Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In , "Jerry Oxendine"
wrote: snip ......... We will see if FCC "ignores" anything. Or not. WADR, the FCC "ignores" the Citizen's Band, which is the origin of the vast majority of the 10m "incursions". Riley & Co. refuse to go after the problem at it's source; which, btw, has the very same problem but is not complained about by hams. Hams don't have any more rights than CBers, yet the FCC chooses to enforce the ham bands and not the CB. To the FCC, CBers are second-class citizens. Ask Riley to prove any different. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#22
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Landshark" wrote in message . .. "Jerry Oxendine" wrote in message ... Jerry Hey Jerry, all the BS aside, how you been doing since you're heart problem? Landshark I am doing great! I have no restrictions, and no particular diet. I just watch what I eat and try not to overdo anything. Tnx for asking. Jerry -- Hard things are put in our way, not to stop us, but to call out our courage and strength. |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... In , "Jerry Oxendine" wrote: snip ......... We will see if FCC "ignores" anything. Or not. WADR, the FCC "ignores" the Citizen's Band, which is the origin of the vast majority of the 10m "incursions". Riley & Co. refuse to go after the problem at it's source; which, btw, has the very same problem but is not complained about by hams. Hams don't have any more rights than CBers, yet the FCC chooses to enforce the ham bands and not the CB. To the FCC, CBers are second-class citizens. Ask Riley to prove any different. Just wait and see...........................................!! Jerry -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
JerrO wrote:
We will see if FCC "ignores" anything. Or not. Jerry As of January 1, 2004, the FCC is ignoring anonymous complaints relating to cb or hammie radio, lodged by individuals against another individual. |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In , "Jerry Oxendine"
wrote: "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message .. . In , "Jerry Oxendine" wrote: snip ......... We will see if FCC "ignores" anything. Or not. WADR, the FCC "ignores" the Citizen's Band, which is the origin of the vast majority of the 10m "incursions". Riley & Co. refuse to go after the problem at it's source; which, btw, has the very same problem but is not complained about by hams. Hams don't have any more rights than CBers, yet the FCC chooses to enforce the ham bands and not the CB. To the FCC, CBers are second-class citizens. Ask Riley to prove any different. Just wait and see...........................................!! Jerry This is what you said four years ago...... From: Jerry Oxendine ) Subject: QSL View: Complete Thread (35 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb Date: 2000/04/23 snip ...... in talking with Riley in person, he is VERY interested in the freebanding issue, and unless he is telling me wrong, this will be addressed soon in a much bigger way.... -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
No. they have merely changed the way such is reported.
Instead of reporting the full name of the accused, they only give the name of the location, callsign, and the infraction. Otherwise, they still respond to complaints. Jerry "Twistedhed" wrote in message ... JerrO wrote: We will see if FCC "ignores" anything. Or not. Jerry As of January 1, 2004, the FCC is ignoring anonymous complaints relating to cb or hammie radio, lodged by individuals against another individual. |
#27
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#28
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jerry Oxendine" wrote:
No. they have merely changed the way such is reported. Instead of reporting the full name of the accused, they only give the name of the location, callsign, and the infraction. Otherwise, they still respond to complaints. They'll have to jump fences to catch me. Tell Riley to eat me. Hi Jer. ![]() |
#29
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Frank Gilliland wrote:
This is what you said four years ago...... Archive boy. Who does that remind me of? |
#30
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steveo wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote: This is what you said four years ago...... Archive boy. Who does that remind me of? Remember this idle threat? My only plan (right now) is to take his picture through the scope of my best rifle. There is so much satisfaction in knowing what I -could- do but don't. Like I said, I have an interesting photo album. I'll beat you like a red headed step child. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
BPL - Comments on the original Inquiry document | General | |||
DDS Kit - debugging inquiry | Homebrew | |||
DDS Kit - debugging inquiry | Homebrew | |||
FCC's response to my inquiry on license of FRS/GMRS | Policy |