On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:52:58 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

These posts are getting too big. I did read your entire reply, and
except for the parts where we found common ground, there was little
content that wasn't obviously flawed. So I snipped the common ground
as well as your nit-picking, blatant denials, selective snipping, and
hypocritical criteria for the determination of fact:


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.


Idealism motivates change. And things do change whether you like it or
not. Whether those changes work in your favor or not is dependent upon
how willing you are to accept those changes and the idealism that
motivates them.

Now if there is any topic you feel needs to be addressed then feel
free to reply again using a -rational- argument.

Dave Hall wrote:
You were 10-8 and straight across my duck pluckin' end that's for
cotton picken real. ;-)

Dave
"Sandbagger"

42, you are tree top tall and wall to wall over here, big ben. lol

Dave Hall wrote:
You, of all people, know what an illegal operator
sounds like.

Auuuuuuuddddiiiooo..auuuuuuudddddiiioooo.

click click g

Dave Hall wrote:
verifiable traits which indicate the
illegality of their transmissions.

****in' cooling fan sounds usually give me away. Dang.

"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge"
wrote in message ...
"Landshark" wrote in
m:


"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
news:jchtt015vv23ohkgo426pto6drp2ssqeo5@4ax. com...
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

It doesnt heighten it assclowns think they need major watts to talk skip,
so you are hearing hundreds more amp bozos with thier splatter boxes
cranked up the reason it is heightened is because they are giving you a
strong enough signal to splatter your reciever, listen carefully I said
it in a post about 1 day ago, take a guy in your area in a mobile running
a 1kw class c splatter box, he is giving you 10+ on the meter and tearing
your radio up, as he drives further away he is still using the splatter
box, why isnt he bleeding over as bad or at all now? Because he isnt
overloading the front end of your reciever now his signal strength is
down..

Very good George! I knew you had it in you.

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
This is a great example why the bowl is not for the weak!

42.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you are now making the case
that I cannot identify the exact station which is creating the
splatter due to the sheer number of competing stations. Ok, you have a
valid point in some cases. In many cases all you have is combined
"noise", and it's impossible to distinguish any one individual.

BINGO!!!!! And just becuase of the sheer numbers of
operators, legal or illegal the DX alone is helping intesify
the splatter, because "everyone is trying to get into the
feeding frenzy.

On the
other hand, especially on channel 6, there is always one or two
stations which stand out head and shoulders above the pack.

Maybe where you are, not where I live. Chaneel 17 & 19
have the most noice when skip is running.

You can
plainly hear his splatter on adjacent channels. Those are the guys who
I base my observations on.

Opinion, everyones entitled to one.


Remember, I never said that *all* the stations on channel 6 are
illegal, just the loud and proud ones.


Then there is also the issue of aggregate signal differences. If the
average noise/signal level on most of the 40 channels is running
around S8, and while on channel 6, it is +10db over S9, that suggests
that the average power level of the users there is at a higher level
than those on the other channels. Skip doesn't favor any one channel
(in a band as small as the CB band) over another so the conditions
should be the same on all the channels.

Dave
"Sandbagger"


Landshark


--
__
o /' )
/' ( ,
__/' ) .' `;
o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ;
_.--' b) LANDSHARK ``--...____. .'
( _. )). `-._
`\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'.
`---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.;
`-` `

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
You, of all people, know what an illegal operator
sounds like.

Auuuuuuuddddiiiooo..auuuuuuudddddiiioooo.

click click g

Careful, click click is considered amusement and
you microphone would then be illegal :P

Landshark

--
My bad..the camera is mightier than the blowhard(s)..in most respects.

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(Twistedhed) wrote in news:24437-41E3D8B4-199
@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net:
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 is not evidence of guilt they charged him

with nothing.



N3CVJ says otherwise. He said his empirical observations are evidence of
guilt.

and landshark said you must have a jury of

your peers decide you to be guilty.



Landshark is correct. However, with certain charges brought by the FCC,
exceptions abound.

Agreed. You have to sue the FCC to get your
fined reduced or refunded back to you, that's federal
justice for you.

Landshark


--
__
o /' )
/' ( ,
__/' ) .' `;
o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ;
_.--' b) LANDSHARK ``--...____. .'
( _. )). `-._
`\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'.
`---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.;
`-` `

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

Oh.... So someone is guilty automatically when YOUR trained
"skills" tell you so. I can tell you have never served on a jury.



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.

What infraction was that? YOUR trained "skills" in traffic
laws? Trained "skills" in FCC enforcement? Trained
"skills" in evidence gathering, law enforcement, law?


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


Nope, that is the LAW of the land. Like it or not, you are
innocent until proving guilty, otherwise it's just called
vigilantism. That's why the peace officer (who is trained to observe, not
JUDGE) writes the ticket, you go to COURT to fight the ticket (in front of a
JUDGE, who usually is a lawyer
and or has been a peace officer) if you are innocent, if not
you pay the fine or do the time.


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.


Wow, your trained "skills" tell you by the signal, no df'ng,
no power readings in front of the offenders house that he
is illegal? AMAZING!

Now, you have an individual, he's driving erratic, weaving
in & out of traffic. You pull them over, order them out
of the car, speech is slurred, they are unsteady while standing,
eye lids are drooping, your trained "skills" tell you HE'S
DRUNK! Arrest him, take him to jail, no blood test, no
breath test, throw em into the drunk tank, right!

Dave
"Sandbagger"


Landshark


--
The world is good-natured to people
who are good natured.