"Steveo" wrote in message
...

I looks right now. Your last post was way off so it was sorted out of
place
over here. No biggie.

Newsreaders tend to sort by the time the message was typed rather than
posting time as given by the NNTP server.
Generally, I go through posts just before sending them. That time I did not
post them immediately, so it showed a difference between the creation and
posting time stamps.

I suppose we could start a debate on which time stamp news readers should
sort by :~)


Regards,

Peter
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/

"Peter" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...

I looks right now. Your last post was way off so it was sorted out of
place
over here. No biggie.

Newsreaders tend to sort by the time the message was typed rather than
posting time as given by the NNTP server.
Generally, I go through posts just before sending them. That time I did
not post them immediately, so it showed a difference between the creation
and posting time stamps.

Ah, it may have something to do with using your noose reader offline.

I suppose we could start a debate on which time stamp news readers should
sort by :~)

That might be like coax length.

"DR. Death" wrote in message
...

I did not suggest in my post that you were on ANY side.


If you agree that I am not taking any sides, why argue the validity of such
views? Why did you only feel it necessary to argue against one side,
without consideration that I mentioned all sides?
I don't see any "keyclowns" whining about my mention of the pro-legal
issues.

The OP never asked what the law said, they referred to the arguments here
and the "gay" posts... my post was a reply to that issue, not some attempt
to argue against pro-legal or keyclown beliefs.
However, if you feel offended in some way, I suspect you may belong to the
other group - those who never grew up and still act like children with "gay"
remarks.
Such people are only using the "pro-legal" label as a cover for the fact
that they are trolls. They don't really care about those issues, they just
like filling the group with angry posts. They make the term "legal CB" seem
like a dirty word, as if anyone who is pro-legal has to be a ****.
If they felt that it would get more arguments going, they would happily take
the "keyclown" label and argue that side.

The problem is that some people continue to be baited by those trolls, when
killfiling them would be the best option.


"Peter" wrote in message
...

That being said, there are some on this group who are pro-legal, some
who are against laws restricting freedom of communications, and others
who walk the line between - believing that the law is often an ass, and
may not always be technically correct.

This is the part in which you make reference to "freedom of
communication".
If you can show me where in the constitution that mentions C.B. radio

Could you show me where I refer to "the constitution"? I didn't think so, I
refererred to some people believing in such freedoms.

I decided to humour you, and look up the words in my English dictionary and
there is no mention of the constitution or court actions... what a surprise.
So, I did a Google search on "frredom of communications"...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...tnG=Goog le+S
earch
Great list of sites, but no links to the constitution... nothing to suggest
that the term is defined by the constitution or an American court.

So I decided to look up the constitution...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ion.table.html
Maybe you could show me the part which refers to freedom of communications,
or defines English language. While you are at it, maybe you can show the
part which says that people cannot believe that some things should be
different... maybe a court case showing that you are a criminal just for
having a different idea of what is right.
If so, someone had better arrest Arnie and his supporters for holding
beliefs contrary to Article 2...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...articleii.html

Can you show how that constitition applies to me? Remember, this is
"rec.radio.cb"... not "usa.radio.cb".
Maybe you think that anything not labeled as belonging to a specific nation
automatically belongs to America. Is this not how many criminals think, if
it is not clearly marked as belonging to someone, you can freely take it and
call it yours?


Peter.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:47:07 -0000, "Peter"
wrote in 41a199d1.0@entanet:

"DR. Death" wrote in message
...

I did not suggest in my post that you were on ANY side.


If you agree that I am not taking any sides, why argue the validity of such
views? Why did you only feel it necessary to argue against one side,
without consideration that I mentioned all sides?
I don't see any "keyclowns" whining about my mention of the pro-legal
issues.

The OP never asked what the law said, they referred to the arguments here
and the "gay" posts... my post was a reply to that issue, not some attempt
to argue against pro-legal or keyclown beliefs.
However, if you feel offended in some way, I suspect you may belong to the
other group - those who never grew up and still act like children with "gay"
remarks.
Such people are only using the "pro-legal" label as a cover for the fact
that they are trolls. They don't really care about those issues, they just
like filling the group with angry posts. They make the term "legal CB" seem
like a dirty word, as if anyone who is pro-legal has to be a ****.
If they felt that it would get more arguments going, they would happily take
the "keyclown" label and argue that side.

The problem is that some people continue to be baited by those trolls, when
killfiling them would be the best option.


Agreed.


"Peter" wrote in message
...

That being said, there are some on this group who are pro-legal, some
who are against laws restricting freedom of communications, and others
who walk the line between - believing that the law is often an ass, and
may not always be technically correct.

This is the part in which you make reference to "freedom of
communication".
If you can show me where in the constitution that mentions C.B. radio

Could you show me where I refer to "the constitution"? I didn't think so, I
refererred to some people believing in such freedoms.

I decided to humour you, and look up the words in my English dictionary and
there is no mention of the constitution or court actions... what a surprise.
So, I did a Google search on "frredom of communications"...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...tnG=Goog le+S
earch
Great list of sites, but no links to the constitution... nothing to suggest
that the term is defined by the constitution or an American court.

So I decided to look up the constitution...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ion.table.html
Maybe you could show me the part which refers to freedom of communications,
or defines English language. While you are at it, maybe you can show the
part which says that people cannot believe that some things should be
different... maybe a court case showing that you are a criminal just for
having a different idea of what is right.


How about a case from the US Supreme Court?

"Freedom of the press may protect criticism and agitation for
modification or repeal of laws, but it does not extend to protection
of him who counsels and encourages the violation of the law as it
exists. The Constitution was adopted to preserve our Government, not
to serve as a protecting screen for those who while claiming its
privileges seek to destroy it."


If so, someone had better arrest Arnie and his supporters for holding
beliefs contrary to Article 2...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...articleii.html


What does the executive branch have to do with this discussion?


Can you show how that constitition applies to me? Remember, this is
"rec.radio.cb"... not "usa.radio.cb".


The philosophies between our countries are not so very different, and
neither are the laws.


Maybe you think that anything not labeled as belonging to a specific nation
automatically belongs to America. Is this not how many criminals think, if
it is not clearly marked as belonging to someone, you can freely take it and
call it yours?


Despite the fact that the vast majority of users on this newsgroup are
in the US, who (besides yourself) has suggested that this newsgroup is
-limited- to the US?






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---