| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#102
May 27th 04, 02:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
"Bert Craig" wrote in message . net... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Mon, 24 May 2004 22:57:29 GMT, "Bert Craig" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . Riddle me this then Batman, why are there no type accepted LEGAL CB radios produced with a roger beep or an echo? Sorry Dave, my old Galaxy DX-949 came stock woith a roger beep...and was/is FCC type accepted. http://www.galaxyradios.com/cb/949.html Would you happen to to have the FCC I.D. number of that radio? That radio, other than the roger beep, also has variable power, something else no other legal CB has. I have my doubts that this radio is entirely legal. Dave "Sandbagger" Saved me a trip, here's another rig I also had the pleasure of owning. http://www.galaxyradios.com/2547.html http://cbworldinformer.com/200107/ga...2547_photo.htm More specifically: (The rear panel "money" shot.) http://cbworldinformer.com/200107/dx...anel_clsup.htm 73 de Bert WA2SI Thanks, Bert. It clearly has the requested FCC ID listing. |
|
#103
May 27th 04, 01:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 26 May 2004 15:54:34 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: Would you happen to to have the FCC I.D. number of that radio? That radio, other than the roger beep, also has variable power, something else no other legal CB has. I have my doubts that this radio is entirely legal. Dave "Sandbagger" Wrong again, Dave. Here's the link: http://www.galaxyradios.com/2547.html There are no current equipment authorizations for any Galaxy CB radio. Search the database yourself if you want: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/c...ericSearch.cfm Well, by golly, I goofed again. The FCC ID number is C2R-DX-2547, it's a Ranger, and it is legal for CB. But what I didn't see on the Galaxy website was a built-in roger-beep -- instead the board is available as an accessory. Galaxy and Ranger are basically one in the same. They are notorious for "pushing the limit" as far as legality is concerned. I've never liked Galaxy radios. They're basically knock-offs of Uniden designs, many of which were not the most reliable. "Fragile" is the word I have heard most often used to describe all three makes. Among other less flattering adjectives...... What I don't understand is your last statement. Which Galaxy website did you see the roger beep listed as an add-on accessory? The link provided above lists the roger beep as a standard feature. You are right, it's in the list. I just missed it the first time. Ok. I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong, but I'm curious when the FCC changed its opinion on roger beeps from their earlier proclamation that they were considered "amusement" devices and therefore not legal. This happened about 20-some years ago when roger beeps first started springing up. They might justify it's use under 95.412(b) "You may use your CB station to transmit a tone signal only when the signal is used to make contact or to continue communications." The reason might be that a beep at the end of a transmission is useful to indicate when the person is finished transmitting, and not to 'amuse or entertain'. Then there is a really fine line here. A single tone might be acceptable under that clause. But those multi-tone "roger beeps", "farts", tarzan yells, and other such devices clearly cross the line into the "amusement" category. I'm also curious why they now allow variable power. Not since the 60's, when some radios had 100 mW low power positions, have I seen a radio with user adjustable power (Other than walkie-talkies). There have been CBs in the past that have had power switches. I haven't seen them since the 60's when Lafayette used to have a 100 mW position, which was done supposedly so that you could "legally" operate your radio while waiting for your license application to be processed. The FCC later clarified that in order to qualify for part 15 no license status that not only did the power need to be 100 mW or less, that the antenna must also be self contained. The power switch soon vanished shortly afterward. Some of the handhelds have a low-power switch to save battery power. Yes! But I have not seen selectable or variable power on a base or mobile "CB". But the variable-power feature on Galaxys/Rangers is obviously intended to trim the power fed to an amplifier, and I'm sure that is one reason why the FCC doesn't like them. I'm sure that is the intended use. But if the FCC allows switchable power on walkie-talkies, then I don't understand why this feature has not been used on standard radios. I'll have to peruse the updated technical specs again. Sometimes the FCC can be less than crystal clear. Common sense would tell me that if these things were clearly legal, that the manufacturers would rush to include them en-masse as "features". These all enhance the perceived value of a radio, and gives the manufacturers a reason to charge more for things that cost little to add at the factory. Most CBers are mesmerized by bells and whistles, so this would clearly be a marketing plus. Who makes CBs anymore besides Galaxy/Ranger and Uniden? Admittedly, I am not as "up" on this stuff as I was when I was heavily involved in radio repair. It does seem that the number of manufacturers has diminished to a few sweat shops in China and Malaysia. I don't know if Cybernet is still active or not. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#104
May 27th 04, 01:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:20:02 -0400,
(Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: You typify theclassic projectionist and search for more insults as you angrily post along,,,,,,,. It all makes sense when taken into consideration all but the most supervised of visits were taken from you involving your child. Projecting? I'm not the one with low self-esteem and issues of low self-worth and esteem, coupled with self-hatred and projection. You seem to bring it up an awful lot. Along the lines of "thou doth protest too much". It's not too late to call a mental health professional........... If such would aid in your supervised-only visits with your daughter and assist in maintaining a civil relationship with her mother instead of one of hostility with all you come in to contact, I say go for it. So now who's the one projecting? I always enjoy myself. No need to get THAT personal....... Besides, that leads to blindness. You should try it with other people. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv |
|
#105
May 27th 04, 01:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 May 2004 15:54:34 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: Would you happen to to have the FCC I.D. number of that radio? That radio, other than the roger beep, also has variable power, something else no other legal CB has. I have my doubts that this radio is entirely legal. Dave "Sandbagger" Wrong again, Dave. Here's the link: http://www.galaxyradios.com/2547.html There are no current equipment authorizations for any Galaxy CB radio. Search the database yourself if you want: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/c...ericSearch.cfm Well, by golly, I goofed again. The FCC ID number is C2R-DX-2547, it's a Ranger, and it is legal for CB. But what I didn't see on the Galaxy website was a built-in roger-beep -- instead the board is available as an accessory. Galaxy and Ranger are basically one in the same. They are notorious for "pushing the limit" as far as legality is concerned. I've never liked Galaxy radios. They're basically knock-offs of Uniden designs, many of which were not the most reliable. "Fragile" is the word I have heard most often used to describe all three makes. Among other less flattering adjectives...... What I don't understand is your last statement. Which Galaxy website did you see the roger beep listed as an add-on accessory? The link provided above lists the roger beep as a standard feature. You are right, it's in the list. I just missed it the first time. Ok. I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong, but I'm curious when the FCC changed its opinion on roger beeps from their earlier proclamation that they were considered "amusement" devices and therefore not legal. This happened about 20-some years ago when roger beeps first started springing up. They might justify it's use under 95.412(b) "You may use your CB station to transmit a tone signal only when the signal is used to make contact or to continue communications." The reason might be that a beep at the end of a transmission is useful to indicate when the person is finished transmitting, and not to 'amuse or entertain'. Then there is a really fine line here. A single tone might be acceptable under that clause. But those multi-tone "roger beeps", "farts", tarzan yells, and other such devices clearly cross the line into the "amusement" category. The Galaxy has none of those. |
|
#106
May 27th 04, 06:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:20:02 -0400, (Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: It has come to my attention that all the manias you toss about as insult are the ones from which you more than likely suffer. You typify theclassic projectionist and search for more insults as you angrily post along,,,,,,,. It all makes sense when taken into consideration all but the most supervised of visits were taken from you involving your child. Projecting? Certainly.The angrier you get, the more insults you post as you go along. YOU went off-topic and began ranting about mememememe as opposed to the FCC rule you were unable to debate absent of insult and off-topics,,,,lol,,you are the one with a deficit in communications, unable to separate a post from a person. You never learned the basic debate or communication skill of how to attack a post (subject) without attacking the poster (pperson),,,if you do it intentionally, it is borne of your character flaw. YOU went off-topic and entered insults to this thread. I'm not the one selectively editing the thread and posts to create an illusion of righteousness for myself..*you*....I'm not the one with issues of low self-worth and self-esteem, coupled with self-hatred and projection of personal issues.....*you* are. You seem to bring it up an awful lot. *You* "bring it up" in each and every instance..lol. I merely point out your hypocrisy and return it. Along the lines of "thou doth protest too much". Which is why you snip the posts....you always distort truth,,,coupled with outright lying and attempting to project a post out of context as a manner in which it was not originally presented....you're a malicious lowlife, Davie. It's not too late to call a mental health professional........... If such would aid in your supervised-only visits with your daughter and assist in maintaining a civil relationship with her mother instead of one of hostility with all you come in to contact, I say go for it. So now who's the one projecting? You are. *You* brought up your off-topic, obsession fancying yourself somehow qualified to judge another merely by what they permit you in a post. Number one, such illustrates your need for status to the point of creating it for yourself..sign of a low self-esteem and one not satsified with their personal life and accomplishments,,,this gives way to your behavior that demands the need for insulting others,,"projection". Number two, it illlustrates your self-hatred and dis-satisfaction with your personal self and a bruised ego, as the need for insulting another merely for their opinions and views is highly indicative of a character flaw AND low self-esteem. It is also a picture perfect example of one not capable of adult conversation and debate,,IE: proper communication skills. Enjoying yourself? I know I am. I always enjoy myself. No need to get THAT personal....... You are having expressive problems again, Davie. If you were not interested in my self-enjoyment, you should not have inquired of such and entered it into the thread. I must grin,,,,,, you attempted to give the impression you did not inquire of such by selectively editing your inquiry in your orginal post and leaving only my reply to your inquiry...LOL..that is the second time you attempted to do such in as many days, yet have failed,,,,,Lol..you certainly have a ways with reducing yourself, Davie,,it's what makes you a lid and a detriment to hammie radio. You're part of what is strangling the hobby. You are a problem operator mostly for certain, as it is a great probability that most act on the air in the manner they conduct themselves in this forum,,,as it is all communication with nothing but the most basic communicative skills, something you have yet to graps and employ, necessary. Only the medium is different. Besides, that leads to blindness. You're out in left field again, Davie. Better unwrap that tinfoil hat you need wear when posting and clear your failed attempts at making yourself clear to the masses. You should try it with other people. Does Kim have a problem with your incredible wit and know you're out here initiating posts concerned with other's personal lives? Ah, in fact, never mind,,,forget I asked that question,,it's not really relevant or all that important. Dave N3CVJ "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv |
|
#107
May 28th 04, 08:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In , Dave Hall
wrote: On Wed, 26 May 2004 15:54:34 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: snip There have been CBs in the past that have had power switches. I haven't seen them since the 60's when Lafayette used to have a 100 mW position, which was done supposedly so that you could "legally" operate your radio while waiting for your license application to be processed. The FCC later clarified that in order to qualify for part 15 no license status that not only did the power need to be 100 mW or less, that the antenna must also be self contained. The power switch soon vanished shortly afterward. I don't think the FCC requires the power to be 'fixed', but rather that it cannot exceed the prescribed maximum. Some of the handhelds have a low-power switch to save battery power. Yes! But I have not seen selectable or variable power on a base or mobile "CB". I have an old Utac on the shelf that has a 1/5 watt power switch. I have seen a similar switch on a couple other radios but I couldn't tell you what they were. But the variable-power feature on Galaxys/Rangers is obviously intended to trim the power fed to an amplifier, and I'm sure that is one reason why the FCC doesn't like them. I'm sure that is the intended use. But if the FCC allows switchable power on walkie-talkies, then I don't understand why this feature has not been used on standard radios. I'll have to peruse the updated technical specs again. Sometimes the FCC can be less than crystal clear. Well, my first guess why power-pots are not standard features on most CB radios is probably because the 4 watt max isn't much power to begin with. Or maybe because the radios were designed to load antennas instead of splatter-boxes. Either way, not all CBers have a craving for radios loaded with knobs, buttons, switches, lights, meters, and a host of redundant and generally useless features -- those radios are for artless ham-wannabe's who want to impress others of their kind. ============= http://tinyurl.com/ytcah http://tinyurl.com/2yor7 ============= "...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and are both too small to admit it." ---- Twistedhed ---- ============= -----= 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! =----- |
|
#108
May 28th 04, 01:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:57:07 -0400,
(Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:20:02 -0400, (Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: It has come to my attention that all the manias you toss about as insult are the ones from which you more than likely suffer. You typify theclassic projectionist and search for more insults as you angrily post along,,,,,,,. It all makes sense when taken into consideration all but the most supervised of visits were taken from you involving your child. Projecting? Certainly.The angrier you get, the more insults you post as you go along. Who's angry? Other than you that is....... You project that anger on me, and then accuse me of doing it. YOU went off-topic and began ranting about mememememe as opposed to the FCC rule you were unable to debate absent of insult and off-topics You certainly are self absorbed aren't you? You think this is all about you? What's the matter, didn't mommy give you the attention you craved as a child, which you now demand from this newsgroup instead? ,,,,lol,,you are the one with a deficit in communications, The more you say it (And you're up to practically every post now) the less it means to anyone other than yourself. YOU went off-topic and entered insults to this thread. I'm not the one selectively editing the thread and posts to create an illusion of righteousness for myself..*you*....I'm not the one with issues of low self-worth and self-esteem, coupled with self-hatred and projection of personal issues.....*you* are. Who's the one obsessing now? Yep, I'm your worst nightmare..... Which is why you snip the posts....you always distort truth,,,coupled with outright lying and attempting to project a post out of context as a manner in which it was not originally presented....you're a malicious lowlife, Davie. Funny, I was just following your example of posting style. Don't like it when your own rules and tactics are employed against you eh? As they say in my parts, "What's good for the goose......" If such would aid in your supervised-only visits with your daughter and assist in maintaining a civil relationship with her mother instead of one of hostility with all you come in to contact, I say go for it. So now who's the one projecting? You are. *You* brought up your off-topic, obsession fancying yourself somehow qualified to judge another merely by what they permit you in a post. Ok then, which are you? a liar or a mental case? Either you are what you project, in which case it makes you a sociopath, or you faked the whole "cartoon character" persona, which makes you an accomplished actor and a liar. So which is it? Number one, such illustrates your need for status to the point of creating it for yourself. I've created nothing. You're trying to assign it to me. sign of a low self-esteem and one not satsified with their personal life and accomplishments, You speak as if you've had extensive experience in those areas. this gives way to your behavior that demands the need for insulting others,,"projection". Funny, the same thing neatly applies to you. You are merely the flip side of the same coin that you accuse others of being. Number two, it illlustrates your self-hatred and dis-satisfaction with your personal self and a bruised ego, as the need for insulting another merely for their opinions and views is highly indicative of a character flaw AND low self-esteem. It would be if it were true. You should leave the diagnosis to me. You fall far short of the mark in that area. I must grin,,,,,, you attempted to give the impression you did not inquire of such by selectively editing your inquiry in your orginal post and leaving only my reply to your inquiry. Unlike you, I am not self absorbed and interested in reading my own words, high fiving myself, and adding to the length of posts. I comment on the relevant (And I use the term loosely) points and discard the rest. Perhaps that comes from the old days on dial-up BBS'es when bandwidth cost money, and we all leaned more toward brevity. Davie,,it's what makes you a lid and a detriment to hammie radio. You're part of what is strangling the hobby. Care to elaborate on just what is "strangling" the ham radio hobby? A hobby you have thus far rejected and claimed to have little to no interest in? So now you want us to believe that you are some sort of subject matter expert on the dynamics of the ham radio hobby? You are a problem operator mostly for certain, as it is a great probability that most act on the air in the manner they conduct themselves in this forum If that is true, then you must be a real wing-ding on the air. Hopefully Frank is wrong and you're not really a closet ham. Besides, that leads to blindness. You're out in left field again, Davie. Better unwrap that tinfoil hat you need wear when posting and clear your failed attempts at making yourself clear to the masses. I think "the masses" caught the humor (at your expense, of course) in that comment. Tell Ray I said hi........ Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv |
|
#109
May 28th 04, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 27 May 2004 23:16:03 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: In , Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 26 May 2004 15:54:34 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: snip There have been CBs in the past that have had power switches. I haven't seen them since the 60's when Lafayette used to have a 100 mW position, which was done supposedly so that you could "legally" operate your radio while waiting for your license application to be processed. The FCC later clarified that in order to qualify for part 15 no license status that not only did the power need to be 100 mW or less, that the antenna must also be self contained. The power switch soon vanished shortly afterward. I don't think the FCC requires the power to be 'fixed', but rather that it cannot exceed the prescribed maximum. You may be right. If so, I'm curious why CB radios didn't avail themselves of "Hi/Low" switches or variable power. Not that today's CBer is interested in reducing their power, but it does reduce interference when you are only talking to local people. And it is another knob to "feature". Some of the handhelds have a low-power switch to save battery power. Yes! But I have not seen selectable or variable power on a base or mobile "CB". I have an old Utac on the shelf that has a 1/5 watt power switch. I have seen a similar switch on a couple other radios but I couldn't tell you what they were. But the variable-power feature on Galaxys/Rangers is obviously intended to trim the power fed to an amplifier, and I'm sure that is one reason why the FCC doesn't like them. I'm sure that is the intended use. But if the FCC allows switchable power on walkie-talkies, then I don't understand why this feature has not been used on standard radios. I'll have to peruse the updated technical specs again. Sometimes the FCC can be less than crystal clear. Well, my first guess why power-pots are not standard features on most CB radios is probably because the 4 watt max isn't much power to begin with. Good point. You'd have to drop the power down to .5 watts or less to make a significant difference. Or maybe because the radios were designed to load antennas instead of splatter-boxes. Either way, not all CBers have a craving for radios loaded with knobs, buttons, switches, lights, meters, and a host of redundant and generally useless features -- those radios are for artless ham-wannabe's who want to impress others of their kind. We don't know anyone who fits that description do we? ;-) Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#110
May 28th 04, 05:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:57:07 -0400, (Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:20:02 -0400, (Tampa Bay Always Kicks Philthy Azz) wrote: It has come to my attention that all the manias you toss about as insult are the ones from which you more than likely suffer. You typify theclassic projectionist and search for more insults as you angrily post along,,,,,,,. It all makes sense when taken into consideration all but the most supervised of visits were taken from you involving your child. Projecting? Certainly.The angrier you get, the more insults you post as you go along. Who's angry? If you;re not angry, then you have even more character flaws than you have projected,,,insult for no reason is something that should be looked into by a professional, Other than you that is....... You project that anger on me, and then accuse me of doing it. =A0 LOL,,,,that's pretty good, but all the OT insults begin with yourself. =A0YOU went off-topic and began ranting about mememememe as opposed to the FCC rule you were unable to debate absent of insult and off-topics You certainly are self absorbed aren't you? Isn't about me, Davie, even though you stress at every failed attempt to make all your posts about me. You think this is all about you? All your p[osts go off topic and become one of mememem. What's the matter, didn't mommy give you the attention you craved as a child, which you now demand from this newsgroup instead? Aww,Davie,,Kim hasn't been informed of your actions, yet? ,,,,lol,,you are the one with a deficit in communications, The more you say it (And you're up to practically every post now) the less it means to anyone other than yourself. YOU went off-topic and entered insults to this thread. I'm not the one selectively editing the thread and posts to create an illusion of righteousness for myself..*you are*....I'm not the one with issues of low self-worth and self-esteem, coupled with self-hatred and projection of personal issues.....*you* are. Who's the one obsessing now? You are Davie,,,all your posts are off-topic and of a personal nature because you laughingly failed to produce anything to back any of your bul**** claims. The fact that you ASSumed the FCC holds a roger beep illegal is more professed ignorance. You apparently were corrected by one who took pity on your ignorant rants, so instead of admitting you were wrong, you do what you always do,,,run offtopic and attack the person that illustrtated you are wrong and unable to produce anything that bakcs your bul****. You have failed to become educated on how to debate a topic and attack the topic as opposed to attacking the person,,a deficit in communications, no matter how much it pains you to be forced to see yourself as the masses do. Yep, I'm your worst nightmare..... Coupled with your assumed status and hallucinatory position of power over cbers and otehr hammies by virtue of your ignorance, such a statement is worth permmitting you to believe. _ Which is why you snip the posts....you always distort truth,,,coupled with outright lying and attempting to project a post out of context as a manner in which it was not originally presented....you're a malicious lowlife, Davie. Funny, I was just following your example of posting style. You;re lying, Davie, I don't selectively snip posts unless initiated. Trying to convince anyone otherwise is only telegraphing the strings to which you are attached. Once again, blaming another for your behavior is a character flaw. Don't like it when your own rules and tactics are employed against you eh? As they say in my parts, "What's good for the goose......" Agreed,,,and doing such has you so far off-topic and beside yourself that you are unable to foucs on anything but myself, _ If such would aid in your supervised-only visits with your daughter and assist in maintaining a civil relationship with her mother instead of one of hostility with all you come in to contact, I say go for it. So now who's the one projecting? You are. *You* brought up your off-topic, obsession fancying yourself somehow qualified to judge another merely by what they permit you in a post. Ok then, which are you? a liar or a mental case? Merely one that illustrates your communication problems, Davie. Your personal problems are illustrated quite effectively by yourself. Either you are what you project, in which case it makes you a sociopath, or you faked the whole "cartoon character" persona, which makes you an accomplished actor and a liar. So which is it? =A0 You stil are inable to grasp the larger picture here. What I am or do is of no concern to you, but somehow, you made me your world. =A0Number one, such illustrates your need for status to the point of creating it for yourself. I've created nothing. You're trying to assign it to me. LOL,,,I do nothing of the sort,,,you have positioned yourself on many occasion as an authorative with grandiose delusions somehow qualified to judge others based on what they allow you. Blaming me has always been your worse nightmare. _ sign of a low self-esteem and one not satsified with their personal life and accomplishments, You speak as if you've had extensive experience in those areas. Five years of watching you come apart at the seams in usenet and blame everything from society to cb to myslef for your personal woes. _ this gives way to your behavior that demands the need for insulting others,,"projection". Funny, the same thing neatly applies to you. But davie,,you are the one continually going off topic and making each and every post personl, not I, so no, it applies to you, not I. You are merely the flip side of the same coin that you accuse others of being. Oh, I most certainly admitted that I give back what is received very well. It most definitely is circular, but the fecal prouction always originates with your posts. _ =A0=A0Number two, it illlustrates your self-hatred and dis-satisfaction with your personal self and a bruised ego, as the need for insulting another merely for their opinions and views is highly indicative of a character flaw AND low self-esteem. It would be if it were true. LOL...you are the only one in this group incapable of seeing yourself as others do. Denial that you begin hurling insults and running off topic is but a small portion of your woes. You should leave the diagnosis to me. (snicker),,,,Oh, but I do permit you to elevate yourself every now and then to an imagined position of status you need so very badly...it is what reminds the rest of the world of radio all that is broken among bad hammies and their callous behavior and need for something more in their long list of non-accomplisments. You fall far short of the mark in that area. =A0=A0I must grin,,,,,, you attempted to give the impression you did not inquire of such by selectively editing your inquiry in your orginal post and leaving only my reply to your inquiry. Unlike you, I am not self absorbed and interested in reading my own words, high fiving myself, and adding to the length of posts. I comment on the relevant (And I use the term loosely) points and discard the rest. Your off-topic rants are not relevant. That you asked if I enjoy myself, then when replied to, snipped your inquiry to give the impression you never inquired of such, is not "relevant" but a deliberate, malicious action, based on your latter comment concerning the reply...LOL....you reduce yourself at my merest whim. Perhaps that comes from the old days on dial-up BBS'es when bandwidth cost money, and we all leaned more toward brevity. Davie,,it's what makes you a lid and a detriment to hammie radio. You're part of what is strangling the hobby. Care to elaborate on just what is "strangling" the ham radio hobby? A hobby you have thus far rejected and claimed to have little to no interest in? Sure,,I could elaborate, but you have proved you cant follow a topic. You can always attempt to redeem yourself,,,begin with quoting where the FCC holds a roger beep as illegal and the passage where you claim they hold a roger beep as a device of "amusement". Addressing your latter comment, I have never claimed I have no interest in hammie radio, but all can understand by now your incredible failed attempts at attributing such lies to another.Yes, Davie,,you have world of problems. So now you want us to believe that you are some sort of subject matter expert on the dynamics of the ham radio hobby? LOL,,that's almost as entertaining as you redundantly self-professing status as some sort of expert on sociology qualified to "diagnose" based only what you are permitted...hehehe. You are a problem operator mostly for certain, as it is a great probability that most act on the air in the manner they conduct themselves in this forum If that is true, then you must be a real wing-ding on the air. I am. In fact, I have met many, many great friends through radio over the years. I also have conducted myself as I do here, giving people respect and the benefit of doubt until they prove themselves not worthy, not unlike yourself and N8 and Lelnad and Frank. Hopefully Frank is wrong and you're not really a closet ham. =A0 Frank is always wrong,,,its' why you and he are two peas in a 3 way pod,,,as another op said,,,..such misery sticks together. =A0Besides, that leads to blindness. You're out in left field again, Davie. Better unwrap that tinfoil hat you need wear when posting and clear your failed attempts at making yourself clear to the masses. I think "the masses" caught the humor (at your expense, of course) in that comment. And therein lies the beauty of conversing with you, Davie...what you "think" has never been in line with the masses. Tell Ray I said hi........ I most certainly will if you tell me who he is and I can reach him on my radio. Does Kim know that you are out here initiating off-topic personal posts on usenet concerning internet strangers you blame for your personal woes? Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FM Broadcast band as we know it going away? | Broadcasting | |||
| FCC: Broadband Power Line Systems | Policy | |||
| magic band and baby monitors | Homebrew | |||
| Muilti band quad with a single loop? | Antenna | |||
| keyclown radio dealers busted in spokane WA and walcott IW | CB | |||
Linear Mode
