an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Big Snip To The Funny Stuff:

It's "here and now". It's codified into the regulations for a
federal license that YOU hold and are required to at least be familiar
with.

One being codised in regs does NOT mean it is not Arcane? Indeed most
Federal regs are the very defination of Arcane

Two, No I am not required to be famiar with them, I am merely required
to obey them.

BBBWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! !

I am going to wait with bated breath while you try to spin up an
explanation as to how you are not required to "be familiar" with the
regulations of the radio service in which you are a licensee, yet you
ARE required to obey them.... ! ! !

And by the way...Yes you ARE required to be familiar with Part 97.

Ask the FCC.

I have seen fragment of this but in my reading of way part 97 recently
I don't recall it

Becasue you skipped over the parts not written in crayon, Mark.

more venom

Nope.

J3E refers to the emission type. I have a strong suspicion that 2K8
represents a 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth.

you may well be right but even you don't know, not a slame on you but
pointing that you clearly know better than are not sure how can I be
expected to know it

You can be expected to at least know where to find the information
since you ARE responsible for it as a Commisssion licensee of an
Amateur Radio station.

expected sure I am expected by you to do lots of stuff

Required no

Required by the FCC...Yes.

BTW exactly where are they defined by paragraph Oh font of Knowledge
rival of the Oracle of Delphi

Where are the rules defined by paragraph?

Try Part 97 you blithering idiot!

Corecting you Hans put it forth, Steve is taking me to task for not
knowing it

No, not at all.

Yes Indeed Hans put it forth that is corect but you are right I was
merely guessing at what you are upto. I rarely know and hardly care
exactly what you are upto

I am not "upto" anything, other than showing the world that, yes,
Mark C Morgan is an idiot.

But so far YOU keep stealing all my glory by beating me to it.

I am taking you to task for treating Hans so rudely then lying
about it afterwards.

and Hans can't defend himself?

I was rdue to Han's

Yes, you were.

he was rude to me.

No, he was not.

Why are (to use a comon figure of speech)you allowing your panties to
get into such bunch over it?

Because you're so blatant in lying about it.

So Steve may have been a little strong in his wording, but his conclusion
was not in error. You appear to have little knowledge of emission
types/bandwidth occupancy.

Agreed
and Steve and for that Hans know this and choose to give an answer
technical correct (is it in fact technicaly correct) but dsigned to be
useless to me

It was only useless to you since you refused to follow-up on it
from there.

which does not alter the FACT the answer was useless as given

Useless to YOU, perhaps...

Anyone else over 12 with an interest in Amateur Radio had no
problem with it.

You wanted spoon-fed, written in crayon answers.

No crayon needed

Obviously you do.

You take me to task when I don't answer your yes or no questions.I have
the same right as you do

Actually, I consider you to have MORE rights than I consider
necesssary for myself.

Being an idiot is one of them. Being a chronic liar is yet
another.

Help yourself to them...They were made for you. They fit you like
a glove.

Hans' only mistake was assuming that you might be able to
understand the answer.

gee Hans can't defend himself

He could quite ably if he chose to.

He just wouldn't enjoy rubbing your nose in your droppings as much
as I do, though...

Not slamming you, but Steve was not entirely remiss in his post.

I accept thatyou intend no slam but I miss you have missed Stevies
intent

There's no "intent" on my part, Mark.

If you say there was no intent on your part then we chalk up another
lie. you intended something

Only in that you suggest something improper. My REAL intent was
to try and get you to spontaneously issue Hans an apology for your
smart mouth and abuse of his rendering of information to you.

Didn't work. My bad.

You asked a question. You got the answer. You then insulted the
respondant and called him a liar.

yes I askeda question

Well...SORT of a question. One can never be quite sure where your
sentences start and stop, or if they were statements, quotes or
questions.

No I did not

Lying again, Mark.

If you want to lie, got lie next your your "aprtnr" for a while.
Be sure to offer him some "Ben-Gay" first, though.

I did rebuke the respondant (it is his place to ecide if he was
insulted) rudely if you like

There was nothing to "rebuke".

The shortfallwas your own.

Never called him a lair

Good thing, too...Because you'd already called him a liar. Just
one more thing might ahve set him off.

You were wrong on several levels.

nope

Absolutely wrong on several levels.

You owe Hans Brakob an apology.

IF he asks I will consider it

But not on your say so

If you don't consider it pertinent to do so without his asking,
then you're obviously not sincere.

But then what else is new...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ