K4YZ wrote:
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.


must you engage in crying Stevi

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.... ! ! !

What spin? It is a simple matter, obvious to anyone with a brain, ah
prehaps that does let you out.

Obeying the rules is all that is required.In the case of mode which
sparked this thread.

don't need to what number letter combination is USB in order to use
it, I push a botton on the rig and it does that for me



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

Ask the FCC.

Nope


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.

yep


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.

You show where the FCC requires it. by rules and paragraph

I am merely required to the USE the airwaves correctly. If i di by use
Tarrot definiation the FCC doesn't care.

If I ID every 5 minute or 9 minutes because i don't remember the FCC
requires it every 10 the FCC doesn't care

Indeed in large discussions I generaly id every transmisstion since it
might not get back around to me in 10 minutes


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!

Stevie thinks Part 97 is a single paragraph


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.

well if you are not lieing yet again you say I do that already

Instaead the turth is you up to stalking and harassment but everyone
(except perhaps you) knows that


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

Then shut up if showing me an idoit is your sole goal and you you feel
I am beating you to it

You just manged to prove YOURself a lair

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.

and you say Hans can't defend himself?


he was rude to me.

No, he was not.

Yes he was. Only I can decide what I consider rude treatment


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.

no lie at all, a defference of opinion perhaps but (hear I guess is a
newsflash stevie) I don't have to agree with you


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...

indeed as stated

More dead equine kicking stevie


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

a hyperbole at least, I can at least one other person other 12 with an
interest in Ham radio hwho did not understand it


You wanted spoon-fed, written in crayon answers.

No crayon needed

Obviously you do.

nope indeed crayon would not have help

All that was required was a simple yes or no answer You go on for days
and day when I decline to give YOU one


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.

auf Anglish bitte

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

Then if you "grant" me these "rights" why do you haraas me for using
them?


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

Then grant me the rights you say I have and get on the topic of Ham
Radio, instead of people bashing


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.

then let him


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

Ah admiting to sadism again, but...

to work, it real has have some substance


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.

That is an improper intent, and one doomed to failure,

In addition I claim the right to respond to what you post , and deny
any responiblity to figure out what other crap is lurking in your mind


Didn't work. My bad.

a begining


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.

then indeed if you can't figure it out you don't know wether or not you
understand it


No I did not

Lying again, Mark.

I know the question even if you don't therefore ONLY I know if I got
the answer, you by your own addmission can't


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

Gee you know the gender of my partner? I have made a point of not
mentioning that takes a lot of typing in english.

Been stalking me more closely than I think or making stuff up again?



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

There was nothing to "rebuke".

yes there was. his failure to answer a yes or no question



The shortfallwas your own.

what?

Nope If i follow you then

you explain how a string of number s can be answer to "Is my impression
correct"


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.

If Hans lies i may well call him on it to date I have heard nothing I'd
clearly a lie. I have my doubts on some details of some of his stories
but I don't care enough to follow up

OTOH I don't care wether I set Hans off

BTW are you ever going to bother to learn to spell the word "Have"?


You were wrong on several levels.

nope

Absolutely wrong on several levels.

not at all on any level


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.

Not at all

Hans (nor anyone else) is entitled an apology where no offense was
intended with indaicating in some form he was offended



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

another stveie falsehood

Is theire a manual of this fake socail rules or do you just make it all
up

as I said I'll consider apologizing to hans if he asks, but I apologize
to NONE on your say so Stevie


Steve, K4YZ