Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

Please quote that "may share space" FCC document.

Please quote the "Farnsworth Exam at 13-15wpm is the same as the Morse
Exam at 5wpm" FCC document.

That's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Why?

...because the Farnsworth method was not under discussion. It is
irrelevant to the request made of you.

I thought the existence of FCC documents were now part of the
discussion. At least you broght it up.

Tell you what David, in the future put your comments that are not open
for discussion in brackets [xxx].

OK?

It'd be easier if you just stuck to the matter being discussed.

FCC documents that don't exist?

Farnsworth exists as the de facto "code" exam, even though the
FCC documents specify Morse Code. Yet the FCC documents DO assign the
exact same priveleges to Carl that they do you, yet you insist on
arguing it.

What doest it have to do with the FCC's "may share space" document?

Part 97 addresses your and Carls priveleges.

It certainly does.

You implied that it didn't.

So? We weren't discussing installing towers within
a certain distance from an airport but that's in Part 97.

Yes, it is. Do you live near an airport?

That would make you a fool.

I'd guess the fool to be one who is asked about a regulation about
"sharing space" and responds with some nonsense about the Farnsworth
method of learning morse.

You don't believe in sharing space which the FCC says you must share
in a document called Part 97.

I've never stated that I don't believe in sharing space.
That's something you've tried to establish.

That's something that you implied, with "he may not."

You remain the fool, Farnsworth not withstanding.

I'm sure that's the way you see it, little electrolyte.

It is, battery acid.

He's allocated the same frequencies. He may or may not share the same
space.

Which is it?

May or May Not?

That's correct.

So you don't know.

Incorrect, Farnsworth. I do know and I provided the answer.

Wrong.

Something does not become "wrong" due to your failure to comprehend it.

True. It is wrong when it is wrong.

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

Please quote that "may share space" FCC document.

Please quote the "Farnsworth Exam at 13-15wpm is the same as the Morse
Exam at 5wpm" FCC document.

That's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Why?

...because the Farnsworth method was not under discussion. It is
irrelevant to the request made of you.

I thought the existence of FCC documents were now part of the
discussion. At least you broght it up.

Tell you what David, in the future put your comments that are not open
for discussion in brackets [xxx].

OK?

It'd be easier if you just stuck to the matter being discussed.

FCC documents that don't exist?

We were discussing one of those--the one which uses the words "may share
space".

Farnsworth exists as the de facto "code" exam, even though the
FCC documents specify Morse Code. Yet the FCC documents DO assign the
exact same priveleges to Carl that they do you, yet you insist on
arguing it.

What doest it have to do with the FCC's "may share space" document?

Part 97 addresses your and Carls priveleges.

It certainly does.

You implied that it didn't.

No, Brian. Your attempts at reading between the lines often gets you
into trouble with understanding what has actually been written.

So? We weren't discussing installing towers within
a certain distance from an airport but that's in Part 97.

Yes, it is. Do you live near an airport?

We weren't discussing that.

That would make you a fool.

I'd guess the fool to be one who is asked about a regulation about
"sharing space" and responds with some nonsense about the Farnsworth
method of learning morse.

You don't believe in sharing space which the FCC says you must share
in a document called Part 97.

I've never stated that I don't believe in sharing space.
That's something you've tried to establish.

That's something that you implied, with "he may not."

Incorrect, little electrolyte. If I write "It may rain or it may not",
the words do not imply that I don't believe in rain.

Dave K8MN

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

Please quote that "may share space" FCC document.

Please quote the "Farnsworth Exam at 13-15wpm is the same as the Morse
Exam at 5wpm" FCC document.

That's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Why?

...because the Farnsworth method was not under discussion. It is
irrelevant to the request made of you.

I thought the existence of FCC documents were now part of the
discussion. At least you broght it up.

Tell you what David, in the future put your comments that are not open
for discussion in brackets [xxx].

OK?

It'd be easier if you just stuck to the matter being discussed.

FCC documents that don't exist?

We were discussing one of those--the one which uses the words "may share
space".

Why do existing FCC documents have to comply to your specific choice
of words?

Actually, you chose the words.

Why must we discuss documents which don't exist?

You brought up "FCC documents which don't exist".

You must share space with Carl. It is as simple as that.

It is entirely likely that Carl and I will never have to share space on
the ham bands. We may or may not share space. Why are you having
troubles with the concept?

Farnsworth exists as the de facto "code" exam, even though the
FCC documents specify Morse Code. Yet the FCC documents DO assign the
exact same priveleges to Carl that they do you, yet you insist on
arguing it.

What doest it have to do with the FCC's "may share space" document?

Part 97 addresses your and Carls priveleges.

It certainly does.

You implied that it didn't.

No, Brian. Your attempts at reading between the lines often gets you
into trouble with understanding what has actually been written.

So which is it, again? May or May Not?

I've already given you an answer. You didn't care for it.

So? We weren't discussing installing towers within
a certain distance from an airport but that's in Part 97.

Yes, it is. Do you live near an airport?

We weren't discussing that.

Then kindly put the topics which you bring up, but are not open for
discussion inside brackets, i.e., [So? We weren't discussing
installing towers within
a certain distance from an airport but that's in Part 97].

I mentioned something in Part 97 that was not under discussion and you
ask me a question relating to it. Now you need brackets. Whew!

That would make you a fool.

I'd guess the fool to be one who is asked about a regulation about
"sharing space" and responds with some nonsense about the Farnsworth
method of learning morse.

You don't believe in sharing space which the FCC says you must share
in a document called Part 97.

I've never stated that I don't believe in sharing space.
That's something you've tried to establish.

That's something that you implied, with "he may not."

Incorrect, little electrolyte. If I write "It may rain or it may not",
the words do not imply that I don't believe in rain.

It implies that you don't know if its going to rain.

Again, it does not imply that I don't believe in rain. I may share
space with Carl and I may not. The previous sentence does not indicate
that I don't believe in sharing space.

Besides, we were not discussing your beliefs. We were discussing your
and Carl's priveleges. He has the same priveleges as you, regardless
of your beliefs on the matter.

I've understood the matter of privileges all along. I don't believe
Carl will be using all of his.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

Please quote that "may share space" FCC document.

Please quote the "Farnsworth Exam at 13-15wpm is the same as the Morse
Exam at 5wpm" FCC document.

That's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Why?

...because the Farnsworth method was not under discussion. It is
irrelevant to the request made of you.

I thought the existence of FCC documents were now part of the
discussion. At least you broght it up.

Tell you what David, in the future put your comments that are not open
for discussion in brackets [xxx].

OK?

It'd be easier if you just stuck to the matter being discussed.

FCC documents that don't exist?

We were discussing one of those--the one which uses the words "may share
space".

Why do existing FCC documents have to comply to your specific choice
of words?

Actually, you chose the words.

I may have, I may not have.

Why must we discuss documents which don't exist?

You brought up "FCC documents which don't exist".

The documents exist. They're called "Part 97."

You must share space with Carl. It is as simple as that.

It is entirely likely that Carl and I will never have to share space on
the ham bands. We may or may not share space. Why are you having
troubles with the concept?

You are the one who abhors the concept of sharing space with Carl.

Isn't he worthy?

Farnsworth exists as the de facto "code" exam, even though the
FCC documents specify Morse Code. Yet the FCC documents DO assign the
exact same priveleges to Carl that they do you, yet you insist on
arguing it.

What doest it have to do with the FCC's "may share space" document?

Part 97 addresses your and Carls priveleges.

It certainly does.

You implied that it didn't.

No, Brian. Your attempts at reading between the lines often gets you
into trouble with understanding what has actually been written.

So which is it, again? May or May Not?

I've already given you an answer. You didn't care for it.

You give many answers. Most are nonsense. May and May Not are nonsense answers.

So? We weren't discussing installing towers within
a certain distance from an airport but that's in Part 97.

Yes, it is. Do you live near an airport?

We weren't discussing that.

Then kindly put the topics which you bring up, but are not open for
discussion inside brackets, i.e., [So? We weren't discussing
installing towers within
a certain distance from an airport but that's in Part 97].

I mentioned something in Part 97 that was not under discussion and you
ask me a question relating to it. Now you need brackets. Whew!

Then why mention it if its not open for discussion?

That would make you a fool.

I'd guess the fool to be one who is asked about a regulation about
"sharing space" and responds with some nonsense about the Farnsworth
method of learning morse.

You don't believe in sharing space which the FCC says you must share
in a document called Part 97.

I've never stated that I don't believe in sharing space.
That's something you've tried to establish.

That's something that you implied, with "he may not."

Incorrect, little electrolyte. If I write "It may rain or it may not",
the words do not imply that I don't believe in rain.

It implies that you don't know if its going to rain.

Again, it does not imply that I don't believe in rain.

Never said it did. Please stay on topic.

I may share
space with Carl and I may not.

You must.

The previous sentence does not indicate
that I don't believe in sharing space.

It indicates that you reject the concept of sharing space with Carl.

Besides, we were not discussing your beliefs. We were discussing your
and Carl's priveleges. He has the same priveleges as you, regardless
of your beliefs on the matter.

I've understood the matter of privileges all along.

Then you know that you must share.

I don't believe
Carl will be using all of his.

Do you think he'll avoid 440 - 450 MHz?

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

Please quote that "may share space" FCC document.

Please quote the "Farnsworth Exam at 13-15wpm is the same as the Morse
Exam at 5wpm" FCC document.

That's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Why?

...because the Farnsworth method was not under discussion. It is
irrelevant to the request made of you.

I thought the existence of FCC documents were now part of the
discussion. At least you broght it up.

Tell you what David, in the future put your comments that are not open
for discussion in brackets [xxx].

OK?

It'd be easier if you just stuck to the matter being discussed.

FCC documents that don't exist?

We were discussing one of those--the one which uses the words "may share
space".

Why do existing FCC documents have to comply to your specific choice
of words?

Actually, you chose the words.

I may have, I may not have.

That bird won't fly. Your words appear with attribution above.

Why must we discuss documents which don't exist?

You brought up "FCC documents which don't exist".

The documents exist. They're called "Part 97."

Then why are you prattling on about documents which don't exist?

You must share space with Carl. It is as simple as that.

It is entirely likely that Carl and I will never have to share space on
the ham bands. We may or may not share space. Why are you having
troubles with the concept?

You are the one who abhors the concept of sharing space with Carl.

You keep making statements similar to this one yet I've not made such a
statement.

Isn't he worthy?

If he isn't, it would have nothing to do with class of license.

Farnsworth exists as the de facto "code" exam, even though the
FCC documents specify Morse Code. Yet the FCC documents DO assign the
exact same priveleges to Carl that they do you, yet you insist on
arguing it.

What doest it have to do with the FCC's "may share space" document?

Part 97 addresses your and Carls priveleges.

It certainly does.

You implied that it didn't.

No, Brian. Your attempts at reading between the lines often gets you
into trouble with understanding what has actually been written.

So which is it, again? May or May Not?

I've already given you an answer. You didn't care for it.

You give many answers. Most are nonsense. May and May Not are nonsense answers.

....or they appear that way to you due to your reading comprehension
difficulties.

So? We weren't discussing installing towers within
a certain distance from an airport but that's in Part 97.

Yes, it is. Do you live near an airport?

We weren't discussing that.

Then kindly put the topics which you bring up, but are not open for
discussion inside brackets, i.e., [So? We weren't discussing
installing towers within
a certain distance from an airport but that's in Part 97].

I mentioned something in Part 97 that was not under discussion and you
ask me a question relating to it. Now you need brackets. Whew!

Then why mention it if its not open for discussion?

Your problem is reading comprehension. The term was used as an example
of things we were not discussing.

That would make you a fool.

I'd guess the fool to be one who is asked about a regulation about
"sharing space" and responds with some nonsense about the Farnsworth
method of learning morse.

You don't believe in sharing space which the FCC says you must share
in a document called Part 97.

I've never stated that I don't believe in sharing space.
That's something you've tried to establish.

That's something that you implied, with "he may not."

Incorrect, little electrolyte. If I write "It may rain or it may not",
the words do not imply that I don't believe in rain.

It implies that you don't know if its going to rain.

Again, it does not imply that I don't believe in rain.

Never said it did. Please stay on topic.

I'm right on target, Brian.

Carl may or may not share space with me.
It may or may not rain.

Neither sentence implies disbelief on my part.

I may share
space with Carl and I may not.

You must.

I haven't shared space with him yet.

The previous sentence does not indicate
that I don't believe in sharing space.

It indicates that you reject the concept of sharing space with Carl.

It may or may not rain. Rejection of the concept of rain is not
indicated. Work on your reading comprehension.

Besides, we were not discussing your beliefs. We were discussing your
and Carl's priveleges. He has the same priveleges as you, regardless
of your beliefs on the matter.

I've understood the matter of privileges all along.

Then you know that you must share.

It hasn't happened so far.

I don't believe
Carl will be using all of his.

Do you think he'll avoid 440 - 450 MHz?

Nope. Besides, he'd need one helluva signal for us to share space there.
Oddly enough, I have no difficulty working stations in his area on 432.

Dave K8MN

Anonymous wrote in message news:f22c46f4d1aad944320eb2574ee5ba96@rebleep...
In article
Dave Heil wrote:


Brian wrote:

Do you think he'll avoid 440 - 450 MHz?

Nope. Besides, he'd need one helluva signal for us to share space there.
Oddly enough, I have no difficulty working stations in his area on 432.

Those award-winning "people-skills" are sure shining, goatblower.

Would you cut it out!

You're making it really difficult to have a serious discussion with Dave.

Oh, nevermind. There never could be a serious discussion with Dave.

Brian wrote:

Anonymous wrote in message news:f22c46f4d1aad944320eb2574ee5ba96@rebleep...
In article
Dave Heil wrote:


Brian wrote:

Do you think he'll avoid 440 - 450 MHz?

Nope. Besides, he'd need one helluva signal for us to share space there.
Oddly enough, I have no difficulty working stations in his area on 432.

Those award-winning "people-skills" are sure shining, goatblower.

Would you cut it out!

You're making it really difficult to have a serious discussion with Dave.

Oh, nevermind. There never could be a serious discussion with Dave.

You could get a serious discussion going with Roger/not Roger, Brian.
Be careful what you wish for.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Anonymous wrote in message news:f22c46f4d1aad944320eb2574ee5ba96@rebleep...
In article
Dave Heil wrote:


Brian wrote:

Do you think he'll avoid 440 - 450 MHz?

Nope. Besides, he'd need one helluva signal for us to share space there.
Oddly enough, I have no difficulty working stations in his area on 432.

Those award-winning "people-skills" are sure shining, goatblower.

Would you cut it out!

You're making it really difficult to have a serious discussion with Dave.

Oh, nevermind. There never could be a serious discussion with Dave.

You could get a serious discussion going with Roger/not Roger, Brian.
Be careful what you wish for.

Dave K8MN

Noted. bb