K1MAN PT2
FROM http://n9oglvice.blogspot.com

[13. Section 97.101(d) of the Rules states that ``[n]o
amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
with or cause interference to any radio communication or
signal.''12 On November 27, 2004, December 8, 2004, and
March 31, 2005, Baxter's Amateur station K1MAN commenced
transmitting on top of existing communications on 3.890 MHz
in apparent willful and repeated violation of 97.101(d) of
the Commission's rules.]

OH, and the ARRL W1AW don't?? I don't see amateurs bitch and cry about
W1AW, nor, do I see the FCC sending warning letters to them. Hey,
interfernce is interfernce, and it doesn't matter who's causing it the
rules should apply to all.

[14. Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules prohibits an Amateur
station from transmitting any communications in which the
station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary
interest. On November 25, 2004 and March 30, 2005, Mr.
Baxter's station repeatedly transmitted references to his
website, which offers various products for sale, including a
monthly newsletter published by Glenn Baxter and offered for
sale for forty-five dollars per year. In addition, on
December 1, 2004, Station K1MAN transmitted a seventy-minute
interview with a person who was considering whether to
retain Baxter Associates, an employment-search firm owned by
Mr. Baxter. During the transmission, Mr. Baxter discussed
fees, investments, and franchising opportunities. We find
that Mr. Baxter apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules on each of these occasions
by transmitting communications regarding matters in which he
has a pecuniary interest.]


Oh, the ARRL doesn't do that??? the rule states that pecuniary interest
applies to direct and indirect. K1MAN is doing direct, while the ARRL
doesn't indirect.

[16. Section 97.113(b) of the Rules prohibits, with limited
exceptions not applicable here, an Amateur station from
engaging in any form of broadcasting or transmitting one-way
transmissions. Section 97.3(a)(10) of the Rules defines
broadcasting as ``transmissions intended for reception by
the general public.'' 14 We find that the pre-recorded
seventy-minute interview with a person interested in
retaining Baxter Associates, during which there was no
station identification, constitutes a ``broadcast'' and an
impermissible one-way transmission. Therefore, Mr. Baxter
apparently willfully violated Section 97.113(b) of the
Rules.]

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act. after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??

finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW

TODD N9OGL
THE N9OGL SHOW
14.321.00 MHz

N9OGL wrote:

Quotes of FCC R&R's snipped.

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act.

Then why don't you direct your question TO the FCC, rather than
spinning your wheels in here?

Scared of the answer you'll get?

after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??

I think the FAA is responsible for getting deiced.

But you again continue to insist that just because YOU think it's
pertinent, the FCC might not have other ideas.

finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW.

Only you would think it's a "sick joke".

The FCC doesn't issue "sick jokes".

And I look forward with glee to the day we see YOUR name on one of
these...Better hurry up and get that college degree, Todd! You'll be
needing the extra income!

Steve, K4YZ

Then why don't you direct your question TO the FCC, rather than
spinning your wheels in here?

The problem is that many amateur radio operators don't realize that
there are rules that are outside Part 97 that effects amateur radio.
Section 326 is one of them.

Sec. 326. Censorship

Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give
the
Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or
signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or
condition
shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere
with the right of free speech by means of radio communication.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, Sec. 326, 48 Stat. 1091; June 25,
1948, ch. 645, Sec. 21, 62 Stat. 862.)


Amendments

1948--Act June 25, 1948, repealed last sentence relating to use of
indecent language. See section 1464 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal
Procedure.

But you again continue to insist that just because YOU think it's
pertinent, the FCC might not have other ideas.

The FCC just cannot change the rules without a public notice, no matter
if you like it or not it has always been up to the control operator to
decied what is transmitted over his station, no some moron recieving
station. if you think that then you are thinking of broadcast stations.

And I look forward with glee to the day we see YOUR name on one of
these...Better hurry up and get that college degree, Todd! You'll be
needing the extra income!

doubtful, my station is legal, I don't interfere, I don't have any
pencuniary Interest, and my programming deals with amateur radio issues
(radio, electronic, rules and regulations, and computers).

"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...


doubtful, my station is legal, I don't interfere, I don't have any
pencuniary Interest, and my programming deals with amateur radio issues
(radio, electronic, rules and regulations, and computers).


Toad is the worlds first "stealth ham radio broadcaster"

Dan/W4NTI

K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:

Quotes of FCC R&R's snipped.

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act.

Then why don't you direct your question TO the FCC, rather than
spinning your wheels in here?

I think I can answer that one, becuase he choose to. At least it has
something to do with ham radio unlike your efforts to make make
something of my religion

Scared of the answer you'll get?

after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??

I think the FAA is responsible for getting deiced.

Then you are truley losing it, The FAA is never concerned with the
icing status of a Ham station nor any issue in Ham radio etc prehaps
towers and rstation near airports

But you again continue to insist that just because YOU think it's
pertinent, the FCC might not have other ideas.

He is not insiting that at all Stevie Blunder Indeed he is insiting the
opposite

finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW.

Only you would think it's a "sick joke".

The FCC doesn't issue "sick jokes".

And I look forward with glee to the day we see YOUR name on one of
these...Better hurry up and get that college degree, Todd! You'll be
needing the extra income!

Sadist, and self hating at that

Steve, K4YZ

an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:

Quotes of FCC R&R's snipped.

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act.

Then why don't you direct your question TO the FCC, rather than
spinning your wheels in here?

I think I can answer that one, becuase he choose to.

Then his effort was wasted.

At least it has
something to do with ham radio...(SNIP)

No...it has to do with broadcasting. Todd is broadcasting.

unlike your efforts to make make something of my religion

No...it's up to YOU to "make something" of your "religion, Mark...

Personally, there's nothing there to make of, in my opinion.

Scared of the answer you'll get?

after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??

I think the FAA is responsible for getting deiced.

Then you are truley losing it, The FAA is never concerned with the
icing status of a Ham station nor any issue in Ham radio etc prehaps
towers and rstation near airports

I'm not "losing" anything.

YOU are losing your situational awareness...unable to tell the
difference between sincere commentary and jerking Toiddie's string for
his illiteracy.

But you again continue to insist that just because YOU think it's
pertinent, the FCC might not have other ideas.

He is not insiting that at all Stevie Blunder Indeed he is insiting the
opposite

Funny...you call ME "Blunder", yet you "blunder" your way through
a sentence without making any sense.

finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW.

Only you would think it's a "sick joke".

The FCC doesn't issue "sick jokes".

And I look forward with glee to the day we see YOUR name on one of
these...Better hurry up and get that college degree, Todd! You'll be
needing the extra income!

Sadist, and self hating at that

"Sadist"...?!?! "Self hating"...?!?!?

BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! !

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:

Quotes of FCC R&R's snipped.

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act.

Then why don't you direct your question TO the FCC, rather than
spinning your wheels in here?

I think I can answer that one, becuase he choose to.

Then his effort was wasted.

Prehaps it was prehaps it wasn't, but that is HIS choice

At least it has
something to do with ham radio...(SNIP)

No...it has to do with broadcasting. Todd is broadcasting.
It Does concern Ham radio unlike a lot of your trash



unlike your efforts to make make something of my religion

No...it's up to YOU to "make something" of your "religion, Mark...

Really losing man losing it bad

Personally, there's nothing there to make of, in my opinion.

Then why did YOU start a thread trying to make an issue of it?

Scared of the answer you'll get?

after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??

I think the FAA is responsible for getting deiced.

Then you are truley losing it, The FAA is never concerned with the
icing status of a Ham station nor any issue in Ham radio etc prehaps
towers and rstation near airports

I'm not "losing" anything.

Prehaps you are right you may never have had in the place

YOU are losing your situational awareness...unable to tell the
difference between sincere commentary and jerking Toiddie's string for
his illiteracy.

BTW you need to look up Illieterate etc, since you don't use the word
correct. For example I am n NOT illeterate, I am Dysgrapgic


But you again continue to insist that just because YOU think it's
pertinent, the FCC might not have other ideas.

He is not insiting that at all Stevie Blunder Indeed he is insiting the
opposite

Funny...you call ME "Blunder", yet you "blunder" your way through
a sentence without making any sense.

If the pair of sentences does not make sense to you then you are
illerate

finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW.

Only you would think it's a "sick joke".

The FCC doesn't issue "sick jokes".

And I look forward with glee to the day we see YOUR name on one of
these...Better hurry up and get that college degree, Todd! You'll be
needing the extra income!

Sadist, and self hating at that

"Sadist"...?!?! "Self hating"...?!?!?

Indeed you are since you are Sadistic, but can't admit it

BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! !

Steve, K4YZ

an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:

Quotes of FCC R&R's snipped.

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act.

Then why don't you direct your question TO the FCC, rather than
spinning your wheels in here?

I think I can answer that one, becuase he choose to.

Then his effort was wasted.

Prehaps it was prehaps it wasn't, but that is HIS choice

"Prehaps" he might do something constructive with his energies, but
I doubt that tooo.

At least it has
something to do with ham radio...(SNIP)

No...it has to do with broadcasting. Todd is broadcasting.

It Does concern Ham radio unlike a lot of your trash

A lot more of my posts are directed at Amatuer Radio issues AND
other services.

Unlike your trash.

unlike your efforts to make make something of my religion

No...it's up to YOU to "make something" of your "religion, Mark...

Really losing man losing it bad

Nope.

It really is up to YOU to "make something" of YOUR religion.

Personally, there's nothing there to make of, in my opinion.

Then why did YOU start a thread trying to make an issue of it?

I didn't.

I simply stated that you are a gay pagan. You've said so
yourself.

I said NOTHING of paganism itself.

Scared of the answer you'll get?

after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??

I think the FAA is responsible for getting deiced.

Then you are truley losing it, The FAA is never concerned with the
icing status of a Ham station nor any issue in Ham radio etc prehaps
towers and rstation near airports

I'm not "losing" anything.

Prehaps you are right you may never have had in the place

What what in what place, Mark?

YOU are losing your situational awareness...unable to tell the
difference between sincere commentary and jerking Toiddie's string for
his illiteracy.

BTW you need to look up Illieterate etc, since you don't use the word
correct. For example I am n NOT illeterate, I am Dysgrapgic

You're an idiot, actually.

You have a problem that everyone who's ever engaged you in a
public discussion has asked you to please do something about, but you
insist on foisting your problems on everyone else.

Spell checking programs are a dime a dozen. If nothing else, you
could cut-and-paste your responses from any of the "Word" programs then
paste them to the relative thread.

I just think you LIKE looking like an idiot.

But you again continue to insist that just because YOU think it's
pertinent, the FCC might not have other ideas.

He is not insiting that at all Stevie Blunder Indeed he is insiting the
opposite

Funny...you call ME "Blunder", yet you "blunder" your way through
a sentence without making any sense.

If the pair of sentences does not make sense to you then you are
illerate

BBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! !

See...This is why I thik you and the Toadster would make such a
complimentary couple!

Todd likes to call people names that he can't spell correctly too!

finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW.

Only you would think it's a "sick joke".

The FCC doesn't issue "sick jokes".

And I look forward with glee to the day we see YOUR name on one of
these...Better hurry up and get that college degree, Todd! You'll be
needing the extra income!

Sadist, and self hating at that

"Sadist"...?!?! "Self hating"...?!?!?

Indeed you are since you are Sadistic, but can't admit it

Why would I admit to being something I am not, Mark?

Now I WOULD admit to being a bit Masochistic, if for no other
reason than (a) participating in this forum with known liars and
deceivers like you, Todd, Brian Burke and Lennie Anderson and (b)
trying to glean coherent content from your "writings".

I don't know which is worse...the headache from trying to read
your "dreck", or the sore throat from laughing so hard!

Steve, K4YZ

"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
K1MAN PT2
FROM http://n9oglvice.blogspot.com

[13. Section 97.101(d) of the Rules states that ``[n]o
amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
with or cause interference to any radio communication or
signal.''12 On November 27, 2004, December 8, 2004, and
March 31, 2005, Baxter's Amateur station K1MAN commenced
transmitting on top of existing communications on 3.890 MHz
in apparent willful and repeated violation of 97.101(d) of
the Commission's rules.]

OH, and the ARRL W1AW don't?? I don't see amateurs bitch and cry about
W1AW, nor, do I see the FCC sending warning letters to them. Hey,
interfernce is interfernce, and it doesn't matter who's causing it the
rules should apply to all.



The difference is Baxter does it in a intentional manner. He has said on
his 24/7 broadcasts that he does not bother to listen on his intended
frequency of operation. Because we all should "know" he is coming on there.

The W1AW information bulletins are well published, as per FCC rules,
Baxter has a few paragraphs on an obscure web page.

W1AW is a real organization. K1MAN is a one man pony show.

etc.

[14. Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules prohibits an Amateur
station from transmitting any communications in which the
station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary
interest. On November 25, 2004 and March 30, 2005, Mr.
Baxter's station repeatedly transmitted references to his
website, which offers various products for sale, including a
monthly newsletter published by Glenn Baxter and offered for
sale for forty-five dollars per year. In addition, on
December 1, 2004, Station K1MAN transmitted a seventy-minute
interview with a person who was considering whether to
retain Baxter Associates, an employment-search firm owned by
Mr. Baxter. During the transmission, Mr. Baxter discussed
fees, investments, and franchising opportunities. We find
that Mr. Baxter apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules on each of these occasions
by transmitting communications regarding matters in which he
has a pecuniary interest.]


Oh, the ARRL doesn't do that??? the rule states that pecuniary interest
applies to direct and indirect. K1MAN is doing direct, while the ARRL
doesn't indirect.


No the ARRL does NOT SOLICITE on its bulletins. K1MAN does. End of
subject.


[16. Section 97.113(b) of the Rules prohibits, with limited
exceptions not applicable here, an Amateur station from
engaging in any form of broadcasting or transmitting one-way
transmissions. Section 97.3(a)(10) of the Rules defines
broadcasting as ``transmissions intended for reception by
the general public.'' 14 We find that the pre-recorded
seventy-minute interview with a person interested in
retaining Baxter Associates, during which there was no
station identification, constitutes a ``broadcast'' and an
impermissible one-way transmission. Therefore, Mr. Baxter
apparently willfully violated Section 97.113(b) of the
Rules.]

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act. after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??


Ohhhhhh.....Baxter is the one that determines what I want to hear? That is
really funny Toad.


finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW

TODD N9OGL
THE N9OGL SHOW
14.321.00 MHz


sick joke? I don't consider a 21000 NAL a sick joke. If you do.....you
have a mental problem.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
K1MAN PT2
FROM http://n9oglvice.blogspot.com

[13. Section 97.101(d) of the Rules states that ``[n]o
amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
with or cause interference to any radio communication or
signal.''12 On November 27, 2004, December 8, 2004, and
March 31, 2005, Baxter's Amateur station K1MAN commenced
transmitting on top of existing communications on 3.890 MHz
in apparent willful and repeated violation of 97.101(d) of
the Commission's rules.]

OH, and the ARRL W1AW don't?? I don't see amateurs bitch and cry about
W1AW, nor, do I see the FCC sending warning letters to them. Hey,
interfernce is interfernce, and it doesn't matter who's causing it the
rules should apply to all.



The difference is Baxter does it in a intentional manner. He has said on
his 24/7 broadcasts that he does not bother to listen on his intended
frequency of operation. Because we all should "know" he is coming on there.


but neither does W1AW, I've heard amateurs complaining about W1AW
transmitting ontop of them. It really shouldn't matter if they
transmitting 24/7 or for 15 min, interfernce is interfernce on any
level.

The W1AW information bulletins are well published, as per FCC rules,
Baxter has a few paragraphs on an obscure web page.


First off Information bulletins do not have to be published, only if
they are on a certain amount of time which is 48 hr a week for the
purpose of compesation. As for baxter's website I will admit that a
five year old could do a better job making a website, then what he did.

W1AW is a real organization. K1MAN is a one man pony show.

A information bulletin is NOT limited to clubs, anyone can run an
Information Bulletin

etc.

[14. Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules prohibits an Amateur
station from transmitting any communications in which the
station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary
interest. On November 25, 2004 and March 30, 2005, Mr.
Baxter's station repeatedly transmitted references to his
website, which offers various products for sale, including a
monthly newsletter published by Glenn Baxter and offered for
sale for forty-five dollars per year. In addition, on
December 1, 2004, Station K1MAN transmitted a seventy-minute
interview with a person who was considering whether to
retain Baxter Associates, an employment-search firm owned by
Mr. Baxter. During the transmission, Mr. Baxter discussed
fees, investments, and franchising opportunities. We find
that Mr. Baxter apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules on each of these occasions
by transmitting communications regarding matters in which he
has a pecuniary interest.]


Oh, the ARRL doesn't do that??? the rule states that pecuniary interest
applies to direct and indirect. K1MAN is doing direct, while the ARRL
doesn't indirect.


No the ARRL does NOT SOLICITE on its bulletins. K1MAN does. End of
subject.

No but the rules state a station can't make money direct or indirect.
K1MAN does do it DIRECT, while the ARRL is doing it INDIRECT. but the
rules does state a station can't make money direct or indirect.


[16. Section 97.113(b) of the Rules prohibits, with limited
exceptions not applicable here, an Amateur station from
engaging in any form of broadcasting or transmitting one-way
transmissions. Section 97.3(a)(10) of the Rules defines
broadcasting as ``transmissions intended for reception by
the general public.'' 14 We find that the pre-recorded
seventy-minute interview with a person interested in
retaining Baxter Associates, during which there was no
station identification, constitutes a ``broadcast'' and an
impermissible one-way transmission. Therefore, Mr. Baxter
apparently willfully violated Section 97.113(b) of the
Rules.]

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act. after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??


Ohhhhhh.....Baxter is the one that determines what I want to hear? That is
really funny Toad.

Under the FCC rules it states it is up to station transmitting the
bulletin, the FCC even states that on their website. If you don't want
to hear him then that's what a VFO is for.


finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW

TODD N9OGL
THE N9OGL SHOW
14.321.00 MHz


sick joke? I don't consider a 21000 NAL a sick joke. If you do.....you
have a mental problem.

It is a sick Joke in the sense that one of the Issues in the NAL was
overturned once already by the Commission in DC back in 2004. (it dealt
with the content of his station)as for the other stuff I don't think
really think it's sick but it does raise some questions. You have to
remeber this was a district office that sent the NAL, and it's not a
FINAL ORDER, there is a Looooooong process before the final ruling is
set, including a hearing before an Administrative Law Jugde (ALJ) and
if he don't like that ruling he can go to the US Court of Appeal and
then just maybe, if they want to hear it the Supreme Court When the FCC
goes around controling the content of the station that is transmitting
it then it is a violation of Section 326 of the Comunication Act of
1934 as Amended.

Todd N9OGL

Dan/W4NTI