"Bruce in alaska" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Cecil Moore wrote:

John Smith quoted someone:
"A 5 KW amplifier is not lawful for use under Part 97."

Back in the 60's, a ham friend of mine ran a
surplus AM transmitter capable of 10KW output.
However, he never adjusted his input power to
more than the legal 1KW limit.

Whom, ever "Someone" is, he isn't versed in 47CFR97, and doesn't
understand, or can't comprehend, the actual Rule that Part 97
operations are REQUIRED to operate under. Specifically Part
97.313. I wonder if "Said Person" has ever actually READ
47CFR90.313? Apparently NOT......


and how would you know that from the information stated?

On Jul 28, 9:10*pm, John Smith wrote:
If you ever think about posting to the moderated group, don't ...

Here is an example of a censored post, of mine:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

* A 5 KW amplifier is not lawful for use under Part 97. Please strike
reference on any resubmit. - K3FU

Your message has been rejected because it describes or advocates
activities that we reasonably believe to be in violation of United
States Law or Federal Communications Commission Regulations (or
similar laws and regulations in other countries, if you are not a
U.S. person).

Please read the charter of rec.radio.amateur.moderated at:

* * * *http://www.panix.com/~rram/usenet/rram/index.html

Please direct any queries to .

Thank you,

* * * * - Moderation Team.


It is none of K3FUs' business what equipment I own, or who I tell ...

That man, and I use that title VERY LIGHTLY, is beyond an idiot ...

JS


What they are doing over there is a blatent attempt to keep bozos off
the bus! It should be viewed as an affront to all bozos, and you are
well within your rights to be good and mad about it.

ac6xg
(actual callsign)

Dave wrote:

...
and how would you know that from the information stated?



Oh now, imagine that; why didn't we/I think of that! There are "other
possibilities" to his intentions/actions/words!

However, the alternatives bode poorly of the mans motives, intellect,
reading comprehension abilities, trustworthiness, fitness for public
position, etc. -- pick one or more at your own/his risk ... perhaps
"manipulator" would be a compromise one could seek?

Regards,
JS

Jim Kelley wrote:

...
What they are doing over there is a blatent attempt to keep bozos off
the bus! It should be viewed as an affront to all bozos, and you are
well within your rights to be good and mad about it.

ac6xg
(actual callsign)

If your appraisal of "their intentions/wishes" is correct, and you are a
friend, would not it be appropriate to inform them they have failed?

Indeed, apparently, while "their" attention(s) were elsewhere, the bozos
snuck on that bus and now guide that "vehicles" direction ... frown

But you do have a point! Their inability to recognize their plight and
what has happened to them is rather strange; do you believe anyone is
home? ... Or, you think it might be something in the water they are
drinking? :-(

Regards,
JS

On Jul 29, 1:51*pm, John Smith wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
...
What they are doing over there is a blatent attempt to keep bozos off
the bus! *It should be viewed as an affront to all bozos, and you are
well within your rights to be good and mad about it.

ac6xg
(actual callsign)

If your appraisal of "their intentions/wishes" is correct, and you are a
friend, would not it be appropriate to inform them they have failed?

With all due respect, I wouldn't be surprised if your posts were used
as the calibration standard, "John".

ac6xg
(actual callsign)

Jim Kelley wrote:

...
With all due respect, I wouldn't be surprised if your posts were used
as the calibration standard, "John".

ac6xg
(actual callsign)


Why Jim, and certainly with all due respect intended, I most willingly
accept that as your NSHPO! (Yanno, that acronym is growing on me--at
first I wasn't so taken with it!) ;-)

Regards,
JS

Bruce in alaska wrote:
Whom, ever "Someone" is, he isn't versed in 47CFR97, and doesn't
understand, or can't comprehend, the actual Rule that Part 97
operations are REQUIRED to operate under. Specifically Part
97.313. I wonder if "Said Person" has ever actually READ
47CFR90.313? Apparently NOT......

I fail to see how "never adjusting his input power to more
than the legal 1KW limit" violated 97.313.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Jul 29, 6:34*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith quoted someone:

*"A 5 KW amplifier is not lawful for use under Part 97."

Back in the 60's, a ham friend of mine ran a
surplus AM transmitter capable of 10KW output.
However, he never adjusted his input power to
more than the legal 1KW limit.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Like you, I'm just an observer in all this, but it appears that Phil
Kane (the gentleman to whom "Mr. Smith" was lecturing) must have been
referring to the practice of using a 5 KW amp at its rated output on
the ham bands as being unlawful. You probably remember Phil from
r.r.a.p. He made his living as a practicing communications attorney
IIRC.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
On Jul 29, 6:34 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
...
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Like you, I'm just an observer in all this, but it appears that Phil
Kane (the gentleman to whom "Mr. Smith" was lecturing) must have been
referring to the practice of using a 5 KW amp at its rated output on
the ham bands as being unlawful. You probably remember Phil from
r.r.a.p. He made his living as a practicing communications attorney
IIRC.

ac6xg

Jim, I can possibly help clarify the situation, at this point.

The "gentleman" who took, apparently/NSHPO, responsibility for the
censorship was Paul Schleck/K3FU (none other than a major player in the
arrl wannabe political league) ... and, in my NSHPO, was stepping up to
assist a friend (aiding an accomplice would just be too harsh of
language) ...

Regards,
JS

On Jul 29, 4:20*pm, John Smith wrote:

The "gentleman" who took, apparently/NSHPO, responsibility for the
censorship was Paul Schleck/K3FU (none other than a major player in the
arrl wannabe political league) ... and, in my NSHPO, was stepping up to
assist a friend (aiding an accomplice would just be too harsh of
language) ...

You bet.

But here's what I really need to know: how can I turn on a message
filter in google groups? That would really help a lot.

ac6xg
(actual callsign)