K4YZ wrote:.
N9OGL wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

In the past you've stated that I'm violating federal law and again and I emphasis how.

Yes, you DO emphasis how you break it...By pasting your bogus
broadcast station notes all over USENET. No one (excpet Morkie and
he's already an admitted liar) beleives you...least of all me.


Their not bogus station steve, I have recieved a number of request via
regular mail for QSL Cards, the station IS on the air 24/7 and I have
had people from as far away as Canada hear it running a power output of
50 to 100 watts

"They're"

Sure they are. Do you have a broadcast license?

You dont' need a broadcast license under Part 15

But you're not Part 15 legal, Toiddie.

You have yet to prove it Steve....When it comes to Part 15 the FCC is
lookinf for field strength, not wattage...again steve you don't know
what the hell your talking about.

I don't have to, Toiddie...YOU proved it by your OWN admission.

To wit:

(SNIP)

How are they going to hear it if it's running Part 15 limits
unless they live within a mile of you, Toiddie?


Steve the Electrical Field emission for 13 Mhz is 15,484 uV/m @ 30
Meters. Omega One Radio is running a power output 100 watts...(SNIP)

My point made due to your Freudian slip, ToiddieBoy.

WHY DID YOU NO ADDRESS THIS, TOIDDIEBOY...?!?!

(UNSNIP)...and the electrical field emission a 17.5 meters is 2,000 uV. At 30 Meters the
field emissions is 0 uV You Also have to remeber that 13 MHz is the
22 meter Shortwave Band, which does skip. It it possible to hear part
15 stations on that frequency. You can put out a higher power and
produce the required electrical field.

With 100 watts output and single sideband, it would be
embarrassing to NOT be heard, ToiddieBoy!

their's no law against that. As a
matter of fact those people that had mail me for QSL request heard
about the station on here or the Free Radio Network. The only
foolishness on here is your stupidity

No...YOUR stupidity.

You know what steve your right, I am stupid and a moron, beacuse I have
to sit here and waste a small part of my pathenic life to respond to
your moronic responds

Speaking of moronic, how come you told us almost 2 years ago you
were "graduating" but now you tell us you haven't?

Why hasn't the FCC come to my door??

Perhaps the thought of what they might touch or be touched by is
more appaling than allowing your to think you're a DJ.

And even more moronic is your frequent posts that expose your even
MORE moronic and pathetic life wherein you set up make believe
broadcast stations and play disc jockey to a non-existant audience.

I doubt anyone heard anything you put on the air, Toiddie.

Not true on the Free radio Network, a number of people have heard me.

Running 100 watts, I am sure SOMEone did!

BTW...Got a legit "N" Number on that illegally modified ultralight
of yours yet? Finsih that "Sport Pilot" license, or just hoping the
feds don't card you one Sunday afternoon?

There nothing illegal about it steve, I own a high max ultralight. Hi
Max can be made into ultralight. Despite what YOU might think, And No,
I've moved that aside for my education I'm hoping to get back ito it
next year steve, thanks for your concern.

There's no convern, Toiddie, except you you illegally modifying an
ultralight as per Part 103.

And yes, Toiddie...A 10 gallon fuel tank on an ultralight IS
illegal.

Whatever steve, you seem to me that your think ever thing I do is
illegal...

No.

The FAA says a 10 gallon fuel tank on an ultralight violated Part
103.

Period.

Not if it's only filled to 5 gallons it not.

Yes, it is...The aircraft cannot be CONFIGURED to carry more than
5 gallons of fuel, Toiddieboy.

It says nothing about configured, it says that an ultralight can not
carry no more then 5 gallons of gas. therefor steve, as long as I'm
carrying 5 gallons of gas it is legal.

Reading on...

That ruse has been tried by many others. The FAA says that haivng
a fuel tank in excess of 5 gallons is prima facie evidence of
non-compliance.

That's the same standard that the FCC uses to declare that simly
HAVING a linear amplifier for 11 meters, even if it's not presently
connected, is evidence of non-compliance.

As long as your not using it, there is no violation.

Yes, there is. Ask the THOUSANDS of people who have had a knock a
the door over the years and had thier equipemtn confiscated.

Don't beleive me?

Ask the Department of Justice.

I guess you're at a loss for words here, ToiddieBoy.

Part 103 of the FAR's refers.

Steve let be the
first one to say, you have the right to opinion and I repect that
right. But for you to come on here and to quote a violations of the
law and not being able to back it up and are confronted with it, then
you should say it is your opinion, and not the law.

I've cited chapter and paragraph on NUMEROUS of your violations,
Toiddie. In Part 97 of the FCC's rules and regulations AND Part
103 of the FAA's rules and regulations.

Citing it and understanding it is too different things steve.

"...is twe different things..."

Just like your use of English words and the CORRECT use of
English words, Toiddie.

and apparently steve you don't know how to spell.

I understand them perfectly well.

sure you do steve

I do.

That's why in over 33 years as a licensed Amateur and 31 years as a
licensed Aviator I've never had so much as a warning, let alone a
citation...I stay legal.

If you feel that way steve maybe you should go back into you box. Quite
harassing us that want to live outside the box.

People like you who live "outsoide the box" in the manner you
describe in yur antics are called "lawbreakers". YOU become MY problem
as a law ABIDING person.

There is NO exception to the use of your HiMax as an ultralight
under Part 103 as you have modified it.

Again Not true, it's only illegal if you fill it up to 10 gallons,
Filling it up to 5 gallons makes it legal.

No, it doesn't.

Haivng a 10 gallon fuel tank on an ultralight is illegal.

Period.

Whatever Steve

Very immature. Of course spoiled basement dwelling brats like you
usuallly are.

(HUGE SNIP)

Now that I know you've got 100 watts output, I'd have to be crazy
to think no one could hear you, Toiddie, unless you were running that
into a buried dummyload.

Again steve when it comes to Part 15 the FCC is looking for Electrical
field stength not wattage.

You'd have to be a complete idiot to only NOT be radiating more
than Part 15 levels with 100 watts output at that frequency,
Toiddie....Now if you were operating in the 1750 meter band, I could
understand that kind of power loss.

Are YOU going to tell me that YOU, a General Class Amateur
licensee are INTENTIONALLY operting with those kinds of losses...?!?!?

(MORE SNIPPAGE)

Manufacture?? I didn't produce it, it was done by some guy in Canada. I
have no way of producing Podcast some bullheaded moron had me kicked
off the internet twice.

Who's the moron?

The guy who got you kicked off, or YOU for providing the evidence
that you were NOT in compliance with your Terms of Service...?!?!

No ISP is going to boot you unless the evidence is conclusive.
They certainly don't want to get sued for such an act, and they only do
such things when there's overwhelming proof.


An internet service provider is ammune from being sue by what their
user post on third party systems...Read the CDA of 1996...BTW the State
of illinois is now somewhat involved with this:

"immune"...collegeboy.

I am sure that you've snivvelled to anyone who would listen...

Too bad you didn't just clean up your language in the first place,
which I see in the last couple of posts that you've done now...Too bad
you didn't LEARN before you got shut down the FIRST time.

And Toiddie...No law prevents ANYone from suing if there is
adequate reason to do so. Any lawyer worth his/her salt could have not
only gotten you back on with your original ISP, but probably gotten you
free service for a long, long time.

Soooooooooo.....Seems the moron is YOU, ToiddieBoy.,


Yes Steve, I am beacuse I keep talking to a half ### moron

Ooooops....There you go again with the profanity...Working on
getting booted THREE times, Toiddie? Each subsequent boot makes it
easier to justify to the next ISP that you're deserving of punitive
action.

You've already claimed "pirate" status on other occassions, and I
have no doubt that "Omega One" is ANYTHING but LEGAL!


Sure it Steve, but a appliance user like you knows nothing of Part 15
rules and regulations.

Speaking of appliances, ToiddieBoy, you were throwing that term
around here over a year ago, and when tasked to describe the line-up at
N9OGL, all you had was excuses.

I have no doubt in my mind that other than PL-259's and the
occassional battery connector or panel light, there's not one single
scratch built radio in your house...At least not one built by YOU!


Steve I've built a number of things, I pretty good with a soldering
iron, the reason that I don't tell you what I've done is that I don't
have to prove myself to you or anyone.

Yes, you do.

You have shot your mouth off about evryone else being an
"appliance operator" in the same manner you'd make an "expletive" about
thier maternal parent's intimacies with animals, Toiddie.

I say there's nothing more "homebrew" about any aspect of N9OGL or
any bootleg broadcast station you're running than the PL259's, or
perhaps the occassional dipole.

Not true Steve, the station IS legal and you and the FCC is more then
welcome to come check the field strength at 30 meter (98/99 feet) from
the antenna and you will see I'm in compliance with part 15

OkiDokie. I'll jump right on that.

sure you will you've claimed that you complained to FCC for a year know
yet, I have not recieved anything from them...hmmm and you call me a
liar....suire you will steve....as they say steve good luck in the
contest.

More inadequate use of the language there, ToiddieBoy, but now
that we have your admission that your broadcast station on 22 meters is
running 100 watts output, maybe we'll drop Mr H a note.

Again the FCC looks for electrical field strength, not wattage....you
can put out 100 watts and still have a electrical field strength that
complies with part 15....but a dumb### like you don't seem to
understand that. Go for why your at it, since your buddies with
hollingworth tell him, I said you and him should eat #### and die!
Free Speech Supressors!!!

This has nothing to do with suppressing ANYone's "free speech",
Toiddie. It has to do with technical compliance with federal law,
which EVERY person must do in the United States.

If you're generating 100 watts of RF at 13mHz to radiate a Part 15
level signal, I say you're an idiot...A WASTEFUL idiot at that.

What TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION do you offer for operating in this
manner?

BTW you will have proven my point that YOU and the FCC are supressing
not only the free speech of amateur radio operators, but the free
speech of Part 15 radio stations.

What Part 15 radio stations, ToiddieBoy?

You've admitted right here that you're running 100 watts.

You're illegal, ToiddieBoy...Just like I said you were...

Sure I am...Moron

Yes, Toiddie...You're a moron.

Your Buddy,

Not on THIS planet, ToiddieBoy.

Steve, K4YZ (LOOSER)

That's "loser", Collegeboy, and no, I don't think so.

Steve, K4YZ

On 15 Aug 2006 19:40:07 -0700, N9OGL wrote:

The power in wattage and the electrical field are not related because a
power output in wattage can produce different fields depending on lengh
of coax, antenna, antenna height...and your friends in the Office of

You can't get around physics, Todd. The power density is directly
related to the electric field through an Ohm's law type of relationship,
expressed as the square of the r.m.s value of e, divided by the
impedance of free space. Once you know the power density, it is a
matter of summing that power density over the radiation pattern of the
antenna to figure out the total radiated power. Therefore, there *is* a
relationship between radiated power and field strength. In the case of
an isotropic radiator, the relationship between radiated power and field
strength is easy to calculate, and it provides one with a limiting case
which can act as a guideline.

engineering and technology at the FCC will tell you that. The antenna
I'm using is a very imefficient antenna, in fact the signal is acually

I'm not interested in your rationalizations, Todd, because I'm not the
one who is at risk. In this real world, your power output is about
five orders of magnitude larger than the power theoretically needed to
produce the maximum allowed electric field. To me, that would be a
cause for great concern.

If you want to risk an FCC enforcement action against you, be my guest.



====================
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and then there was light.

wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 17:09:27 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
nobody is that dumb except maybe wismen

Let's see, Markie, you made EME contacts with bootleggers.

cease and desist

Truth hurt, whiner?

Stagger Lee wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 19:40:07 -0700, N9OGL wrote:

The power in wattage and the electrical field are not related because a
power output in wattage can produce different fields depending on lengh
of coax, antenna, antenna height...and your friends in the Office of

You can't get around physics, Todd. The power density is directly
related to the electric field through an Ohm's law type of relationship,
expressed as the square of the r.m.s value of e, divided by the
impedance of free space. Once you know the power density, it is a
matter of summing that power density over the radiation pattern of the
antenna to figure out the total radiated power. Therefore, there *is* a
relationship between radiated power and field strength. In the case of
an isotropic radiator, the relationship between radiated power and field
strength is easy to calculate, and it provides one with a limiting case
which can act as a guideline.

Cut and pasted from another website.

engineering and technology at the FCC will tell you that. The antenna
I'm using is a very imefficient antenna, in fact the signal is acually

I'm not interested in your rationalizations, Todd, because I'm not the
one who is at risk. In this real world, your power output is about
five orders of magnitude larger than the power theoretically needed to
produce the maximum allowed electric field. To me, that would be a
cause for great concern.

If you want to risk an FCC enforcement action against you, be my guest.

BWHAHAHAHA Saggytits cut and pastes from another website and added a
few of his own words so it looks like he knows what the **** he is
talking about.

Staggytits Lee whined:
On 15 Aug 2006 17:08:18 -0700, Secwet Woger wrote:

Hi Davey! How's that ex-streetwealker wife of yours?
:
: As usual, Saggytits cut and pastes from another website and adds a few
: of his own words so it appears he knows what the **** he is talking
: about.

If you know what you are talking "aboiut,"

You mean like how you said one "operates" a dictionary instead of
"using" one?

Saggytits Lee steps on his own tiny dick when he tried to correct
somebody else's English use first by saying one "operates" a dictionary

instead of reading it, then uses "things" instead of "thinks" in
:
"Translation: Woger can't figure out how to operate a dictionary, let
alone correct someone else's language.But that's not surprising from
someone
who things that..."

"Who things that?"
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

you should be able to prove
what you just said. But, of course, you can't.

Sure he could, Davey. You cut and paste from other websites and add a
few words do it looks like you know what the **** you are talking
about. You've been caught doing that before. Like the time you tried to
pass off an Alabama ARES website for the one in Wiseman's area.

: This calculation ignores line losses and final amplifier inefficiencies,
: but there's no way in Glendale you can convince me that you can take a
: 100 watt transmitter and manage to lose so much power that you have
: seven milliwatts or less being radiated.
:
: BWHAHAHAHA Says the know-nothing moron who claimed an Alabama ARES
: website was the one for Wiseman's West Virginia local ARES.

Grasp onto that desperately, Woger,

You want to grasp onto Roger's "woger," we all can see that fatass.

Tell us why you hide behind that fictitious negro name, fatass. Is it
because you desperately want to find your real father, who is of that
race?

Subject: Get on the Marshall County ARES webpage......
Date: 3 Jul 2002 22:03:46 GMT
From: (Stagger Lee)
Organization: Houston's least reliable ISP
MsgId:
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
References:




On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:18:35 -0400, AB8MQ wrote:
: "Bob" wrote in message


: ...
: and send them some of Rogers filth. I'm sure they would love it.
:
: Dumb****, the Marshall County ARES doesn't have a webpage, try again,


Then what is at http://www.geocities.com/skywarncanwarn/ doodle brain?
It sure looks like the Marshall County ARES, and it even has a place
to send email.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wrote in :

On 15 Aug 2006 17:09:27 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
nobody is that dumb except maybe wismen

Let's see, Markie, you made EME contacts with bootleggers.

cease and desist
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Mark, Just ignore them.

They only tease you because of the stupid things you say when you
follow up. Just ignore them and they'll give up.

Stop giving them reasons to tease you. It only makes you look
more stupid.

Take a break from the radio groups for a while, Maybe work on your
moon bounce some more.

SC

"an_old_friend" wrote in news:1155686981.395899.190510
@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:


wrote:
cease and desist



Mark, Just ignore them.

They only tease you because of the stupid things you say when you
follow up. Just ignore them and they'll give up.

Stop giving them reasons to tease you. It only makes you look
more stupid.

Take a break from the radio groups for a while, Maybe work on your
moon bounce some more.

SC

"an_old_friend" wrote in news:1155687253.119045.45410
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


wrote:
cease and desist



Mark, Just ignore them.

They only tease you because of the stupid things you say when you
follow up. Just ignore them and they'll give up.

Stop giving them reasons to tease you. It only makes you look
more stupid.

Take a break from the radio groups for a while, Maybe work on your
moon bounce some more.

SC

"an_old_friend" wrote in
oups.com:


Woger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

an_old_fraud wrote:
cease and desist

Go suck your daddy's cock, Markie. Or is that what your shemale wife is
doing while you are online?
+
Wow, Not Roger. You certainly are without peers when it comes to
responses.
indeed it is amazing the way he comes up with them



Mark, Just ignore them.

They only tease you because of the stupid things you say when you
follow up. Just ignore them and they'll give up.

Stop giving them reasons to tease you. It only makes you look
more stupid.

Take a break from the radio groups for a while, Maybe work on your
moon bounce some more.

SC

wrote in :

On 15 Aug 2006 17:09:27 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
nobody is that dumb except maybe wismen

Let's see, Markie, you made EME contacts with bootleggers.

cease and desist
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Mark, Just ignore them.

They only tease you because of the stupid things you say when you
follow up. Just ignore them and they'll give up.

Stop giving them reasons to tease you. It only makes you look
more stupid.

Take a break from the radio groups for a while, Maybe work on your
moon bounce some more.

SC