On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:15:11 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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.

Well, if you really want to get down to brass tacks, the only true
"word" is that which comes from the FCC. Anything other than that is
simply an exercise in speculation. But since we all seem to enjoy a
certain degree of semantic posturing, I was offering up two sides of
the variable power issue. One the one side, since the feature is not
included on any CB radio other than the Galaxy, and also knowing how
marketing people work, WRT hawking bells and whistles for "value
added" profit, it stands to reason that this evidence stands as a
testimony to the possibility that the feature is not legal.

One the other hand, since hand held radios often have hi/low power
switches, that evidence can be offered as testimony that variable
power is legal.

I made no "conviction" either way, I merely offered two opposing sides
of an issue.

I would like to see the actual rule that specifies it.



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.

He's also deceptive by taking pieces of posts out of context thereby
changing the meaning of them. Something you just did.

My forte is logic.

As is mine.

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.

That and the fact that Twisty is sociopathic and merely seeks
attention, and therefore approval, it should come as no surprise that
he offers little of substance. Logic should have no trouble trouncing
someone's pitiful call for attention.



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.

Not at all. I am just a staunch conservative and I strongly believe
that liberals and their philosophy has and will continue to ruin this
country and all that it used to be.

I can offer many logical points to back this up, but I'm guessing that
you wouldn't believe them anyway.


What a waste.

Most blind partisanship is.

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

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:37:37 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


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.......


The 949 was great on AM. But drifted like an unanchored boat on sideband. I
needed to recenter the clarifier every 2 weeks.

Vinnie S.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:34:22 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
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.


What -you- can't comprehend is that it's not my delivery that's "void
of emotion", it's the logical content of my arguments and my ability
to present verifiable facts. You refuse to accept many of those facts
because of your emotionally based opinions.


snip
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?


The State of Confusion.





----== 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 Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:51:48 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
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.

Not at all. I am just a staunch conservative and I strongly believe
that liberals and their philosophy has and will continue to ruin this
country and all that it used to be.


I'm not interested in your beliefs.


I can offer many logical points to back this up, but I'm guessing that
you wouldn't believe them anyway.


I don't have to believe squat to recognize a valid argument. Por
enjemplo:

Premise #1: The moon is copper.
Premise #2: Copper is squishy.
Conclusion: The moon is squishy.

That argument is perfectly valid despite what I believe. The trick is
that if you want a factual conclusion you need factual premises. I
will admit that you have consistently presented valid arguments, but
you have been severely lacking in factual premises.

Now if you think you can finally offer up some verifiable facts then
go for it.


What a waste.

Most blind partisanship is.


Hence the reason I once encouraged you to read Plato's "Republic".

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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.......


Nah, I shopped forever for a base and was completely sold on a Cobra 2000.
I simply could not find one that was unadulterated for a price even close to
the 2547. I also looked into used Cherokee CBS1000's but heard bad things
about their reliability. I do have a "keyclown" radio in the truck, A
Magnum 257. It is a wonderful radio and would have probably had bought one
for the home if I would have known about it. The only reason I have not is
that I like the 6 digit counter on the 2547 as opposed to the 5 digit on the
257, I would be happy with a counter with only the 6th digit for CB use. I
also prefer the ease of use of the 2547, the 257's buttons are very mulit
function. The radio sits on my bench and it's nice to reach up and twist a
knob or punch a button knowing it only does one thing.

I bought the 257 for it's price and features, it sounds great on transmit
and also because I'm learning code as we speak and want a "decent" entry
level 10 meter rig. I do ABSOLUTELY NO freeband work, the 257 is clean and
not overly powerful in that it will be immedately noticed as a 10 meter
radio. Do buy an external speaker though! It was also one of the few
affordable/convertable 10M rigs that was straight up with no echo, beeps,
and other bull****. It looks good too. Sideband performance is better than
the Galaxy and AM is on par. The newer ones come with a speech processor
and an electret mic, once agin the transmit audio is great! Up/down button
placement on the mic is backwards! Down is to the right. Out of the box it
was spot on calibration wise, we've had 0 degree weather here and it takes
about 10-15 min to get it's **** together in the morning.

Down and dirty the 2547 is a hunderd bucks more than the 257. Although I do
not overly advocate the use of "freeband radios" I would reccommend it over
the 2547 if you do not need the 6th digit and ease of use. BTW the newer
257 can be locked down to only the 40 CB channels and power internaly dialed
back to 4 watts so that the front panel control would be maxed out at 4
watts. Still ain't gonna do squat for you if you require an accepted radio.

The price of the DX2547 has declined in the past year but it is still
expensive, I was quite hesitant to spend that money, but, it has been good.
Although I do consider selling it from time to time to pocket some cash and
grab another 257. When that ham ticket comes I have the feeling it will be
time to upgrade

Chad

"Vinnie S." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:37:37 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote:


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.......


The 949 was great on AM. But drifted like an unanchored boat on sideband.
I
needed to recenter the clarifier every 2 weeks.

Vinnie S.

Was your 949 in a vehicle? I have noticed the drift but after a warmup
period it settles down. I would be hesitant to have one in a vehicle where
the temp is constantly rising and falling. My 2547 is in a heated section
behind my garage, the temp DOES vary and it DOES affect the radio, I just
don't shut it off and it seems OK. In the warmer months it does quite well
and gets shut off but I still would not trust it in a car. Many have
reported reliability problems with galaxy's when subjected to lots of
vibration and temp change. Another thing that was noted while shopping

Did you buy some bury-flex yet?

Chad

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:25:39 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


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.

But it also illustrates the fact that an "honorable discharge" is not
the be all and end all that it might seem.

The other fact remains that you can't malign Bush's records with all
sorts of maybe's and then have a fit when other's do it to Kerry.

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.

I stated nothing of the sort. I stated that KERRY, by not filing a DOD
form 180 and releasing 100% of his records, is not being completely
open and honest about his service record. This leads to speculation as
to his reasons why he chose to not release those records. It casts a
shadow of doubt over his motives.


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

The way you state it, it does sound stupid. But that is not how I
stated it.


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?"

Your condescending, patronizing tone is duly noted.

What was that someone said about your posts being devoid of emotion?


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.

There were "noise toys", most of which were variations of a relaxation
oscillators, and commonly referred to as "birdies". But they were not
"Roger Beeps". The roger beep style ETS signal didn't become popular
until NASA pushed it to the radio forefront with their use of them
during their space missions.

I also find it curious that ham magazines like QST would cover such
things while magazines, like S9 and CB magazine, (Which I was a
subscriber to) which catered to strictly CB radio did not.


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 realize that this sounds like an example of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, but I wasn't living in a box Frank. I knew many people in
different radio circles. Like I said before, I never denied that some
small pockets of techie types may have made such a device, but it
never made the big time or, trust me, I would have known about it.

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?

Yes, I found out what they referred to. It's a term coined by Condi
Rice as a lark, when they were choosing a nickname for their foreign
policy team. Most outsiders forgot or never knew the term unless one
read James Mann's book featuring that name. It certainly isn't a
universal term nor one that applies across the whole administration.
If I am guilty of ignorance, it's only to the extent that I don't read
every pundit author's interpretation of "the truth".

Most pundits refer to the Bush team as "neo conservatives", which is
also a joke, since the term "neo" meaning new, means that neo
conservatives are "new" conservatives. Which then begs the question;
what were they before? If not conservatives, then were they dare I say
it -- Liberals? Socialists? What then?


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.

Not at all. I'm talking about right now in the present. There are
radios which carry a full load of "features" and others which carry
only a bare minimum. Some radios use the same PC board to cover
several models, the only difference being the external features they
charge the extra money for.

If a "roger beep" was clearly legal, it would stand to reason that it
would be included as another feature, and seen on at least the top
shelf models of the major radio makers.

THAT is an inductive argument as well.



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.

You have still, to date, failed to deny that you are, in fact, a
liberal.

You have also made comments in the past that were less than
complimentary to the corporate business world. You were even somewhat
condescending when I remarked that my bonus would be a bit larger this
year than last, as if I somehow was not entitled to it, especially
after you lost your job. This all paints the picture of someone who is
fed up with "the system".

Maybe I'm wrong, but hey, I can only go on the tidbits that are
presented here.


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.

That largest of all being the potential of increased profit.


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

Yes, that's exactly right. Judging from the sales of virtually
identical foreign made radios, which include this feature, the cost
adder should not be much (Exports already have it), and the sales of
export radios would also seem to justify it. Also consider that there
have been a few domestic radios made with a rather expensive (As
compared to a roger beep) frequency counter built-in, for use on 40
PLL controlled channels, it makes one wonder......

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).

If the feature was legal, there would be no "fits". The fact that you
acknowledge the potential for these "fits" tells me that you also
acknowledge that the FCC rule on this issue is not so cut and dried.
That's the whole point of this discussion. Thank you Frank.

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?

What? If the feature and its use were legal, this would not be a
problem. Once again you are supporting my original premise that roger
beeps are not legal. At the very best they are a "gray" area.


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

Yes, I am speculating. But judging from past performance, most
manufacturers would gladly add a roger beep if they felt it was
clearly legal. Hell, Galaxy did it. They had the balls to make the
decision, they aren't afraid of the FCC, even if they might be wrong.
They're willing to gamble that the FCC will not feel that this is an
issue worth worrying about.

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.

If I had a contact on the inside, I would do that. But that's hardly a
question to send to an (likely) out sourced customer service rep.


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
m...

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!

I can read just fine Frank. Perhaps you should re-read it. You are the
one who made the :

"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.

I accept your apology.


Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:52:37 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:25:39 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


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.

But it also illustrates the fact that an "honorable discharge" is not
the be all and end all that it might seem.


That sounds like sour grapes to me.


The other fact remains that you can't malign Bush's records with all
sorts of maybe's and then have a fit when other's do it to Kerry.


Gee, that sounds mighty familiar..... isn't that the jist of what I
told you a couple months ago with the names transposed? I might be
wrong but I'm pretty sure it is. Do you want I should try and find
that post?


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.

I stated nothing of the sort. I stated that KERRY, by not filing a DOD
form 180 and releasing 100% of his records, is not being completely
open and honest about his service record. This leads to speculation


Hold it right there. Being "open" and being "honest" are two different
things. I am not "open" with my medical records but that doesn't
necessarily imply (or as you say, "leads to spectulation") that I'm
being dishonest about them. Fact: You don't know what is in those
records. The only thing you have, by your own admission above, is your
own speculation based on nothing more than suspicion. And your
suspicion is fueled by..... what? Kerry's opposition to Bush?

That's a very, very lame argument, Dave.


as
to his reasons why he chose to not release those records. It casts a
shadow of doubt over his motives.


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

The way you state it, it does sound stupid. But that is not how I
stated it.


The delivery is different but the content is the same.


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?"

Your condescending, patronizing tone is duly noted.


Good. For a moment I thought I wasn't getting through.


What was that someone said about your posts being devoid of emotion?


Is sarcasm an emotion?


snip
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.

There were "noise toys", most of which were variations of a relaxation
oscillators, and commonly referred to as "birdies". But they were not
"Roger Beeps". The roger beep style ETS signal didn't become popular
until NASA pushed it to the radio forefront with their use of them
during their space missions.


Roger-beeps have been around almost as long as SSB because that's
where they were first widely used. The reason for that is because with
SSB it's difficult to tell when someone is finished with a
transmission. This necessitated the practice of using the words
"over", "out" and "roger". It wasn't long until someone got the bright
idea to make a circuit that would transmit a beep when the mic unkeyed
so they wouldn't sound like airline pilots in a Zucker Brothers movie.


I also find it curious that ham magazines like QST would cover such
things while magazines, like S9 and CB magazine, (Which I was a
subscriber to) which catered to strictly CB radio did not.


Probably because S9 and CB magazine weren't around in 1959 when the CB
got started.


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 realize that this sounds like an example of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, but I wasn't living in a box Frank. I knew many people in
different radio circles. Like I said before, I never denied that some
small pockets of techie types may have made such a device, but it
never made the big time or, trust me, I would have known about it.


Dave, you have proven that you are in the dark about a lot of things,
and I don't think that's a recent development.


snip
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?

Yes, I found out what they referred to. It's a term coined by Condi
Rice as a lark, when they were choosing a nickname for their foreign
policy team. Most outsiders forgot or never knew the term unless one
read James Mann's book featuring that name. It certainly isn't a
universal term nor one that applies across the whole administration.
If I am guilty of ignorance, it's only to the extent that I don't read
every pundit author's interpretation of "the truth".


35,000 hits on Google and your excuse is that you don't read all the
books on the shelf? Well, I haven't read the book either and that's
not where I learned the term. All I had to do was read a few political
commentaries from magazines and the internet. Just a few. In fact, the
term is so prevalent that if you read just a handful of articles you
will almost certainly find the term mentioned at least once. But you
never heard it before I used it, huh?


Most pundits refer to the Bush team as "neo conservatives", which is
also a joke, since the term "neo" meaning new, means that neo
conservatives are "new" conservatives. Which then begs the question;
what were they before? If not conservatives, then were they dare I say
it -- Liberals? Socialists? What then?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)


snip
None of this is valid today.


Cop-out.

Not at all. I'm talking about right now in the present. There are
radios which carry a full load of "features" and others which carry
only a bare minimum. Some radios use the same PC board to cover
several models, the only difference being the external features they
charge the extra money for.

If a "roger beep" was clearly legal, it would stand to reason that it
would be included as another feature, and seen on at least the top
shelf models of the major radio makers.

THAT is an inductive argument as well.


Yes it is, and what you just said is that the legality of a roger-beep
is not clear. I have no problem with that.


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.

You have still, to date, failed to deny that you are, in fact, a
liberal.


But I did. What part of "I am not a liberal" did you not understand?
Oh, that's right..... you flatly rejected my statement in favor of
your personal beliefs.


You have also made comments in the past that were less than
complimentary to the corporate business world.


I make comments that are "less than complimentary" to just about
everybody and everything. That makes me a liberal?


You were even somewhat
condescending when I remarked that my bonus would be a bit larger this
year than last, as if I somehow was not entitled to it,


That's a faulty perception on your part. If you start reading between
the lines then you better be sure of what you are reading because
that's not what I wrote -or- implied. I have no idea what you do for a
living so I have no idea if your compensation is justified or not. And
if you pinned me as a liberal because you read more into my statement
than what I wrote then that's -your- fault, not mine.


especially
after you lost your job. This all paints the picture of someone who is
fed up with "the system".


......uh, sure Dave, that's why I have been on this newsgroup for years
preaching the virtues of using the system to effect changes in CB
rules instead of ignoring them. Or were you misreading between the
lines again?


Maybe I'm wrong, but hey, I can only go on the tidbits that are
presented here.


Over 5000 posts in THIS newsgroup -- you call that "tidbits"?

Yes, Dave, maybe you are wrong...... duh.


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.

That largest of all being the potential of increased profit.


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

Yes, that's exactly right. Judging from the sales of virtually
identical foreign made radios, which include this feature, the cost
adder should not be much (Exports already have it), and the sales of
export radios would also seem to justify it. Also consider that there
have been a few domestic radios made with a rather expensive (As
compared to a roger beep) frequency counter built-in, for use on 40
PLL controlled channels, it makes one wonder......


Yes, it makes one wonder how you can draw hard conclusions from
nothing more than speculation.


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).

If the feature was legal, there would be no "fits". The fact that you
acknowledge the potential for these "fits" tells me that you also
acknowledge that the FCC rule on this issue is not so cut and dried.
That's the whole point of this discussion. Thank you Frank.


Nice try, but the FCC frequently encourages compliance with policies
when noncompliance is not necessarily or technically illegal. A recent
example being the voluntary television rating system, compliance to
which is "strongly encouraged" by the FCC.

And I never claimed the roger-beep issue was definitive. On the
contrary, it was -you- who claimed that roger-beeps were illegal
despite the existence of an FCC certified radio incorporating the
feature. It has been -my- position that its legality is in doubt; i.e,
"not so cut and dried". So while you are patting yourself on the back
you should realize that you have totally flip-flopped on the issue.

Hmmmm..... flip-flopped..... now where have I heard -that- before?


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?

What? If the feature and its use were legal, this would not be a
problem. Once again you are supporting my original premise that roger
beeps are not legal. At the very best they are a "gray" area.


A certain car might be perfectly legal to manufacture and market, but
just because it can go faster than the speed limit doesn't mean
speeding is legal. It's not a "gray area" because it's the operator's
responsibility to know and abide by the laws -regardless- of the
capabilities of the equipment. The legal hassles begin when some
lawyer thinks he can make the case that it's legal to drive 90 because
the speedometer goes that high. Unfortunately, cases like that cost
lots of money not because they have merit, but because the companies
usually find it cheaper to pay off the lawyers instead of fighting it
out in court.


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

Yes, I am speculating.


No kidding.


But judging from past performance, most
manufacturers would gladly add a roger beep if they felt it was
clearly legal.


Wrong. A tone control is probably one of the cheapest and easiest
features to add to a radio. Another cheap and easy feature that could
have been included on AM radios is a BFO, which would allow the
operator to communicate with someone having an SSB transceiver. By
your reasoning, -most- radios would have included that feature. Yet
few radios have tone controls; and as far as I know, only one AM CB
radio ever included a BFO.

IOW, your reasoning is flawed.


Hell, Galaxy did it. They had the balls to make the
decision, they aren't afraid of the FCC, even if they might be wrong.
They're willing to gamble that the FCC will not feel that this is an
issue worth worrying about.


Speculation.


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.

If I had a contact on the inside, I would do that. But that's hardly a
question to send to an (likely) out sourced customer service rep.


Geez, I only suggested it once and you are already making excuses.


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


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

I can read just fine Frank. Perhaps you should re-read it. You are the
one who made the :

"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.

I accept your apology.


You are misreading between the lines again. I made an observation, not
a conclusion. You obviously can't tell the difference.






----== 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 Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:39:05 -0600, "Chad Wahls" wrote:


"Vinnie S." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:37:37 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote:


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.......


The 949 was great on AM. But drifted like an unanchored boat on sideband.
I
needed to recenter the clarifier every 2 weeks.

Vinnie S.

Was your 949 in a vehicle? I have noticed the drift but after a warmup
period it settles down. I would be hesitant to have one in a vehicle where
the temp is constantly rising and falling. My 2547 is in a heated section
behind my garage, the temp DOES vary and it DOES affect the radio, I just
don't shut it off and it seems OK. In the warmer months it does quite well
and gets shut off but I still would not trust it in a car. Many have
reported reliability problems with galaxy's when subjected to lots of
vibration and temp change. Another thing that was noted while shopping

You described it perfectly.

Did you buy some bury-flex yet?


No yet. I have to wait til spring. The ground is frozen. In the mean time, I
will set up a 6 foot firetstik which is electrically 5/8 wave, and set up a
ground plane using 9 foot wires. Just until it warms up.

Vinnie S.

N3CVJ wrote:
Follow? I set the example. My posts have no

emotional content at all.

That you are unable to grasp the moment your posts become personal, it
is born of your emotion, is no surprise.


They are pure and simple logic based on

either facts or empirical observation.

Something you seem unable to comprehend.


You still haven't managed to explain how one who violates the 70 MPH
federal speed limit is not a "federal criminal", yet one who violates
the dx rule, *is* a "federal criminal". Of special interest is your only
criteria for referring to one as this "criminal" is the fact you hold
the dx rule was enacted by the feds,,,,,,as was the 70 MPH limit.


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

Comcast system.



You're not being clear, Davie, a sure sign of confusion and difficulty
communicating.


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.


Surely, but you will mind your etiquette. Proper communication dictates
you answer the question posed you prior to earning the right to ask one
of the inquirer. Name the ham you claimed agreed with you that roger
beeps are illegal and I will illustrate with sound deftness your post
from comcast.


Dave

"Sandbagger"