Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Roger Wiseman Dictionary 2005 Edition | General | |||
Why are Roger Beeps Illegal on CB? | CB | |||
N3CVJ claims Roger Beeps illegal | CB | |||
Roger Wiseman's Greyhound Men's Room Band | General |