Posts by slycyclist342

Robert Martin23 said:It seems everyone who refuses to follow the Adobe PDF SSM guidelines has suddenly decided they are the ultimate authority on the matter... If the users listed below are actually correct, then there would be no need for rules in the first place.

I have no intention of justifying my actions, as such discussions rarely lead to anything productive... Had these individuals simply taken the time to read and adhere to the instructions—which are quite clearly displayed—their arbitrary behavior wouldn't be an issue. I have wasted far too much time attempting to explain things and offer persuasion to those who refuse to listen.

The administration maintains a very clear oversight of all posts, and frankly, I have nothing left to say... It is quite convenient how the users mentioned below feel so comfortable sharing their "opinions" regarding other members of this community.
No, there is just no point in continuing this...

Exactly, don't bother explaining anything.
You just deleted my post and handed me 25 penalty points for absolutely nothing (claiming a violation of general forum rules 🤣), yet you don't touch your friend Mr. Iveku's post where he calls me annoying (I was merely responding to him, which is why I am being penalized while he remains untouched).
You aren't deleting his post where he calls dustywalker25 a hack and hopes the "boss didn't pay for that work," nor are you deleting his posts where he calls people "simpletons."
You don't delete his posts where he openly lies about certain nonsense being written in the Law, yet you jump to delete when I ask him exactly WHICH LAW it is written in.
I suppose you're just trying to bail him out of the mess he created with his own arrogance.

This user is clearly part of the group Emily Myers8 mentioned; he can say whatever he wants without consequence while snapping at everyone else.

That's right, you don't owe us any explanations.

I truly hope there is someone here who will eventually have to explain to you why people with several thousand posts have no issues with any moderator except for you.

wearybison63 said:From where I'm sitting, that looks like a bit more than just a single 25-point warning...☕

All I see is this. 🤔


Maybe something happened earlier that I just can't see on my end—though you might be able to—but honestly, I don't recall anything at all, so I'm not convinced there was anything significant to begin with.

If you feel like there is anything actually relevant to add to this discussion, feel free to post it. I truly have nothing against doing so.

In case anyone is interested, I asked him to explain how this lever works (it’s the handle used to lift the dough) because I haven't seen anyone design it quite like this before; typically, the whole mechanism is exposed

Well, looking at this second project now, I might actually have more questions since I'm struggling with my own heating regulation issues😁

But, we've drifted into off-topic territory, as our favorite moderator would say... I just hope someone responsible decides to chime in soon☕

edit : I see that the king of all moderators has just deleted my post about cutting bricks🤣

So, apparently, you aren't allowed to chat about cutting bricks in the "DIY Enthusiast" forum chat room🤣🤣 🤣 🤣

I guess I'll have to ask him to provide an official list of approved topics versus forbidden ones for the chat area

edit2 : I can't even ask him, because after deleting the post, he went ahead and locked the entire chat thread (likely a temporary measure, given his habit of locking things whenever he gets annoyed)
This is quite a spectacle🙏🙏

Oh, I didn't even notice my inbox was full
The moderator filled it up with warnings and bans 🤣

Well, I wasn't aware this was an issue regarding inactivity... I suppose that means you haven't posted because you haven't uploaded any photos yet 🤔

It isn't an issue; just send them whenever you get around to it. You know how it goes when you're working on a project—you have three hundred different ideas swirling in your head at once, so I have to sit down and figure out exactly how everything fits together 😁
Whether the cable should go in front or off to the side, and so on

If I recall correctly, that moderator calling someone a "narcissist" was directed at you, so I assumed there was some sort of friction there, though I didn't realize things had become quite this serious

Honestly, it’s just absurd. As I mentioned before, you put together what is arguably the best BBQ post in this entire thread—and the competition here is actually quite fierce—providing such a detailed breakdown of your process, only for the moderator to step in trying to enforce some arbitrary sense of justice. It makes no sense to sideline a user who is clearly the gold standard for this topic and simply let them write

Just a quick little introduction to start things off.
As you can see from my history on Reddit, I've been an active user since 2007 with over 7,500 posts under my belt. This happens to be my very first contribution to this specific sub-forum.

I’ve been hanging around this DIY subreddit for about ten days now, mostly because I'm weighing my options for building a backyard BBQ pit and wanted to pick up some expert advice.
In just ten days of posting over there, I’ve racked up more warnings, penalty points, and deleted posts than I did in the fourteen years prior to that. 🙏
I just checked my stats—fourteen years on this platform and over 7,500 posts later, I've managed to rack up exactly one 25-point warning.

I believe that, in and of itself, suggests that something here is fundamentally broken.

A brief chronology (I realize it’s lengthy, though I have condensed it significantly).

I'll start by asking about a specific construction method: instead of using full brick and concrete—which is how 99% of builders here in the States do it—what if we used aerated concrete blocks and metal sheeting?

One particular user is being quite aggressive toward our dear moderator, claiming that this won't look like anything at all... blah, blah, blah.
I'm trying to explain to him that I'll be using those materials since it's going on the balcony or patio, and they're much lighter.

The moderator should step in here, because running a grill in your backyard is a completely different story than keeping one on a balcony. 🙏
Some posts are being deleted, while others are being moved over to the "tin roast" thread.

Fair enough.

I’m going to keep asking which specific brand makes a decent spit, and if anyone drops a blatant advertisement in the comments, it should be deleted immediately.
The moderator is deleting my posts and handing out penalty points just because I’m trying to run an advertisement.

Fair enough if that's the rule, but honestly, there are a ton of product links from all sorts of different companies here.
It doesn't matter; let's move on. I'm not going to react, nor am I going to get angry.

I was just wondering what I should use to build a bar for my outdoor kitchen next to the BBQ pit—I’ve already kind of mapped out a design in my head where the bar extends right off the side of the grill station.

I’ve gone through the list of topics three times now, and I still can't find anything remotely similar to this in any of the other threads.
I’m starting a thread about outdoor kitchens, but I keep getting hit with deletions and penalty points because apparently, I "didn't read the list of approved topics."

I asked a question in the chat thread about outdoor kitchens, only to be told that such topics belong in the section for bakers and bread ovens. 🤣

So, apparently, the BBQ setup planned for the backyard needs its own separate thread from the terrace grill, yet I'm getting flagged because I didn't realize the outdoor kitchen belongs in the same category as the wood-fired oven—I guess they're considered the same thing now. 🤣

Alright, let's keep this moving.
I’m asking the question: why is nobody building concrete stoves using the Fert design when everyone else just pours standard concrete? I'll outline a few reasons why the Fert method actually holds some serious advantages.

The moderator keeps deleting replies and claiming that questions are mere provocations or just plain stupid.

And also. That's a lie. How was that question previously addressed?

No response provided.I've read all 250 pages cover to cover, and there isn't a single mention of using fertilizer on the slab anywhere. No one has raised the question, nor has anyone suggested such an idea. Since this is new material to me, I’m genuinely asking: is there some kind of flaw in this specific method of construction?
Just to clear the air: I’ll likely go ahead with that roasting method. Everyone I ask says it sounds like a solid plan, even if none of them have actually seen it done before.

To make matters worse, the moderator sent me a private message claiming they issued the penalty because I "failed to include an introduction." 🤣
What kind of divine introduction is that for such a mundane question?
After my private message, they tell me they "don't need to provide any explanations."

Let's keep moving.
Since there were some deleted responses in the pottery thread earlier, I’m asking him here in the chat to clarify the difference between laminated wool—which he mentioned before his posts kept getting pulled—and mineral wool.
It’s pointless to bring up where his deleted replies went; there’s no sense in me jumping back into a conversation that was already wiped out.

It appears that this question remains unresolved, much like how all the previous responses have been deleted without any explanation provided. 🤣
So, apparently, discussing different types of wool is strictly forbidden in the chat thread. 🙏
(I actually received a response in the chat regarding this from two other members in the meantime, so hvala to them.)

Question: Is this forum essentially his private playground, which would explain why he acts this way?

Having served as a moderator back on my old US message boards, it never would have crossed my mind to behave toward people this manner.
To be clear, I certainly wouldn't dream of calling users "primadonnas" or "narcissists," as he does, nor would I tell someone their questions are stupid or lie to them by claiming a question has already been asked just to justify deleting it.

Moving on—why did things blow up just now?
I asked a perfectly standard question: "What’s the best way to cut a solid brick? Should I use an angle grinder, or is there something better?"

And people provided perfectly reasonable answers. Some suggested the angle grinder (and it was helpful that they specified WHICH GRINDING DISC to use), noting that if I have a large quantity, I should probably get a wet saw. It was also a very useful tip to suggest soaking the brick in water before cutting.
(Perhaps there were even more responses I missed, which is why I decided to repeat the question in the chat thread.)

Then, the moderator comes along, DELETES THE QUESTION AND ALL THE RESPONSES, and hands me a strike for "trolling."🙏

Look, I haven't literally held a solid brick in my hands before; I've always worked with other materials. My basic reasoning for asking was simply to see if there's some fundamental or obvious method I'm unaware of (and I didn't see anyone else ask it either).

And this legend goes ahead and wipes everything out and issues a strike. 🙏
It is blatantly obvious that he wouldn't bother deleting it if I hadn't posted it, or if it had been posted by any of the other members currently on his "blacklist" (and yes, I see there are quite a few).

So, gentlemen, I am asking you to please take action.

If it means anything to you, I am not the only one dealing with this "issue," as I mentioned earlier.

A few others have reached out to offer support. While it isn't the main point, it serves as further evidence that you should look into what's happening on this forum.

hvala

p.s.
While it's not central to my post, I should mention that I spent about a week reading through those 250 pages specifically so I wouldn't look unprofessional or ask questions that had already been answered five times, thereby avoiding annoying anyone. I know that personally, that kind of thing would drive me crazy.
One should put in the effort to read up on a subject if they want to know something.
Instead, I was seemingly bluffed by this individual, who claimed the question had "already been answered."

hollowmason64 is correct
The statute of limitations on interest applies

darksurfer4 said:I recently had a thread about the Kansas City Chiefs shut down on me in the history section. I was busy deconstructing how the club's die-hard supporters have been essentially rewriting their own history; according to this sanitized version they peddle, the club celebrated its centennial on February 13, 1911. It’s absurd. While a hundred years may have passed since the founding, the actual continuity of the organization was severed twice—once in 1941 and again in 1947. The first break was due to the Italian occupation, and the second happened when the communist authorities decided to forcibly merge various local sports clubs in Miami into one massive state-run athletic association. If the Chiefs hadn't merged with that local football club back then, we wouldn't be having this debate, but because that merger actually occurred, it represents a fundamental break in the club's existence.

As for the NFL Ultras, there isn't much left to say that hasn't been said before. I’ve called them fascists, thugs, and criminals, which is precisely why the authorities won't touch me🤦🤦 The NFL Ultras used to spray all over Miami with fascist symbols and swastikas; one of their so-called "achievements" was even painting a massive swastika at Hard Rock Stadium. These die-hard fans have repeatedly, and quite insanely, destroyed whatever happens to be in their path—stadium seats at Hard Rock Stadium, citizens' cars, even police cruisers and local newsstands. And I suppose I don't even need to remind anyone about their constant calls for violence against Mexicans🤔

They are constantly calling for the assassination of Jerry Jones—a man who is widely rumored to be tied to criminal activity—but it makes you wonder how these same Ultras can call for his murder while simultaneously attacking him. And when it comes to public figures, these idiot fans even attacked the legendary American athlete Misty May, who currently serves as the Undersecretary for Sports. She is actually one of the few people in this entire country standing up against Jerry Jones, whom the Ultras claim to despise, which just goes to show🤦

Do you think I'm wrong to claim that the modern-day Kansas City Chiefs are not the same entity that existed in 1911, or that the NFL Ultras are nothing more than violent, criminal fascists?🤔

I honestly think you're even more of an idiot than I originally thought.

mistybear10 said:Spirou, you think it's totally fine that I'm paying a wireless tax on my work phone when my company already covers the fees? You seriously don't see the massive paradox there!?

Sent from iPhone using Reddit

Do you honestly think it’s normal for a private corporation to partner with a government agency?
We submit an invoice for services rendered, yet a government agency refuses to pay.

The government just swoops in to collect their sales tax immediately, freezing the company's accounts and effectively forcing them straight into bankruptcy.

How can they even talk about bankruptcy when the government still owes them four times that much?

Is that actually normal to you, or just a complete paradox?

Believe it or not, this actually happens—and honestly, it’s a much bigger paradox than the issue you're dealing with.
I could probably dig up a hundred more of these "paradoxes" if I really looked for them.

As long as the law remains this way, it’s going to keep happening, regardless of how paradoxical you find it.

mistybear10 said:What does any of this have to do with what I actually said? Absolutely nothing.

I was just following up on that nonsense about paying the fee for a work phone. It’s my responsibility because it’s in my possession. My company covers the service for that device 24/7, all year round—not just during some arbitrary 7-to-3 window! Honestly, how can anyone on this forum even argue otherwise? It's embarrassing.

I don't know who specifically wrote that, so I didn't quote anyone. And if you think I was calling you out, pirate, but you didn't write it—my bad. But if you did? Step up. 😬

Sent from iPhone using Reddit

That was me, so feel free to quote me and call me the forum tax collector

but before you do that, answer two questions

1. If ownership is the only thing that matters, why does the law state:

Anyone who holds title or possession

2. Can you provide the legal definitions for "ownership" versus "possession"? Then we can discuss whether you actually possess that work phone or if your company owns it.
Can you clarify who is considered the direct versus indirect possessor in the case of a corporate phone (you or the firm)?

Matthew Jackson2 said:That isn't actually written in the law; rather, it's just a convenient interpretation cooked up by PBS's legal department (which, if they wanted to sell such nonsense to grandmothers, would probably claim you need to pay a fee for dirty laundry too).

The radio signal hits your house regardless of whether you point your antenna left or right, but for an internet stream to reach you, you have to actively request it. And it isn't even just that—a computer, as mere hardware containing that stream, can't do anything with it, let alone decode and display it; you need software support for that. In the final analysis, even if they happen to notice you have a computer, that still doesn't mean it's capable of receiving and reproducing a stream, and a court cannot accept that as a fact unless a.) you admit to it or b.) they actually prove it.

It isn't located in an area where that specific type of signal exists to be received. It's like being in some remote hole in the middle of nowhere where there is absolutely no TV signal—you don't have to pay; the law is quite plain on that. If you have internet in that area, or the option to get satellite TV? Again, you don't have to pay because, even though you have the option to pay for signal delivery, you still lack a usable signal.

Wrong; that doesn't apply to devices used exclusively for business purposes. If you need a work phone for your job, then it isn't subject to the subscription fee. If you are off the clock, you aren't supposed to be using that work phone, but that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to possess it (say, for a morning meeting outside the office).

I wouldn't quite agree (though that doesn't mean I'm right)
A radio signal hits your house, but you can't use it if you don't have an antenna or a TV, and if you don't request it (like switching the channel to ABC)
In my view, it's the same deal with the internet... I don't see much difference...

Rhode Island is almost 100% covered by cellular data (3G)
You plug a dongle into your laptop, surf the web, and that's that.

Actually, we could even talk about places like downtown metropolitan areas where you have free Wi-Fi... that would be the equivalent of freely available radio waves... there's absolutely no distinction there.

And finally, you can just head to an internet cafe with a laptop or smartphone and browse.

So, regardless of whether you have home internet or not, you have the capability to reproduce audio/visual content (and it doesn't even have to be an ABC program, since the law doesn't specify that... it's enough that you can watch a movie on YouTube)

Matthew Jackson2 said:That isn't actually written in the law; rather, it's just a convenient interpretation cooked up by PBS's legal department (which, if they wanted to sell such nonsense to grandmothers, would probably claim you need to pay a fee for dirty laundry too).

The radio signal hits your house regardless of whether you point your antenna left or right, but for an internet stream to reach you, you have to actively request it. And it isn't even just that—a computer, as mere hardware containing that stream, can't do anything with it, let alone decode and display it; you need software support for that. In the final analysis, even if they happen to notice you have a computer, that still doesn't mean it's capable of receiving and reproducing a stream, and a court cannot accept that as a fact unless a.) you admit to it or b.) they actually prove it.

It isn't located in an area where that specific type of signal exists to be received. It's like being in some remote hole in the middle of nowhere where there is absolutely no TV signal—you don't have to pay; the law is quite plain on that. If you have internet in that area, or the option to get satellite TV? Again, you don't have to pay because, even though you have the option to pay for signal delivery, you still lack a usable signal.

Wrong; that doesn't apply to devices used exclusively for business purposes. If you need a work phone for your job, then it isn't subject to the subscription fee. If you are off the clock, you aren't supposed to be using that work phone, but that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to possess it (say, for a morning meeting outside the office).

Where on earth did you get the idea that I’m allowed to own a phone but forbidden from actually using it?
The law is pretty straightforward.
He talks about ownership but fails to mention any exceptions—like how you aren't actually on the hook for a subscription if the device isn't even being used.

To me, the situation is pretty straightforward. Pollux offered the only sensible advice in that last post, and it’s honestly the only way to legally avoid paying for a subscription.
You don't own it, and that’s the end of the matter.

If you actually plan on walking into a courtroom to argue that you have Windows installed but somehow lack Windows Media Player—or that you own a smartphone but apparently don't possess it outside of business hours, or that one wave is somehow fundamentally different from another—then good luck to you. I honestly don't even know what else to say.

nimblelynx7 said:Corporations have to pay a subscription fee for every single receiver. So, if you’re looking for a loophole, you could always just run it through your business.

I personally know of a trucking company that stripped all the radios out of their fleet just to dodge subscription fees, then went as far as strictly forbidding their drivers from bringing any personal devices into the cabs.
People spend ten hours behind the wheel—including all the mandatory breaks, obviously—only to carry some equipment along and trigger a massive blowout over it. Apparently, someone ran into trouble, and one guy nearly lost his job just because he had a radio on him. I don't know the specifics, though.

By the way, how does the law handle legal entities?
If a company has a thousand employees equipped with laptops and smartphones, that should be the basis for their tax assessment. $53 Monthly subscriptions?
That's exactly why I don't buy into the idea that they're paying for every single receiver.
I'm sure there's some kind of cap on this, similar to how residential service works—one subscription covering an unlimited number of receivers.

Does anyone have any insight into the current job market and how companies are actually treating people?

Go ahead and try to educate a poor collection agent... I'm working on going bankrupt. 😁

Sam Ramos85 said:Go ahead, try to legally prove in court that I actually own a TV or a smartphone for private use at home.

How does that kind of thing even get proven in our legal system?

Well, if you claim you possess it—even if you argue it belongs to a corporation as others suggested—you’ve essentially made a confession.🙂

Paul Johnson said:So, if I happen to be holding my neighbor's phone when an IRS auditor walks in, that's enough to trigger the levy?
The law says so, does it? And if the company already covers the fees for the phone, laptop, and the car radio, maybe I should just pay extra since I'm the one using them. Or better yet, leave everything at the office and walk to my business trips, calling from a payphone so the IRS doesn't have any grounds to come after me.😕

precisely
Legally speaking, your workday ends after eight hours.
If you are on a business trip receiving a per diem, you have the right to use the equipment provided.

Legally, if you take a phone or laptop home and use them for personal matters—and let's be honest, everyone uses their work phone for personal stuff—then you're using them.

Essentially, if you have the device on you, claiming you aren't the owner (but merely the possessor) won't change anything; I wouldn't even try that argument in court because you'd be admitting possession.

It is the exact same situation with a personal vehicle.

If the police pull you over in a company car without a travel order, they have the right to file a report for tax evasion.

Specifically, if you use a company car for personal use, you have to calculate "fringe benefits" every month based on 2% of the vehicle's value, and then pay the corresponding taxes and contributions.

How often this actually happens in practice is a different matter entirely...

And yes... under these rules, you end up paying multiple fees for the same single device.
That isn't the only instance of this happening in the law.

For example, ASCAP charges its royalty (for a single performed song) first to the film director who used the music, then to PBS or FOX when they broadcast that film, then to the cable provider transmitting the signal, and finally to the owner of the cafe, apartment, or business where a TV or radio is playing.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:While you’re waiting for the collector to show up, you can totally surf the web or chat on your phone—even if some jerk is staring at you while you do it. Why? Because both the laptop and the phone are company property. 👍

👎
Absolutely not... don't spread that kind of misinformation, because you're just going to land people in hot water.

The law states: "Anyone who owns or possesses"

If you have the device in your possession (regardless of whether you actually own it), YOU OWE THE TAX.

That is what the law says.

If you don't want to pay, just leave the phone and laptop at the office when you head home.🙂

Taylor Roberts3 said:Since I'm pretty sure I'll be heading to court soon, I figured I should clear some things up first.

The infamous Section 34 (1):
Anyone who owns or
possesses a radio or television
receiver or any other device for
receiving radio or audiovisual
programming (hereinafter referred to
to as a receiver) within the territory
of the United States covered
by a broadcast signal is required to pay
PBS a monthly fee as established
under Section 35, subsection 2 of this
Act, unless otherwise provided
for by this Act.
Look, maybe I'm just being an idiot, but my argument in court would be that I actually own a TV. It’s an old model—doesn't have an antenna hooked up, nor do I own a digital converter box. In my book, that doesn't count as a TV receiver if it can't actually pick up a signal. Am I wrong here?
Along with the TV, I’ve got a high-end component amp with speakers and a deck, while the tuner is just sitting in the closet. Even though I don't use the tuner, I'm not tossing it; that'd tank the resale value of my hi-fi setup if I ever decided to sell it one day.
And then there's the smartphone, which technically has FM hardware built-in, but I deleted the app. I'm guessing it'd be best to mention that too, right? o_o
Also, that second part of Section 34, subsection 1 is bugging me. "any other device for receiving radio or audiovisual programming (hereinafter referred to as a receiver)." Why did they write "audiovisual" instead of just saying "radio and TV"? Does that mean if I listen to a song on YouTube, watch a short documentary, or even a comedy sketch, I've basically created my own audiovisual programming and now I owe them tax money?

If you possess a tuner or a smartphone (regardless of whether you actually use them), you have to pay the tax.
So decide carefully how you want to talk about this stuff.

Taylor Roberts3 said:Since I'm pretty sure I'll be heading to court soon, I figured I should clear some things up first.

The infamous Section 34 (1):
Anyone who owns or
possesses a radio or television
receiver or any other device for
receiving radio or audiovisual
programming (hereinafter referred to
to as a receiver) within the territory
of the United States covered
by a broadcast signal is required to pay
PBS a monthly fee as established
under Section 35, subsection 2 of this
Act, unless otherwise provided
for by this Act.
Look, maybe I'm just being an idiot, but my argument in court would be that I actually own a TV. It’s an old model—doesn't have an antenna hooked up, nor do I own a digital converter box. In my book, that doesn't count as a TV receiver if it can't actually pick up a signal. Am I wrong here?
Along with the TV, I’ve got a high-end component amp with speakers and a deck, while the tuner is just sitting in the closet. Even though I don't use the tuner, I'm not tossing it; that'd tank the resale value of my hi-fi setup if I ever decided to sell it one day.
And then there's the smartphone, which technically has FM hardware built-in, but I deleted the app. I'm guessing it'd be best to mention that too, right? o_o
Also, that second part of Section 34, subsection 1 is bugging me. "any other device for receiving radio or audiovisual programming (hereinafter referred to as a receiver)." Why did they write "audiovisual" instead of just saying "radio and TV"? Does that mean if I listen to a song on YouTube, watch a short documentary, or even a comedy sketch, I've basically created my own audiovisual programming and now I owe them tax money?

Exactly... that's precisely why they phrased the law that way.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:So why the shocker? You show up, drop something stupid, and then act surprised when—get this—Michelle Alvarez8 gets a little sassy with you. 😂
Don't post nonsense and nobody will be snappy with you. It's just simple cause and effect. 🙂

I have no idea where you read that I'm advocating for letting tax collectors into your home.
🙂 And yeah, you can talk on your phone right in front of a collector without any issues—I don't see the problem?
Even if they start grilling you about what kind of phone it is or if it has a radio receiver, you don't owe them a single word. You don't even have to say "hello" if they greet you.
🤷

Yeah, well, you think I'm playing dumb because I actually know what I'm talking about. Great. 😁 Just a second ago, you were quoting legal articles about receiving radio and TV signals, right? So, you turn on your TV and pick up signals without an antenna. Then you turn on your computer and... Windows boots up.
😁

The Public Broadcasting Act doesn't say anything about paying a fee for computers—you're just making things up now! wtf Quote 🤷

I'll bite—so what exactly falls under this "broadcast signal"? Here's your chance to school the guy who's acting like a know-it-all. Go for it. ☕

My phone doesn't have a dedicated radio tuner, but I listen to the radio through it just fine... modern miracles, I guess. 🙂

mistybear10 said:From what I know, PBS doesn't even stream their full lineup, so that comparison is totally off base.

Doubt they're streaming 24/7 either!

Sent from iPhone using Reddit

As far as I'm aware, they stream the full radio programming 24/7.
And even if they didn't stream everything, it wouldn't change much.
There’s nothing in the law stating that if you can only catch half the program, you only pay half the fee—or none at all.
If you have the ability to listen, you pay.

Michael Perez5 said:I guess Slafko gave a pretty nice explanation there. You should probably read up on signals a bit more. An electromagnetic wave traveling through the air just isn't the same thing as a signal traveling through a wire. To me, that seems pretty obvious.

For starters, even the internet doesn't always travel through wires anymore. 😉

Besides, the law doesn't specify that the fee applies only to devices reproducing audiovisual programs via wire, wireless signals, or whatever else... it covers everything. The law is pretty straightforward.

If they prove you own a laptop or a smartphone, I'm fairly certain you'll be stuck paying the fee.

At the end of the day... even if you try to argue the distinction, do you really think a judge has a degree in electrical engineering and will actually care about those technicalities?

Whether the laws in America are logical, moral, or fair... well, that's a different conversation entirely.

Off-topic, but look at this: some high-profile guy gets sentenced to a year in prison for damages worth millions, and then they just swap it out for community service.
One day of jail becomes two hours of work.
That's how American laws work... moral, fair, and always looking out for the little guy. 🙂

mistybear10 said:The whole bit about them streaming their show on their site, and how paying the license fee suddenly makes every single connected device liable, is just pure nonsense. Why should I be forced to pay a fee just because that option exists? I’ve got at least ten different knives in my kitchen, but that doesn't make me a cold-blooded killer. Just because you have access to something doesn't mean you actually use it. I haven't visited their website and I never will—I honestly couldn't care less.

Sent from iPhone using Reddit

That's just like having a TV where you only watch satellite programming
so why would you automatically owe a fee just because CNN broadcasts something via "over-the-air signal" that you don't watch and have never even tuned into?

Technically, it's the exact same situation... you have the ability to follow them one way or another

And besides, this isn't a "subscription," it's a "receiver ownership fee"

A guy showed up at my buddy’s office a few days ago and goes:
"Is this your official company vehicle down there?"
"Yeah," my friend says.
"Well, you aren't paying the corporate subscription fee, so here's your fine." 😁

It seems like they’ve really started acting like vultures lately. 😉

boldlynx23 said:Some big municipal entity you pay HOA fees to.

Let’s not drag this out. Maybe I fell for it, maybe I didn't. Maybe I owe them, maybe I don't. Maybe they're lying, maybe they aren't.
The truth is—I totally tanked it. I can't afford to fight this in court. Eventually, I'll just ghost them, move on, and start over from scratch without even opening the door—end of story.

Keep pushing back, everyone. Stay stubborn against that nonsense. Don't let yourselves get played like I did 😉

Actually, there are private management companies that handle HOAs too.

And those fees are calculated by square footage, regardless of whether the unit is actually occupied or not.

Regarding the laptop...

http://www.nytimes.com/US...5/Default.aspx

driftingdrifter88 said:So, I officially gave notice and should be out of there in a few days (mostly because the tenant passed away)... I’m just going to peel my name off the door and call it a day. It’s pretty much the same dance as last time. As for whoever moves in next, I’ll give them a heads-up on how things work around here, and if they actually pay their rent, then fine...

Like someone else mentioned earlier... just take down your full name. Maybe leave the last name if you must, but honestly, just don't open the door for anyone. I spent about $30 on a Ring camera and a little monitor for the apartment, so that's that. At the main house, the gate stays locked, and even if it wasn't, I consider any unannounced visit a total invasion of privacy—plus, I've got a dog to warn people off. He’s a complete sweetheart, really, but he’s a total beast when he needs to be...

Just one stupid question... why don't they use a peephole? The inspectors always duck out of the frame, so you can't see them. 😁

Where did you pick up that camera? If you're actually happy with how it works despite the low price..
You can just DM me.
thx

I actually called PBS to get an answer to my question because I was genuinely curious about the process.

And some woman basically cut me off halfway through my explanation.😕😕😕

I call at 3:02 PM and she goes, "YOU CALLED OUTSIDE OF BUSINESS HOURS... WE CLOSE AT 3:00."🤣 🤣 🤣

Anyway...

Their official line is that if you're adding family members to the account, you have to file a deregistration for the receiver.

In my opinion, he still possesses the receiver, and he cannot legally swear under penalty of perjury that he doesn't, if he actually does... but then again, this is a household already paying the subscription fee.

She argues: but he is deregistering the receiver at that specific address (which isn't even what's stated in the declaration, but whatever...).

I wanted to ask: how is he supposed to grant the inspectors access to that address if he won't be living there anymore and we don't know who will be? And all I heard was a click... no more questions allowed after 3:00.🤣 🤣

I have a question here... a student moved away to another city and signed up for the license fee at a kiosk 😁

how does he go about canceling it now?

On the cancellation form, they list specific reasons:
not owning a TV, moving abroad, or entering a nursing home

he’s actually moving back in with his parents, who already pay the subscription, so legally he shouldn't have to pay extra since one household member covers it all.

It seems quite shortsighted to me that PBS didn't account for the possibility of two people paying separately only to eventually marry and share a household... how can he void one of those subscriptions under these circumstances? 🤣

Adam Bennett23 said:How can anyone prove you have a smartphone or a TV if nobody was inside your house?
Why would anyone pay for something they don't even use?
The law says all sorts of nonsense anyway, and half the time, even the people who wrote it don't follow it.

It’s on PBS to prove it.🙂

Adam Bennett23 said:How can anyone prove you have a smartphone or a TV if nobody was inside your house?
Why would anyone pay for something they don't even use?
The law says all sorts of nonsense anyway, and half the time, even the people who wrote it don't follow it.

Your theory doesn't hold water.
You pay for plenty of things you never touch.
For instance, I haven't stepped foot in a doctor's office in ten years, yet I still pay my monthly health insurance premiums.$667 Every
I also cover various fees for forestry and water management, dues for the US Chamber of Commerce, historical preservation taxes, and a whole host of other stuff I've never used and likely never will.

At the end of the day... if you own property you don't live in, you're still stuck with the utilities, property taxes, and everything else, right?

Or a car... whether you register it and drive it or just let it sit, if it's in your name, you owe the tax every single year.

The point is, if you're paying tax on ownership or possession, it doesn't matter if you're actually utilizing it—it's exactly the same deal with these devices.

Adam Bennett23 said:How can anyone prove you have a smartphone or a TV if nobody was inside your house?
Why would anyone pay for something they don't even use?
The law says all sorts of nonsense anyway, and half the time, even the people who wrote it don't follow it.

I'll give you that... laws in America can be a pretty flexible concept.

Bradley Scott2 said:I mean, the PBS Legal Department is about as useful for interpreting the law as the SF Parking legal team is for explaining parking tickets (and we all know how they got shut down in court once).
They'll always insist you have to pay, even when the law clearly says otherwise—just look at how vacation rental owners get treated.

The whole idea of "reproducing" signals on computers, smartphones, and things like that is such a gray area right now.
And PBS knows perfectly well that if they let people using those devices off the hook, they might actually face a revolt that threatens the entire TV license fee system.

I agree... I was simply relaying their response to see what they were basing their claims on.

Bradley Scott2 said:I mean, the PBS Legal Department is about as useful for interpreting the law as the SF Parking legal team is for explaining parking tickets (and we all know how they got shut down in court once).
They'll always insist you have to pay, even when the law clearly says otherwise—just look at how vacation rental owners get treated.

The whole idea of "reproducing" signals on computers, smartphones, and things like that is such a gray area right now.
And PBS knows perfectly well that if they let people using those devices off the hook, they might actually face a revolt that threatens the entire TV license fee system.

I'm convinced that's the exact reason they made it so one person paying the household subscription covers everyone else in the house. 🤷

Sunday, you should probably do some digging yourself.

First off, if I recall correctly, the statute of limitations is only one year—so you won't be able to come after me for any unpaid debts in two years.

It seems highly irregular to me that four different offices would all be initiating collections proceedings every six months.

I assume this was how the procedure went down (in response to rowdyhawk15's inquiries).

They sent a notarized affidavit—basically some unpaid invoice you supposedly owe—to a bailiff or an attorney, who then used that document as grounds to issue a notice regarding the initiation of a seizure.

I believe there is a deadline to file an appeal—eight days, if I recall correctly, though I can't say for certain.
If you file a formal complaint, they can't just hit your bank account directly; instead, they have to pass it off to the courts to initiate a lawsuit.

In court, the Public Broadcasting Service has to prove that you actually owe them anything at all, while you have to focus on proving exactly what you're already trying to establish.

Of course, if you end up losing the lawsuit, make sure to factor those legal fees into your calculations as well.