On Mon, 24 May 2004 11:46:01 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

Someone may take pity on you, a self-professed Extra

My license class is a matter of public record. There is no "self
professing" about it.

so you need email the FCC, as
your ignorance will not be quenched by any other excepot the source.
A roger beep fits neatly in part "b" of what you presented, and is not
illegal on cb. Again, email the FCC for clarification, don't be so lazy
and ignorant.

Riddle me this then Batman, why are there no type accepted LEGAL CB
radios produced with a roger beep or an echo?

Judging from the response that export radios get with these little
sound effects, that these gimmicks would be a big hit with the
toothless, trailer park, welfare set in this country. The fact that
they are not being produced is pretty much a de-facto ruling that they
are, in fact, illegal.

So YOU need to get a clarification from the FCC. Go ahead, call them!

The FCC had already made this clarification over 20 years ago, long
before you were involved in the hobby. A roger beep is considered a
sound effect, and as such is illegal. Prove me wrong if you can, but I
won't hold my breath.



[6] to transmit music, whistling, sound effects
or any material to amuse or entertain;

The FCC does not consider a roger beep to be a sound effect for
"amusement" or "entertainment",

Prove it! We have only your heresay. Provide the link or we'll all
conclude that this is yet another of your lies.


but rather a signal to signify the the
end or beginning of a transmission.

Superfluous on CB. Especially on AM, where a very distinct carrier
dropping, signals the end of transmission.


[7] to transmit any sound effect solely to
attract attention;

And that's exactly what a roger beep is.

An echo box is a "sound effect" device and as
such is prohibited by the above rule.

Watching your scramble to argue with yourself has always been
pleasurable to some of us, Davie-son. None took pleasure with the
legality of an echo box. Merely more of your bull****.

I'll take that as an acknowledgment of your inability to disprove my
statement.


Same goes for roger beeps. Since they do not
facilitate communication,



But they do facilitate communication.

The FCC would appear to think otherwise. If not, then every last
little Cobra 19 wannabe rig would have them installed by the factory.


Here's another self-esteem killer
for you Davie,,in addition to emailing the FCC to ascertain what
EVERYONE else aready knows concerning roger beeps,,,,,ask around on this
group,,in fact,,ask around on the hammie groups,,,see if ANY other
hammie agrees with you,,,,,,anywhere. Bet you can't find any to agree
with you.

Anyone with a clear understanding of the rules knows that they are
illegal. The rest? Well even you might know a handful of people who
are as psychologically inept as you are and would agree with you. The
mental hospitals are full of people who thought they could fly......
And even more who would swear to it.


That's funny that you consider me having no respect for others merely
because of my freebanding activity.

It's not what you do, it's the tone you take when you defend it. Your
staunch defending of freebanding even though it is illegal. Illegal
operation which amounts to breaking federal law, which by logical
definition makes you a CRIMINAL.


Your point of view is not only lacking, but skewered, one-sided,
incorrect, misinterpreted, flawed, and steadfastly fixed on remaining
ignorant.

I know you are, but what am I?


Actually the dictionary definition is:

1. Based on observation or experiment.

2. Guided by practical experience and not

theory.

Nowhere does it call for "proof".

Now go ahead and make the predictable next
move of attempting to discredit my dictionary
for you own faux-pax.



There is only one standard among the media and it is the AP standards.
They utilize one source, not the lightweight junior high books you
refer. Try Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary. See, Davie-son,
the abridged versions are for people like yourself that need spoon-fed
and not capable of correct interpretations. Again,,go to the source, as
it most certainly does use the term "proof". Quoted verbatim: "Provable
or verifiable by experiment or experience." Again,,your personal
experience may indeed sway your belief, but without tangible proof, it
is merely a theory. Attempting to educate you is futile, as you become
angry and begin lodgin personal attacks,,another sure fire sign of your
lack of skill, intellect, self-control, tolerance, and ability to remain
on subject and hold rational debate with those who hold opposing
opinions other than your own, but then again, we have always known that
about yourself and such is what contributed to the demise of your
self-esteem and your reputation.

Thank you for being so predictable.

I love it when you go on a rant, and start spewing out words, the
meaning of which you're not entirely sure of. When you have to start a
brand new thread and then adorn it mith my call, I'm sure I've hit a
nerve. My job here is done for the day......


Perhaps Im not worthy,

No "perhaps" about it.

but that doesn't change the subject matter that
you have been unable to provide for any of your claims.

Unwilling, maybe. Unable? Only you are unable to put your money where
your mouth is. Once again, you are simply not worth my trouble.


My personal faith and believing in God has absolutely nothing to do with
not believing one who has failed to produce anything concerning any of
his claims, except angry diatribes,
off-topic obsessions, hearsay, and personal opinion..

Sounds like you're talking about (or is that to?) yourself again.
Among your other psychiatric ailments, are you also schizophrenic?

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj