you could do
| what you want.
|
|
| Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law?
|
| Pushing which law and in what way?
|
| Transmitting, albeit, under the guise of part 15, to a much broader
| audience than permitted.
|
| Well, look into any "low power" pirate broadcaster. Some have tried to
| claim that their power is legal (even if their antennas are not).
|
|
| Once those signals escape into the public
| venue, they are under the control of the
| federal government.
|
| How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over
| such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can
| tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public
| broadcast?
|
| Most of those situations employ carrier current
| transmitters which radiate only a short
| distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby
| limiting range beyond the intended service
| area. The biggest uses for this technique is on
| .college campuses, travel, and road alert
| systems.
|
|
| Yes,,,but my question remains and is still valid.
|
| The reality is that even a carrier current system needs to be
| authorized by the FCC. So a radio system capable of covering a 2500
| acre church camp would need FCC permission to operate.
|
| As you know, RF degrades gradually and it is
| impossible to "brick wall" stop a broadcast at
| the limits of physical property. But unless you
| are very close, you will likely not hear a carrier
| current transmission.
|
|
|
| Or on an unobstructed waterway with a visual on the proper/transmitter.
|
| Another way to look at it, You own your car,
| but not the roads you drive on.
|
| Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars.
|
| And administered by the government.
| You may own your radio, but not the airwaves
| you broadcast on.
|
| Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe.
|
| For all practical purposes, yes they do in this
| country.
| You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond
| the confines of your own property.
|
| That is what the cb does.
|
| Yes, but the authorization to operate a CB is a
| "privilege", not a "right".
| You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the
| government in the proxy of the FCC.
|
| This "privilege" is availabe to anyone, so how can it be referred a
| privilege?
|
| Not true. You have to be a U.S. citizen, and
| not convicted of other FCC rule violations.
|
| Ok,,proverbially "everyone".
|
| But it's not "everyone". Even though the CB radio service is
| authorized by rule, there are still restrictions (albeit small) on its
| use. It's not a "right", it's a "privilege".
|
|
| I know you elitist hammies believe this to be true about your ticket,
| but it simply does not apply to cb, as practically any American citizen
| is granted the "right" to broadcast, via a cb, simply by ownership of
| one. This does not exactly equate to any "privilege".
|
| Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the
| rules governing each service, and find out for
| yourself. Despite the relative ease by which a
| person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a
| "right" to do so, it is a privilege granted by the
| FCC, as the service is authorized by rule,
| even if a license is not required.
|
|
| And if that law were serious, one would NOT be able to buy, plug and
| play. What stops an immigrant from using a cb? Nothing,,they all se them
| in the fruit fields.
|
| This is true, the FCC isn't checking the immigration status of every
| CB operator, and it won't come up unless the person is cited for other
| rule violations. It's sort of like the seatbelt law in many states.
| You can't get stopped for it alone, but if you are stopped for another
| violation, they can cite you for failing to wear a seatbelt at the
| same time.
|
| Again, it seems that you justify ignoring rules based on the
| unlikelihood of being cited.
|
|
| As a
| condition of that privilege comes your
| responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in
| various FCC parts depending on which
| service you are using.
| You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
|
| Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right
| now and have said so on many occasion.
|
| Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they
| should be, and freeload.... er, freebanders get
| away with trespassing on other government
| administered frequencies with little chance of
| getting caught. But that doesn't mean that it's
| legal or proper.
|
| Again, not one person ever made such a claim in all my years of visiting
| thse pages. Just who is it you are trying to convince?
|
| But you guys who are operating illegally are using all sort of excuses
| to justify or downplay this illegality. The fact that the FCC isn't
| actively pursuing freebanders, is not a justification or a silent nod
| allowing you to operate there.
|
|
| They rightly and deservedly go
| after those they deem the most important and damaging to our hobby.
|
| You mean those who project the highest
| profile, or those who impact operators who
| paid dearly for the right to use their part of the
| spectrum.
|
| Those who present a direct safety issue.
|
| Very few people fall into this category.
|
| It
| is yourself that does not like the "way it is" nor agree with it.
|
| Well, that's true. I do wish the FCC had more
| teeth.
|
| They have plenty of teeth. Their bite is interested in chomping away
| with censorship of television.
|
| It's much easier for them to enforce. They don't have to track down
| anyone. They can administer from their offices.
|
|
| Dave
| "Sandbagger"
| http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj
|

On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:13:37 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Which won't likely happen if you are both monogamous.


And virgins.

And your point?


snip
Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens,
maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration.

Why? Carter's administration has no relevance to this discussion.


Sure it does. You made a reference to the Democrats.

Yes, that it primarily the left who are spearheading an intensified
effort to remove all signs of religion from government processes, even
though most have been around since this country was founded.


Carter is a
Democrat, isn't he? Ok, so he doesn't hold an office right now. But
how many Democrats currently holding office are athiests? By their own
admissions, not many. Your argument is bogus -- I think Jeanine
Garafalo (sp?) had it right: The conservative's definition of
'liberal' is any judge that upholds the law. Or something like that.

Jeanine Garafalo is a hopelessly biased liberal on a liberal radio
network which is failing miserably.

snip
There is no mandated "separation of church and state". Only an
establishment clause prohibiting a state sponsored religion.


Since you refuse to read it yourself, here's that clause from First
Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Sounds to me
like that is a mandate defining the seperation of church and state.

No, it's an establishment clause that states (quite plainly) that
congress shall not establish an "official" religion, and may not
prevent anyone from exercising their own personal religious beliefs.
Nowhere can you state accurately that that statement implies that
there shall be no religious influences in the day to day operation of
the government.

Maybe you did read the constitution, but you don't seem to understand
it.



I think this page says it best:

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues


Too liberal for ya, huh Dave?

Much. They are taking this to an extreme. And here again, you are
displaying yet another of your contradictions. You who claim to
support the constitution and the wisdom of our forefathers (who were
all religious people), yet now advocate that we go above and beyond
the definitions called for in the constitution, and to totally
eradicate all religious influences from our government, even though
they have been intrinsically intertwined in it from the start.


What passage have you quoted?


Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution?

Yes, have you? What passage are you referring?


The same passage I have been referring to all along -- Article VI.
Since you haven't read it, let me quote if for you, and in full:

"All Debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution as under the Confederation.

"This Constituion, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members
of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States.

You now have no excuse for such stupid questions.

You've never participated in a jury trial have you?


And how does that diminish the fact that
swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian
influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning?


Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation.

No, but it is used in every court case, to "swear in" a witness.


Once again you demonstrate your ignorance by talking of things about
which you know little or nothing: An oath on the bible is used in
every court but not for every person. There are different oaths for
different faiths -- there is even an oath for athiests and agnostics.

I've never seen any such offering. At least in the court trials that
I've been a part of. I imagine if someone made enough of a stink about
it, the "PC" police would provide an acceptable substitute.


The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly
what you claim.

Then why is it still being done on a daily basis?


Because you watch too much TV.

No, I participate in the REAL world.


It was added because, at the time, some states had
oaths that required the person entering office to declare a belief in
God or a "divine inspiration". Such an oath was a "religious test"
that was required to qualify for the office, and excluded anyone that
didn't share the same religious beliefs. This violated the seperation
of church and state, so the clause was added to prohibit such tests,
and the office would be available to any citizen -despite- religious
beliefs.

We're talking about court cases here, not job applications.


We're talking about the seperation of church and state.


snip
If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you
have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half
of all marriages end in divorce,

Not true. You are not keeping current.

http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls


No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census
Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take
place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And
for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the
rate of marriage:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf


You should read the link I posted again. The very first line tells the
story. The divorce rate is only 9.6%.


You sure did sleep a lot in school. It's clear that you don't
understand statistics either.

When you're under the gun, you insult your opposition. It's not an
elegant debate tactic Frank, and it sure doesn't buy you any points.

I don't have Excell (well, I have it, I
just don't have it installed because I never used it when I did), so I
downloaded the equivalent PDF file:

http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.pdf

This is nothing but a breakdown of marriage -status-, not the marriage
and divorce rates.

Marital status is a more accurate reflection of the institution of
marriage.

You can't calculate marriage and divorce rates from
this data for the simple fact that many people are, or have been,
married more than once.

And some people remain married for 50 years. Once they are married,
they are not counted again in "marriage rates" but they still count
as a matter of marital status. Marital status gives a much better
picture of the state of marriage as it is.


You are also ignoring the fact that the divorce rate says nothing by
itself. According to the CDC, during the year 2003 there were 7.5
marriages per thousand people. There were also 3.8 divorces per
thousand people. This means (to anyone that can handle 5th grade math)
that the divorce rate is half (50.7%) the rate of marriage.

But that doesn't take into consideration the marriages from previous
years who are STILL married, but not counted as a new marriage.


And here's the fun part, Dave: Since half of all marriages end in
divorce, and if the majority of citizens are right-wing conservative
Christians that hold marriage to be a sacred value, then there sure
are a lot of hypocrites that call themselves Christians.

Half of all marriages do not end in divorce. Only 9.6% of the
population is divorced.


As for the "tradition" of marriage, remember that the filibuster has
been an American tradition for almost 200 years. IOW, you are a
hypocrite, Dave.

As are you Frank. You're just on the other side of the coin.


Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making
unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors.


It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave.

No, it's a logical fallacy.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm


You are trying to build an inductive argument using information that
only tells one side of the story (and heavily biased in favor of your
conclusion). I merely presented some information that you conveniently
overlooked. And it so happens that your premise loses almost all of
it's weight when -all- the facts are known.

But your method is still drawing a false analogy.


If the foundation of
your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's
both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that
would affect the value of marriage.

Not if they have little in common, other than the idea of marriage
itself.


The common denominator is the value of marriage. That alone makes such
issues relevant to the discussion and exposes your argument as nothing
more than an exercise in bigotry.

Based on your own hypocritical bias.


And that's no different than KKK
tactics which use the very same type of lame justifications to defend
racism (religion, tradition, morality, etc.).

Another false analogy fallacy. You're just full of them.


Yet you are whining about
it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant
factors.

So, because there might be other factors which may be more
significant, we should ignore the small ones? That's the same sort of
twisted logic that freebanders use to justify illegal radio pirating.


If what you say were true then CB radio would be all over the news. It
isn't. OTOH, opposition to gay marriage -is- all over the news, and
that's because of all the attention it's given. If gay marriage is
getting all this attention because it threatens the value of marriage
then there would be much -greater- attention to the divorce rate (and
there would probably be a few right-wing fanatic groups lobbying to
outlaw divorce). But, in fact, there -isn't- any political outcry
against divorce.

Because it's only 9.6% of the population. Your conclusion is erroneous
because your premise is flawed.


The only reasonable conclusion is that these factions
of "Christianity" (at least one of which I'm sure you are a member)
are hypocrites that are practicing church-sponsored bigotry.

Had enough of the false analogy fallacies, so you've switched to the
false dilemma fallacy?


Bad is bad no matter how large or small it may be.


Well, what's worse, Dave: A couple homos getting married? or a large
group of bigots trying to subvert the Constitution under the guise of
Christianity?

The only people trying to subvert the constitution are left wing
liberals who are attempting to derive new meanings from words which
the rest of us have understood and upheld for the last 200+ years.

The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do
with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals.

Once again, your chain of logic is based on flawed conclusions based
on fallacious logic, and your own internal bias.


When will you get it through your thick Republican head that bias has
nothing to do with it, Dave?

Because it does Frank. Even if you won't admit it (even to yourself).


I'm not homo, I don't have any friends
that are homo, I don't like "Queer Eye" or "Will & Grace"..... and
personally, I find the homosexual lifestyle somewhat repulsive.

And you call me a bigot?

But
there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits two gays from
getting married if that's how they get their kicks.

There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits you from marrying
Dolly the cloned sheep either. But other "rules" would have a problem
with it.

Your problem is that you see the constitution as the be all and end
all of all rules and laws. The constitution does not address each and
every life situation that could have been foreseen 200+ years ago.


So it's not my
place to judge. And that would be even -more- true if I was a
Christian, the doctrine being that you should forgive others of their
sins (assuming you see homosexuality as a sin), and that judgment
should be left to God.

It's one thing to forgive sin. It's totally another to condone and
encourage further participation in it.

A Christian would forgive someone who stole their car. But that
doesn't mean the law should be changed to allow theft.

You hate gays.

No, I don't. If I hated gays, I'd want them exterminated.

So do a lot of other people. Big deal. But my "bias"
leans towards the Constitution, not my aversion to homosexuality. They
have the same rights as me, and I treat them with the same amount of
respect that I do anyone else whether I like them or not.

So then based on your "faith" in the constitution, you'd have no
objection to pedophiles having the right to marry?

That's the
difference between tolerance and bigotry. I am tolerant.

No, you are not. You are a hypocrite. You "tolerate" things you have a
personal agreement with or indifference to. But you have little
tolerance for those who do not share your viewpoint. The reckless
assigning of vitriolic names like "bigot" is proof of that.


You are not.
You are a bigot.

No, I am someone who values traditional morality.

snip
The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does
not mean that a gay marriage should be now.


I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional
Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical.

So we should abandon all moral values now since they may change
sometime in the future?


Well gee Dave, we probably should, now that you suggested it, huh?


That's basically what you are proposing. Once you start down that
slippery slope of justifying deviant, abhorrent behavior, it becomes
only a matter of subjective degree where you draw the line between
acceptance and rejection.

Idiot.

You are certainly acting like one.



snip
Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that
meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of
the gate -- than someone with a lesser education.

But YOU will have to prove that.


Easy enough. It's called a "diploma".

But you will have to go to the pains to prove it. It will not be
readily apparent. Perhaps you can wear your diploma on your head so
everyone would see it.


After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS
degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by
doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM
Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the
current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of
study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large
will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has
diminished in value.


Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way.

Most people will eventually see it that way.


I don't think so, Dave. I really think that most people have more
smarts than you give them credit for.

It's not a matter of smarts, it's a matter of contemporary educational
standards.




But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra
years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'.

Yes, but you will have to "educate" those who will quickly forget
that.


There's no point in trying to educate people who refuse to look at the
facts objectively and make reasonable and logical conclusions. The
only reason I continue to try is because you aren't the only person
reading my posts. And it's nice to know that your ignorance is being
recorded for posterity.

My "ignorance" is only a matter of your bigoted intolerance and bias
and manifested by your pompous arrogance.

snip
Then settle for a good analogy. The one you presented was not a good
comparison for the reasons I gave.


I'll consider a good analogy when you provide a good reason.

Always an excuse......



How you
feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but
yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a
couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own
marriage.

It just might.


No, it won't. And when you make your next regular visit to your
doctor, tell him that you want to back off the dosage on those
anti-depressants.

More personal insults. You really are losing this debate.....



Excuses excuses..........


Financial responsibilities, time that could be used more
productively.

Like in a more gainful job than tending bar........



........ If you cut in half the time you waste on the
computer and spent that extra time reading the Constitution you could
probably cut in half the time you waste on the computer.

I've read the constitution many times over. We spent a whole course in
high school studying it. There is NOTHING that you can tell me about
the constitution. But I'll admit, I find it amusing that you try.

The time I spend on the computer is minuscule. When you are parked on
a T1 line, you can take breaks and drink a cup or two between tasks
while getting a little entertainment. And I don't have to mix drinks
or smell cigarettes and bad breath doing it.

So if you want to
start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your
posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other
crap you use to water down the topics.

I water down the topics? Pointing out your own intolerance and
hypocrisy is very much pertinent to the discussion as it becomes
testimony as to your objectivity and credibility on this subject.


Sounds great! So when do you plan to implement your new policy?

What new policy?



Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good,


Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable.


Even if it's bad?


Moron.

What's the matter Frank? Are you that incapable of participating in an
open discussion that challenges your preconceived notions?


You thrive on being publically disgraced, don't you?

No, I thrive on making you disgrace yourself.


inevitable -- [ Latin, 'in', not + 'evitabilis', avoidable] that
which cannot be avoided; certain to happen.

I am fully aware of the definition of the word Frank. Don't patronize
me.

I challenge the notion that change is inevitable. What you are
embracing is the idea of predetermination. Something I would not
expect from a existential atheist.

If we can effect change, should we not have the responsibility to
prevent change that would promote demoralization?

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 10 May 2005 16:03:16 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
(So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no
damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few
paltry bucks..)

Illegally. Just as there are people who

trespass on private or otherwise posted land,

and never get caught either.

Physical trespass can carry a *criminal* charge..talking on the freeband
can not.

There are criminal provisions in the

communications act of 1934.



We are speaking of freebanders on the eleven meter band.


But the point is that nothing will happen if you

are never caught. But the fact that you are not

likely to get caught does not diminish the

illegality


No one ever said it did.

and societal irresponsibility of

engaging in the acts.
=A0
In order for you to claim such a "societal irresponsibility" exists,
there first must exist a "societal responsibility" somehwere other than
your mind regarding such (cb radio)....can you cite it?
=A0Once again, this is the difference between
what constitutes a criminal act vs a civil act.
The penalties are not the same.

But it's still illegal.

(shrug),,,,which has -never- been contested by anyone here, yet, for
some curious reason unbeknownst to all but yourself, you have taken it
upon yourself to assume status and annoint yourself some sort of
imaginary right to confront others concerning their non-criminal act.

The FCC rules do carry criminal as well as

civil penalties should they choose to apply

them, if the case warrants it.


Please cite these criminal penalties referring the freeband or simple
dx.

_
I would hedge zero times have you actually confronted a real criminal or
law breaker in the act and in person.

I certainly would if the opportunity presented

itself.


It presents itself daily to you in the form of speeders,,a act that can
cause physical damage or death when violated, which carry real criminal
pealties, unlike dxing or freebanding. When was the last time you
confronted one and how was it done?

Ask any cell phone company

owner/administrator.

Your selection of cell phone admins does not discount the countless
freebanders, cbers or hammies who play on it for free or on the extreme
cheap.

Illegally,

And legally.

Hams and legal CB'ers perhaps. But not

freebanders.

Yuh,,

or on bands where public access is

set aside.

Or not. Don't forget many of the freqs that have been abandoned.

Abandoned does not mean "open".

Right,,,it means not being used.To use your analogy regarding physical
property,,,,if a lot or property is abandoned, and one tends the ground,
takes care of it, and pays the tax on it for x amount of years, the
often land becomes the property of the caretaker who has been taking
care of it and paying the taxes.

There are many abandoned buildings around.


But you are still not allowed to trespass there.

Yet, many people use these abandon buildings on a regular basis with
immunity. Bums,,,vagrants, crackheads, etc.
See above for examples of a form of citizen eminent domain.

_
I'll
reiterate what you already found in google on many
occasion,,,,,education is the key.

Much like a public park.

Nothing like a public park, as breaking the law you speak of (trespass)
can result in criminal charges, unlike talking on the freeband.

Look at FCC regs again. There are certainly

criminal penalties associated with them.


There is,,,but not with simple dx or freebanding.

Ask your buddy "Bob-noxious" about the

criminal penalties associated with pirate radio.

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

Your whole justification revolves around your

perception that unless a law has serious,

visible teeth, then it doesn't deserve our

respect, and we are justified in ignoring it.


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

That is anti-social behavior.

So is the behavior of sports fanatics and religious zealots, both a very
real part of the fabric that weaves America. But most people understand
tolerance is a necessary gem to a successful America and certain acts
are placed in to proper perspective by the majority...a perfect example
is the majority of the populace do not consider speeders "criminals"
like yourself.

They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum

to people with a legitimate need. It's no

different than government owned land.

Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were
already taught.

.Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways
that are similar are what I am talking about.

But,,,,,,it's not.

It's a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of

spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes

for outrageous amounts. If the FCC was not in
the position to claim "ownership" of that

spectrum, how could they auction it off?

By virtue of administration. Auctions are held daily all over the place.
They do not own what they auction, but like the FCC, are merely charged
with the administering of such.

Semantics.

No,,facts. You can't call facts you disagree with "semantics".

You want to talk about facts? The facts are

that the FCC can and does auction off chunks

of spectrum to commercial entities to use.

They also regulate those chunks. They also

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

representative proxy of the U.S. government.

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

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

airwaves, the U.S. government does.


Nope. The citizens of the US "own" the airwaves by virtue of their tax
dollars paying for all that is related to it.
_
Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate
my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so.

Right! On you own land. But venture out on .

the public street, and they have all the

authority. Same goes for radio.

Again,,,,,(sigh),,the analogy of the car is invalid as it can result in
criminal charges, while operating on the freeband does not.

Yes it can.


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

If you can somehow prevent your signal from

escaping the borders of your property (Which

is covered by FCC Part 15), you could do

what you want.

Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law?

Pushing which law and in what way?

Transmitting, albeit, under the guise of part 15, to a much broader
audience than permitted.

Well, look into any "low power" pirate

broadcaster. Some have tried to claim that

their power is legal (even if their antennas are

not).



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

Once those signals escape into the public

venue, they are under the control of the

federal government.

How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over
such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can
tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public
broadcast?

Most of those situations employ carrier current
transmitters which radiate only a short

distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby

limiting range beyond the intended service

area. The biggest uses for this technique is on
.college campuses, travel, and road alert

systems.

Yes,,,but my question remains and is still valid.

The reality is that even a carrier current

system needs to be authorized by the FCC.

So a radio system capable of covering a 2500

acre church camp would need FCC

permission to operate.




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

As you know, RF degrades gradually and it is

impossible to "brick wall" stop a broadcast at

the limits of physical property. But unless you

are very close, you will likely not hear a carrier
current transmission.

Or on an unobstructed waterway with a visual on the proper/transmitter.

.Another way to look at it, You own your car,

but not the roads you drive on.

Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars.

And administered by the government.

You may own your radio, but not the airwaves

you broadcast on.

Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe.

For all practical purposes, yes they do in this

country.

You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond

the confines of your own property.

That is what the cb does.

Yes, but the authorization to operate a CB is a
"privilege", not a "right".

You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the government in the proxy of
the FCC.
This "privilege" is availabe to anyone, so how can it be referred a
privilege?

=A0=A0Not true. You have to be a U.S. citizen, and

not convicted of other FCC rule violations.

Ok,,proverbially "everyone".

But it's not "everyone". Even though the CB

radio service is authorized by rule, there are

still restrictions (albeit small) on its use. It's not
a "right", it's a "privilege".
=A0
I know you elitist hammies believe this to be true about your ticket,
but it simply does not apply to cb, as practically any American citizen
is granted the "right" to broadcast, via a cb, simply by ownership of
one. This does not exactly equate to any "privilege".

Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the
rules governing each service, and find out for

yourself. Despite the relative ease by which a

person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a

"right" to do so, it is a privilege granted by the

FCC, as the service is authorized by rule,

even if a license is not required.

And if that law were serious, one would NOT be able to buy, plug and
play. What stops an immigrant from using a cb? Nothing,,they all se them
in the fruit fields.

This is true, the FCC isn't checking the

immigration status of every CB operator,


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

and it won't come up unless the person is

cited for other rule violations. It's sort of like

the seatbelt law in many states. You can't get

stopped for it alone, but if you are stopped for

another violation, they can cite you for failing

to wear a seatbelt at the same time.



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

Again, it seems that you justify ignoring rules

based on the unlikelihood of being cited.


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



As a

condition of that privilege comes your

responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in

various FCC parts depending on which

service you are using.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right
now and have said so on many occasion.

Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they

should be,


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

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

trespassing on other government administered
frequencies with little chance of getting

caught.


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

But that doesn't mean that it's legal or proper.

Again, not one person ever made such a claim in all my years of visiting
thse pages. Just who is it you are trying to convince?

But you guys who are operating illegally are

using all sort of excuses to justify or downplay

this illegality.


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


The fact that the FCC isn't actively pursuing

freebanders, is not a justification or a silent

nod allowing you to operate there.

They rightly and deservedly go
after those they deem the most important and damaging to our hobby.

You mean those who project the highest

profile, or those who impact operators who

paid dearly for the right to use their part of the

spectrum.

Those who present a direct safety issue.

Very few people fall into this category.

All hammies who jam repeaters and talk where they are not permitted (on
the hammie band) fall into this category.
It
is yourself that does not like the "way it is" nor agree with it.

Well, that's true. I do wish the FCC had more

teeth.

They have plenty of teeth. Their bite is interested in chomping away
with censorship of television.

It's much easier for them to enforce.

Actually, the hammies are much easier to enforce.

They don't have to track down anyone.


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

They can administer from their offices.

Yet,,they choose not to concerning all but those deemed the most
important regarding enforcement.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:43:50 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
(Which won't likely happen if you are both
monogamous. )

Being monogamous with your wife/husband/partner has nothing to do with
your past.

Never said that it did.
=A0

You said one will not likely catch AIDS if one practices monogamy. This
would only hold true if both were virgins when getting married..,not
practical when applied to present reality, as the vast majority have a
sexual past history.
_
=A0There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for years and
years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly
appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases
until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS.

Monogamous doesn't mean act like a slut

throughout your "formative" years and then

decide to "stay with one person at age 30.



That you consider a past sexual history equals "acting like a slut"
reveals several interesting facts of your beliefs regarding this topic.
_
The ONLY "cure" is found in
the prevention..in other words, abstaining from pre-marital sex then
both parties getting a thorough CBC (complete blood count) prior to
tying the knot.

Now you are finally seeing the light.

I've known this since 1980 when the disease was traced to a cave in
Africa and suspected of being contracted from bat guano (the initial
host.....believed by scholars) or a rhesus monkey. Google "The Hot Zone"
and the parallels are there for the reading. Better yet, read the book.
Now if only you could understand that monogamy today does not discount
one's past, as the majority of people have a sexual past history prior
to marriage and monogamy. Your claim that monogamy decreases the chance
of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past
history. The "clean" mark was originally 5 years, then 10, then
15,,,it's now believed that 20 years is the "safe" mark regarding past
sexual activity..in other words, if you have een monogamous for 20 years
with your partner, and your partner has also been monogamous for that
amount of time, the likelihood of contracting the virus decreases
substantially, but is -still- not discounted totally.


Congratulations!


I'd like to say the same regarding your beliefs of contracting this
disease, but I think your moral beliefs are heavily biasing and
preventing you from obtaining the facts regarding such.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj