On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:48:47 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 09:27:09 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


And until Dave can provide an example where one of the allegedly
illegal operators he allegedly heard was found guilty, got an NAL, or
even admitted his guilt publically, then his allegations are nothing
more than his opinions, not facts.

So you are of the Twisted notion that a person is not breaking the
law until they are caught?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Nope. They are not guilty of breaking any law until
a jury of their peers find them guilty with the evidence
given them through the judicial process.

That's complete B.S.! You are guilty of a crime the minute you commit
it. The fact that in order for you to be incarcerated or otherwise
punished for that crime requires a guilty verdict, does not negate
your original infraction.

This is an excuse often given by people who try to justify their
selective disregard of certain laws they don't like.


Not because
someone says "because they are on that channel,
they must be breaking the law".

No, not because they are on the channel, but because they are on the
channel and displaying certain verifiable traits which indicate the
illegality of their transmissions.

Dave
"Sandbagger"