Steveo wrote in message ...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
Maybe you can fill some bags up for
SteveoChicken to sell.

Should I bring my portfolio to inductoheat?

Naw, we don't need any more floor sweepers, but if you insist I'll
even give you a personal tour of the place then gleefully kick your
fanny out the door.

Friday at noon?

I don't care when you show up chicken. Make sure you take a shower first.
I don't want you stinking the place up.

This ain't no social call, nad. You'll need to meet me in the
parking lot..and if you have the nerve to say your spew to my
face, your nose won't be much use to you for a while anyway.

$100 cash money says steveochicken backpeddles into a no show, he got
quite a scare today LOL.

(I Am Not George) wrote:
$100 cash money says steveochicken backpeddles into a no show, he got
quite a scare today LOL.

Yea, my outlaws came over for dinner..can be a real scare.

Should I add the $100 to the $1000 you'll owe me and make
it an even $1100?

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
This ain't no social call, nad. You'll need to meet me in the
parking lot..and if you have the nerve to say your spew to my
face, your nose won't be much use to you for a while anyway.

You really that ignorant? You think you're going to show up where I work and
start a fight on company property over something I'll say to your ugly face,
and you don't think my company won't call the Madison Heights PD to arrest
you? You're obviously computing while drunk.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft

"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
This ain't no social call, nad. You'll need to meet me in the
parking lot..and if you have the nerve to say your spew to my
face, your nose won't be much use to you for a while anyway.

You really that ignorant? You think you're going to show up where I work
and start a fight on company property over something I'll say to your
ugly face,

You invited me there, so say it to my ugly face or stfu.

and you don't think my company won't call the Madison Heights
PD to arrest you?

Oh, you said this was between just you and me. Didn't know
you were gonna invite your boss.

You're obviously computing while drunk.

Not a drop. Did you really think I was going for a tour of
where you sweep the floor? -boring-

JJ wrote in message ...
Twistedhed wrote:

Which proves the FCC cares more about the ham bands than they do about
cb. We applaud their efforts to catch the errant hams, more power to
them. That is why they also go after the illegal cbers that attempt to
operate on the ham bands. They couldn't care less about the cb band
anymore as the cbers took it upon themselves to turn it into the sewer
pit of the radio spectrum.

Hey, the CB band is like the internet. It is unpoliced. That's why it is
so much fun. It's like a chat room. Ever try to listen to any of the
ham bands other then the liberty net? Well, for one thing, you will fall
asleep in a matter of minutes! There just isn't anything entertaining to
listen to on the ham bands. Yes, the ham bands are good to have in
emergencies because they setup communications. But, other then that, they
are pure boredom. Not so with CB.

There just isn't anything entertaining to
listen to on the ham bands.

what do you consider entertaining

In , "Landshark"
wrote:

snip

The point is that making a statement that 99% of cb'rs
operate illegally is false, just as 99% of hams get busted
for operating illegally.

Landshark



I think any reasonable person would understand that the numbers he
used are not actual statistics. Regardless, there is a 50% chance that
those numbers -are- correct.





-----= 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! =-----

On Fri, 21 May 2004 00:57:24 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:



The point is that making a statement that 99% of cb'rs
operate illegally is false, just as 99% of hams get busted
for operating illegally.

I try to avoid making specific number comparisons since hard data is
not usually easy to collect.

But I would hope that you'd agree that a definite majority of CB'ers
are running illegally in one form or another. I have certainly seen
enough empirical data in my many years of the hobby to make that
claim.


It's one thing to be "busted" for operating illegally, It's totally
another to just be "operating" illegally. It's true that a higher
percentage of hams are busted for operating illegally than there are
CB'ers popped for illegal operation. But for the most part it can be
explained that hams themselves have requested stricter enforcement.

In other words, just because there are a higher number of reported
enforcement actions against hams vs. CB'ers, does not mean that there
is a higher percentage of hams operating illegally.


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

On Thu, 20 May 2004 11:15:53 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

We applaud their efforts to catch the errant
hams, more power to them. That is why they
also go after the illegal cbers that attempt to
operate on the ham bands. They couldn't care
less about the cb band anymore as the cbers
took it upon themselves to turn it into the
sewer pit of the radio spectrum.


Hehhee,,,it wasn't the cbers that brought the extra freqs and in between
capabilities and amps to cb,,,it was the hammies.

What gives you that idea? Are you saying that CBer's (or at least some
of them) lack the technical expertise to achieve such feats?

I was experimenting with CB radios long before I got a ham license. In
fact CB was my stepping stone into ham radio.

They actually did all
the cbers a huge favor by their actions,,,,,they turned it into a
virtual free for all and many cbers enjoy it just the way it is, much to
the chagrin of certain scumbag hammies.

And many legally operating CBers who now have a harder time
communicating through the lawless and lack or respect "free-for-all".

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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 May 2004 00:57:24 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:



The point is that making a statement that 99% of cb'rs
operate illegally is false, just as 99% of hams get busted
for operating illegally.

I try to avoid making specific number comparisons since hard data is
not usually easy to collect.

Agreed, that is my point.

But I would hope that you'd agree that a definite majority of CB'ers
are running illegally in one form or another. I have certainly seen
enough empirical data in my many years of the hobby to make that
claim.

I really don't. I would think that overall majority runs legally.
If I were to take a stab, I would think that between 25-30%
are illegal. I think amps are not as prevalent as are converted
or export radios.


It's one thing to be "busted" for operating illegally, It's totally
another to just be "operating" illegally. It's true that a higher
percentage of hams are busted for operating illegally than there are
CB'ers popped for illegal operation. But for the most part it can be
explained that hams themselves have requested stricter enforcement.

Agreed, also Frank did a good analysis.

In other words, just because there are a higher number of reported
enforcement actions against hams vs. CB'ers, does not mean that there
is a higher percentage of hams operating illegally.

Agreed, just because a couple of Hams here are idiots, doesn't
mean every Ham is an idiot, same goes for cb'rs.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Landshark


--
That does suck..sometimes you're the
windshield..sometimes you're the bug.