| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On 31/07/2014 16:01, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:18:49 -0400 Jerry Stuckle wrote: The fact is - it is the law in the United States, and the FCC enforces it. I was simply interested in why that is the case for one sort of licence that is granted as a privilege and not for another (i.e. driving licence) which is also not an inalienable right. In Ohio they will take your drivers license away for drink driving. However, you can request a restricted driver’s license and be permitted to drive for essential trips e.g. work, medical appointments. You get a special set of number plates AKA "Party Plates". -- Mouse. Where Morse meets House. |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:52:54 +0100, Brian Morrison wrote:
Amateur radio is a privilege, keeping scum out of the hobby should be an issue for anyone who cares about the hobby. Driving is also a privilege, keeping scum off the roads should be an issue for anyone who cares about transport. The trouble is one man's scum is another man's froth! -- M0WYM Sales @ radiowymsey http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/ |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
Wymsey wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:52:54 +0100, Brian Morrison wrote: Amateur radio is a privilege, keeping scum out of the hobby should be an issue for anyone who cares about the hobby. Driving is also a privilege, keeping scum off the roads should be an issue for anyone who cares about transport. The trouble is one man's scum is another man's froth! Chaz, kindly cease your cross-posted trolling of ukra. You are discrediting yourself, badly. -- Stephen Thomas Cole // Sent from my iPhone |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On 7/31/2014 11:01 AM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:18:49 -0400 Jerry Stuckle wrote: The fact is - it is the law in the United States, and the FCC enforces it. I was simply interested in why that is the case for one sort of licence that is granted as a privilege and not for another (i.e. driving licence) which is also not an inalienable right. The law does not need logic! But the two are entirely different situations; the only commonality is that both are privileges. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:lre34j$ko6$1@dont-
email.me: The law does not need logic! Maybe it does... It just hasn't got much of it. :) |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
"A. non Eyemouse" wrote in message
... In Ohio they will take your drivers license away for drink driving. However, you can request a restricted driver’s license and be permitted to drive for essential trips e.g. work, medical appointments. You get a special set of number plates AKA "Party Plates". or "****ed Plates"? -- ;-) .. 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint. .. http://turner-smith.co.uk |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On 31/07/14 22:52, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:
"A. non Eyemouse" wrote In Ohio they will take your drivers license away for drink driving. However, you can request a restricted driver’s license and be permitted to drive for essential trips e.g. work, medical appointments. You get a special set of number plates AKA "Party Plates". or "****ed Plates"? One of my neighbours has a vehicle that sports 'potato plates'. -- Spike |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On 8/1/2014 8:37 AM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:49:54 -0400 Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 7/31/2014 11:01 AM, Brian Morrison wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:18:49 -0400 Jerry Stuckle wrote: The fact is - it is the law in the United States, and the FCC enforces it. I was simply interested in why that is the case for one sort of licence that is granted as a privilege and not for another (i.e. driving licence) which is also not an inalienable right. The law does not need logic! I would argue that logic is exactly what the law needs, as in "Why is that illegal?" with a reasoned answer that demonstrates harm if it exists and a clear benefit from preventing whatever it is. We NEVER expect anything logical out of Congress! Or any of the state legislatures, for that matter. But the two are entirely different situations; the only commonality is that both are privileges. Yes, but don't you think that some sort of moral equivalence should apply to those privileges? Moral equivalence has nothing to do with it. The two are completely unrelated (other than both are privileges). -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
|
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On 8/1/2014 3:10 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 11:57:28 -0400 Jerry Stuckle wrote: But the two are entirely different situations; the only commonality is that both are privileges. Yes, but don't you think that some sort of moral equivalence should apply to those privileges? Moral equivalence has nothing to do with it. The two are completely unrelated (other than both are privileges). So how do you tie together the concept of privilege and assign any nuances to each grant of same? There has to be some sort of relative comparison based upon its benefit to the grantee and the rest of the electorate or the whole thing becomes a self-serving bureaucracy. Who said anything about a relative comparison? Such a concept does not exist in Congress! -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On 8/1/2014 9:42 PM, atec77 wrote:
On 1/08/2014 10:37 PM, Brian Morrison wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:49:54 -0400 I would argue that logic is exactly what the law needs, as in "Why is that illegal?" with a reasoned answer that demonstrates harm if it exists and a clear benefit from preventing whatever it is. But the two are entirely different situations; the only commonality is that both are privileges. Yes, but don't you think that some sort of moral equivalence should apply to those privileges? Not unreasonable to suggest a person holding a ham ticket be of clean criminal record and good morals , a short certificate to the effect should be required for registration after a suitable police check surely ? Too bad the same can't be done with politicians. But then we wouldn't have any - which may be a good thing! -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 11:42:02 +1000, atec77 wrote:
Not unreasonable to suggest a person holding a ham ticket be of clean criminal record and good morals Some of the most unpleasant people I have come across have never been convicted of a crime and as for morals- they are a moveable feast, in time and space! -- M0WYM Sales @ radiowymsey http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/ |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On 02/08/14 08:19, Brian Reay wrote:
atec77 "atec77 wrote: Not unreasonable to suggest a person holding a ham ticket be of clean criminal record and good morals , a short certificate to the effect should be required for registration after a suitable police check surely ? Exactly. The checks should cover offences related to things like the harassment related crimes (inc. malicious communications), sex offences, violent crimes, and radio related crimes. I can't help thinking we've reached the point were perhaps offenders in two of the above groups should automatically be totally banned from using the internet. The bans should also be firmly enforced. We could always dig up Timothy Evans and ask him what he thinks of the idea. -- Spike |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
... Exactly. The checks should cover offences related to things like the harassment related crimes (inc. malicious communications), sex offences, violent crimes, and radio related crimes. I can't help thinking we've reached the point were perhaps offenders in two of the above groups should automatically be totally banned from using the internet. The bans should also be firmly enforced. How would they be enforced? You could block the offender's home address, but he only has to go to an Internet Cafe or log in to a wi-fi hotspot with an ipad or similar. -- ;-) .. 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint. .. http://turner-smith.co.uk |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On 02/08/14 10:30, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message ... Exactly. The checks should cover offences related to things like the harassment related crimes (inc. malicious communications), sex offences, violent crimes, and radio related crimes. I can't help thinking we've reached the point were perhaps offenders in two of the above groups should automatically be totally banned from using the internet. The bans should also be firmly enforced. How would they be enforced? You could block the offender's home address, but he only has to go to an Internet Cafe or log in to a wi-fi hotspot with an ipad or similar. It would have to be enforced by catching then doing it. Then lock them up for a long time, in a real jail. None of this nonsense of TVs and time off for good behaviour etc. Such people seem incapable of behaving themselves so they will some betray they presence and can be reported. If they have, say, a USB stick which has software which permits them to use a machine and leave no trace, that should be enough. |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On 02/08/2014 11:06, Brian Reay wrote:
It would have to be enforced by catching then doing it. Then lock them up for a long time, in a real jail. None of this nonsense of TVs and time off for good behaviour etc. Such people seem incapable of behaving themselves so they will some betray they presence and can be reported. If they have, say, a USB stick which has software which permits them to use a machine and leave no trace, that should be enough. Er, precisely what crime is committed by leaving to trace on a machine? Presumably you would like all the posters on here who use a pseudonym to have fifty lashes each? Les. |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 13:17:58 +0100, Lordgnome wrote:
On 02/08/2014 11:06, Brian Reay wrote: It would have to be enforced by catching then doing it. Then lock them up for a long time, in a real jail. None of this nonsense of TVs and time off for good behaviour etc. Such people seem incapable of behaving themselves so they will some betray they presence and can be reported. If they have, say, a USB stick which has software which permits them to use a machine and leave no trace, that should be enough. Er, precisely what crime is committed by leaving to trace on a machine? Presumably you would like all the posters on here who use a pseudonym to have fifty lashes each? Les. I believe he's suggesting a digital version of "going equipped", but he hasn't thought (it through very well). |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On 8/2/2014 2:47 AM, atec77 wrote:
On 2/08/2014 12:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 8/1/2014 9:42 PM, atec77 wrote: On 1/08/2014 10:37 PM, Brian Morrison wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:49:54 -0400 I would argue that logic is exactly what the law needs, as in "Why is that illegal?" with a reasoned answer that demonstrates harm if it exists and a clear benefit from preventing whatever it is. But the two are entirely different situations; the only commonality is that both are privileges. Yes, but don't you think that some sort of moral equivalence should apply to those privileges? Not unreasonable to suggest a person holding a ham ticket be of clean criminal record and good morals , a short certificate to the effect should be required for registration after a suitable police check surely ? Too bad the same can't be done with politicians. But then we wouldn't have any - which may be a good thing! might be an idea to stay with relevance to radio occasionaly sticky foreign to you but do try Might be a good idea to stop trolling. But I know that is foreign to you. You can't even try. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On 02/08/14 13:29, Bernie wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 13:17:58 +0100, Lordgnome wrote: On 02/08/2014 11:06, Brian Reay wrote: It would have to be enforced by catching then doing it. Then lock them up for a long time, in a real jail. None of this nonsense of TVs and time off for good behaviour etc. Such people seem incapable of behaving themselves so they will some betray they presence and can be reported. If they have, say, a USB stick which has software which permits them to use a machine and leave no trace, that should be enough. Er, precisely what crime is committed by leaving to trace on a machine? Presumably you would like all the posters on here who use a pseudonym to have fifty lashes each? Les. I believe he's suggesting a digital version of "going equipped", Exactly. but he hasn't thought (it through very well). Not being acquainted with such activities as 'going equipped', being precise is easy for all of us. |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
... Exactly. The checks should cover offences related to things like the harassment related crimes (inc. malicious communications), sex offences, violent crimes, and radio related crimes. Should those who are so reckless as to the safety of their fellow man such that they receive a criminal conviction for speeding be banned from installing any radios in a car or a mobile home? And if a 4-square antennae arrangement is then spotted on their mobile home, should they be banged up without mercy in jail for years? Just curious as to whether your spite applies equally to you as you intend it to apply to others? |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On 8/2/2014 9:38 PM, atec77 wrote:
On 2/08/2014 11:20 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 8/2/2014 2:47 AM, atec77 wrote: On 2/08/2014 12:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 8/1/2014 9:42 PM, atec77 wrote: On 1/08/2014 10:37 PM, Brian Morrison wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:49:54 -0400 I would argue that logic is exactly what the law needs, as in "Why is Too bad the same can't be done with politicians. But then we wouldn't have any - which may be a good thing! might be an idea to stay with relevance to radio occasionaly sticky foreign to you but do try Might be a good idea to stop trolling. But I know that is foreign to you. You can't even try. oh get a life sticky , I am no troll as you have the major variation on that stupid ploy , now get a clue as I will bring you task often because that's a requirement and indeed a necessity with you introspective southern red necks Just another stoopid troll - but even more stoopid than most trolls. And like all stoopid trolls, you don't like being called to task. But I will, every time. And you don't even know what a southern red neck is. You must be a Democrat. Now you can have the last word. Trolls always need to have the last word. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 13:17:58 +0100, Lordgnome wrote:
to have fifty lashes each? Only 50, string 'em up if they don't share my world view! Show no mercy :-) -- M0WYM Sales @ radiowymsey http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/ |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
"Wymsey" wrote in message
... On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 13:17:58 +0100, Lordgnome wrote: to have fifty lashes each? Only 50, string 'em up if they don't share my world view! Show no mercy :-) Has m3osnitis rubbed off on you? :-) |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On 7/24/2014 12:40 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:44:15 -0400 Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 7/24/2014 10:40 AM, Brian Morrison wrote: On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:23:23 -0400 Jerry Stuckle wrote: The thing I regret is that OFCOM doesn't have a character requirement. I think any such requirement would be struck down under UK and/or European law. I am surprised that it still stands in the US, perhaps it only applies to observed character traits related to use of radio? Nope, it can apply to non-radio related convictions, also. A radio license is a privilege, not a right. Does the US apply that requirement to a driving licence? There have been cases where a license was denied due to other (non radio) issues,,, Sexual perversion convictions, Homicide, Failure to pay taxes.. All sorts of things. I can not give you a specific case cite, but I can give you my source, ARRL weekly newsletter. (on at least 2 of those) however in teh case of the dude doing 20-life.. (Homicide) What need had he of a license, since he was not in control of a radio. -- Home, is where I park it. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On 7/31/2014 2:49 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/31/2014 11:01 AM, Brian Morrison wrote: On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:18:49 -0400 Jerry Stuckle wrote: The fact is - it is the law in the United States, and the FCC enforces it. I was simply interested in why that is the case for one sort of licence that is granted as a privilege and not for another (i.e. driving licence) which is also not an inalienable right. The law does not need logic! But the two are entirely different situations; the only commonality is that both are privileges. When I was a police dispatcher...... There were many "Clients" who, basically, felt "I don't need no steenking license to drive no car" Good for them cause I got to see their driving records and "Stinking" .. Well,, kind of a mild description (To high heaven). Some of the posts in this thread, remind me of those folks.... One of the reasons for licensing drivers is that when you get untrained people out there or people who engage in dangerous activities or irresponsible activities like drunk/drugged driving. They can KILL folks, this makes a major mess and back about 1984 as i recall I made a post titled "A cool million" which was roughly the estimated cost of each and every highway fatality to the state I lived in at the time. Well.. We have all read "Amateur Radio Saves Life" stories,, Imagine one of these irresponsible types is blockading your emergency transmissions with his... Stuff.... and as a result someone dies. This is why we need licensing regulation. -- Home, is where I park it. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
Project Shun: An intro for rec.radio.* users
On 8/3/2014 2:22 PM, John Davis wrote:
On 7/24/2014 12:40 PM, Brian Morrison wrote: On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:44:15 -0400 Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 7/24/2014 10:40 AM, Brian Morrison wrote: On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:23:23 -0400 Jerry Stuckle wrote: The thing I regret is that OFCOM doesn't have a character requirement. I think any such requirement would be struck down under UK and/or European law. I am surprised that it still stands in the US, perhaps it only applies to observed character traits related to use of radio? Nope, it can apply to non-radio related convictions, also. A radio license is a privilege, not a right. Does the US apply that requirement to a driving licence? There have been cases where a license was denied due to other (non radio) issues,,, Sexual perversion convictions, Homicide, Failure to pay taxes.. All sorts of things. A driver's license? I can not give you a specific case cite, but I can give you my source, ARRL weekly newsletter. (on at least 2 of those) however in teh case of the dude doing 20-life.. (Homicide) What need had he of a license, since he was not in control of a radio. Just to clarify - he wasn't asking about a radio license. He was asking about a driver's license being withheld. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:37 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com