|
Dwight Stewart wrote:
Greetings, Cecil. Haven't heard from you in that other newsgroup (rrap) for some time. The code testing issue was pretty much resolved. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
"Cecil Moore" wrote:
The code testing issue was pretty much resolved. Ah, but you know that is never going to end the debate about it. Anyway, just thought I'd say hello. :-) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Let's not get stupid here.
I don't make threats. I as well as you and all reading this do know that there are HOA's that run a decent and positive program. I believe this thread was centered around the HOA that wants to try and push their program to the limit with some people on the boards and some neighborhood people who think they are cops, running around the neighborhood harassing their fellow neighbors for the most stupid thing they can find. That is what the majority of us are complaining about. People who think they are real cops when in fact they are just the neighborhood nuisance. The new neighborhood I am moving into (159 homes), there are 9 "real" cops, 3 still on the job and 5 retired, just like myself. I do believe the neighborhood is well protected. Oh, I failed to mention that the Chief of the County Police also resides there. Being private property we do not have police patrols so the good neighbors as they are look out for each other when it comes to strangers driving through. When I was ask by two people when I stopped at a stop sign if they could help me find someone I was looking for. I told them I was looking over the area because I was buy a home there and gave them the address. We had a very nice talk and I moved on about my business. As I have said before as well as others: I respect your privacy rights, you should be doing the same. "God Bless America" Russ wrote: On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:35:49 -0500, wrote: What I failed to say Jerry, I am moving to Myrtle, yes there is an HOA but from what I found out from the neighbors and the real estate lady (who also resides there) the HOA is not all that strong. Wait until they find out i'm a ham. No, I have no intention of putting up a tower, just a long wire from the back of my property to the house (1/2 acre). Yes, my daughter does reside in a rather expensive area. And "NO", I don't enjoy driving on I-77. It's bumper to bumper three lanes wide from exit 21 south to the state line at 60 MPH. Happy to see they are widening the roadway, I might even give 495 west of I-77 a shot to the state line when it's finished. Seems for what I understand they decided to build the east part of 495 first to accommodate the rich folks in around Union County area. One would think the area west of I-77 close to the airport would have heavier traffic. Back to stealth antennas and HOA's. I have been planning for several months how I am going to put up an antenna. Ideas I have considered a Slinky's in the rafters, gutters, yes the house I bought does have gutters as compared to all the other homes, most do not. And finally long wires. So far, the only people that know I am a ham is the real estate lady and the guy next door. I wouldn't stop in my driveway and start taking photos of my home if you enjoy life as it is. Don't invade my privacy and I shall not invade yours. I invite Russ to give it a try, and "I'm NOT playing". I enjoy my privacy. What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. Russ, just because the U.S. Attorney General got a new law passed in the U.S. Congress doesn't give you or the Feds to invade my privacy. "God Bless America" Tell you what Jim, I'll stand in the public street all I want and take pictures of anything I want to and you can't do squat about it. I won't trespass on your property and I won't take pictures inside your property without your permission. Your privacy ends at your front door, and rightly so but what's in public view is just that...public. Ask the people at Bay Hill CC in Orlando who lost the lawsuit against the computer game company that used images of their houses in a golf game. Ask the big-time Hollywood star who just lost the lawsuit against the paparazzi taking pictures outside her house. Don't be foolish enough to accost me on public property or threaten me. The immediate and long-term repercussions will amaze you. You aren't big enough to intimidate me and you don't have enough money to make the legal problems go away. Grow up a little and consult a professional instead of getting legal advice from television or here on the 'net. In a bit of irony, we are almost on the same side in this. I am currently looking for a home in an area without deed restrictions. Even if I weren't a ham, I would not sign a contract for a house with CCRs. I lived in Heathrow in Seminole County, FL and in another CCR community here in NC and I've had enough. When you sign for a house in a CCR community, you are signing an ordinary commercial contract that is completely enforceable (from both sides!) no matter what you think or how hard you stamp your feet. Russ |
HEY ! Even though I am from the opposite side of the aisle.
You got to "LOVE" Willie Brown :o) - He has been a Good - - and Faithful Public Servant. - - - Who has Served the State of California, - - - - and the People of San Francisco very well. God Bless Him, amen, Amen. AMEN ! ~ RHF .. .. = = = = = = wrote in message . .. On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 07:29:04 GMT, Roger Halstead wrote: In New England a group is suing the pilots flying out of a local airport because they don't like the noise and there is nothing illegal about what the pilots are doing. So, by harassing the pilots by filing lawsuits they figure they can force them out. It may work and it may backfire if the pilots counter sue for harassment. This was tried in the San Francisco Bay Area some years back. Flight patterns, changed for environmental reasons, brought outgoing flights over housing south of San Francisco. After a number of nuisance suits had been won in small claims court, Willie Brown, then speaker of the assembly got a law passed preventing such suits. To avoid problems with laws designed for specific entities (and probably to minimize opposition), he managed to write the law so narrowly that it applied only to SFO and one tiny airport up in Siskiyou County that had no interest in the legislation. .. |
"Ed Price" wrote:
Great Freudian slip re "pubic place". huge grin Done all the time recently. I have a new desk with the keyboard too far off centered. As a result, typing mistakes have increased dramatically. In this case, that "Freudian slip" got right past my spelling checker. Have you ever considered testing the universal truth of your assertion? How about spending a week or two at a playground, photographing only little girls, say ages 6 to 10. Let us know if you survive. Lets be realistic here, Ed. We're not talking about child porn - laws don't protect that. What we're talking about is photographs taken for legitimate purposes (art, advertising, travel, architecture, news, and so on). Regardless, while I haven't photographed little girls specifically (and have no special desire to do so), I have dozens of images of kids at playgrounds, parks, and on the street, in my film library. Some were taken by me and some by my wife. Whatever the case, nobody has ever complained while either of us were taking those photographs. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article 5Dayb.252403$mZ5.1876750@attbi_s54,
says... Why does it have to be about damn property values? Fairly simple, actually: If your property value increases, your equity increases. If you have more equity, then there's more value that you can borrow against. -- -- //Steve// Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS Fountain Valley, CA Email: |
In article , says...
For starters, most hams that put up towers with elaborate antenna systems would take them down when they moved (unless they became a silent key), because these things are not petty investments, they cost a lot of money. Some installations cost more than a new mid-sized car. True. I've seen some pretty elaborate antenna farms, even here in suburban Orange County, CA -- some even in my neighborhood. (Only part of our neighborhood is condos, the rest being single-family residences (houses), and the latter have some pretty nice antenna installations.) The installation of the tower itself is held to much higher standard by law than the house itself is. Sad but true. And again, unlike someone who puts up an old car on blocks, or paints their home in rainbow glow paint, hams perform a public service. There currently exists a rule within the FCC that disallows municipalities preventing amateur operators from erecting antennas, and a similar rule for CC&R's is in the works. At least, we hope it's still "in the works." How long has that been rattling around the halls of Congress now, two years? Any bets on which comes on the scene first in the US: a code-free amateur radio service, or a PRB-1 bill to cover CC&Rs? -- -- //Steve// Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS Fountain Valley, CA Email: |
|
Volker Kerkhoff wrote:
1. Acess to all information services is free. Does God provide it as a miracle? That's the only way it could be free. I'm willing to bet taxpayers pay for it and all other "free" governmental services. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com