On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:26:33 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:25:08 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't
vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win.
As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit
and curse the darkness".

That's what the Republicans said when they sued to make sure Ralph got on
the ballot. Odd that. g

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/n...e_20040826.htm


If a third-party candidate was expected to take votes from the
Republicans you can bet that the roles would be reversed.

And they were in '92.........

The two big
parties will do whatever they think will get them the votes, even if
it means supressing a vote for a third-party candidate.

You acknowledge this, yet you tried to deny that third party
candidates had any effect on the outcome of the election.


I said nothing of the sort. I simply question how much influence they
had, and how that influence compares the the amount of voting fraud.


The only thing
this proves is that neither one of the parties have any interest in
free and open elections, which is what I have been saying all along,
and also why I don't vote for either of them.

So which is it then Frank? Do third party candidates shift votes away
from "the big 2" or not?


Not in my case. If I'm limited to those two choices (or even just one
choice) I simply won't vote for that position, and that's exactly what
I did with a couple races in this last election. But if you want to
gaze into your crystal ball and divine the intentions of other voters
then don't let me stop you.

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:20:29 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Let me make this perfectly clear: A vote for anybody
that isn't an ass or an elephant is a vote against both those parties.

One party more than the other depending on which political ideology of
the third party who manages to rise up out of the noise floor of write
in status.


And to lay blame on people who voted third-party is a pretentious
crock of ****.

To deny the influence of those third party vote syphoners is equally
ludicrous.


Yeah, that's what I meant when I said, "A vote for anybody that isn't
an ass or an elephant is a vote against both those parties." Thanks so
much for clarifying my statement.


Don't believe me? Just wait until the next election for
WA governor, when the Republicans are going to use the same bull****
excuse claiming it was the third-party candidates that stole their
victory.

No, it was clever democratic operatives who (after a few recounts)
managed to manufacture enough extra votes to swing the election their
way.

Where's your cry of voter fraud there Frank?


Where's your evidence that there was voting fraud? Your claim that the
Democrats manufactured votes?


The best part is, you knew Ralphie had a snow
balls chance in hell of being elected. Was Nader even on the ballot,
or did you have to write him in?


He was most certainly on the ballot, as were the candidates for the
Green and Libertarian parties, and a few others.

Nader was denied a place on the ballot in Pa. He didn't have enough
legitimate petitioners. Although the Libertarian candidate, Badnarick,
managed to make it....


This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't
vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win.

So you are the "anti-voter"?


......what the heck is that supposed to mean?


As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit
and curse the darkness".


There's also a saying about standing in the middle of a crowded
highway......


So you're suggesting that anyone who wants to vote for a third party
shouldn't vote at all?


Don't get me wrong, the whole principle of a democratic government
should embrace as many political candidates as they can. Third (and
4th) parties are a good thing. But in all practicality, they are alone
in a sea of red and blue.


Times change. It wasn't always this way, and it won't be this way
forever. There are people who like the status-quo and others who think
we can do better. I happen to belong to the second group.


Even if a third party candidate were to win
the office of president, they'd be opposed by both sides of congress.


That's assuming the congress is so dominated, which is not a given.


And that's really the catch 22. Many people contemplate their votes.
They may like what a 3rd party candidates says, but realizes that they
stand little chance of winning. So the question becomes, should they
vote for someone who they ideologically agree with the most, or the
candidate who somewhat agrees with you, but who has a better chance of
actually winning?


The lesser of two evils? Hey, I can't tell anyone how to vote. But
people should realize that this isn't a football game, and just
because your candidate didn't win doesn't mean you are a loser. You
cast your ballot and, barring any fraud or supression, your voice is
heard regardless of who wins the election.


Is it better to completely lose your chance to influence the direction
of this country or is it better to at least get SOME of your political
views represented?

That is the voter conundrum.


Who says that voting for a third party has no influence? It causes a
-great deal- of influence when there are a significant number of
people voting third-party, and especially when all those third-party
votes are greater than the margin of victory between the other two
parties. If it didn't have any influence then neither party would have
pushed this "don't waste your vote" bull**** propoganda when they were
afraid of losing votes to that third party. But instead of listening
to those votes and addressing their concerns, the two parties chose to
shoot down the votes by propoganda and manipulation of the media. Even
the ultra-liberal (so you so claim) Dan Rather and CBS almost -never-
mentioned Nader or any of the other third-party candidates. I guess
they aren't as liberal as you thought.

Frank Gilliland wrote:
You are what you eat. How'z your belt size going Frank?

Actually lost 35 lbs. last year.

That's good man. It's tuff to shed pounds at your/my age.

How'd you do it, not Atkins I hope.

Isn't -everything-
bigger in Texas?

They would like to think so. I keep hoping that Texas (and Florida)
will make good on their threats to secede from the Union -- it would
boost the GNP by at least 10% because we wouldn't have to clean up
their messes anymore.

So now you're a conservative?

On 08 Jan 2005 02:44:04 GMT, Steveo
wrote in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:
You are what you eat. How'z your belt size going Frank?

Actually lost 35 lbs. last year.

That's good man. It's tuff to shed pounds at your/my age.

How'd you do it, not Atkins I hope.


Heck no! I wouldn't even think about one of those fad diets. Those
methods can cause more harm than good.

Losing weight isn't hard at all. First, don't set goals or limits
cause that's just setting yourself up for failure. Just be a little
more aware of little things you can change. Like eating a little more
fish and a little less beef, snacking on peanuts instead of pringles,
using parking spaces further away from the door, etc. Little things
like that can add up to a big difference over time. And don't try to
make those changes all at once. It's kind of like a zen thing -- just
having an awareness of things you -can- change will prompt the changes
to come by themselves in their own good time.


Isn't -everything-
bigger in Texas?

They would like to think so. I keep hoping that Texas (and Florida)
will make good on their threats to secede from the Union -- it would
boost the GNP by at least 10% because we wouldn't have to clean up
their messes anymore.

So now you're a conservative?


No, I'm just a person that's really ****ed off because in six years I
can't find an ISP that can provide reliable service (iow, expect my
email to change again in the near future).

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 08 Jan 2005 02:44:04 GMT, Steveo
wrote in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:
You are what you eat. How'z your belt size going Frank?

Actually lost 35 lbs. last year.

That's good man. It's tuff to shed pounds at your/my age.

How'd you do it, not Atkins I hope.

Heck no! I wouldn't even think about one of those fad diets. Those
methods can cause more harm than good.

Losing weight isn't hard at all. First, don't set goals or limits
cause that's just setting yourself up for failure. Just be a little
more aware of little things you can change. Like eating a little more
fish and a little less beef, snacking on peanuts instead of pringles,
using parking spaces further away from the door, etc. Little things
like that can add up to a big difference over time. And don't try to
make those changes all at once. It's kind of like a zen thing -- just
having an awareness of things you -can- change will prompt the changes
to come by themselves in their own good time.

You're starting to sound like one of those info-mercials now, man. Shovel
less groceries in your face, and do stuff that gets your heart rate up.


Isn't -everything-
bigger in Texas?

They would like to think so. I keep hoping that Texas (and Florida)
will make good on their threats to secede from the Union -- it would
boost the GNP by at least 10% because we wouldn't have to clean up
their messes anymore.

So now you're a conservative?

No, I'm just a person that's really ****ed off because in six years I
can't find an ISP that can provide reliable service (iow, expect my
email to change again in the near future).

Hrm..dial-up, or broadband?

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
Steveo wrote in news:20050107184550.426
:

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
Steveo wrote in
news:20050107163242.759$g1 @newsreader.com:

Lancer wrote:
Forget it, its not worth arguing over..

You are right you put words into my mouth that i didnt say.

Huh? I was talking to Lancer.

So was i that post was directed towards him.

OIC.

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Eating is more an issue of -what- you eat instead of how much you eat.
Peanuts (and other nuts) are great because they fill you up fast and
have some food value without any cholesterol. Sugar just stimulates
the appetite and makes you want to eat more. And beef is a -very-
fattening food -- just look at where it comes from! So I do a shrimp
stir-fry a couple times a month instead of hamburgers.

It still remains calories consumed against calories spent. I'm 40 pounds
thicker from when I was 18. I eat anything I like, and I blame to 40 lbs on
slower metabolism, and delegating.

As for exercise, no need to clock your pulse at the gym -- those are
things to do when you want to get your heart and muscles into better
shape. The important thing is to expend energy that would otherwise
become luggage, which you can do just a little bit at a time without
working up a sweat. Just take advantage of the opportunities, like
walking up a flight of stairs instead of taking the elevator.....
heck, even grinding your own coffee beans would help. Any pinhole you
can poke in the inner-tube will deflate it that much faster.

Use the stairs? Heh, I walk 5 to 7 miles a day when it's not winter here.
I'll use the elevator, thank you.


Hrm..dial-up, or broadband?

Dial-up. I'm trying to stay with local companies, but they all seem to
be getting bought out by bigger outfits. They keep dropping their
rates to be competitive but the service suffers. I would be perfectly
willing to pay more for good service but they can't seem to figure
that out.

You need Usenet access with that? If not, what about that Netscape $9.95
deal I keep seeing on the boob tube?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave Hall) wrote:
The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the
distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is
heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations
were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample
of any particular transmission could not be made.

Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter.


I find it absoutely astounding this is lost upon you

That's not surprising considering you once tried to tell me (and the
group) that a 4 watt skip station 1000 miles away could potentially
walk on top of a 4 watt station a half mile away, totally disregarding
the effects of R.F. path loss.

of your recent comments self-professing an incredible amount of adept
and technical radio knowledge. Coupled with your claim concerning roger
beeps and echo on cb being illegal (they're not) merely because you were
unable to locate a rule specifically permitting their use, and it merits

There are specific rules which specifically prohibit devices used for
"entertainment" and "amusement" purposes. There is also a specific
rule which outlines permitted tone signals. A Roger Beep is not listed
under permissible tone signals. Following simple logic, since there is
no valid rule which permits a particular device, then the device
defaults to one of "amusement or entertainment" status and is
prohibited.

So therefore it can be assumed that a roger beep and (even more
definite) an echo box could be considered "entertainment" or
"amusement" devices and, as such, are specifically prohibited.

You can make the point that the FCC doesn't care enough to make a case
about these things, and I would probably agree with you. But the fact
remains that they are prohibited by the rules.

We've gone over this before Dave, your wrong.

same flaw.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in :


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave Hall) wrote:
The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the
distortion a signal may have. The only effect that "DX" may have is
heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any case, when my observations
were made, the "DX" was not running heavy enough that a clean sample
of any particular transmission could not be made.

Ummm, no Dave. DX has everything to do with DX splatter.


He's right, Dave. You can receive more than one skip signal from the
same transmission, and their phasing can cause intermodulation
distortion in any RF stage of your receiver. All that's required is
enough non-linearity in just one stage and the signals will modulate
each other. The result is what appears to be splatter but is really a
fault of the receiver. Happens all the time with cheap shortwave
radios. And DX doesn't have to be up to get a good signal -- I have
heard many clear DX signals from seemingly dead bands.

"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge"
wrote in message ...
Frank Gilliland wrote in
:

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:38:10 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:16:33 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

So you are denying that the majority of the

"big

radios" on Channel 6 are running any sort of

high power?


Apparently, that is a an argument you are having with yourself.

No, you are trying to claim that there are no illegal operators on 6,
based on your rejection to my claim that what I can hear on almost a
daily basis is in fact illegal.


I'm sure some of them are illegal, but my surity is not fact.

All of them are illegal Frank, you can't talk on the bowl barefoot unless
it is to a guy around the corner. They are using 4cx10,000's pairs of em
4cx20,0000's get a clue Dave is right the bowl is nothing but illegal
operators 99.99% of them, that is a fact and not opinion.




Trained observation skills = Tarot cards.

So I guess policemen who are trained to observe criminals are practicing
tarot card reading...LOL sure frank







Making a personal opinion that "channel 6 harbors the dregs of
society"

Yes, that part is my personal opinion.


Why is -this- your personal opinion and not fact? What happened to
your "trained observation skills"?

because it is a statement he can't prove by just listening and
observeing, but an over powered radio would be easy to spot.



Nobody suggested that illegal operators don't exist. The question is
your standard of proof, that what you claim to be illegal
transmissions are illegal IN FACT, not in your opinion or belief.\


Ill give you facts Frank, the bowl is not for the weak hearted, where is
Icecold, hey smooth G tell these seersuckers about the bowl. Everyone and
I mean all the regular talkers on the bowl are illegal operators running
super high power. want facts? how do I know? I know alot of them

Just because you say it doesn't make it so.