On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:57:24 -0500, jim
wrote:

When are you two going to give it a rest? You are both radio intelligent
but seem to enjoy the nonsense that is akin to the george & doug vs
steve/shark/randy crap that is on this board.

It'll end when Frank finally realizes that I'm his evil twin.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:03:42 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:03:09 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

No, not everyone. There was no definitive rule that specifically
allowed them. Therefore the claim that they were legal was based on
pure speculation only.


There's no definitive rule that allows chrome knobs and black paint on
CB radios, either. The problem is your warped logic, Dave -- absence
of evidence does -not- constitute proof of the opposite. When are you
going to realize this fundamental flaw in your thought process?

So you never believed that noise toys were illegal? Could not the use
of a Roger Beep not be addressed in 95.412 and 95.413?


Only if you define it as such. The FCC doesn't, which should have been
painfully clear when it was proven that they authorized a CB radio
with the feature.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

From: (Steveo)
So much for my digital -wish I was in Dixie-.

g


Been playing on the truck horn for years, courtesy of JC Whitney.
--
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:57:24 -0500, jim wrote:
When are you two going to give it a rest? You are both radio intelligent
but seem to enjoy the nonsense that is akin to the george & doug vs
steve/shark/randy crap that is on this board.

It'll end when Frank finally realizes that I'm his

evil twin.

David T. Hall Jr.

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"



No way! In the strangest of ways, Frank has an integrity that has never
been compromised. He has remained true to his "core beliefs" throughout
his posting history and the majority of his posts serve as testament
that he rarely contradicts himself.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:20:45 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:03:42 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:03:09 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

No, not everyone. There was no definitive rule that specifically
allowed them. Therefore the claim that they were legal was based on
pure speculation only.


There's no definitive rule that allows chrome knobs and black paint on
CB radios, either. The problem is your warped logic, Dave -- absence
of evidence does -not- constitute proof of the opposite. When are you
going to realize this fundamental flaw in your thought process?

So you never believed that noise toys were illegal? Could not the use
of a Roger Beep not be addressed in 95.412 and 95.413?


Only if you define it as such. The FCC doesn't, which should have been
painfully clear when it was proven that they authorized a CB radio
with the feature.

Galaxy has a reputation for "pushing the limit" when it comes to
radios and their legalities. Just look at their list of "export"
radios. The fact that most mainstream radios did NOT have such a
feature was enough for me to remain suspicious. I was also informed by
an FCC official 20-some years back that they considered any "tone or
noise" not specifically addressed in 95.412 (b) to be illegal.
Obviously that feeling is no longer true, but it was the basis for my
initial feeling on the subject.

But I stand corrected now.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Who gives a ****, amps are Illegal, Mexicans are Illegal,
shooting skip is Illegal.



"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
From: (Steveo)
So much for my digital -wish I was in Dixie-.

g


Been playing on the truck horn for years, courtesy of JC Whitney.
--

"Charle" wrote in message
...
Who gives a ****, amps are Illegal, Mexicans are Illegal,
shooting skip is Illegal.


Shame having the IQ of a salad fork isn't. If it was, you'd be in prison.



"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
From: (Steveo)
So much for my digital -wish I was in Dixie-.

g


Been playing on the truck horn for years, courtesy of JC Whitney.
--

U Know Who wrote:

"Charle" wrote in message
...

Who gives a ****, amps are Illegal, Mexicans are Illegal,
shooting skip is Illegal.



Shame having the IQ of a salad fork isn't. If it was, you'd be in prison.


Now thats funny...


"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
From: (Steveo)

So much for my digital -wish I was in Dixie-.

g


Been playing on the truck horn for years, courtesy of JC Whitney.
--

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:20:45 -0800, David T. Hall Jr. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:03:42 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:03:09 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
No, not everyone. There was no definitive rule
that specifically allowed them.

Therefore the claim that they were legal was

based on pure speculation only.




(There's no definitive rule that allows chrome knobs and black paint on
CB radios, either. The problem is your warped logic, Dave -- absence of
evidence does -not- constitute proof of the opposite. When are you going
to realize this fundamental flaw in your thought process?)


So you never believed that noise toys were

illegal? Could not the use of a Roger Beep not
be addressed in 95.412 and 95.413?


(Only if you define it as such. The FCC doesn't, which should have been
painfully clear when it was proven that they authorized a CB radio with
the feature.)


Galaxy has a reputation for "pushing the limit"

when it comes to radios and their legalities.



Galaxy is irrelevant to the law permitting roger beeps.


Just look at their list of "export" radios. The

fact that most mainstream radios did NOT

have such a feature was enough for me to

remain suspicious. I was also informed by an

FCC official 20-some years back that they

considered any "tone or noise" not specifically

addressed in 95.412 (b) to be illegal.

Obviously that feeling is no longer true,


Obviously, you are getting **** poor advice from your mystery leos,
pretend supporters you claimed agreed roger beeps were illegal, and
mystery FCC officials.

but it

was the basis for my initial feeling on the

subject.



And a flip flop from your past and many-timies-invoked claim that
absence of proof does not equal proof of absence....except, when you say
it does, of course.


But I stand corrected now.

You stood corrected before. You were just slow in accepting it.

David T. Hall Jr.

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"