A condemnation, therefore, of the CBisation taking place
in the UK (and in no small part caused by the M3/CB Fool's
Licence)?

Modern Cheque Book (CB) rigs contain so much that there
is little incentive for the CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham to
actually become a Radio Ham - even now there are those who turn
up their noses at a radio if it requires the use/construction of a manual
ATU.

The rigs seem to go on for years, and contain everything that you
think, mistakenly, makes for a Radio Ham. The result? That you
never have to visit the shop again. No buying of second-hand
gear. No buying of the odd component. No buying of ex-govt
gear with a view to conversion.

All the little shops close down because there are no Radio Hams;
there are only CBers of one sort or another who visit a shop once
and then never return.

Result? The shop closes down or is taken over by stack'em high
sell 'em cheap merchants who can never give the value that you
used to get from an enthusiasts shop.

The CB ethos is like a cancer - feeding off the body of Ham Radio,
but then finally destroying it; biting off the hand that feeds; killing
the goose with the golden eggs.

It is not too late to turn the tide. (Even if a mixed metaphor sings,
it should be derailed by pulling out the carpet from underneath?)

We can make a start, perhaps, by agitating for the abolishment
of the M3/CB Fool's Licence, and for it to be replaced by
a form of CB licence. All other licence classes to enforce
home construction and, perhaps, the use of CW only for
the first year, as an encouragement to tackle successfully a first
constructional project.

Geoff wrote in message
...
That's a bit difficult if you have already purchased the item. Anyway,
where else? There is very little choice available within the UK, and
purchasing outside the UK may have been done to death in another thread.

"Ryan Breai, village idiot" ranted in message
...
A condemnation, therefore, of the CBisation taking place...

normal large quantity of mindless drivel snipped

Are you paid by the word?
(_!_)

"Ryan Breai, village idiot" ranted in message
...

A condemnation, therefore, of the CBisation taking place...

Not only can the village idiot not spell, he cannot post properly.

From the relevant part of RFC 1885

- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!


Geoff

In message , Ryan Breai
writes
It is not too late to turn the tide. (Even if a mixed metaphor sings,
it should be derailed by pulling out the carpet from underneath?)

We can make a start, perhaps, by agitating for the abolishment of the
M3/CB Fool's Licence, and for it to be replaced by a form of CB
licence. All other licence classes to enforce home construction and,
perhaps, the use of CW only for the first year, as an encouragement to
tackle successfully a first constructional project.

I agree 1-100% why do we need the bull centred around this soldering
iron mentality. I want to communicate with a purpose built set not a
bodged up ex mod misfit. If you want to be a ham with a soldering iron
OK but I just want to use a radio to talk to people and that's a
different kettle of fish.
Why do we need the self imposed rules set by the RSGB if we only want
to communicate with an out of the box rig. Why do we have to pay to the
RSGB to sit some phoney test, is it to keep bad mannered trogs like you
in business.
If we want to transmit using CW then we learn the code, simple. If we
just want to use voice, no problem. All that is needed is the rules for
transmitting and radio manners printed in the box. If you break the
rules i.e. bad language etc. then you go to jail.
What is so special about a radio, is a VHF handheld better than a mobile
phone for communication, remember these days there are sat coms that
costs less than a HF radio. Coded messages can be sent by SMS. Face it
your way is a thing of the past, it's a CB world if you don't like it go
home but remember we have the ball.

A condpart caused by the M3/CB Fool's
Licence)?

Modern Cheque etc

A very well thought out piece.......


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 11/18/03

The first thing I must say is....grow up, Geoff!

There is no call for you to resort to infantile outbursts,
such as your gratuitous use of "village idiot" below. You
are of the age when you should have left the school
playground well behind, and are giving a very poor example
for young noviciates of the art to follow.

Shame on you.

The crucial point in what you quote below is the comma
appearing in "top of the message, or include just" in the
second line. This shows quite clearly that two disparate
options are being discussed. EITHER summarise at the
top OR include enough text to give a context.

My top posting with quotation beneath satisfies the
second option.

Geoff wrote in message
...
"Ryan Breai, village idiot" ranted in message
...
A condemnation, therefore, of the CBisation taking place...
Not only can the village idiot not spell, he cannot post properly.
From the relevant part of RFC 1885
- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!

Geoff wrote in message
...

"Ryan Breai, village idiot" ranted in message
...

A condemnation, therefore, of the CBisation taking place...

Not only can the village idiot not spell, he cannot post properly.
From the relevant part of RFC 1885

- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!


"Ryan Breai" wrote in news:3fc7840c_2@mk-nntp-
1.news.uk.worldonline.com:

The first thing I must say is....grow up, Geoff!

There is no call for you to resort to infantile outbursts,
such as your gratuitous use of "village idiot" below. You
are of the age when you should have left the school
playground well behind, and are giving a very poor example
for young noviciates of the art to follow.

Shame on you.

The crucial point in what you quote below is the comma
appearing in "top of the message, or include just" in the
second line. This shows quite clearly that two disparate
options are being discussed. EITHER summarise at the
top OR include enough text to give a context.

My top posting with quotation beneath satisfies the
second option.


Five points arise from your post:

Firstly, I "grew up" years back.

Secondly, I was using the term "The Village Idiot" as provided in the
newsgroup post header that I read. Given a reasonable newsreader, you
should be able to se this yourself but I reproduce it below for your
convenience:

"Ryan Breai, village idiot" ranted in message
...

Third: My comment on spelling: my copy of the O.E.D. does not recognise
"CBisation", nor does Websters - anyway, if it was of US origin, it would
have been spelt with a "z".

Fourth, why shame on me? I am only quoting from what either you call
yourself, or what at least one other NG reader called you.

Finally, and the real point, perhaps one may interpret the comma in the
that you do, but commas are notorious for misinterpretation. That is why
legal draughtsmen rarely insert commas.

The second sentence of the quoted paragraph of RFC1855, again reproduced
below, contains the real meat:

This will make sure readers understand when they start to read
your response.

Will all top posters please note, that this requirement is met by posting
below the quoted part. It certainly is not met by top posting.

In my view, a top poster is the internet equivalent to somebody who shouts
over the person speaking, a heckler.



Geoff

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
Geoff wrote in message
...

"Ryan Breai, village idiot" ranted in message
...

A condemnation, therefore, of the CBisation taking place...

Not only can the village idiot not spell, he cannot post properly.
From the relevant part of RFC 1885

- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!


"Ryan Breai" wrote in news:3fc7840c_2@mk-nntp-
1.news.uk.worldonline.com:

The first thing I must say is....grow up, Geoff!

There is no call for you to resort to infantile outbursts,
such as your gratuitous use of "village idiot" below. You
are of the age when you should have left the school
playground well behind, and are giving a very poor example
for young noviciates of the art to follow.

Shame on you.

The crucial point in what you quote below is the comma
appearing in "top of the message, or include just" in the
second line. This shows quite clearly that two disparate
options are being discussed. EITHER summarise at the
top OR include enough text to give a context.

My top posting with quotation beneath satisfies the
second option.


Five points arise from your post:

Firstly, I "grew up" years back.

Secondly, I was using the term "The Village Idiot" as provided in the
newsgroup post header that I read. Given a reasonable newsreader, you
should be able to se this yourself but I reproduce it below for your
convenience:

"Ryan Breai, village idiot" ranted in message
...

Third: My comment on spelling: my copy of the O.E.D. does not recognise
"CBisation", nor does Websters - anyway, if it was of US origin, it would
have been spelt with a "z".

Fourth, why shame on me? I am only quoting from what either you call
yourself, or what at least one other NG reader called you.

Finally, and the real point, perhaps one may interpret the comma in the
that you do, but commas are notorious for misinterpretation. That is why
legal draughtsmen rarely insert commas.

The second sentence of the quoted paragraph of RFC1855, again reproduced
below, contains the real meat:

This will make sure readers understand when they start to read
your response.

Will all top posters please note, that this requirement is met by posting
below the quoted part. It certainly is not met by top posting.

In my view, a top poster is the internet equivalent to somebody who shouts
over the person speaking, a heckler.



Geoff

Come on Geoff, don't make him think for himself, he'll get a headache (or
dick ache).
--
;)
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.

1. You have misrepresented what I posted, and
therefore you are a _LIAR_. I did not post what you said
that I posted. I have endeavoured to recreate the correct
way in which things were posted, E&OE.

2. It was you who used the term, "village idiot" however
you wish to claim that you latterly quoted it. Shame on you.
Grow up - by your childish predisposition you demonstrate that
you did not, in fact, grow up years ago, as you claimed, but one
cannot expect any more from a demonstrable _LIAR_.

As I said, Grow up, Geoff.

3. Dictionaries are recorders of history and not prescribers
of knowledge. The word, "CBisation" now exists, you have
used it; you understand the meaning of it.

4. As to commas being open to misinterpretation, then clearly
you have fallen into such a trap, by misinterpreting what you
quoted as a proscription of top-posting.

5. "In my view, a top poster is the internet equivalent to somebody who
shouts
over the person speaking, a heckler."

More unnecessary gratuitous remarks. Shame on you, grow up, Geoff.

6." This will make sure readers understand when they start to read
your response."
Will all bottom posters please note, that this requirement is met by posting
the quoted part anywhere. Anybody who is following a thread will not want to
be forced
to plough through old material again. Anyone who has not been following the
thread is ill-advised to select a posting from the middle. However, if he
does,
the archival material, like all references in any decent publication, is
given
at the end.

Geoff wrote in message
...
"Ryan Breai" wrote in news:3fc7840c_2@mk-nntp-
1.news.uk.worldonline.com:
The first thing I must say is....grow up, Geoff!
There is no call for you to resort to infantile outbursts,
such as your gratuitous use of "village idiot" below. You
are of the age when you should have left the school
playground well behind, and are giving a very poor example
for young noviciates of the art to follow.
Shame on you.
The crucial point in what you quote below is the comma
appearing in "top of the message, or include just" in the
second line. This shows quite clearly that two disparate
options are being discussed. EITHER summarise at the
top OR include enough text to give a context.
My top posting with quotation beneath satisfies the
second option.
Geoff wrote in message
...
A condemnation, therefore, of the CBisation taking place...
Not only can the village idiot not spell, he cannot post properly.
From the relevant part of RFC 1885
- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!

Five points arise from your post:

Firstly, I "grew up" years back.

Secondly, I was using the term "The Village Idiot" as provided in the
newsgroup post header that I read. Given a reasonable newsreader, you
should be able to se this yourself but I reproduce it below for your
convenience:

Third: My comment on spelling: my copy of the O.E.D. does not recognise
"CBisation", nor does Websters - anyway, if it was of US origin, it would
have been spelt with a "z".

Fourth, why shame on me? I am only quoting from what either you call
yourself, or what at least one other NG reader called you.

Finally, and the real point, perhaps one may interpret the comma in the
that you do, but commas are notorious for misinterpretation. That is why
legal draughtsmen rarely insert commas.

The second sentence of the quoted paragraph of RFC1855, again reproduced
below, contains the real meat:

This will make sure readers understand when they start to read
your response.
Will all top posters please note, that this requirement is met by posting
below the quoted part. It certainly is not met by top posting.

In my view, a top poster is the internet equivalent to somebody who shouts
over the person speaking, a heckler.

"Ryan Breai" wrote in message
...
1. You have misrepresented what I posted, and
therefore you are a _LIAR_. I did not post what you said
that I posted. I have endeavoured to recreate the correct
way in which things were posted, E&OE.

2. It was you who used the term, "village idiot" however
you wish to claim that you latterly quoted it. Shame on you.
Grow up - by your childish predisposition you demonstrate that
you did not, in fact, grow up years ago, as you claimed, but one
cannot expect any more from a demonstrable _LIAR_.

crap snipped

You're wasting your time, Geoff. This bloke is such a retard that he can't
even work out that the reason he can't see the original is because the
poster (me) is in his kill file. He won't see this post either, so if you
respond he'll probably accuse you of talking to yourself!
--
;)
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.