Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'  (Read 12245 times)

A10382

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'
« on: July 30, 2002, 03:00:05 PM »

There is a reflector list on YAHOO, named 'BadHam'.  A good place to post a bad experience with a cretin.  Just be sure it is a BADHAM and not just an innocent event.

If you sell a radio via an on-line swap, be sure the check CLEARS before you send the radio.  Honest people will not object to the wait.

Ship insured w/signature required.  Note 'NO FORWARDING' in the case of US Mail parcel post.

If you're buying, be sure the HAM's name AND address match his call sign's address in the FCC or CANADIAN gov't data base.  if it doesn't, I would not send any money!  I believe the UK and oterh countires also make their call sign data bases available for checking.

Other options include the electronic escrow payment services, but even they are not foolproof.  The on-line sell/swap venue does rely on hams being honest.  Like almost any other venue, 99% are honest.  It's the bad 1% that bite!

I've noticed that most of the more egrgious cases appear to be a few bad apples who keep changing their (vanity) call signs.  Might be a good clue when you check the call sign and follow a trail of 6 previous call signs in less than a year....
Logged

WKUP714

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2002, 11:18:33 PM »

Be carefull dealing with KO4KV and KB3FGU (the Cannuli's).  These kids don't know the difference between a 4-pin connector and a RCA plug, nor do they know poor from excellent.  See my comments in the Talk and Opinions Forum at QRZ (A Legal Issue - Maybe, Mail Fraud).  I see they have items for sell a this site and at QRZ.
Logged

WB4M

  • Member
  • Posts: 374
Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2002, 12:45:46 AM »

No worse than you cowards who are afraid to post your real callsign.
Logged

AD6WL

  • Member
  • Posts: 181
    • homeURL
Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2002, 05:18:16 PM »

To WB4M, do you really think that people who wish to post anoymously are as bad as someone who steals, falsely advertises, lies, or commits mail fraud?
Logged

KU4QD

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2003, 04:53:23 PM »

I'm not going into the merits of any of the posts here.  Just remember the libel and slander laws in the U.S.  Unless the people involved have been convicted in a cout of law you could be sued for the type of comments posted here or on the "bad hams" list and you could very well lose.

I know what it's like to be ripped off and I know how angry (and rightfully so) some of you are.  Just don't leave yourself open to more pain and expense.
Logged

WA4MJF

  • Member
  • Posts: 1003
Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2003, 02:56:31 PM »

I'm not lawyer and don't play one on ATV.
However, the truth is a "real defense" to
a libel/slander suit.

73 de Ronnie

Logged

KU4QD

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2003, 05:04:59 PM »

Your truth or their truth?  Who will a judge believe?  Just because you are telling what you perceive to be the truth doesn't mean you'll successfully defend yourself if sued.  You had better be prepared to *prove* your claims.
Logged

WA4MJF

  • Member
  • Posts: 1003
Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'
« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2003, 09:15:34 AM »

There is only one truth and shades of grey.

73 de Ronnie
Logged

AJ5TT

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'
« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2003, 01:47:53 PM »

To backup advice from a previous post with regard to what you publish;

Take some time, go to this URL and read what it has to say before you flame a person.  

http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/internet_defamation.htm

At this time, the honest still are the majority.

73,
John - AJ5TT
Logged

WA4MJF

  • Member
  • Posts: 1003
Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'
« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2003, 03:17:49 PM »

Tnx for back up, John.  I could not click
your link, but I was taught what I
said in a college business law course,
taught by a lawyer who played a college
professor  :-)


73 de Ronnie
Logged

KC8WCW

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2003, 10:02:12 AM »

AD6WL: I don't know, are they as bad? Deception is deception. I've seen a number of people on this site who sign in with some interesting names. Now when I registered, I don't recall anything on that page requesting a screen name, nickname, etc... As I recall, it specifically indicated, "callsign". Now unless I'm missing something, there are only two reasons why someone would log on in that particular fashion. Either they like to hide in the security of their little computer vestibule and remain anonymous. That's what I always call being a big shot from a safe distance. Or gosh could it possibly be, that they don't have a license in the first place. I'll put my money on the latter of the two in most of these cases, and I feel relatively certain I'll walk away with the big payout.

KC8WCW  
Logged

WKUP714

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2003, 11:33:02 PM »

If the call sign comments are directed to me, it's actually WPUK714 (made a typing error when I first registered here), FCC File #0000820848, last renewed 3/23/02, expires 3/23/07.  No, it's not a ham license.
And I know that working for 20 years as a tech for AFCS (Air Force Communication Service) and 15 years in commercial radio operations doesn't qualifiy me to be a ham radio operator.  Thought ham radio would be an interested hobby after I retired - have been playing around with the equipment, just listening, and will take the test some day soon - but I'm in not much of hurry to do anything anymore - I'm just enjoying retirement.
Logged

WKUP714

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'
« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2003, 11:41:23 PM »

Meant to say in the above post - The Cannuli twins are still at it.  See the comments at qth.com.  Maybe the police have caught up with them by now.
Logged

AD6WL

  • Member
  • Posts: 181
    • homeURL
Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'
« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2003, 09:11:49 PM »

KC8WCW: I guess people have different reasons for wanting to post anonymously.  I have never been ripped off by someone posting anonymously.  If they don't want to post using their callsign then their posts should be taken with a grain of salt.  However, I would rather put up with anonymous posters than to have someone steal money from me over a deal.  The point being that people who steal, commit mail fraud etc are worse than anonymous posters.  

73, Jim
AD6WL
Logged

5R8GQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 203
Dealing with 'BAD HAMS'
« Reply #14 on: November 19, 2006, 09:01:12 PM »

TO: KU4QD  
>I'm not going into the merits of any of the posts >here. Just remember the libel and slander laws in >the U.S. .

You armchair lawyers watch too much Court TV.
Very few Libel suits are ever succesful. In 1964 the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan ruled For a plaintiff to prevail in a libel action, he must prove publication of the defamatory statement, identification of the plaintiff, falsity, defamatory content, injury and fault.

Who is "injured" by an obscure post on a, lets face it, fairly obsure website?

Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up