On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response from so many
hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate solution to any
communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just one
such instance.

While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd probably get
some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.

(I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder why?)


Two things:

1. What do you expect from an Amateur Radio related newsgroup?

2. Amateur radio is a perfect solution for him, except he's placing
additional, unnecessary constraints. He has multiple bands he can use,
can run much more power, and no restrictions on base or mobile usage.
The only restrictions are he can only talk to other licensed hams, and
cannot use it for business. I don't see the latter as a problem, from
what he's said.

But then you obviously don't know anything about ham radio, yet you are
giving your opinion on it.

Why do you continue to argue about this? I have explained repeatedly
that I won't be able to get anyone else to use ham gear. So I would not
be able to talk to anyone I wish to talk to.

Is this one of those groups where a small number of people dominate all
the conversations?


I wasn't talking to you.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

==================

On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response from so
many
hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate solution to
any
communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just one
such instance.

While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd probably get
some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.

(I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder why?)


Two things:

1. What do you expect from an Amateur Radio related newsgroup?

2. Amateur radio is a perfect solution for him, except he's placing
additional, unnecessary constraints. He has multiple bands he can use,
can run much more power, and no restrictions on base or mobile usage.
The only restrictions are he can only talk to other licensed hams, and
cannot use it for business. I don't see the latter as a problem, from
what he's said.

But then you obviously don't know anything about ham radio, yet you are
giving your opinion on it.

Why do you continue to argue about this? I have explained repeatedly
that I won't be able to get anyone else to use ham gear. So I would not
be able to talk to anyone I wish to talk to.

Is this one of those groups where a small number of people dominate all
the conversations?


I wasn't talking to you.

No, you are speaking in a public forum. If you want a private
conversation you might consider an email.

--

Rick

On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response from so
many
hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate solution to
any
communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just one
such instance.

While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd probably get
some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.

(I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder why?)


Two things:

1. What do you expect from an Amateur Radio related newsgroup?

2. Amateur radio is a perfect solution for him, except he's placing
additional, unnecessary constraints. He has multiple bands he can use,
can run much more power, and no restrictions on base or mobile usage.
The only restrictions are he can only talk to other licensed hams, and
cannot use it for business. I don't see the latter as a problem, from
what he's said.

But then you obviously don't know anything about ham radio, yet you are
giving your opinion on it.

Why do you continue to argue about this? I have explained repeatedly
that I won't be able to get anyone else to use ham gear. So I would not
be able to talk to anyone I wish to talk to.

Is this one of those groups where a small number of people dominate all
the conversations?


I wasn't talking to you.

No, you are speaking in a public forum. If you want a private
conversation you might consider an email.


You need to figure something out - this is a public forum. Not
everything is about YOU. And not everyone is talking to you.

But now you're just trolling. Next will come the ad hominem attacks.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

==================

On 9/7/2013 2:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response from so
many
hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate solution to
any
communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just one
such instance.

While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd probably
get
some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.

(I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder
why?)


Two things:

1. What do you expect from an Amateur Radio related newsgroup?



2. Amateur radio is a perfect solution for him, except he's placing
^^^
-------------------------------------------------|||

See this part? Now read the rest of the post...


additional, unnecessary constraints. He has multiple bands he can use,
can run much more power, and no restrictions on base or mobile usage.
The only restrictions are he can only talk to other licensed hams, and
cannot use it for business. I don't see the latter as a problem, from
what he's said.

But then you obviously don't know anything about ham radio, yet you
are
giving your opinion on it.

Why do you continue to argue about this? I have explained repeatedly
that I won't be able to get anyone else to use ham gear. So I would not
be able to talk to anyone I wish to talk to.

Is this one of those groups where a small number of people dominate all
the conversations?


I wasn't talking to you.

No, you are speaking in a public forum. If you want a private
conversation you might consider an email.


You need to figure something out - this is a public forum. Not
everything is about YOU. And not everyone is talking to you.

But now you're just trolling. Next will come the ad hominem attacks.

I think it is about me because... well, because you *were* talking about
me ("him" in this case), see the quote above.

I know it is a public forum. That is what I had to point out to you.
You seem to object to me using it as a public forum. You don't like
what I say and you don't like who I say it to.

If you don't like my posts, why do you keep replying to them?

BTW, by calling me a troll, *you* have started the ad hominem attack.
If you don't like the conversation you are free to not participate. You
are also free to killfile me. Then you won't be bothered by me anymore.

I'm sorry it got to this point. I don't try to antagonize people like
you, but there are no small number of folks on the Internet who seem to
want to run things and that doesn't work with me.

Thanks for the good information you have provided.

--

Rick

On 9/7/2013 3:19 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response from so
many
hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate solution to
any
communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just one
such instance.

While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd probably
get
some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.

(I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder
why?)


Two things:

1. What do you expect from an Amateur Radio related newsgroup?



2. Amateur radio is a perfect solution for him, except he's placing
^^^
-------------------------------------------------|||

See this part? Now read the rest of the post...


additional, unnecessary constraints. He has multiple bands he can
use,
can run much more power, and no restrictions on base or mobile usage.
The only restrictions are he can only talk to other licensed hams,
and
cannot use it for business. I don't see the latter as a problem, from
what he's said.

But then you obviously don't know anything about ham radio, yet you
are
giving your opinion on it.

Why do you continue to argue about this? I have explained repeatedly
that I won't be able to get anyone else to use ham gear. So I would
not
be able to talk to anyone I wish to talk to.

Is this one of those groups where a small number of people dominate
all
the conversations?


I wasn't talking to you.

No, you are speaking in a public forum. If you want a private
conversation you might consider an email.


You need to figure something out - this is a public forum. Not
everything is about YOU. And not everyone is talking to you.

But now you're just trolling. Next will come the ad hominem attacks.

I think it is about me because... well, because you *were* talking about
me ("him" in this case), see the quote above.

I know it is a public forum. That is what I had to point out to you.
You seem to object to me using it as a public forum. You don't like
what I say and you don't like who I say it to.

If you don't like my posts, why do you keep replying to them?

BTW, by calling me a troll, *you* have started the ad hominem attack. If
you don't like the conversation you are free to not participate. You
are also free to killfile me. Then you won't be bothered by me anymore.

I'm sorry it got to this point. I don't try to antagonize people like
you, but there are no small number of folks on the Internet who seem to
want to run things and that doesn't work with me.

Thanks for the good information you have provided.


You just don't get it, do you?

I can talk ABOUT you all I want. But that doesn't mean you are worth
talking TO you.

And yes, this is a public forum. If I don't like what you say, I am
free to speak my view, also. But you don't seem to like that.

And no, calling you a troll is not an ad hominem attack on you. But it
just might be to trolls.

BTW - I'm not trying to "run things". I WAS trying to give you good
information on ways to solve your problem. But you kept on arguing,
even though the FCC regs say what you want to do is illegal.

You don't like the FCC's rules? Well, T.S. That's what they are. As I
said before - if you don't like them, petition the FCC to change them.
But your continued arguing in this or any other forum will get you no
positive result - and a lot of negative ones.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry,AI0K

==================

On 9/7/2013 3:31 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:19 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response from so
many
hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate
solution to
any
communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just
one
such instance.

While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd probably
get
some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.

(I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder
why?)


Two things:

1. What do you expect from an Amateur Radio related newsgroup?



2. Amateur radio is a perfect solution for him, except he's placing
^^^
-------------------------------------------------|||

See this part? Now read the rest of the post...


additional, unnecessary constraints. He has multiple bands he can
use,
can run much more power, and no restrictions on base or mobile
usage.
The only restrictions are he can only talk to other licensed hams,
and
cannot use it for business. I don't see the latter as a problem,
from
what he's said.

But then you obviously don't know anything about ham radio, yet you
are
giving your opinion on it.

Why do you continue to argue about this? I have explained repeatedly
that I won't be able to get anyone else to use ham gear. So I would
not
be able to talk to anyone I wish to talk to.

Is this one of those groups where a small number of people dominate
all
the conversations?


I wasn't talking to you.

No, you are speaking in a public forum. If you want a private
conversation you might consider an email.


You need to figure something out - this is a public forum. Not
everything is about YOU. And not everyone is talking to you.

But now you're just trolling. Next will come the ad hominem attacks.

I think it is about me because... well, because you *were* talking about
me ("him" in this case), see the quote above.

I know it is a public forum. That is what I had to point out to you.
You seem to object to me using it as a public forum. You don't like
what I say and you don't like who I say it to.

If you don't like my posts, why do you keep replying to them?

BTW, by calling me a troll, *you* have started the ad hominem attack. If
you don't like the conversation you are free to not participate. You
are also free to killfile me. Then you won't be bothered by me anymore.

I'm sorry it got to this point. I don't try to antagonize people like
you, but there are no small number of folks on the Internet who seem to
want to run things and that doesn't work with me.

Thanks for the good information you have provided.


You just don't get it, do you?

I can talk ABOUT you all I want. But that doesn't mean you are worth
talking TO you.

And yes, this is a public forum. If I don't like what you say, I am free
to speak my view, also. But you don't seem to like that.

And no, calling you a troll is not an ad hominem attack on you. But it
just might be to trolls.

BTW - I'm not trying to "run things". I WAS trying to give you good
information on ways to solve your problem. But you kept on arguing, even
though the FCC regs say what you want to do is illegal.

You don't like the FCC's rules? Well, T.S. That's what they are. As I
said before - if you don't like them, petition the FCC to change them.
But your continued arguing in this or any other forum will get you no
positive result - and a lot of negative ones.

Dude, you are a tough cookie. Ok, you win. I'm a troll and you are
the... well, whatever you are picturing yourself to be.

Does that make you feel better?

BTW, you were trying to run things. You seem to be incensed that I
replied to your post. Are you not saying I shouldn't reply? If not,
just what *are* you going on about?

I never suggested that you shouldn't speak your mind. I'm just pointing
out that you seem to be saying I don't have the right to reply which is
bogus.

--

Rick

On 9/7/2013 3:37 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:31 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:19 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response
from so
many
hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate
solution to
any
communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just
one
such instance.

While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd probably
get
some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.

(I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder
why?)


Two things:

1. What do you expect from an Amateur Radio related newsgroup?



2. Amateur radio is a perfect solution for him, except he's placing
^^^
-------------------------------------------------|||

See this part? Now read the rest of the post...


additional, unnecessary constraints. He has multiple bands he can
use,
can run much more power, and no restrictions on base or mobile
usage.
The only restrictions are he can only talk to other licensed hams,
and
cannot use it for business. I don't see the latter as a problem,
from
what he's said.

But then you obviously don't know anything about ham radio, yet you
are
giving your opinion on it.

Why do you continue to argue about this? I have explained repeatedly
that I won't be able to get anyone else to use ham gear. So I would
not
be able to talk to anyone I wish to talk to.

Is this one of those groups where a small number of people dominate
all
the conversations?


I wasn't talking to you.

No, you are speaking in a public forum. If you want a private
conversation you might consider an email.


You need to figure something out - this is a public forum. Not
everything is about YOU. And not everyone is talking to you.

But now you're just trolling. Next will come the ad hominem attacks.

I think it is about me because... well, because you *were* talking about
me ("him" in this case), see the quote above.

I know it is a public forum. That is what I had to point out to you.
You seem to object to me using it as a public forum. You don't like
what I say and you don't like who I say it to.

If you don't like my posts, why do you keep replying to them?

BTW, by calling me a troll, *you* have started the ad hominem attack. If
you don't like the conversation you are free to not participate. You
are also free to killfile me. Then you won't be bothered by me anymore.

I'm sorry it got to this point. I don't try to antagonize people like
you, but there are no small number of folks on the Internet who seem to
want to run things and that doesn't work with me.

Thanks for the good information you have provided.


You just don't get it, do you?

I can talk ABOUT you all I want. But that doesn't mean you are worth
talking TO you.

And yes, this is a public forum. If I don't like what you say, I am free
to speak my view, also. But you don't seem to like that.

And no, calling you a troll is not an ad hominem attack on you. But it
just might be to trolls.

BTW - I'm not trying to "run things". I WAS trying to give you good
information on ways to solve your problem. But you kept on arguing, even
though the FCC regs say what you want to do is illegal.

You don't like the FCC's rules? Well, T.S. That's what they are. As I
said before - if you don't like them, petition the FCC to change them.
But your continued arguing in this or any other forum will get you no
positive result - and a lot of negative ones.

Dude, you are a tough cookie. Ok, you win. I'm a troll and you are
the... well, whatever you are picturing yourself to be.

Does that make you feel better?

BTW, you were trying to run things. You seem to be incensed that I
replied to your post. Are you not saying I shouldn't reply? If not,
just what *are* you going on about?

I never suggested that you shouldn't speak your mind. I'm just pointing
out that you seem to be saying I don't have the right to reply which is
bogus.


Nope. I didn't say you couldn't post. I just said I wasn't talking to
you. But you still felt it necessary to object to my post. And you
complain about ME trying to run the conversation? No, those are the
actions of trolls.

And with this post, I'm tired of trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a
waste of time.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

==================

On 9/5/2013 6:08 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/5/2013 1:47 PM, Michael Black wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:


It seems very restrictive that anyone can use a marine VHF radio on
their boat, but if they want to speak with someone on shore that is
not allowed except for special cases like drawbridge operators. I can
understand that marine radios are not for shore to shore
communications, but it only seems natural to use the same radio for
ship to ship and ship to shore comms.

The magic reasoning is that if you're on a boat or ship, then you are on
the water, and the marine band would then apply. You may need it for
emergency, or talking to other boats. I'm sure you used to have to be
licensed in order to have a Marine band license, so things have changed.
Indeed, it was only about the late sixties that the VHF Marine band came
into existence, before that you had to use the 2 to 3MHz Marine band,
with much longer antennas and I think more serious licensing
requirements. The VHF Marine band gave a lot more boaters the use of
radio, and some of that was because in putting the band at higher
frequencies, the range was limited, so more people could make use of the
allocation. And about that time, the equipment on the HF marine band got
fancier and more expensive, precisely to make better use of that
allocation.

But, if anyone could get a marine band radio and use it from shore,
what's to keep them from just using it as a general radio band? The
allocation is for marine use, yet if anyone could use a radio for the
band from shore, then they might use it for any purpose.

That's the difference, it's now easy to use the radio from a boat, where
the band is intended for, and difficult to use from shore since you need
to justify that you actually will be using it for ship to shore use.

Faulty reasoning. I can use the marine band radio from shore now. The
only thing stopping me is the law. Last year I was told it was ok to
use it from shore if I was communicating with a boat (which makes
perfect sense), now I find that is *not* the case. During our trip I
heard any number of conversations between boats and what appeared to be
their homes. There was no congestion, no interference of the airways,
just ship to shore communications when useful.


There is every need for a boat to have a radio, no need for everyone on
shore to have a radio, so the licensing is restrictive. Likely not as
restrictive as you perceive it, but still there to weed out the people
who might wish to use it for other things.

The utility of a radio, especially in emergency situations, is greatly
diminished if you can't reach people on the shore. My understanding is
that the range of these radios is *very* short if you are close to the
water. There were kayaks less than 4 miles away who I could not raise
on the radio and I was likely the closest point of assistance. If they
had needed to call for help, who exactly would they be able to reach?

In the sea kayaking community VHF radio is both regarded as an important
safety device because of the importance of communications and as a joke
because of how often it communicates with no out outside of your paddle
group. I don't think it is unreasonable for shore stations to be able
to monitor VHF and respond in an emergency situation or to prevent one.
In the situation at Lake Anna, if I am not allowed to have a VHF
license for my shore station, then what is the use of having a VHF radio
in a boat?



As someone mentioned earlier, the law was made to insure profits for the
corporations that built shore stations that were hooked up to the
telephone lines. This law of course is still in place. There is no more
profit for the corporations, but the law remains on the books.

I personally find much of the FCC rules and regulations to be simply a
means to insure profits for business. A perfect example is the law that
makes it almost impossible for a private person to put in their own low
power radio station to cover their town. In the rural area where I live
there is mostly dead air. I am retired and I would love to put in my own
station to broadcast music and local news.

That is one of the very serious problems with our form of democracy in
the USA. Most of the laws are actually written by companies or
corporations who bribe politicians to enact the laws they want. This
form of bribery has been found legal by the supreme court. However, if
you attempt to bribe your way out of a speeding ticket, you will most
likely suffer the full force of the law. Politicians get a special card
to allow almost any form of corruption.

If you go ahead and use the marine band as you would like to do, you may
or may not get away with it. If you do not use it a lot, you probably
will not get in trouble. I find absolutely no moral turpitude in your
plan to use that frequency as a kayak to shore communication. Legal and
moral are often 180 degrees apart in the USA.

Of course there are some who believe that any statute on the books comes
directly from God.

Michael

In message , rickman
writes




It seems very restrictive that anyone can use a marine VHF radio on
their boat, but if they want to speak with someone on shore that is not
allowed except for special cases like drawbridge operators. I can
understand that marine radios are not for shore to shore
communications, but it only seems natural to use the same radio for
ship to ship and ship to shore comms.

Although I've been a licensed radio amateur for over 50 years, I haven't
really got a clue about using the marine VHF radio band, and the
regulations appertaining to it.

However, Wikipedia indicates that "It is used for a wide variety of
purposes, including summoning rescue services and communicating with
harbours, locks, bridges and marinas".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_VHF_radio

The question therefore is essentially whether the land side of the
two-way communication could also include things like the support teams
for water-based events. I would have thought it would be standard
practice for them to have two-way marine-band communications equipment
for this purpose, and if so, it could be argued that the OP falls into
this (presumably) permitted category. If they don't use the normal VHF
marine band, what frequencies (and equipment) do they use? The obvious
course of action would be to get the FCC to advise on the matter.
--
Ian

On 9/7/2013 3:44 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:37 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:31 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 3:19 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:


On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response
from so
many
hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate
solution to
any
communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just
one
such instance.

While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd
probably
get
some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.

(I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder
why?)


Two things:

1. What do you expect from an Amateur Radio related newsgroup?



2. Amateur radio is a perfect solution for him, except he's
placing
^^^
-------------------------------------------------|||

See this part? Now read the rest of the post...


additional, unnecessary constraints. He has multiple bands he can
use,
can run much more power, and no restrictions on base or mobile
usage.
The only restrictions are he can only talk to other licensed hams,
and
cannot use it for business. I don't see the latter as a problem,
from
what he's said.

But then you obviously don't know anything about ham radio, yet
you
are
giving your opinion on it.

Why do you continue to argue about this? I have explained
repeatedly
that I won't be able to get anyone else to use ham gear. So I would
not
be able to talk to anyone I wish to talk to.

Is this one of those groups where a small number of people dominate
all
the conversations?


I wasn't talking to you.

No, you are speaking in a public forum. If you want a private
conversation you might consider an email.


You need to figure something out - this is a public forum. Not
everything is about YOU. And not everyone is talking to you.

But now you're just trolling. Next will come the ad hominem attacks.

I think it is about me because... well, because you *were* talking
about
me ("him" in this case), see the quote above.

I know it is a public forum. That is what I had to point out to you.
You seem to object to me using it as a public forum. You don't like
what I say and you don't like who I say it to.

If you don't like my posts, why do you keep replying to them?

BTW, by calling me a troll, *you* have started the ad hominem
attack. If
you don't like the conversation you are free to not participate. You
are also free to killfile me. Then you won't be bothered by me anymore.

I'm sorry it got to this point. I don't try to antagonize people like
you, but there are no small number of folks on the Internet who seem to
want to run things and that doesn't work with me.

Thanks for the good information you have provided.


You just don't get it, do you?

I can talk ABOUT you all I want. But that doesn't mean you are worth
talking TO you.

And yes, this is a public forum. If I don't like what you say, I am free
to speak my view, also. But you don't seem to like that.

And no, calling you a troll is not an ad hominem attack on you. But it
just might be to trolls.

BTW - I'm not trying to "run things". I WAS trying to give you good
information on ways to solve your problem. But you kept on arguing, even
though the FCC regs say what you want to do is illegal.

You don't like the FCC's rules? Well, T.S. That's what they are. As I
said before - if you don't like them, petition the FCC to change them.
But your continued arguing in this or any other forum will get you no
positive result - and a lot of negative ones.

Dude, you are a tough cookie. Ok, you win. I'm a troll and you are
the... well, whatever you are picturing yourself to be.

Does that make you feel better?

BTW, you were trying to run things. You seem to be incensed that I
replied to your post. Are you not saying I shouldn't reply? If not,
just what *are* you going on about?

I never suggested that you shouldn't speak your mind. I'm just pointing
out that you seem to be saying I don't have the right to reply which is
bogus.


Nope. I didn't say you couldn't post. I just said I wasn't talking to
you. But you still felt it necessary to object to my post. And you
complain about ME trying to run the conversation? No, those are the
actions of trolls.

Go back and read my post. I didn't complain that you posted. I
complained that the content of your post contradicted the facts and that
you continued to make these wrong claims. You continued to say that I
could use Ham radio for my needs long after I have explained that I
can't get the rest of the kayaking community to switch radios.

You can go on about it all you wish, but that is not a realistic
expectation. So your comments are far off target. That is my point.
But you are free to continue to state them.


And with this post, I'm tired of trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a
waste of time.

After the first few posts, yes, the rest of this conversation *has* been
a waste of time.

--

Rick