On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

....nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

73, Leo

On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

...nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

Leo, I think you realized that I have
seen through your cunning plan,
and was not trapped by it. But
rather than admit that I have outsmarted
you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel"
and snipped.

I repeat the relevant question:

If I give you one example of a factual error
that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet
corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point?

It's a simple question. Your reply or lack
of one says much more about you than it
does about me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

...nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

Leo, I think you realized that I have
seen through your cunning plan,

What cunning plan?

and was not trapped by it. But
rather than admit that I have outsmarted
you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel"
and snipped.

Isn't it?


I repeat the relevant question:

If I give you one example of a factual error
that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet
corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point?

Of course - so long as it predates my original post!


It's a simple question. Your reply or lack
of one says much more about you than it
does about me.

LOL!


73 de Jim, N2EY




73' Leo

On Feb 7, 7:03�pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

...nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

Leo, I think you realized that I have
seen through your cunning plan,

What cunning plan? *

and was not trapped by it. But
rather than admit that I have outsmarted
you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel"
and snipped.

Isn't it? * *

No.

I repeat the relevant question:

If I give you one example of a factual error
that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet
corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point?

Of course - so long as it predates my original post!

Ah - so you add a condition!

Nevertheless, it's a simple task to find an uncorrected factual error
in Len's postings here.

Scroll back up this thread to January 30. See the post Len made at
7:56 PM (at least, that's the time Google lists.

In that long, long post, Len says:

""CB" came into being in 1958."

But that's incorrect. By a whole decade.

My point is proved.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 7 Feb 2007 16:41:37 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 7, 7:03?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

...nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

Leo, I think you realized that I have
seen through your cunning plan,

What cunning plan?

and was not trapped by it. But
rather than admit that I have outsmarted
you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel"
and snipped.

Isn't it?

No.

I repeat the relevant question:

If I give you one example of a factual error
that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet
corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point?

Of course - so long as it predates my original post!

Ah - so you add a condition!

An obvious condition, considering that my post referred to your
activities which preceeded it! Just keeping you honest.....


Nevertheless, it's a simple task to find an uncorrected factual error
in Len's postings here.

Scroll back up this thread to January 30. See the post Len made at
7:56 PM (at least, that's the time Google lists.

In that long, long post, Len says:

""CB" came into being in 1958."

But that's incorrect. By a whole decade.

Hmmm - I don't believe that one qualifies, Jim. The concept of the
'Citizen's Band' dates back to 1945 - but the allocation was way up in
the UHF bands, where radio equipment for the average 'citizen' was
quite impractical, due to the the technology of the time (both size
and cost of the transceiving equipment would have been enormous!. In
other words, it existed in regulations only, but was virtually
unusable for its intended purpose by the general public it was
designed to serve.

The "Citizen's Band" that exists to this day, in the 27 MHz band, does
indeed date back to 1958.

I'd say he was right on this one, from a practical point of view.


My point is proved.

Not yet!


73 de Jim, N2EY


73, Leo

On Feb 8, 8:56�am, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 16:41:37 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 7, 7:03?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

...nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

Leo, I think you realized that I have
seen through your cunning plan,

What cunning plan?

and was not trapped by it. But
rather than admit that I have outsmarted
you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel"
and snipped.

Isn't it?

No.

I repeat the relevant question:

If I give you one example of a factual error
that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet
corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point?

Of course - so long as it predates my original post!

Ah - so you add a condition!

An obvious condition, considering that my post referred to your
activities which preceeded it! *

A condition you added at the last possible moment.

Just keeping you honest..... *

When have I ever been less than honest?

Nevertheless, it's a simple task to find an uncorrected factual error
in Len's postings here.

Scroll back up this thread to January 30. See the post Len made at
7:56 PM (at least, that's the time Google lists.

In that long, long post, Len says:

""CB" came into being in 1958."

But that's incorrect. By a whole decade.

Hmmm - I don't believe that one qualifies, Jim.

It does. Len got the date wrong, that's all. A simple factual error.

*The concept of the
'Citizen's Band' dates back to 1945 - but the allocation was way up in
the UHF bands, where radio equipment for the average 'citizen' was
quite impractical, due to the the technology of the time (both size
and cost of the transceiving equipment would have been enormous!. *

That's your opinion.

The facts are that "CB" was created at least a decade before 1958.
There was type-accepted CB equipment on the market in 1948. There were
several manufacturers making and selling UHF CB equipment before 1958,
and it was being bought and used. There were even handhelds for UHF
CB.

Probably the best known example was the Vocaline transceiver, which
was small, simple, rugged, relatively low cost and easy to use.

other words, it existed in regulations only, but was virtually
unusable for its intended purpose by the general public it was
designed to serve.

It did not "exist in regulations only". How usable it was is a matter
of opinion.

But the usability or popularity of pre-1958 CB is not the issue. The
fact is that Len got the date for the creation of CB wrong.

The "Citizen's Band" that exists to this day, in the 27 MHz band, does
indeed date back to 1958.

Yes, it does. But CB was not created in 1958.

27 MHz CB is sometimes referred to as "Class D" CB. IIRC, Class C CB
refers to 27 MHz radio control.

But Class A and Class B CB refer to UHF CB, and predate 1958 by at
least a decade.

I'd say he was right on this one, from a practical point of view. *

Of course you would say that. But you'd be mistaken.

My point is proved.

Not yet! *

Yes, it is. The fact is that CB was created at least ten years before
1958. What band it was on, and how popular it was are immaterial - the
radio service known as CB wasn't created in 1958.

Those are the facts.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 8 Feb 2007 09:56:23 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 8:56?am, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 16:41:37 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 7, 7:03?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

...nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

Leo, I think you realized that I have
seen through your cunning plan,

What cunning plan?

and was not trapped by it. But
rather than admit that I have outsmarted
you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel"
and snipped.

Isn't it?

No.

I repeat the relevant question:

If I give you one example of a factual error
that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet
corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point?

Of course - so long as it predates my original post!

Ah - so you add a condition!

An obvious condition, considering that my post referred to your
activities which preceeded it!

A condition you added at the last possible moment.

....a condition which existed since my first post - obviously!


Just keeping you honest.....

When have I ever been less than honest?

Heh.


Nevertheless, it's a simple task to find an uncorrected factual error
in Len's postings here.

Scroll back up this thread to January 30. See the post Len made at
7:56 PM (at least, that's the time Google lists.

In that long, long post, Len says:

""CB" came into being in 1958."

But that's incorrect. By a whole decade.

Hmmm - I don't believe that one qualifies, Jim.

It does. Len got the date wrong, that's all. A simple factual error.

Not really. The band that most people would refer to as "CB" did
indeed come along in 1958.


he concept of the
'Citizen's Band' dates back to 1945 - but the allocation was way up in
the UHF bands, where radio equipment for the average 'citizen' was
quite impractical, due to the the technology of the time (both size
and cost of the transceiving equipment would have been enormous!.

That's your opinion.

Not just mine....check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens'_band_radio

....for starters.


The facts are that "CB" was created at least a decade before 1958.
There was type-accepted CB equipment on the market in 1948. There were
several manufacturers making and selling UHF CB equipment before 1958,
and it was being bought and used. There were even handhelds for UHF
CB.


How many were in use? If it wasn't used, did it exist? (Practically
or in theory only?)?


Probably the best known example was the Vocaline transceiver, which
was small, simple, rugged, relatively low cost and easy to use.

How many were in use?? And I'll bet that owners of that equipment
were less than amused when the band was reallocated! (both owners,
that is...


other words, it existed in regulations only, but was virtually
unusable for its intended purpose by the general public it was
designed to serve.

It did not "exist in regulations only". How usable it was is a matter
of opinion.

....the FCC may differ with that opinion - they reallocated the band to
make it accessible!


But the usability or popularity of pre-1958 CB is not the issue. The
fact is that Len got the date for the creation of CB wrong.

He's wrong again? Wow!


The "Citizen's Band" that exists to this day, in the 27 MHz band, does
indeed date back to 1958.

Yes, it does. But CB was not created in 1958.

Practical CB was, though.

You could also argue that radio broadcasting was begun when Fessenden
made his Christmas transmissions to ships at sea......(in '06, IIRC).
That would be silly, though - as virtually no one possessed the
equipment to receive the broadcast.

A boadcast? Technically, yes. But practically - no.

If a tree falls in the woods.....etc.


27 MHz CB is sometimes referred to as "Class D" CB. IIRC, Class C CB
refers to 27 MHz radio control.

But Class A and Class B CB refer to UHF CB, and predate 1958 by at
least a decade.

That is indeed true, but was a failure - corrected in '58 with the
Class D allocation.


I'd say he was right on this one, from a practical point of view.

Of course you would say that. But you'd be mistaken.

I'm wrong too? Say it ain't so, Joe!


My point is proved.

Not yet!

Yes, it is. The fact is that CB was created at least ten years before
1958. What band it was on, and how popular it was are immaterial - the
radio service known as CB wasn't created in 1958.

Those are the facts.

Are they? You're wrong!

....sorry, couldn't resist

Those are the facts only if you count a failed experiment in 1945 -
which was corrected in 1958, and continues to this day!

There are shades of gray too, Sherlock!


73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500

On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

...nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

Leo, I think you realized that I have
seen through your cunning plan,

What cunning plan?

HUSH, Leo! The jig is up...we've been FOUND OUT!!!

Le Grande Conspiracie has been shot down!

Quick, burn all the classified papers, evacuate
the Embassy, then execute Plan B!


and was not trapped by it. But
rather than admit that I have outsmarted
you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel"
and snipped.

Isn't it?

Cranky Spanky seems to think he is "Jim Phelps." Little
does he know that not only will "the Secretary disavow
any knowledge of him" but never knew him in the first
place and doesn't have ANY tape that self-destructs in
five seconds! :-)

cue theme from "Mission Impopsicle"


It's a simple question. Your reply or lack
of one says much more about you than it
does about me.

LOL!

Leo, I'm debating on whether or not to submit Cranky
as an "unforgettable character I've met" article to
Readers Digest.

I've a hunch that it would be too far-out and be
undigestable to the Digest. :-)

cue theme from "Moonlight Zone"

Bon chance, mon ami, salute,
LA

On 8 Feb 2007 12:03:03 -0800, "
wrote:

From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500

On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

...nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

Leo, I think you realized that I have
seen through your cunning plan,

What cunning plan?

HUSH, Leo! The jig is up...we've been FOUND OUT!!!

Le Grande Conspiracie has been shot down!

Quick, burn all the classified papers, evacuate
the Embassy, then execute Plan B!

Egad! He's on to us! Quick, hide!



and was not trapped by it. But
rather than admit that I have outsmarted
you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel"
and snipped.

Isn't it?

Cranky Spanky seems to think he is "Jim Phelps." Little
does he know that not only will "the Secretary disavow
any knowledge of him" but never knew him in the first
place and doesn't have ANY tape that self-destructs in
five seconds! :-)

cue theme from "Mission Impopsicle"

....for a guy who supposedly made it all the way to a Masters degree,
he seems to have a great deal of trouble thinking 'outside the box'.

It's sad, in a way.....



It's a simple question. Your reply or lack
of one says much more about you than it
does about me.

LOL!

Leo, I'm debating on whether or not to submit Cranky
as an "unforgettable character I've met" article to
Readers Digest.

I'm afraid that your article would be returned without the $100 cheque
- he's actually quite forgettable....


I've a hunch that it would be too far-out and be
undigestable to the Digest. :-)

As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway? I
have conflicting figures here from some 'engineer' in this group, who
will remain useless.....


cue theme from "Moonlight Zone"

....or the theme from 'Trailer Park Boys'


Bon chance, mon ami, salute,

La guerre, la guerre....tojours la guerre! snappy salute

LA

73, Leo

From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:35:00 -0500

wrote:
From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500
On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:


Leo, I think you realized that I have
seen through your cunning plan,

What cunning plan?

HUSH, Leo! The jig is up...we've been FOUND OUT!!!

Le Grande Conspiracie has been shot down!

Quick, burn all the classified papers, evacuate
the Embassy, then execute Plan B!

Egad! He's on to us! Quick, hide!

I can't run...I have to stay and feed my dog Fideaux
some Alpeaux dog food...


Cranky Spanky seems to think he is "Jim Phelps." Little
does he know that not only will "the Secretary disavow
any knowledge of him" but never knew him in the first
place and doesn't have ANY tape that self-destructs in
five seconds! :-)

cue theme from "Mission Impopsicle"

...for a guy who supposedly made it all the way to a Masters degree,
he seems to have a great deal of trouble thinking 'outside the box'.

He hasn't been able to open it yet.


Leo, I'm debating on whether or not to submit Cranky
as an "unforgettable character I've met" article to
Readers Digest.

I'm afraid that your article would be returned without the $100 cheque
- he's actually quite forgettable....

I agree. :-)


I've a hunch that it would be too far-out and be
undigestable to the Digest. :-)

As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway? I
have conflicting figures here from some 'engineer' in this group, who
will remain useless.....

Heh heh heh. Moon? A mere quarter-million miles away, but
saying that off-hand is classified as an ERROR and MISTAKE
to Cranky. He gonna do da Spanky and demand 6-digit
absolute numbers or have me taken out and shot for making
a MISTAKE!

Nah, Cranky no be wrong. Ever. "CB" radio (as all know
it today) on 11m was authorized in the USA in 1958. It
was in all the electronics trade papers and Regulations of
our FCC. In 1958 little Cranky was just beginning to read,
but might have reached 13 WPM level in morse code...

The ****y pedant is correct in saying CLASS A and CLASS B
Citizens Band radio existed prior to 1958 but that was
above 400 MHz and never became a market best-seller. The
11m Citizens Band here was CLASS C (radio control, now in
our Part 95 regs as "Radio Control Radio Service") and
CLASS D (23 channels of radiotelephone, sharing channel
23 with R-C). The old A and B classes of Citizens Band
were eliminated several years back (maybe decades, exact
date immaterial to normal folks). By the time of
regulation changes to "CB" here, the number of channels
was expanded to 40. Not that THAT helped since there were
at least a million "11m" CB radios in-use here then and
more in various world nations. Hardly anything but
heterodynes. [at least they were 'hetero', it would be
hell if they were 'homodynes'...:-) ]

Heil on the break-in: "You aren't funny, Leonard!"

:-)


cue theme from "Moonlight Zone"

...or the theme from 'Trailer Park Boys'

Theme from "Clockwork Yellow"? "2007: A Code Oddity"?


Bon chance, mon ami, salute,

La guerre, la guerre....tojours la guerre! snappy salute

Oui. Always the WORD WAR 3 bitter fight waged by
morsemen...

Well, after feeding Fideaux with Alpeaux I might have a
pizza with peppereaunix...? As I eat that I'll read
biographies of Guglielmeaux Marconeaunix and Phileaux
Farnsworth.

Leonardeaux