Obviously you can't read, or are a hate monger/flamer. If you insist on
calling me a racist you will answer to my lawyers. Do you or don't you
question the NAZI justifications that were given?
> From: Elliott Lawrence <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: J. Bradshaw <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Re: Local police and RFI problems
> Date: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 11:04 AM
> Hey clown....what's this comment about the "technical merit of killing
> the Jews" garbage. Since when does killing anyone have technical merit.
> The extermination of 6 million plus Jews and millions of other ethnic
> people has nothing to do with rfi and antenna problems. If you are
> unable to change your racist opinions just keep them to yourself.
> J. Bradshaw wrote:
> > Bryan,
> > > Our local newspaper has just carried a story about
> > >the police charging a local CB operator with criminal
> > >mischief because he was causing RFI to a neighbor's computer
> > >modem...
> > >One of the
> > >people that I talked with said that the city attorney planned
> > >to pursue charges against the cb'er on the basis of the new
> > >law PENDING in Congress that would give local authorities some
> > >degree of legal control over interference caused by CB operators.
> > This is a rather disturbing trend. Radio is considered to give certain
> > tactical advantage to criminals (and civilians) so has been a target
> > enforcement types. Out here, RACES or other volunteer government
> > participation is encouraged so that we as hams might be perceived as
> > guys". The only difficulty with that comes from those who are so
> > "privileged" as to beat down the rest of ham radio for "good guy"
> > Yes, the FCC is the responsible agency who has jurisdiction over radio
> > matters in the United States and has reserved jurisdiction over the
> > because radio signals don't hold to political borders. However, in the
> > Angeles area we have seen little enforcement because The FCC has had
> > embarrassing setbacks with cases here.
> > Recently a state court case over a local repeater pitted a bunch of
> > "newbies" and fresh CB converts against a veteran ham control
> > operator/owner. In a hail of dis-information and mis-interpretation of
> > FCC laws, it was determined that since the "control operator" of the
> > repeater was one who had "physical control" of the repeater, and since
> > possession was 9/10 etc., etc., then the "new repeater committee" who
> > changed the lock on the vault, the ID'er and posted guards at the site
> > be the "control operators". Further, the court decided that it was a
> > court matter to decide owner/control operator status in cases of
> > Now the "New Committee" could proceed to jack up the power and the
> > and talk to Mexico.
> > Anyone with any practical and theoretical technical experience, knows
> > audio devices become receivers most often due to compromises in
> > engineering. It took 5 turns of the phone line on a torroid to allow
> > operate on 80m with a tuner and still be connected to my ISP. This
> > $1 fix for a worst case scenario might be beyond someone not qualified
> > our stringent technical standards. Heck many people don't even
> > the "funny noises" on their cordless phone, or what the "channel"
> > for, but the neighbor 2 doors down has the same problem! So we are
> > with trying to convince those without technical justification and the
> > determination of a hammer, not to strike.
> > I bet a lot of people who questioned the technical merit of executing
> > Jews, were killed by those who wondered the same thing but kept their
> > mouths shut. A lot more were killed for just riding the train to the
> > of the line.
> > --
> > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
> > Submissions: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > Problems: email@example.com
> > Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com