"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge" wrote in message ... SideBand wrote in news:8bkHd.19348$by5.397 @newssvr19.news.prodigy.com: Chad Wahls wrote: itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: "Chad Wahls" wrote in news:csjorb$n0g$1 : "itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge" wrote in message ... "Chad Wahls" wrote in : Just saw this after I posted about the 2547. Mine has the FCC sticker on it. Also, they are tough to mod for freeband use, NO MODS HERE! it can be done but they have the tendency to self destruct. They have made some changes to the unit in the past few years, wonder if that gained acceptance? I can get a pic with the sticker on it. I have also seen the 2547 listed as a "FCC accepted CB base" and "Export only" It's essentially a mobile in a big case, wonder if there are different versions floating around? Chad Chad what is the FCC id tag #'s on it.... On the sticker right? Chad thats the one bubba Here ya go skippy:) C2R-DX-2547 Entered: (C2R) (-DX-2547) Here's a copy of the acceptance: COPY FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 GRANT OF EQUIPMENT AUTHORIZATION COPY Certification Ranger Electronic Communications Inc 70 Pei Nei Street Shulin 238 Taipei Hsien, Taiwan Date of Grant: 07/09/1999 Application Dated: 08/25/1998 Attention: Susan Chiu NOT TRANSFERABLE EQUIPMENT AUTHORIZATION is hereby issued to the named GRANTEE, and is VALID ONLY for the equipment identified hereon for use under the Commission's Rules and Regulations listed below. FCC IDENTIFIER: C2R-DX-2547 Name of Grantee: Ranger Electronic Communications Inc Equipment Class: Licensed Non-Broadcast Station Transmitter Notes: CB Transceiver Grant Notes FCC Rule Parts Frequency Range (MHZ) Output Watts Frequency Tolerance Emission Designator RF 95D 26.96 - 27.41 4.0 0.005 % 6K00A3E 95D 26.96 - 27.41 12.0 0.005 % 4K00J3E RF: Meets the requirements applicable to Citizens Band Radio Service equipment operating on up to 40 channels as specified in the Report and Order in Docket 20120. Mail To: Rowland Johnson, President Hyak Laboratories Inc 7011 Calamo Street, Suite 107 Springfield, VA 22150 US 9808288315408002 .... And it has a roger beep, and, I still think it's worthless! Chad OOps... Wonder if he'll admit he was wrong now? A real man would. -SSB Yes, There is "one" radio and i stand corrected, why is it on the FCC bust of H&Y, The radio also has adj rf power knob on front that is a no no also. Read the disclaimer they have for the roger beep in the manual, shut it of when not in use so you don't annoy people. Lets see what kind of respone we get from Riley it will be interesting to hear. I have read the about the amazement of acceptance while including adjustable power. Dunno, it is bone stock 4/12 watts. I have heard form others that it is a BEAR to get more channels out of, etc. It IS a good CB RADIO though. I think it sounds great, really natural and has excellent receive. Sideband performance is suprising for a Galaxy although it did need a frequency allignment from the get-go and am modulation was low (limiter slammed with a tone and only doing about 80%) Microphone preamp is very sensitive, no NEED for a power mic but a better sounding dynamic is in order to get the best fidelity. With the stock mic I keep the mic gain at about 1 o'clock to keep the limiter from pumping. They are not cheap but it has been a good, robust radio thus far. For the record I would trade my roger beep for an unlocked clarifier in the law books, anyday, hands down :) Chad |
"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge" wrote in message ... Vinnie S. wrote in : On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:34:29 -0600, "Chad Wahls" wrote: Then by all means produce a radio that sells in the usa that is type certified by the FCC, Randy tried but failed then he even came up with a lame excuse that the FCC agent made a mistake... LOL I know what the next excuse will sound like it will be " his co -worker used his computer while he was out to lunch". Your opinion while repected at times is not fact when it is spelled out and you nor any others can produce a radio that is type certified with them. If they were legal why would Cobra not incorporate them in at least 1 model, just 1 ?? Why not Uniden?? radio Shack?? Nidland?? and whom ever is a respected and legal company selling CB radios that are actually type certified. Galaxy DX2547, 100% FCC accepted, has a roger beep, indicator light for it, and a switch on the front panel. Worthless in my eyes as the operator that says "com'on" after every sentence. But there is one for 'ya! Best Chad And here are a few for you Chad that radio included http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2...-253693A1.html I saw that, One of the reasons I bought mine is because it "is" FCC accepted. I will also do some searching, Wonder if there is not another 2547 "export version" with a DX99 in the chasis? best Chad I had a Galaxy 949 which was a standard CB. Also had a roger beep. Vinnie S. Ok Vinnie what is the FCC id tag #"s on the back of the radio... post them I THINK the 959 and 949 is the same radio as the 2547, the 2547 is a mobile in a big case. 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!!!!! Chad Looks like the 2537 (vaporware) was a 949 as it does not have the freq counter. |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... 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 OMG!!!! Frank has an attitude, he's sometimes pompous, arrogant, but that doesn't make him "On anyone's side". I've had issue's with Frank in the past and will have them in the future, that's a give me, but to come out here and say "My side", that's a hoot! A DD214 is a DD214, no matter how you try to dissect it Dave, so if it says Kerry was discharged, he was discharged. If federal government records show Kerry's service records, then it's up to you to prove they were forged (To which I think no one was contesting they weren't real, just the timeline). Now like you, I don't like Kerry but at the same time I don't think Bush is much better, but "I" felt he was the lesser of three evils, so I voted for Bush. One thing I've seen about Frank as of late, he doesn't seem to let his emotions do his talking. He will say what he believes, without prejudice to which is a very tough thing to do. Landshark -- Real heroes are men who fall and fail and are flawed, but win out in the end because they've stayed true to their ideals and beliefs and commitments. |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:12:06 -0600, "Chad Wahls" wrote:
But there is one for 'ya! Best Chad And here are a few for you Chad that radio included http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2...-253693A1.html I saw that, One of the reasons I bought mine is because it "is" FCC accepted. I will also do some searching, Wonder if there is not another 2547 "export version" with a DX99 in the chasis? best Chad I had a Galaxy 949 which was a standard CB. Also had a roger beep. Vinnie S. Ok Vinnie what is the FCC id tag #"s on the back of the radio... post them I THINK the 959 and 949 is the same radio as the 2547, the 2547 is a mobile in a big case. They are exactly the same radio. Same board and all. The 949 doesn't have a frequency counter. None the less, they are approved by the FCC, because they are not exports. They do their 4 watts. And the channel mods require a hell of alot more than a solder bridge. 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. Chad Looks like the 2537 (vaporware) was a 949 as it does not have the freq counter. Bingo. Vinnie S. |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:50:37 GMT, SideBand wrote:
Here's another one that equates all three.. CTCSS, PL, and SATS http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=CTCSS -SSB Dammit. I hate facts !!!!!! ;-) Vinnie S. |
"Vinnie S." wrote in message ... 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. Nah, less than 10 bucks and some time if you have the know how to bias out that second final, best to buy two matched, still less than 10 bucks. But big deal you gain another 10 watts :) Chad |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:01:34 -0600, "Chad Wahls" wrote:
"Vinnie S." wrote in message .. . 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. Nah, less than 10 bucks and some time if you have the know how to bias out that second final, best to buy two matched, still less than 10 bucks. But big deal you gain another 10 watts :) But that is in parts cost. I don't recall exactly, since I don't own the radio anymore. If you can get to a local supply, I am sure it's $10. But if you oder online, many places have minimum orders, and if you order from mulitple places, you get nail for mutliple shipping and handling. In one case, the handling was somewhere near $10 for orders under $25. Here is a good example: http://www.rfparts.com/usorder.html I wish I had a local supply house. Vinnie S. |
"Vinnie S." wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:01:34 -0600, "Chad Wahls" wrote: "Vinnie S." wrote in message . .. 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. Nah, less than 10 bucks and some time if you have the know how to bias out that second final, best to buy two matched, still less than 10 bucks. But big deal you gain another 10 watts :) But that is in parts cost. I don't recall exactly, since I don't own the radio anymore. If you can get to a local supply, I am sure it's $10. But if you oder online, many places have minimum orders, and if you order from mulitple places, you get nail for mutliple shipping and handling. In one case, the handling was somewhere near $10 for orders under $25. Here is a good example: http://www.rfparts.com/usorder.html I wish I had a local supply house. Vinnie S. I am very lucky to work for and live in a town with one of the largest Engineering Universities, I walk 3 blocks and get what I need! I need a smoke break, I walk to EE stores! If I need to order from a specialty house such as RF Parts I will contact others and get a big order to help absorb shipping costs. I am always ordering from somewhere and really never order in small quantities. As for small common parts, I have those in stock at home from doing audio repair. So, you are right, for a one time job shipping will eat you alive! Chad |
|
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. |
From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:30:50 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote in : snip did you not read what i wrote twisty? (I did, and don't call me Twisty. Are you saying that you made a mistake by claiming you were referring to an illegal modification instead of a factory design feature?) Insertion of a fact, here........he didn't write twisty anything. No you most certainly are starting to become twistys clone I actually thought he might have been forging you. Illustrating that you really are incapable of acquiring new knowledge, even when it's given freely to you. Webtv can't forge. Webtv can not change the user name for usenet without changing it across the board, and even then, the webtv headers remain and so does their IP number. You may now re-immerse yourself forging mopar and forging my headers to suit your agenda. You have been effectively and permanently reduced, Dave. Actually I was confused (There shouldn't be any confusion -- Twisty defends illegal radio* and I oppose it. But that doesn't answer the question: Did you make a mistake? ) *Too much of a blanket statement. I share my feelings only when asked of such actions...I guess some can view that as a defense, but a defense can come only when one is on the receiving end of another who brought confrontation or attack. Let there be no doubt of what constitutes "illegal radio" in my world.... talking dx and the occasional freebanding on select frequencies located in the freeband, only. No other unlawful activity is "defended" or participated. ----=3D=3D Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News=3D=3D---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---=3D East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =3D--- |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:01:29 -0600, "Chad Wahls"
wrote: I have read the about the amazement of acceptance while including adjustable power. Dunno, it is bone stock 4/12 watts. I have heard form others that it is a BEAR to get more channels out of, etc. It IS a good CB RADIO though. I think it sounds great, really natural and has excellent receive. Sideband performance is suprising for a Galaxy although it did need a frequency allignment from the get-go and am modulation was low (limiter slammed with a tone and only doing about 80%) That's typical of most out of the box CB radios. The limiters are usually set conservatively at 85% max. Microphone preamp is very sensitive, no NEED for a power mic but a better sounding dynamic is in order to get the best fidelity. With the stock mic I keep the mic gain at about 1 o'clock to keep the limiter from pumping. They are not cheap but it has been a good, robust radio thus far. For the record I would trade my roger beep for an unlocked clarifier in the law books, anyday, hands down :) I'm with you on that one. Until they can find a way to phase lock everybody's transmit frequency to an exact standard, there will always be a slight variation in frequency, which you will have to adjust to every time a different station transmits, if everyone has a "locked" on transmit receive-only clarifier. When running a roundtable on SSB, it becomes very annoying in short order. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
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. You are adopting Twisty tactics. You really are sore aren't you? Dave "Sandbagger" |
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 |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... 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. Chad |
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 cry that Bush's honorable discharge was somehow "bought"? See, both sides can make up all sorts of stories to explain the "facts". 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 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? 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. Even if you despise the art of marketing and capitalism, 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. 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. 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? 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. 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......... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:42:57 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . 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 OMG!!!! Frank has an attitude, he's sometimes pompous, arrogant, but that doesn't make him "On anyone's side". He was WRT the illegal CB operators and their equipment. I've had issue's with Frank in the past and will have them in the future, that's a give me, but to come out here and say "My side", that's a hoot! Not if it's true. A DD214 is a DD214, no matter how you try to dissect it Dave, so if it says Kerry was discharged, he was discharged. If federal government records show Kerry's service records, then it's up to you to prove they were forged (To which I think no one was contesting they weren't real, just the timeline). Now like you, I don't like Kerry but at the same time I don't think Bush is much better, but "I" felt he was the lesser of three evils, so I voted for Bush. One thing I've seen about Frank as of late, he doesn't seem to let his emotions do his talking. He will say what he believes, without prejudice to which is a very tough thing to do. Who the hell is talking about politics? This is about CB radio legalities. Dave "Sandbagger" |
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. I never claimed that issues are either ones or zeroes. But there is an overall difference in philosophy between one "side" and the other, a cumulative sum of all the individual "issues". Dave "Sandbagger" |
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. Bust just like that military newsgroup that you stuck your foot in your mouth over with Frank, 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. YOU are a liar in the first degree. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cv |
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 ... 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: 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 .. . 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 |
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 . .. 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" |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com