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 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 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 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 =---

"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 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 14:42:57 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in :

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


Good thing I wasn't drinking Tequila last night.


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


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






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

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

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


Good thing I wasn't drinking Tequila last night.


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Landshark


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