an_old_friend wrote:

Jim Hampton wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

hack

Yes, Mark...that's what you do best...

That I lack a knowledge of the arcane ways in which mode were described
is NOT disputed by me

It's not arcane.

It's "here and now". It's codified into the regulations for a
federal license that YOU hold and are required to at least be familiar
with.

I hate to see this thread continue; perhaps I can shed some light on it.

"2K8J3E" is broken down into two parts. 2K8 and J3E.

Years ago, A1 was CW. F3 was FM. A3 was AM. Well, they clarified the
emission types to indicate whether a signal was single sideband, double
sideband, independent sidebands and whether the carrier was suppressed,
reduced, or full carrier.

I have seen fragment of this but in my reading of way part 97 recently
I don't recall it

Becasue you skipped over the parts not written in crayon, Mark.

J3E refers to the emission type. I have a strong suspicion that 2K8
represents a 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth.

you may well be right but even you don't know, not a slame on you but
pointing that you clearly know better than are not sure how can I be
expected to know it

You can be expected to at least know where to find the information
since you ARE responsible for it as a Commisssion licensee of an
Amateur Radio station.

I don't know them all either, but I know where to find out.

We often refer to single sideband, fm, cw, or whatever. The nomenclature
that Steve put forth is a formal one that pins down the emission type and

Corecting you Hans put it forth, Steve is taking me to task for not
knowing it

No, not at all.

I am taking you to task for treating Hans so rudely then lying
about it afterwards.

So Steve may have been a little strong in his wording, but his conclusion
was not in error. You appear to have little knowledge of emission
types/bandwidth occupancy.

Agreed
and Steve and for that Hans know this and choose to give an answer
technical correct (is it in fact technicaly correct) but dsigned to be
useless to me

It was only useless to you since you refused to follow-up on it
from there.

You wanted spoon-fed, written in crayon answers.

Hans' only mistake was assuming that you might be albe to
understand the answer.

Not slamming you, but Steve was not entirely remiss in his post.

I accept thatyou intend no slam but I miss you have missed Stevies
intent

There's no "intent" on my part, Mark.

You asked a question. You got the answer. You then insulted the
respondant and called him a liar.

You were wrong on several levels.

You owe Hans Brakob an apology.

Steve, K4YZ