"Larry" wrote:
Floyd,

I think it all boils down to this, if you want to limit the frequency range
of your radio to whatever, because you believe that you like it best (or
whatever) great! It is your privelege to do that. As for me, I think that a
little wider is nicer and that's OK for me too. You may believe strongly in
your justification but the rules give very wide lattitude in making this
call to the amateur. Some may think this is about to change but I don't
think so. So good luck and have fun. The hobby is great, isn't it!

I did not suggest that there should be a regulatory limit. That
came from elsewhere. My argument is purely one of technical
aspects that have to be considered.

However, if you and others insist on ignoring the appropriate technical
aspects, we *will* see regulatory action to curtail it.

By the way, in the discussion of bandwidths, your hyperbole is totally
without meaning if you are not specifying attenuation at the given limits of
bandwidth. 100 to 3500 hz is a very different spec if those are 3 db points
than if they are 26 or 60 db points. Also specifying that the limits refer
to peak or average would be helpful in making your comments meaningful.

Yes, and I could write a ****ing book too. What's your point?
The only time any specs that I meantioned deviated from the
standard ones, I mentioned not only that it did but what the
effect was.

Besides not even a moose would take his call at being real with those kinds
of limits. You're up there, go ask one!

If you want your audio to attract moose, please get a bullhorn
and head for the woods. But stay off the ham bands with it.


While you are at it... Learn not to top post and learn to trim
unnecessary quoted text. Bandwidth is important in places other
than a ham rig too.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd,

Being up there in Alaska isn't doing you much good. Sounds like you're not
getting any. Tell you what, get your bullhorn, go out in the woods, call a
moose .. hope for a female naturally .. well maybe not and maybe that's part
of the problem, and come back to the group with a whole lot better attitude.
Frankly people like you worry me with all that unfriendy hostility. You
sound like an immature young stud who just need to mellow out.

Oh BTFW Floyd, I'll post how and when I like and I'll leave any text
attached that I think may be appropriate and when it becomes your newsgroup
and you are made God, I might listen! Till then FO!!


"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Larry" wrote:
Floyd,

I think it all boils down to this, if you want to limit the frequency
range
of your radio to whatever, because you believe that you like it best (or
whatever) great! It is your privelege to do that. As for me, I think that
a
little wider is nicer and that's OK for me too. You may believe strongly
in
your justification but the rules give very wide lattitude in making this
call to the amateur. Some may think this is about to change but I don't
think so. So good luck and have fun. The hobby is great, isn't it!

I did not suggest that there should be a regulatory limit. That
came from elsewhere. My argument is purely one of technical
aspects that have to be considered.

However, if you and others insist on ignoring the appropriate technical
aspects, we *will* see regulatory action to curtail it.

By the way, in the discussion of bandwidths, your hyperbole is totally
without meaning if you are not specifying attenuation at the given limits
of
bandwidth. 100 to 3500 hz is a very different spec if those are 3 db
points
than if they are 26 or 60 db points. Also specifying that the limits
refer
to peak or average would be helpful in making your comments meaningful.

Yes, and I could write a ****ing book too. What's your point?
The only time any specs that I meantioned deviated from the
standard ones, I mentioned not only that it did but what the
effect was.

Besides not even a moose would take his call at being real with those
kinds
of limits. You're up there, go ask one!

If you want your audio to attract moose, please get a bullhorn
and head for the woods. But stay off the ham bands with it.


While you are at it... Learn not to top post and learn to trim
unnecessary quoted text. Bandwidth is important in places other
than a ham rig too.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Larry" wrote:
Floyd,

Being up there in Alaska isn't doing you much good. Sounds like you're not
getting any. Tell you what, get your bullhorn, go out in the woods, call a
moose .. hope for a female naturally .. well maybe not and maybe that's part
of the problem, and come back to the group with a whole lot better attitude.
Frankly people like you worry me with all that unfriendy hostility.

In other words, you don't have a valid response, and can only come up
with "go call a moose".

You
sound like an immature young stud who just need to mellow out.

*You* are the one posting "go call a moose" responses, kid.

Oh BTFW Floyd, I'll post how and when I like and I'll leave any text
attached that I think may be appropriate and when it becomes your newsgroup
and you are made God, I might listen! Till then FO!!

You don't have a clue about Usenet either, do you. Take a look
at *any* of the thousands of Usenet guides on formatting articles.
Take a look at RFC-1855. Do a google search on "netiquette".

Nobody made me god, and that has nothing to do with your arrogant
ignorance of what works and what doesn't, on Usenet or on ham radio.


"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...


While you are at it... Learn not to top post and learn to trim
unnecessary quoted text. Bandwidth is important in places other
than a ham rig too.


--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

FO! ??

Flash Override -the FO key function on some military field phones.



... Till then FO!!