Three Davemade amps for sale!

[Wallace Diggs]

3 pill $125.00,5 pill $200,2x8 $375 all over two years old but still
work like new,

[AntiKeyClown Group]

RF...@webtv.net (Wallace Diggs) wrote:
>3 pill $125.00,5 pill $200,2x8 $375 all over two years old but still
>work like new,
>

Forwarded to ab...@webtv.net

[AntiKeyClown Vistavision]

RF...@webtv.net (Wallace Diggs) wrote:
>3 pill $125.00,5 pill $200,2x8 $375 all over two years old but still
>work like new,
>

Illegal for CB.

[Mauldropper]

In article <3b2a...@news2.mibx.net>, AntiKeyClown Vistavision says...

So, let me get this straight fellas. You reported THREE Davemades to this guys
ISP. Do you ACTUALLY think that the ISP gives a rats-ass? I mean, did they study
FCC part 97? Did they look to see if there was a "FCC TYPE ACCEPTED" sticker on
the back of the amp? Is his ISP a conglomerate of amateur operators who happen
to KNOW the rules? I don't think so! You guy(s) have waaaaay to much time on
your hands trying to police the world. Kinda reminds me of the little Dutch boy
who has his finger stuck in the dike. It's gonna happen ANYWAY...like it or not!
If you're looking for a more time-consuming endeavor, might I suggest either
knitting or needlepoint.

MAULDROPPER.... "Puttin' the MAUL on 'em ALL"

[AntiKeyClown Vistavision]

In article <nVBW6.10767$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com>, Mauldropper says...

>
>In article <3b2a...@news2.mibx.net>, AntiKeyClown Vistavision says...
>>
>>
>>RF...@webtv.net (Wallace Diggs) wrote:
>>>3 pill $125.00,5 pill $200,2x8 $375 all over two years old but still
>>>work like new,
>>>
>>
>>Illegal for CB.
>
>So, let me get this straight fellas. You reported THREE Davemades to this guys
>ISP. Do you ACTUALLY think that the ISP gives a rats-ass?

Gosh, you should read your ISP TOS sometime. Pay special attention to the part
about "using the service to break federal or state laws" and "using the service
to transact illegal business".

>I mean, did they study
>FCC part 97? Did they look to see if there was a "FCC TYPE ACCEPTED" sticker on
>the back of the amp? Is his ISP a conglomerate of amateur operators who happen
>to KNOW the rules? I don't think so! You guy(s) have waaaaay to much time on
>your hands trying to police the world. Kinda reminds me of the little Dutch boy
>who has his finger stuck in the dike. It's gonna happen ANYWAY...like it or
not!
>If you're looking for a more time-consuming endeavor, might I suggest either
>knitting or needlepoint.

Thanks for regurgitating the classic illegal CBer's argument. The fact that you
bothered to make it proves that you care DESPERATELY that no one pays attenton
to illegal CB. Because if they DO care, your screwed. Your job is to keep
repeating over and over that no one cares every time you run across another
person that does care.

>
>MAULDROPPER.... "Puttin' the MAUL on 'em ALL"
>

Your slogan should say "Puttin on pink panties for ALL my boyfriend

[Sideband]

There you go confusing Law with Regulation.. They are different....

-SSB

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 02:34:29 -0400, Sideband <side...@spam.me.not>
wrote:

>There you go confusing Law with Regulation.. They are different....
>
>-SSB

Ok, let's clear this up before it starts:

From: Webster's New World Dictionary, 1963:

law: 1. all the rules of conduct established by the authority of
custom of a thation, etc. 2. any one of such rules. 3.... 7. any rule
expected to be observed.

regulation: 1. a regulating or being regulated. 2. a rule or law by
which conduct, etc. is regulated.

From: Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition 1994

law: 1a(1): a binding custom or practice of a community; a rule of
conduct or action perscribed or formally recognized as binding or
enforced by a controlling authority (2): the whole body of such
customs, practices, or rules.... c: a rule or order that it is
advisable or obligatory to observe

regulation: 1: the act of regulating : the state of being regulated
2a: an authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure b: a rule
or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a
government and having the force of law

If you have any more doubts, email the FCC or the department of
justice. I'm sure they will set you straight.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 07:09:58 GMT, the sun got in my eyes as I was
typing:

>law: 1. all the rules of conduct established by the authority of
>custom of a thation, etc. 2. any one of such rules. 3.... 7. any rule
>expected to be observed.

that should be 'authority or custom of a nation'

[Sideband]

What about the 8 or so other meanings which you so conveniently left
out?

I'm not going to debate this with you, Sparkly. I find your behavior in
this newsgroup to be worse than that of the "freebanders" and
power-running CB'ers that you are purportedly fighting against.

Set an example, for a change, instead of fighting mud with more dirt.

Didn't your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

-SSB

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 04:14:13 -0400, Sideband <side...@spam.me.not>
wrote:

>What about the 8 or so other meanings which you so conveniently left
>out?

Do you mean the verbal, religious, and scientific definitions? Feel
free to post them yourself, but don't forget to include the list of
synonyms. ....oh heck, I'll do that myself:

syn: law, rule, regulation, precept, statute, ordinance, canon -- mean
a principle governing action or procedure. LAW implies imposition by a
sovereign authority and the obligation of obedience on the part of all
subject to that authority <obey the law>. RULE applies to more
restricted or specific situations <the rules of the game>. REGULATION
implies prescription by authority in order to control an organization
or system <regulations affecting nuclear power plants>.......

How deep is your denial of reality?The key word here is 'govern', so
go look it up and post that definition, too.

>I'm not going to debate this with you, Sparkly. I find your behavior in
>this newsgroup to be worse than that of the "freebanders" and
>power-running CB'ers that you are purportedly fighting against.

You won't debate it because there is nothing to debate. You are trying
to distort definitions to suit your own purposes.

>Set an example, for a change, instead of fighting mud with more dirt.
>
>Didn't your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

Speaking of example-setting, name-calling, and mud-slinging, I need to
ask: didn't -your- mother ever teach -you- to think for yourself?

[Train]

I can't believe you friggin idiots are going to argue the semantics of law
Vs regulation. Inject this into your thoughts on the subject. I decide to
offer amplifiers for sale on here but what you don't know is that my target
market is another country. News groups are international and are read by
people all over the world. As different countries have differing regs from
those in the US it would put you WAY off base for bitching about amps being
sold for 11 meter use.Legal this and illegal that.........Y'all need to shut
the fuck up and try having a life........Summer is about here......Leave the
house and go do something instead of wringing your hands thinking you are
going to get somebody in trouble like a tattling little 8 year old

--
Train
tr...@aol.com
cbm...@optonline.com
tr...@cbmods.com
"Frank Gilliland" <spa...@cet.com> wrote in message
news:3b2b286...@news.cet.com...

[JustBloeMe]

>Subject: Re: Three Davemade amps for sale!
>From: "AntiKeyClown Group" gr...@anti.com
>Date: 6/15/01 5:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3b2a6c47$1...@news2.mibx.net>

For what reason?
Because you can't afford one?
Get a life dickhead!
The FCC gave up on CB radio years ago and all of a sudden dumbasses like you
are going to real it back in?
Get over it..........You're not that good!

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 10:54:46 GMT, "Train" <cbm...@optonline.net>
wrote:

>I can't believe you friggin idiots are going to argue the semantics of law
>Vs regulation. Inject this into your thoughts on the subject. I decide to
>offer amplifiers for sale on here but what you don't know is that my target
>market is another country.

What country?

> News groups are international and are read by
>people all over the world. As different countries have differing regs from
>those in the US it would put you WAY off base for bitching about amps being
>sold for 11 meter use.

You mean that you have never sold an amp to a buyer in the US?

>Legal this and illegal that.........Y'all need to shut
>the fuck up and try having a life........Summer is about here......Leave the
>house and go do something instead of wringing your hands thinking you are
>going to get somebody in trouble like a tattling little 8 year old

Ok, everybody quit posting and go do something else so Train can make
make a sale!

[JustBloeMe]

>I can't believe you friggin idiots are going to argue the semantics of law
>Vs regulation. Inject this into your thoughts on the subject. I decide to
>offer amplifiers for sale on here but what you don't know is that my target
>market is another country. News groups are international and are read by
>people all over the world. As different countries have differing regs from
>those in the US it would put you WAY off base for bitching about amps being
>sold for 11 meter use.Legal this and illegal that.........Y'all need to shut
>the fuck up and try having a life........Summer is about here......Leave the
>house and go do something instead of wringing your hands thinking you are
>going to get somebody in trouble like a tattling little 8 year old
>
>
>--
>Train

Amen Brother!

[Frank Gilliland]

The latest keyklown gun-for-hire, justb...@aol.com (JustBloeMe),
verbalized the best argument he could think of by writing:

>For what reason?
>Because you can't afford one?
>Get a life dickhead!
>The FCC gave up on CB radio years ago and all of a sudden dumbasses like you
>are going to real it back in?
>Get over it..........You're not that good!

You ain't either, just.

[Richard McCollum]

"Train" <cbm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:WVGW6.38102$tR.45...@news02.optonline.net...

> I can't believe you friggin idiots are going to argue the semantics of law
> Vs regulation. Inject this into your thoughts on the subject. I decide to
> offer amplifiers for sale on here but what you don't know is that my
target
> market is another country. News groups are international and are read by
> people all over the world. As different countries have differing regs from
> those in the US it would put you WAY off base for bitching about amps
being
> sold for 11 meter use.Legal this and illegal that.........Y'all need to
shut
> the fuck up and try having a life........Summer is about here......Leave
the
> house and go do something instead of wringing your hands thinking you are
> going to get somebody in trouble like a tattling little 8 year old
>
>
> --
> Train

Aw come on, Train. CB amps make not even an attempt to meet ITU standards
let alone those of any country with tech standards at all. There is a
difference between legal and 'not illegal' perhaps but the only places that
willingly accept them don't have electricity and worship sticks.
Can we put this tired old argument to death; the kids are in bed so we
adults can talk.

Dick NØBK

[Prozac]

You are not allowed to sell amps to other countries, I hope you are smarter
than that Train, you sure act like it . So after proof is offered that it is
also illegal will you cease and desist?

--
X-No-archive: yes

"Train" <cbm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:WVGW6.38102$tR.45...@news02.optonline.net...

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:02:18 GMT, "Prozac"
<Pro...@BayshoreNetwork.com> wrote:

>You are not allowed to sell amps to other countries, I hope you are smarter
>than that Train, you sure act like it . So after proof is offered that it is
>also illegal will you cease and desist?

You're kidding, right?

[Tim]

no he really is that stupid.

><Pro...@BayshoreNetwork.com> wrote:
>
>>You are not allowed to sell amps to other countries, I hope you are smarter
>>than that Train, you sure act like it . So after proof is offered that it is
>>also illegal will you cease and desist?
>
>You're kidding, right?
>
>
>
>
>
>

73 de Tim
Knight Patrol #82

WARNING:
No Code Amateurs Douglas Adair N8WWM and Leland C Scott KC8LDO Have Been
Forging My Email Address While Posting To Several Web Sites And News Groups.
Just Do As I Do And Ignore Them.

[Prozac]

No tim he meant I am kidding about him stopping.

--
X-No-archive: yes
"Tim" <tim...@aol.comLOL> wrote in message
news:20010616101829...@ng-cr1.aol.com...

[Tim]

no he meant are you really so stupid to say and actually believe its illegal to
sell amps out of this country

>No tim he meant I am kidding about him stopping.

[Prozac]

Twit head, No your comprehension skills among other things are really bad.
Why are you using Newranger. Did web-tv remind you of there TOS?.

Legal Cb Radios Rule

"Twistedhed" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:VcLW6.11063$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com...

> King of Doug says:
> >
> >No tim he meant I am kidding about him stopping.
>

> "Uh, no
> he didn't. He meant you really are that stupid."

[Prozac]

Twiitsie, You are not allowed to Export Illegal items from the Usa to any
country.
I guess you can sell some marijuana to guys in germany, australia etc. or
perhaps they can sell it to me. You losers try to justify things but you
have no facts or laws on your side Just wishful thinking.
Legal Cb Radios Rule!

--
X-No-archive: yes

"Twistedhed" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message

news:NaLW6.11060$pb1.4...@www.newsranger.com...

> "Look son. Your mother can pedal condoms on a dusty corner in Pakistan
with free trial uses. The point is, aresface, that you are an idiot and it
is quite legal to export amps, so go rescue a maternal family member from
the middle east."
>
>

[Prozac]

Tim, since you are so confident of this , please point us to Law/info that
allows you to do this. The burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders.
You made the claim now back it up with Proof! Can you do this? Otherwise be
like Twitsie, just because you dsay it doesnt make it so. We will be
waiting. Don't you just Love Legal CB Radio!

--
X-No-archive: yes
"Tim" <tim...@aol.comLOL> wrote in message

news:20010616115421...@ng-da1.aol.com...

[Tim]

drugs are illegal to have in your posession no matter what your intent is with
them. the same is not true about amlifiers so your arguement is pointless as
usual.

>Twiitsie, You are not allowed to Export Illegal items from the Usa to any
>country.
>I guess you can sell some marijuana to guys in germany, australia etc. or
>perhaps they can sell it to me. You losers try to justify things but you
>have no facts or laws on your side Just wishful thinking.
>Legal Cb Radios Rule!

[Tim]

sorry prozac, take a look at the many legitimate amplifier companies that
market amps for "export only" because they are illegal in the usa. you can buy
one no problem as long as you promise to take it out of the country. henry is
one of those manufacturers. since you are challenging me you show me the
federal law or regulation that forbids this because if there is one it seems to
be ignored by every body legal or not.

>Tim, since you are so confident of this , please point us to Law/info that
>allows you to do this. The burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders.
>You made the claim now back it up with Proof! Can you do this? Otherwise be
>like Twitsie, just because you dsay it doesnt make it so. We will be
>waiting. Don't you just Love Legal CB Radio!

[Prozac]

Tim, The point is legal companies, which have type accepted amplifiers.
Which Major amplifier Companies Texas Star? haha Keep trying. I figured you
wouldnt be able to provide any truth to your statement. You made the claim.
Be a man and Provide facts to back it up. Why is that such a problem.
Legal Cb radio rules!

"Tim" <tim...@aol.comLOL> wrote in message

news:20010616121957...@ng-da1.aol.com...

[Prozac]

Well what if I am growing(homebrewing) it Tim, is it still considered a drug
(amp), am I allowed to export the seeds (pills) to anyone in another
country.
Seriously Tim, If it is illegal to manufacture an amp, which it is, then how
could you build one to sell out of the country. Ok so you may say well I
bought the amp of someone else who made it. Bingo again it is illegal to
sell an amp in the USA so now it is illegal for you to buy this amp from
this same person in the USA. The best part of all this Tim, You know he is
full of shit when he says this but you Keyclowns will look for any loophole
real or imaginary, to try and accomplish the goal.

"Tim" <tim...@aol.comLOL> wrote in message

news:20010616121336...@ng-da1.aol.com...

[RFCop1]

Forfeiture penalties not paid within 30 days will be referred to the U.S. Attorney for recovery in a civil suit, 47 U.S.C. 504(a).

[RFCop1]

>Subject: Re: Three illegal Davemade amps reported to ISP!
>From: "Prozac" Pro...@BayshoreNetwork.com
>Date: 6/16/01 1:19 PM Eastern

> You made the claim.
>Be a man and Provide facts to back it up. Why is that such a problem.
>Legal Cb radio rules!

Prozac How do you expect him to do this, Cb Myths are hard to be dispelled.

[Richard McCollum]

"Prozac" <Pro...@BayshoreNetwork.com> wrote in message
news:1oLW6.18211$Zt6.8...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...

> Twiitsie, You are not allowed to Export Illegal items from the Usa to any
> country.
> I guess you can sell some marijuana to guys in germany, australia etc. or
> perhaps they can sell it to me. You losers try to justify things but you
> have no facts or laws on your side Just wishful thinking.
> Legal Cb Radios Rule!
>
>
> --

American drug and chemical companies routinely export items not allowed in
the US

[Richard McCollum Jr.]

Absolutely right Dick. Trivial laws are meant to be broken. No one gives
a rats ass about CB anyway. You can get away with anything for the right
price. Money talks. Besides, theres rules and laws and the two are different.
Rules you don't obey if you don't choose to. Those dopes should worry about
other things besides CB.

[JustBloeMe]

>Subject: Re: Three illegal Davemade amps reported to ISP!

>From: tim...@aol.comLOL (Tim)
>Date: 6/16/01 12:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010616121957...@ng-da1.aol.com>

>
>sorry prozac, take a look at the many legitimate amplifier companies that
>market amps for "export only" because they are illegal in the usa. you can
>buy
>one no problem as long as you promise to take it out of the country. henry is
>one of those manufacturers. since you are challenging me you show me the
>federal law or regulation that forbids this because if there is one it seems
>to
>be ignored by every body legal or not.

We got this GREAT little company down here in Tennessee that makes a wonderful
product and markets this product all over the world all the while they can NOT
sell it right here in the county where it was made.
JACK DANIELS!

Lynchburg, TN is in a "dry county".

[JustBloeMe]

>Subject: Re: Three illegal Davemade amps reported to ISP!

>From: "Prozac" Pro...@BayshoreNetwork.com
>Date: 6/16/01 1:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <fyMW6.18360$Zt6.8...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>

>
>Tim, The point is legal companies, which have type accepted amplifiers.
>Which Major amplifier Companies Texas Star? haha Keep trying. I figured you
>wouldnt be able to provide any truth to your statement. You made the claim.
>Be a man and Provide facts to back it up. Why is that such a problem.
>Legal Cb radio rules!

Lets start with Ameritron and we could move on to Kenwood, Yaseu, Icom....
Going to older units....
Drake, Heathkit, Collins, Halicrafters, and so on.
Your done with that excuse drug boy.

[Randy]

Ameritron for one, Prozac. Dumbass!

Prozac <Pro...@BayshoreNetwork.com> wrote in message

news:fyMW6.18360$Zt6.8...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...

[Train]

I'm the wrong guy to ask about making radios do things they aren't supposed
to do. I'll refrain from comment on this topic.................LOL

--
Train
tr...@aol.com
cbm...@optonline.com
tr...@cbmods.com

"Prozac" <Pro...@BayshoreNetwork.com> wrote in message
news:fyMW6.18360$Zt6.8...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...

[Sideband]

Frank Gilliland (Sparkly) wrote:

> You won't debate it because there is nothing to debate. You are trying
> to distort definitions to suit your own purposes.

And what, precisely, are my purposes, sparkly? Are you a mind reader
now, as well as a troll?

I made a comment, and now you're making an ass out of yourself with your
assumption that I advocate freebanding and running power. I've said it
before (and it hasn't sunk into your thick skull yet), and I'll say it
again: I DO NOT ADVOCATE FREEBANDING OR RUNNING AMPLIFIERS ON CB.

>
> >Set an example, for a change, instead of fighting mud with more dirt.
> >
> >Didn't your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?
>
> Speaking of example-setting, name-calling, and mud-slinging, I need to
> ask: didn't -your- mother ever teach -you- to think for yourself?

Sparkly, I am thinking for myself. I've not been brainwashed into
thinking that a Rule (and it is a Rule, as stated IN the FCC Rules) is a
Law. An Act was passed which brought the FCC into being, and gave that
commission the authority to Regulate (NOT pass Laws concerning) the
airwaves. They can make Rules, but the FCC themselves cannot pass a Law.
Only Congress and the President combined can do that.

I guess that's why the FCC calls them "Rules" and now "Laws"

The fact that the two words are synonyms means about a can of fecal
matter... If you look up the definition of synonym, you'll see that it
means (and I *AM* paraphrasing here) "words that have ALMOST the same
meaning". They're not exactly the same.

Now, I suggest you reach down between your legs, grab ahold of your
shoulders, pull REALLY hard and stop with the recto-cranial inversion
already.

-SSB

[Sideband]

Um... typo here...

Sideband wrote:
> I guess that's why the FCC calls them "Rules" and now "Laws"

Should have been:

"Rules" and NOT "Laws"

-SSB

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:07:25 -0400, Sideband <side...@spam.me.not>
wrote:

>Frank Gilliland (Sparkly) wrote:
>
>> You won't debate it because there is nothing to debate. You are trying
>> to distort definitions to suit your own purposes.
>
>And what, precisely, are my purposes, sparkly? Are you a mind reader
>now, as well as a troll?
>
>I made a comment, and now you're making an ass out of yourself with your
>assumption that I advocate freebanding and running power. I've said it
>before (and it hasn't sunk into your thick skull yet), and I'll say it
>again: I DO NOT ADVOCATE FREEBANDING OR RUNNING AMPLIFIERS ON CB.

I never said you did. I don't know what your purposes are.

>> >Set an example, for a change, instead of fighting mud with more dirt.
>> >
>> >Didn't your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?
>>
>> Speaking of example-setting, name-calling, and mud-slinging, I need to
>> ask: didn't -your- mother ever teach -you- to think for yourself?
>
>Sparkly, I am thinking for myself. I've not been brainwashed into
>thinking that a Rule (and it is a Rule, as stated IN the FCC Rules) is a
>Law.

<snip>

I suggested that you could ask the FCC yourself. I also quoted a
dictionary which provided not only each word's definition, but also
how each word is different. This is not a brainwashing thing, it' just
basic common sense.

So instead of frothing at the mouth from constantly repeating
yourself, why don't you quote something that says the FCC rules are
not laws. But it would have to be more credible than Webster's
dictionary, which isn't going to be easy. In the meantime, I will
contact the FCC myself and get their take, and then, if I get really
bored, reference a couple legal textbooks that explain all about law.

You got your homework, I have mine. Have fun.

[Sideband]

I could ask the same of you...

Quote something that specifically and implicitly states that the FCC
Rules (even in the Rules they're called Rules) are Laws.

Until you show me where it's stated as a LAW, they will remain, in my
mind, Rules, as stated in the FCC part 97 Rules, part 95 Rules, etc...
Rules..

Oh, and don't pretend you weren't thinking "kilowatt running
freebander"... That was your implication, I'm sure, when you were
speaking of my purported purposes.

Can the FCC Rules be enforced? Yes.
By the Police? Perhaps. That all depends on the judge's interpretation
of the Rules.
Does this make them Laws? No.

-SSB

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:07:09 -0400, Sideband <side...@spam.me.not>
wrote:

>I could ask the same of you...
>
>Quote something that specifically and implicitly states that the FCC
>Rules (even in the Rules they're called Rules) are Laws.

I did.

>Until you show me where it's stated as a LAW, they will remain, in my
>mind, Rules, as stated in the FCC part 97 Rules, part 95 Rules, etc...
>Rules..

You are starting to sound like CLP with his 'show me this' and 'show
me that' attitude. Well, that's too bad because you (and he) need to
start doing things right by backing up your claims instead of begging
for anyone to disprove them. I have already provided much more support
for my argument than you have. In fact, you have provided none. You
are the one with the dissenting opinion. You made the claim. You said
the FCC rules are not laws. Back it up.

>Oh, and don't pretend you weren't thinking "kilowatt running
>freebander"... That was your implication, I'm sure, when you were
>speaking of my purported purposes.
>
>Can the FCC Rules be enforced? Yes.
>By the Police? Perhaps. That all depends on the judge's interpretation
>of the Rules.
>Does this make them Laws? No.

Uh oh, you're starting to use twistie-logic. Don't give me loaded
questions, just give me an authoritative reference that supports your
claim that the FCC rules are not laws.

[Frank Gilliland]

I'm tired of this.

From Article 6 of the US Constitution;

>This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
>made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be
>made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
>law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
>anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
>notwithstanding.

The laws of the US that have been made pursuant to the US Constitution
are collectively called the US Code. This is the "supreme law of the
land". The Communications Act, a legislative ACT OF CONGRESS, SIGNED
INTO LAW by the President, pursuant to the U.S. CONSTITUTION, is now
Title 47 of the US Code.

Was that simple enough for you to understand?

[AntiKeyClown Reminder]

Illegal operation of radio transmitters and amplifiers causes interference
to radio and television broadcast stations, and disrupts radio communications
for emergency services and other licensed users.

[Sideband]

You've shown no proof that the FCC Rules are anything other than Rules.
Cite the bill number and year that these purported laws were passed by
Congress and handed up to the President for his signature/veto. You
can't, because they weren't. The Federal Communications Act was an Act
of Congress, which does not require presidential approval, and,
therefore, cannot be called a Law in the traditional sense.

Remember the Saturday morning cartoons, about how a law comes to be?
Yeah... the ones made by the same people who made that "conjunction
junction, what's your function" cartoon... Didn't you pay attention to
those? What about Civics class?

More below.

Frank Gilliland wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:07:09 -0400, Sideband <side...@spam.me.not>
> wrote:
>
> >I could ask the same of you...
> >
> >Quote something that specifically and implicitly states that the FCC
> >Rules (even in the Rules they're called Rules) are Laws.
>
> I did.

You did not.
>

> >Until you show me where it's stated as a LAW, they will remain, in my
> >mind, Rules, as stated in the FCC part 97 Rules, part 95 Rules, etc...
> >Rules..
>
> You are starting to sound like CLP with his 'show me this' and 'show
> me that' attitude. Well, that's too bad because you (and he) need to
> start doing things right by backing up your claims instead of begging
> for anyone to disprove them. I have already provided much more support
> for my argument than you have. In fact, you have provided none. You
> are the one with the dissenting opinion. You made the claim. You said
> the FCC rules are not laws. Back it up.

I don't know who CLP is, but the fact remains that your stubborn refusal
to back up your case has degraded this entire discussion to the point of
ridicule. I've decided to take this slowly, step by step, in the hope
that your brainwashed closed mind might possibly soak in viewpoints
other than those of the ones who brainwashed you. "Because I said so" is
not basis of proof for a point in an argument, debate, or discussion.

You said the FCC rules are Laws. Back it up. Show us anywhere, on the
web, at the library, anywhere, where this Congressional Act called the
Federal Communications Act was proposed to the House and Senate as a
Bill, and then passed up to the President to be signed into Law. Show us
that the FCA is anything more than a Congressional act.

>
> >Oh, and don't pretend you weren't thinking "kilowatt running
> >freebander"... That was your implication, I'm sure, when you were
> >speaking of my purported purposes.
> >
> >Can the FCC Rules be enforced? Yes.
> >By the Police? Perhaps. That all depends on the judge's interpretation
> >of the Rules.
> >Does this make them Laws? No.
>
> Uh oh, you're starting to use twistie-logic. Don't give me loaded
> questions, just give me an authoritative reference that supports your
> claim that the FCC rules are not laws.

Maybe this is pointless. Your mind is closed to opinions other than your
own. I can't convince you of the truth, so you go on thinking this
way.... Keep helping Dave or Debbie's pinko chinese commie SOB's degrade
this country into nothingness...

I for one will continue to support the FCA and the FCC Rules as they
are... Rules, to be enforced by the FCC.

-SSB

[Sideband]

Correction:

Operation of radio transmitters not type accepted for the 11 meter CB
band on the 11 meter CB band MIGHT cause interference to radio and
television broadcast stations, and MIGHT disrupt radio communications

for emergency services and other licensed users.

It is possible to run a clean station... Just because a radio isn't type
accepted for the CB band does not automatically mean it's going to cause
interference when used on the CB band.

-SSB

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 10:26:44 -0400, Sideband <side...@spam.me.not>
wrote:

>You've shown no proof that the FCC Rules are anything other than Rules.
>Cite the bill number and year that these purported laws were passed by
>Congress and handed up to the President for his signature/veto. You
>can't, because they weren't.

You can go look this stuff up for yourself, but you don't. That's just
lazy.

> The Federal Communications Act was an Act
>of Congress, which does not require presidential approval, and,
>therefore, cannot be called a Law in the traditional sense.

Good god, man, read a book or two! In fact, read the Constitution!
When you get done, take this little quiz: What is the only thing that
Congress can pass -without- presidential approval?

>Remember the Saturday morning cartoons, about how a law comes to be?
>Yeah... the ones made by the same people who made that "conjunction
>junction, what's your function" cartoon... Didn't you pay attention to
>those? What about Civics class?

Oh, Dear God! (and I'm an atheist!)

>More below.
>
>Frank Gilliland wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:07:09 -0400, Sideband <side...@spam.me.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I could ask the same of you...
>> >
>> >Quote something that specifically and implicitly states that the FCC
>> >Rules (even in the Rules they're called Rules) are Laws.
>>
>> I did.
>
>You did not.

I did a couple months ago and I did again with my second reply to your
post.

>> >Until you show me where it's stated as a LAW, they will remain, in my
>> >mind, Rules, as stated in the FCC part 97 Rules, part 95 Rules, etc...
>> >Rules..
>>
>> You are starting to sound like CLP with his 'show me this' and 'show
>> me that' attitude. Well, that's too bad because you (and he) need to
>> start doing things right by backing up your claims instead of begging
>> for anyone to disprove them. I have already provided much more support
>> for my argument than you have. In fact, you have provided none. You
>> are the one with the dissenting opinion. You made the claim. You said
>> the FCC rules are not laws. Back it up.
>
>I don't know who CLP is, but the fact remains that your stubborn refusal
>to back up your case has degraded this entire discussion to the point of
>ridicule.

Look bud, I have backed up to the point where a child could understand
it. Why can't you? And why can't you reference anything you claim?

> I've decided to take this slowly, step by step, in the hope
>that your brainwashed closed mind might possibly soak in viewpoints
>other than those of the ones who brainwashed you. "Because I said so" is
>not basis of proof for a point in an argument, debate, or discussion.

I fully agree! So where is your proof? I have quoted and referenced
plenty, but you haven't posted squat except "because I said so".

>You said the FCC rules are Laws. Back it up. Show us anywhere, on the
>web, at the library, anywhere, where this Congressional Act called the
>Federal Communications Act was proposed to the House and Senate as a
>Bill, and then passed up to the President to be signed into Law. Show us
>that the FCA is anything more than a Congressional act.

Holy shit! This is unbelievable!

>> >Oh, and don't pretend you weren't thinking "kilowatt running
>> >freebander"... That was your implication, I'm sure, when you were
>> >speaking of my purported purposes.
>> >
>> >Can the FCC Rules be enforced? Yes.
>> >By the Police? Perhaps. That all depends on the judge's interpretation
>> >of the Rules.
>> >Does this make them Laws? No.
>>
>> Uh oh, you're starting to use twistie-logic. Don't give me loaded
>> questions, just give me an authoritative reference that supports your
>> claim that the FCC rules are not laws.
>
>Maybe this is pointless. Your mind is closed to opinions other than your
>own. I can't convince you of the truth, so you go on thinking this
>way.... Keep helping Dave or Debbie's pinko chinese commie SOB's degrade
>this country into nothingness...
>
>I for one will continue to support the FCA and the FCC Rules as they
>are... Rules, to be enforced by the FCC.

That's good, and you really shouldn't try to understand anything more
complicated than that.

Friggin' delta....

[Sideband]

Frankie:

How can someone prove something does not exist? They cannot.

How can someone prove something does exist? By showing that it exists...

Lack of proof of the existance of something does not mean it does not
exist.

Therefore, if you say the FCC Rules are Laws, then the Bill that was
passed into Law must exist. Therefore, since it is impossible to prove
that something does not exist (that it is not a law), the burden of
proof must be on you to prove that it does exist (that the Rules are in
fact Laws).

Whether or not the Rules are Rules or Laws, it does not change their
ability to be enforced by the FCC or other enforcement agencies
empowered by the FCC to do such enforcement.

My point in all this, and thank you for proving it for me so eloquently,
is that whiny, sniveling, trollish, microphone lawyers will sit here and
debate the fine points of a useless argument ad nauseum to the detriment
of this newsgroup. It is counterproductive to debate such things, as it
matters not whether the rules are rules or laws; they are still
enforceable. You are too easily baited into this silliness. You are also
incorrect, but that's neither here nor there...

-SSB

[Prozac]

Sideband, What is your point do you think thre FCC cannot fine and or
imprison you for violating there Laws/Rules/regulations. What is the big
deal in which they are called doesnt the end affect say it all, ignor them
and face fines and jail time. What exactly do you call that. ?.

--
X-No-archive: yes
"Sideband" <side...@spam.me.not> wrote in message
news:3B2CD3DA...@spam.me.not...

[Sideband]

Prozac:

Take some, then read the whole post... I specifically and implicitly
stated that the FCC Rules ARE enforceable by the FCC.

I've also stated before that I don't condone freebanding, running
illegal power, or running non-type-accepted equipment. If you wish to do
so, you do so at your own risk..

Read further.. and then go back to English class; you need to relearn
your punctuation and capitalization rules.

-SSB

[Prozac]

Sideband, When someone cannot make a point they point out peoples mistakes
in there grammer but Ill go back and learn puncutation if you go back and
learn the FCC Rules and regulations. Btw you understood my post, so you see
i was writing down to your level. No one is passing out grades for grammer
in the NG unless you are. Cb Radio Roxs.

"Sideband" <side...@spam.me.not> wrote in message

news:3B2CD689...@spam.me.not...

> Prozac:
>
> Take some, then read the whole post... I specifically and implicitly
> stated that the FCC Rules ARE enforceable by the FCC.
>
> I've also stated before that I don't condone freebanding, running
> illegal power, or running non-type-accepted equipment. If you wish to do
> so, you do so at your own risk..

===================================
did I say you condoned anything, Comprehension skills lacking?

>
> Read further.. and then go back to English class; you need to relearn
> your punctuation and capitalization rules.
>
> -SSB

===============================
Why this is rec.radio.cb not rec.english.grammer, and the average iq is not
very high in the Ng i want them to be aBLE tO UnDeRsTaNd wHaT I sAiD. DoYoU
CoPy?

[Sideband]

And those who have no logical ground to stand on resort to insults.

I had to run the post through the "Script Kiddie/Idiot Chile" translator
in order to get anything intelligible out of it.

CB is a fun hobby... Unfortunately, there are those out there who would
turn it into such a pain in the butt to use that some people find it's
just not worth it.... Are you part of the problem? Think about it.

-SSB

[Prozac]

Yes And you have insulted me , where did I insult you> maybe you should take
your own advice.

--
X-No-archive: yes

"Sideband" <side...@spam.me.not> wrote in message

news:3B2CE148...@spam.me.not...

[Sideband]

When you said you were writing down to my level, you insulted me. That
fallacy is shown by your lack of punctuation.

You would have to go back to school and graduate college to write at my
reading level.

As for my "insult" to you, I was simply reiterating the steps I needed
to go through in order to make sense of your ramblings... If the facts
insult you, so be it.

At any rate, this is off the subject, and just further proved my point.

-SSB

[RecRadioCBPolice]

> "Sideband" <side...@spam.me.not> >wrote in message I specifically and

implicitly stated that the FCC Rules ARE >enforceable by the FCC.
> I've also stated before that I don't >condone freebanding, running
> illegal power, or running >non-type-accepted equipment. If you wish >to do
so, you do so at your own risk..

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Sideband Perhaps you should reread you own posts below where you condone
freebanding and the use of illegal power. Prozac, called a spade a spade, I
think he is right On!.

From: Sideband (side...@spam.me.not)
Subject: Re: REAL opinions
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
View complete thread (9 articles)
Date: 2001-04-06 02:25:07 PST

Here's my answers... find them within...

Sideband wrote:

>
> 1. Freebanding. What exactly is wrong with utilizing unallocated
> frequencies between channel 40 and the bottom (top?) of the 10 meter
> band? That is, between 27.405 and 28.000 Mhz.
>

Provided the CB'er doing this isn't interfering with HAM operators,
emergency frequencies, or anything of the sort, and that the CB'er isn't
bleeding over onto commercial, emergency, and HAM bands, I feel it's
perfectly acceptable.

>
> 2. Running power on the CB band, provided the system is "clean," meaning
> not overmodulated and with effort and care taken not to cause spurious
> emissions, in the range of:
>
> A. under 50 watts.
> B. under 100 watts.
>
> C. under 500 watts.
>

A, B, and C are OK, again, provided care is taken not to bleed over and
interfere with other stations, commercial stations, and emergency stations

>
> D. under 1000 watts.
>

Here's the "grey area" with me.

>
> E. over 1000 watts.
>

Just rediculous... If you can't do it with 50 watts, you should take a
serious look at your antenna system, and think about finding a way to make a
better RF radiator. Power isn't the answer to every "get out and touch
someone" problem.

Just my two cents.

-SSB

[RecRadioCBPolice]

>Subject: Re: Utter Silliness
>From: Sideband side...@spam.me.not
>Date: 6/17/01 1:19 PM Eastern
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

From: 'Doc (w5...@oio.net)
Subject: Re: REAL opinions
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb

Date: 2001-04-06 05:52:16 PST

Sideband,
I think your making two assumptions that are not true,
or very realistic.
1.Freebanding: The so-called 'freeband' frequencies are
already allocated. I know of several services that have
frequency allocations both above and below the regular
40 channels. They certainly don't account for all the
frequencies between CB and the next higher/lower commonly
recognized bands, but I certainly don't know all of the
services in those areas either.

2.Running Power: In the 'real world' very few of the 'CB'
amplifiers are 'clean'. There are all kinds of reasons,
from basic design, to the manner in which they are installed
and used. In most cases, the end-user is the biggest
problem, they just don't know enough to do it 'right'. (NOT
just CB'ers, but ANY end-user)

Those are just two reasons, I'm sure there are others. Like
it or not, CB'ers are still a part of society and have to conform
to society's rules, or face the consequences. If you want to
change the rules, then do so! But, do it 'right', other wise it's
like beating your head against a brick wall. You can do that if
your want to, but don't complain about the head-ache!
'Doc

[Prozac]

"Sideband" <side...@spam.me.not> wrote in message

news:3B2CE6B3...@spam.me.not...

> When you said you were writing down to my level, you insulted me. That
> fallacy is shown by your lack of >punctuation.

And when you said "I had to run the post through the "Script Kiddie/Idiot
Chile" translator in order to get anything intelligible out of it." That
insulted me.

> You would have to go back to school and graduate college to write at my
> reading level.

I see your college degree got you that Truckdriving Job you studied for. LOL
Ahh Loser.

>
> As for my "insult" to you, I was simply reiterating the steps I needed
> to go through in order to make sense of your ramblings... If the facts
> insult you, so be it.

I was going to say the same thing, so be it.

>
> At any rate, this is off the subject, and just further proved my point.

Which point is that that your college degree did nothing to enhance your
occupation. Or are you able to now read street signs and check for proper
puncutation of your directions to the loading dock.

Catch you on Channel 19, btw how are the hemorrhoids driving a truck can be
a real pain in the ass I hear...

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:59:22 -0400, Sideband <side...@spam.me.not>
wrote nothing he hadn't said before, yet still refusing to offer any
credible evidence to support his claim that FCC rules are not laws,
relying solely upon the argument he admonishes: "because I said so".

[Frank Gilliland]

Hey Sideband, what part of this post didn't you understand? Can't you
find a copy of the US Constitution on the net? Or the CFR? How about
the original Communications Act of 1934? Or the Radio Act of 1927? The
Telecommunications Act of 1996? Is there a site that says FCC rules
are not laws? How about just a simple legal glossary? What part of
this post didn't you understand? Do you need someone to operate a
search engine for you? Do you need to have someone bring the original
documents to your door and hold your hand while they are read to you?

Jeez, man, quit repeating like a cucumber and start thinking. All it
takes is some simple qualitative reasoning skills.

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 06:48:04 GMT, spa...@cet.com (Frank Gilliland)
wrote:

[Jon]

Well Train you hit it on the head they need to get a life.Just think what
this guy looks like,lol.No woman will have him so he has to use the News
Group to feel like a real man.It just shows how sorry some people are and
the way they live,poor bastard.
"Train" <cbm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:WVGW6.38102$tR.45...@news02.optonline.net...
> I can't believe you friggin idiots are going to argue the semantics of law
> Vs regulation. Inject this into your thoughts on the subject. I decide to
> offer amplifiers for sale on here but what you don't know is that my
target
> market is another country. News groups are international and are read by
> people all over the world. As different countries have differing regs from
> those in the US it would put you WAY off base for bitching about amps
being
> sold for 11 meter use.Legal this and illegal that.........Y'all need to
shut
> the fuck up and try having a life........Summer is about here......Leave
the
> house and go do something instead of wringing your hands thinking you are
> going to get somebody in trouble like a tattling little 8 year old

>
>
> --
> Train
> tr...@aol.com
> cbm...@optonline.com
> tr...@cbmods.com

> "Frank Gilliland" <spa...@cet.com> wrote in message
> news:3b2b286...@news.cet.com...
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 04:14:13 -0400, Sideband <side...@spam.me.not>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >What about the 8 or so other meanings which you so conveniently left
> > >out?
> >
> > Do you mean the verbal, religious, and scientific definitions? Feel
> > free to post them yourself, but don't forget to include the list of
> > synonyms. ....oh heck, I'll do that myself:
> >
> > syn: law, rule, regulation, precept, statute, ordinance, canon -- mean
> > a principle governing action or procedure. LAW implies imposition by a
> > sovereign authority and the obligation of obedience on the part of all
> > subject to that authority <obey the law>. RULE applies to more
> > restricted or specific situations <the rules of the game>. REGULATION
> > implies prescription by authority in order to control an organization
> > or system <regulations affecting nuclear power plants>.......
> >
> > How deep is your denial of reality?The key word here is 'govern', so
> > go look it up and post that definition, too.
> >
> > >I'm not going to debate this with you, Sparkly. I find your behavior in
> > >this newsgroup to be worse than that of the "freebanders" and
> > >power-running CB'ers that you are purportedly fighting against.

> >
> > You won't debate it because there is nothing to debate. You are trying
> > to distort definitions to suit your own purposes.
> >

[Sideband]

That snippet is taken out of context. It was posed as a set of questions
to try to get to the bottom of why the spammers, etc, had all of a
sudden started filling the newsgroups with rants, raves, cussing,
etc....

I stated my opinion on the subject, not to condone it, but instead to
try to test the waters for a potential proposal to the FCC about opening
up a small SSB only band limited to 50 watts between 27.405 and 27.805.
I was met with underwhelming response, so I dropped the whole matter.

It was NOT intended to condone freebanding or running power.

-SSB

[Sideband]

Comments within.

Prozac wrote:
>
> "Sideband" <side...@spam.me.not> wrote in message
> news:3B2CE6B3...@spam.me.not...
> > When you said you were writing down to my level, you insulted me. That
> > fallacy is shown by your lack of >punctuation.
>
> And when you said "I had to run the post through the "Script Kiddie/Idiot
> Chile" translator in order to get anything intelligible out of it." That
> insulted me.
>
> > You would have to go back to school and graduate college to write at my
> > reading level.
>
> I see your college degree got you that Truckdriving Job you studied for. LOL
> Ahh Loser.

I drive a truck on a four hour route every night by choice, not by
necessity. The reasons for that are personal, and are far beyond the
scope of this newsgroup. I also run a computer networking and systems
consulting business, which accounts for the vast majority of my income.
You, of course, seem to have trouble with someone being able to do more
than one thing, and do them both well.

>
> >
> > As for my "insult" to you, I was simply reiterating the steps I needed
> > to go through in order to make sense of your ramblings... If the facts
> > insult you, so be it.
>
> I was going to say the same thing, so be it.
>
> >
> > At any rate, this is off the subject, and just further proved my point.
>
> Which point is that that your college degree did nothing to enhance your
> occupation. Or are you able to now read street signs and check for proper
> puncutation of your directions to the loading dock.
>
> Catch you on Channel 19, btw how are the hemorrhoids driving a truck can be
> a real pain in the ass I hear...

I don't talk on 19 anymore... 6 meters has been my band of choice
lately.. Yes, I do have my license. No, I won't give it out publicly on
this NG.

-SSB

[Sideband]

RRCBP:

Here, Doc surmised the purpose for my original post (with the
questions), and responded quite intelligently to it. I agreed with
everything he said here, to include doing it "the right way" (which I
took to mean making the proposal, showing support for it, waiting for it
to be added to the FCC Rules, etc).

-SSB

[Sideband]

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Nothing that backed up his position, and nothing of any substance...

(two can play at this game, sparkly)

[Sideband]

I must admit to not having seen this post until just now. I'll check it
out, along with other applicable writings from the constitution and get
back to you at my convenience.

-SSB

[AntiKeyClown Study]

In article <3B2D13E0...@spam.me.not>, Sideband says...

>
>That snippet is taken out of context. It was posed as a set of questions
>to try to get to the bottom of why the spammers, etc, had all of a
>sudden started filling the newsgroups with rants, raves, cussing,
>etc....
>
>I stated my opinion on the subject, not to condone it, but instead to
>try to test the waters for a potential proposal to the FCC about opening
>up a small SSB only band limited to 50 watts between 27.405 and 27.805.
>I was met with underwhelming response, so I dropped the whole matter.
>
>It was NOT intended to condone freebanding or running power.
>-SSB

Sideband, perhaps the biggest flaw in your proposal was the question of how you
might compel hundreds of thousands of CBers who have historically flaunted and
ignored all CB rules - to all of a sudden respect "new expanded cb" rules which
limit them to 50 watts on 27.405 - 27.805.

Also IMHO freebanders don't want the freeband legalized. It would mean an influx

of yahoos from the lower 40 that they would then have to escape - by moving to
newer illegal frequencies.

[Richard McCollum]

"Sideband" <side...@spam.me.not> wrote in message

news:3B2D13E0...@spam.me.not...

> That snippet is taken out of context. It was posed as a set of questions
> to try to get to the bottom of why the spammers, etc, had all of a
> sudden started filling the newsgroups with rants, raves, cussing,
> etc....
>
> I stated my opinion on the subject, not to condone it, but instead to
> try to test the waters for a potential proposal to the FCC about opening
> up a small SSB only band limited to 50 watts between 27.405 and 27.805.
> I was met with underwhelming response, so I dropped the whole matter.
>
> It was NOT intended to condone freebanding or running power.
>
> -SSB
>

Had a similar experience advocating a place for truckers. Maybe we can
comiserate over a brew someday.

Dick NØBK

[Sideband]

a truckers band on VHF somewhere would indeed be a step in the right
direction... gotta have a CDL to buy the radio, etc... FM only.....
Would be nice...

But it makes too much sense.. the FCC will never allow that Rule to
pass.

-SSB

[The Packrat]

How long until the truckers could buy their radios in the pawn shop?

I don't see truckers jumping to get on VHF any time soon. Unless the US
government ran one of those russian made woodpecks on 11m in all 4 times
zones for about 5 years - that would clean out the CB band for sure.

"Sideband" <side...@spam.me.not> wrote in message

news:3B2D622E...@spam.me.not...

[TRA1N]

>Subject: Re: Three illegal Davemade amps reported to ISP!
>From: spa...@cet.com (Frank Gilliland)
>Date: 6/16/01 10:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3b2b6ab2...@news.cet.com>
>
>On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:02:18 GMT, "Prozac"
><Pro...@BayshoreNetwork.com> wrote:
>
>>You are not allowed to sell amps to other countries, I hope you are smarter
>>than that Train, you sure act like it . So after proof is offered that it is
>>also illegal will you cease and desist?
>
>You're kidding, right?
>
>
>
>
>
>

He either is THAT STUPID or he IS kidding!

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:42:38 -0400, Sideband <side...@spam.me.not>
wrote:

>I must admit to not having seen this post until just now. I'll check it
>out, along with other applicable writings from the constitution and get
>back to you at my convenience.

Then I will apologize for the sarcasm. But your definition of a "law"
seems to put much more emphasis on the canonical aspect, which is
inappropriate for US legal matters. I provided two definitions from
two different dictionaries. If you have a different definition, please
post it.

[Prozac]

SSB Glad you got your tech license. Enjoy it.

"Sideband" <side...@spam.me.not> wrote in message

news:3B2D15A5...@spam.me.not...

[Frank Gilliland]

Just curious, did you miss this post, too?

[RecRadioCBPolice]

>Subject: Re: Three illegal Davemade amps reported to ISP!

>From: tr...@aol.com (TRA1N)
>Date: 6/17/01 11:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010617235220...@ng-mq1.aol.com>

I guess ExportsRUS was that stupid. Why did he not claim they were being
exported.
Haha How about Jimmy Pang...
You guys are a riot.

[N0BK caught in the act!]

Had a similar experience advocating a place for traitor ham dick suckers like
me. Maybe we can cum during a gay screw someday.

Dicksucker NØBK

[Train]

And you are an idiot............it's PENG!

--
Train
tr...@aol.com
cbm...@optonline.com
tr...@cbmods.com

"RecRadioCBPolice" <recradio...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010618092845...@ng-mq1.aol.com...

[Richard McCollum]

"N0BK caught in the act!" <s...@look.com> wrote in message
news:3b2e116f$1...@news2.mibx.net...

Hey the man can do the Ø! Probably took you longer to figure that out than
to learn the code.

Traitor? Just cause you start a fight does not imply any duty on my part to
support you. I don't buy tickets to a second-rate Arena football league
because some bozo hung my town's name on it; I don't support some codeless
Tech's activity trap for deferring the learning of Morse just because he is
having problems with his testosterone levels.

Speaking of which, as I am old enough to know my sexual orientation and
firmly believe the predeliction to homosexuality is born not made, these
things tend to bounce off me. If you are playing with the nickname, be
advised that you are the 51,238th yoyo to make this 'original' contribution
this year.

When the young bull said, 'Let's run down to the pasture and get us a cow'
us old bulls say, 'Let's walk down to the pasture and get 'em all' Us old
guys do very well because we are in no hurry and view sending her to the
ceiling as an art form. As old Bennie Franklin once observed of the older
woman, she don't yell, don't tell, and don't swell. Suit yourself but this
old bull is enjoying life.

Dick NØBK gracefully aging and mellowing boy wonder.

[Twistedhed]

Re: Three illegal Davemade amps reported to ISP!

Group: rec.radio.cb Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2001, 12:19pm (EDT+4) From:
spa...@cet.com (Frank Gilliland)

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:42:38 -0400, Sideband <side...@spam.me.not>
wrote:
I must admit to not having seen this post until just now. I'll check it
out, along with other applicable writings from the constitution and get
back to you at my convenience.

Then I will apologize for the sarcasm. But your definition of a "law"
seems to put much more emphasis on the canonical aspect, which is
inappropriate for US legal matters.

"So is your argument concerning your definition of what cb is and about
what is permissable to talk about here, since this ng is not carried
only in the US, other frequencies and power levels certainly merit a
valid discussion. Unfortunately for you, just because you say otherwise
and don't agree, doesn't make it so."

I provided two definitions from two different dictionaries. If you have
a different definition, please post it.

"You're funny, Spark."

[RecRadioCBPolice]

>Subject: Re: Three illegal Davemade amps reported to ISP!
>From: twist...@webtv.net (Twistedhed)
>Date: 6/18/01 11:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <14248-3B...@storefull-124.iap.bryant.webtv.net>

>
>Re: Three illegal Davemade amps reported to ISP!
>Group: rec.radio.cb Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2001, 12:19pm (EDT+4) From:

>spa...@cet.com (Frank=A0Gilliland)

>
>On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:42:38 -0400, Sideband <side...@spam.me.not>
>wrote:
>I must admit to not having seen this post until just now. I'll check it
>out, along with other applicable writings from the constitution and get
>back to you at my convenience.
>
>Then I will apologize for the sarcasm. But your definition of a "law"
>seems to put much more emphasis on the canonical aspect, which is
>inappropriate for US legal matters.
>
>"So is your argument concerning your definition of what cb is and about
>what is permissable to talk about here, since this ng is not carried
>only in the US, other frequencies and power levels certainly merit a
>valid discussion. Unfortunately for you, just because you say otherwise
>and don't agree, doesn't make it so."
>
>I provided two definitions from two different dictionaries. If you have
>a different definition, please post it.
>
>"You're funny, Spark."
>

Your even funnier Twisite, Can you tell us what countries this NG encompasses,
and what the rules are regarding power levels, frequencies used, technical
operating questions and lawful use in general and moreover why would you need
to discuss there Rules and reg when they don't pertain to you. So get cracking
you have a lot of info to look up since, we know you have no idea what they are
So go peddle that lame excuse on someone else.

[AntiKeyClown Question]

recradio...@aol.com (RecRadioCBPolice) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Three illegal Davemade amps reported to ISP!
>>From: twist...@webtv.net (Twistedhed)

>>>since this ng is not carried
>>only in the US, other frequencies and power levels certainly merit a
>>valid discussion.

Hey Twist, in what countries is operation on 27.555 permissible to cbers?
In what countries are linear amps permissible to cbers?

[TRA1N]

Frank, If people ACTUALLY took the time to read the constitution.........They
would REALLY get pissed off! With so many of our right s being given away on a
daily basis by congress (opposite of progress), government will soon be hiding
the real constitution and putting some contrived diatribe of manufactured
bullshit in it's place. One good example would be firearms and ammo. tell me
why ammo i bought legally in one state is actually banned by a different state
to the point that simple possesion of a single round is a felony and each round
past the count of one is a seperate felony unto itself? What part of "To keep
and bear arms" did we forget about in this scene? If simple possesion of an amp
is such a bad thing or a radio that can brodcast outside it's intended range
(and I have yet to see a radio that can't be made to do this) we need to
seriously rethink the process by with we send people to represent us in
congress.
Train

[TRA1N]

The IRS and the FCC are the only known governmeny agencies that have been able
to stay in existance all the while actually trying to make the accused prove a
negative.(A logical falicy). As with the IRS you are considdered guilty at the
FCC just because they say so and that's final.

[Frank Gilliland]

I agree with you almost 100%. The only problem is that people do not
behave responsibly towards others. It does result in some bogus laws,
but the intent is sound.

[Frank Gilliland]

In both instances you have the opportunity to have a trial-de-novo,
where the FCC or IRS must prove it's allegations. Since the proof is
almost always irrefutable (failure to pay taxes, radio direction
finding), few ever take that opportunity.

[Sideband]

I passed the General written element, too... Just working on the
Morse...

But then again, you're probably not interested.

-SSB

[Sideband]

Yes.

Apparently slurp.net has been having some problems getting their news
servers synched, and some posts are coming in after their respective
responses...

It's no fault of my own, I'm just glad Netscape is able to reorganize
things on the fly. ::grin::

-SSB

[Frank Gilliland]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:36:35 -0400, Sideband <side...@spam.me.not>
wrote:

>Yes.
>
>Apparently slurp.net has been having some problems getting their news
>servers synched, and some posts are coming in after their respective
>responses...
>
>It's no fault of my own, I'm just glad Netscape is able to reorganize
>things on the fly. ::grin::
>
>-SSB

I have been having similar problems. Quite a few of todays posts quote
other posts that didn't make it here.

[Sideband]

So it seems that we may both owe each other apologies. I've missed
things you've posted, and you've probably missed things I've posted...

After looking into what you posted concerning acts of congress.. yes, it
seems that the FCA, an Act of congress, is in and of itself a Law.

The individual Rules outlined within that act are not Laws in and of
themselves, but part of the whole that is the FCA.

Perhaps therein is where the confusion lies?

-SSB

[Frank Gilliland]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 04:00:07 -0400, Sideband <side...@spam.me.not>
wrote:

>So it seems that we may both owe each other apologies. I've missed
>things you've posted, and you've probably missed things I've posted...
>
>After looking into what you posted concerning acts of congress.. yes, it
>seems that the FCA, an Act of congress, is in and of itself a Law.
>
>The individual Rules outlined within that act are not Laws in and of
>themselves, but part of the whole that is the FCA.
>
>Perhaps therein is where the confusion lies?
>
>-SSB

I think it is in the definition of 'law'. A law, as per the
dictionary, is any rule, regulation, order, restriction, etc. made by
a government that is to be obeyed and can be enforced. A law does not
need to identify itself as such, 'law' is just a classification: I
have a Mannesmann Tally 906 sitting right beside me. There is nothing
on it that says it's a printer, but that doesn't mean it's -not- a
printer.

I think some people are giving more importance to the details of law
than they are to the actual intent. Please read again the definitions
I posted and try to see my point.

[Sideband]

Regardless of the terms, or the etymology thereof, the FCC "rules" as
listed in the FCA are enforceable by the government. I simply take
umbrage with the idea of people using the word "illegal" to describe a
linear amplifier. Owning a Linear in and of itself is not illegal. Using
that Linear on bands for which you are not licensed, or on bands on
which its use is prohibited, is illegal.

So there really is no such thing as an "illegal linear"... There really
is such a thing as the use of a linear not in accordance with the FCC
Rules. The amp isn't illegal. Possession of the amp isn't illegal. It's
use on CB is.

-SSB

[Frank Gilliland]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 07:11:07 -0400, Sideband <side...@spam.me.not>
wrote:

>Regardless of the terms, or the etymology thereof, the FCC "rules" as

>listed in the FCA are enforceable by the government. I simply take
>umbrage with the idea of people using the word "illegal" to describe a
>linear amplifier. Owning a Linear in and of itself is not illegal. Using
>that Linear on bands for which you are not licensed, or on bands on
>which its use is prohibited, is illegal.

I agree 100%

>So there really is no such thing as an "illegal linear"... There really
>is such a thing as the use of a linear not in accordance with the FCC
>Rules. The amp isn't illegal. Possession of the amp isn't illegal. It's
>use on CB is.
>
>-SSB

Again I agree, and I think so will most everyone else.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt when they say 'illegal
amp', since the amp was probably manufactured, advertised, sold, and
used illegally. Since few people in this newsgroup ever make a topic
of discussion about collecting amps for the sake of mere possession,
(except maybe Landshark), it's probably a good guess that the amp
being discussed is probably being used illegally. So I consider the
term 'illegal amp' to mean an amp that is being or will be used
illegally.

Personally, I have a small collection of very old home-brew radio
stuff, and it includes a couple amps. Nothing I would plug in (for
safety's sake), but it's really a collection of home-brew engineering.
Ever see the loading coil wound around the transmitter tube? I'm not
kidding, someone actually mounted the tube (a T-55) -inside- a
vertical loading coil. Can't throw that one away...

[Sideband]

Frank Gilliland wrote:
> I like to give people the benefit of the doubt when they say 'illegal
> amp', since the amp was probably manufactured, advertised, sold, and
> used illegally. Since few people in this newsgroup ever make a topic
> of discussion about collecting amps for the sake of mere possession,
> (except maybe Landshark), it's probably a good guess that the amp
> being discussed is probably being used illegally. So I consider the
> term 'illegal amp' to mean an amp that is being or will be used
> illegally.
>
> Personally, I have a small collection of very old home-brew radio
> stuff, and it includes a couple amps. Nothing I would plug in (for
> safety's sake), but it's really a collection of home-brew engineering.
> Ever see the loading coil wound around the transmitter tube? I'm not
> kidding, someone actually mounted the tube (a T-55) -inside- a
> vertical loading coil. Can't throw that one away...

I hear you here, as well...

I've got a Palomar 225 and an Elite 400. Why, do you ask? I'm not going
to be a Technician class operator forever. The only thing "holding me
back" is the Morse.. I've already passed the written General class
element. (Dyslexia sucks!) I've got them for use on 10 and 12 meters.

Is it illegal for me to own them? Nope. Are they connected to a power
source? Nope. Are they hooked to a radio? Nope. Just waiting for the day
when I can use them for what they were originally designed for.. 10
meter operation.

They're not illegal amps.

If I have a repair/optimization question, do you honestly think other
HAMs in their respective newsgroups will answer there? Probably not. I
wouldn't. There are quite a few EXCELLENT CB operators here in this
group, who do know how to repair & fix these things, and might be able
to fill in the holes when my own technical knowledge fails me.

There are legitimate reasons for owning and running these amps. There
are legitimate reasons for asking about repairs/optimizations here on
this newsgroup, as well.

-SSB

[AntiKeyClown AnswerBack]

In article <3B300272...@spam.me.not>, Sideband says...

>I've got a Palomar 225 and an Elite 400. Why, do you ask? I'm not going
>to be a Technician class operator forever. The only thing "holding me
>back" is the Morse.. I've already passed the written General class
>element. (Dyslexia sucks!) I've got them for use on 10 and 12 meters.

You have another transceiever that covers 160-10? Or are you planning on using
your General on 10/12 meters only?

>Is it illegal for me to own them? Nope. Are they connected to a power
>source? Nope. Are they hooked to a radio? Nope. Just waiting for the day
>when I can use them for what they were originally designed for.. 10
>meter operation.

One problem. It's obvious you have never worked 10 or 12 meters. Amps are not
required on these bands. There's no fighting to "get down" on anyone or "plug
ears". Propagation is such that a regular 100W PEP works fantastic DX and you
can make great contacts on minimal power.

So why the CB amps?

>There are legitimate reasons for owning and running these amps. There
>are legitimate reasons for asking about repairs/optimizations here on
>this newsgroup, as well.

Sorry. Not buying it. If you wanted to get info or advice about legal ham
operation then you would certainly NOT be looking in rec.radio.cb for i

[cbm...@optonline.net]

Fuck everyone, especially the antis. I am the king and my radio says so!

Train
Tr...@aol.com
Tr...@optonline.com
Cbm...@optonline.com

[Twistedhed]

HAhahah! Looks like I wasn't the only one to hear Train kickin' it last
night!

[Twistedhed]

One problem. It's obvious you have never worked 10 or 12 meters. Amps
are not required on these bands.

"Nor anywhere else are amps "required."

There's no fighting to "get down" on anyone or "plug ears". Propagation
is such that a regular 100W PEP works fantastic DX and you can make
great contacts on minimal power.

"Same goes for the freeband above 405 but below the ten band."

So why the CB amps?

"Oh, 100 watts does just fine for freeband DX on SSB, matter of fact,
most of the time it's not needed at all. When conditions are in, if you
can hear them, you can usually reach them."

There are legitimate reasons for owning and running these amps. There
are legitimate reasons for asking about repairs/optimizations here on
this newsgroup, as well.

Sorry. Not buying it. If you wanted to get info or advice about legal
ham operation then you would certainly NOT be looking in rec.radio.cb

"And if the hammie nocoders wanted nothing to do with cbers, they would
not be here, but they are. How many of our regular resident nocoder
copps have you seen ever engaged in a positive discussion regarding cb
radio or DX? Not many, not many."

[Sideband]

Hrm...

Which group do you see me falling in, Twist?

Just curious.

-SSB

[Twistedhed]

Hrm...
Which group do you see me falling in, Twist?
Just curious.
-SSB

"Not sure I follow your question? "

[Sideband]

Well, do you see me as a nocoder who's here to cause trouble, a CB'er,
or a nocoder who's here to both learn and help when he can?

The three groups you mentioned in the post to which I responded asking
the original question you reposted below.

-SSB

Which one?

[Twistedhed]

Sideband wrote: Well, do you see me as a nocoder who's here to cause

trouble, a CB'er, or a nocoder who's here to both learn and help when he
can? The three groups you mentioned in the post to which I responded
asking the original question you reposted below.

"Here is what I said..

"And if the hammie nocoders wanted nothing to do with cbers, they would
not be here, but they are. How many of our regular resident nocoder
copps have you seen ever engaged in a positive discussion regarding cb
radio or DX? Not many, not many."

"I never really classify anyone unless they give me a reason. I
certainly wouldn't classify you as a nocoder copp, if I remember
correctly you were responsible for busting out more than a few forgers.
I don't quite remember you saying you were a nocode before, or I may
have missed it, but I don't see you flaunting it or taking a snotty
attitude with cbers looking to exchange information. Actually, I don't
even have a problem with those types either. I feel the small few that
attack one personally whenever they are disagreed with, questioned, or
corrected, lose their credibility instantly. I have only seen very few
here actually wanting to cause serious tension and problems in the
group, and I can count them on one hand. I have learned who the friendly
tech advice guys are through trial and error in email and other groups.
These guys have a wealth of radio information to share. Are you one of
them? There are only 2 or 3 nocoders here who feel they are copps, no I
don't condsider you a ham cop."

[JustBloeMe]

Forged and faked!.
I don't post from newsranger!