K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:

Jim Hampton wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

hack

Yes, Mark...that's what you do best...

why thank you


That I lack a knowledge of the arcane ways in which mode were described
is NOT disputed by me

It's not arcane.

it is arcane


It's "here and now". It's codified into the regulations for a
federal license that YOU hold and are required to at least be familiar
with.

One being codised in regs does NOT mean it is not Arcane? Indeed most
Federal regs are the very defination of Arcane

Two, No I am not required to be famiar with them, I am merely required
to obey them.

I hate to see this thread continue; perhaps I can shed some light on it.

"2K8J3E" is broken down into two parts. 2K8 and J3E.

Years ago, A1 was CW. F3 was FM. A3 was AM. Well, they clarified the
emission types to indicate whether a signal was single sideband, double
sideband, independent sidebands and whether the carrier was suppressed,
reduced, or full carrier.

I have seen fragment of this but in my reading of way part 97 recently
I don't recall it

Becasue you skipped over the parts not written in crayon, Mark.

more venom


J3E refers to the emission type. I have a strong suspicion that 2K8
represents a 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth.

you may well be right but even you don't know, not a slame on you but
pointing that you clearly know better than are not sure how can I be
expected to know it

You can be expected to at least know where to find the information
since you ARE responsible for it as a Commisssion licensee of an
Amateur Radio station.

expected sure I am expected by you to do lots of stuff

Required no

BTW exactly where are they defined by paragraph Oh font of Knowledge
rival of the Oracle of Delphi


I don't know them all either, but I know where to find out.

The Guide me Oh truely tremenous one (the title of the great Goblin of
the Misty Moutian, JRR tolkien)


We often refer to single sideband, fm, cw, or whatever. The nomenclature
that Steve put forth is a formal one that pins down the emission type and

Corecting you Hans put it forth, Steve is taking me to task for not
knowing it

No, not at all.

Yes Indeed Hans put it forth that is corect but you are right I was
merely guessing at what you are upto. I rarely know and hardly care
exactly what you are upto


I am taking you to task for treating Hans so rudely then lying
about it afterwards.

and Hans can't defend himself?

I was rdue to Han's

he was rude to me.

Why are (to use a comon figure of speech)you allowing your panties to
get into such bunch over it?


So Steve may have been a little strong in his wording, but his conclusion
was not in error. You appear to have little knowledge of emission
types/bandwidth occupancy.

Agreed
and Steve and for that Hans know this and choose to give an answer
technical correct (is it in fact technicaly correct) but dsigned to be
useless to me

It was only useless to you since you refused to follow-up on it
from there.

which does not alter the FACT the answer was useless as given


You wanted spoon-fed, written in crayon answers.

No crayon needed

You take me to task when I don't answer your yes or no questions.I have
the same right as you do


Hans' only mistake was assuming that you might be albe to
understand the answer.

gee Hans can't defend himself


Not slamming you, but Steve was not entirely remiss in his post.

I accept thatyou intend no slam but I miss you have missed Stevies
intent

There's no "intent" on my part, Mark.

If you say there was no intent on your part then we chalk up another
lie. you intended something


You asked a question. You got the answer. You then insulted the
respondant and called him a liar.

yes I askeda question

No I did not

I did rebuke the respondant (it is his place to ecide if he was
insulted) rudely if you like

Never called him a lair

You were wrong on several levels.

nope


You owe Hans Brakob an apology.

IF he asks I will consider it

But not on your say so

Steve, K4YZ