On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:50:05 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

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".


a.k.a, "fading".


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.


No it doesn't, and that's not what I said. I said that a non-linear
stage in the receiver can turn that fading into what appears to be
splatter. If you want an example I have a couple cheap shortwave
radios that do exactly that; you pay for shipping and you can examine
them all you want.

"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge"
wrote in message ...
Dave Hall wrote in
:

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.

Yeah. So what? But was I LOUD?

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:16:34 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

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?


Hardly. What I am saying is that conviction requires proof, not
opinion.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:44:12 -0600, "Chad Wahls"
wrote in :


"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


I gotta try that. Thanks!

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:14:33 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
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.


So some people were slanted one way when they were working and slanted
the other way when they quit. How credible is that?

Check this out: In the past 20 years, millions have died in African
wars and the media barely mentioned it. Yet during the same time
period the media covered just about every little fistfight in the West
Band and Gaza. Which way is -that- slanted, Dave?


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.


Didn't I say, "ONE of the first objectives [plural]....."?


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.


Now you're catching on.


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.


Wrong. The proof is in the pudding. The media has intentionally spread
misinformation to the public in the past, and there's no reason to
think that they have stopped and won't do it again.


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.....


I used the same criteria that was used to condemn the CBS documents.
You can't invalidate one without invalidating both.


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.


Those were official military records, not "claims". The only slant was
in a story intended to misinform people who where either uneducated
about military records, too lazy to read the records for themselves,
or too willing to accept the story without scrutiny. So which category
did you trip into, Dave?


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.


You are still unable to differentiate fact from an opinion......

A 'fact' is undisputed and/or undisputable. For example, the validity
of Kerry's military records is undisputed. But an 'opinion' can, and
usually is, disputed. Staying with the same example, it is someone's
opinion that Kerry did not receive an honorable discharge until 2001.
So the validity of the opinion is measured by weighing it against the
facts. The facts are that Kerry's military service was characterized
as honorable, and that he did indeed receive an "Honorable Discharge
Certificate" upon completion of his military obligation in 1978. So
the opinion is in contradiction to the facts and is therefore bogus.

Now if you are going to dispute the source of the documents then you
are either accusing the Pentagon of forgery or accusing the military
of inappropriate conduct. Regardless, the allegation requires that the
documents be both true and false at the same time. For example, if the
DD-215 of 2001 was indeed Kerry's final discharge as claimed by your
opinion, then the document must be false because it contains no such
statement. And if the document is false then the claim that it marks
the date of his final discharge is no longer valid. So -that- opinion
is bogus.

Is the fog beginning to clear yet?


snip
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?


That's the generally accepted practice, and it's also the law in most
states. It's done all the time in the courts. Judges often recuse
themselves from a case because of some personal or business
relationship with one of the parties. It's done to -prevent- any
allegations of partiality. In Ohio there was a judge who refused to
recuse himself from the contest hearings despite the fact that his own
election could have been affected by his decision. That's a conflict
of interests, and no doubt that decision will affect his career in the
future.

Also, there -is- evidence of impropriety in the Ohio election, as well
as the recount and the contest.


snip
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.


Not when the vast majority of those illegal ballots DID benefit the
Republicans.


snip
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.


Not automatically. The fact is that the vast majority of the illegal
ballots favored the Republicans. If you think that Democrats committed
voting fraud in order to benefit the Republican candidates then that's
your problem.


snip
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.


Statistical probability sometimes reaches a point so low that it can
safely be assumed to be an impossibility. Such is the case with the
Ohio election statistics.


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.


The recount was requested to determine if that was a possibility, but
Blackwell didn't allow recount sampling in any suspected areas. Hence
the contest.


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?


Wrong. Most of them were run by Republicans. Regardless, the statewide
election was run by Blackwell. It was his office that controlled the
tabulation and certified the impossible results. "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.


The facts imply their own conclusion. If you think you can word them
in a way that is any more objective then go for it. Otherwise, your
opinions don't negate the facts.


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.


Nobody is denying anything of the sort, and such a denial isn't
required to reach the conclusion. But you -could- say that the
Republicans were more effective at rigging the Ohio election than the
Democrats and I wouldn't have any problem with that.


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.


First, you need to brush up on your logic. Second, it's a reasonable
conclusion based on factual premeses. Third, if you reach a conclusion
based on improbable scenarios (such as a conspiricy to cover up
Kerry's military record) then the conclusion is, likewise, just as
improbable. So have you spotted any UFOs lately?


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


Interesting, yes. It's also interesting how Rokeach's quantification
of political ideology (assuming it can be done) differs from your own.
At this point it's clear that you are quite confused and are seeking
simplistic explanations for complex issues. There is no "line" or
chart you can draw to describe a political ideology. Go to the library
and check out the vast amount of material on politics. Then look in
the history section and try to count all the different kinds of
governments that have existed since the beginning of recorded history.
Yet you think you can sum it all up with something as simple as a
line?

The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that the
liberal wants things to change and the conservative wants things to
stay the same. I don't know how you came up with your extrapolations
to socialism, anarchy and facism, but I can make a guess that it
probably -didn't- come from a source of any authority or education.

The fact is that the government incorporates many aspects of just
about every political ideology. For example, our medical and
educational systems are partially socialized; the infrastructure is
run under a mostly collectivistic system; the military works best
under fascism; etc, etc.

So for you to sit there and slap everyone with your simplistic labels
does nothing but demonstrate your ignorance.


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.


I don't think so. The press contacted some of the people whose ballots
were lost, people who voted for both parties, and they were all quite
****ed off. And I doubt that you heard enough of the facts surrounding
the incident to reach that conclusion. But if you prefer to believe
the less likely scenario that the votes were planted then that's your
right:

"You have the constitutional right to be stupid." -- Gov. Ventura


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.


It sounds typical of any Democrat -or- Republican that can't accept
defeat. They are now all over the TV begging the public to initiate a
revote. Check this out: www.revotewa.com The reason for it is bogus:
If there election was flawed then the fault was with the system; so
until those faults are corrected there can be no valid revote. The
petition is nothing more than an request to hold another flawed
election in hopes that the result will favor Rossi.

But I do agree with the private contest that the results are invalid
because they are within the margin of error. If that holds up in court
then the legislature should hold an emergency session to establish
some uniform ballot rules and -then- hold a second election.


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.


You didn't answer the question, Dave. Let's try it again: Were ballot
boxes stuffed in Washington?

And yes, I most certainly do consider the possibility that voter fraud
occurs -- where have you been for this entire conversation?


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.


I don't -automatically assume- any such thing. I came to that
conclusion because the voting statistics demonstrate a very high
probability that the extra votes favor Bush.

And you -still- didn't answer the question: Do you think 124% voter
turnout is just an "editorial opinion"?


There was two forms of fraud occurring. Fraudulent voting, and
fraudulent counting.


Agreed.


One was trying to cancel the effects of the
other.


Cite your source.


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.


I support Nader and every other third-party candidate, be they
liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, or from any other
ideology (with the exception of Lyndon LaRouche, for obvious reasons).
But I -don't- support the two-party cartel that currently exists in
our government.


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?


I'm not a liberal -- I'm an American.


And no, I'm not a fascist,
simply a conservative.


Thanks for the clarification. From now on I will use the label you
have placed upon yourself.


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.


Try 1876.


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.


And you assume that they have some sort of sinister information that
could implicate him as a communist spy or something worse. What's the
difference between the two assumptions? One is reasonable, the other
is paranoid fantasy.


That may not be the case.
They may also contain actions which might paint the good senator in a
not so favorable light.


NASA may be withholding photos that show alien habitation on Mars, the
CIA may have flying saucers in Area 51, and George H. W. Bush may be a
hermaphrodite. All three allegations have some foundation in fact:
NASA withheld some photos from Mars probes, UFOs have been seen at
Area 51, and Bush Sr. giggles like a girl. So what foundation do you
have for -your- allegation?


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


......uh oh


that if you have nothing to
hide, you have nothing to fear.


Then post your SSN to this newsgroup.


The fact that he refused to release
his FULL records, especially after Bush was forced to release his,


Cite your source that says; a) Bush released -all- his records, and b)
he was -forced- to release all his records.


suggests a suspicious motive. If there was a security aspect to them,
then he could just say that, but he didn't.


People lie, right? If there was something sinister in those records he
could have simply said that the subject matter was a security risk, or
that they were medical records. You still haven't provided any reason
to believe that those records were in any way incriminating.


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.


The fact that they remain sealed says nothing more than that they
remain sealed. You don't know what's in those records any more than I
do. Yet you choose to speculate that they contain some damning and
incriminating information. On what do you base your speculation, Dave?
Your own "belief"? Are you a proponent of "faith-based justice"? So if
someone goes to court for a crime, the burden of proof no longer rests
with the prosecution? Proof of guilt is decided by a jury based only
on the allegation and the silence of the defendant? Guilty until
proven innocent? Have you never heard of the 5th Amendment? Or is that
another one of those "liberal" concepts that leaves a bad taste in
your mouth?

I'll ask this again, Dave: Are you a fascist?


snip
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.


Well, yes it does because the issue is still fresh and the direct
results can still be rectified if needed.


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.


You got me there, Dave. Now, how about providing some facts to back up
-your- accusations and speculations? If you can't then I would expect
you to do as I did and concede any such issue you can't back up with
facts. Can you do that?


snip
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,


A fact I never denied.


and that the old metropolitan democratic political machines
pretty much wrote the book on it. So they are hardly above reproach on
this issue.


Voting fraud has been around a lot longer than the Democratic party,
Dave. In fact, it's been around almost as long as elections!


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.


What it will do is push for uniform voting standards, laws prohibiting
conflict of interests for voting officials, better accountability for
tabulation errors, etc, etc. IOW, a more fair and equitable election
system that's less suseptible to fraud. Is that such a bad thing? Or
is it just a bad thing when the candidate you voted for might be
implicated?


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.


The only problem with that scenario is that the state's voting records
have already been examined and indicate nothing on the scale that's
found in Ohio. It's true that many people are trying to make this a
Bush/Kerry issue, but I'm not. You can keep claiming I am, but like I
said before, claims don't suddenly become true just because you repeat
them enough times.


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.


Who said they -weren't- subjected to scrutiny? They were. You can bet
that analysts have crunched the numbers from -all- the states if for
no other reason than to work the demographics for the next election.


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).


So you have your own version of an "exit poll". Congratulations. So
why should I accept -your- exit poll data as fact and ignore the
official exit poll data that CNN refuses to release? Oh, that's right,
you have some sort of sixth sense regarding the truth, huh?


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?


http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/969

The reason you hear most about Ohio (but not from the "liberal" media)
is because most Bush supporters are content with the results of the
election, fraud or not. Does that make sense to you?


snip
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.


Excellent! We have found some common ground!


The problem


......oh no


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.


I'll buy that. If people want to stand up and be counted they
shouldn't be afraid to stand up and be counted.


snip
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.


Again, we find common ground.


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?


As if he would publically state, "I intend to manipulate the
tabulation of votes with software so it favors Bush". Revisit
"conflict of interest". The machines and software should be available
for inspection, but the judge (the one who refused to recuse himself)
would not allow it.


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.


I'm trying, but you only seem to be reading from one side of your
monitor.


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.


Wrong:

http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/917

That's just one example. There were plenty more. Are you ever going to
read these articles? Or would you rather make me post them one by one
as you continue to make inaccurate statements?


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.


I read the link and responed appropriately. I invoke that same
response here.


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.


Many of those "safety net" social programs are not only necessary, but
designed to prevent more costly problems in the future. Such as AIDS,
smoking, and other health information campaigns designed to take the
burden away from Social Security and other medical programs that end
up flipping the bill.

And you seem somewhat biased in your accusations: After all, it was
Clinton who instituted some overdue welfare changes such as work
initiative programs. OTOH, Bush is responsible for that drug discount
card fiasco which is basically just government subsidation of drug
companies at the expense of the elderly, while at the same time he has
cut vet benefits to the point where they are almost nonexistent. So if
there's any redistribution of wealth being done it's done by both
sides. Which side you favor depends on who gets the wealth -- you, or
someone who needs it.


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.


Here's one. There are plenty mo

http://tinyurl.com/4c37f


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?


Bad spin, Dave. You will begin to heal only after you learn to admit
your mistakes.


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.


Common cause. I still don't agree with his position regarding illegal
radio, but we have agreed to suspend those disagreements pending a
resolution to a much more immediate and important issue: Bush and the
Vulcans.


snip
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.


But I -did- voice my support of Bush in this venue, as I cited in the
link above. Are you now going to try and escape your error by saying
the post wasn't directed at you, or that you were on vacation, or some
other lame excuse? You didn't check your facts before you ran your
mouth. That's -your- fault, Dave. Not mine.


You jumped to your conclusion without all the facts.

Ok, then I'll modify my original statement to limit it to this
newsgroup only.


You screwed up, you can't admit it, and you can't vindicate yourself
by pulling an ex-post-facto excuse.


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.


Yeah, it's just too much effort to find the facts. Your "belief"
system is so much easier, isn't it, Dave?


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.


Most of which you have yet to verify for yourself and accept that they
are in contradiction with your beliefs.


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.


One step at a time: Is it your opinion that the available records are
phoney? If not, is there something in those records that makes you
think he did not receive an honorable discharge in 1978 as opposed to
2001 as you first claimed? A better question might be if you actually
read the documents yourself, but that would be silly..... you wouldn't
make such damning accusations without first verifying the facts for
yourself, would you Dave?

Once we clear -that- up we can move on to your next accusation, which
would be his "suspicious activities" after the war, and then his visit
with NV officials.

But first things first. Honorable discharge in 1978: yes or no?


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?


http://tinyurl.com/6mf8m


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.


No it hasn't -- your ignorance is what fuels this conversation.


snip
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?


Saddam didn't pose any real threat to our country or democratic
process -- both would have survived despite any efforts by him. OTOH,
Bush & Co. are a very -real- threat to the democratic process for a
number of reasons, not the least of which is the level and scope of
voting fraud that has been uncovered in this past election.


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.


But I have. You weren't listening. You were too busy tending to your
"beliefs".


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 snipped the source from your reply.


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.


http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...om_Reserve.pdf

Notice the header:

"Encl: (1) Honorable Discharge Certificate"

Is that compromised? Is it an "erroneous conclusion"? How much
"context" do you need?


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 can be said for both parties, and in that respect I agree with it
completely. But I wouldn't apply it to everyone in the political
arena, nor would I apply it to all Republicans or all Democrats.
People are people. Some are good, some are bad. Just because a person
may be a Democrat, a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, that
doesn't automatically render judgement on that person.


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


Cynicism most definitely has -you- by the balls.


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.


Off the top of my head? Colin Powell. Bill Frist. Bob Dole. John
McCain. Need more names?


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.


There is some truth in that statement, but it's certainly not a rule
of thumb. Your implication is that politicians cannot have honorable
intentions. But many do. Some of them lose those intentions after
getting caught in the quagmire, but some don't. Some appear to have
alternative intentions but are forced to "deal with the devil" on
occasion (which I think may be the rule in politics regardless of
intent). But they are still people and there are many good people in
this world. Maybe you have lost sight of that.


Maybe -you- need to be a little more idealistic.

What, and blind myself to reality?


Contrary to the opinion of some, you -can- have ideals and be
realistic at the same time. You just have to keep yourself balanced.


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.


Oh, that's right -- you're a member of that "guilty until proven
innocent" jury.


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.


I'm not. Maybe your fatigue is your unconscious anxieties telling you
that you should back off before you are forced to admit to yourself
certain truths you have denied. In that case I would suggest you take
a sabbatical to refresh yourself and assimilate what I have taught you
in this discussion.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

Ah, that explains everything. So when a normal channel
has maybe 5 to 10 operators, add another 100 because of
skip conditions, of course there will be some running
clipped & mod radio's, you don't think that enhances
the splatter?



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.

If I showed you CB radio's being sold BRAND NEW
with roger beeps, will that do?


Dave
"Sandbagger"

Landshark


--
Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder?
Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder.
I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.''
This game that we animals play is a winner.

"Lancer" wrote in message
...
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.

Probably, but if you have a 100 radio's and a third of
them are running their modulation clipped, then you
will hear it even worse, correct?


Splatter or out of bounds emissions are those falling outside the
normal bandwidth of a signal and are the result of modulation.


Correct

DX doesn't cause splatter it allows it to propgate farther.

Correct. When you have a lot more radio's trying to talk
on one freq, don't you think that it will now increase your
adjacent channel splatter?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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"

Nope. They are not guilty of breaking any law until
a jury of their peers find them guilty with the evidence
given them through the judicial process. Not because
someone says "because they are on that channel,
they must be breaking the law".

Landshark


--
Some of them are living an illusion
Bounded by the darkness of their minds,
In their eyes it's nation against nation,
With racial pride, sad hearts they hide,
Thinking only of themselves,
They shun the light,
They think they're right
Living in the empty shells.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:00:52 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

I stated that there are illegal stations on

channel 6 based on my own empirical

observations.


No. That is what you added and REstated after your first claim was
proved bull****.

Twist claimed that my statement is "bull****".


And you proved it.

So if my statement that there are illegal

operators on channel 6 is invalid,


That was not your claim, although you are very desperate to try and sell
it that way.
Your claim, whcih you continue to snip, was that all the "evidence" you
needed was the reputation of channel as the "dregs of the society" to
know they are illegal. Move on, Dave. Your beck-pedal failed.

As usual, your penchant for misunderstanding the written word is
glaringly apparent.

So eat your crow in peace.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On 10 Jan 2005 12:31:46 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On 07 Jan 2005 21:39:52 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
Someone who didn't take crap from idiots? Yea, I'm guilty.

I used to like dropping a KW on them with my mark IV. Now it's not
worth the electricity.

Browning MK IV? Nice rig, although many people claimed that they had
"problems". From what I remember, it was only the first production run
that had the problems.

Yea, I've heard the same thing..mine's never given me any real trouble,
I've had it moth balled for a while now tho.

It's a real collector's piece. A monument to a time long gone.


You know the people for whom I speak of. Maybe you could tell twist,
since he obviously doesn't seem to believe me.

If you're talking about the super bowl (6), I doubt one could do much
communicating on there without at least a KW..a lesson in Ebonics wouldn't
hurt either. g

Yea, that pretty much covers it. It's a shame that the desire to prove
me wrong at all costs, drives certain people to deny the obvious.


BTW, I agree, tweaking idiots used to be fun "back then". But today,
it's hardly worth the time.

Yep, about the only time I use AM anymore is on a trip, ch 19 still comes
in handy for traffic reports.

I prefer the "quiet" of SSB, but for some reason, the people around
here don't take advantage of it. They all run around with modified ham
rigs or "10 meter rigs" and yet stick to an AM channel. Heck a good
Cobra 29 would work just as well, and cost a lot less.....


Sometimes it's more fun tweaking the idiots here........

There's one I'd like to tweak in person..too bad he's too gutless to
stand up for himself in person. There will come a day when he won't
have any choice.

Steve, He's not worth your attention. Like some others on here, the
more you spar with him, the more he comes back for more.

Dave
"Sandbagger"