N9OGL wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Then file a complaint. You know why folks don't file against W1AW? Because
the provide a service. Not a bully pulpit like your soon to be shot down
hero.

It don't matter if they [W1AW] is providing a service, interfernce is
interfernce.

So take Dan's suggestion and file a complaint. Of course you'd
ahve to actually be talking to someone on the frequency W1AW operates
on, and I can't see you carrying on a coherent QSO with another human
being for that long.

That is correct. Maybe one day Baxter will actually transmit a
"information bulletin". What you think?

the main problem that I see is that amateur believe an information
bulletin cannot be opinionated, yet there is no rule on it.

"Opinionated" is editorializing...NOT reporting.

An "information bulletin" passes INFORMATION that is pertinent to
the operation of the radio station...Not subjective opinion.

Many
amateur believe that those who run information bulletins should only
run "newscast" however, if the FCC wanted it to be only newscast then
they would specify that it should be only a newscast, the FCC has the
ability and power to specify what an information bulletin is.

Then how come you're ranting and raving in support of GB? The
FCC's doing EXACTLY what you suggest, Todd...

The FCC
has the power to limit what an information bulletin is, provided that
it is the least restrictive mean necessary to promote govenment
intrest, the problem is they don't.

Huh?

No the ARRL does NOT SOLICITE on its bulletins. K1MAN does. End of
subject.


They don't, the word is DIRECT AND INDIRECT. K1MAN does in his bulletin
[DIRECT] while the ARRL has a website that has stuff forsale and offer
a credit card [INDIRECT] and although they don't promote their website
in their news bulletins they still run a site that offers goods
[INDIRECT]

There's no "direct" or "indirect" to it. Glennie overtly solicits
sales on his broadcasts.

Now he's busted.

No but the rules state a station can't make money direct or indirect.
K1MAN does do it DIRECT, while the ARRL is doing it INDIRECT. but the
rules does state a station can't make money direct or indirect.


Reference and show me how the ARRL is soliciting on the air.

They don't but the do own a site that offers goods which is [indirect]

That's like saying that since you're using Yahoo, and you can
search for sexually explicit content on Yahoo, YOU are running a porno
site, Todd.

Not when that SOB sits down on top of me and those I am in QSO with. All
that idiot would have had to do was use this little phrase "Is this freq in
use". And follow that up with "I am intending to use 14.275 to send my
bulletin, would you guys mind standing by for it". You know what Toad?
To a man we would all agreed to move. But oh no....not the mighty MAN. He
comes on and DEMANDS we clear HIS frequency. And yes I am ONE OF THOSE
that sent in the multitude of reports, and proud of it.

True, I pick a frequency that is not in use and ask if the frequency is
in uses, and if I don't hear anyone I start my bulletin.

You're not sending a bulletin. It's a show.

So says you.

It was from the district office the wanabee boy broadcaster stated. Where
do you think the order to do so came from nitwit? Right....FCC
headquarters.

No, according to the NAL at the bottom it was from the district office
in boston, I read the NAL from the FCC's site. I really suggest on how
the FCC is set up before commenting on something like this. (see below)

from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2...-259301A1.html


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Dennis V. Loria
District Director
Boston Office
Northeastern Region
Enforcement Bureau

But do you think for a minute, Todd, that Mr Loria would issue a
document demanding that a citizen part with $21K without consulting
with Washington first?

And please note that the TOP line says "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION"...Not "The Boston Branch of the FCC"...

Wake up me boy. When the FCC comes down on you like this.....you are
history. This isn't anything new, its been in the works since the mid 80s.
It just took a bunch of dedicated hams that were willing to stand and fight
to get the ball rolling. And your talking to one of them right now.

I suggest you forget your little broadcasting career, or get ready for a
history repeat. Understand? And no Toad...its not a threat....its a
promise. Ham radio is sick of you children trying to mess up our play pen.

No thanks DAN, My problem is since your little ########### at the FCC
don't want to consider my application or waiver, for a broadcast
license, my opinion is you and themn can go #### yourself.

You wouldn't need a "waiver" if you'd just do it right the first
time.

Quit your whining and hire a REPUTABLE communications attorney to
help you. You're obviously grossly overwhelmed when it comes to
administrative matters. Let him do it for you.

The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Then file a complaint. You know why folks don't file against W1AW? Because
the provide a service. Not a bully pulpit like your soon to be shot down
hero.

It don't matter if they [W1AW] is providing a service, interfernce is
interfernce.

So take Dan's suggestion and file a complaint. Of course you'd
ahve to actually be talking to someone on the frequency W1AW operates

Amussing you seem to be losing your ability to spel old boy

on, and I can't see you carrying on a coherent QSO with another human
being for that long.

That is correct. Maybe one day Baxter will actually transmit a
"information bulletin". What you think?

the main problem that I see is that amateur believe an information
bulletin cannot be opinionated, yet there is no rule on it.

"Opinionated" is editorializing...NOT reporting.

BULL**** all reporting has an opinion component, only a fool woudl
claim otherwise. Forgive me I forgot who I was talking about Stevie


An "information bulletin" passes INFORMATION that is pertinent to
the operation of the radio station...Not subjective opinion.

Nothing can be totaly objective everything is subjective


Many
amateur believe that those who run information bulletins should only
run "newscast" however, if the FCC wanted it to be only newscast then
they would specify that it should be only a newscast, the FCC has the
ability and power to specify what an information bulletin is.

Then how come you're ranting and raving in support of GB? The
FCC's doing EXACTLY what you suggest, Todd...

Are they? what they are doing is anything but clear, aside from the
fact that the whole thing results from a LONG history of interaction
between the ARRL The FCC and Baxter. It is also clear the we here in
RRAP lack a number of facts


The FCC
has the power to limit what an information bulletin is, provided that
it is the least restrictive mean necessary to promote govenment
intrest, the problem is they don't.

Huh?

No they have left various rules a vague state. It s a common state of
affairs in ALL govt regulation. It is done as I have heard, is tollow
the 'crats to act as they please (or if you prefer free to act as they
think best, it amounts to the same thing)

No the ARRL does NOT SOLICITE on its bulletins. K1MAN does. End of
subject.


They don't, the word is DIRECT AND INDIRECT. K1MAN does in his bulletin
[DIRECT] while the ARRL has a website that has stuff forsale and offer
a credit card [INDIRECT] and although they don't promote their website
in their news bulletins they still run a site that offers goods
[INDIRECT]

There's no "direct" or "indirect" to it. Glennie overtly solicits
sales on his broadcasts.

Now he's busted.

No but the rules state a station can't make money direct or indirect.
K1MAN does do it DIRECT, while the ARRL is doing it INDIRECT. but the
rules does state a station can't make money direct or indirect.


Reference and show me how the ARRL is soliciting on the air.

They don't but the do own a site that offers goods which is [indirect]

That's like saying that since you're using Yahoo, and you can
search for sexually explicit content on Yahoo, YOU are running a porno
site, Todd.

Not realy but no point in explaing to you you have made up your mind


Not when that SOB sits down on top of me and those I am in QSO with. All
that idiot would have had to do was use this little phrase "Is this freq in
use". And follow that up with "I am intending to use 14.275 to send my
bulletin, would you guys mind standing by for it". You know what Toad?
To a man we would all agreed to move. But oh no....not the mighty MAN. He
comes on and DEMANDS we clear HIS frequency. And yes I am ONE OF THOSE
that sent in the multitude of reports, and proud of it.

True, I pick a frequency that is not in use and ask if the frequency is
in uses, and if I don't hear anyone I start my bulletin.

You're not sending a bulletin. It's a show.

But what is the content, in veiw of the FCC rules

So says you.

It was from the district office the wanabee boy broadcaster stated. Where
do you think the order to do so came from nitwit? Right....FCC
headquarters.

No, according to the NAL at the bottom it was from the district office
in boston, I read the NAL from the FCC's site. I really suggest on how
the FCC is set up before commenting on something like this. (see below)

from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2...-259301A1.html


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Dennis V. Loria
District Director
Boston Office
Northeastern Region
Enforcement Bureau

But do you think for a minute, Todd, that Mr Loria would issue a
document demanding that a citizen part with $21K without consulting
with Washington first?

And please note that the TOP line says "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION"...Not "The Boston Branch of the FCC"...

Wake up me boy. When the FCC comes down on you like this.....you are
history. This isn't anything new, its been in the works since the mid 80s.
It just took a bunch of dedicated hams that were willing to stand and fight
to get the ball rolling. And your talking to one of them right now.

I suggest you forget your little broadcasting career, or get ready for a
history repeat. Understand? And no Toad...its not a threat....its a
promise. Ham radio is sick of you children trying to mess up our play pen.

No thanks DAN, My problem is since your little ########### at the FCC
don't want to consider my application or waiver, for a broadcast
license, my opinion is you and themn can go #### yourself.

You wouldn't need a "waiver" if you'd just do it right the first
time.

Quit your whining and hire a REPUTABLE communications attorney to
help you. You're obviously grossly overwhelmed when it comes to
administrative matters. Let him do it for you.

Oh yes one must always worship at the Holy Bar of Law

Amazing now and here you encourage laziness?


The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

More gratoitous vitriol


Steve, K4YZ

"K4YZ" wrote in message

The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

Steve, K4YZ


ROFLMAO Thats a good one Steve.

Dan/W4NTI

So take Dan's suggestion and file a complaint. Of course you'd
ahve to actually be talking to someone on the frequency W1AW operates
on, and I can't see you carrying on a coherent QSO with another human
being for that long.

A lot better then I can type.

"Opinionated" is editorializing...NOT reporting.
An "information bulletin" passes INFORMATION that is pertinent to
the operation of the radio station...Not subjective opinion.

Stebie, if the FCC wanted Information bulletins to be just a newscast
then they have the power to put it in the rules, but it's not in the
rules. The FCC has the power to specify what is allowed and what isn't,
they've always had that power.

Then how come you're ranting and raving in support of GB? The
FCC's doing EXACTLY what you suggest, Todd...

Not really, Information bulletins has always been a grey area, and
perhaps K1MAN can help eliminate some of these "grey areas"

Huh?

The FCC has the power to clairfy a rule provided it is the least
restricted mean necessary to substantiate govenment interest the
problem is that when it comes to content control the FCC tends to tread
lightly, because they are limited/prohibited to control the content of
any station (see Below)

Sec. 326. Censorship

Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give
the
Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or
signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or
condition
shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere
with the right of free speech by means of radio communication.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, Sec. 326, 48 Stat. 1091; June 25,
1948, ch. 645, Sec. 21, 62 Stat. 862.)


Amendments

1948--Act June 25, 1948, repealed last sentence relating to use of
indecent language. See section 1464 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal
Procedure.


Effective Date of 1948 Amendment

Amendment by act June 25, 1948, effective as of Sept. 1, 1948, see
section 20 of that act.


So Stebie the FCC better watch were they step.

There's no "direct" or "indirect" to it. Glennie overtly solicits
sales on his broadcasts.

Now he's busted.

Yeah there is, I'm not going to comment on it except to read my reply
to W4NTI in this thread, I'm not going to rewrite it all here.

But do you think for a minute, Todd, that Mr Loria would issue a
document demanding that a citizen part with $21K without consulting
with Washington first?
And please note that the TOP line says "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION"...Not "The Boston Branch of the FCC"...

The FCC District office of the enforcement does have that power, I
think my point was there is a LOOOOONG pocess to go and a NAL i s not a
final ORDER. Final Orders can be appealed to the US Court of Appeal.


You wouldn't need a "waiver" if you'd just do it right the first
time.
Which show steve you nothing of the application and waivering process.
Anyone may file a waiver of the rules if good cause is shown at
anytime, and yes this also applies to amateur radio.

Quit your whining and hire a REPUTABLE communications attorney to
help you. You're obviously grossly overwhelmed when it comes to
administrative matters. Let him do it for you.

Steve. despite what you and your asshole buddy Phil think on here, an
broadcast application is very easy to fill out the problem is according
to the FCC I didn't file during a filing window, unfortunately Waiver
don't have filing windows as stated above they can be filed at anytime.
A person (like ME) can also waiver the filing window.

The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

It's club ASSHOLE!!

Todd N9OGL

N9OGL wrote:
So take Dan's suggestion and file a complaint. Of course you'd
have to actually be talking to someone on the frequency W1AW operates
on, and I can't see you carrying on a coherent QSO with another human
being for that long.

A lot better then I can type.

I doubt it. Seriously. About the time you got 30 seconds into
your liquid oxygen cooled storage capacitor idea, the other guy would
be spinning the dial......

"Opinionated" is editorializing...NOT reporting.
An "information bulletin" passes INFORMATION that is pertinent to
the operation of the radio station...Not subjective opinion.

Stebie, if the FCC wanted Information bulletins to be just a newscast
then they have the power to put it in the rules, but it's not in the
rules. The FCC has the power to specify what is allowed and what isn't,
they've always had that power.

Notice that the current NAL action is against K1MAN and not the
ARRL.

Guess you're having a hard time connecting the dots, aren't
you..?!?

Then how come you're ranting and raving in support of GB? The
FCC's doing EXACTLY what you suggest, Todd...

Not really, Information bulletins has always been a grey area, and
perhaps K1MAN can help eliminate some of these "grey areas"

No grey areas.

Huh?

The FCC has the power to clairfy a rule provided it is the least
restricted mean necessary to substantiate govenment interest the
problem is that when it comes to content control the FCC tends to tread
lightly, because they are limited/prohibited to control the content of
any station (see Below)

Sec. 326. Censorship...(SNIP TO...)

So Stebie the FCC better watch were they step.

You and Baxter are the one's who need galoshes, Todd.

There's no "direct" or "indirect" to it. Glennie overtly solicits
sales on his broadcasts.

Now he's busted.

Yeah there is, I'm not going to comment on it except to read my reply
to W4NTI in this thread, I'm not going to rewrite it all here.

But do you think for a minute, Todd, that Mr Loria would issue a
document demanding that a citizen part with $21K without consulting
with Washington first?
And please note that the TOP line says "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION"...Not "The Boston Branch of the FCC"...

The FCC District office of the enforcement does have that power, I
think my point was there is a LOOOOONG pocess to go and a NAL i s not a
final ORDER. Final Orders can be appealed to the US Court of Appeal.

So can that NAL.

But Baxter's pushed all the wrong buttons for too long.

Here's my take...He's going to file for his renewal. The FCC says
"sorry, you've got a pending NAL...".

After the first hearing, Baxter's going to realize that the FCC
isn't joking and that they have far greater resources to persue this in
court.

He'll make a deal with the FCC that if they renew his license,
he'll take a five year suspension...Either that or he'll take a limited
suspension in which he's forbidden to operate on HF or to make one-way
transmissions of any nature.

You wouldn't need a "waiver" if you'd just do it right the first
time.

Which show steve you nothing of the application and waivering process.
Anyone may file a waiver of the rules if good cause is shown at
anytime, and yes this also applies to amateur radio.

Sure it does.

But the FCC said you don't meet licensing criteria.

I am sure mumsie and popsies have given you everything you want
when you want it, Todd, but the real world isn't about to tolerate a
spoiled brat easily.

I doubt that we're getting all the story here, but I am willing to
bet that the bottom line is that YOU failed to meet licensing criteria,
hence no license.

Maybe it's your frequent use of fake last names or that you
represent yourself to be the "CEO" of a non-existant corporation. Or
maybe you just said "FO" one time too many to the wrong person and they
put a little black star next to your name!

Who knows. Who cares. All I can say is that having seen what
kind of person you really are in THIS forum, the people of Taylorville
have been well served by the FCC in it's refusal to license you in any
broadcast service.

Quit your whining and hire a REPUTABLE communications attorney to
help you. You're obviously grossly overwhelmed when it comes to
administrative matters. Let him do it for you.

Steve. despite what you and your ###hole buddy Phil think on here, an
broadcast application is very easy to fill out the problem is according
to the FCC I didn't file during a filing window, unfortunately Waiver
don't have filing windows as stated above they can be filed at anytime.
A person (like ME) can also waiver the filing window.

I know what the application is like, Todd. I took a look when I
read all this crap from you in the first place.

And despite how hard you try to convince everyone what a brilliant
communications lawyer YOU are, that lawyer you're NOT paying COULD push
all the right legal buttons and get you what you want.

Thank God (or the deity of your choice) that you're too stubborn.

The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

It's club ###HOLE!!

And you're member number 001.

Steve, K4YZ

Stebie said:
Sure it does.
But the FCC said you don't meet licensing criteria.
I am sure mumsie and popsies have given you everything you want
when you want it, Todd, but the real world isn't about to tolerate a
spoiled brat easily.
I doubt that we're getting all the story here, but I am willing to
bet that the bottom line is that YOU failed to meet licensing criteria,
hence no license.

Maybe it's your frequent use of fake last names or that you
represent yourself to be the "CEO" of a non-existant corporation. Or
maybe you just said "FO" one time too many to the wrong person and they
put a little black star next to your name!

Who knows. Who cares. All I can say is that having seen what
kind of person you really are in THIS forum, the people of Taylorville
have been well served by the FCC in it's refusal to license you in any
broadcast service.

No dickhead, that was it according to the FCC I didn't file during the
filing window proven that the FCC are a bunch of liars, like yourself.
but hey that's ok, I've got the amateur bands and I'll use them.

Todd N9OGL

N9OGL wrote:
K4YZ said:

Who knows. Who cares. All I can say is that having seen what
kind of person you really are in THIS forum, the people of Taylorville
have been well served by the FCC in it's refusal to license you in any
broadcast service.

No ####head, that was it according to the FCC I didn't file during the
filing window proven that the FCC are a bunch of liars....(SNIP)

No...

What it proves is that you aren't able to follow instructions.

Yet another good reason why you shou;dn't be allowed to have a
broadcast license.

(UNSNIP)...like yourself.

Wrong again.

but hey that's ok, I've got the amateur bands and I'll use them.

For now.

But you're already well on your way to screwing that up too, so I
look forward to a day when we see an NAL with your name and callsign on
it, Todd.

Steve, K4YZ

What it proves is that you aren't able to follow instructions.
What do you mean?? Waivers don't have filing window, waivers can filed
at anytime....the point are a bunch of lying scumbags just like
yourself.

Todd N9OGL

SORRY, NEED TO FIX IT!!

What do you mean?? Waivers don't have filing window, waivers can filed
at anytime....the point is the FCC is a bunch of lying scumbags just
like
yourself.
Todd N9OGL

N9OGL wrote:
What it proves is that you aren't able to follow instructions.

What do you mean??

What I mean is: "I t p r o v e s t h a t y o u a r e n '
t

a b l e t o f o l l o w i n s t r u c t i o n s.

Waivers don't have filing window, waivers can filed
at anytime....the point are a bunch of lying scumbags just like
yourself.

No one's lied to you, Todd.

You just haven't got what it takes to step up to the plate and
take responsibility for your own actions or failings.

Steve, K4YZ