On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:16:42 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:37:43 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:09:08 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :
snip
I see that -you- aren't talking about politics anymore because you
refuse to accept any facts;
What you consider "facts" is the whole point of contention.
They are facts sourced from the very same source that says Bush got an
honorable discharge. Care to dispute the source? I didn't think so.
So why do all the libs
There you go with the labels again.....
cry that Bush's honorable discharge was somehow
"bought"?
Maybe because he was pushed to the front of the line of the selection
committee? And was accepted into the NG the day (or day after) he
applied? Maybe because the records show he couldn't even keep a
doctor's appointment that was required to fulfill his military
obligations (he was a pilot, remember?)? Or maybe because for several
months the only record of him fulfilling his duties is his pay records
which the Pentagon (under the direction of Rumsfeld) suddenly produced
after twice claiming no more records existed? And unlike Kerry, where
his shipmates are in disagreement about his nature of service but all
agree that he was indeed there, NOBODY remembers Bush being present at
one of his assigned duty stations.
It's an 'inductive' argument, Dave, and it's pretty strong.
Yet you claim the same agency (the Pentagon) is responsible in a
conspiricy to conceal records that are damaging to Kerry without any
reason, subjective or objective, other than the fact that the records
have not been released, and -despite- the fact that there is no law
that requires him to do so, not even under the FIA.
You -still- don't see how stupid that sounds, do you?
See, both sides can make up all sorts of stories to explain
the "facts".
Those aren't made-up stories, Dave. If you can't see how the facts are
related to each other then here's what you need to do: Next time you
are at the store go to the magazine stand. Look for the section with
all the kiddie puzzle books. Pick one with a lot of connect-the-dot
puzzles. Buy it. Take it home and practice. When you finish that,
watch Sesame Street and pay careful attention when you hear the song
with the words, "Which one of these things is not like the other?"
But I digress, this thread is not about politics.
e.g., the fact here is that you are
looking at the wrong rule:
Am I?
This is where the controversy is. Your assessment is valid, and it
would seem that since the FCC has allowed ETS signals on FRS radios,
(which also fall under part 95) that it would also stand to reason
that they would allow them on class "D" CB as well. The question is
why have they not made their position clear in the form of a rule
modification?
FRS radios have such tones because they are permitted by this rule:
"Sec. 95.193 (b) The FRS unit may transmit tones to make contact or
to continue communications with a particular FRS unit....."
CB radio has an identical rule:
"Sec. 95.412 (b) You may use your CB station to transmit a tone
signal only when the signal is used to make contact or to continue
communications....."
But you failed to print the entire rule subpart. Why this is
significant I will explain after I post it in its entirety:
"(b) You may use your CB station to transmit a tone signal only
when the signal is used to make contact or to continue communications.
(Examples of circuits using these signals are tone operated squelch
and selective calling circuits.) If the signal is an audible tone, it
must last no longer than 15 seconds at one time. If the signal is a
subaudible tone, it may be transmitted continuously only as long as
you are talking."
Now, when you look at the rule, it becomes clear what the intent of
this rule is. They are defining selective calling units, that operate
either with CTCSS or dual tone (paging style) squelch systems.
Lafayette used to sell them from the 1960's into the early 70's.
You might be able to infer that this rule also applies to roger beeps,
but you have to remember that this rule was written long before roger
beeps were even heard of on CB radio communications.
Bull****. Roger-beeps have existed, legal or not, on the CB since the
band was barely a few months old.
I NEVER heard a roger beep on CB until the early 80's. They certainly
were not around in 1970 when I first got on the band.
Now, I'm not saying that some clever tech type didn't invent one, and
used it in some local pocket somewhere. But their use was not
widespread, or I would 've heard them it, especially when the skip
rolled in.
I don't know what corn field you lived in in 1970 but roger-beeps were
pretty common around here. And I'm sure that anyone on the CB scene in
NY at the time would tell you the same thing. Noise-toys (and other
minor violations) were frequent subjects in magazines such as PE and
QST which covered the CB from day one; and most of them describe their
widespread nature and general abuse of the band.
But because -you- never heard a roger-beep that means they didn't
exist. Once again you have declared something to be fact based on your
opinions. Ok, Dave. Whatever you say.
I will concede that the rule is open to a wide variety of
interpretation. It is conceivable that you MIGHT be ok if you use the
roger beep strictly as an ETS signal. The minute you start making
multiple tones, musical notes or otherwise, you fall into the category
spelled out by 95.413, prohibited transmissions subpart 6 and 7:
(6) To transmit music, whistling, sound effects or any material to
amuse or entertain;
(7) To transmit any sound effect solely to attract attention;
Damn liberals.
You really have become consumed with politics. Have I rattled you that
much?
You probably shouldn't flatter yourself over your ignorance of
political issues. Did you find out who the Vulcans are yet? Or are you
going to claim that they don't exist because you never heard of them?
So it should be obvious that if any radio with a "roger-beep" is
accepted, the tone is considered to be a tool that is used to
-facilitate- communications, a purpose which is consistent with the
above rule(s).
The question remains, with the exception of the Galaxy, there are no
other domestic radios with this built in feature. If the rule was so
cut and dry, then why not add another selling point?
How about because the service was intended to be a cheap-&-easy way to
get 2-way radio comm? There were literally hundreds of models WITHOUT
a control for RF gain, delta-tune, SWR, etc, etc. And the FCC used to
cite people for nothing more than failure to comply with the time-out
rule. So would -you- have included it in a radio? I doubt it.
None of this is valid today.
Cop-out.
Even if you despise the art of marketing
and capitalism,
I never said anything of the sort. You don't even understand how your
own mind works: You extrapolated that trait on me from your image of a
stereotypical 'liberal', which is a label that -you- gave me for other
reasons. You sound like a third-rate psychologist.
the fact remains that bells and whistles sell
products. A roger beep is not a difficult thing to add to a radio (and
not expensive), yet it will add perceived value as another "feature"
to justify an increased price for.
You of all people know that a manufacturing decision is based on a lot
of factors. The question is if the additional sales could justify the
extra cost, which would involve a market analysis. That analysis would
also include a comparison with competitive products; i.e, aftermarket
noise boxes, boards and mics. There is also the issue of whether or
not the FCC would pitch a bitch even if the design changes would be
technically legal but contrary to FCC policy, which would involve a
hassle in the courts (and expensive attorney fees). Then there is the
product liability issue: What would be the legal expenses defending
the company from ****ed-off consumers who got an NAL when the FCC
popped them for using the roger-beep function?
Do you have those analyses, Dave? If you don't then you -don't- have
the facts and are just speculating.
Besides, I never said that *all* radios should have it. But yo would
think at least the flagship radios from all the big name manufacturers
would include this "feature" as another sale item.
You go ahead and email them with that question. Until you get a
definitive response your opinions are nothing more than speculation.
And another fact: I brought this same issue to your attention almost a
year ago..... in -THIS- newsgroup.
I remember the discussion. I believe it was Bert who provided the
picture of his Galaxy radio with the FCC ID number which you initially
looked up and couldn't find, and then claimed that the radio's Roger
beep was an "add-on" accessory..
I made no such claim. Look up the thread and read the FACTS, Dave.
Oh, how easily you forget Frank. Here, read this:
=====START PASTE OF FRANK'S POST=========
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
From: Frank Gilliland - Find messages by
this author
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 06:54:51 -0700
Local: Wed, May 26 2004 6:54 am
Subject: N3CVJ claims Roger Beeps illegal
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
In , Frank Gilliland
wrote:
In , "AKC KennelMaster"
wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 May 2004 22:57:29 GMT, "Bert Craig"
wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
Riddle me this then Batman, why are there no type accepted LEGAL CB
radios produced with a roger beep or an echo?
Sorry Dave, my old Galaxy DX-949 came stock woith a roger beep...and
was/is
FCC type accepted.
http://www.galaxyradios.com/cb/949.html
Would you happen to to have the FCC I.D. number of that radio? That
radio, other than the roger beep, also has variable power, something
else no other legal CB has. I have my doubts that this radio is
entirely legal.
Dave
"Sandbagger"
Wrong again, Dave. Here's the link: http://www.galaxyradios.com/2547.html
There are no current equipment authorizations for any Galaxy CB radio.
Search the database yourself if you want:
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/c...ericSearch.cfm
Well, by golly, I goofed again. The FCC ID number is C2R-DX-2547, it's
a Ranger, and it is legal for CB. But what I didn't see on the Galaxy
website was a built-in roger-beep -- instead the board is available as
an accessory.
-----=
Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers
=====END PASTE OF FRANK'S POST======
Now, what was that you were saying about facts Frank?
The fact is that you can't read. LOL!
That was back when you were on my side, before you found out that I'm
one of those "evil" capitalist loving conservatives who still believes
in personal responsibility.
I'm still on your side, Dave. The difference we have is that you
refuse to look at -political- issues from both sides of the coin.
Sure I do Frank. It's just that I believe that conservatism is the
better path to follow, and I will support my side of the coin, and
expose the hypocrisy of the other side.
I really don't care about your political leanings or religious
beliefs. But if you are going to "expose" people for telling lies and
making up stories to attack those who don't share their beliefs then
don't whine when you are exposed for doing the same.
Apparently your problem is migrating to CB issues; i.e, your false
claim about me stated above.
It's not so false as you may think.........
Read it again, Dave. And this time don't use your Liberal/Neocon
translation dictionary.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---