3 ms·

I did read it. It doesn’t provide any significant detail of his alleged transgressions OR whether they were responsible for any damages. I’m inclined to believe

I did read it. It doesn’t provide any significant detail of his alleged transgressions OR whether they were responsible for any damages. I’m inclined to believe that were there any hard evidence of a negative outcome it would be described in great detail.

extrapickles 4y ago
The actual FCC document contains the specifics of what he did in the “factual background” section: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.txt https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.txt It looks like the FCC has plenty of hard evidence, and they are not making stuff up to fine him with.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > It looks like the FCC has plenty of hard evidence, and they are not making stuff up to fine him with. Okay but the comment above said "hard evidence of a negative outcome", not "hard evidence [that he transmitted]". If they did have evidence of negative outcomes, I think they'd do more than use the word "potential" when talking about harm to life and property.
  - Ensorceled 4y ago
    You can get also get large speeding fines or go to jail for DUI without the "potential" for harm to life and property.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      I'm not talking about the reasonableness of the fine. Does my post need a disclaimer?
      - Ensorceled 4y ago
        Clearly, if you need to be so aggressively defensive about it.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        That's so aggressive? What would the non-aggressive version be that still makes the important point? I was aiming for a basic simple assertive, avoiding being overly passive-aggressive. The question in that post is not rhetorical.
DangitBobby 4y ago
Yup. 34k sounds like a power trip from someone to me. Since I can't reply to them, I'll just say it directly here, the linked document from the FCC just keeps repeating the same things over and over again, but contains no interesting new information compared to the original article.
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
There WAS a negative outcome; reserved communications channels were disrupted, and people had to take time to go to the sender directly to tell him to stop (after two days of disruptions and being told on the radio to stop as well). That's the damage, that's the negative outcome, and it has been described in great detail. What more do you want?

extrapickles 4y ago

The actual FCC document contains the specifics of what he did in the “factual background” section: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.txt https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.txt It looks like the FCC has plenty of hard evidence, and they are not making stuff up to fine him with.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> It looks like the FCC has plenty of hard evidence, and they are not making stuff up to fine him with. Okay but the comment above said "hard evidence of a negative outcome", not "hard evidence [that he transmitted]". If they did have evidence of negative outcomes, I think they'd do more than use the word "potential" when talking about harm to life and property.
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  You can get also get large speeding fines or go to jail for DUI without the "potential" for harm to life and property.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    I'm not talking about the reasonableness of the fine. Does my post need a disclaimer?
    - Ensorceled 4y ago
      Clearly, if you need to be so aggressively defensive about it.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        That's so aggressive? What would the non-aggressive version be that still makes the important point? I was aiming for a basic simple assertive, avoiding being overly passive-aggressive. The question in that post is not rhetorical.

DangitBobby 4y ago

Yup. 34k sounds like a power trip from someone to me. Since I can't reply to them, I'll just say it directly here, the linked document from the FCC just keeps repeating the same things over and over again, but contains no interesting new information compared to the original article.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

There WAS a negative outcome; reserved communications channels were disrupted, and people had to take time to go to the sender directly to tell him to stop (after two days of disruptions and being told on the radio to stop as well). That's the damage, that's the negative outcome, and it has been described in great detail. What more do you want?