Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!whuxle!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!unc-c!dya
From: dya@unc-c.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.tv
Subject: Re: A New Topic! \(\* insert fanfare here \*\)
Message-ID: <1249@unc-c.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Feb-84 16:21:14 EST
Article-I.D.: unc-c.1249
Posted: Thu Feb 16 16:21:14 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Feb-84 01:43:13 EST
Lines: 46

References: randvax.1685


     Would you believe that this matter (FCC license revocation of Gene Scott)
is ** STILL ** going on in the courts ?

** FLAMES ON HIGH

     While we are on the subject of religious broadcasters, it seems to me that
they enjoy entirely too much ** FREEDOM **. For example, in a medium market
in the US, a religious entity was granted a license for an educational FM
at 50 kw erp.  This same market has a channel 10 tv, and it just so happens that
the second harmonic of this religious zealot's FM falls within a few tens of
kc of the chrominance subcarrier of the TV. Innumerable residents, threatening
to burn down the FM, complained to the TV, who filed a petition against the
FCC asking that the religious broadcaster install a second harmonic filter to
resolve the interference.

     Well, the *SEPARATION CLAUSE* (which really doesn't exist) was successfully
used by the religious broadcaster to get out of cleaning up their emissions,
which never existed before the FM did. The argument went something like " it was
an unfair burden...that was discriminatory against religion, therefore a
violation of the separation clause ....?" Well, we're all sorry that the station
that you own just happens to interfere...shall we distribute the burden by
requiring the market's other three FM's to dirty up their signal?

     It INFURIATES ME NO END that the separation clause is so badly abused ! The
issues in the Rev. Scott case are similar.

     While we are on broadcasting and the courts, does anyone remember about 10
months ago when someone called a TV station threatening to douse themselves with
lighter fluid, and then set themselves afire while the TV ENG crew captured it
on videotape (and subsequently aired same videotape). Well, that IDIOT is now
SUING THE TELEVISION STATION FOR $ 4 000 000 (that's right, 4 followed by 6
zeroes) because they were negligent in not keeping him from setting himself
afire. The fact that they tried to talk him out of it notwithstanding, doesn't
anyone think this is absolutely absurd ? It exceeds the lady who was suing
Columbus Leather Co. (COLECO) over the Cabbage Patch thing because they were
an affront to adopted people.....for complete assininity. I think some other
guy who hurled himself before a N.Y. subway car and was amputated later sued
the (Transit Authority) ??? on the same grounds and collected 3.3 million.

Gosh, that felt good !

dya
{ akgua!mcnc!(urp,unc-c)!dya }