| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#132
January 10th 05, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:37:50 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: N3CVJ said The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the distortion a signal may have. It has everything to with it. For the amount of times you professed to having talked skip on the freeband, followed by recent denials of you talking skip, you should know that on MANY occasion, a signal can be severely wavering from an S1 to an S9 (for but one of many examples),,,when that signal is coming in at an S9, the splatter may be intense if you changed the channel and went one up or down. When that signal is coming in on a wavering S1, you will hear absolutely nothing on your next channel. Once again, the wavering is a direct result of...taa daaa....skip. Uh... Nooooo. Splatter is the result of a dirty transmitter, Bleed,,splatter,,,,you're wrong, ya' know..a dirty transmitter is but ONE example.............once again you incorrectly claimed that skip does not affect splatter, and are trying to distance yourself from your espoiused ignorance only after you have been corrected, Several educated cbers and hammies have clued you in, but as always, you aer set in your ways and you DO have the right to remain ignorant, depite several people providing you the correct information. and those products show up as a "comb" of harmonics which decrease in amplitude as you move farther away in frequency from the fundamental carrier. If the fundamental signal is +10db over S9, then those distortion products will be plainly heard if they are only 10 db or so down on an adjacent channel. You are arguing with yourself, again. Try this: Your claim of dx has nothing to do with splatter is bull****. Your claim that ony a dirty transmitter splatters,,is absoulte bull****. That same splattering station, when he fades down to an S1 signal, is now so weak, that his adjacent channel splatter products are now under the noise threshold of the receiver. THAT is why you don't hear them. This is quite simple, really....me: 100% correct..you: 100% wrong. When it comes to radio theory, you haven't been correct about a single thing. ....said the self-professed "radio Technician" who has been in radio for "over twenty years" and maintains incorrectly that roger beeps and echos are illeal on cb. 'Nuff said, Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ |
|
#133
January 10th 05, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On 07 Jan 2005 21:22:30 GMT, Steveo wrote: (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=3DA0Hall) wrote: So, you're telling me that you can't listen to a channel and pick out who the most blatant illegal operators are simply by the sound of their rigs, and by the splatter they produce? When the dx is running strong, _ Donut matter. No one can tell me my S-Line is over-driven..even on local ground wave. That said, there -are- way yonder too many splatter-masters on 11 meters. That depends on what you mean by "over-driven" Good Gawdomighty,,,,,,here comes N3CVJ to tell *you* what you meant by "over-driven". Davie applies his own definitions to words that everyone else has no problem comprehending. |
|
#134
January 10th 05, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:19:49 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:24:00 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : heavy snippage throughout That still doesn't explain why they won't release the raw exit poll data. And you fail to realize the simple fact that 'mainstream media' is predominately owned and operated by huge corporations that strongly favor the Republicans. If they slant in any direction it's going to be towards the conservatives. You obviously know little about the industry of journalism. It's a known given to all, but the most liberal people, that the mainstream media (with the exception of Fox) leans very much to the left. No, that's not a "given". In fact it's quite the opposite. Not according to some very well written accounts of these operations by people who used to work in them. Since the invention of mass media it has been manipulated by the powers that be, whether that power is the people, a government, the corporation that owns the media, or whatever. And there is a very simple and obvious proof to this: One of the first objectives of an army that invades another country is to shut down or take over the media. I would think that securing command and control centers would come first. This is because if they don't the media can be used against them by the defenders, AND the invaders can use the media to their advantage by discouraging resistance. Lies work both ways. The fact is that there has never been a better source of false information than the mass media. The only question is where that false information is coming from. Well, that depends on who controls the media. In the US the people certainly don't control the media -- it's controlled by the huge corporations that own it and the government that regulates it. THAT'S the source of any misinformation you get from the allegedly "left-biased" or "liberal" media. That's a fact! This is a perfect example of the affirmation of the consequent fallacy. You claim that since the media can been used as a source of false information, that it automatically IS. There have been several articles and books written on the subject. Dan Rather's latest embarrassing escapades should serve as a beacon of illumination to the subject. And you joined him in the hall of shame when you cited that web page with documents that were also forged. You have solid proof that those documents were forged? Maybe you used empirical observation? Careful here Frank..... You mean like the story about Kerry not receiving an honorable discharge until 2001? Exactly. It's interesting and telling that you would discard that out of hand, yet embrace other articles, which share your ideology, with no more credibility. Who says I "discarded" it? On the contrary, I proved that your accusation was not just lame, but also quite ignorant. By doing what? Citing claims from Kerry's own website? Surely you can see the slant there. I proved that sheople like you take the word of others instead of checking the facts for yourself, which you claimed you did. But if you did you would have seen that there is nothing sinister at all about Kerry's discharge. The story was nothing more than propoganda invented to discredit Kerry and you drove that car without even checking the tires. snip Hmmm.. Who watches the watchers? People who, unlike yourself, have enough ambition to verify the facts for themselves. The problem is that what you consider as "fact" is often little more than a different, but equally questionable, source. snip Frank, when are you going to realize that you "facts" are nothing more than YOUR biased opinions. Telling me that my bias is wrong based on your bias is laughable. "..........Ohio's GOP Supreme Court Chief Justice, Thomas Moyer, has refused to recuse himself, even though allegations of vote switching – where votes cast for one candidate are assigned to another in the computerized tabulation stage – involve his own re-election campaign. Why should he step down? Because someone accused him of something? Prove there is a conflict of interest or lay down. LOL! Conflict of interest is a simple concept. Are you telling me that you don't understand it? I understand that a public elected official is supposed to be able to remain impartial. To suggest otherwise is an accusation of impropriety, and without evidence to suggest the presence of impropriety, then the elected people should be allowed to do the jobs that we elect them to do. There are many cases where elected officials come across situations where there may be a conflict of interests. Should that official recuse himself every time this happens? Ohio's official recount was conducted by GOP Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, despite widespread protests that his role as co-chair of the state's Bush-Cheney campaign constituted an serious conflict of interest. Blackwell has refused to testify in the election challenge lawsuit alleging massive voter fraud, as have a number of GOP county election supervisors. Blackwell also refuses to explain why he has left more than 106,000 machine-rejected and provisional ballots entirely uncounted. Who's to say that that number of ballots are really there and that they are valid? We all know that the vote count exceeded the registered voters. Another classic case of inventing an issue and then implying a nefarious agenda when the party responsible refuses to acknowledge the bogus issue, thereby casting doubt and suspicion over his integrity. Yet another simple concept that you don't understand. Suspicion naturally falls on the person or persons who benefited from the problems. Kinda like some guy's wife is murdered right after he took out a huge insurance policy and he doesn't have an alibi. This warrants a justifiable suspicion (unless, of course, you are the guy being implicated, then you make up your own justifications). But you are automatically assuming that those "illegal" ballots were done for the benefit of Republicans. That is a poor assumption to make. The final recount tested roughly 3% of the roughly 5.7 million votes cast in the state. But contrary to the law governing the recount, many precincts tested were selected not at random, but by Blackwell's personal designation. Experts with the election challenge suit have noted many of the precincts selected were mostly free of the irregularities they are seeking to investigate, while many contested precincts were left unrecounted. And when you are determined to find a flaw, the fact that there aren't any automatically means that this was "planted"? Gee, maybe the main issue is that the allegations of fraud have been greatly overstated. In Miami County's Concord South West precinct, Blackwell certified a voter turnout of 98.55 percent, requiring that all but 10 voters in the precinct cast ballots. But a freepress.org canvas easily found 25 voters who said they did not vote. In the nearby Concord South precinct, Blackwell certified an apparently impossible voter turnout of 94.27 percent. Both Concord precincts went heavily for Bush. It's a shame that those extra votes for Kerry might have to be removed......... You assume that any extra votes mean that the were Bush plants. What if they were Kerry plants? What if you are ignoring the fact that there were more votes than voters? I'm not, but you seem to think that any fraud is automatically the fault of, and benefitted republicans. In Warren County, Bush was credited with 68,035 votes to Kerry’s 26,043 votes. But just as the county's votes were about to be counted after the polls closed on November 2, the Board of Elections claimed a Homeland Security alert authorized them to throw out all Democratic and independent observers, including the media. The vote count was thus conducted entirely by Republicans.........." Those are facts, Dave. Not left-wing propoganda, "editorial opinions" or "MY biased opinions". Facts. Yes, the overall articles are facts, but the underlying reasons and the suspicions generated or implied are the result of bias. Ok, here are the facts: First, it's statistically impossible that all the errors were accidental. It's statistically IMPROBABLE, not impossible. Second, the errors that resulted in extra votes were in predominantly Bush areas. But that does not mean that those extra votes were for Bush. It's equally likely that Kerry operatives planted extra votes in those heavy Bush areas to make the vote look more "balanced", and therefore less suspicious. Third, the errors that resulted in supressed votes were almost always in districts that favored Kerry. And those districts were run by democrats. So what does that say? Those are the facts. You are still wording the facts as to imply a conclusion which is not supported by the known evidence. Now it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to reach the conclusion that there was voting fraud perpetrated by Bush and/or his supporters. Only if you deny that "the other side" is equally capable and has a history of doing it as well. And neither do you need to be a genius to figure out who perpetrated this fraud, since many of the decisions that resulted in these errors were made by Blackwell (co-chair of Ohio's Bush/Cheney campaign -- remember "conflict of interest"?). Can you put the puzzle together yet? How much simpler can I make it for you? But it's still speculation. It's another affirmation of the consequent logical fallacy to arrive at a conclusion without considering other possibilities. Liberalism is destined to fail, as nothing positive has even come from a socialistic paradigm. I just don't want to see this country dragged through the muck to before they realize it. You are confusing liberalism with socialism. They are not the same. Far from it. If you take the line of political idealogy, and start at the middle, as you head further right, you become more conservative. At the extreme end of the "right wing", is fascism. Now take the same journey toward the liberal left, and when you reach the extreme " left wing", you have socialism and finally anarchy. Perhaps you need a refresher course in political ideologies. Here's an interesting link: http://www.oregonvos.net/~jflory/205/ide_over.htm snip First off, it was -HARDLY- a "clear republican victory". The first count was done by machine and gave Rossi a lead so slim that it triggered an -automatic- recount. That recount narrowed the lead to a few dozen votes. It would have been foolish of any opponent -not- to request a hand recount, which put Gregoire in the lead by 139 votes. Votes that were "suddenly" found...... Which were later verified and the total favored Gregoire, which begs the question: were they were lost accidently or intentionally? If they were lost intentionally I don't think the Democrats were responsible. Why not? You assume that these votes were originally lost and then found. They could have also been planted. The rules were followed and Gregoire won. Now the Republicans are whining up a storm and begging for a second election. Also, there have been allegations that King County counted unconfirmed provisional ballots. If that's true then it would be foolish for Rossi -not- to contest the election. So far he hasn't. Usually republicans are not as baby-ish when it comes to conceding a close election. ROTFLMMFAO! That's a good one, Dave! It's clear you didn't see Rossi's press conference where he begged the public to ask for a second election. It was pathetic! Now he's contesting the election -not- because of fraud, but because he says the system didn't work in his favor...... what a weiner! Your's right, I didn't see it. It doesn't sound very typical of republicans. But overall, Washington seems to be accomplishing what Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and several other states cannot: conduct an election with a transparent process. The only thing transparent are the operations of those trying to stuff the ballot box with enough extra votes to overturn an election Where did that happen, Dave? In Washington? Cite your source. It's a possibility you refuse to consider. Voter fraud has been here for many decades and has been used by both sides. And to return from your spin, how about answering the question: Are you suggesting that a 124% voter turnout is just an "editorial opinion"? I'm suggesting that you shouldn't automatically assume that the republicans were the major perpetrators in the fraud. There was two forms of fraud occurring. Fraudulent voting, and fraudulent counting. One was trying to cancel the effects of the other. snip I don't like Bush and I don't like Kerry. Which way am I slanted? To the left. That much is obvious. You're a liberal. I guess the democratic party isn't pink enough yet. So I'm liberal because I happen to be concerned about free and open elections? No, you're a liberal because you support Nader. The only people who -wouldn't- be concerned about voting fraud are facists. Are you a facist, Dave? (And notice that I didn't slap you with the label -- I have enough respect to ask first!) Are you denying that you are a liberal? And no, I'm not a fascist, simply a conservative. snip How does that proverb go..... "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today". They tried to repair the faults of the 2000 election with band-aids and it didn't work; the wound got bigger. If we don't fix it now the same problems will be bigger and more widespread in 2008, or perhaps even sooner. Why didn't they fix it in say, ohhhh, 1944? Try 1876. Whatever works for you. I just picked a date when the big "political machines" were coming of age. snip Official military records are "leftist propoganda"? Which records? Kerry's military records? Oh that 's right, he refused to release them all. You mean the records that say his other records (the records that -were- released) are all phoney? Or maybe you are referring to his medical records? The man was an officer in a war zone, so he must have had a security clearance -- should he release classified documents that are part of his military record? You are making an assumption again. You assume that this missing records have some sort of security issue. That may not be the case. They may also contain actions which might paint the good senator in a not so favorable light. Just what do you think is on those documents? Now before you stick your foot in your mouth and answer that, remember that you don't have those records and therefore have no evidence, empirical or not, as to their nature. Neither do you. But I tend to believe that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. The fact that he refused to release his FULL records, especially after Bush was forced to release his, suggests a suspicious motive. If there was a security aspect to them, then he could just say that, but he didn't. So the only clue you have as to what they are (other than the obvious, as I stated above) is purely conjecture. Ok, feel free to answer the question -- let 'er rip! The fact that they remain sealed says more. snip By what factual (not op-ed opinion) information do you base this claim? How do you determine total voter fraud? When the race is so close that voting fraud could have been the determining factor. That doesn't answer my question. How do you know that the degree of fraud this year was any greater than that in years past? How do you know it was not a factor in years past? Unless you have a time machine and can travel back to correct any occurance where it -did- make a difference, the question is moot: The same thing can be said for this past election. It doesn't matter if it was 2 months ago, or two decades ago. The issue is happening NOW and can be addressed NOW. That's a far different statement than the one where you claimed that fraud is more rampant today than ever before. A statement that you have no factual information to back up. Nor to the extent that, if left unchecked, could directly affect the government of the most powerful country in the world. Mayor Daily of Chicago certainly knew that....... I don't live in Chicago. But you do live in the U.S. Mayor Daily epitomized the democratic "machine" that exists in many large cities. The fact that most cities vote heavily democratic may have much more than voter "demographics" to attribute to it. Ok, so how does his opinion justify voting fraud in Ohio? There is no "justification", only the notion that fraud has happened before, and that the old metropolitan democratic political machines pretty much wrote the book on it. So they are hardly above reproach on this issue. Ohio is under the microscope now, for much the same reason as Florida was 4 years ago. There are 49 other states, which may have had an even greater degree of fraud than what is alleged in Ohio. But what should be plainly obvious is that the whole thrust of this Ohio fraud issue is not to correct the problems in fraud, but to give the liberals another reason to claim that Bush didn't actually WIN the election. There may be (and likely is) cases of fraud in large metro areas in states like New York and Pa., which favored the democrats. If someone were motivated to dig deep enough, it MAY be found that Bush could have won in Pa. (Which would make Ohio a moot point) as well. If identifying and solving voter fraud were the true motivational factor, then ALL states (at least the ones with close percentages) should be subjected to some scrutiny. As I said before, the percentage of victory for Kerry in Pa. was less than Bush's victory in Ohio. I stood in line for almost 3 hours to vote and I didn't find on person who was voting for Kerry, out of the people we "informally" polled (You get bored when you stand in line for that long). The breakdown of a county by county vote in Pa., shows that the vast majority of the state was red, with the exception of Philadelphia, which was radically blue (80%), Pittsburgh, and around Erie county. Is it possible that those heavily democratic places might have committed some sort of fraud as well? Indeed there were stories of some Phila machines being "loaded" with votes before the polls even opened. They explained that away as a simple "use" counter, but it was suspicious all the same. Why aren't you calling for an investigation in those places, if you are truly interested in tracking down and correcting voter fraud? You aren't suggesting that voting fraud should be ignored because it's going to occur no matter what, are you? Certainly not. I am for tightening the rules that regulate voting, including several measure which make many democrats very "uneasy". How about requiring a paper trail? I'm fully in favor of that. I also favor requiring all voters to show an I.D. which includes their voting precinct. I agree 100%. How about simply registering everyone over 18 by their SSN? And making their votes accessible after the election to see for themselves that their vote was counted (instead of lost, changed by a machine, or "enhanced" by an election worker)? I love the idea, and in fact, have suggested the exact same thing in the past. The problem is that many people are real paranoid about using their SSN for things like voting, and start thinking "big brother" thoughts. For whatever reason, people think that a national I.D. is somehow an invasion of privacy. It's the Twisty syndrome of feeling the need to hide behind some form of relative anonymity. But I don't think that voter fraud is any worse now than it had been in the past. Surely you haven't forgotten about the bus loads of illegal immigrants, the jailed felons, and the buying of votes with cartons of cigarettes in days past? The key phrase is "days past". Those problems have been addressed, have they not? I cannot make that statement. I have read stories of party workers caught with ballots leaving a prison in Pa. I doubt if these issues have been truly "addressed". It may have been covered over a bit more effectively, but I believe that they're still there. Possibly. The question is to what extent. We may never know the answer to that. The only thing we can do is reduce the chance that it can happen in the future. We have -new- problems that need to be addressed, such as a corporation that wrote the software for the voting machines and whose CEO promised to deliver the state's electoral votes to Bush; Hearsay. There's no proof that any such "promise" ever occured. Once again you didn't bother to verify the facts for yourself before spouting off your big mouth. I did a search on O'Dell's quote and got over 15,000 hits. Here's just one: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm I read it, but that still doesn't prove that O'Dell actually made that statement in the context that he would use his company's voting machines as a vehicle to that goal. It only states that the statement was made in a fund rasing letter. So are you of the opinion that CEO's should not promote any party affiliation? election officials (i.e, the Secretary of State) who is also the campaign manager for that state; the shorting of voting machines in selected precincts; etc, etc. Interesting that in those places were voting machines were "shorted", were handled by democrats. They have only themselves to blame if they were not able to accommodate their constituency. You simply -refuse- to look at the other side of the coin, don't you? Why should I? You're doing enough for both of us. It was those same Democrats that lodged the complaints! They were told a variety of different lies about how the machines were apportioned, which is one of the issues Blackwell was supposed to address in the deposition he evaded. How do you know they were lies? The fact remains that in those heavily democratic voting precincts, the distribution of voting machines was controlled by the democrats, so they have no one but themselves to blame if they short changed their constituents. So is the picture coming into focus yet? It's been for a while. You just don't see it. snip I really don't know, but his interests in the direction of this country are diametrically opposed to what a free capitalist society would want. Really? Care to elaborate? One word: Liberal. Three other words: Redistribution of wealth. That's called "collectivism", not "liberalism". It's time you learned the difference. They are related in that liberals are only lighter versions of socialists. At least as defined by today's terms. Read the link I provided, and do some searching for yourself. It's a fact that democrats are more known for increasing taxes and increasing "safety net" social programs. This in nothing more than redistribution of wealth. snip Ok, I see how this works..... the past is relevent only when it favors your argument, such as previous accounts of voting fraud. Right? No, it's only relevant when it's relevant , such as past record of voting fraud suggests that it was a problem for far longer than some of you realize. I have never read anything on this group of you defending Bush. Twisty has. If you didn't then you weren't paying attention. Then prove me wrong and provide the thread. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2?dmode=source As I suspected, that post was not made here, so how could you expect me to ever have seen it? You said, "Don't even try to tell me that you favored Bush, because that would be a lie". You jumped to a faulty conclusion based on your other faulty conclusion that I'm a liberal. Are you denying that you are a liberal? And don't squirm out of it by saying I didn't voice my support in -this- newsgroup because I did, as Twisty can attest. Since when is Twisty your new advocate? The same nitwit that you, I and others have spent the last several years alternately slamming into the logic wall, and ridiculing for the fun of it, his outrageous stances? Now he's your bastion of credibility? I would have thought better of you Frank. I'm curious if you still hold such a positive opinion of Cheney.... Brilliant man, but if I had known how crooked he was I would never have said anything in his support. (You see, I -can- have both a positive and negative opinion about the same person!) snip When have you ever spoken about politics on this newsgroup before Frank? Until this past election, this newsgroup pretty much stayed the course on radio related issues. Yeah, right. And I've been on Usenet a lot longer than I've been in this newsgroup. If you make a post in another of several thousand other newsgroups, how can you in all fairness expect the people HERE to know about it? Very good point. And with that truth in mind, how can you "in all fairness" say that I lied when I claimed to have supported Bush in the past? Because, I would have thought you understood that we are talking within THIS venue. No one should be expected to know what goes on outside of this group. You jumped to your conclusion without all the facts. Ok, then I'll modify my original statement to limit it to this newsgroup only. And the facts were available on google if you had the inclination to verify the facts before you framed your indictment. But that's just not your style, Dave -- after all, you already know the truth -despite- the facts, right? You made the point, you provide the evidence. I don't have the time to sift through every post you made looking for references to GWB. Maybe you think we keep tabs on each other? Maybe I'm the odd-ball in that respect, as I don't. The difference is that I, unlike you, don't make claims or accusations unless I have the facts to back them up. Most of which you have yet to show. snip I defended Kerry against your bull**** propoganda. The truth remains that Kerry refused to release ALL of his military records. What's he hiding? You claimed he didn't get his honorable discharge until 2001 which was a totally fabricated lie. And you can't even admit it. So now you focus on records he didn't release without a shred of evidence that they hold anything of importance to you. What was that you said earlier about suspicion and political bias.....? I read about his honorable discharge. That was only one element of a number of suspicious activities that Kerry was involved in during and post Vietnam which may have served to undermine this country's efforts in the war, including two trips to France, to meet with the N. Vietnamese representatives, in a capacity not authorized by our government. And BTW, if you don't know who the Vulcan's are then you are -WAY- out of touch with current political issues. Really? Then would you be so kind as to provide something that tells me who there mysterious "Vulcans" are? Maybe you shouldn't even be having this conversation with me -- but what the hell, a little ignorance never stopped you before, right? It hasn't stopped you. It's so much easier for you to comprehend if you tell yourself that I voted for Kerry and that I'm a sore loser, isn't it? Well, as usual, you're wrong. I voted for Nader. But you defended Kerry as if you were married to him. I defended Communism in a debate in high-school. A skilled debater can take either side in a debate and make valid points. But this isn't a debate for the sake of debate style points. This is a debate driven by personal feelings. Maybe for you. My motivation happens to be preservation of the concept of a democratic system of government. By undermining our efforts to wage war on the very people who threaten those concepts? I also suspect that you are probably a lot more open to certain communist ideals. Most liberals are. Again with the labels..... And you haven't yet denied them. FYI, this country has adopted ideals from just about every political process ever conceived, including Marxism, communisim, socialism and fascism. Some are good and some are bad. No ****. No one system is "pure". There'e theory and there's practice. Communism, in theory, is a "utopian" or perfect society. When put in practice, it fails miserably. But as I tried to explain to you a while back, the Republican ideal is not such a great concept in it's pure form -- it's a totalitarian-style government where manipulation is the rule and freedom is an illusion. By what piece of glowing wisdom did you glean that glaringly ill-informed opinion? You mean the official military records (in your words, "crap") that were released by the Pentagon? Why yes, that's exactly where I got my facts. Yet you, in your unbridled wisdom, want the Pentagon to release more "crap" when you can't even accept the facts from the "crap" that was already released (from the same source). If the first load of "crap" was phoney, what makes you think a second load of "crap" is going to be any more legitimate? Or if you think that second load of "crap" is going to provide you with facts then why can't you accept the facts from the first load of "crap"? That's a load of crap, Dave, and you are a very confused person. Without the entire record, the context of what is available is compromised, and erroneous conclusions could be made. snip Have you ever thought for one moment that there may be people that actually care about fundamental issues such as voting rights? Or is that dish too liberal for your table? Are you so idealistic that you can't understand what drives political agendas? If there is not something to be gained strategically, then it doesn't happen. If it was indeed a few "independents" who initiated this action, I would bet a year's salary that they were "funded" through the back door by the DNC or one of their "loose associates" Like the term "follow the money", look to see who stands to benefit the most, and that's where you will find the real source of this latest voter fraud cry. Are you so pessimistic that you see the political process as nothing but a disingenuous quest for power? That pretty much describes the political machines of today. When a political party is willing to stand by and do nothing to help the economy, and also wish for continued recession as a means to gain political clout, it shows where their priorities are. That every act is motivated by a self-serving political agenda? If so then you don't know people half as well as you think you do. Cynicism is alive and well in politics. That's a fact FYI, there are quite a few people in the political arena that actually serve the interests of the public and not their wallets. Name them. And I'm not talking about small town supervisors or someone of a school board. I'm talking about the big time. In almost every case, when a government representative does something seemingly altruistic, there is an underlying political motivation for it. Finding it, is the key to understanding what greases the machine. Maybe -you- need to be a little more idealistic. What, and blind myself to reality? snip My political "slant" is towards the Constitution. That's my political party, that's my religion, and that's my first concern whenever I step into the voting booth. The Republicans may represent -your- interests (whatever they may be, and I don't think I want to know), but -my- interest happens to be preserving a democratic form of government. By voting for a liberal who's core ideals contain the notion that the government should assume a greater role as society's "nanny"? The 'liberal' label was assigned by you, not me. Which you STILL have not denied. If you're such a student of the constitution, you should know that the government was never intended to do anything more than protect , facilitate and represent our interests in the world market. Oh my dear God..... where in the hell did you get your education? That response deserves it's own thread. What so I can prove you wrong yet again? I'm tiring of this Frank. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#135
January 10th 05, 04:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 09:27:09 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: And until Dave can provide an example where one of the allegedly illegal operators he allegedly heard was found guilty, got an NAL, or even admitted his guilt publically, then his allegations are nothing more than his opinions, not facts. So you are of the Twisted notion that a person is not breaking the law until they are caught? Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#136
January 10th 05, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: "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. No, it doesn't. Dx is simply an enhancement of the atmosphere which allows a signal to propagate farther then normal line of sight. It does not add "splatter" to an otherwise clean signal. 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. I have referenced two part 95 rules which address both the issue of permissible non-voice transmissions and also prohibited transmissions which include devices which are used for entertainment and amusement. Conversely there are no rules which specifically allow either a roger beep (and other noise makers) or echo boxes. Since neither are defined under permissible non-voice transmissions, it can reasonably be concluded that these devices would be considered amusement or entertainment devices, and as such prohibited. You tell me I'm wrong, then please prove it by providing the rules which allow these devices. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#137
January 10th 05, 04:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:36:36 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: 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. No dice Frank. The effect you have described is commonly referred to as "multipath". The differences in phase angles of the received signals can cause either an addition to or a subtraction from the fundamental signal. But it does not cause it to splatter. A special form of this is called "selective fading" which can cause different parts of the signal to fade differently, which can distort the audio. But this is not "splatter, and will not make the signal "bleed" more. Heck the HF ham bands are almost always utilizing skywave propagation. If what you say were true, then the ham bands would be virtually unusable due to all the signals splattering across the band. With the exception of a few bad apples running some illegal equipment, this is normally not a problem. All that's required is enough non-linearity in just one stage and the signals will modulate each other. I have never seen this happen in any of the quality receivers I've owned over the years. Unless the signal is in motion (doppler effect) the frequency will remain the same even if the phase shifts. Since all the multipath signal frequencies are the same, there will be no mixing products generated. If that were the case, then any group of signals, local or skip, would do the same thing. That's not something that you'd want in a good receiver. But you can't pin the faults of a bad receiver design on atmospheric phenomenon. This is almost as hokey as saying that a certain antenna will make you sound "louder". Propagation, like antennas, are passive. It only radiates or re-radiates a signal. It does not modify it . If a signal is clean, then the propagation will propagate it as such. The result is what appears to be splatter but is really a fault of the receiver. Happens all the time with cheap shortwave radios. Ah! But why do you assume that I have a "cheap shortwave radio"? What happens when you put a low noise GasFET preamp behind a bandpass filter and then into a spectrum analyzer? Surely you know what splatter looks like on a spectral display? And DX doesn't have to be up to get a good signal -- I have heard many clear DX signals from seemingly dead bands. A clear, and stable DX condition will not distort a radio signal. A station which is backswinging wildly, with fuzzy distorted audio, and splattering 3 channels in each direction, is running illegally, regardless of the fact that the FCC hasn't yet cited them for it. Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
#138
January 10th 05, 05:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: "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. The only thing DX has to do with DX splatter is that if "DX" isn't running you wouldn't hear it. Splatter or out of bounds emissions are those falling outside the normal bandwidth of a signal and are the result of modulation. DX doesn't cause splatter it allows it to propgate farther. |
|
#139
January 10th 05, 05:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... 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. Amen! I lost almost 40 pounds by doing the same. Drinking lots of water and also breathing exercises! Using your diaphragm properly causes your digestion process to work more efficiently. Chad |
|
#140
January 10th 05, 06:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:40:30 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote: From: (DaveÂ*Hall) On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:37:50 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: N3CVJ said The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of splatter and the distortion a signal may have. It has everything to with it. For the amount of times you professed to having talked skip on the freeband, followed by recent denials of you talking skip, you should know that on MANY occasion, a signal can be severely wavering from an S1 to an S9 (for but one of many examples),,,when that signal is coming in at an S9, the splatter may be intense if you changed the channel and went one up or down. When that signal is coming in on a wavering S1, you will hear absolutely nothing on your next channel. Once again, the wavering is a direct result of...taa daaa....skip. You may not hear anything on the next channel because the signal may not be strong enough or because of "selective fading" . Splatter is caused by the modulation, it may or may not be intensified by skip. But it is not caused by "skip" If you had a constant carrier(no modulation), skip or not, you wouldn't have splatter. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
| Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
| Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
| Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
| How to improve reception | Equipment | |||
Linear Mode
