I am not wanting to be kicked off the list so I will try to quickly
address your points. If you want more information, feel free to email
me directly without CC'ing and taking up bandwidth on the mailing
list.
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 07:19:50 -0500, you wrote:
>No, the probably fly the bird as you drive by. But let's face it, everyone
>calls cars like that an "extender" even some of the car magazines the like
>them. Just because you have one doesn't mean you need an "extender."
>What's the reason for why you have it.
I don't need a reason to have a fast car in a free society. And how
does me driving by offend them? Are these the same people who feel it
is their duty to drive 55 in the left lane because no one needs to go
any faster than that? Are they the ones that intentionally speed up to
cut me off as I change lanes?
>> Why should I purchase a Lexus when something else will do?
>
>Because you want to conspicuously display your wealth with a fancy Toyota.
>And because you can.
This is one of the things that offends me about your arguments. Just
because I have a Lexus, it does not mean that I want to conspicuously
display my wealth. I like the way a Lexus looks and rides.
>> Is 10 bullets in a magazine okay while 11 or more excessive (and now
>> illegal as far as new ones are concerned)?
>
>Here, I can't agree with you more. At one point, my Ruger 10/22 had a flash
>suppressor. I wanted to add a folding stock and make it into an assault
>rifle. ALAS. They don't sell the folding stocks any more. Of course, I
>have about 5 fifty round magazines! Some are still unopened!
>
>Yep, somehow, by the addition of a flash suppressor and folding stock, my
>little 22 caliber rifle would suddenly have become a killing machine coveted
>by gang bangers.
Okay, so which side of this argument are you going to be on? Live
and let live or total government control? These goofy gun laws are
what happens when people start minding your business.
>> Does the soaring crowd laugh at my Cessna?
>
>Yeah, they do. A friend of mine who is one told me so.
Be sure and ask him what pulls him up into the sky when he wants to
go soaring. Last I checked, those things don't take off the runway by
themselves (the non-motorized ones anyway).
>> Should I make fun of the guy in front of me in the Learjet?
>
>Perhaps not, but I am sure you wish you were in his shoes.
Of course, but my side of the argument has no problem with it.
>> If I don't utilize all the rooms in my house, is it too big?
>
>Do you have furniture in all the rooms or is the big house just a display to
>show off your wealth to your friends?
Again, it really does not matter. It isn't hurting you so why do you
care? Is anything over the basics a display of wealth?
>> Do I really need a pool in my backyard?
>
>No, but you have the right too in our country. You have the right to pour
>the money down the drain when I can use any public pool in my town or the
>one at the health club or I can come over and use yours (I will bring a six
>pack).
Why are you driving around in your car when you could use the public
transportation? Sure, you might have to walk some but anything above
the basic necessities is overkill...right?
>The desire to put one's masculinity on display via some mechanical
>contrivance like a Mustang, power boat or a 14 KW amplifier does not in any
>way suggest a lack of self confidence. If you think braggadocio is in any
>way connected with a lack of self confidence you've been reading too many
>liberal newspapers or reading too much pop psychology.
This is an assumption on your part that by doing any of the former
things I am in some way putting my masculinity on display (one of the
points in my former post).
>But the Liberatrian in you seems to want to withhold someone else's right to
>laugh at your choices.
Where was this mentioned ? You might want to reread my post and try
to see the subtle points that I was trying to make without starting
any kind of flame war.
>The problem I have with the Libertarian philosophy taken to an extreme is
>that Libertarians tend to think they live in a vacuum. Your actions don't
>affect anyone else whether it be such things as running 14 KW, driving at
>150 MPH or doing drugs. It's your choice and if you kill yourself, then you
>alone are to blame.
Nope, Libertarians just want you to realize that with your freedom
comes responsibilities. They also want you to realize that we don't
need a nanny state.
>The problem though is that we don't live in a vacuum. Everything I do
>generally affects people around me. If I drive my Mustang or Lamborghini at
>excessive speeds then I may kill myself, but I may kill a family going on
>vacation or an old lady crossing the street. If I run my amplifier at 14
>KW, I may QRM the ham a couple blocks away who wants the DX as bad as me.
>Or I may QRM up and down the band and affect many people who are working
>other stations due to my IM products, spurs, etc.
You miss my point again. Just because I have 11 bullets in my gun,
drive 80 mph, run 14kW, etc. does not mean that someone else is going
to suffer for it. Heck, if the guy down the street runs that kind of
power, it just means that he will be in and out of the pileup quicker.
:-)
>Just because you have the freedom to DO an activity does not make that
>activity moral or correct. I can live in an ostentatious house and ignore
>those less fortunate around me or I can live in a nicer but less substantial
>house and help the poor (the best would be to do both obviously). But what
>is the more "moral" choice. No, that should not be dictated by the
>government.
Again, you are making the assumption that because my house is bigger
than others that I am ignoring those less fortunate. This is typical
class-envy. Do you think there is nobility in poverty? Just because
someone does not or cannot spend extra money, then they are somehow
"more moral" than someone who does (or can)?
>So let me state my point more clearly: Having an amplifier CAPABLE of 14 KW
>is not excessive. Running 14 KW is since we clearly have a law that states
>what the maximum power levels are. It doesn't matter whether I disagree
>with that law or not, I need to obey it and follow it until I can get that
>law changed (if possible) to my benefit.
So now 14 kW is NOT excessive? Allow me to quote your post:
" I think some hams build big amps to compensate for deficiencies in
other areas. We have a name for the big power boats guys run around
with on Lake Michigan that could be applied to excessive amplifiers.
To keep it clean, I'll just say the second word in the name: Extender.
You can figure out the rest. "
This is the main reason behind my former post. This kind of
class-envy is what fuels some of the problems in America today. Since
you base your arguments on "moral" grounds, then is it good morals to
make judgements based on someone's wealth (or lack of it) ?
I am not in favor of breaking the law and running excessive power,
speeding, carrying "excessive" ammunition magazines, etc. I think that
if there is a law stating that 1500 is the max, then so be it until
the law is changed (as per your post). But, I also do not begrudge
someone else doing it if they want to try and get away with it. If
they interfere with me, I will have a word with them and try to
correct the problem. Said nicely, I am sure that I would have no more
intentional problems out of them. As long as they are not hurting
anyone else, it is none of my business.
Patrick
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|