On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:49:28 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:58:53 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:48:36 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:30:31 GMT, SideBand wrote:

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote:

You should thank Chad, and yes it is there , but using your excuse the
FCC agent who certifys radios ****ed up and let this one slip by, it also
has adjustable rf power which again is not allowed as per fcc rule.

Which Part 95 CB rule disallows adjustable RF power?

I would think that if the radio was only capable of 4W RMS AM Carrier /
12W SSB PEP at the MAX power setting, and was adjustable downward, it
wouldn't be that big of a deal, nor would it make the radio "illegal" or
uncertifiable...

Educate me.



I can't find any reference to a specific rule that either allows or
prohibits adjustable power.

On the one hand, if it were legal......


Oh brother. Once again you demonstrate your attitude that you are
willing to convict based on an absence of evidence.


It would be helpful for you to read my entire point before snipping
the parts that change the context. If you had, you would have seen
that I had "convicted" nothing. I was only bringing up two sides of
the issue.


I did indeed read the entire post. I snipped it where I did because it
was at that point where you presumed something that has yet to be
proven. The rest of your point has been addressed in other posts.


You are adopting Twisty tactics.


Not at all. Twisty's approach is psychological, something along the
lines of how a cop or lawyer badgers a suspect until he slips up. My
forte is logic. And because of those differences it should come as no
suprise that my arguments with Twisty usually end in a stalemate since
our respective methods are diametrically opposed in both concept and
practice.


You really are sore aren't you?


I am really disappointed. For a person who otherwise demonstrates a
higher-than-average intelligence and a sound grasp of logic, you just
throw all that out the window when it comes to politics. What a waste.





----== 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 =---

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:16:42 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:37:43 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:09:08 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
I see that -you- aren't talking about politics anymore because you
refuse to accept any facts;

What you consider "facts" is the whole point of contention.


They are facts sourced from the very same source that says Bush got an
honorable discharge. Care to dispute the source? I didn't think so.

So why do all the libs


There you go with the labels again.....


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.

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.

You -still- don't see how stupid that sounds, do you?


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?"


But I digress, this thread is not about politics.

e.g., the fact here is that you are
looking at the wrong rule:

Am I?



This is where the controversy is. Your assessment is valid, and it
would seem that since the FCC has allowed ETS signals on FRS radios,
(which also fall under part 95) that it would also stand to reason
that they would allow them on class "D" CB as well. The question is
why have they not made their position clear in the form of a rule
modification?


FRS radios have such tones because they are permitted by this rule:

"Sec. 95.193 (b) The FRS unit may transmit tones to make contact or
to continue communications with a particular FRS unit....."

CB radio has an identical rule:

"Sec. 95.412 (b) You may use your CB station to transmit a tone
signal only when the signal is used to make contact or to continue
communications....."


But you failed to print the entire rule subpart. Why this is
significant I will explain after I post it in its entirety:


"(b) You may use your CB station to transmit a tone signal only
when the signal is used to make contact or to continue communications.
(Examples of circuits using these signals are tone operated squelch
and selective calling circuits.) If the signal is an audible tone, it
must last no longer than 15 seconds at one time. If the signal is a
subaudible tone, it may be transmitted continuously only as long as
you are talking."

Now, when you look at the rule, it becomes clear what the intent of
this rule is. They are defining selective calling units, that operate
either with CTCSS or dual tone (paging style) squelch systems.
Lafayette used to sell them from the 1960's into the early 70's.

You might be able to infer that this rule also applies to roger beeps,
but you have to remember that this rule was written long before roger
beeps were even heard of on CB radio communications.


Bull****. Roger-beeps have existed, legal or not, on the CB since the
band was barely a few months old.

I NEVER heard a roger beep on CB until the early 80's. They certainly
were not around in 1970 when I first got on the band.

Now, I'm not saying that some clever tech type didn't invent one, and
used it in some local pocket somewhere. But their use was not
widespread, or I would 've heard them it, especially when the skip
rolled in.


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.

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 will concede that the rule is open to a wide variety of
interpretation. It is conceivable that you MIGHT be ok if you use the
roger beep strictly as an ETS signal. The minute you start making
multiple tones, musical notes or otherwise, you fall into the category
spelled out by 95.413, prohibited transmissions subpart 6 and 7:


(6) To transmit music, whistling, sound effects or any material to
amuse or entertain;
(7) To transmit any sound effect solely to attract attention;


Damn liberals.

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?


So it should be obvious that if any radio with a "roger-beep" is
accepted, the tone is considered to be a tool that is used to
-facilitate- communications, a purpose which is consistent with the
above rule(s).

The question remains, with the exception of the Galaxy, there are no
other domestic radios with this built in feature. If the rule was so
cut and dry, then why not add another selling point?


How about because the service was intended to be a cheap-&-easy way to
get 2-way radio comm? There were literally hundreds of models WITHOUT
a control for RF gain, delta-tune, SWR, etc, etc. And the FCC used to
cite people for nothing more than failure to comply with the time-out
rule. So would -you- have included it in a radio? I doubt it.

None of this is valid today.


Cop-out.


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.


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. The question is if the additional sales could justify the
extra cost, which would involve a market analysis. 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). 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?

Do you have those analyses, Dave? If you don't then you -don't- have
the facts and are just speculating.


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.


And another fact: I brought this same issue to your attention almost a
year ago..... in -THIS- newsgroup.

I remember the discussion. I believe it was Bert who provided the
picture of his Galaxy radio with the FCC ID number which you initially
looked up and couldn't find, and then claimed that the radio's Roger
beep was an "add-on" accessory..


I made no such claim. Look up the thread and read the FACTS, Dave.

Oh, how easily you forget Frank. Here, read this:

=====START PASTE OF FRANK'S POST=========

Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
From: Frank Gilliland - Find messages by
this author
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 06:54:51 -0700
Local: Wed, May 26 2004 6:54 am
Subject: N3CVJ claims Roger Beeps illegal
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

In , Frank Gilliland
wrote:


In , "AKC KennelMaster"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 24 May 2004 22:57:29 GMT, "Bert Craig"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
Riddle me this then Batman, why are there no type accepted LEGAL CB
radios produced with a roger beep or an echo?

Sorry Dave, my old Galaxy DX-949 came stock woith a roger beep...and
was/is

FCC type accepted.

http://www.galaxyradios.com/cb/949.html
Would you happen to to have the FCC I.D. number of that radio? That
radio, other than the roger beep, also has variable power, something
else no other legal CB has. I have my doubts that this radio is
entirely legal.



Dave
"Sandbagger"

Wrong again, Dave. Here's the link: http://www.galaxyradios.com/2547.html


There are no current equipment authorizations for any Galaxy CB radio.
Search the database yourself if you want:


https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/c...ericSearch.cfm



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.


-----=
Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!

-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers

=====END PASTE OF FRANK'S POST======


Now, what was that you were saying about facts Frank?


The fact is that you can't read. LOL!


That was back when you were on my side, before you found out that I'm
one of those "evil" capitalist loving conservatives who still believes
in personal responsibility.


I'm still on your side, Dave. The difference we have is that you
refuse to look at -political- issues from both sides of the coin.

Sure I do Frank. It's just that I believe that conservatism is the
better path to follow, and I will support my side of the coin, and
expose the hypocrisy of the other side.


I really don't care about your political leanings or religious
beliefs. But if you are going to "expose" people for telling lies and
making up stories to attack those who don't share their beliefs then
don't whine when you are exposed for doing the same.


Apparently your problem is migrating to CB issues; i.e, your false
claim about me stated above.

It's not so false as you may think.........


Read it again, Dave. And this time don't use your Liberal/Neocon
translation dictionary.





----== 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 =---

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:42:57 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in :

snip
One thing I've seen about Frank as of late, he doesn't
seem to let his emotions do his talking.


Good thing I wasn't drinking Tequila last night.


He will say what
he believes, without prejudice to which is a very tough thing
to do.


Thank you, Shark. BTW, do you still have that Palomar amp?






----== 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 =---

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:42:57 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in :

snip
One thing I've seen about Frank as of late, he doesn't
seem to let his emotions do his talking.


Good thing I wasn't drinking Tequila last night.


LOL!! Haven't drank much of anything for a couple of
months now, Christmas just about killed me in funds
so new kegs were out of the question.


He will say what
he believes, without prejudice to which is a very tough thing
to do.


Thank you, Shark. BTW, do you still have that Palomar amp?

Which one? the TX800? or the newer version 500?
It doesn't matter, NO. I gave the TX to a very good
friend that moved back east a couple years ago.
The 500 got loaned out and for some strange reason, it
never made it's way home.

OT. I still say Bush is making a HUGE mistake by not announcing some sort of
exit plan.
If the Republican party wants another Man in the office,
he'd better get a plan going. The more of our people that
die over there, is just another nail in the coffin for a
Republican candidate to take office in 08.

Here's a pretty good site! Make sure you click on Second Term.

http://www.jibjab.com/lowband/default.htm

Landshark


--
Some of them are living an illusion
Bounded by the darkness of their minds,
In their eyes it's nation against nation,
With racial pride, sad hearts they hide,
Thinking only of themselves,
They shun the light,
They think they're right
Living in the empty shells.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:57:49 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
N3CVJ wrote:
That was back when you were on my side,

before you found out that I'm one of those

"evil" capitalist loving conservatives who still

believes in personal responsibility.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

Your "side" indicates an intentional adversarial position. Everything
isn't right or wrong and this side or that side of an issue...seeing
everything as black and white is myopic. Stop looking for "sides" in
which to take and stand on your own feet....for once.

I'm not the one displaying binary thinking.


Your "side" indicates an intentional adversarial position.

I never claimed that issues are either ones or

zeroes.


Step away from your spaceship.

But there is an overall difference in

philosophy between one "side" and the other,

a cumulative sum of all the individual "issues".

Dave

"Sandbagger"


Nevertheless, calling it "your" side indicates your predisposition to an
intentional adversarial position. This is not a desirable trait and
prevents you from displaying competent communicative technique.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:40:59 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:45:46 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
Not "one" only *you* have to wonder..the rest of the hammies in the
world already know the answer to this. You (and your sock puppet) are
the only one crying about a roger beep being illegal.

I have no sock puppet.

Allow me to place that in context. You also made the false claim you
have only accessed this group through the same provider when it was
shown you have accessed this group with no less than a dozen different
usenet services.

Shown by whom? Since that statement is a

bold faced lie, I would love to see any "proof"

you might have.


Already shown...but, just for the record, are you once again claiming
you have only accessed the group via the same path, except for the
"borrowed" Villanova account?


Bust just like that military newsgroup that you

stuck your foot in your mouth over with Frank,


I have to agree with Shark on this one,,,lately, Frank has been dead on
in his posts, void of emotion. You'd do well to follow such an example.
Kerri the funny fin disappeared. Yrac was outed. Jerry went off the deep
end. Frank and I took it to email. You always have the same option
concerning your personal qualms, as the group is not interested in what
you or Doug think concerning our lives outside this group. After all,
you can delude yourself and make all the comments you wish pretending
you and Dogie compromise some sort of contingency around here, but the
facts remain you are wound tighter than a spring and your emotions lead
you to making stupid personal off-topic comments that always bite you in
your ass. Now that the skip is waning a bit, you may find yourself a tad
more displeased with yourself than usual, as you will have to conjure up
other scenarios in which to justify your personal attacks once I am no
longer disregarding the dx rule.



I'm sure there will be none forthcoming.

I have had two, count 'em (2) isp's in the last

10 years. The first was Worldlynx networks,

and my current is penn tele data.

You screwed up, Dave. You have comcast...for now. Color it gone.

I do not have Comcast. I do not live on a

Comcast system. That's WHY I have ptd.net.

You won't find competing isp's on the same

cable system.


Ah,,the desperate attempt to obfuscate. Too bad, comcast most certainly
services your area.


YOU are a liar in the first degree.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv


You have comcast in addition to whatever else.

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(Twistedhed) wrote in news:15309-41ED2F2A-350
@storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net:
But it's evidently not clear to most radio manufacturers since, with the
exception of the Galaxy (Galaxy also has a reputation for
pushing the limits of the law) radio, no other domestic type
accepted/approved CB radio
has an ETS as standard equipment.
_
One has

to wonder why that is, if they are clearly legal.

Not "one" only *you* have to wonder..the rest of the hammies in the
world already know the answer to this. You (and your sock puppet) are
the only one crying about a roger beep being illegal.

I am not the only one and you know it.


Dave

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

Yes, Dave, you *ARE* the only one (hammie) that has said roger beeps are
illegal. By all means, Dave, if you can cite a single other hammie
agreeing with you on this topic, cite his call so we can all "know" what
only you claim.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:01:37 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote in :

snip
Bust just like that military newsgroup that you

stuck your foot in your mouth over with Frank,


I have to agree with Shark on this one,,


Notice how lately he invokes my name in his replies to you, and you in
his replies to me. LOL!

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:01:37 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:40:59 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave*Hall)
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:45:46 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
Not "one" only *you* have to wonder..the rest of the hammies in the
world already know the answer to this. You (and your sock puppet) are
the only one crying about a roger beep being illegal.

I have no sock puppet.

Allow me to place that in context. You also made the false claim you
have only accessed this group through the same provider when it was
shown you have accessed this group with no less than a dozen different
usenet services.

Shown by whom? Since that statement is a

bold faced lie, I would love to see any "proof"

you might have.


Already shown.

When? How?


..but, just for the record, are you once again claiming
you have only accessed the group via the same path, except for the
"borrowed" Villanova account?

I am stating that with the exception of that short time that I
"borrowed" that account from Villanova, I have had 2 isp's. That's it.
I have never lost an isp for any reason. I canceled Worldlynx when I
upgraded to broadband high speed cable modem service.


Bust just like that military newsgroup that you
stuck your foot in your mouth over with Frank,


I have to agree with Shark on this one,,,lately, Frank has been dead on
in his posts, void of emotion. You'd do well to follow such an example.

Follow? I set the example. My posts have no emotional content at all.
They are pure and simple logic based on either facts or empirical
observation. Something you seem unable to comprehend.


Kerri the funny fin disappeared. Yrac was outed. Jerry went off the deep
end. Frank and I took it to email. You always have the same option
concerning your personal qualms, as the group is not interested in what
you or Doug think concerning our lives outside this group. After all,
you can delude yourself and make all the comments you wish pretending
you and Dogie compromise some sort of contingency around here, but the
facts remain you are wound tighter than a spring and your emotions lead
you to making stupid personal off-topic comments that always bite you in
your ass. Now that the skip is waning a bit, you may find yourself a tad
more displeased with yourself than usual, as you will have to conjure up
other scenarios in which to justify your personal attacks once I am no
longer disregarding the dx rule.

The act of ignoring federal law is one of personal conviction. It's
hard to justify the action without getting personal. Sorry if the
reflection you are forced to see in the mirror displeases you.

Oh and you've stopped being a federal criminal? Wow! Break out the
champaign and call Jerry Springer.....

I'm sure there will be none forthcoming.
I have had two, count 'em (2) isp's in the last
10 years. The first was Worldlynx networks,
and my current is penn tele data.

You screwed up, Dave. You have comcast...for now. Color it gone.

I do not have Comcast. I do not live on a
Comcast system. That's WHY I have ptd.net.
You won't find competing isp's on the same
cable system.


Ah,,the desperate attempt to obfuscate. Too bad, comcast most certainly
services your area.

My area? Now, be careful now, I'm about to ask one of those questions
which you can't seem to understand the motivation for: Just what is
your criteria for what determines "my area"? One mile radius? 10 mile?
30 mile?

I will tell you point blank that my cable system is NOT Comcast, and
therefore they have no rights to offer cable modem service. Comcast
cable modem service is only offered on Comcast cable systems.

YOU are a liar in the first degree.

You have comcast in addition to whatever else.

Prove it.

Put up or crawl back under your rock.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:15:11 -0600, "Chad Wahls"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:52:04 -0500, Vinnie S.
wrote:

Could not find them using the C2R prefix but there is a bunch. That
board
is used in a bunch of radios and has a PLL that does not like to be
modded,
I think that made the FCC happy. Iroic that there IS spots on the board
for
another final and support components, a simple call to Galaxy and you can
have a dual final radio in less than an hour. OOPS!!!!!

Correct. This was rather pricey. I think upwards of $60, but not sure. It
was
almost more economical to get a small amp.

In cases like this, it's almost always better to get a small amp over
modifying a radio beyond its limits..

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

It's not really beyond the DX2547's limits. There's an ample power supply
in there and the board is already punched, labled and wired for another
final, just needs support components and biased up.

But as stated earlier the gain in power is not really worth the hasle, and
not enough to drive a high drive amp.

More of a bragging right I guess.

Btw, for the technician it is a wonderful radio to work on. The top and
bottom comes off like most mobiles and it's wide enough to sit on it's side
and work on both sides. Only have to clip 2 nylon ties holding the speaker
cable in. There's plenty of room and the super razor sharp edges are kept
to a minimum. I was pleasantly suprised when working on it, the manual is
also very easy to understand and comprehensive.

You are doing a good job in selling the radio. I'm almost ready to go
out and buy one just for the fun of it. But I'll disconnect the Roger
Beep.......

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj