|
.... next, if you have to go though quoting each and ever line and/or paragraph you are responding to, and you cannot organize your thought and create your own text without intermingling it with mine--don't expect me to read it, I don't have the time... Good and valid point. Many respondees have decided that it is necessary to repost an entire thread, ad nauseum, as they "make their point". It appears to me to be a waste of time and space and regurgitating the entire thread serves little, if any purpose. I suppose that it may be well beyond some of their capabilities to be concise and to the point. John Smith, forgive them, for they know not what they do. |
Opie:
Ohhh, isn't that nice of you, worried about the bandwidth of sending all the text... how thoughtful!!!! yawn Hey, if you have a minute, would you mind clipping off all the junk following this text here? John "Opie" Anon@noremailers wrote in message ... ... next, if you have to go though quoting each and ever line and/or paragraph you are responding to, and you cannot organize your thought and create your own text without intermingling it with mine--don't expect me to read it, I don't have the time... Good and valid point. Many respondees have decided that it is necessary to repost an entire thread, ad nauseum, as they "make their point". It appears to me to be a waste of time and space and regurgitating the entire thread serves little, if any purpose. I suppose that it may be well beyond some of their capabilities to be concise and to the point. John Smith, forgive them, for they know not what they do. |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Opie: Ohhh, isn't that nice of you, worried about the bandwidth of sending all the text... how thoughtful!!!! yawn Hey, if you have a minute, would you mind clipping off all the junk... snip Consider it done, Good Buddy. It was, after all, YOUR complaint. 10-4? |
Dopie:
Thanks bud!!!! John "Opie" Anon@noremailers wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Opie: Ohhh, isn't that nice of you, worried about the bandwidth of sending all the text... how thoughtful!!!! yawn Hey, if you have a minute, would you mind clipping off all the junk... snip Consider it done, Good Buddy. It was, after all, YOUR complaint. 10-4? |
Oh no, we've been raided by the CB gang. DUH!! I didn't even put the
"John" and "Smith" together as being so annonymous it's ridiculous. And Cmdr Buzz. Haven't ever noticed that User Name but, what's that mean? Cmdr Buzz--mean something like that you command a bunch of dildoes, or something? Dang, I got caught up in CB crap. LOL Kim W5TIT "John Smith" wrote in message ... Cmdr Buzz: Hey, did you really think--I think, she really has 5 size W boobs? disappointed-look-on-face John "Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Kim: I expected as much, a women libber who isn't a libber at all. Rather a spoiled female brat which wants all the perks of being female and none of the responsibility. And, you are right, gays marrying makes a mockery out of marriage. Two butt buddies (or two lesbian lick masters) are ridiculous and should be give mental health to repair their suffering mental conditions... You wouldn't know a real female if she ran up and bit ya on yer bum. Already you are whinning because your tricks ain't going to work here. Screw off, you are just a new age wacko and they are a dime a dozen! You are too used to people kissing yer bum to be politically correct, ain't gonna happen here--I have too much respect for myself. If you want to stay focused on ham issues good. If you want to argue being politically correct or I have to suffer your opinions and views--chuck it girl! John LOL!!! Gotta luv it! Why do you think she got that call John? She needs attention. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Kim's text just happened to contain, "...mean something like that you
command a bunch of dildoes, or something?" Hey, is this another secret lesbian newsgroup? Is the above in code, or, just the rantings of a bunch of women presenting gripes about the size of their husbands/bf's equipment? John "Kim" wrote in message ... Oh no, we've been raided by the CB gang. DUH!! I didn't even put the "John" and "Smith" together as being so annonymous it's ridiculous. And Cmdr Buzz. Haven't ever noticed that User Name but, what's that mean? Cmdr Buzz--mean something like that you command a bunch of dildoes, or something? Dang, I got caught up in CB crap. LOL Kim W5TIT "John Smith" wrote in message ... Cmdr Buzz: Hey, did you really think--I think, she really has 5 size W boobs? disappointed-look-on-face John "Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Kim: I expected as much, a women libber who isn't a libber at all. Rather a spoiled female brat which wants all the perks of being female and none of the responsibility. And, you are right, gays marrying makes a mockery out of marriage. Two butt buddies (or two lesbian lick masters) are ridiculous and should be give mental health to repair their suffering mental conditions... You wouldn't know a real female if she ran up and bit ya on yer bum. Already you are whinning because your tricks ain't going to work here. Screw off, you are just a new age wacko and they are a dime a dozen! You are too used to people kissing yer bum to be politically correct, ain't gonna happen here--I have too much respect for myself. If you want to stay focused on ham issues good. If you want to argue being politically correct or I have to suffer your opinions and views--chuck it girl! John LOL!!! Gotta luv it! Why do you think she got that call John? She needs attention. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
John Smith wrote: Cmdr Buzz: Hey, did you really think--I think, she really has 5 size W boobs? disappointed-look-on-face Six, but one got away and is living in UP Michigan these days... Steve, K4YZ |
|
K4YZ:
Sounds logical, and even symmetrical! John "K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: Cmdr Buzz: Hey, did you really think--I think, she really has 5 size W boobs? disappointed-look-on-face Six, but one got away and is living in UP Michigan these days... Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: John Smith wrote: Cmdr Buzz: Hey, did you really think--I think, she really has 5 size W boobs? disappointed-look-on-face Six, but one got away and is living in UP Michigan these days... and you call any of that english It does go on to show your obsession with gentials prehaps the porblem is that you realy need to get laid Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: hack EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION. The newsgroup moderator has spoken. look like Stvie is indeed claiming the title and.. Carry on, Lennie... giving lenn the floor Steve, K4YZ |
an_old_pervert:
My gawd yes man, we are fascinated by female genitalia and boobs. As a very young man, 10-12 years of age, they became a lifetime pursuit of mine! I have been studying them and doing "experiments" ever since, I am no where nearing the end of such endeavors! I suspect they effect me in exactly the way men's genitalia and buttz set you off... John "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... K4YZ wrote: John Smith wrote: Cmdr Buzz: Hey, did you really think--I think, she really has 5 size W boobs? disappointed-look-on-face Six, but one got away and is living in UP Michigan these days... and you call any of that english It does go on to show your obsession with gentials prehaps the porblem is that you realy need to get laid Steve, K4YZ |
John Smith wrote: an_old_pervert: My gawd yes man, we are fascinated by female genitalia and boobs. As a very young man, 10-12 years of age, they became a lifetime pursuit of mine! I have been studying them and doing "experiments" ever since, I am no where nearing the end of such endeavors! I suspect they effect me in exactly the way men's genitalia and buttz set you off... indeed although you over look 2 things One female gential are also exceitng to me two this just isn't the newsgroup for it there is a whole seris alt.sex. anything you can imgaine and few things you you see and still can't Stevie you for that matter need ot learn a place ofr everything and evrything in its place This gential obsession of stevie came out when he, in looking for ways to attack me went out on USEnet looking for **** to use, first to tried to black mail me into silence by threatening to expose my interests (not ashamed of them just know this isn't the place) on RRAP John "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... K4YZ wrote: John Smith wrote: Cmdr Buzz: Hey, did you really think--I think, she really has 5 size W boobs? disappointed-look-on-face Six, but one got away and is living in UP Michigan these days... and you call any of that english It does go on to show your obsession with gentials prehaps the porblem is that you realy need to get laid Steve, K4YZ |
You idgit. From the study done years ago, it was revealed we men
think about sex every 3 to 5 minutes, I am sure the women realize that by now--our male secret is out. And, since that is indeed true, sex permeates all our waking hours (sometimes I even dream about it), quite often while carrying on a QSO with an aussie gal--I think about it. I have thought about it when building antennas. Working on radios. Stringing coax. Reading ARRL literature (ever notice those guys never have a pin-up girl on their website? ARRL gone gay?) Get real... hey, you aren't sexophobic are ya? Anyway, don't give me the bisexual line, you are either gay or straight in my book--there is NOT a half-way point buddy! And, gays are perverts! John "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: an_old_pervert: My gawd yes man, we are fascinated by female genitalia and boobs. As a very young man, 10-12 years of age, they became a lifetime pursuit of mine! I have been studying them and doing "experiments" ever since, I am no where nearing the end of such endeavors! I suspect they effect me in exactly the way men's genitalia and buttz set you off... indeed although you over look 2 things One female gential are also exceitng to me two this just isn't the newsgroup for it there is a whole seris alt.sex. anything you can imgaine and few things you you see and still can't Stevie you for that matter need ot learn a place ofr everything and evrything in its place This gential obsession of stevie came out when he, in looking for ways to attack me went out on USEnet looking for **** to use, first to tried to black mail me into silence by threatening to expose my interests (not ashamed of them just know this isn't the place) on RRAP John "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... K4YZ wrote: John Smith wrote: Cmdr Buzz: Hey, did you really think--I think, she really has 5 size W boobs? disappointed-look-on-face Six, but one got away and is living in UP Michigan these days... and you call any of that english It does go on to show your obsession with gentials prehaps the porblem is that you realy need to get laid Steve, K4YZ |
On 23 Jul 2005 06:25:00 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote:
wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 snip Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie. Poor attempt at a redirect. Try to stay focussed. "Focused", Lennie. Webster's refers. Or are you just "mad" again...?!?! The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary does indeed refer - both spellings are correct: Main Entry: focus Function: verb Inflected Form(s): fo·cused also fo·cussed http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ry&va=focussed snip Steve, K4YZ 73, Leo |
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:11:21 -0400, "Dee Flint"
wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: This is going to sound like a joke (and heaven knows I NEVER JOKE!--but it isn't...), I once heard the little windshield wiper pumps, the ones which spray on the window cleaner were the by-product of nasa technology adopted by the auto industry; you wouldn't know about that, would you? Funny, but that question has stuck in my mind for years. I had made a mental note to ask, if ever given the chance... sometimes doesn't take much to entertain me... frown I actually doubt it... I mean, the cleaner would freeze in the tank in space, immediately freeze and/or crystallize to ice when discharged, etc... or, perhaps they meant the pumps used by nasa were actually for another purpose and just adapted to windshields here on terafirma... John Don't know about the pumps unfortunately. However it is amazing some of the things that came out of the space program. The original ball point pen was one. Not true. The ball-point pen was invented in 1935 - a long time before space travel became a reality. NASA did spawn the invention of a pressurized ball-point pen that would write in zero-gravity conditions (where the regular pen was quite useless) - I assume that you were referring to this more modern adaptation of a much older design. http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...s/story055.htm snip Dee D. Flint, N8UZE 73, Leo |
Leo:
I found Dee's description close enough, I got my first "Parker" (the civilian adaptation of the nasa pen) in about 1969-70, so was familiar with it from that time on.... Yanno, the Russians just used a pencil, lighter, cheaper and I'll just venture to guess--their development costs much less... John "Leo" wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:11:21 -0400, "Dee Flint" wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: This is going to sound like a joke (and heaven knows I NEVER JOKE!--but it isn't...), I once heard the little windshield wiper pumps, the ones which spray on the window cleaner were the by-product of nasa technology adopted by the auto industry; you wouldn't know about that, would you? Funny, but that question has stuck in my mind for years. I had made a mental note to ask, if ever given the chance... sometimes doesn't take much to entertain me... frown I actually doubt it... I mean, the cleaner would freeze in the tank in space, immediately freeze and/or crystallize to ice when discharged, etc... or, perhaps they meant the pumps used by nasa were actually for another purpose and just adapted to windshields here on terafirma... John Don't know about the pumps unfortunately. However it is amazing some of the things that came out of the space program. The original ball point pen was one. Not true. The ball-point pen was invented in 1935 - a long time before space travel became a reality. NASA did spawn the invention of a pressurized ball-point pen that would write in zero-gravity conditions (where the regular pen was quite useless) - I assume that you were referring to this more modern adaptation of a much older design. http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...s/story055.htm snip Dee D. Flint, N8UZE 73, Leo |
From: Leo on Jul 23, 11:23 am
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:11:21 -0400, "Dee Flint" wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message Funny, but that question has stuck in my mind for years. I had made a mental note to ask, if ever given the chance... sometimes doesn't take much to entertain me... frown I actually doubt it... I mean, the cleaner would freeze in the tank in space, immediately freeze and/or crystallize to ice when discharged, etc... or, perhaps they meant the pumps used by nasa were actually for another purpose and just adapted to windshields here on terafirma... Don't know about the pumps unfortunately. However it is amazing some of the things that came out of the space program. The original ball point pen was one. Not true. The ball-point pen was invented in 1935 - a long time before space travel became a reality. NASA did spawn the invention of a pressurized ball-point pen that would write in zero-gravity conditions (where the regular pen was quite useless) - I assume that you were referring to this more modern adaptation of a much older design. From a quick trip to the living room bookshelves - "...the fountain pen was invented in 1884. Then in the 1930s Ladislau Biro, a Hungarian artist and journalist, invented the ball-point pen in Budapest. He fled when the Second World War broke out, eventually reaching Argentina." " With the help of his brother Georg, a chemist, he perfected the pen and manufactured it in Buenos Aires during the war. In 1944 he sold his interests in the invention to one of his backers, who produced the Biro pen for the Allied air forces because it was not affected by changes in air pressure." From Reader's Digest "How In The World?" 1990, published in Pleasantville, NY, and Montreal, Canada, page 14. In fiction, novelist Len Deighton's excellent 5th book in his 'WWOCP' espionage series, "Horse Under Water," 1963, is the discovery of a ball-point pen in the submerged wreckage of a German submarine, said submarine supposedly sunk prior to 1944 (it wasn't and was used in post-WW2 times to smuggle contraband and heroin - the "horse" of the title). A ball-point pen requires SOME air pressure INSIDE the ink reservoir in order for it to feed ink. Without that, there would be a partial pressure loss inside the ink tube that would inhibit ink flow. Yes, it works by capilliary action at the TIP, but that requires feeding from the ink reservoir INSIDE the pen. The ink is oil-based, of more viscosity than the ink in fountain pens (which are entirely operating on gravity and capilliary action). While a ball-point pen can operate at high altitudes much better than a fountain pen, both are inhibited in writing action in microgravity. The "Biro Pen" use by the RAF in 1944 may lead, erroneously, to its alleged ability to be used in microgravity. Similarly, the Phase-Locked Loop or PLL was invented in France in 1932! The basic PLL principle was not adaptable to any consumer electronics frequency control applications until the 1960s and the availability of digital circuit packages. That principle led to the Fractional-N frequency synthesis and, quickly, to the Direct Digital Synthesis (DDS) now found in single chip products of Advanced Micro Devices. An offshoot of the original PLL was the "locked oscillator" operating at a multiple of a reference frequency. The locked oscillator principle was used in early TV receivers for sweep circuits but its fussiness in operation confined it to limited commercial applications. While the ubiquitous ball-point pen is used for making notes in ham "logs," the precise frequencies noted down are kept accurate by the PLL or DDS in modern amateur transceivers. NASA has a rather large PR department, adjacent to a large "technology licensing" department, all of which is intended to help support NASA operations' budgets. Their PR is on a higher level than the ARRL's PR, but both tend to generate a considerable number of MYTHS in their respective areas. :-) For an example of cross-pollination of myths, the "space amateur radio" carried on by space station and (previous) shuttle astronauts is done almost entirely by no-code-test Technician class licensed astronauts. It is part of their overall task assignment (every astronaut must adhere to NASA PR rules) and relatively minor in relation to all that they must do. Contrary to the fantasy of some, astronauts did not become hams first, THEN astronauts. :-) [we now return you to James Burke's "Connections" show already in progress...] bit bit |
|
all I know is the sensitivity and enhanced s/n ratio of the
Gallium-Arsenide semiconductor can be used to great advantage in ones front end... (don't know about girls though, their front ends are best handle with bras I believe--or no bra even works for me! grin) John "Dave Heil" wrote in message ink.net... wrote: From a quick trip to the living room bookshelves - "...the fountain pen was invented in 1884. Then in the 1930s Ladislau Biro, a Hungarian artist and journalist, invented the ball-point pen in Budapest. He fled when the Second World War broke out, eventually reaching Argentina." " With the help of his brother Georg, a chemist, he perfected the pen and manufactured it in Buenos Aires during the war. In 1944 he sold his interests in the invention to one of his backers, who produced the Biro pen for the Allied air forces because it was not affected by changes in air pressure." From Reader's Digest "How In The World?" 1990, published in Pleasantville, NY, and Montreal, Canada, page 14. In fiction, novelist Len Deighton's excellent 5th book in his 'WWOCP' espionage series, "Horse Under Water," 1963, is the discovery of a ball-point pen in the submerged wreckage of a German submarine, said submarine supposedly sunk prior to 1944 (it wasn't and was used in post-WW2 times to smuggle contraband and heroin - the "horse" of the title). A ball-point pen requires SOME air pressure INSIDE the ink reservoir in order for it to feed ink. Without that, there would be a partial pressure loss inside the ink tube that would inhibit ink flow. Yes, it works by capilliary action at the TIP, but that requires feeding from the ink reservoir INSIDE the pen. The ink is oil-based, of more viscosity than the ink in fountain pens (which are entirely operating on gravity and capilliary action). While a ball-point pen can operate at high altitudes much better than a fountain pen, both are inhibited in writing action in microgravity. The "Biro Pen" use by the RAF in 1944 may lead, erroneously, to its alleged ability to be used in microgravity. Similarly, the Phase-Locked Loop or PLL was invented in France in 1932! The basic PLL principle was not adaptable to any consumer electronics frequency control applications until the 1960s and the availability of digital circuit packages. That principle led to the Fractional-N frequency synthesis and, quickly, to the Direct Digital Synthesis (DDS) now found in single chip products of Advanced Micro Devices. An offshoot of the original PLL was the "locked oscillator" operating at a multiple of a reference frequency. The locked oscillator principle was used in early TV receivers for sweep circuits but its fussiness in operation confined it to limited commercial applications. Fascinating! It is really tough to write with one of those PLLs. How about filling us in on Gallium-Arsenide substrates, Len? Dave K8MN |
"Leo" wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:11:21 -0400, "Dee Flint" wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: This is going to sound like a joke (and heaven knows I NEVER JOKE!--but it isn't...), I once heard the little windshield wiper pumps, the ones which spray on the window cleaner were the by-product of nasa technology adopted by the auto industry; you wouldn't know about that, would you? Funny, but that question has stuck in my mind for years. I had made a mental note to ask, if ever given the chance... sometimes doesn't take much to entertain me... frown I actually doubt it... I mean, the cleaner would freeze in the tank in space, immediately freeze and/or crystallize to ice when discharged, etc... or, perhaps they meant the pumps used by nasa were actually for another purpose and just adapted to windshields here on terafirma... John Don't know about the pumps unfortunately. However it is amazing some of the things that came out of the space program. The original ball point pen was one. Not true. The ball-point pen was invented in 1935 - a long time before space travel became a reality. NASA did spawn the invention of a pressurized ball-point pen that would write in zero-gravity conditions (where the regular pen was quite useless) - I assume that you were referring to this more modern adaptation of a much older design. http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...s/story055.htm snip Dee D. Flint, N8UZE 73, Leo I stand corrected. Guess I got all those History/Discovery Channels shows mixed up a bit. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
By the way, has no one else noticed that the drop off in numbers is primarily Technicians who were not code tested? Maybe all of them learned the code and upgraded.... ;-) |
Kim wrote:
Oh no, we've been raided by the CB gang. DUH!! I didn't even put the "John" and "Smith" together as being so annonymous it's ridiculous. And Cmdr Buzz. Haven't ever noticed that User Name but, what's that mean? Cmdr Buzz--mean something like that you command a bunch of dildoes, or something? Dang, I got caught up in CB crap. LOL Kim W5TIT It's beyond you kimmie and obviously before your time. |
John Smith wrote:
Len: Yes. But do they use pencils like the russians, or pens like our girly-men astronauts. That is the important question now, isn't it? grin John Bet you wouldn't stand face-to-face with the astronuats and call them 'girly-men'. |
Commander:
At 6'2" and 200 lbs with no fat, I have never had to cower in fear of many... However, I would expect it much more likely I would enjoy a pleasing verbal exchange with the decent fellow--if ever I was to sit down and have a chat with one of the fellows... and you know, by the time you become an astronaut, petty name calling and taunts from most would not even be heard, let alone responded to... Life is never full of conflict--unless you go hunting it... John "Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Len: Yes. But do they use pencils like the russians, or pens like our girly-men astronauts. That is the important question now, isn't it? grin John Bet you wouldn't stand face-to-face with the astronuats and call them 'girly-men'. |
K4YZ wrote:
wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. They grant the licenses for same. Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie. Seldom does. I didn't reply before, because I couldn't figure out just *how* to reply. Poor attempt at a redirect. Try to stay focussed. "Focused", Lennie. Webster's refers. Or are you just "mad" again...?!?! "Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when that skill goes back 161 years! :-) Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't think is relevant. Har! That's one of the WEAKEST arguments mumbled by so many. No, it's not. It's still as "real" today as it was when I was in grade school, and probably when your grandfather was in grade school, Lennie. I don't think I've ever met any student in any learning enviroment that didn't want to "cut through the BS" and jsut "learn what I need to know..." There are plenty enough of that type running around. It is one of the defining elements of the truly ignorant. The remark must be answered with: Tell me everything you are ever going to do in your career, and we'll get started on what you need to know. The FCC is NOT an academic institution and licensees are NOT "students"...NOT even prospective licensees going for a test. (Oh jeeze...same Lennie crap, fermented and dropped on the door step again...) But Part 97 DOES mandate that the Amateur Radio Service serve as a training enviroment for self-education and training. Unless they set the goals, what are they to train for? Actually, that "argument" is total bull#### OUT of the academic arena. You and Markie must have shareware'd that dictionary of profanities, Lennie. Yuck - potty mouth ;^) ALL the OTHER radio services (except maritime radio on the Great Lakes) have GIVEN UP on morse code for communications. A-hem..... (reading back across header on top... 'rec.radio.AMATEUR.policy'....) I'll bet it's hotter down south than it is in the summer, too! It simply hasn't proven to be "better" than other modes, takes longer, and no longer "gets through" better. "Takes longer" than what? You taking that Extra right out of the box? All you are doing with that "argument" is really enforcing a sort of tribal myth, aka a "hazing" ritual. Note: The FCC isn't a fraternity house either. And you're lying again. Sheeesh...couldn't keep it to even marginally valid arguments, could you...?!?! I really do NOT know what YOU are writing about...some of the time. Funny... We've thought the same of you a LOT of the times... Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed. No, sweetums, YOU got the non-sequitur. Note what I said about K4YZ: Anyone simply disagreeing with him is ACCUSED to be HATING HAM RADIO! Search all you want through Google and you will find him using that "phrase of hate." Do YOU want to be like him? No hate, Lennie. I just don't tolerate liars. And I don't always agree with you. Which kinda blows his theory out of the water. You're a documented liar. You're more verbose and grammatically correct than other liars in this forum (specifically N0IMD and KB9RQZ) but you're a liar none-the-less. Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About? If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a foolish thing. "50 million people in WHAT?" Where are you dreaming today? Hello? Concentrate on the thread subject. Okay, I'll slow down and explain. See, like someone goes like: "Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About?". Then like I go like: "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a foolish thing. It's like if so few agree with my definitions, its like tons and tons of people don't agree with my definitions, you know - totally. So I was going like: those tons and tons of people, like maybe 50 million of them, don't agree you know?, and like maybe I think they are like wrong, and like maybe if I am not wrong, like maybe they are still wrong, and like just cuz theres like tons and tons of them, that won't like make it right, you know? Whew.... EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION. The newsgroup moderator has spoken. Carry on, Lennie... Steve, K4YZ Can I go to the bathroom now???? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote:
K4YZ wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. You folks all missed an important point. We are told in no uncertain terms that "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio "is a HOBBY". Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97. The FCC doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of the Amateur Radio Service. So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use the word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio *is* a hobby. Do you see the contradiction? Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about..... They grant the licenses for same. Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie. Seldom does. I didn't reply before, because I couldn't figure out just *how* to reply. Len rarely, if ever, answers direct questions. He says they're "loaded". "Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when that skill goes back 161 years! :-) Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't think is relevant. Har! That's one of the WEAKEST arguments mumbled by so many. No, it's not. It's still as "real" today as it was when I was in grade school, and probably when your grandfather was in grade school, Lennie. I don't think I've ever met any student in any learning enviroment that didn't want to "cut through the BS" and jsut "learn what I need to know..." There are plenty enough of that type running around. It is one of the defining elements of the truly ignorant. The remark must be answered with: Tell me everything you are ever going to do in your career, and we'll get started on what you need to know. I'll have to remember that one! The FCC is NOT an academic institution and licensees are NOT "students"...NOT even prospective licensees going for a test. Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed. No, sweetums, YOU got the non-sequitur. Note what I said about K4YZ: Anyone simply disagreeing with him is ACCUSED to be HATING HAM RADIO! Search all you want through Google and you will find him using that "phrase of hate." Do YOU want to be like him? No hate, Lennie. I just don't tolerate liars. And I don't always agree with you. Which kinda blows his theory out of the water. I don't agree with any of you on some things too. Another theory destroyed. If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a foolish thing. "50 million people in WHAT?" Where are you dreaming today? Hello? Concentrate on the thread subject. Okay, I'll slow down and explain. See, like someone goes like: "Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About?". Bummer! Then like I go like: "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a foolish thing. To the max, man... It's like if so few agree with my definitions, its like tons and tons of people don't agree with my definitions, you know - totally. It's where their heads are at. Different scene. So I was going like: those tons and tons of people, like maybe 50 million of them, don't agree you know?, and like maybe I think they are like wrong, and like maybe if I am not wrong, like maybe they are still wrong, and like just cuz theres like tons and tons of them, that won't like make it right, you know? Groovy! That totally rocks, Mike. Tubular, dude. Whew.... To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. You folks all missed an important point. We are told in no uncertain terms that "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio "is a HOBBY". break Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97. The FCC doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of the Amateur Radio Service. and it does not apear in the feining of CB or even the rules for (controling is FCC) My R/C aircraft yet they are claerly hobies or at least on the same basis as the ARS So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use the word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio *is* a hobby. becuase by and large it is regardless of its value or lack of it to the nation to the FCC it and us are merely to be regulated and as easily as possible If calling the ARS a service aids the FCC they will do so If calling us a Pizza did so I bet that would be in the rules too Do you see the contradiction? nope I suspect you see one because you are operating under the assumetion that to paraphase the Indians, "that the Great White Fathers agents speak with forked tongue" is not SOP inside the beltway Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about..... They grant the licenses for same. Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie. Seldom does. I didn't reply before, because I couldn't figure out just *how* to reply. Len rarely, if ever, answers direct questions. He says they're "loaded". many of the question are loaded and fall into the "have you stoped beating your wife yet" catagory "Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when that skill goes back 161 years! :-) Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't think is relevant. Har! That's one of the WEAKEST arguments mumbled by so many. No, it's not. It's still as "real" today as it was when I was in grade school, and probably when your grandfather was in grade school, Lennie. I don't think I've ever met any student in any learning enviroment that didn't want to "cut through the BS" and jsut "learn what I need to know..." There are plenty enough of that type running around. It is one of the defining elements of the truly ignorant. The remark must be answered with: Tell me everything you are ever going to do in your career, and we'll get started on what you need to know. I'll have to remember that one! The FCC is NOT an academic institution and licensees are NOT "students"...NOT even prospective licensees going for a test. Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed. No, sweetums, YOU got the non-sequitur. Note what I said about K4YZ: Anyone simply disagreeing with him is ACCUSED to be HATING HAM RADIO! Search all you want through Google and you will find him using that "phrase of hate." Do YOU want to be like him? No hate, Lennie. I just don't tolerate liars. And I don't always agree with you. Which kinda blows his theory out of the water. I don't agree with any of you on some things too. Another theory destroyed. If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a foolish thing. "50 million people in WHAT?" Where are you dreaming today? Hello? Concentrate on the thread subject. Okay, I'll slow down and explain. See, like someone goes like: "Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About?". Bummer! Then like I go like: "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a foolish thing. To the max, man... It's like if so few agree with my definitions, its like tons and tons of people don't agree with my definitions, you know - totally. It's where their heads are at. Different scene. So I was going like: those tons and tons of people, like maybe 50 million of them, don't agree you know?, and like maybe I think they are like wrong, and like maybe if I am not wrong, like maybe they are still wrong, and like just cuz theres like tons and tons of them, that won't like make it right, you know? Groovy! That totally rocks, Mike. Tubular, dude. Whew.... To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" but objective reality and Govt reg never mix 73 de Jim, N2EY |
an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: John Smith wrote: Cmdr Buzz: Hey, did you really think--I think, she really has 5 size W boobs? disappointed-look-on-face Six, but one got away and is living in UP Michigan these days... and you call any of that english I do. So does Webster's. It does go on to show your obsession with gentials What genitals? Breasts, Mud-for-brains, are not "genitals" prehaps the porblem is that you realy need to get laid I don't ahve a "porblem", Markie...Whatever THAT is... Steve, K4YZ |
|
Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: cut Hey, Jim. some people in here offer a lot of qoutes not supported by facts. I think they are interpreted qoutes. You know, when they say we say something and it really isn't what we said, but what they wanted us to say so they could qoute us on it so we could be wrong...... hehe there is a lot of that Do you see the contradiction? Always have cut To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" Like in one sentence even! 8^) and govt regs and objective reality are rarely compatable just look at where the FCC put the Local only CB service - Mike KB3EIA - |
On 25 Jul 2005 08:59:17 -0700, wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. You folks all missed an important point. We are told in no uncertain terms that "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." That is true. The definition and regulatory package ensures that folks who participate in the hobby do not interfere with other users of the spectrum (or each other), or utilize it for purposes that it is not intended to be used for (such as for business purposes). But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio "is a HOBBY". Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97. The FCC doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of the Amateur Radio Service. So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use the word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio *is* a hobby. Do you see the contradiction? Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about..... Must be a common mistake :) - looks like the ARRL missed that one too....quote: "Here's your invitation to a friendly, high-tech hobby that's got something fun for everyone! You can become an Amateur Radio operator....." http://www.arrl.org/hamradio.html Hmmm - you'd think they'd know what it is - wouldn't you? snip To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" That's for sure! 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
Leo wrote:
On 25 Jul 2005 08:59:17 -0700, wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. You folks all missed an important point. We are told in no uncertain terms that "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." That is true. It's true that we've been told "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." But that statement (taken as a whole) may not be true. The definition and regulatory package ensures that folks who participate in the hobby do not interfere with other users of the spectrum (or each other), or utilize it for purposes that it is not intended to be used for (such as for business purposes). OK But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio "is a HOBBY". Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97. The FCC doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of the Amateur Radio Service. So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use the word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio *is* a hobby. Do you see the contradiction? Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about..... Must be a common mistake :) - looks like the ARRL missed that one too....quote: "Here's your invitation to a friendly, high-tech hobby that's got something fun for everyone! You can become an Amateur Radio operator....." http://www.arrl.org/hamradio.html Hmmm - you'd think they'd know what it is - wouldn't you? Sure - which means that one of the statements must not be true. Note that ARRL does not state: "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." The contradiction comes from the idea that the FCC and *only* the FCC defines amateur radio in the USA - which is what the "Period" means. snip To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" That's for sure! Yep. Which is to say that, for some, Amateur Radio is a hobby. For others, it's much more. For the FCC, it's a licensed radio service that is regulated by Part 97. In fact, Amateur Radio is all of those things and much more. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
wrote:
Leo wrote: On 25 Jul 2005 08:59:17 -0700, wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. You folks all missed an important point. We are told in no uncertain terms that "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." That is true. It's true that we've been told "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." But that statement (taken as a whole) may not be true. It is an ambiguous statement though. It is true enough. But does it mean that the FCC defines Amateur radio without input from amateurs or anyone else? No. The FCC defines it, and in taking opinion from Hams and others, they will obviously disappoint some people. I have no problem with the statement. The presentation of the statement was intended to inflame though....period... And it worked. The definition and regulatory package ensures that folks who participate in the hobby do not interfere with other users of the spectrum (or each other), or utilize it for purposes that it is not intended to be used for (such as for business purposes). OK But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio "is a HOBBY". Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97. The FCC doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of the Amateur Radio Service. So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use the word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio *is* a hobby. Do you see the contradiction? Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about..... Must be a common mistake :) - looks like the ARRL missed that one too....quote: "Here's your invitation to a friendly, high-tech hobby that's got something fun for everyone! You can become an Amateur Radio operator....." http://www.arrl.org/hamradio.html Hmmm - you'd think they'd know what it is - wouldn't you? Sure - which means that one of the statements must not be true. So it's a hobby. So what? It *is* a service too. Lets face it - if a person makes the argument that it is a hobby because the ARRL says so on a web page, they must concede that it is also a service, unless they are going to declare the *actual* name of the FCC calls the ARS to be less accurate than what ARRL types on a web page. To do otherwise is to invite looking foolish. Period In short, perhaps the FCC declares the Amateur Radio Service to be a service..... Period??? Or maybe they were just like saying? Note that ARRL does not state: "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." Why should they. Hardly polite talk! Period The contradiction comes from the idea that the FCC and *only* the FCC defines amateur radio in the USA - which is what the "Period" means. Period snip To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" That's for sure! Yep. Period Which is to say that, for some, Amateur Radio is a hobby. For others, it's much more. For the FCC, it's a licensed radio service that is regulated by Part 97. The FCC says so. Period In fact, Amateur Radio is all of those things and much more. Period.... 73 de Jim, N2EY Point of grammar, Jim. Is there a period after period? Does the period suffice, or is it redundantly periodic? - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:25:58 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote: wrote: Leo wrote: On 25 Jul 2005 08:59:17 -0700, wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. You folks all missed an important point. We are told in no uncertain terms that "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." That is true. It's true that we've been told "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." But that statement (taken as a whole) may not be true. It is an ambiguous statement though. It is true enough. But does it mean that the FCC defines Amateur radio without input from amateurs or anyone else? Based on the recent NPRM, it sure does appear that they do! No. The FCC defines it, and in taking opinion from Hams and others, they will obviously disappoint some people. I have no problem with the statement. The presentation of the statement was intended to inflame though....period... And it worked. It always does! The definition and regulatory package ensures that folks who participate in the hobby do not interfere with other users of the spectrum (or each other), or utilize it for purposes that it is not intended to be used for (such as for business purposes). OK But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio "is a HOBBY". Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97. The FCC doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of the Amateur Radio Service. So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use the word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio *is* a hobby. Do you see the contradiction? Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about..... Must be a common mistake :) - looks like the ARRL missed that one too....quote: "Here's your invitation to a friendly, high-tech hobby that's got something fun for everyone! You can become an Amateur Radio operator....." http://www.arrl.org/hamradio.html Hmmm - you'd think they'd know what it is - wouldn't you? Sure - which means that one of the statements must not be true. So it's a hobby. So what? It *is* a service too. Lets face it - if a person makes the argument that it is a hobby because the ARRL says so on a web page, they must concede that it is also a service, unless they are going to declare the *actual* name of the FCC calls the ARS to be less accurate than what ARRL types on a web page. To do otherwise is to invite looking foolish. Period In short, perhaps the FCC declares the Amateur Radio Service to be a service..... Period??? A service, yes - in the sense that it is a service provided *to* the users, not a service provided *by* the users.....CB and GMRS are also defined as services. Or maybe they were just like saying? Note that ARRL does not state: "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." In the sense that, as the regulatory agency whose mandate it is to define into law the definition and scope of the hobby - they do! Period. :) Why should they. Hardly polite talk! Period The contradiction comes from the idea that the FCC and *only* the FCC defines amateur radio in the USA - which is what the "Period" means. Period snip To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" That's for sure! Yep. Period Which is to say that, for some, Amateur Radio is a hobby. For others, it's much more. For the FCC, it's a licensed radio service that is regulated by Part 97. The FCC says so. Period In fact, Amateur Radio is all of those things and much more. Period.... 73 de Jim, N2EY Point of grammar, Jim. Is there a period after period? Does the period suffice, or is it redundantly periodic? There is no period following the third period :) - Mike KB3EIA - 73, Leo |
an_old_friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: cut Hey, Jim. some people in here offer a lot of qoutes not supported by facts. I think they are interpreted qoutes. You know, when they say we say something and it really isn't what we said, but what they wanted us to say so they could qoute us on it so we could be wrong...... hehe there is a lot of that Which sometimes makes it hard to have a good discussion.. Do you see the contradiction? Always have cut To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" Like in one sentence even! 8^) and govt regs and objective reality are rarely compatable just look at where the FCC put the Local only CB service You mean the frequency they use? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Leo wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:25:58 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Leo wrote: On 25 Jul 2005 08:59:17 -0700, wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. You folks all missed an important point. We are told in no uncertain terms that "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." That is true. It's true that we've been told "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." But that statement (taken as a whole) may not be true. It is an ambiguous statement though. It is true enough. But does it mean that the FCC defines Amateur radio without input from amateurs or anyone else? Based on the recent NPRM, it sure does appear that they do! One of the things that happens in any organization from time to time, is that despite apparent majority opinion, a decision is made that is not majority opinion. Sometimes it is because of the organizations rules, or what the organization is tasked to do. The ARS isn't a democracy. Which brings up an interesting paradox. In a pure democracy, the votors can vote to eliminate the democracy, and install a dictatorship, whic can then ignore them and set up a democracy that they can vote to dissolve, and on and on....... hehe No. The FCC defines it, and in taking opinion from Hams and others, they will obviously disappoint some people. I have no problem with the statement. The presentation of the statement was intended to inflame though....period... And it worked. It always does! The definition and regulatory package ensures that folks who participate in the hobby do not interfere with other users of the spectrum (or each other), or utilize it for purposes that it is not intended to be used for (such as for business purposes). OK But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio "is a HOBBY". Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97. The FCC doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of the Amateur Radio Service. So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use the word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio *is* a hobby. Do you see the contradiction? Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about..... Must be a common mistake :) - looks like the ARRL missed that one too....quote: "Here's your invitation to a friendly, high-tech hobby that's got something fun for everyone! You can become an Amateur Radio operator....." http://www.arrl.org/hamradio.html Hmmm - you'd think they'd know what it is - wouldn't you? Sure - which means that one of the statements must not be true. So it's a hobby. So what? It *is* a service too. Lets face it - if a person makes the argument that it is a hobby because the ARRL says so on a web page, they must concede that it is also a service, unless they are going to declare the *actual* name of the FCC calls the ARS to be less accurate than what ARRL types on a web page. To do otherwise is to invite looking foolish. Period In short, perhaps the FCC declares the Amateur Radio Service to be a service..... Period??? A service, yes - in the sense that it is a service provided *to* the users, not a service provided *by* the users.....CB and GMRS are also defined as services. Or maybe they were just like saying? Note that ARRL does not state: "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." In the sense that, as the regulatory agency whose mandate it is to define into law the definition and scope of the hobby - they do! Period. :) Why should they. Hardly polite talk! Period The contradiction comes from the idea that the FCC and *only* the FCC defines amateur radio in the USA - which is what the "Period" means. Period snip To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" That's for sure! Yep. Period Which is to say that, for some, Amateur Radio is a hobby. For others, it's much more. For the FCC, it's a licensed radio service that is regulated by Part 97. The FCC says so. Period In fact, Amateur Radio is all of those things and much more. Period.... 73 de Jim, N2EY Point of grammar, Jim. Is there a period after period? Does the period suffice, or is it redundantly periodic? There is no period following the third period :) hehe. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Let me see, doesn't our constitution indicate that gov't ONLY has the powers given it by the consent of the governed (the citizens of the United States)... True, but read below. I mean really, I think it does, and the FCC can't claim any damn thing they like, The FCC doesn't claim any damn thing they like. The FCC has authority on regulation of radio. apparently even claims bordering on the line of being unconstitutional! John, The FCC has been given authority over all things that involve radio via past congressional action. That congressional action constituted the representative process whereby we citizens OK'd FCC authority. Cheers, Bill K2UNK wrote in message oups.com... Leo wrote: On 25 Jul 2005 08:59:17 -0700, wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. You folks all missed an important point. We are told in no uncertain terms that "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." That is true. It's true that we've been told "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." But that statement (taken as a whole) may not be true. The definition and regulatory package ensures that folks who participate in the hobby do not interfere with other users of the spectrum (or each other), or utilize it for purposes that it is not intended to be used for (such as for business purposes). OK But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio "is a HOBBY". Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97. The FCC doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of the Amateur Radio Service. So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use the word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio *is* a hobby. Do you see the contradiction? Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about..... Must be a common mistake :) - looks like the ARRL missed that one too....quote: "Here's your invitation to a friendly, high-tech hobby that's got something fun for everyone! You can become an Amateur Radio operator....." http://www.arrl.org/hamradio.html Hmmm - you'd think they'd know what it is - wouldn't you? Sure - which means that one of the statements must not be true. Note that ARRL does not state: "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." The contradiction comes from the idea that the FCC and *only* the FCC defines amateur radio in the USA - which is what the "Period" means. snip To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" That's for sure! Yep. Which is to say that, for some, Amateur Radio is a hobby. For others, it's much more. For the FCC, it's a licensed radio service that is regulated by Part 97. In fact, Amateur Radio is all of those things and much more. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com