itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote:

Prove your point? I said that from the ****ing start you drunken asshole.
go sniff some more toilets seat your delerious

He can't properly form a complete sentence, and I'm drunken and
delirious. That's rich.

Don't push your personal life off on me, not-not-gorge. Just because you
like to "sniff toilets seat" doesn't mean everyone else does..

That should have been "you're delirious", not "your". "Your" is the
possessive form. "You're" is the contraction of "you are". I learned the
difference in Grammar School..

-SSB

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:32:54 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote in
:

snip
This is not grammar class you ****ing dick with ears blah, blah, blah.


So what rule prohibits a power control?





----== 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 =---

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote in
:


On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:32:54 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote in
:

snip

This is not grammar class you ****ing dick with ears blah, blah, blah.


So what rule prohibits a power control?



I beleive I was thinking of the scenario where you added a dial a watt.
which further enhances the keyclown ability of the radio for driving a
amp

So that would be the "internal modifications" rule..

If the radio is type accepted, and comes with such a thing as a power
control from the factory, then it's not internally modified, and
therefore not illegal.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

-SSB

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:56:05 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote in
:

Frank Gilliland wrote in
:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:32:54 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote in
:

snip
This is not grammar class you ****ing dick with ears blah, blah, blah.


So what rule prohibits a power control?


I beleive I was thinking of the scenario where you added a dial a watt.
which further enhances the keyclown ability of the radio for driving a
amp


Yeah, that's usually what it's used for. But what's the rule that
prohibits it?

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:11:59 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote in
:

Frank Gilliland wrote in
:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:56:05 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote in
:

Frank Gilliland wrote in
:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:32:54 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote in
:

snip
This is not grammar class you ****ing dick with ears blah, blah,
blah.


So what rule prohibits a power control?


I beleive I was thinking of the scenario where you added a dial a watt.
which further enhances the keyclown ability of the radio for driving a
amp


Yeah, that's usually what it's used for. But what's the rule that
prohibits it?


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?

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, you would think that more radios
would utilize this "feature" as a selling point.

On the other hand, many hand held radios are equipped with "hi/lo"
power switches.

In the mid 60's, a few Lafayette models had a 5W/100mW switch on the
back. But the selling point for those was that they used to claim that
you could operate your radio on the 100 mW position before your
license came back in the mail. The FCC later clarified part 15 so that
the antenna had to be self contained and less than 5 feet in length.
So that pretty much killed that purpose of that switch, and it
disappeared with the next models.

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

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.






----== 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 Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:02:16 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:57:00 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 04:57:04 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:04:53 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:03:11 GMT, SideBand wrote:


[6] to transmit music, whistling, sound effects or any material to
amuse or entertain;


It's illegal because any form of free entertainment or amusement is a
direct attack on the free-enterprise system by the liberals who want
to weaken the corporate stronghold on the entertainment industry. So
the US government (whose sole purpose is to "protect, facilitate and
represent our interests in the world market") has disallowed any free
entertainment and amusement in non-profit venues, including CB radio.

How could you not see that, Dave?


Give it a rest Frank. We're not talking about politics anymore.


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.


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.

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;




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?

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..

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

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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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





----== 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 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?

No you most certainly are starting to become twistys clone I actually
thought he might have been forging you. 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?





----== 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 =---