RadioBanter - View Single Post

January 7th 05, 08:37 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall) wrote:
So, you're telling me that you can't listen to a

channel and pick out who the most blatant

illegal operators are simply by the sound of

their rigs, and by the splatter they produce?

When the dx is running strong, that is exactly what people are trying to
tell you.

The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of
splatter and the distortion a signal may have.

It has everything to with it. For the amount of times you professed to
having talked skip on the freeband, followed by recent denials of you
talking skip, you should know that on MANY occasion, a signal can be
severely wavering from an S1 to an S9 (for but one of many
examples),,,when that signal is coming in at an S9, the splatter may be
intense if you changed the channel and went one up or down. When that
signal is coming in on a wavering S1, you will hear absolutely nothing
on your next channel. Once again, the wavering is a direct result
of...taa daaa....skip.

The only effect that "DX" may have is

heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any

case, when my observations were made, the

"DX" was not running heavy enough that a

clean sample of any particular transmission

could not be made.

You can qualify it away now, but your original claim is still bull****.
_
I find it absoutely astounding this is lost upon you

That's not surprising considering you once

tried to tell me (and the group) that a 4 watt

skip station 1000 miles away could potentially

walk on top of a 4 watt station a half mile

away,

Absolutely. In fact, I have taught you many things regarding HF
propagation and communication law of which you have no clue.

totally disregarding the effects of R.F.

.path loss.

Never. That last part was added desperation.

-
Coupled with your claim concerning roger beeps and echo on cb being
illegal (they're not) merely because you were unable to locate a rule
specifically permitting their use, and it merits

There are specific rules which specifically

prohibit devices used for "entertainment" and

"amusement" purposes.

But only you continue to err and place such in that category. Your
argument is with the FCC, not those of us who are able to correctly
understand their law.

There is also a specific rule which outlines

permitted tone signals. A Roger Beep is not

listed under permissible tone signals.

Following simple logic, since there is no valid

rule which permits a particular device, then the
device defaults to one of "amusement or

entertainment" status and is prohibited.

That isn't simple logic, that's but an openly biased albeit incorrect
interpretation based on nothing more than your past stated disdain for
such items and your ignorance of the law that governs your hobby.

So therefore it can be assumed that a roger

beep and (even more definite) an echo box

could be considered "entertainment" or

"amusement" devices and, as such, are

specifically prohibited.

Only by yourself.

You can make the point that the FCC doesn't

care enough to make a case about these

things, and I would probably agree with you.

Not only would I never make such an invalid comparison, I disagree with
such a statement.
Email the fcc and ask them about your claim, Dave.

But the fact remains that they are prohibited

by the rules.

Insisting on remaining ignorant is your right at all cost.

Irony: When some of those licensed for communications know the least
about their chosen endeavor.

Bigger Irony: Someone with obvious

comprehensive issues chastising others for

the same flaw.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

This is quite simple, really....me: 100% correct..you: 100% wrong.