On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:46:14 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
Dave Hall wrote in
:
I have hardly been "bewildered". I told you and everyone else how it was
done. It was done by utilizing a 7805 regulator to create a steady 5V
for the bias supply. The 5V was then dropped through a resistor and
applied to the base of each of the 2290 devices. The bias voltage was
limited to .6V by utilizing a forward biased diode on each transistor,
which was placed on top of each "pill" for heat tracking and stability.
It's not rocket science, for someone who knows what they're doing. You
know, I might just take a some pictures of the project and put them on
my website just to squash your incessant babble.

Exactly dave you just added ab-1 bias to the

am which certainly would clean it up, but what

would the spoiled kid in Tampa know he

doesnt even solder his mike plugs on.

_
I'm not in Tampa.

Interesting. He didn't deny the "spoiled" or the "kid" part......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:57:27 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall) wrote:
So, you're telling me that you can't listen to a

channel and pick out who the most blatant

illegal operators are simply by the sound of

their rigs, and by the splatter they produce?

When the dx is running strong, that is exactly what people are trying to
tell you.

The "DX" has nothing to do with the amount of
splatter and the distortion a signal may have.


It has everything to with it. For the amount of times you professed to
having talked skip on the freeband, followed by recent denials of you
talking skip, you should know that on MANY occasion, a signal can be
severely wavering from an S1 to an S9 (for but one of many
examples),,,when that signal is coming in at an S9, the splatter may be
intense if you changed the channel and went one up or down. When that
signal is coming in on a wavering S1, you will hear absolutely nothing
on your next channel. Once again, the wavering is a direct result
of...taa daaa....skip.


The only effect that "DX" may have is

heterodyning of co-channel signals. In any

case, when my observations were made, the

"DX" was not running heavy enough that a

clean sample of any particular transmission

could not be made.



You can qualify it away now, but your original claim is still bull****.
_
I find it absoutely astounding this is lost upon you

That's not surprising considering you once

tried to tell me (and the group) that a 4 watt

skip station 1000 miles away could potentially

walk on top of a 4 watt station a half mile

away,



Absolutely. In fact, I have taught you many things regarding HF
propagation and communication law of which you have no clue.

totally disregarding the effects of R.F.

.path loss.

Never. That last part was added desperation.

-
Coupled with your claim concerning roger beeps and echo on cb being
illegal (they're not) merely because you were unable to locate a rule
specifically permitting their use, and it merits

There are specific rules which specifically

prohibit devices used for "entertainment" and

"amusement" purposes.


But only you continue to err and place such in that category. Your
argument is with the FCC, not those of us who are able to correctly
understand their law.

There is also a specific rule which outlines

permitted tone signals. A Roger Beep is not

listed under permissible tone signals.

Following simple logic, since there is no valid

rule which permits a particular device, then the
device defaults to one of "amusement or

entertainment" status and is prohibited.



That isn't simple logic, that's but an openly biased albeit incorrect
interpretation based on nothing more than your past stated disdain for
such items and your ignorance of the law that governs your hobby.

So therefore it can be assumed that a roger

beep and (even more definite) an echo box

could be considered "entertainment" or

"amusement" devices and, as such, are

specifically prohibited.


Only by yourself.

You can make the point that the FCC doesn't

care enough to make a case about these

things, and I would probably agree with you.


Not only would I never make such an invalid comparison, I disagree with
such a statement.
Email the fcc and ask them about your claim, Dave.

But the fact remains that they are prohibited

by the rules.


Insisting on remaining ignorant is your right at all cost.

Irony: When some of those licensed for communications know the least
about their chosen endeavor.

Bigger Irony: Someone with obvious

comprehensive issues chastising others for

the same flaw.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

This is quite simple, really....me: 100% correct..you: 100% wrong.

Dave Hall wrote:
-major snipper-
Back then "We the People" were mostly Christian people, with solid
moral values and a greater sense of personal responsibility. I don't
want to see this country degrade from it's former glory by forgetting
that.

Amen. I may be going to hell in a bucket, but at least I'm enjoying
the ride. ($1-grateful)

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:08:37 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:16:33 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
So you are denying that the majority of the

"big

radios" on Channel 6 are running any sort of

high power?

Apparently, that is a an argument you are having with yourself.

No, you are trying to claim that there are no

illegal operators on 6, based on your rejection

to my claim that what I can hear on almost a

daily basis is in fact illegal.


=A0=A0I claimed nothing of the sort. I claimed only that your claim is
bull****, which it is.

So which is it? If you are denying my claim

that there are illegal stations on channel 6,

then by simple inverse logic, you are claiming

that there are NO illegal stations on channel 6.

That isn't inverse logic, that's illogic invoked by yourself. Once
again, since you are displaying an uncanny sense of self-cornfusion, the
legality of stations on channel 6 was never the issue. The only issue
was the manner in which you claimed you could tell they were illegal.


If, you acknowledge that there are, in fact,

illegal stations on channels 6, then my claim

cannot be false.

You REALLY need a course in logic.

Or will you try to weasel out of it by claiming

that the term "high power" is ambiguous?

See above.
Your personal feelings are not facts, despite how many times you invoke
them as such. Let's look at it again since you still can not grasp it.
You (N3CVJ)said:

`channel 6, which is notorious for harboring

the dregs of society, who regularly run high

power, is all the "evidence" I need, to

determine that the station in question is in fact,
llegal."

Once again, your personal feelings are not facts. That illegal operation
occurs on such a channel was never contested by myself.

Then you have to agree with my statement

that the majority of big radio stations are

running illegally.



Pay attention, Dave, that claim was never opposed.
I merely claimed your personal feelings cited above are in no manner
"evidence".

The fact that these stations exist and are

illegal are a matter of record for anyone who's

ever spent any time there. My "personal

feelings" notwithstanding.



Fine,,but the mere fact they exist, and (here we go Dave,,pay attention
once again, only for a short while longer)...is NOT a "fact"attesting to
their legality, nor is your original claim, which has been soundly
defeated.

..
How do you think I gathered the evidence that

prompted me to make that claim? It was

based on empirical observation.




Neat. You went from obtaining what you mistakenly and erroneously
referred "empirical evidence" to obtaining "empirical observation",
afterwards (in retrospect). We follow your logic, Dave. Truly.



The FCC knows the reputation of channel 6
also, only they have protocol to determine if
someone is breaking the law, not personal
feelings they refer to as "empirical evidence" as you do.

You are up a tree now. How do you think the

FCC makes the determination that a specific

high powered station is worthy of further

investigation? Do you think a little empirical

observation just MIGHT be a clue?


Not by you. Just like coming from Jerry, they are mere allegations and
by no means considered "empirical observation". The FCC, or their
assigned designee MUST witness an infraction prior to action be taken
against individual, other than a mere warning.
Tell me more about this tree that has you pizzing all over yourself with
errors.


The FCC is able to make a quantitative

analysis by inspecting the physical station to

determine just HOW illegal they are.


Keep grabbing at other subjects. You;re bound to find one you know
*sonething* about.

But I don't need to be that precise.


In order to determine if one is guilty and to be called a criminal, you
most certainly do.

Just knowing that they ARE illegal is all that

matters.


You can't make that judgement and it ****es you off. Only a court of law
can determine one's guilt,,even if they *are* guilty, the referring to
one as criminal without that person being convicted in a court of law
can be both libel and slander.

Because I can't follow through beyond the

initial observation stage, you think that means

that my observations are invalid?

You already proved your observations are completely skewered because you
base them on incorrect information.


Boy are you naive and devoid of

comprehensive abilities.


Your personal feelings are not "facts".

No but my trained observations skills can be

considered as strong evidence to the positive.



Did you train yourself, Dave? What special training did you receive,
regarding these observation skills you feel important enough to invoke?
No,,,it can not. It is personal testimony to be taken into
consideration.

Look up "expert witness" for a clue.
=A0

You are no expert. Referring to yourself as "expert" doesn't make it so.
My gosh Dave, I have never seen you so starved for status.

_
=A0It is intangible and can not be entered as evidence, only supporting
testimony.

This is not a court of law.


And as such, you have no right calling another a criminal based on your
(1) "empirical evidence". Such was shown to be nothing more than your
personal opinion. You were made to acknowledge and change your plea
concerning what you previously and erroneously referred. Your "empirical
evidence" morphed into "empirical observations", which can actually be
an oxymoron in itself, coming from you, but that's another story for
anotther day.

I need to convince

no one. And you aren't denying it either. You

just want to argue the point because *I* made

it. The deeper you go in the "debate", the

wackier and off the wall your retorts become.

Such as your next statement:

=A0=A0Huge difference where the law is concerned, but with your
demonstrated hate and disdain for the law and your fellow hammie and cb
operators

This is absolutely side splitting, coming from

an admitted federal law breaker, to accuse ME
of harboring hate and disdain for the law.


You not only laughed at those you were bleeding and thumbed your nose
with your operating habits, you were as verbally abusive on the air as
you are in this group. You base your false allegations against others
based on nothing more than your incorrect and flawed interpretation of
the law. An example is you incorrectly holding one who violates the dx
law as a "federal criminal." Your argument of *why* you consider such to
be true (it isn''t),,,is the sidesplitting material.


It's crystal clear you have no clue of the law that pertains and governs
your chosen hobby.
What IS clear is that you twist and obfuscate the law to fit into what
you think it is, and not what it truly says.

You will defend the dubious legality of an

obvious "entertainment" device,


it's not dubious at all Dave. It's cut and dry. email the fcc and ask
them. You are the only one expressing such difficulty in interpretating
their rules.

but see

nothing wrong with operating on clearly

unauthorized frequencies, or running power

beyond the legal limit.



On target-specific frequencies, and I don't run but 100 watts, the exact
wattage YOU claimed would not be a problem for freebanders if they were
running a clean station, which I always have, unlike yourself.
Your problem has always been your approach. The amount of time spent on
the freeband is miniscule compared to where I usually spend my time, yet
due to your overt concern with my personal world, you choose to focus
only on illegal freeband activity. Nevermind I am in complete compliance
with a past post of yours concerning how operators operate on the
freeband, this is a new day and a new contadiction from yourself.



Such is the nature of a sociopathic mind.

Not only do you fancy yourself an expert witness and radio technical
guru, you suffer from the Walter Mitty complex and fabcy yourself a
physician.
You have certainly illustrated how starved you are for status, Dave. I
hope you gain some self-confidence some day and can be satisfied with
who you are and not who your delusions dictate.
_
You demonstrated this when
you held roger beeps and echo illegal on cb because you "couldn't find a
rule that permitted them".

Because there aren't any. Otherwise you

would have posted it.


I know enough not to search for negatives.

But there ARE rules which specifically prohibit

devices used for "amusement or

entertainment".

Yes, that part is my personal opinion.

See what you can learn when you are force fed? At the beginning of this
thread, you claimed it was fact, now, after proper instruction, you
admit it is "personal opinion". Good show.

Only the first part is. The second part was

empirical observation

Dave

"Sandbagger"


A much more reasonable observation by yourself.

(Twistedhed) wrote:
N3CVJ wrote:
The reverse can be applied to Nader. He

appeals to the hard core left,

You continue to reaffirm you haven't the foggiest.

How can you dispute Ralph's left wing appeal, Twist?

(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall) wrote:
So, you're telling me that you can't listen to a

channel and pick out who the most blatant

illegal operators are simply by the sound of

their rigs, and by the splatter they produce?

When the dx is running strong,

Donut matter. No one can tell me my S-Line is over-driven..even on local
ground wave. That said, there -are- way yonder too many splatter-masters on
11 meters.

Lancer wrote:
Forget it, its not worth arguing over..

That would make a good sig file for this board, Lancer.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:19:19 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:10:13 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
My "point" was illustrated yesterday when you said this:
_
N3CVJ wrote:
I do not shoot skip. I don't LIKE skip. When I

used to use an amplifier, it was to GET OVER

or chase it off the channel

But this next post was made when you were using that amplifier...

in 1975, a Texas Star didn't exist.

Next......


Gee Dave, I'll bet you talk yourself based on nothing more than your
unique habit of typing to yourself...


After talking skip internationally on the

freeband channels, on SSB, I gradually lose

interest in skip
_
Different time periods.

Right, the claim about when you USED to use an amp it wasn't to talk
skip, was made the other day. The claim about you talking skip with your
amplifier was made long ago. It illustrates your statement the other day
was bull****.....but a mere lie in another of your long list of
self-perjuries.

Once again for the perpetually

comprehensively inhibited: I talked skip in the

middle 70's.


You said you *never* liked it and *didn't* talk skip. It was shown you
did. Your admission accepted.


I used my amps to get over it from then on.


(shrug) ,,what I wanted clarified, was indeed,
_
That's pretty funny considering only you are having difficulty with your
communication skills at this level and are madly trying to misattribute
things that were never said to others.

No that's what you're doing. I'm not the one

who cut and pasted a quote from

ICECOLDNYC and erroneously claimed it was
mine.

Nope, you sure aren't. You're the one that has such a damaged ego, you
need foster the self-purported notion you hold various degrees, are an
expert witness to the courts, and claim doing over 70 mph makes one a
"federal criminal".
_

Besides, it doesn;t take a rocket scientist to understand the kind of
operator you are,,,you already admitted to being the worse kind of
operator that exists.

Someone who didn't take crap from idiots?


The idiot was self-explanatory in your posts.

Yea, I'm guilty

No doubt.

. But unless you're one of those idiots, you can
hardly make a valid claim that my "style" is the
"worst kind of operator that exists".


One of them.

I've done more to help other CB'ers than you

could possibly imagine.



You're right. I can't imagine one who was such an ass on the air at
anytime in their life, has changed their ways, and I say this only in
light of your actions and comments on this group. Granted, many of your
comments were made out of ignorance, but ignorance is no excuse when it
comes to the law you so often misquote ad misinterpret.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

Lancer wrote:
On 07 Jan 2005 13:30:14 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

Lancer wrote:
On 07 Jan 2005 02:52:34 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

Lancer wrote:
Still up to your eyeballs in snow? Our weather has been really
wierd, it was 70 Wednesday morning, and 20 this morning.

Nah, we've had warmer weather and rain/sleet/slush lately. Did plow
from midnight till 9 this morning tho..needed a big azz'd squeegee
instead of a plow.. You're right, very strange weather patterns.

How did your SW radio Christmas present go over?

I gave it to him, but didn't notice someone had soldered the contacts
shut on the mode switch. It still works, I just need to track down a
new switch for it. He's having a ball with it, likes it even better
than the videos games he got..

Cool..now you've created a monster!

Hopefully the right kind.. get him away from the computers and video
games and into radio..

Yes. But we all know what a radio jones feels like for new gear. I like
that idea for a gift. 10-4

Dave Hall wrote:
Someone who didn't take crap from idiots? Yea, I'm guilty.

I used to like dropping a KW on them with my mark IV. Now it's not
worth the electricity.