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 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 11:51:48 -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".

Maybe Frankie will just drop dead from AIDS.


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Hey Doug, I talked to the guy at the International Boxing Club in Toledo.

He told me I can buy some ring time, right down the street from you.

The address is:

615 Front St
Toledo, OH 43605

That's real close to your house.

Let's settle this thing with the gloves on, and a ref.

What say?

At least you'll have a chance to throw the towel this way.

(save your gay remarks)