Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: Big Snip To The Funny Stuff: 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. BBBWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! I am going to wait with bated breath while you try to spin up an explanation as to how you are not required to "be familiar" with the regulations of the radio service in which you are a licensee, yet you ARE required to obey them.... ! ! ! And by the way...Yes you ARE required to be familiar with Part 97. Ask the FCC. 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 Nope. 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 Required by the FCC...Yes. BTW exactly where are they defined by paragraph Oh font of Knowledge rival of the Oracle of Delphi Where are the rules defined by paragraph? Try Part 97 you blithering idiot! 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 not "upto" anything, other than showing the world that, yes, Mark C Morgan is an idiot. But so far YOU keep stealing all my glory by beating me to it. 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 Yes, you were. he was rude to me. No, he was not. Why are (to use a comon figure of speech)you allowing your panties to get into such bunch over it? Because you're so blatant in lying about 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 Useless to YOU, perhaps... Anyone else over 12 with an interest in Amateur Radio had no problem with it. You wanted spoon-fed, written in crayon answers. No crayon needed Obviously you do. You take me to task when I don't answer your yes or no questions.I have the same right as you do Actually, I consider you to have MORE rights than I consider necesssary for myself. Being an idiot is one of them. Being a chronic liar is yet another. Help yourself to them...They were made for you. They fit you like a glove. Hans' only mistake was assuming that you might be able to understand the answer. gee Hans can't defend himself He could quite ably if he chose to. He just wouldn't enjoy rubbing your nose in your droppings as much as I do, though... 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 Only in that you suggest something improper. My REAL intent was to try and get you to spontaneously issue Hans an apology for your smart mouth and abuse of his rendering of information to you. Didn't work. My bad. You asked a question. You got the answer. You then insulted the respondant and called him a liar. yes I askeda question Well...SORT of a question. One can never be quite sure where your sentences start and stop, or if they were statements, quotes or questions. No I did not Lying again, Mark. If you want to lie, got lie next your your "aprtnr" for a while. Be sure to offer him some "Ben-Gay" first, though. I did rebuke the respondant (it is his place to ecide if he was insulted) rudely if you like There was nothing to "rebuke". The shortfallwas your own. Never called him a lair Good thing, too...Because you'd already called him a liar. Just one more thing might ahve set him off. You were wrong on several levels. nope Absolutely wrong on several levels. You owe Hans Brakob an apology. IF he asks I will consider it But not on your say so If you don't consider it pertinent to do so without his asking, then you're obviously not sincere. But then what else is new...?!?! Steve, K4YZ |