On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:52:37 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:25:39 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
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.
But it also illustrates the fact that an "honorable discharge" is not
the be all and end all that it might seem.
That sounds like sour grapes to me.
The other fact remains that you can't malign Bush's records with all
sorts of maybe's and then have a fit when other's do it to Kerry.
Gee, that sounds mighty familiar..... isn't that the jist of what I
told you a couple months ago with the names transposed? I might be
wrong but I'm pretty sure it is. Do you want I should try and find
that post?
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.
I stated nothing of the sort. I stated that KERRY, by not filing a DOD
form 180 and releasing 100% of his records, is not being completely
open and honest about his service record. This leads to speculation
Hold it right there. Being "open" and being "honest" are two different
things. I am not "open" with my medical records but that doesn't
necessarily imply (or as you say, "leads to spectulation") that I'm
being dishonest about them. Fact: You don't know what is in those
records. The only thing you have, by your own admission above, is your
own speculation based on nothing more than suspicion. And your
suspicion is fueled by..... what? Kerry's opposition to Bush?
That's a very, very lame argument, Dave.
as
to his reasons why he chose to not release those records. It casts a
shadow of doubt over his motives.
You -still- don't see how stupid that sounds, do you?
The way you state it, it does sound stupid. But that is not how I
stated it.
The delivery is different but the content is the same.
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?"
Your condescending, patronizing tone is duly noted.
Good. For a moment I thought I wasn't getting through.
What was that someone said about your posts being devoid of emotion?
Is sarcasm an emotion?
snip
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.
There were "noise toys", most of which were variations of a relaxation
oscillators, and commonly referred to as "birdies". But they were not
"Roger Beeps". The roger beep style ETS signal didn't become popular
until NASA pushed it to the radio forefront with their use of them
during their space missions.
Roger-beeps have been around almost as long as SSB because that's
where they were first widely used. The reason for that is because with
SSB it's difficult to tell when someone is finished with a
transmission. This necessitated the practice of using the words
"over", "out" and "roger". It wasn't long until someone got the bright
idea to make a circuit that would transmit a beep when the mic unkeyed
so they wouldn't sound like airline pilots in a Zucker Brothers movie.
I also find it curious that ham magazines like QST would cover such
things while magazines, like S9 and CB magazine, (Which I was a
subscriber to) which catered to strictly CB radio did not.
Probably because S9 and CB magazine weren't around in 1959 when the CB
got started.
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 realize that this sounds like an example of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, but I wasn't living in a box Frank. I knew many people in
different radio circles. Like I said before, I never denied that some
small pockets of techie types may have made such a device, but it
never made the big time or, trust me, I would have known about it.
Dave, you have proven that you are in the dark about a lot of things,
and I don't think that's a recent development.
snip
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?
Yes, I found out what they referred to. It's a term coined by Condi
Rice as a lark, when they were choosing a nickname for their foreign
policy team. Most outsiders forgot or never knew the term unless one
read James Mann's book featuring that name. It certainly isn't a
universal term nor one that applies across the whole administration.
If I am guilty of ignorance, it's only to the extent that I don't read
every pundit author's interpretation of "the truth".
35,000 hits on Google and your excuse is that you don't read all the
books on the shelf? Well, I haven't read the book either and that's
not where I learned the term. All I had to do was read a few political
commentaries from magazines and the internet. Just a few. In fact, the
term is so prevalent that if you read just a handful of articles you
will almost certainly find the term mentioned at least once. But you
never heard it before I used it, huh?
Most pundits refer to the Bush team as "neo conservatives", which is
also a joke, since the term "neo" meaning new, means that neo
conservatives are "new" conservatives. Which then begs the question;
what were they before? If not conservatives, then were they dare I say
it -- Liberals? Socialists? What then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
snip
None of this is valid today.
Cop-out.
Not at all. I'm talking about right now in the present. There are
radios which carry a full load of "features" and others which carry
only a bare minimum. Some radios use the same PC board to cover
several models, the only difference being the external features they
charge the extra money for.
If a "roger beep" was clearly legal, it would stand to reason that it
would be included as another feature, and seen on at least the top
shelf models of the major radio makers.
THAT is an inductive argument as well.
Yes it is, and what you just said is that the legality of a roger-beep
is not clear. I have no problem with that.
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.
You have still, to date, failed to deny that you are, in fact, a
liberal.
But I did. What part of "I am not a liberal" did you not understand?
Oh, that's right..... you flatly rejected my statement in favor of
your personal beliefs.
You have also made comments in the past that were less than
complimentary to the corporate business world.
I make comments that are "less than complimentary" to just about
everybody and everything. That makes me a liberal?
You were even somewhat
condescending when I remarked that my bonus would be a bit larger this
year than last, as if I somehow was not entitled to it,
That's a faulty perception on your part. If you start reading between
the lines then you better be sure of what you are reading because
that's not what I wrote -or- implied. I have no idea what you do for a
living so I have no idea if your compensation is justified or not. And
if you pinned me as a liberal because you read more into my statement
than what I wrote then that's -your- fault, not mine.
especially
after you lost your job. This all paints the picture of someone who is
fed up with "the system".
......uh, sure Dave, that's why I have been on this newsgroup for years
preaching the virtues of using the system to effect changes in CB
rules instead of ignoring them. Or were you misreading between the
lines again?
Maybe I'm wrong, but hey, I can only go on the tidbits that are
presented here.
Over 5000 posts in THIS newsgroup -- you call that "tidbits"?
Yes, Dave, maybe you are wrong...... duh.
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.
That largest of all being the potential of increased profit.
The question is if the additional sales could justify the
extra cost, which would involve a market analysis.
Yes, that's exactly right. Judging from the sales of virtually
identical foreign made radios, which include this feature, the cost
adder should not be much (Exports already have it), and the sales of
export radios would also seem to justify it. Also consider that there
have been a few domestic radios made with a rather expensive (As
compared to a roger beep) frequency counter built-in, for use on 40
PLL controlled channels, it makes one wonder......
Yes, it makes one wonder how you can draw hard conclusions from
nothing more than speculation.
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).
If the feature was legal, there would be no "fits". The fact that you
acknowledge the potential for these "fits" tells me that you also
acknowledge that the FCC rule on this issue is not so cut and dried.
That's the whole point of this discussion. Thank you Frank.
Nice try, but the FCC frequently encourages compliance with policies
when noncompliance is not necessarily or technically illegal. A recent
example being the voluntary television rating system, compliance to
which is "strongly encouraged" by the FCC.
And I never claimed the roger-beep issue was definitive. On the
contrary, it was -you- who claimed that roger-beeps were illegal
despite the existence of an FCC certified radio incorporating the
feature. It has been -my- position that its legality is in doubt; i.e,
"not so cut and dried". So while you are patting yourself on the back
you should realize that you have totally flip-flopped on the issue.
Hmmmm..... flip-flopped..... now where have I heard -that- before?
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?
What? If the feature and its use were legal, this would not be a
problem. Once again you are supporting my original premise that roger
beeps are not legal. At the very best they are a "gray" area.
A certain car might be perfectly legal to manufacture and market, but
just because it can go faster than the speed limit doesn't mean
speeding is legal. It's not a "gray area" because it's the operator's
responsibility to know and abide by the laws -regardless- of the
capabilities of the equipment. The legal hassles begin when some
lawyer thinks he can make the case that it's legal to drive 90 because
the speedometer goes that high. Unfortunately, cases like that cost
lots of money not because they have merit, but because the companies
usually find it cheaper to pay off the lawyers instead of fighting it
out in court.
Do you have those analyses, Dave? If you don't then you -don't- have
the facts and are just speculating.
Yes, I am speculating.
No kidding.
But judging from past performance, most
manufacturers would gladly add a roger beep if they felt it was
clearly legal.
Wrong. A tone control is probably one of the cheapest and easiest
features to add to a radio. Another cheap and easy feature that could
have been included on AM radios is a BFO, which would allow the
operator to communicate with someone having an SSB transceiver. By
your reasoning, -most- radios would have included that feature. Yet
few radios have tone controls; and as far as I know, only one AM CB
radio ever included a BFO.
IOW, your reasoning is flawed.
Hell, Galaxy did it. They had the balls to make the
decision, they aren't afraid of the FCC, even if they might be wrong.
They're willing to gamble that the FCC will not feel that this is an
issue worth worrying about.
Speculation.
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.
If I had a contact on the inside, I would do that. But that's hardly a
question to send to an (likely) out sourced customer service rep.
Geez, I only suggested it once and you are already making excuses.
snip
Now, what was that you were saying about facts Frank?
The fact is that you can't read. LOL!
I can read just fine Frank. Perhaps you should re-read it. You are the
one who made the :
"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.
I accept your apology.
You are misreading between the lines again. I made an observation, not
a conclusion. You obviously can't tell the difference.
----== 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 =---