K4YZ wrote:
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.


must you engage in crying Stevi

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.... ! ! !

What spin? It is a simple matter, obvious to anyone with a brain, ah
prehaps that does let you out.

Obeying the rules is all that is required.In the case of mode which
sparked this thread.

don't need to what number letter combination is USB in order to use
it, I push a botton on the rig and it does that for me



And by the way...Yes you ARE required to be familiar with Part 97.

Ask the FCC.

Nope


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.

yep


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.

You show where the FCC requires it. by rules and paragraph

I am merely required to the USE the airwaves correctly. If i di by use
Tarrot definiation the FCC doesn't care.

If I ID every 5 minute or 9 minutes because i don't remember the FCC
requires it every 10 the FCC doesn't care

Indeed in large discussions I generaly id every transmisstion since it
might not get back around to me in 10 minutes


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!

Stevie thinks Part 97 is a single paragraph


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.

well if you are not lieing yet again you say I do that already

Instaead the turth is you up to stalking and harassment but everyone
(except perhaps you) knows that


But so far YOU keep stealing all my glory by beating me to it.

Then shut up if showing me an idoit is your sole goal and you you feel
I am beating you to it

You just manged to prove YOURself a lair

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.

and you say Hans can't defend himself?


he was rude to me.

No, he was not.

Yes he was. Only I can decide what I consider rude treatment


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.

no lie at all, a defference of opinion perhaps but (hear I guess is a
newsflash stevie) I don't have to agree with you


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...

indeed as stated

More dead equine kicking stevie


Anyone else over 12 with an interest in Amateur Radio had no
problem with it.

a hyperbole at least, I can at least one other person other 12 with an
interest in Ham radio hwho did not understand it


You wanted spoon-fed, written in crayon answers.

No crayon needed

Obviously you do.

nope indeed crayon would not have help

All that was required was a simple yes or no answer You go on for days
and day when I decline to give YOU one


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.

auf Anglish bitte

Being an idiot is one of them. Being a chronic liar is yet
another.

Then if you "grant" me these "rights" why do you haraas me for using
them?


Help yourself to them...They were made for you. They fit you like
a glove.

Then grant me the rights you say I have and get on the topic of Ham
Radio, instead of people bashing


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.

then let him


He just wouldn't enjoy rubbing your nose in your droppings as much
as I do, though...

Ah admiting to sadism again, but...

to work, it real has have some substance


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.

That is an improper intent, and one doomed to failure,

In addition I claim the right to respond to what you post , and deny
any responiblity to figure out what other crap is lurking in your mind


Didn't work. My bad.

a begining


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.

then indeed if you can't figure it out you don't know wether or not you
understand it


No I did not

Lying again, Mark.

I know the question even if you don't therefore ONLY I know if I got
the answer, you by your own addmission can't


If you want to lie, got lie next your your "aprtnr" for a while.
Be sure to offer him some "Ben-Gay" first, though.

Gee you know the gender of my partner? I have made a point of not
mentioning that takes a lot of typing in english.

Been stalking me more closely than I think or making stuff up again?



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

There was nothing to "rebuke".

yes there was. his failure to answer a yes or no question



The shortfallwas your own.

what?

Nope If i follow you then

you explain how a string of number s can be answer to "Is my impression
correct"


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.

If Hans lies i may well call him on it to date I have heard nothing I'd
clearly a lie. I have my doubts on some details of some of his stories
but I don't care enough to follow up

OTOH I don't care wether I set Hans off

BTW are you ever going to bother to learn to spell the word "Have"?


You were wrong on several levels.

nope

Absolutely wrong on several levels.

not at all on any level


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.

Not at all

Hans (nor anyone else) is entitled an apology where no offense was
intended with indaicating in some form he was offended



But then what else is new...?!?!

another stveie falsehood

Is theire a manual of this fake socail rules or do you just make it all
up

as I said I'll consider apologizing to hans if he asks, but I apologize
to NONE on your say so Stevie


Steve, K4YZ

an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
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.


must you engage in crying Stevi

I'm not.

But I AM laughing at you...

Again...

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.... ! ! !

What spin? It is a simple matter, obvious to anyone with a brain, ah
prehaps that does let you out.

It IS a spin, Markie...

Answer my question, please...

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

Obeying the rules is all that is required.In the case of mode which
sparked this thread.

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

don't need to what number letter combination is USB in order to use
it, I push a botton on the rig and it does that for me

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

And by the way...Yes you ARE required to be familiar with Part 97.

Ask the FCC.

Nope

Uh huh...about what I figured...

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.

You show where the FCC requires it. by rules and paragraph

The line on the back of your license where it says you will abide
by FCC rules and regualtions as thhey pertain to your Amateur Radio
station.

I am merely required to the USE the airwaves correctly. If i di by use
Tarrot definiation the FCC doesn't care.

Sure they do.

Show me a Tarot (...not Tarrot) card deck that has Part 97 in it.

If I ID every 5 minute or 9 minutes because i don't remember the FCC
requires it every 10 the FCC doesn't care

The FCC doesn't care if you "ID" once a minute...As long as there's
no more than a 10 minute interval between them.

Then they care.

Read recent FCC NOV's and NAL's...Read the ARRL's webpage that
cites letters sent to Amateurs who violated that very paragraph.

Indeed in large discussions I generaly id every transmisstion since it
might not get back around to me in 10 minutes

If you didn't cause RF to be emitted, it doesn't matter.

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!

Stevie thinks Part 97 is a single paragraph

The rules ARE defined in paragraphs in Part 97, Markie.

If you meant only ONE paragraph, that was due to YOUR failure to
effectively express that thought...

Maybe a gradeshcool English writing course would help you...

Instaead the turth is you up to stalking and harassment but everyone
(except perhaps you) knows that

Nope. You came here. No one forced you.

But so far YOU keep stealing all my glory by beating me to it.

Then shut up if showing me an idoit is your sole goal and you you feel
I am beating you to it

There's that "idoit" thing again.

You're holding at 100%.

You just manged to prove YOURself a lair

I am not a lair. Nor am I a liar.

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.

and you say Hans can't defend himself?

Nope. That's YOU "forging" my words.

he was rude to me.

No, he was not.

Yes he was. Only I can decide what I consider rude treatment

No. Society can set the parameters by which rude treatment is
determined.

In no way shape or form did Hans cross that line.

YOU did, however....

Anyone else over 12 with an interest in Amateur Radio had no
problem with it.

a hyperbole at least, I can at least one other person other 12 with an
interest in Ham radio hwho did not understand it

I think they need to disperse flyers in your town warning them
about you...No one should allow a 12 year old alone with you.

Then if you "grant" me these "rights" why do you haraas me for using
them?

I don't "grant" you anything.

Help yourself to them...They were made for you. They fit you like
a glove.

Then grant me the rights you say I have and get on the topic of Ham
Radio, instead of people bashing

I am not people bashing.

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.

then let him

But I am having such fun showing you for the rude creep that you
are.

But it's easy fun...You don't make it much of a challenge.

He just wouldn't enjoy rubbing your nose in your droppings as much
as I do, though...

Ah admiting to sadism again, but...

to work, it real has have some substance

Sure it does...

Folks can just surf Google under any of your "KONSTANS"
nomme-de-guerre's you have used.

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.

That is an improper intent, and one doomed to failure

Doomed to failure, perhaps.

Not improper, however.

In addition I claim the right to respond to what you post , and deny
any responiblity to figure out what other crap is lurking in your mind

Didn't work. My bad.

a begining

You missed the point again, but hey, what's new...?!?!

If you want to lie, got lie next your your "aprtnr" for a while.
Be sure to offer him some "Ben-Gay" first, though.

Gee you know the gender of my partner? I have made a point of not
mentioning that takes a lot of typing in english.

Been stalking me more closely than I think or making stuff up again?

Nope. If you weren't such an idiot you'd remember what you wrote
a week ago.

Or more MarkieLying..?!?!

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

There was nothing to "rebuke".

yes there was. his failure to answer a yes or no question

So he's "guilty" for imparting MORE knowledge than you are capble
of processing...

But you STILL couldn't be polite to him and ask for a better
clarification if you didn't understand...?!?!

Good thing, too...Because you'd already called him a liar. Just
one more thing might ahve set him off.

If Hans lies i may well call him on it to date I have heard nothing I'd
clearly a lie. I have my doubts on some details of some of his stories
but I don't care enough to follow up

OTOH I don't care wether I set Hans off

You should.

BTW are you ever going to bother to learn to spell the word "Have"?

Lessee.....

I OCCASSIONALLY transpose "h" and "a"...

As opposed to your near-every sentence errors?

That's a load!

BTW...Getting your "partner" to do your writing lately?

You were wrong on several levels.

nope

Absolutely wrong on several levels.

not at all on any level

Wrong.

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.

Not at all

Absolutely.

Hans (nor anyone else) is entitled an apology where no offense was
intended with indaicating in some form he was offended

Obviously he was.

But then what else is new...?!?!

another stveie falsehood

Nope.

Is theire a manual of this fake socail rules or do you just make it all
up

as I said I'll consider apologizing to hans if he asks, but I apologize
to NONE on your say so Stevie

And like I said...if you haven't got the cajones to jsut offer him
a sincere apology on your own, it's not..well...sincere...

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
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.


must you engage in crying Stevi

I'm not.

But I AM laughing at you...

Again...

BBBWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! !


break
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.... ! ! !

What spin? It is a simple matter, obvious to anyone with a brain, ah
prehaps that does let you out.

It IS a spin, Markie...

nope it isn't


Answer my question, please...

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

well the regular you are referring to by punching the botton on my
radio, Yeaszu and FCC have seen to it that it generates legal types of
signals wether i know the letter codes or not

My rig will not tranmit out band so I am covered there


Obeying the rules is all that is required.In the case of mode which
sparked this thread.

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

several methods are possible such apllaince operating

not operating also insures I don't break the rules

one could count on simple luck (not wise but possible)

I am sure there are additional examples


don't need to what number letter combination is USB in order to use
it, I push a botton on the rig and it does that for me

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

asked and answered


And by the way...Yes you ARE required to be familiar with Part 97.

Ask the FCC.

Nope

Uh huh...about what I figured...

I am required to obey
not understand

Nothing in part 97 says I have to understand 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.

You show where the FCC requires it. by rules and paragraph

The line on the back of your license where it says you will abide
by FCC rules and regualtions as thhey pertain to your Amateur Radio
station.


....Abide by the FCC rules and regulation... nothing about understanding
them there

another Stevie LIE

I am merely required to the USE the airwaves correctly. If i di by use
Tarrot definiation the FCC doesn't care.

Sure they do.

prove it. or even show something that suggests it


Show me a Tarot (...not Tarrot) card deck that has Part 97 in it.

Tarrot Torot and Tarot are all vaild speling of the words

and you question merely shows you ignorance of the Tarrot


If I ID every 5 minute or 9 minutes because i don't remember the FCC
requires it every 10 the FCC doesn't care

The FCC doesn't care if you "ID" once a minute...As long as there's
no more than a 10 minute interval between them.

which I am fine if I id every signal I send regards of what I rember
about the rules


Then they care.

Read recent FCC NOV's and NAL's...Read the ARRL's webpage that
cites letters sent to Amateurs who violated that very paragraph.

your point?


Indeed in large discussions I generaly id every transmisstion since it
might not get back around to me in 10 minutes

If you didn't cause RF to be emitted, it doesn't matter.

not by what I hear maybe I just don't understand, and htta is what what
some of the old timers claim very loudy at time when they break and
play radio cop


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!

Stevie thinks Part 97 is a single paragraph

The rules ARE defined in paragraphs in Part 97, Markie.

you have been asked for a citaion by paragraph All federal reg are
numbered by section and most by paragraph


If you meant only ONE paragraph, that was due to YOUR failure to
effectively express that thought...

I don't know how paragraphs you would need to cite So I don't mean One
para or ten you claim to know so you tell me


Maybe a gradeshcool English writing course would help you...

nope

You learning what the rule say instead what you think they say is what
is needed


Instaead the turth is you up to stalking and harassment but everyone
(except perhaps you) knows that

Nope. You came here. No one forced you.

so

You claim you have the right to stalk and harrass anyone that comes in
your feild of vision?


But so far YOU keep stealing all my glory by beating me to it.

Then shut up if showing me an idoit is your sole goal and you you feel
I am beating you to it

There's that "idoit" thing again.

so


You're holding at 100%.

You just manged to prove YOURself a lair

I am not a lair. Nor am I a liar.

yes you are


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.

and you say Hans can't defend himself?

Nope. That's YOU "forging" my words.

then explain what you are doing


he was rude to me.

No, he was not.

Yes he was. Only I can decide what I consider rude treatment

No. Society can set the parameters by which rude treatment is
determined.

not ture


In no way shape or form did Hans cross that line.

says you? even IF I grant your "No. Society can set the parameters by
which rude treatment is
determined" you are not empowered to act for Society, trying to do is what Makes you a Vigilanty something form another thread.


YOU did, however....

Auf anglish bitte is a phrase forbidden by Society?

Bull****


Anyone else over 12 with an interest in Amateur Radio had no
problem with it.

a hyperbole at least, I can at least one other person other 12 with an
interest in Ham radio hwho did not understand it

I think they need to disperse flyers in your town warning them
about you...No one should allow a 12 year old alone with you.

and more libel from you

If I thought you had anything worth taking that is enough to take you
to court for Stevie, at least in the Opinion of a paralegal (my partner
not me)


Then if you "grant" me these "rights" why do you haraas me for using
them?

I don't "grant" you anything.

then you were lieing when you made the statement

" 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. "

your word not mine
you cut them out ofyour last post

but by your words I have those rights and if I am merely exercising
them what right do you have to complain



Help yourself to them...They were made for you. They fit you like
a glove.

Then grant me the rights you say I have and get on the topic of Ham
Radio, instead of people bashing

I am not people bashing.

you only engage in personal attack


you edit stuff to cover your tracks


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.

then let him

But I am having such fun showing you for the rude creep that you
are.

But it's easy fun...You don't make it much of a challenge.

He just wouldn't enjoy rubbing your nose in your droppings as much
as I do, though...

Ah admiting to sadism again, but...

to work, it real has have some substance

Sure it does...

Folks can just surf Google under any of your "KONSTANS"
nomme-de-guerre's you have used.


your point? or do you have one?

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.

That is an improper intent, and one doomed to failure

Doomed to failure, perhaps.

a begining boyo

Not improper, however.

It is imporper


In addition I claim the right to respond to what you post , and deny
any responiblity to figure out what other crap is lurking in your mind

Didn't work. My bad.

a begining

You missed the point again, but hey, what's new...?!?!

You had a point?


If you want to lie, got lie next your your "aprtnr" for a while.
Be sure to offer him some "Ben-Gay" first, though.

Gee you know the gender of my partner? I have made a point of not
mentioning that takes a lot of typing in english.

Been stalking me more closely than I think or making stuff up again?

Nope. If you weren't such an idiot you'd remember what you wrote
a week ago.

making up stuff as a point of fact my partner is female was avoiding it
becuase it wasn't and isn't any of your affair


Or more MarkieLying..?!?!

no just Stevie lieing


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

There was nothing to "rebuke".

yes there was. his failure to answer a yes or no question

So he's "guilty" for imparting MORE knowledge than you are capble
of processing...

He imparted no knowledge something you have already agreed


But you STILL couldn't be polite to him and ask for a better
clarification if you didn't understand...?!?!

I did ask politely

I said "Auf Anglish Bitte"

I could have said "answer the question asked ****head" or other far
ruder responses


Good thing, too...Because you'd already called him a liar. Just
one more thing might ahve set him off.

If Hans lies i may well call him on it to date I have heard nothing I'd
clearly a lie. I have my doubts on some details of some of his stories
but I don't care enough to follow up

OTOH I don't care wether I set Hans off

You should.

why?


BTW are you ever going to bother to learn to spell the word "Have"?

Lessee.....

I OCCASSIONALLY transpose "h" and "a"...

I can't recallseeing the word have speeled right by you in days



As opposed to your near-every sentence errors?

"judge not lest ye be judged"


That's a load!

BTW...Getting your "partner" to do your writing lately?

no why do you ask?


You were wrong on several levels.

nope

Absolutely wrong on several levels.

not at all on any level

Wrong.

Stevie grow up


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.

Not at all

Absolutely.

Stevie YOU insting on means it will not happen if hans asks I will
consider it If Jim Ney asks I will consider it, but the more you go the
less likely i will do it

I do nothing to please you


Hans (nor anyone else) is entitled an apology where no offense was
intended with indaicating in some form he was offended

Obviously he was.

obviously was what?

auf anglish bitte



But then what else is new...?!?!

another stveie falsehood

Nope.

yes


Is theire a manual of this fake socail rules or do you just make it all
up

as I said I'll consider apologizing to hans if he asks, but I apologize
to NONE on your say so Stevie

And like I said...if you haven't got the cajones to jsut offer him
a sincere apology on your own, it's not..well...sincere...

oh I see what you mean now took you long enough to say what you mean
(if you are saying what you mean now) Then you have been chasing a wild
goose form moment one in this thread since of course If aplogize to
Hans now you will not consider it sincere, so logicly thier is
certianly no point in my doing so


Steve, K4YZ

an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Answer my question, please...

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

well the regular you are referring to by punching the botton on my
radio, Yeaszu and FCC have seen to it that it generates legal types of
signals wether i know the letter codes or not

You are responsible for the proper operation of your radio
station.

Yeasu (NOT "Yeaszu") is NOT responsible for the emissions of the
radio.

My rig will not tranmit out band so I am covered there

Bravo Sierra.

E V E R Y RF generating device has the potential of radiating a
signal other than the one designed for.

Ask Lennie.

Obeying the rules is all that is required.In the case of mode which
sparked this thread.

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

several methods are possible such apllaince operating

"Apllaince operating" does not make you familiar with FCC rules
and regulations.

It makes you an "apllaince" operator...that's all.

not operating also insures I don't break the rules

And keeps them free of your "dreck".

one could count on simple luck (not wise but possible)

I am sure there are additional examples

None of which meet the letter of the spirit of the law.

SO you're bascially saying that you don't care what the rules are,
you'll just do what you darn well please.

don't need to what number letter combination is USB in order to use
it, I push a botton on the rig and it does that for me

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

asked and answered

Asked and answered with stupid answers.

(...as if I expected anything different...?!?!)

And by the way...Yes you ARE required to be familiar with Part 97.

Ask the FCC.

Nope

Uh huh...about what I figured...

I am required to obey
not understand

And you STILL have not adequately explained how you can "obey"
laws that you do not understand.

Nothing in part 97 says I have to understand it

Your signature on FCC form 660 an the provisions of the
Communications Act of 1934 in Section 310 and others do.

And yes, you're supposed to know them. You sign the document.


The line on the back of your license where it says you will abide
by FCC rules and regualtions as thhey pertain to your Amateur Radio
station.


...Abide by the FCC rules and regulation... nothing about understanding
them there

another Stevie LIE

Nope.

You cannot "abide" by laws you do not understand.

I am merely required to the USE the airwaves correctly. If i di by use
Tarrot definiation the FCC doesn't care.

Sure they do.

prove it. or even show something that suggests it

Done.

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices

Show me a Tarot (...not Tarrot) card deck that has Part 97 in it.

Tarrot Torot and Tarot are all vaild speling of the words

and you question merely shows you ignorance of the Tarrot

I know that it's spelled "Tarot" in English.

Indeed in large discussions I generaly id every transmisstion since it
might not get back around to me in 10 minutes

If you didn't cause RF to be emitted, it doesn't matter.

not by what I hear maybe I just don't understand, and htta is what what
some of the old timers claim very loudy at time when they break and
play radio cop

Perhaps if you knew the laws that you are governed by you wouldn't
have to depend on "...not by what I hear..."

And yes, you DON'T understand. Being wilfully ignorant doesn't
excuse you from compliance.

Instaead the turth is you up to stalking and harassment but everyone
(except perhaps you) knows that

Nope. You came here. No one forced you.

so

You claim you have the right to stalk and harrass anyone that comes in
your feild of vision?

I'm not stalking anyone nor am I harassing anyone.

You voluntarilly reply to these posts.

No one dragged you here.

But so far YOU keep stealing all my glory by beating me to it.

Then shut up if showing me an idoit is your sole goal and you you feel
I am beating you to it

There's that "idoit" thing again.

so

So you've proven yourself wrong.

Over and over.

You're holding at 100%.

You just manged to prove YOURself a lair

I am not a lair. Nor am I a liar.

yes you are

Nope. You SAY I am a liar, but you've not yet shown a single one.
(Websters refers...)

and you say Hans can't defend himself?

Nope. That's YOU "forging" my words.

then explain what you are doing

I've not forged a single word, Markie.

Look up the definition of "forged" in Websters.

No. Society can set the parameters by which rude treatment is
determined.

not ture

Absolutely "ture".

In no way shape or form did Hans cross that line.

says you?

Says everyone EXCEPT you.

even IF I grant your...(SNIP)

You're not empowered to "grant" me anything, Markie.

You haven't got the proper genetics.

YOU did, however....

Auf anglish bitte is a phrase forbidden by Society?

Where did I say it was? (Even if you continue to mispell the
germanic reference to "English"

Bull####

Yes, You are.

I think they need to disperse flyers in your town warning them
about you...No one should allow a 12 year old alone with you.

and more libel from you

Nope.

Fact.

Based upon your own words.

If I thought you had anything worth taking that is enough to take you
to court for Stevie, at least in the Opinion of a paralegal (my partner
not me)

Uh huh...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

I don't know who the bigger idiot would be...

You for trying to file such a "case" considering the tons of
admissions of sexual perversion and wilfull mistruthfulness on your
part,

Or your "partner" for suggesting such might be possible
considering the aforementioned evidence that exists in Google archives.

Then if you "grant" me these "rights" why do you haraas me for using
them?

I don't "grant" you anything.

then you were lieing when you made the statement

I never "granted" you anything. Those are YOUR words...Not mine,
you "forger" ! ! !

" 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.

Yes, you are an idiot and you are a chronic liar.

I am not people bashing.

you only engage in personal attack

It's not an attack.

It's the truth.

you edit stuff to cover your tracks

Nope.

I "edit" stuff to keep these posts from being yards and yards
long.

Anyone can go back and review them if they care to...Even you....

Folks can just surf Google under any of your "KONSTANS"
nomme-de-guerre's you have used.

your point? or do you have one?

Sure.

My point is that anyone can surf Google under any of your
"KONSTANS" nomme-de-guerre's you've used and see what kind of a lyig
creep you are.

They can also surf KB9RQZ, "MWMORGAN" and a plethora of othr names
you've come and gone under as you bounce from ISP to ISP...

Speaking of which, I can only hope and pray that you finally
ditched that ISP you alleged was charging you $5/hr.

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.

That is an improper intent, and one doomed to failure

Doomed to failure, perhaps.

a begining boyo

Huh?

Not improper, however.

It is imporper

What's "imporper"...???

Nope. If you weren't such an idiot you'd remember what you wrote
a week ago.

making up stuff as a point of fact my partner is female was avoiding it
becuase it wasn't and isn't any of your affair

Your sister? Or mom?

No self-respecting English speaking woman I know would
tolerate a professed liar like you unless they were in your gene pool
or your will.

So he's "guilty" for imparting MORE knowledge than you are capble
of processing...

He imparted no knowledge something you have already agreed

No, I have NOT agreed.

Hans clearly DID "impart knowledge"...YOU, on the otherhand, were
just too stupid to assimilate it.

But you STILL couldn't be polite to him and ask for a better
clarification if you didn't understand...?!?!

I did ask politely

I said "Auf Anglish Bitte"

Why do you insist on trying to look like you can speak German when
you clearly can't even do it in English?

I could have said "answer the question asked ####head" or other far
ruder responses

You basically said that anyway. That WAS the nature, if not
verbatim, response.

I OCCASSIONALLY transpose "h" and "a"...

I can't recallseeing the word have speeled right by you in days

Becasue you haven't been paying attention.

Scroll back.

As opposed to your near-every sentence errors?

"judge not lest ye be judged"

I'll take my chances.

If you don't consider it pertinent to do so without his asking,
then you're obviously not sincere.

Not at all

Absolutely.

Stevie YOU insting on means it will not happen if hans asks I will
consider it If Jim Ney asks I will consider it, but the more you go the
less likely i will do it

I do nothing to please you

Sure you do.

And who's "Jim Ney"...???

Hans (nor anyone else) is entitled an apology where no offense was
intended with indaicating in some form he was offended

Obviously he was.

obviously was what?

auf anglish bitte

If you're going to ask a question, Markie, regardless of the
language you're trying to abuse, please use the proper punctuation.

And what part of "offended" do you not understand?

And like I said...if you haven't got the cajones to just offer him
a sincere apology on your own, it's not..well...sincere...

oh I see what you mean now took you long enough to say what you mean
(if you are saying what you mean now)...(SNIP)

Huh?

Then you have been chasing a wild goose form...(SNIP)

A "wild goose form"..?!?!

Is that as opposed to a tame goose form?

How can you tell?

(UNSNIP)...moment one in this thread since of course If aplogize to
Hans now you will not consider it sincere, so logicly thier is
certianly no point in my doing so

Sure there is...

Because it's the right thing to do.

If that's not reason enough, I don't know what is...

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Answer my question, please...

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

well the regular you are referring to by punching the botton on my
radio, Yeaszu and FCC have seen to it that it generates legal types of
signals wether i know the letter codes or not

You are responsible for the proper operation of your radio
station.

agreed

Yeasu (NOT "Yeaszu") is NOT responsible for the emissions of the
radio.

agreed but it can none the less be relied on to to make the right
emissions, indeed I can'r tell if it were not neither can most Hams

Can you test YOUR rig to see that it complies with the rules



My rig will not tranmit out band so I am covered there

Bravo Sierra.

Alpha Tango


E V E R Y RF generating device has the potential of radiating a
signal other than the one designed for.

yep it does your point

If your radio was doing how would YOU know


Ask Lennie.

why you aran't saying something I don't know


Obeying the rules is all that is required.In the case of mode which
sparked this thread.

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

several methods are possible such apllaince operating

"Apllaince operating" does not make you familiar with FCC rules
and regulations.

never said it did


It makes you an "apllaince" operator...that's all.

and makes it a very high likelyhood that I am following the rules


not operating also insures I don't break the rules

And keeps them free of your "dreck".

But the method would work for keeping in complaince


one could count on simple luck (not wise but possible)

I am sure there are additional examples

None of which meet the letter of the spirit of the law.

The letter of spirit of the law?

Auf anglish Bittie

I am only required to obey the letter of the law. I don't have to obey
the Spirit of the law, if I can even devine such without a seance/ The
letter of the spririt in nonsense


SO you're bascially saying that you don't care what the rules are,
you'll just do what you darn well please.

nope not at all

never said that

don't need to what number letter combination is USB in order to use
it, I push a botton on the rig and it does that for me

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

asked and answered

Asked and answered with stupid answers.

stupid to your mind sure maybe but not incorrect


(...as if I expected anything different...?!?!)

And by the way...Yes you ARE required to be familiar with Part 97.

Ask the FCC.

Nope

Uh huh...about what I figured...

I am required to obey
not understand

And you STILL have not adequately explained how you can "obey"
laws that you do not understand.

I have indeed done so I given you an example abolsutely certian of
compling and 2 others that are safe enough

what more is required



Nothing in part 97 says I have to understand it

Your signature on FCC form 660 an the provisions of the
Communications Act of 1934 in Section 310 and others do.

not sure I ever signed a form 660 may have not sure

But the courts have ruled that no one need understand tany rule or law
in order to be held to it, therefore it must be legaly possible to obey
without understanding


And yes, you're supposed to know them. You sign the document.

Supposed, gee that isn't required merely supposed




The line on the back of your license where it says you will abide
by FCC rules and regualtions as thhey pertain to your Amateur Radio
station.


...Abide by the FCC rules and regulation... nothing about understanding
them there

another Stevie LIE

Nope.

yes it says will abide not will understand


You cannot "abide" by laws you do not understand.

yes you can


I am merely required to the USE the airwaves correctly. If i di by use
Tarrot definiation the FCC doesn't care.

Sure they do.

prove it. or even show something that suggests it

Done.

nope


http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices

so what nothing on the pages sates or suggests that the FCC cares
wether the cited enities knew the rules


Show me a Tarot (...not Tarrot) card deck that has Part 97 in it.

Tarrot Torot and Tarot are all vaild speling of the words

and you question merely shows you ignorance of the Tarrot

I know that it's spelled "Tarot" in English.

how ? when did you become the supreme arbiter of english


Indeed in large discussions I generaly id every transmisstion since it
might not get back around to me in 10 minutes

If you didn't cause RF to be emitted, it doesn't matter.

not by what I hear maybe I just don't understand, and htta is what what
some of the old timers claim very loudy at time when they break and
play radio cop

Perhaps if you knew the laws that you are governed by you wouldn't
have to depend on "...not by what I hear..."


perhaps if everyone was a decent human being there would be not need
for laws

or what if angel danced on pin heads


But givent he behavooir of others I choose to ID every signal to avoid
the wanna be radio cops My choice and the FCC doesn't care


And yes, you DON'T understand. Being wilfully ignorant doesn't
excuse you from compliance.

No it doesn't never said it did, but complaince and even willfull
ignorance are possible and legal


Instaead the turth is you up to stalking and harassment but everyone
(except perhaps you) knows that

Nope. You came here. No one forced you.

so

You claim you have the right to stalk and harrass anyone that comes in
your feild of vision?

I'm not stalking anyone nor am I harassing anyone.

lair


You voluntarilly reply to these posts.

so

YOU made the posts concerning my sexuality etc

you did so with the intent to harras



No one dragged you here.

so


But so far YOU keep stealing all my glory by beating me to it.

Then shut up if showing me an idoit is your sole goal and you you feel
I am beating you to it

There's that "idoit" thing again.

so

So you've proven yourself wrong.

no I haven't

you make the claim I have to know the rules in order to obey them

you prove it

I claim it is possible to obey the rules without understanding them

I have done so


Over and over.

yes over and over ignorant cracker


You're holding at 100%.

You just manged to prove YOURself a lair

I am not a lair. Nor am I a liar.

yes you are

Nope. You SAY I am a liar, but you've not yet shown a single one.
(Websters refers...)

I Have many times, mst ly by traping you in your inconsistanies



and you say Hans can't defend himself?

Nope. That's YOU "forging" my words.

then explain what you are doing

I've not forged a single word, Markie.

yes you have


Look up the definition of "forged" in Websters.

do you prefer the word altered?


No. Society can set the parameters by which rude treatment is
determined.

not ture

Absolutely "ture".

not ture


In no way shape or form did Hans cross that line.

says you?

Says everyone EXCEPT you.

say no one BUT you

Hans hasn't even said he did not being condesending


even IF I grant your...(SNIP)

You're not empowered to "grant" me anything, Markie.

yes I am, indeed you hold no power over that I don't grant



You haven't got the proper genetics.

what?

judging by the health of your now dead daughter mine are at least as
proper as yours


YOU did, however....

Auf anglish bitte is a phrase forbidden by Society?

Where did I say it was? (Even if you continue to mispell the
germanic reference to "English"

My response to Hans was

Auf Anglish Bitte

you claim I cross a line in something forbidden by society therefore
you calim my response was forbidden by socity


Bull####

Yes, You are.

more alterations Stevie



I think they need to disperse flyers in your town warning them
about you...No one should allow a 12 year old alone with you.

and more libel from you

Nope.

yes it is


Fact.

Stevie being fact does nopt bear on wether something is Libel



Based upon your own words.

what words?


If I thought you had anything worth taking that is enough to take you
to court for Stevie, at least in the Opinion of a paralegal (my partner
not me)

Uh huh...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

yea right

you are too poor to be worth it


I don't know who the bigger idiot would be...

You for trying to file such a "case" considering the tons of
admissions of sexual perversion and wilfull mistruthfulness on your
part,

Being homosexaul or bisexual is not ilegal, nor lieing on the Interent

you impling I am a pedophile is and remain Libel (or slander depneding
on wether the net is viewed as written or spoken)

Or your "partner" for suggesting such might be possible
considering the aforementioned evidence that exists in Google archives.

Huh?

again I can free admit to everything you I posted none of which make me
a pedophile as you imply


Then if you "grant" me these "rights" why do you haraas me for using
them?

I don't "grant" you anything.

then you were lieing when you made the statement

I never "granted" you anything. Those are YOUR words...Not mine,
you "forger" ! ! !

your words are below agian

you granted or agreed or conceeded or whatever but you said I had the
rigt below\


" 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.

Yes, you are an idiot and you are a chronic liar.

and you yourself say I have that right

so in hassling me you admit to being a lair


I am not people bashing.

you only engage in personal attack

It's not an attack.

it sure is


It's the truth.

If it were true that has nothing to do with wether it is a personal
attack or not

the 2 words have different meanings

you edit stuff to cover your tracks

Nope.

yes you

I "edit" stuff to keep these posts from being yards and yards
long.

you edit them in distorting ways that convently cover many of your lies


Anyone can go back and review them if they care to...Even you....

and everyone know you distort lie and evade at almost every
oppurturnity


Folks can just surf Google under any of your "KONSTANS"
nomme-de-guerre's you have used.

your point? or do you have one?

Sure.

My point is that anyone can surf Google under any of your
"KONSTANS" nomme-de-guerre's you've used and see what kind of a lyig
creep you are.

what is wrong with using my name online?

you have changed Call sign a few times (4 changes 3 calls by my count)

and where I do deny that I do lie

I do reservse to right to point out where you make up things I never
said, but I am not honest about many facts in my bio. I have my
reasons, and it is my right.



They can also surf KB9RQZ, "MWMORGAN" and a plethora of othr names
you've come and gone under as you bounce from ISP to ISP...

you oppose shoping for better deals on interent?


Speaking of which, I can only hope and pray that you finally
ditched that ISP you alleged was charging you $5/hr.

well I still subcribe to their service for use when I travel, since the
5$/hour rate came wit the use of a 1-800number to reach them was
cheaper than paying long distance


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.

That is an improper intent, and one doomed to failure

Doomed to failure, perhaps.

a begining boyo

Huh?

a beging that you begin realize something boyo


Not improper, however.

It is imporper

What's "imporper"...???

aren't you claiming to be the sole judge of that Stevie and you don't
know


Nope. If you weren't such an idiot you'd remember what you wrote
a week ago.

making up stuff as a point of fact my partner is female was avoiding it
becuase it wasn't and isn't any of your affair

Your sister? Or mom?

more libel


No self-respecting English speaking woman I know would
tolerate a professed liar like you unless they were in your gene pool
or your will.

you have a limited aquantanceship, but then she is in my will of course
isn't your wifein yours?

as to wether she is self respecting you have never met me now you
presume to judge a women you have not even read her words?


So he's "guilty" for imparting MORE knowledge than you are capble
of processing...

He imparted no knowledge something you have already agreed

No, I have NOT agreed.

Hans clearly DID "impart knowledge"...YOU, on the otherhand, were
just too stupid to assimilate it.

whcih means you agree he imparted nothing to me, for what ever reason



But you STILL couldn't be polite to him and ask for a better
clarification if you didn't understand...?!?!

I did ask politely

I said "Auf Anglish Bitte"

Why do you insist on trying to look like you can speak German when
you clearly can't even do it in English?

huh?

I am trying to make it look like I speak german?

news to me


Auf Anglish bitte

oder auf Deutche bitte

prehaps you will make more sense in german

If I wrote Je parle Fransse that would I was trying to show people I
speak french?


I could have said "answer the question asked ####head" or other far
ruder responses

You basically said that anyway. That WAS the nature, if not
verbatim, response.

no it wasn't


I OCCASSIONALLY transpose "h" and "a"...

I can't recallseeing the word have speeled right by you in days

Becasue you haven't been paying attention.

Scroll back.

have done can't find where you spell have correctly

You do seem to spell haven't ok but not Have itself it s a stranage
thing

As opposed to your near-every sentence errors?

"judge not lest ye be judged"

I'll take my chances.

you certainly do


If you don't consider it pertinent to do so without his asking,
then you're obviously not sincere.

Not at all

Absolutely.

Stevie YOU insting on means it will not happen if hans asks I will
consider it If Jim Ney asks I will consider it, but the more you go the
less likely i will do it

I do nothing to please you

Sure you do.

reallY then of course what is your beef?


And who's "Jim Ney"...???

Jim you he is round here


Hans (nor anyone else) is entitled an apology where no offense was
intended with indaicating in some form he was offended

Obviously he was.

obviously was what?

auf anglish bitte

If you're going to ask a question, Markie, regardless of the
language you're trying to abuse, please use the proper punctuation.

why?


And what part of "offended" do you not understand?

no part but Hans and Hans alone is a proper judge of wether Hans was
offended, not Stevie, Unless of you are posting as Hans yourself and as
Stevie

Hans can ask and I'll consider it, Bill Sohl could ask and Id consdier
it etc, I don't do it for Stevie


And like I said...if you haven't got the cajones to just offer him
a sincere apology on your own, it's not..well...sincere...

oh I see what you mean now took you long enough to say what you mean
(if you are saying what you mean now)...(SNIP)

Huh?

clear enough slerly than your intent has been


Then you have been chasing a wild goose form...(SNIP)

A "wild goose form"..?!?!

Is that as opposed to a tame goose form?

How can you tell?

Don't you know?


(UNSNIP)...moment one in this thread since of course If aplogize to
Hans now you will not consider it sincere, so logicly thier is
certianly no point in my doing so

Sure there is...

Because it's the right thing to do.

according to you No it would not be

since IF i were to apoligize to Hans without meaning it then I would be
making another LIE, and to you lying is basical evil

so NOw you want to do what you take me to task for all the time?

Lie?

If that's not reason enough, I don't know what is...

you got that right Stevie you don't what is

Steve, K4YZ

"an_old_friend" wrote


Can you test YOUR rig to see that it complies with the rules


Yes, as required by §97.103(a) and §97.105(a).

Can't you?

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote


Can you test YOUR rig to see that it complies with the rules



why did you edit out the fact i was asking Stevie

Yes, as required by =A797.103(a) and =A797.105(a).

Sec. 97.105 Control operator duties.


(a) The control operator must ensure the immediate proper operation

of the station, regardless of the type of control.
(b) A station may only be operated in the manner and to the extent
permitted by the privileges authorized for the class of operator
license
held by the control operator.


Sec. 97.103 Station licensee responsibilities.

(a) The station licensee is responsible for the proper operation of

the station in accordance with the FCC Rules. When the control operator

is a different amateur operator than the station licensee, both persons

are equally responsible for proper operation of the station.
(b) The station licensee must designate the station control
operator. The FCC will presume that the station licensee is also the
control operator, unless documentation to the contrary is in the
station
records.
(c) The station licensee must make the station and the station
records available for inspection upon request by an FCC representative.

When deemed necessary by an EIC to assure compliance with the FCC
Rules,
the station licensee must maintain a record of station operations
containing such items of information as the EIC may require in accord
with Sec. 0.314(x) of the FCC Rules.


nothing in the citied section reqiuring me to be able to test the
emission of my rig

=20
Can't you?

By that I don't have too

=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

an_old_friend wrote:


Can you test YOUR rig to see that it complies with the rules

Sure can. Can you? No? I believe that somewhere in the rules it say you
should be able to. But then you don't understand the rules.

"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
an_old_friend wrote:


Can you test YOUR rig to see that it complies with the rules

Sure can. Can you? No? I believe that somewhere in the rules it say you
should be able to. But then you don't understand the rules.

I don't think it says you have to test it but it does say that you are
responsible for insuring that it complies. However it would be difficult to
insure that it complies without some modest test equipment.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

Answer my question, please...

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

well the regular you are referring to by punching the botton on my
radio, Yeaszu and FCC have seen to it that it generates legal types of
signals wether i know the letter codes or not

You are responsible for the proper operation of your radio
station.

agreed

Yaesu (NOT "Yeaszu") is NOT responsible for the emissions of the
radio.

agreed but it can none the less be relied on to to make the right
emissions, indeed I can'r tell if it were not neither can most Hams

No...it CANNOT be "relied on" to make the right emissions.

YOU are required to ensure that it does.

Can you test YOUR rig to see that it complies with the rules

Absolutely.

E V E R Y RF generating device has the potential of radiating a
signal other than the one designed for.

yep it does your point

If your radio was doing how would YOU know


Ask Lennie.

why you aran't saying something I don't know

There's a LOT of things I can say that you don't know.

For example, just about anything about Amateur Radio, the Armed
Forces, healthcare, sociology, and a wealth of other topics.

Huge snip. This punk is beinging to bore me....

You for trying to file such a "case" considering the tons of
admissions of sexual perversion and wilfull mistruthfulness on your
part,

Being homosexaul or bisexual is not ilegal, nor lieing on the Interent

you impling I am a pedophile is and remain Libel (or slander depneding
on wether the net is viewed as written or spoken)

I didn't state nor imply that you were a pedophile...

I DID state it was dangerous to have children around
you...but that's only becasue you are ignorant, illiterate, and have
OTHER sexual deviations. Pedophilia was not brought up by me, but since
it's obviously on YOUR mind, why IS it on your mind...?!?!

Or your "partner" for suggesting such might be possible
considering the aforementioned evidence that exists in Google archives.

Huh?

Have your "partner" read it, then write it out on gradeschool
learning tablet in crayone for you, Mikeie.

again I can free admit to everything you I posted none of which make me
a pedophile as you imply

I didn't say you were a pedophile.

I said it would be dangerous to leave children in your care.

There's a big difference.

I never "granted" you anything. Those are YOUR words...Not mine,
you "forger" ! ! !

your words are below agian

you granted or agreed or conceeded or whatever but you said I had the
rigt below


" 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.

Yes, you are an idiot and you are a chronic liar.

and you yourself say I have that right

so in hassling me you admit to being a lair

I'm neither hassling you nor am I a "lair".

You come here voluntarily. You post in a publc forum, ergo you
grant permission for any who care to do so to comment on your posts.

I simply point out your errors, lack of English comprehension and
your volumous pages of lies and deceit.

My point is that anyone can surf Google under any of your
"KONSTANS" nomme-de-guerre's you've used and see what kind of a lyig
creep you are.

what is wrong with using my name online?

"KONSTANS" is not your name.

you have changed Call sign a few times (4 changes 3 calls by my count)

We're not discussing Amateur Radio callsigns. All of which were
legal administratives procedures, documented in public archives.

and where I do deny that I do lie

I do reservse to right to point out where you make up things I never
said, but I am not honest about many facts in my bio. I have my
reasons, and it is my right.

I've not made up ANYthing about anything you've "said" Markie.

I couldn't have made that stuff up if I wanted to.

They can also surf KB9RQZ, "MWMORGAN" and a plethora of othr names
you've come and gone under as you bounce from ISP to ISP...

you oppose shoping for better deals on interent?

Sure you can.

It's just been funny on those occassions (like with "mwmorgan")
where you initially tried to "hide" your identity with that creepy
abortion of what you call "English".

Speaking of which, I can only hope and pray that you finally
ditched that ISP you alleged was charging you $5/hr.

well I still subcribe to their service for use when I travel, since the
5$/hour rate came wit the use of a 1-800number to reach them was
cheaper than paying long distance

Sheeesh....

And my AOL still only costs less than $23 A MONTH.

NetZero, Wal-Mart Connect and others are even less.

making up stuff as a point of fact my partner is female was avoiding it
becuase it wasn't and isn't any of your affair

Your sister? Or mom?

more libel

Nope.

Questions.

Notice the "question marks" after each?

No self-respecting English speaking woman I know would
tolerate a professed liar like you unless they were in your gene pool
or your will.

you have a limited aquantanceship, but then she is in my will of course
isn't your wifein yours?

as to wether she is self respecting you have never met me now you
presume to judge a women you have not even read her words?

I am sure if they make a keyboard set up in jibberishese we'll be
hearing from her too,

So he's "guilty" for imparting MORE knowledge than you are capble
of processing...

He imparted no knowledge something you have already agreed

No, I have NOT agreed.

Hans clearly DID "impart knowledge"...YOU, on the otherhand, were
just too stupid to assimilate it.

whcih means you agree he imparted nothing to me, for what ever reason

No.

It means you were too stupid to assimilate it.

But you STILL couldn't be polite to him and ask for a better
clarification if you didn't understand...?!?!

I did ask politely

I said "Auf Anglish Bitte"

Why do you insist on trying to look like you can speak German when
you clearly can't even do it in English?

huh?

I am trying to make it look like I speak german?

news to me

I am sure a lot of things are "news to (you)", Mikie.

Auf Anglish bitte

oder auf Deutche bitte

prehaps you will make more sense in german

If I wrote Je parle Fransse that would I was trying to show people I
speak french?

Yes. And you mispelled "French" wrong.

If you're going to try and write in that language, can you not so
it correctly?

Stevie YOU insting on means it will not happen if hans asks I will
consider it If Jim Ney asks I will consider it, but the more you go the
less likely i will do it

I do nothing to please you

Sure you do.

reallY then of course what is your beef?

You're a liar. I don't tolerate liars.

And who's "Jim Ney"...???

Jim you he is round here

Huh?

Who are you talking about?

There a half dozen "Jim's" who participate in this forum.

Hans (nor anyone else) is entitled an apology where no offense was
intended with indaicating in some form he was offended

Obviously he was.

obviously was what?

auf anglish bitte

If you're going to ask a question, Markie, regardless of the
language you're trying to abuse, please use the proper punctuation.

why?


And what part of "offended" do you not understand?

no part but Hans and Hans alone is a proper judge of wether Hans was
offended, not Stevie, Unless of you are posting as Hans yourself and as
Stevie

Hans can ask and I'll consider it, Bill Sohl could ask and Id consdier
it etc, I don't do it for Stevie


And like I said...if you haven't got the cajones to just offer him
a sincere apology on your own, it's not..well...sincere...

oh I see what you mean now took you long enough to say what you mean
(if you are saying what you mean now)...(SNIP)

Huh?

clear enough slerly than your intent has been


Then you have been chasing a wild goose form...(SNIP)

A "wild goose form"..?!?!

Is that as opposed to a tame goose form?

How can you tell?

Don't you know?


(UNSNIP)...moment one in this thread since of course If aplogize to
Hans now you will not consider it sincere, so logicly thier is
certianly no point in my doing so

Sure there is...

Because it's the right thing to do.

according to you No it would not be

Sure it would.

It would show that you've got at least a SMALL spark of civility in
you.

So far.....Squat.

Steve, K4YZ