|
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 ================== |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com