From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)

The Fcc requires no jury of peers. reart 95


Tell that to N3CVJ and his buddy N8WWM. Davie lobbies hard telling the
world that just because the FCC told the world N8WWM was jamming
repeaters, it's not evidence of guilt.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:04:06 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:

"Landshark" wrote in news:y0IEd.10181$5R.3047
:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
m...
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?


Sure throwing modded and clipped radios on top of each other sure does
add to the splatter. Big Time, but skip has nothing to do with it, he was
splattering because his radio puts out a dirty signal. Skip has nothing
to do with what comes out the ass end of a radio/amp.



Correct!

"Lancer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:56:21 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:29:28 GMT, Lancer wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:40:30 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave 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.

He probably thinks that FM won't skip either......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Who?

I'm sure he's trying to imply Frank or I, no bigge.

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.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:29:28 GMT, Lancer wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:40:30 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave 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.

He probably thinks that FM won't skip either......

Dave
"Sandbagger"


On the contrary Dave, it does too.

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.

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)

The Fcc requires no jury of peers. reart 95


Tell that to N3CVJ and his buddy N8WWM. Davie lobbies hard telling the
world that just because the FCC told the world N8WWM was jamming
repeaters, it's not evidence of guilt.

It's OK Twist, Geo can't ever seem to keep up with
a thread.
Here's what Dave typed:

"So you are of the Twisted notion that a person is not breaking the law
until they are caught?

Dave
"Sandbagger" "

To which I replied correct. Nothing in that statement does it say
breaking "FCC Rules". Geo will never admit to being wrong nor will he ever
admit to me being right, it would ruin his
image of being the #2 troll behind Doug.
Start your sexual innuendoes here Geo ::::::::::::

"Lancer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:48:46 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


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


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
m...
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?

It would only be worse because now you can hear the 100 radios.

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?


Only because you now can hear more radios. skip doesn't cause
splatter.

Take the same 100 radios that were causing splatter when the skip was
running (all stations running S9). Now move them all so they are
local to you (again all stations running S9). From what you have said
you believe the splatter is going to decrease ?

Well. It has been my experience that when skips
running, you will have more incidents of adjacent
channel splatter than when it's not. I'm sure "Skip"
is not causing it, but it sure does "Heighten" it.

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.

"Lancer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:04:06 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:

"Landshark" wrote in news:y0IEd.10181$5R.3047
:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:19:54 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
om...
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?


Sure throwing modded and clipped radios on top of each other sure does
add to the splatter. Big Time, but skip has nothing to do with it, he was
splattering because his radio puts out a dirty signal. Skip has nothing
to do with what comes out the ass end of a radio/amp.



Correct!

Sorry, maybe "cause" is the wrong word. Since some
people here are so word sensitive (Not you Lancer) the
better choice of words would be "Heighten".

Landshark


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

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:58:04 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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?

As credible as the claim that the mainstream news isn't biased.


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?

It is slanted toward the areas of interest to most Americans. It's no
big secret to anyone who's been around the block a few times.



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]....."?

There can only be ONE first objective. The rest descend from there.
This reminds me of a manager that I once worked for, who assigned job
priorities. When he started assigning several jobs to the "#1
priority", I asked him how he wanted us to prioritize the #1 priority.
He wasn't amused......


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.

Considering that Saddam Hussein was a regular watcher of CNN, the
military used to give out false information so that the media would
unknowingly give this false info to Saddam, and he would plan
accordingly, and then be surprised when we did something totally
different.

But this exposes just why close media coverage of a war zone is not
really the best course of action. The enemy watches TV too.....


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.

I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is the claim that they do
it all the time.

But even so, it only makes second and third sourcing news through many
different venues all that more important, if you want accuracy. But
you need to be aware of the slant that exists in all sources of
"news".


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 are not skilled in those disciplines enough to make that claim
with any credibility.


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?

I'm of the thought that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to
fear. He's holding back records. Why? Perhaps the answers to those
questions are contained within them.


snip
Hmmm.. Who watches the watchers?


People who, unlike yourself, have enough ambition to verify the facts
for themselves.

Most of the time, the only verification you can find are other sources
which are just as credible (or not) as the original source. Then what
have you proved?


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......

No, I just have a tighter standard for what I consider as "fact".

A 'fact' is undisputed and/or undisputable. For example, the validity
of Kerry's military records is undisputed.

Did you see the original documents? Did you hold them in your hand? If
not, how can you claim they are "indisputable"?


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.

Assuming what you saw was not 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.

Or the Kerry people who displayed them.

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?

Your logic is sound, if each premise is true. THAT truth is what I
dispute.


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.

Well then have an independent agency audit the results.


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.

How do you know that? Have you a factual determination of which
ballots were illegal, and of them, which ones were for 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.

According to what data?


If you think that Democrats committed
voting fraud in order to benefit the Republican candidates then that's
your problem.

No, they committed fraud to help democratic candidates. Only it wasn't
enough and Bush still won.

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.

Right! So for the time being you don't KNOW for sure if the illegal
ballots benefitted republicans. Any conclusions that you may now hold
is based on pure speculation.


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?"


Not according to my sources. The largest metro areas, where people
complained about the lack of machines, were also the places where
democrats ran the show. It stands to reason that democrats have their
greatest power in metro areas.


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 your neighbor is killed and they find the murder weapon under the
front seat of your locked car, what do those facts imply? Of course if
another fact comes to light that the real killer stashed the weapon in
your car to frame you, then the picture changes.

That's the danger of allowing incomplete data, no matter how factual,
to form conclusions, before all valid possibilities are explored.

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.


The facts are incomplete. And what fills in the gaps is pure
speculation.

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.

Or that the democrats simply weren't effective enough.

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 single conclusion without considering other
possibilities.

First, you need to brush up on your logic.

Not at all. Perhaps you would like to look it up.

Second, it's a reasonable
conclusion based on factual premeses.

No matter how "reasonable" it may be (And the term reasonable is
relative and open to speculation), as long as there are other
possibilities which could make the logical statement true, you cannot
responsibly make the claim one way or the other

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?

Yea, they're hovering over Tampa.


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.

Not at all. It's pretty much in line.

At this point it's clear that you are quite confused and are seeking
simplistic explanations for complex issues.

Complex issues can be simplified to a degree with only a small loss of
granularity. Not too much different in theory from digital audio
compression.



There is no "line" or
chart you can draw to describe a political ideology.

No, but you can compare the relative aspects of the different
ideologies and place them on a line (or as the site shows) a two
dimensional dual line.

Go to the library
and check out the vast amount of material on politics.

Written, of course, by people who maybe have their own slant. You have
to do a lot of reading to be able to form a barometer to judge. The
problem is that the definitions of terms like "liberal" have changed
over the years. I would be classified as a liberal by the oldest
definition of the term. But by today's generally accepted political
definitions, it almost the opposite.

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?

You can if you take the main points and catergorize them. You can
complain that this may destroy some of the individual subtleties, but
that's how it is done. You need to take this up with the people who do
this. I'm only one who reads with interest.


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.

That is overly simplistic and also somewhat obsolete in today's
political climate. But the essence is true. The problem is the term
change and what those changes involve and the question of whether
those changes are good. Change for change sake is not a valid reason
to push for change. New is not always better. Old is not always
obsolete.



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.

Based on what evidence? You saw the line from the site that I gave.
Did it not illustrate the same thing as what I stated? If you want, I
can dig up a bunch more.



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.

You are right about one thing, the medical system IS partially
socialized, on the demand side. One of the main reasons why costs are
skyrocketing is due to socializing the demand side while allowing the
free market to control the supply side. The two don't mix.

The failure of public schools can also be somewhat attributed to the
socialized structure of the teachers. There is no motivation to
"better" oneself, once "tenure" is obtained. The school boards are
more concerned with self preservation than they are with education.
That's why I support private vouchers.


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

There is not enough bandwidth and I don't have enough time to get into
a deep multi-faceted discussion of the nuances of political
ideologies. It's also outside the subject matter of this newsgroup. So
simple will have to suffice for now.


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.

Key word: "think"

The press contacted some of the people whose ballots
were lost, people who voted for both parties, and they were all quite
****ed off.

As they should be.

And I doubt that you heard enough of the facts surrounding
the incident to reach that conclusion.

It IS a distinct possibility especially when you consider the past
history of these practices.

But if you prefer to believe
the less likely scenario that the votes were planted then that's your
right:

Keeping an open mind is less preferable to jumping to conclusions?


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.

Like Al Gore?

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.


I can't argue with that logic. You are correct. But I suspect they
will claim to have "fixed" many of the problems.


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.

That sounds like the reasonable course of action.

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?

There would seem to be some evidence to suggest that, since the vote
count was higher than the number of registered voters.


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.

Because he won?


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

It's suggestive of fraud.


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.

Past experience with political machines. I'm not stating it as a
matter of fact, only as a distinct possibility.

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.

Cop out answer. Actually, I expected you to claim to be a "moderate".

I'll take that as a affirmation of my original suspicion. What is it
with some of you liberals? So many seem to be ashamed to admit what
you feel, as if the term liberal is like holy water to a vampire. I'm
PROUD to be a conservative. I know some liberals who are also proud of
their affiliation. So why are so many other so reluctant to admit it?


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.

I am not ashamed to be 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.


Try 1876.

Like I said, whatever works for you. But the original question stands.
Why wasn't it fixed in 1876? The answer would seem to be that they
just weren't interested enough, or plainly didn't want to.


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.

And why would you think that? They are BOTH reasonable. If in fact it
was a security issue, as you assume, he would have claimed such.


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?

If you have nothing to hide, then why hide?

You're getting silly now.


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.

There's no need for me to do that.

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.

Any news source from the time.


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.

A lie by omission.




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?

The why hide them, especially after the public outcry that Bush
release his FULL records (After which there was STILL speculation that
he was withholding some of them)


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?

You twist the facts almost as well as twisty.
I don't need a jury verdict to hold a belief. Neither do you. Should I
call you a fascist because you want to believe that republicans
committed fraud before all the facts are known?


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.

You could make the same statement after every election. And the beat
goes on.......


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?

Sure. But it's fun considering the possibilities.


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.

Past performance sets a precedent.

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!

I'm sure the Romans had their issues. But then they executed their
criminals on the spot.


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?

No, it would be a GREAT thing. But you have to acknowledge the likely
motivating force, no matter what potential benefit arises from it.


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.

Because no one has forced a recount. The margin of victory was not
small enough to trigger an automatic recount, and no one from the
republican side (Why would they, they won the overall election) wanted
to force the issue.


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.

Your motivations may be more honorable than the people who are
screaming the loudest, but it doesn't deny the underlying reason for
all the hoopla. Otherwise why not in Pa.?

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.

Without a recount, then how valid are those numbers? How would this be
any different than what's happening in Ohio?


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?

I personally witnessed my "exit poll", therefore I know it to be fact.
At least with regard to my district. The point is that with so many
republican suburbanites turning out in record numbers (hence my 3 hour
wait), it becomes harder to consider the almost total reversal in the
large cities.

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?

Very much. Thank you for making my point for me. The democrats are
obviously not interested in exposing their own dirty deeds, and the
republicans are content with the overall results of the election, so
there is no motivation in those other states. The fact that it is
happening with such zeal in Ohio is that it is being driven by "sour
grapes" politics, under the guise of "concern" for voter fraud.


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.

Thank you. We have indeed found some common ground. But those
paranoias that I spoke of, are the main reasons why something so
painfully simple isn't being implemented. Curiously though, it seems
to be the city democrats who howl the loudest about this. They pitched
a fit when they heard that some precincts were asking for I.D. and
started accusing (or course) repulicans of fostering
"disenfranchisement".


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.

It's not hard. While we may never see politics in the same way, we
both want elections to be fair. Otherwise why bother?


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.

The software should be available for audit. That is only fair. Once
again, when things are hidden, it implies that there is something
(usually not good) to hide.


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.

I'd like to see something from something other than an obviously
slanted news source. They have their own agenda, and I don't trust
what they say to be 100% factually accurate.

I've read other sources that claimed that the inner city election
boards were run by democrats (I don't pull these things out of my
butt) which makes sense knowing the political demographics of the
typical cities.

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?

I question the bias of your "source", so it's a moot point to continue
to cite them.


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.

That is a matter of much debate. This country got by without most of
them for a the first 150+ years, there's no reason to think we need
them now.

Such as AIDS,

Keep it in your pants. No problem.

smoking,

Don't smoke. Plain and simple.

and other health information campaigns designed to take the
burden away from Social Security and other medical programs that end
up flipping the bill.

If we change it so that these programs no longer pay the bill then the
problem is solved.


And you seem somewhat biased in your accusations: After all, it was
Clinton who instituted some overdue welfare changes such as work
initiative programs.

Only after it became clear that with a republican majority in
congress, which BTW, had been championing welfare reform for years,
that Clinton had better go with the flow. Clinton is a man with a
large ego, and he was much more concerned with his legacy, and he
learned to "play ball". If you look at his terms, he became much more
moderate after the republicans took over congress.


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.

Being both a fiscal and social conservative, I found that Bush's
example of kow-towing to liberal democratic issues (For obvious
political reasons) to be irresponsible and deplorable. We will never
lower medical costs as long as someone continues to subsidize the
demand side without controlling the supply side costs.


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.

I want to keep what I earn. Plain and simple.

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

Uh, Frank, Unless I'm blind, there is no spot in that thread where you
defended Bush other than listing other administrations which were
"guilty" of similar "atrocities" that simple minded people like Twisty
think just started up with GWB. I guess you could claim that by doing
that, you somehow "validate" Bush's actions. But it's a weak
endorsement.


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.

I haven't made one. You have yet to deny 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.


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.

You should pick better allies. He couldn't find a clue if it was
stapled to his forehead.


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.

That was hardly a glowing endorsement. You were more concerned with
slamming twisty's paranoia (A fun game BTW), than in giving Bush the
thumbs up with his politics.



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 need to post something a little more substantive. I didn't see a
defense of Bush as much as I saw a counter of twisty's allegations.

But interestingly enough, you have turned a 180 and are now condemning
the same guy you claimed to have "defended", and are now aligning with
the same idiot who you "defended" Bush to. Talk about duplicity......



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.

I didn't screw up. I still have yet to see you post a true defense of
Bush's policies in this newsgroup.


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?

When you are keyed in to the main players, it's not as much a game of
facts but of behaviors and patterns.



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

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

A term coined by yet another washington insider "tell all" rag. Like I
said, the paper never refuses ink.

Since you like this sort of stuff, you should love this :

http://www.newamericancentury.org/


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.

That's a myopic viewpoint based on insufficient evidence.

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.

A poor link. You make the erroneous assumption that voting fraud
(Which you acknowledged earlier has been around for as long as
elections) is now somehow the brainchild of Bush and Cheney who must
have some secret aspirations of ruling the world.

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".

You never denied that you were a liberal. You gave a lame non-answer.
I'm an American too. That's a fact of birth. But I'm also a
conservative.


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.

Then you should remove it, since it's wrong.


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.

No, but then again, I'm not talking about individual politicians, I'm
referring to parties in general. As I'm sure you're aware, one
contrary statistic does not invalidate the rule.


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.

It comes with playing the game for too long. You get to see the ugly
side of humanity. Then you realize that it shows itself way too easily
in some circles.


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?

And you know for sure that none of these individuals have someone's
hands in their pockets?

Sure there are politicians who have done some really good things for
their constituents. But there's a difference in motivation between
true altruism, and doing it for the political points that it would
bring, or the money that it might bring to the party.


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.

It's more true that you are either aware of, or are unwilling to
admit.


Your implication is that politicians cannot have honorable
intentions. But many do.

Yes, some do, especially when they're juniors, before the temptation
of corruption sets in.


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.

I tend to believe that absent laws and punishments to deter, that most
people will do whatever they feel they need to do to accomplish their
goals.


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.

It's a tough thing, when reality stomps on idealism with increasing
regularity.


Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:55:38 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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.


Who's "convicting"? I made an observation, based on trained skills.
It's enough to tell me the truth. For me to press charges would
require a higher level of proof. I am not trying to go that route.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:48:47 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"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.

That's complete B.S.! You are guilty of a crime the minute you commit
it. The fact that in order for you to be incarcerated or otherwise
punished for that crime requires a guilty verdict, does not negate
your original infraction.

This is an excuse often given by people who try to justify their
selective disregard of certain laws they don't like.


Not because
someone says "because they are on that channel,
they must be breaking the law".

No, not because they are on the channel, but because they are on the
channel and displaying certain verifiable traits which indicate the
illegality of their transmissions.

Dave
"Sandbagger"