"Steveo" wrote in message
...
(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
I can't help note but you have begun your games again, selectively
snipping questions

Deer Lowered!!! Someone should snip this ****ing scroll..

Webtv blows for usenet, Twist.

Second that!


Landshark


--
Hard things are put in our way,
not to stop us, but to call out our
courage and strength.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:25:07 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave*Hall)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave*Hall)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
I can't help note but you have begun your games again, selectively
snipping questions you pose and have great difficulty when given replies
with which you disagree. Editing your gaffes so that they no longer
appear illustrates only that you not only recognize such self-created
buffoonery, but go to great lengths to attempt to conceal it.
By introducing the behavior of selective snipping and editing of your
replies, you have intentionally compromised the thread. What you fail to
comprehend is such behavior merely serves to facilitate your own
degrading commmunicative skills.

I snip the fat, as this thread has already grown to the point where it
is no longer comfortable to follow. I snip the oldest parts first.
There is no "game" involved. Brevity is a virtue. One you have yet to
appreciate, it would seem.


CB IS anonymous, it's going to stay that way, get over the gastric pain
it causes you.


And that is the main reason why there are so
many malcontents on there.


Perhaps, perhaps not, but that is neither here
nor there, and a problem of yours. Stop trying to make it someone elses
problem.


It's everyone's problem unless,


No, it's not everyone's problem,,it's YOUR problem. Not everyone sees CB
as full of malcontents.

I guess in all honesty, it is highly geography dependant. Trust me, in
my area, there are a great many malcontents. I apologize to the fine
CBers in your area, if they are not of the same (im)moral caliber.


Some see hammies like yourself as the
malcontents for feeling you have some sort inalienable right to demand
cbers jump through the same hoops you must jump through regarding hammie
radio.

What "hoops" are there to just acting in a civilly responsible manner?


CB is not like that in my area. We have one channel with the lulu's,,the
rest yield great local roundtables and everyone radio-wise pretty much
knows everyone else. Being so close to Philthy, I can understand why CB
must be mess in your area. Those people are vile.


Yes they are. Ironically, in my new area, there
is one channel with any decent local activity.
But as luck would have it, the people on the
channel rarely just "talk". They are usually
involved with showing off another new noise
toy, or engaging in the verbal equivalent of
WWF smackdown. The rest of the band is
pretty much dead now. I'd love to have it they
way you have described.


Then what is preventing from you from getting on that channel and
speaking your mind to those people as you do on here concerning your
radical and minority beliefs.

Nothing. I've done it already. But what good will it do? All it does
it cause further arguments. You try to tell a nut that he's nuts, and
they'll swear you're crazy. Finally I realize that it's no use. Why
would I want to change a bunch of complete morons into people I'd want
to associate with, if that's even remotely possible? You can't make an
idiot into a normal person, so why try? Birds of a feather stick
together. My only hope is that a group of decent people will decide to
start another channel that I would be happy to participate in. I'm
already working on a CB reunion for some of the old crew that I've
contacted. This might spawn a "retro net" where we fire up that
vintage gear for some old fashioned CB fun.


After all, that would make you proactive
instead of reactive like you have always been here, and I am certain we
can count on you to offer your beliefs to those on the air using those
noise toys that have you bleeding from the ears and nose, because we all
know you believe in saying the same things here as you would face to
face. Try it with the noise toys and on the radio with these
people,,tell them they are the equivalent of the WWF. Report back.

Been there, done that. How do you rationalize the detrimental effects
of distorted audio, such as that produced by an echo mike, to someone
who has that "kid on Christmas" look on his face at the discovery of
his latest toy (that he probably spend half his fast food paycheck
for)? He doesn't care that it makes his audio hard to understand. He
just thinks it's "cool". Must be something in the water around
here.....


Yup, it is, but that doesn't shake my faith of always seeing the glass
half full and noting the good instead of the bad in most cases..that's
why it's called "faith".


I tend to look at a glass that has 50% contents
as half full also.


Not with CB, society, the FCC, and personal privacy rights you don't

Because, in those cases, the glass in much less than 50% full.

The problem is that when running across
people, with respect to morality and
consideration, it seems that the glass is slowly
dropping below 50%, and it's hard to see the
positive side.


That IS a problem of yours, no doubt. I still find the majority of
people to be good hearted. Must be southern thing (shrug),,if I'm wrong,
I'm sure a yankee will correct me to say it is you that are wrong and
that people, even in the north, are generally good people.

That all depends on which circles you run in. I find most hams in my
area to be good people. I find my neighbors to be good people. I can't
say the same for the "seedier" towns, or the trash that populates the
most popular CB channel.


Not true at all. You subscribe to socialist views and rhetoric,,,this is
NOT how America is, but how you wish it would be.


You know, I really have to laugh when you

accuse me of being a socialist.

It's true, In fact, this is another of those little times that I will
not only remind you that we have had this conversation long ago and many
times, but that in what remains one of my more favorite exchanges with
you, you not only embrace socialist beliefs, but go as far as to DEFEND
those beliefs and offer several reasons WHY you believe that bull****.

Do you even know what a socialist is? Do you still think (like you
once posted) that a liberal and a libertarian are the same thing?

Please provide any exchanges that I have authored where I defended the
concepts of socialism. I believe in limited government. I believe in
personal responsibility (and accountability). I believe that
government should not restrict access and actions, but should
prosecute those who abuse their rights.


That is so far off track it's really funny.


You not being aware of how snowballed this adminsitration has sheople
like you isn't at all funny, it's frighteningly pathetic.

Only if you have your own partisan beliefs and buy into the rhetoric
from equally clueless detractors.

I am the
biggest fan of the free market, capitalism,
freedom, and personal responsibility. Hell, I'm
voting for Bush, that's about as far away from
a socialist as you can get.



I'll make this very simple. Bush swore with his hand upon the Bible that
he would uphold and protect the constitution. Immediately after taking
office, he launched an assault upon it. His reasons for doing so are
irrelevant, as are yours.

He did nothing to the Constitution. He merely granted the same powers
currently afforded to law enforcement, to those involved with the
fight against terrorism. Have you read the entire Patriot act? I have,
and I find nothing in it that isn't necessary if we want to improve
our chances against those who take advantage of our lax security to do
us harm.

_
The majority of
American's (THANK GOD) do not subscribe to your bull**** about allowing
the authorities and anyone else an open book to your life "if you don't
have anything to hide".

You have no way of knowing what the majority of Americans, CBers, Hams
or anyone else thinks or wants. Unless of course, you're omnipotent.
You only know what YOU want and the small circle of people you
associate want.


As I stated before, I am a big supporter of the
concept of freedom.

Except when it comes to others exercising THEIR freedoms that you think
should be curbed,,such as the right to anonymity on the internet, just
for starters.

There is no good reason why someone needs to hide. You can't give me a
good reason why someone deserves the right to be able to hide from
others. Especially when that right threatens the rights of other
people to the expectation of civil discourse.

When that right conflicts with the right to expect civility and
accountability in public places then I favor civility and
accountability.


But with the RIGHT of freedom, comes the
RESPONSIBILITY to follow the rules of
civilized society. It's not a free ride.


Ride? What is this ride you speak of? You have rambled from speaking of
anonymity on the net, (one's right) and your problems with it saying one
shouldn;t have that right, and once again linked CB to society and
presented your problems with all three in discombobulated fashion. You
still need that vacation, Dave.

I'm sorry you cannot put the pieces together to form the big picture.
All rights come with corresponding responsibilities. You can't hide
behind a right, without being expected to be responsible enough to not
abuse it. That's what I mean by "no free ride".


If a significant percentage of the population
fails to recognize their responsibility as a
member of this civilized society, then their
rights should be proportionally removed as
well.




3% of the population of the US HAVE been "proportionally removed" due to
poorly constructed laws that created non-violent criminals. We have more
incarcerations than any other country on Earth. Keeping with your
radical and oppressive beliefs, we must have the worst, evil, people to
be found on the planet, eh?

Maybe we do. When we allow people the option to abuse the system, is
it any wonder that there will be a percentage of people who do?
Criminals have reneged on their responsibilities and therefore had
their rights suspended. That is as it should be.


If people choose to hide behind the freedom
and "right" of privacy in order to commit crimes
or subvert the moral framework of society,
then I am in favor of plugging those loopholes
in our Constitution which allows this type of
malcontented behavior to proliferate.




Again, Thank God the majority do not share your belief.

Prove to me that this is a true statement.

Free society is
not perfect and those "loopholes" will always be there in order to make
a free society work. Plugging what you wrongly refer to as "loopholes"
in the US Constitution does nothing but take away rights of ALL
Americans, whether they choose to exercise those rights or not. Just
because you choose not to, you damn sure don't have the right to tell
others that they should not be able to exercise same and as it stands
now, such is the law.

As long as people use these loopholes against society, our nation is
diminished in quality of life.


People who live honest, righteous lives have
nothing to worry about, as nothing will change.


Bull****. Over 50 people have been exonerated by DNA this year alone for
crimes they were wrongly accused.

Non-sequiter. This has nothing to do with anonymity.


Just last week a man was released from
death row after 22 years when a DNA completely abdicated and absolved
him from the murder for which he was doing time. I won't even bother to
inform you of the rate of crooked cops in cities like LA and NY, as you
are myopically not aware and it is apparent that you feel these innocent
victims who lose their lives and families are just the acceptable kill
and error ratio.

You are talking about apples and oranges. We were talking about the
right to anonymity and how that right can disrupt a civil discourse.
Now you are trying to link this to abuses and mistakes in the criminal
justice system. They do not equate. If people are truly innocent they
do not deserve to be incarcerated. But if they are guilty, they
deserve their punishment. But the biggest question I have is how do
these incidents relate to the right of anonymity?




Not at all. If you are attempting to pass
yourself and your opinions off in a serious
discussion, with any sort of credibility, you
have to be accountable for what you say.
In a group dedicated to mere posting concerning an anonymous hobby, what
type accountability and credibility do you seek? How long have you
looked to cb venues seeking "serious" discussion?

Please try not to answer a question with a question. How long have you
looked to anonymous cb venues on the internet seeking "serious"
discussion?


As long as I have been here. I am an
engineer, and I've been repairing and working
on radios for close to 30 years, so I have an
interest in serious technical topics, as they
relate to CB.


Well, there is yet another problem of yours that you answered yourself.
Since you see this specific forum as such a poor venue, you need to look
to other places for your needs, 'casue you been at it for years here
pitching your bitch about CB yet you still haven't figured out that you
are not going to to control others actions. Of course, you can invoke
that "fence sitter" that never posts and claim you are trying to reach
this mythical creature. Perhaps that will allow you to believe a slight
victory and you won't feel like you are waging a fight that "has to
start somewhere" to clean up radio to the point you wish it.


CB radio is full of "CB science" myths, which claim fantastic
improvements in performance. I am one of a few on here who will throw
cold water on these myths and debunk them with proven R.F. practices
when I can. This benefits anyone who might have been contemplating
spending a good chunk of cash on something that WILL disappoint them.
I've had 30 years of experience, and I know generally what works and
what doesn't.

So now it's your turn:
So then, you are of the opinion that this forum
should be nothing more than an unimpeded
free-for-all with no rules or decorum?


I do not concern myself with the manner in which usenet is constructed.
You have so many problems with this group, but crying about what you
don't like is reactive, Dave. It won't change a thing. I mean, now
you're alluding to the manner in which this group is governed..somehing
totally transparent to you or I and beyond your ability to do anything
about. Have you ever realized you spend a great deal of time worrying
about something over which you have no control? Of course, you do. It
drives you to frustration and it manifests here.

I didn't ask you whether or not you concern yourself with regulating
the forum. I asked if you think it SHOULD be an unimpeded
free-for-all.


Discussions about technical topics should be
taken at face value, without the parties
displaying their credentials?


Now you're catching on. No credentials needed for usenet posting, nor is
the "identity", that has you reeling.


So as someone looking for technical
information, you should take "bad" advice at
face value, without even the hint that it might
be "bad" advice? What accountability is there
if someone takes someone's "bad" advice and
in the process ruins a once perfectly good
radio?



No accountabilty, which is why the internet and isps and usenet have
discalimers you agree to prior to being able to access such information.
You are really wound tighter than a slinky, Dave. You tend to forget,
deliberate, bad information has been posted here by a certain hammie
scumbag, that gave directions on how to ruin a radio,,,, disguised as a
mod. Sorry you feel what you find on usenet and the internet is so
credible. No wonder you are voting for Bush, as only the gullible are
doing so.

So now you are proposing that all information found on the internet is
suspect? Then what GOOD is it, if you can't trust what you read? All
the more reason for a greater accountability. Thank you again for
making yet another point for me.



People identify on ham radio for a reason.

Yea,,,,,,it's the law.

Hmmm.... The law states that it's illegal to talk
on the freeband, yet it doesn't stop you.


Freebanding has nothing to do with hammies identifying "on ham radio for
a reason".

But we are talking about the law. Why is it a given that hams follow
the law with respect to ID'ing, yet it's ok to ignore the law WRT
freebanding?

Try and remain on your invoked topic.

I am, it's not my fault you don't see the relationship.

Wrong. One is NOT required to identify on CB.


No, they are not required to. But the fact that
many go out of their way to conceal who they
are, imply a certain suspicious motive.


Heheh,,,,of course they do, that is what one is supposed to do on
cb,,,conceal their personal identity. You really don't know much about
anything CB related.

Why would concealing one's identity on CB be any more important than
someone doing so on the ham band? Isn't privacy important there? Once
again, the anonymous appeal of CB implies a potentially sinister
motive.



I have nothing to hide. One might wonder
about you though. What dark secret prevents
you from revealing who you are?



Oh, I have no problem revealing who I am...in person. What great fear
stops you from completing your mission concerning my personal
information?

What "mission" is that? You are confusing me with Frank. I'm not the
one who's looking for information on you. I just wonder why you hide
behind a cloak of anonymity.


If you wanted to know that bad, you would come down and
meet me like others have..unless, of course, you have some dark secret
fear, preventing you from doing so, and you would rather whine and cry
here about something so bloody off-topic that only you are consumed with
it. In that way, there is no danger of you having to live up to your
word and saying things in person instead of on usenet that are offtopic,
such as personal information.

Like I posted before, I'll be in Orlando in October. When and where do
you want to meet?

Do you LIKE what this forum has become?
**


I do.

So you like the barrage of "homo" spam, the bickering, the name
calling, the cessation of most of the technical discussions? The
rude, confrontational demeanor expressed by many of the participants?


I have met many good folks, I have daily emails with regs, I have
anything in the manner of radio, cb, hammie equipment I could possibly
want, and I owe much of it to this group. tyvm.

Who have you met personally? I'd like to see them come forward and
confirm it.


I have NEVER asked for specific personal

details.



Sure you have. You have inquired as to my work on past occasion, what
town I live in, my name, my call sign,,,why, in fact, you have overly
concerned yourslef with my identity for years and you;re still doing
it.

I only inquired about your occupation when you made claims of being a
"professional writer" one time, and then in the "information gathering
business" (ironic occupation for someone who claims to relish privacy)
on another occasion, and then a charter boat captain yet again. There
are some inconsistencies which indicate deception.


.look at the lenght of this thread,

Yet you lambast me for trying to clean it up and reduce the overall
length.

,,all because you are still
experiencing growing pains because the law regarding internet use is not
the way you wish it. Another example of what you want and not the way
the realism exists.

No, I'm just seeking a civil discussion with you to discover why you
hold such subversive views, and why it is so important to you that you
be allowed to hide behind a cloak of anonymity. I am keeping my tone
civil although I've noticed you starting to become personally
insulting. When you cross that line, I'm finished.

However, a person's name, and their
credentials will establish their expertise in
related topics. Who would you be most likely
to believe on matters of radio, someone firmly
established in the art, with a good education
and background, or someone with the vague
identifier: "Rubber Duck"?


Not even a valiant attempt.
Some of those "good educations" you refer have posted directions on how
to destroy your radio in the form of mods. This is exactly the reason
one should take everything on the internet with a grain of salt.
Apparently, you believe otherwise.


But, you see, if someone posted a well written,
but "poison" mod as a dupe to unsuspecting
CBers, then that person needs to held
accountable for that. Thank you for making my
case for me.




No, they DON'T need held accountable for that.

If there is no accountability then there is no means to insure
accuracy or civility. That is a bad thing IMHO. It lessens the
usefulness of the internet. Without accountability, the internet is
little more than a playground for the socially deviate and pornography
starved people to slither though and disrupt.



If you read your user
agreements when accessig the internet and usenet and all that governs
such, you would find disclaimers for such info. This is where your
socialist views and censorship are magnified.

There is nothing socialist about demanding accountability. And
demanding accountability is not censorship. Nobody is suggesting that
people be prevented from engaging in any activity, only the we all
know who it is that's doing it.


You have maintained in the
past that, for example, instructions for homemade bombs (just for a
SINGLE of endless examples) should be censored.

I never said that this information should be censored. Only that those
who USE this information should be prosecuted.

Your argument is weak.

It would be, if it were the truth.

If the information is out there, you want the person that put the
information out there to be "held accountable.

Well, the liberals in this country are all about the idea of
deflecting responsibility to other (deeper pocket) entities. Holding
bar owners responsible for a drunk patron becoming involved in a DUI
accident. How would this be any different?

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

From: (Steveo)
(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
I can't help note but you have begun your games again, selectively
snipping questions
Deer Lowered!!! Someone should snip this ****ing scroll..

Webtv blows for usenet, Twist.


Yea, the long posts get kind of fun to follow, but TIVO is too slow g.

From: (Dr.X)
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:28:31 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:40:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:49:48 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
I can't help note but you have begun your games again, selectively
snipping questions
_
Deer Lowered!!! Someone should snip this ****ing scroll..
Webtv blows for usenet, Twist.
_
Yeah Twist. WebTV can't be the only provider in your area. ick! :-)
-Dr.X (makin' noise in the sand pile)
_
Hahaha,,,nope,,,but I'm pretty damn sure they are the only ones who are
GUARANTEED virus proof. Plus, they don't screw around with attempted
hackers,,,,they are excellent at informing the right networks when the
need arises.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:15:14 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

Part Deux

I thought the last thread was a little short.....


Are you suggesting that there are ways to
identify someone who takes serious steps to
hide their identity?

If unfounded character assassinations (libel) was committed, absolutely.


How? When people hide behind anonymous
remailers, servers, public WIFI access nodes,
and NAT routers, how can you find out exactly
who they are?


Do some homework on the wealth of information out there,,,visit some of
the hacker sites and groups,,,how do you think the launchers of serious
virus' are tracked down?

The same way as many other criminals are caught. They brag to their
friends and get turned in. That still doesn't address the basic
technical issue of how people can anonymously post messages and e-mail
using "public" internet access or through clever technical means to
disguise their identity. A simple IP lookup is no guarantee that you
will find the actual user.


In the fist manner, I was under the impression
you were speaking of this group.

I'm talking about the internet in general.

Since it is now apparent you are
experiencing problems of this nature somewhere else, I suggest you
consult an attorney.

What would give you that idea? I'm talking purely hypothetically.


Or are you saying that we all should just have
to deal with abusive insulting and libelous
comments because they are not worth the
trouble to pursue seriously?

If my emotions were to take over, I would simply trn the thing off and
walk away. No one is forcing you to partake in what you view as an
injurous electronic arena. It is your choice.


The same "turn it to the left" mentality that
abusive CBers use to force good people off of
the CB band?


The very idea that you feel "forced" by another has moved you to the
point of wanting to force others to conform to your beliefs,,,nice.

Not forced to conform to "my" beliefs. Only that they maintain a
certain level of accountability and by extension civility.


Decent people should be forced to yield to
malcontents, rather than fight back?

That is a personal decision and an apparent unresolved issue that
plagues you.

So you posit that decent people should be held hostage to the whims of
these malcontents, and those of us who feel otherwise have "issues"?


I believe in the example of not saying
something on a forum, that you wouldn't have
the cajones to say to someone's face.

Very noble. Many agree with you. Obviously, those like Dogie, do not.

Doug has personal issues of his own.


...and he fostered his personal issues on this group. Again, I ask of
you, how would you he be held accountable for such behavior that you
continue to rail against?

If you are asking how Doug should be held accountable, first I'd have
to ask; how do we know for sure that the person everyone thinks is
Doug, really is? Once we establish that it is him, then he should have
his access revoked for behaving in an inappropriate manner.


I have incredible restraint and am overly polite, even to you in many
instances when you began reambling off-topic with insult. I invite
anyone who has a problem with me to come forward.


How does one "come forward" if we don't
know who you are or where you live?

"We" lends the notion you are aware of someone, other than you, who
shares your incredible identity obsessions and problem regarding
myself. Care to specify?

That is paranoia speaking. All that "We" refers to is anyone who
happens to be a member of this group who would like the opportunity to
"come forward". Nothing nefarious about it.


Who I am and where I live is personal information, something you claimed
you didn't seek.

I don't need to know, but if you want me to "come forward" I do need
to know some details. I mean Florida is a big state (assuming that is
where you really live)


Many know where I live. I am incredibly easy to find, as Doctor X
recently found.

Does Dr. X know where you live? Does anyone? Somehow I doubt it. You
are a little too secretive about this. And you know all too well, that
once one person finds out, it'll only be a matter of time before the
information spreads around.


Of course, those who
do, encapsulate the very idea you are railing
against...not identifying themselevs, only it doesn't bother me like it
does you. I have an open door policy and will meet anyone from this
group for coffee, fishing, or to continue our rec.radio.cb debates.


Ok, I'm coming to Orlando in October. I might
make a detour to Tampa. Where do you want

to meet?



My house. Are you driving? Bring a radio. I'll guide you right to my
front door from the interstate.

I'm flying, renting a car, no room to pack radios. Doing "Mickey
Mouse" for my kid.

_
So far, I have met several from
this forum and plan on meeting more. If I didn't fish for the day, and
we didn't talk about politics or cb, I am certain you and I would get
along just fine on the boat for an afternoon ride talking of nothing but
hammie radio.

Nothing wrong about talking about CB. I love
the hobby (at least in the old days), and I
could tell you a few good stories. But in order
for you to talk authoritatively about hammie
radio, that would imply that you are a ham
yourself (or at least should be). You've implied
similar before. The fact that you won't admit it
one way or the other probably speaks more
about your fear of identification, considering
your admitted behavior on the freeband.


No doubt about it. Using the freeband always runs the risk of being
identified.
But you can rest easy realizing that I just may, perhaps, have the best
of both worlds and have for years.

I figured as much. Much like I have, even if you might not see it that
way from your perspective.

**Anonymity is the enabler for people to act
inappropriately, and rudely. Using the excuse
that privacy overrides acting in a civilized
manner is weak IMHO.



No one suggested such..but the gist of it, is that American's are
afforded the right to act like idiots, even it offends you to no end.
Using the excuse that it ought be over-ridden is what is weak.


So then you assert that an American's right to
act like an anti-social idiot deserves more
consideration than other people's right to
expect civilized behavior in public places?


You said that. You're wandering. You are confusing consideration with
rights. There are very many things I can do well within my rights that
offend you, in fact, I have no problem offending you with my legal
rights merely because you disagree with them and my right to exercise
them.

It has everything to do with the core issue. You are attempting to
make value judgements regarding the relative priority of the rights
that people have. You have prioritized the right to privacy (and by
extension enabled the unaccountable actions of malcontents) over the
right of people to expect civilized behavior in public places.
When those rights clash, something has to give. You seem to have made
your choice, even though you keep dancing around it and not quite
ready to directly admit to it.

Ever hear the expression "The right to swing your fist ends just past
my nose"? That's how you have to look at your rights. If the right to
hide behind an anonymous cloak, adversely affects the sanctity of a
public forum, then the right of anonymity needs to be curtailed to a
degree than promotes a workable compromise.


_
Simply speaking one's opinion (however
insulting or rude) is still a 1st amendment
right, and ISP's are reluctant to go down that
road.

You weren't talking of an opinion, Davie, you spoke of character
assassination.


Character assassination is either based on

truth, or opinion.


Wrong. Truth is not character assassination.

You might want to ask New Jersey Governor McGreevey about that.......


If the claims are true then they deserve to be
brought out. If they are simply opinions, then it
becomes a process to determine whether
there was any "real" damage done. Again this
becomes complicated if people "hide" well.

But easily enforceable via a court of law.

Not if you can't identify the perp.

Having your identity known, at least tempers
the temptation to act like a retard.


And goes against everything the world of security experts and all isp's
tell you. As far as I know, acting like "a retard" is perfectly legal,
but if you had your way, anything you deemed 'acting like a retard"
would most certainly be illegal.


Acting rude, inconsiderate, or anti-social, is
also not illegal, but it's not something a
civilized person would do in a public forum.



Therein lies the answer to what ails you. Not all people in public
forums are civilized.
Nevertheless, these traits you consider
uncivilized, exist in these "bad" people you speak of, and unfortunately
the word is made up of good AND bad people.


So then what is your conclusion?


That you have problems following your own claims and posts and have damn
near destroyed the thread with your snips and edits.,

I'm sorry if trimming old posts bothers you. I'm not looking to get
into the Guiness Book of records for the longest thread. I'm
discussing points, and I'd like to keep it as brief as possible. Your
WebTV browser is not helping in that regard either.


Should good
people be turned away from public forums
(Both radio and internet) by the behavior of
the bad people?


Your words. In fact, you are the only one seeking to do away with what
you perceive as "bad" people,,,those that do not conform to your idea of
identifying themselves.

I am by far not the "only one". There are many people complaining
about the anonymous nature of the internet and the ability it gives to
people who cannot act any better than a gutter slug. These people have
requested changes. The industry has responded. New standards and
protocols are already in the works. Trust me, the days of the
untraceable anonymous troll is numbered.


Do good people not have some right to
protection from the worst of the bad people?
Isn't this in the best interest of society? Is the
right of privacy so important that you would
allow it to supersede keeping public places to
at least a minimum amount of decorum?




It's not in my hands or yours, no matter how bad you wish you had that
type control on usenet.

No, you are right about that. But when a significant majority of
people become fed up with things as they are, and request changes, you
can rest assured that things will happen. The court of law recently
acknowledged that internet "crime" is new ground, that hasn't been
properly codified, and that they are working on laws to address abuses
of the public by this venue.

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

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:18:11 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

Sorry Dave, had to run out for awhile. Let us carry on,,,,

I enjoy the civil tone. As long as it stays this way, I'm cool.

Part III
From: N3CVJ
Why should this newsgroup be treated any
differently than an in-person venue?

I happen to agree with you on this item, but why should others be forced
or made to conform to our view? They shouldn't.

Why not?

Because they have the same rights as we do.


Personal freedom does not (or should not)
extend to the ruination of other people's
freedom or right of access.


And usenet does neither, nor does CB.

When legally operating people are shouted off of CB radio by illegal
stations "squashing mud ducks", their right of access has been
infringed. On Usenet, no one can "squash" a "mud duck" every one is
allowed to voice their opinions. But there are no restraints for those
who can't maintain a civil tone.


Your argument makes the point against the Patriot Act quite nicely,
though.

In what way?


I would not want to make these activities
"illegal". If you want to act like a retard, by all
means, go for it! But we all have the right to
know who it is that is acting like the retard so
that they can properly face the repercussions
that that type of behavior brings.


No,,you don't have the right to know the identity of one just because
you feel he is acting like a retard.

There would be no question about whether or not someone is acting like
a retard. This is beyond the subjective opinion of one user over
another.


If the behavior is continual and affects more
than just one person, then that changes
things.



Well now, the word "if" and the entrance of injurous posts constitutes
an entirely new concept and has no relation to you claiming you have the
right to know one's identity on usenet merely because you feel he is
"acting like a retard". Nice shuffle, but it non-effective.

What did you think I meant when I used the term "acting like a
retard"? A simple disagreement of opinion does not qualify as "acting
like a retard". Someone who acts like a retard is someone who
contributes nothing positive and verbally harasses the regular users
to the point that they take the fun out of participation.


But,,keeping with this thought you
put forward, you just described exactly what happened to Dogie.


As it should be. Everyone who acts in that
manner should be removed from society
where they can no longer harm the activities
of others.





Wrong." Acting like a retard" is not illegal.

Neither is listening to loud rap music outside. But do it at 1:00 Am
and guaranteed the cops will be there to "oppress" your right, for the
betterment of the rest of the community.


That's what I mean by accountability. If you
had to "face the music" for acting
inappropriately, you would eventually adopt an
incentive to NOT act that way. The quality of
the forums would increase considerably.


What you feel constitutes "quality" is the opposite of what many others
feel. The loss of personal privacy in this world is never an improvement
in the quality of anything.

Why? What would you do differently if suddenly we all knew who you
were? It certainly wouldn't change how I interact as I'm already
up-front about who I am.


Why? Why should it matter if people know
who you are? Are you THAT paranoid?

Why is none of your concern.

But is undoubtedly the whole reason why you defend this notion so
vehemently.


Why I choose to exercise my American
birthrights is none of your concern. Once again, you are owed no
explanation.

That you would flaunt you rights as an excuse to allow people to
victimize other people at the expense of their rights is also telling.


I remember making the claim that some I
knew personally was popped by local cops for
interference relating to his CB radio. You
challenged the validity of my claim,


AFTER you refused to cite a credible source, and only after did I
"challenge the validity" of your claim.


I don't have a credible source. I didn't "find"
the incident. I was personally involved with it.


Of course you don't and of course you were. There are those who insist
they were abducted by aliens who also have no credible source.

That doesn't mean that it didn't happen.




first by trying to find some sort of difference
between "a suburb of" and "suburban",
suggesting that I was lying.


You are lying now. YOU were the one to invoke the word "suburb", not I,
and you invoked it when the heat got to hot and you realized, like said,
the court documents would confirm your story. I note you originally
claimed it happened IN Philthadelphia,

I never EVER claimed that it happened IN
philthy. Never. I said that it happened in
SUBURBAN (Meaning in the suburbs) of


Exactly. And then you invoked Norristown, which is NOT a suburb of
Philthy, NOT on any area maps of Philthy, and pays no bills or taxes to
Philthy, and has no mail go through Philthy. It meets NONE of the
criteria for a suburb of Philthy, ,,in fact, it's nowhere near Philthy..

It IS a suburb of philly, as it resides in an area which surrounds
the city area. In any case it was your hangup of semantics that caused
you to look in the wrong place. The worst you can accuse me of is
incorrectly stating the location. It doesn't change the particulars.

Oh, and thank you for admitting that I DID provide the name of the
exact town.



Philly. Why I chose that wording instead of just
saying that it happened in Norristown, should
be obvious.


This is an international forum. Ask someone
from another geographical area if they're ever
heard of a relatively small town (such as
Norristown) and they will most likely not. But
mention a popular city as a geographical point
of reference, and it's another story.

This being an international forum doesn't stop you from invoking
domestic (American) law, so you can;t invoke it as a defense for your
beahvior now.

American law applies to me as I am a citizen of America. But as a
referential courtesy to those who don't line in "my neck of the woods"
I used general locational terms. I never intended to be detail
specific at the time I posted it. That you took it as such is a
failing on your part.



What more do you want?


Umm....perhaps this credibility you always speak of . You hold one who
doesn't respond to your demands for personal information as not credible
on usenet. The rest of the world holds one who makes claims with no
substantiation as not credible.



I told you all the
details. I never knew the defendant's last
name (part of that anonymity aspect of CB)
only that the name he went by was "Floyd"
(Which from other people, is his middle name,
his fist name is Anthony). It happened in
Norristown Pa (A suburb of philly) in the late
90's.
When you failed to find any information


AFTER you claimed it was in Philly,

I never claimed it was IN philly.


Sure you did,,,here it is again:
"This happened about 5 years ago IN
suburban Philadelphia.."

Suburban philadelphia is not the same thing as being in the city of
philadelphia. If I had intended to state that it was in the city I
would have said "in the city of Philadelphia".
You still won't admit your mistake.


That you feel that suburban philly means the
same thing as IN philly was your mistake.


Wrong. That you called it that with, once again, nothing to substantiate
it except your belief, does not consititute what makes a suburbia of a
city. Once again, some of those parameters are which defines a suburb of
a city are outlined above and Norristown meets none of them.

Not in the minds of the people who live here, all of whom refer to
themselves as living in the suburbs of phila. Even as far out in the
sticks as I now live even the news media refers to this area as the
"philadelphia suburbs". But I guess all these people are wrong and you
are right?

If I was making the whole thing up, do you think I would waste so much
time on semantics? What difference does it make now? You know where
exactly it happened now, so to continue to argue the point now is
counterproductive and wasteful of bandwidth.




If you want to go through the trouble to
request (at your cost) microfiche records,



No need. As far as a court of law would be concerned, I have presented
the burden of proof that your claims were false. I have been "pacified"
over this issue regardless or not of whether you feel that such is your
decision.

This is the internet remember, there is no accountability. So anything
that anyone says is already suspect.


You are the one unable to provide for your claims. That you feel another
should feel foolish for your inability to do so is troubling.


Even when I told you the exact town,


You never said the exact town and if you did, you NEVER linked it with
the case you claim occurred or in the same thread. Since you claim
otherwise, force feed me some crow, Davie, and show the world where you
told me what town the cber got busted in and went to court. Just another
in that long line of unsubstantiated bull****,,,,


You asked for it, you got it: Enjoy your crow....

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=No...x.net&rnum= 1



There it is again,,,,Norristown, a town that has nothing to do with
Philadelphia except in your mind. You will find nothing anywhere
denoting Norristown as even remotely associated as a suburb of Philthy.

Except by the people who live here. I don't purport to know what the
people in the greater Tampa area should refer to themselves as, so I
would expect that you not be so presumptuous as to assume the same
from my area.



Not "a" repeater system,,,YOUR repeater system. You referred to it as
"my repeater".

I built it. I am a 1/3 of an owner of it. It is NOT located at my


You can't look for something and expect to f

ind much without key particulars,

like the defendant's name, which I can't give

you as I didn't know all of it.



YOU not being able to doesn't mean others are unable. And sure I can,
dave,,,I can do just that with the very simple process of elimination.
You start with the town and backtrack to the corresponding year or two
which you already gave us indirectly,,from there, one eliminates all
charges except for discorderly conduct. From there, it's a matter of
checking those charged with the offense in the corresponding time frame
and walla walla,,,,,,,,,,and that is but one way of many and by far the
easiest.

Not disorderly conduct, it was disturbing the peace. Get it right.
And you still assume that this information is on the internet. It may
not be. The incident occurred in the 1996-1998 time frame


Not all information is available on the internet.


Exactly, so I have no clue why you continue to assume it is.

Then use your "magic" to produce the info. Although once you find it,
I suspect you will not admit it. You don't strike me as someone who
takes being proven wrong all that well.

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

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:15:14 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
Part Deux
I thought the last thread was a little short.....


I'm attempting to pacify your quest for brevity

Are you suggesting that there are ways to

identify someone who takes serious steps to

hide their identity?

If unfounded character assassinations (libel) was committed, absolutely.

How? When people hide behind anonymous

remailers, servers, public WIFI access nodes,

and NAT routers, how can you find out exactly
who they are?
_
Do some homework on the wealth of information out there,,,visit some of
the hacker sites and groups,,,how do you think the launchers of serious
virus' are tracked down?
_
The same way as many other criminals are

caught. They brag to their friends and get

turned in. That still doesn't address the basic

technical issue of how people can

anonymously post messages and e-mail using
"public" internet access or through clever

technical means to disguise their identity. A

simple IP lookup is no guarantee that you will

find the actual user.


In the fist manner, I was under the impression you were speaking of this
group.

I'm talking about the internet in general.

Since it is now apparent you are
experiencing problems of this nature somewhere else, I suggest you
consult an attorney.

What would give you that idea? I'm talking

purely hypothetically.


I concern myself with real word issues. I don;t have time to sit around
entertaing "what-if's" in the world.

_
Or are you saying that we all should just have

to deal with abusive insulting and libelous

comments because they are not worth the

trouble to pursue seriously?

If my emotions were to take over, I would simply turn the thing off and
walk away. No one is forcing you to partake in what you view as an
injurous electronic arena. It is your choice.
-
The same "turn it to the left" mentality that

abusive CBers use to force good people off of

the CB band?
_
The very idea that you feel "forced" by another has moved you to the
point of wanting to force others to conform to your beliefs,,,nice.

Not forced to conform to "my" beliefs. Only

that they maintain a certain level of

accountability and by extension civility.


Yes,,accountability and civility according to YOUR beliefs, not the law.
You have already demonstrated your disain and disagreeing with the law
that allows anonymity in life, most recently, to usenet and CB.
_


Decent people should be forced to yield to

malcontents, rather than fight back?

That is a personal decision and an apparent unresolved issue that
plagues you.

So you posit that decent people should be

held hostage to the whims of these

malcontents, and those of us who feel

otherwise have "issues"?


There are no "us", as you are alone in your radical beliefs. No one else
feels "held hostage" or "forced" concerning their freedom of choice to
partake in usenet, only you.
_

I believe in the example of not saying

something on a forum, that you wouldn't have

the cajones to say to someone's face.

Very noble. Many agree with you. Obviously, those like Dogie, do not.

Doug has personal issues of his own.
_
...and he fostered his personal issues on this group. Again, I ask of
you, how would you he be held accountable for such behavior that you
continue to rail against?

If you are asking how Doug should be held

accountable, first I'd have to ask; how do we

know for sure that the person everyone thinks

is Doug, really is?


Yea, you already established that the same entity (the FCC) you say we
should all obey can be mistaken when it comes to Dogie's bust, but they
couldn't possibly be mistaken in not repealing their poorly constructed
dx rule. AS always, you take an issue and slant it toward your own
agenda, invoking it (the FCC) as one we should obey, but not necessarily
believe. More hypocrisy.

_
Once we establish that it is him, then he

should have his access revoked for behaving

in an inappropriate manner.


Well, there you have it. It is not up to YOU to establish anything. His
antics have been reporeted many times by the many on this group and he
has lost several accesses to this group over the years. Yet, it is not
up to any "we" to establish his wrong doing,,,that is the job of his
isp, and when they find such, as they had in the past, they take
action,,not you, despite the status you seek.
_
I have incredible restraint and am overly
polite, even to you in many instances when you began reambling off-topic
with insult. I invite anyone who has a problem with me to come forward.

How does one "come forward" if we don't

know who you are or where you live?

"We" lends the notion you are aware of someone, other than you, who
shares your incredible identity obsessions and problem regarding myself.
Care to specify?

That is paranoia speaking.

No, it is a command grasp of basic English. You said "we". "We" is not
singular. Again, I ask who you refer in addition to yourself?


All that "We" refers to is anyone who happens
to be a member of this group who would like

the opportunity to "come forward". Nothing

nefarious about it.


No,,you said how do "we" come forward if
"we" don;t know who you are. Not many really care WHO I am in addition
to yourself, Now, I ask again, who else do you profess to caring about
my identity as much as yourself?
_
Who I am and where I live is personal information, something you claimed
you didn't seek.

I don't need to know, but if you want me to

"come forward" I do need to know some

details.





Oh, I NEVER said I wanted you to come forward,,,just the opposite, you
said you were coming to Florida. My invite hasn' changed. Anyone that
wishes or "wants" to look me up can do do. If I was concerned about you,
then I would travel to you, but this isn't the case. YOU apparently want
to come forward, so come on down.
_

I mean Florida is a big state (assuming that is
where you really live)



Well then, if you have doubts, perhaps you better reconsider.
_
Many know where I live. I am incredibly easy to find, as Doctor X
recently found.

Does Dr. X know where you live?


Dr. X never asked.

Does anyone?


Oh yesiree

Somehow I doubt it. You are a little too

secretive about this. And you know all too

well, that once one person finds out, it'll only

be a matter of time before the information

spreads around.


More of your far-removed delusions. I have ordered apparatus from two
separate regular businesses on this group, one place twice. That makes
two businesses in addition to those I have met from this group that
"know" me. See Davie, these people don't give a damn as they don't have
the motives you telegraph with your intentions to "spread around"
personal information. This is undertaken by those like yourself.

_
Of course, those who
do, encapsulate the very idea you are railing against...not identifying
themselevs, only it doesn't bother me like it does you. I have an open
door policy and will meet anyone from this group for coffee, fishing, or
to continue our rec.radio.cb debates.

Ok, I'm coming to Orlando in October. I might

make a detour to Tampa. Where do you want

to meet?

My house. Are you driving? Bring a radio. I'll guide you right to my
front door from the interstate.
_
I'm flying, renting a car, no room to pack

radios. Doing "Mickey Mouse" for my kid.


Mickey Mouse is like a six foot rat to little toddlers. I'm 90 minutes
from Orlando. Provide me a cell phone number like Keith did and I'll
call you, if that's what you wish. I'll give you precise directions. In
fact, if you rent a room in Tampa Bay for a day, I'll take you and show
you the way Florida was millions of years ago. Some areas remain
untouched.

_
So far, I have met several from
this forum and plan on meeting more. If I didn't fish for the day, and
we didn't talk about politics or cb, I am certain you and I would get
along just fine on the boat for an afternoon ride talking of nothing but
hammie radio.

Nothing wrong about talking about CB. I love

the hobby (at least in the old days), and I

could tell you a few good stories. But in order

for you to talk authoritatively about hammie

radio, that would imply that you are a ham

yourself (or at least should be). You've implied
similar before. The fact that you won't admit it

one way or the other probably speaks more

about your fear of identification, considering

your admitted behavior on the freeband.

No doubt about it. Using the freeband always runs the risk of being
identified.
But you can rest easy realizing that I just may, perhaps, have the best
of both worlds and have for years.

I figured as much. Much like I have, even if

you might not see it that way from your

perspective.
=A0



_
Anonymity is the enabler for people to act

inappropriately, and rudely. Using the excuse

that privacy overrides acting in a civilized

manner is weak IMHO.


No one suggested such..but the gist of it, is that American's are
afforded the right to act like idiots, even it offends you to no end.
Using the excuse that it ought be over-ridden is what is weak.

So then you assert that an American's right to

act like an anti-social idiot deserves more

consideration than other people's right to

expect civilized behavior in public places?

You said that. You're wandering. You are confusing consideration with
rights. There are very many things I can do well within my rights that
offend you, in fact, I have no problem offending you with my legal
rights merely because you disagree with them and my right to exercise
them.
_
It has everything to do with the core issue.


Which was what? Law? Breaking the law? Offending you isn't necessarily
against the law.

_
You are attempting to make value judgements
regarding the relative priority of the rights that

people have. You have prioritized the right to

privacy (and by extension enabled the

unaccountable actions of malcontents) over

the right of people to expect civilized behavior

in public places.


I didn't make that priority,,,the law did. The law outweighs your demand
for what you interpret as civilized behavior.


When those rights clash,

something has to give. You seem to have

made your choice, even though you keep

dancing around it and not quite ready to

directly admit to it.


What you misinterpret as clashing rights is not illegal.

NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Fri, Aug 20, 2004, 12:24pm (EDT-1) From:
=A0=A0 Dave Hall Group: =A0=A0 rec.radio.cb
Subject: =A0=A0 Hey Twist!!!! Date: =A0=A0 Fri, Aug 20, 2004, 1:24pm
Organization: =A0=A0 home.ptd.net/~n3cvj X-Trace: =A0=A0
sv3-ZDZ/moIrmAAEi+xOEPkNQVGmpvkmu7UF+wCz8filpRT0rxrGbml8wr 8WXZq8TijDCNdVOB=
Dudrwlwnq!I9iQn+YEsbZkx4owgwo/IkTCiFZP6/GT2D3PBjsHcqSJGJWhi1QdS5sNcP3G5YEr=
jUKQRIhan0X1!IG7P5lLLufM=3D
X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward a
copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be
unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.3.13
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:18:11 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
Sorry Dave, had to run out for awhile. Let us carry on,,,,

I enjoy the civil tone. As long as it stays this

way, I'm cool.
_
K...back again.

Part III
From: N3CVJ

Why should this newsgroup be treated any

differently than an in-person venue?

I happen to agree with you on this item, but why should others be forced
or made to conform to our view? They shouldn't.

Why not?

Because they have the same rights as we do.

=A0=A0Personal freedom does not (or should not)

extend to the ruination of other people's

freedom or right of access.

And usenet does neither, nor does CB.
_
When legally operating people are shouted off
of CB radio by illegal stations "squashing mud

ducks", their right of access has been

infringed.



Please show me any document speaking of this a RIGHT to access you
claims exist.






On Usenet, no one can "squash" a "mud duck"
every one is allowed to voice their opinions.

But there are no restraints for those who can't

maintain a civil tone.



Nonetheless. civility is not a legal requirement, and once again, usenet
"can not extend to the ruin of another's freedom." In fact, the ONLY
thing that can lead to such a thing is a crime and/or incarceration
_
Your argument makes the point against the Patriot Act quite nicely,
though.

In what way?

Read the part you snipped, it illustrates it perfectly.
_
I would not want to make these activities

"illegal". If you want to act like a retard, by all

means, go for it! But we all have the right to

know who it is that is acting like the retard so

that they can properly face the repercussions

that that type of behavior brings.


No,,you don't have the right to know the identity of one just because
you feel he is acting like a retard.

There would be no question about whether or

not someone is acting like a retard. This is

beyond the subjective opinion of one user

over another.

If the behavior is continual and affects more

than just one person, then that changes

things.



Whatever. You STILL don't have the right
to know the indentity of one merely because you lend your personal
opinion that one is "acting like a retard".

_
Well now, the word "if" and the entrance of
injurous posts constitutes an entirely new concept and has no relation
to you claiming you have the right to know one's identity on usenet
merely because you feel he is "acting like a retard". Nice shuffle, but
it non-effective.

What did you think I meant when I used the

term "acting like a retard"?


Since you solidified how objective the term can be, it can actually mean
whatever you wish it to mean. Nevertheless, because *YOU* feel one is
acting in a certainmanner not in conformity with your beliefs gives you
no right to know anything concerning their identity.

_
A simple disagreement of opinion does not

qualify as "acting like a retard".


You are the one needing to qualify what he term *you* initiated as term
extremely "objective".


Someone who acts like a retard is someone

who contributes nothing positive and verbally

harasses the regular users to the point that

they take the fun out of participation.



That is ridiculous. "Retard" is a poitically incorrect offensive term
for one who suffers from diminished mental capacity confirmed by a
American licensed MD.

_
But,,keeping with this thought you
put forward, you just described exactly what happened to Dogie.

As it should be. Everyone who acts in that

manner should be removed from society

where they can no longer harm the activities

of others.


Wrong." Acting like a retard" is not illegal.

Neither is listening to loud rap music outside.


Non-sequitur. But to show how incorrect you have been, it most certainly
is illegal once it reaches levels that violate noise ordinances. The
charge: Disturbing the peace.



But do it at 1:00 Am and guaranteed the cops

will be there to "oppress" your right, for the

betterment of the rest of the community.



Non-sequitur once again. One has no right to disturb the peace and if
one chooses to do so, must be prepared for any consequence.


That's what I mean by accountability. If you

had to "face the music" for acting

inappropriately, you would eventually adopt an
incentive to NOT act that way. The quality of

the forums would increase considerably.

-
What you feel constitutes "quality" is the opposite of what many others
feel. The loss of personal privacy in this world is never an improvement
in the quality of anything.

Why? What would you do differently if

suddenly we all knew who you were? It

certainly wouldn't change how I interact as I'm

already up-front about who I am.

Why? Why should it matter if people know

who you are? Are you THAT paranoid?

Why is none of your concern.

But is undoubtedly the whole reason why you

defend this notion so vehemently.


Don't give yourself so much credit. I have defended personal liberties
long before encountering you.

-
Why I choose to exercise my American
birthrights is none of your concern. Once again, you are owed no
explanation.

That you would flaunt you rights as an excuse

to allow people to victimize other people at the
expense of their rights is also telling.


Perhaps if that is what I have done, there may be some validity to that.
But since I have not done so, and only discussed such when continually
pressed by those not unlike yourself who have nose problems and an
admitted penchant for personal information in order to "spread it
around", I am quite satisfied with just what is and isn't "telling" in
this thread.


_
I remember making the claim that some I

knew personally was popped by local cops for

interference relating to his CB radio. You

challenged the validity of my claim,


AFTER you refused to cite a credible source, and only after did I
"challenge the validity" of your claim.

I don't have a credible source. I didn't "find"

the incident. I was personally involved with it.

Of course you don't and of course you were. There are those who insist
they were abducted by aliens who also have no credible source.

That doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


Well, yea, in the world of reality acceptance, it does.


first by trying to find some sort of difference

between "a suburb of" and "suburban",

suggesting that I was lying.


You are lying now. YOU were the one to invoke the word "suburb", not I,
and you invoked it when the heat got too hot and you realized, like
said, the court documents would confirm your story. I note you
originally claimed it happened IN Philthadelphia,

I never EVER claimed that it happened IN

philthy. Never. I said that it happened in

SUBURBAN (Meaning in the suburbs) of


Exactly. And then you invoked Norristown, which is NOT a suburb of
Philthy, NOT on any area maps of Philthy, and pays no bills or taxes to
Philthy, and has no mail go through Philthy. It meets NONE of the
criteria for a suburb of Philthy, ,,in fact, it's nowhere near Philthy..

It IS a suburb of philly, as it resides in an area

which surrounds the city area. In any case it

was your hangup of semantics that caused

you to look in the wrong place. The worst you

can accuse me of is incorrectly stating the

location. It doesn't change the particulars.



Your posts do not constitute particulars ofan incident that never
occurred merely because you say it did.




Oh, and thank you for admitting that I DID

provide the name of the exact town.




Oh, no problem, if that minor consolation worls for you, hail hail. The
fact of the matter is, the town meets no parameters for what consitutes
a suburb of a city. You feel merely because the closest big city is
Philly, it constitutes that Norristown is a suburb? By what do you base
this? Distance? What were you references? Again, you can cite nothing in
this world that illustrtaes Norristown as a suburb of Philly, because it
is not.


Philly. Why I chose that wording instead of just
saying that it happened in Norristown, should

be obvious.
=A0

It was.


=A0This is an international forum. Ask someone

from another geographical area if they're ever

heard of a relatively small town (such as

Norristown) and they will most likely not. But

mention a popular city as a geographical point
of reference, and it's another story.


This being an international forum doesn't stop you from invoking
domestic (American) law, so you can;t invoke it as a defense for your
beahvior now.


American law applies to me as I am a citizen

of America.



But you don't direct your posts about the law to yourself,,(well,
sometime you do), you post them with abandon and no thought to other
counties laws.


But as a referential courtesy to

those who don't line in "my neck of the woods"
I used general locational terms. I never

intended to be detail specific at the time I

posted it. That you took it as such is a failing

on your part.


You had months to reply. You were asked many, many times to provide
"specifics" (verbatim) of the case. That you responded with "Suburbian
Philly" and now try to say you weren't responding with "detail specific"
at the time you were asked, is *your* communication gaffe, because that
is exactly what you were asked for.."specifics". Not anyone else's fault
you can't answer correctly.



What more do you want?



Umm....perhaps this credibility you always speak of . You hold one who
doesn't respond to your demands for personal information as not credible
on usenet. The rest of the world holds one who makes claims with no
substantiation as not credible.

_
I told you all the

details. I never knew the defendant's last

name (part of that anonymity aspect of CB)

only that the name he went by was "Floyd"

(Which from other people, is his middle name,

his fist name is Anthony). It happened in

Norristown Pa (A suburb of philly) in the late

90's.

When you failed to find any information

AFTER you claimed it was in Philly,

I never claimed it was IN philly.

Sure you did,,,here it is again:

"This happened about 5 years ago IN

suburban Philadelphia.."


Suburban philadelphia is not the same thing

as being in the city of philadelphia.




Correct. But suburbs of Philadelphia are inexplicably tied to the city
it a suburb of, in one of many ways, a few of which you have now been
informed.


If I had intended to state that it was in the city

I would have said "in the city of Philadelphia".

=A0=A0You still won't admit your mistake.

That you feel that suburban philly means the

same thing as IN philly was your mistake.

_
Wrong. That you called it that with, once again, nothing to substantiate
it except your belief, does not consititute what makes a suburbia of a
city. Once again, some of those parameters are which defines a suburb of
a city are outlined above and Norristown meets none of them.
_
Not in the minds of the people who live here,

all of whom refer to themselves as living in the
suburbs of phila. Even as far out in the sticks

as I now live even the news media refers to

this area as the "philadelphia suburbs". But I

guess all these people are wrong and you are

right?


If they call Norristown a suburb of Philly, yes , they are wrong, and
once again, stop being so personal, for it is not I that define the
parameters of what constitutes a suburb of a city. For one, they must
have a civic connection in some form. Norristown does not. In addition
to you admitting how vile those Philthy folks are, you're telling the
world the majority of folks in your area are ignorant, as well.



If I was making the whole thing up, do you

think I would waste so much time on

semantics?



Oh yea. This group has been witness to watching you talk out both sides
of your mouth.



What difference does it make now?



Now that you admitted what I maintained after all this time, that you
are unable to produce anything to sustantiate this claim, not a thing.
_
You know

where exactly it happened now, so to continue
to argue the point now is counterproductive

and wasteful of bandwidth.




Correct. It should be reserved for your long rants illustrating your
fancy for what you refer as internet psychology.


If you want to go through the trouble to

request (at your cost) microfiche records,


No need. As far as a court of law would be concerned, I have presented
the burden of proof that your claims were false. I have been "pacified"
over this issue regardless or not of whether you feel that such is your
decision.

_
This is the internet remember, there is no

accountability. So anything that anyone says

is already suspect.


You are the one unable to provide for your claims. That you feel another
should feel foolish for your inability to do so is troubling.


Even when I told you the exact town,

You never said the exact town and if you did, you NEVER linked it with
the case you claim occurred or in the same thread. Since you claim
otherwise, force feed me some crow, Davie, and show the world where you
told me what town the cber got busted in and went to court. Just another
in that long line of unsubstantiated bull****,,,,

You asked for it, you got it: Enjoy your crow....

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=3D...oup:rec.radio=
cb+authorave+author:Hall&hl=3Den&lr=3D&ie=3DUTF-8&c2coff=3D1&selm=3D3E49=
3556.2BA%40worldlynx.net&rnum=3D1
-

There it is again,,,,Norristown, a town that has nothing to do with
Philadelphia except in your mind. You will find nothing anywhere
denoting Norristown as even remotely associated as a suburb of Philthy.


Except by the people who live here.


Another claim of yours that is morose. I don't believe an entire
community is illiterate in civics.


I don't

purport to know what the people in the greater
Tampa area should refer to themselves as, so

I would expect that you not be so

presumptuous as to assume the same from

my area.
_
Ahhh,,but I am quite familiar with Philthy and the related
area...actually, I am pretty familiar with Penna, NY and a host of other
states. I have done quite a bit of traveling over the years and hung
around Philthy for some time.

_
_
You can't look for something and expect to f

ind much without key particulars,

like the defendant's name, which I can't give

you as I didn't know all of it.



YOU not being able to doesn't mean others are unable. And sure I can,
dave,,,I can do just that with the very simple process of elimination.
You start with the town and backtrack to the corresponding year or two
which you already gave us indirectly,,from there, one eliminates all
charges except for discorderly conduct. From there, it's a matter of
checking those charged with the offense in the corresponding time frame
and walla walla,,,,,,,,,,and that is but one way of many and by far the
easiest.

Not disorderly conduct, it was disturbing the

peace. Get it right.

Semantics.

And you still assume that this information is

on the internet.


Whatever has you stuck on the internet as being the single informational
tool in my work arsenal is incorrect, but seeing as you were told this
before and still can't grasp it, this will be the last time I correct
you on this matter.
As always, you have the right to insist on remaining clueless and
ignorant on such matters.


It may not be. The incident occurred in the

1996-1998 time frame

Not all information is available on the internet.

Exactly, so I have no clue why you continue to assume it is.

Then use your "magic" to produce the info.


I am of the opinion it did not occur. You made the claim, substantiate
it or just get past the fact that you finally admiitted you are unable.


Although once you find it, I suspect you will

not admit it. You don't strike me as someone

who takes being proven wrong all that well.


Well, that's ok, considering how many times you have been wrong lately.


Dave

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:08:57 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:15:14 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
Part Deux
I thought the last thread was a little short.....


I'm attempting to pacify your quest for brevity

Thank you.


Do some homework on the wealth of information out there,,,visit some of
the hacker sites and groups,,,how do you think the launchers of serious
virus' are tracked down?


The same way as many other criminals are
caught. They brag to their friends and get
turned in. That still doesn't address the basic
technical issue of how people can
anonymously post messages and e-mail using
"public" internet access or through clever
technical means to disguise their identity. A
simple IP lookup is no guarantee that you will
find the actual user.

In the fist manner, I was under the impression you were speaking of this
group.

I'm talking about the internet in general.

Since it is now apparent you are
experiencing problems of this nature somewhere else, I suggest you
consult an attorney.

What would give you that idea? I'm talking
purely hypothetically.


I concern myself with real word issues. I don;t have time to sit around
entertaing "what-if's" in the world.

I can respect that. I also "live" in the here and now, but I like to
ponder the future and potential situations. Like playing chess, you
have to keep a few moves ahead of your opponent and try to anticipate
where they will be going.

Or are you saying that we all should just have
to deal with abusive insulting and libelous
comments because they are not worth the
trouble to pursue seriously?

If my emotions were to take over, I would simply turn the thing off and
walk away. No one is forcing you to partake in what you view as an
injurous electronic arena. It is your choice.
-
The same "turn it to the left" mentality that
abusive CBers use to force good people off of
the CB band?

The very idea that you feel "forced" by another has moved you to the
point of wanting to force others to conform to your beliefs,,,nice.


Not forced to conform to "my" beliefs. Only
that they maintain a certain level of
accountability and by extension civility.


Yes,,accountability and civility according to YOUR beliefs, not the law.
You have already demonstrated your disain and disagreeing with the law
that allows anonymity in life, most recently, to usenet and CB.

The law does not allow a person to use anonymity to adversely affect
the rights of other people. That seems to be something you have
trouble understanding.

There are no absolutes when it comes to rights. Rights are always
relative, and subject to compromises, when they clash with the rights
of other people.



Decent people should be forced to yield to
malcontents, rather than fight back?


That is a personal decision and an apparent unresolved issue that
plagues you.


So you posit that decent people should be
held hostage to the whims of these
malcontents, and those of us who feel
otherwise have "issues"?



There are no "us", as you are alone in your radical beliefs.
No one else
feels "held hostage" or "forced" concerning their freedom of choice to
partake in usenet, only you.

How can you make such a definitive statement? How can you be so sure
that I am, in fact, "alone"? You tend to make these blatantly absolute
statements quite frequently, when there is no possible way you can
speak with any authority on the subject.

You might want to do a Google search on the issues of privacy, the
internet, anonymity and the law regarding these things, and you will
find that quite a few people are looking to change the way things are
done.


I believe in the example of not saying
something on a forum, that you wouldn't have
the cajones to say to someone's face.

Very noble. Many agree with you. Obviously, those like Dogie, do not.


Doug has personal issues of his own.


..and he fostered his personal issues on this group. Again, I ask of
you, how would you he be held accountable for such behavior that you
continue to rail against?

If you are asking how Doug should be held
accountable, first I'd have to ask; how do we
know for sure that the person everyone thinks
is Doug, really is?

Yea, you already established that the same entity (the FCC) you say we
should all obey can be mistaken when it comes to Dogie's bust, but they
couldn't possibly be mistaken in not repealing their poorly constructed
dx rule.

Woah, lets not put words in my mouth. I wholeheartedly agree with you
that the FCC should remove the DX limitation. If it were up to me,
they should allow unlimited DX, allow 100 watts of power, and open the
band from 26.000 Mhz to 28.000 Mhz.



AS always, you take an issue and slant it toward your own
agenda, invoking it (the FCC) as one we should obey, but not necessarily
believe. More hypocrisy.

Well, yea, if you assume to know what I think, as opposed to what I
really think.

_
Once we establish that it is him, then he
should have his access revoked for behaving
in an inappropriate manner.


Well, there you have it. It is not up to YOU to establish anything. His
antics have been reporeted many times by the many on this group and he
has lost several accesses to this group over the years. Yet, it is not
up to any "we" to establish his wrong doing,,,that is the job of his
isp, and when they find such, as they had in the past, they take
action,,not you, despite the status you seek.

I don't care who does it, as long as it's done.

_
I have incredible restraint and am overly
polite, even to you in many instances when you began reambling off-topic
with insult. I invite anyone who has a problem with me to come forward.

How does one "come forward" if we don't
know who you are or where you live?

"We" lends the notion you are aware of someone, other than you, who
shares your incredible identity obsessions and problem regarding myself.
Care to specify?


That is paranoia speaking.


No, it is a command grasp of basic English. You said "we". "We" is not
singular. Again, I ask who you refer in addition to yourself?


All that "We" refers to is anyone who happens
to be a member of this group who would like
the opportunity to "come forward". Nothing
nefarious about it.


No,,you said how do "we" come forward if
"we" don;t know who you are. Not many really care WHO I am in addition
to yourself, Now, I ask again, who else do you profess to caring about
my identity as much as yourself?

Your paranoia is showing again. I use the term "We" as this is a
public forum, which includes more people than you and I. That makes it
a "we" issue.


Who I am and where I live is personal information, something you claimed
you didn't seek.

I don't need to know, but if you want me to
"come forward" I do need to know some
details.


Oh, I NEVER said I wanted you to come forward

Perhaps you've forgotten your own quote from a few paragraphs above:

" I invite anyone who has a problem with me to come forward." Do I
not count as "anyone"?


,,,just the opposite, you
said you were coming to Florida.

After you made your invite to "come forward".


My invite hasn' changed. Anyone that
wishes or "wants" to look me up can do do.

Look you up? How is one supposed to do that when you are not
forthcoming with certain pertinent information?

If I was concerned about you,
then I would travel to you, but this isn't the case. YOU apparently want
to come forward, so come on down.

I'm merely calling your bluff. You know that I live an impractical
driving distance from you, so you feel relatively safe, in making that
claim. Now that you have an opportunity to make good on your invite,
you start, ever so slightly, to back pedal. I'm guessing that you will
find some way to wiggle out of any chance of a face-to-face meeting,
as it would blow the lid off of your secret life.


I mean Florida is a big state (assuming that is
where you really live)


Well then, if you have doubts, perhaps you better reconsider.


Many know where I live. I am incredibly easy to find, as Doctor X
recently found.


Does Dr. X know where you live?

Dr. X never asked.

So he doesn't know. Although you implied such in your last statement
above.


Does anyone?

Oh yesiree


Somehow I doubt it. You are a little too
secretive about this. And you know all too
well, that once one person finds out, it'll only
be a matter of time before the information
spreads around.


More of your far-removed delusions. I have ordered apparatus from two
separate regular businesses on this group, one place twice. That makes
two businesses in addition to those I have met from this group that
"know" me.

We only have your word for that, so it is as meaningless as you claim
my accounts are of the CBer who got popped in Norristown.

Besides, anyone can use an anonymous PO box or other address to
conduct business. They don't even need a real name as long as the
payment is real.


See Davie, these people don't give a damn as they don't have
the motives you telegraph with your intentions to "spread around"
personal information. This is undertaken by those like yourself.

They probably don't know it was you they were dealing with either.

I have found through many years of experience on CB, that one of the
best ways to rid a channel of a belligerent anonymous troublemaker,
was to simply locate them and then make that information public. Once
they are unmasked, they tend to give up causing trouble, since they
are basically cowards.



Ok, I'm coming to Orlando in October. I might
make a detour to Tampa. Where do you want
to meet?

My house. Are you driving? Bring a radio. I'll guide you right to my
front door from the interstate.


I'm flying, renting a car, no room to pack
radios. Doing "Mickey Mouse" for my kid.


Mickey Mouse is like a six foot rat to little toddlers.

My daughter just wants to ride Space Mountain, and see all the sights.

I'm 90 minutes from Orlando. Provide me a cell phone number like Keith did and I'll
call you, if that's what you wish.

I don't own a cell phone. But I might bring a 2 meter H.T. There are
several 2 meter repeaters in the greater Tampa area. You already know
my callsign.

I'll give you precise directions. In
fact, if you rent a room in Tampa Bay for a day, I'll take you and show
you the way Florida was millions of years ago. Some areas remain
untouched.

I've seen some of those areas. I'm no newby to Florida, although I
tend to prefer the east coast. I almost moved to Melborne 14 years
ago. I might even stop at my favorite steak house, Farmer Jones Red
Barn in Lakeland. I hope they're still there.


Anonymity is the enabler for people to act
inappropriately, and rudely. Using the excuse
that privacy overrides acting in a civilized
manner is weak IMHO.


No one suggested such..but the gist of it, is that American's are
afforded the right to act like idiots, even it offends you to no end.
Using the excuse that it ought be over-ridden is what is weak.

So then you assert that an American's right to
act like an anti-social idiot deserves more
consideration than other people's right to
expect civilized behavior in public places?


You said that. You're wandering. You are confusing consideration with
rights. There are very many things I can do well within my rights that
offend you, in fact, I have no problem offending you with my legal
rights merely because you disagree with them and my right to exercise
them.

If it is a simple matter of subjectivity and value judgement, then I
agree with you. But when the exercising of your rights negatively
impacts on the rights of others, the line becomes drawn, and some sort
of compromise is in order. Remember, you rights are not worth any more
(or less) than anyone else's rights. You have no exclusivity.



It has everything to do with the core issue.

Which was what? Law? Breaking the law? Offending you isn't necessarily
against the law.

We aren't talking about a simple case of "offending" me.


You are attempting to make value judgements
regarding the relative priority of the rights that
people have. You have prioritized the right to
privacy (and by extension enabled the
unaccountable actions of malcontents) over
the right of people to expect civilized behavior
in public places.


I didn't make that priority,,,the law did.

The law has done no such thing. In fact, laws are being crafted right
now to deal with this relatively new forum for abuse, and to protect
the rights of people who are victimized by anonymous people who hide
to escape retribution.


The law outweighs your demand
for what you interpret as civilized behavior.

When those rights clash,
something has to give. You seem to have
made your choice, even though you keep
dancing around it and not quite ready to
directly admit to it.

What you misinterpret as clashing rights is not illegal.

The truth in that statements depends on the details of the infraction.


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

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:21:10 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:


Oh, I know what Philthy is about...been there many times.

Some see hammies like yourself as the
malcontents for feeling you have some sort inalienable right to demand
cbers jump through the same hoops you must jump through regarding hammie
radio.

You are entitled to see things from the other side of the glass, as it
were. But there is a big difference. Us "snobby" hams are not
interfering with other hams while pursuing our fringe activities, and
insisting that our "right" to pursue it, overrides everyone else
rights to enjoy their piece of the hobby. Yes, there are hams who do,
but I do not associate with them.

What "hoops" are there to just acting in a
civilly responsible manner?


Read again: "same hops you must jump through regarding hammie radio".
That you responded with hammie radio as an example in acting civilly
responsible is not the best example you could have chosen,,in fact, it's
a poor one.

Again, like on CB, this is largely geographically dependant. But I
will say, that I've personally witnessed far more rule abuses on CB
than on ham radio.


Then what is preventing from you from getting on that channel and
speaking your mind to those people as you do on here concerning your
radical and minority beliefs.
-
Nothing. I've done it already. But what good
will it do?
-
I've asked that of you concerning here and your answer was always along
the lines of "you have got to start somewhere" and "someone has got to
take a stand". It appears you shy aways from live real-time
confrontation you claimed would take place in the same manner in which
you conduct yourself on usenet.

I don't "shy away" but at some point you have to realize that it's an
unwinnable situation, or you realize that you can put a 3 piece suit
on a pig, and he's still a pig. Even if I convince the idiots that
their echo boxes and distorted class "C" amplifiers sound like crap,
they're still idiots.


All it does it cause further arguments.
-
Same on usenet.

This is true.


You try to tell a nut that he's nuts, and they'll
swear you're crazy.
-
In all fairness and I'm not being cruel or mean or malicious, but coming
from one who holds talking dx is technically a felony, and that roger
beeps are illegal on cb, that doesn't mean much.

Roger beeps were at one time classified as an "amusement" device, and
as such was prohibited in 95.413 (6). While it is true that I cannot
find a rule which specifically addresses these devices, I can neither
find any information which specifically allows them, along the same
lines as selective call tones are specifically outlined in 95.412 (b).

Since there isn't a definitive rule in place, you can make the case
that they are, in fact, legal (or at the very least not worthy of
consideration). But it seems funny that this feature has not appeared
on most mainstream legal radios.

Echo boxes are a totally different issue. They fall clearly into the
classification of "amusement or entertainment" devices and as such are
specifically prohibited by 95.413.

_
You can't make an idiot into a normal person,
so why try? Birds of a feather stick together.

-

Which is why you have defended Dogie and attempted to present an
incredibly spaced out and fantasized case for Keith framing him, even
though the FCC busted him for jamming.

I never accused Keith of framing Doug. I wish you would look back on
your links and realize that. I postulated that it was possible that he
might have been framed, but I never accused any one person of doing
it.


My only hope is that a group of decent people
will decide to start another channel that I
would be happy to participate in. I'm already
working on a CB reunion for some of the old
crew that I've contacted. This might spawn a
"retro net" where we fire up that vintage gear
for some old fashioned CB fun.
-
Now that might bring back some of the fun with cb that has eluded you
for some time. *Heck, we have get togethers all the time here. On any
given day one can tune in and hook up with countless fishermen all over
the bay area,,many of them sitting in their cars chewing the fat while
fishing.

Those are some of the things I sorely miss.


*After all, that would make you proactive instead of reactive like you
have always been here, and I am certain we can count on you to offer
your beliefs to those on the air using those noise toys that have you
bleeding from the ears and nose, because we all know you believe in
saying the same things here as you would face to face. Try it with the
noise toys and on the radio with these people,,tell them they are the
equivalent of the WWF. Report back.

Been there, done that. How do you rationalize

the detrimental effects of distorted audio, such
as that produced by an echo mike, to

someone who has that "kid on Christmas" look
on his face at the discovery of his latest toy
(that he probably spend half his fast food
paycheck for)? He doesn't care that it makes
his audio hard to understand. He just thinks
it's "cool". Must be something in the water
around here.....



Nothing to rationalize. This is cb, not audiophile FM 101 High Fidelity
Broadcasting. What you can't get, because you been in with the snobs
that have a hard-on for cb too long, is that many, many folks don't look
at cb like you do and compare it to hammie radio. The only thing many
folks are interested in is making contact, not quality. Like a stereo,
some folks spend big bucks for symphonic reproduction, others do ok and
opt for a clock radio. Different strokes, but here you are bashing those
folks that may use a legal item as is their right, on cb, all because
*you* disagree and dislike their choice. Tsk tsk.

You don't have to be an audiophile. Some people are so distorted that
they are actually hard to understand. Yet these same mentally
challenged idiots think that they actually sound good! Excessive echo,
class "C" amplifiers, too much mike gain, no limiters, excessive
"swing" all contribute to overall poor audio quality. Many of these
"mods" also contribute to adjacent channel interference and RFI. There
is nothing even remotely redeemable about these actions.

Echo is not legal. Class "C" (or any other) amplifiers are not legal.
Removing modulation limiters is not legal. Transmitter modifications
are not legal. Generating RFI above the technical specifications is
not legal.

So I'm not bashing people for liking different things than I do. I'm
bashing people for their displayed ignorance of good RF practice and
for displaying an indifference to, or an outright contempt for, other
people's right of access to the hobby.

Would you listen to a radio with a torn speaker? Would it not bother
you?


I tend to look at a glass that has 50% contents
as half full also.

Not with CB, society, the FCC, and personal privacy rights you don't

Because, in those cases, the glass in much
less than 50% full.
-
No,,NOT in those cases, in YOUR personal experiences CB and society may
be crumbling, but not to the rest of the world. What you experience is
not the last word, far from it.

Again you claim to know what the "majority" are thinking. You cannot
possibly know what anyone else is thinking.

The problem is that when running across
people, with respect to morality and
consideration, it seems that the glass is slowly
dropping below 50%, and it's hard to see the
positive side.


That IS a problem of yours, no doubt. I still find the majority of
people to be good hearted. Must be southern thing (shrug),,if I'm wrong,
I'm sure a yankee will correct me to say it is you that are wrong and
that people, even in the north, are generally good people.


That all depends on which circles you run in. I
find most hams in my area to be good people.
I find my neighbors to be good people. I can't
say the same for the "seedier" towns, or the
trash that populates the most popular CB
channel.

Interesting. Do you feel there are more hammies or cbers in this
country?

Not at all. Where would you get that idea? But there does seem to be
more hams in my radio than there are local CBers. But that's an unfair
comparison, due to the fact that many ham bands have long distance
capability, and the sphere of my VHF coverage is much wider than the
typical range for CB. I can talk back to my old area with no problem
on 2 meters. Yet I can hear no one over about a S3 on CB, from a
similar distance.

There are more total Cbers in this country than hams (at least it used
to be that way years ago), but the range of CB is relatively small and
results in "pockets" of users, not all of which can be heard beyond
their local range.

You subscribe to socialist views and rhetoric,,,this is NOT how America
is, but how you wish it would be.

You know, I really have to laugh when you
accuse me of being a socialist.

It's true, In fact, this is another of those little times that I will
not only remind you that we have had this conversation long ago and many
times, but that in what remains one of my more favorite exchanges with
you, you not only embrace socialist beliefs, but go as far as to DEFEND
those beliefs and offer several reasons WHY you believe that bull****.
_
Do you even know what a socialist is?


I do.

Do you
still think (like you once posted) that a liberal
and a libertarian are the same thing?
_
A liberal and a libertarian are very much similar and the same.

No, they are not. Liberals believe in big government oversight to
handle the plethora of social programs that they feel we need to have
shoved down our throats (At our tax expense). In fact extreme
liberalism is what leads to socialism.

A libertarian believe is the smallest amount of government that can
exist and still be effective. Extreme libertarian views lead to
anarchy.

Conservatives believe in somewhat limited government, and personal
responsibility. Conservatives believe in strong law enforcement for
those who cannot abide by the rules of society. Extreme conservatism
leads to fascism.


They BOTH advocate the maximum liberties permitted under the law which is the
exact manner of which I referred the two.

Wrong! You need to do some more reading........


In fact, it is you and Frank
who were shown not to know what a liberal is. Washington was a liberal.
Our forefathers were liberals. This country was founded and built by
liberlas.

Today's liberal is someone who wants freedom for everyone, as long as
it's according to their standards. A typical example is how the
democrats had no problem with letting Michael Moore trash the
president, but now scream foul when an independent group is now taking
aim on Kerry. Today's liberal is two faced, duplicitous, and
hypocritical. Today's liberal wants the working man to pay for the
habitually lazy. Higher taxes for richer people. From those according
to their means, to those according to their needs. Sound familiar? Try
reading Karl Marx for the answer.


You have succumbed to partisanship rhetoric of the right, where all who
dare question or oppose the Bush admin, are labeled a liberal. The term
has become, albeit incorrectly, an intentionally misplaced catch-all to
encompass anyone who opposes the current admin.

I've opposed bleeding heart liberals since the time I was aware enough
to realize that they were undermining the traditional values that this
country was founded on. Liberals are the ones who would defend the
"right" of someone to distribute kiddie porn, rather than acknowledge
that this is a social disease.


Please provide any exchanges that I have
authored where I defended the concepts of
socialism. I believe in limited government.

Wrong, you favor government imposition and can't even see it.

Not at all. I believe is responsibility an accountability. You a re
free to do what you will, (within the framework of a civilized
society) but you are solely responsible for the effects of your
actions (or inactions).

I believe in personal responsibility (and
accountability).

So do the majority, but you also believe you have the right to mete out
accountability as you see fit, in your most recent example, by requiring
the identity of those who post to the internet.

Accountability is universal. Every action that you do, has the
potential to affect someone else. You need to be accountable to those
you affect.


I believe that government should not restrict
access and actions, but should prosecute
those who abuse their rights.

-
Abuse is a relevant term and what you consitute defines abuse has
already been shown to not always be illegal, so no, when one "abuses"
their rights, say, to the point of offending the hell out of you for
their behavior or for what they say, no, there should be no
"prosecution".

Laws exist to codify "abuse".


You not being aware of how this
adminsitration has snowballed sheople like
you isn't at all
funny, it's frighteningly pathetic.
-
Only if you have your own partisan beliefs


The rest of the world would hold you claiming and posting that you are
voting for George Bush constitutes a partisan belief. That you used his
name and the words "against socialism" in the same sentence with a
straight face and actually made yourself believe it, is even more
telling.

That you think that GWB is synonymous with socialism is even more
telling.


I am the
biggest fan of the free market, capitalism,
freedom, and personal responsibility. Hell, I'm
voting for Bush, that's about as far away from
a socialist as you can get.
_
I'll make this very simple. Bush swore with his hand upon the Bible that
he would uphold and protect the constitution. Immediately after taking
office, he launched an assault upon it.
His reasons for doing so are irrelevant, as are yours.
-
He did nothing to the Constitution.
_
Wrong. He repealed the Fourth Amendment via the Patriot Act in the name
of terror when deemed necessary.

This is the same power already given to law enforcement for use
against drug dealers. It still requires a court order. You need to
read the fine print.

Adding to this, not single conviction has resulted from the (un)Patriot
Act,,not ONE!

What does that mean exactly? That's like concluding that since WMD
have not been found yet, that they never will. You seem to take the
future for granted.


He merely
granted the same powers currently afforded to
law enforcement, to those involved with the
fight against terrorism.

-
Huh? What does that mean? Those in Law Enforcement ARE the ones involved
in the repub's manufactured war on another intangibe, er,,"terrorism".

It broadened the power which used to be restricted to other uses (like
drug traffickers) to now include terrorists.


_
Have you read the
entire Patriot act? I have, and I find nothing in
it that isn't necessary if we want to improve
our chances against those who take
advantage of our lax security to do us harm.


If you read it, you may want to have someone read it to you, cause you
missed the part about not needing a warrant in certain cases which has
NEVER been afforded law enforcement until now.

You still need court approval to perform those functions. No one has
ultimate power.


The majority of
American's (THANK GOD) do not subscribe to your bull**** about allowing
the authorities and anyone else an open book to your life "if you don't
have anything to hide".
-
You have no way of knowing what the majority
of Americans, CBers, Hams or anyone else
thinks or wants.
-
Sure I do, Davie. Many people have such a talent. Some people spot
market trends, some people know fashion opinions, some know political
opinions, many people make a living off of similar talents, Davie. But
keeping with your line of bull****, it is *you* that have no way of
knowing what I know. For all you don't know, I could be involved with
the current political polls that usually have a margin of only a 3%
error. Suhc is highly idicative of the pulse of the people. Once again,
Frank accused me of writng for Pop Comm and Monitoring Times. Assuming I
did, that would mean I am much closer in touch with my readers, who just
happen to be,,,taa daa,,,hammies and cbers, tahn you care to
acknowledge. So you see, these are but a fraction of the multitude of
possibilities that decimate your incorrect hypothesis.

That means nothing. If you take a poll of dopers at a rock concert on
their feelings WRT legalizing pot, you would get an overwhelming
majority in favor of it. If you look in a fish store, should it
surprise you to find fish there?


Unless of course, you're omnipotent. You only
know what YOU want and the small circle of
people you associate want.

_
Umm,,,see above. Heck, with Sporadic Waves alone, there was never a
"small circle". Some day you may wish to think big, as in big "circles",
Davie. the big doggs are not sleeping on the porch in small circles.

It's still small potatoes. Sporadic Waves was a 3rd rate rag.

As I stated before, I am a big supporter of the
concept of freedom.


Except when it comes to others exercising
THEIR freedoms that you think should be
curbed,,such as the right to anonymity on the
internet, just for starters.


There is no good reason why someone needs
to hide.
You can't give me a good reason why
someone deserves the right to be able to hide
from others.


You aer owed no reason. This is your problem and the source of your
hostility toward anonymity. You are owed nothing when a citizen
exercises their rights under the law.

Especially when that right threatens the rights
of other people to the expectation of civil
discourse.

-
You have NO right to expect civility among anyone. It would be great in
a perfect world if that were true, but there is no law outlawing those
who are not civil. Once again, there is too much personal interpretation
here for you to claim you have a right to expect civil behavior from
everyone. That there is NO law outlawing these things you feel out be
illegal shows that I indeed am in touch with the majority of the
opinion, as if the majority felt like you, rudeness/non-civil acting
folks and anonymity would be illegal.

Certain behavior is illegal. Things which fall under disturbing the
peace, disorderly conduct, creating a public nuisance etc.


When that right conflicts with the right to
expect civility and accountability in public
places then I favor civility and accountability.

_
Once again, you have no right to expect civility by anyone, let alone
demand accountability from another.

I have as much right as everyone else.

Dave
"Sandbagger"