Service Manuals Illegal?
Bill Cheek
To: RSP...@tandy.com sup...@tandy.com
Please explain the meaning of the below utterly silly
and nescient reply from your facility yesterday with
respect to service manuals for scanners.
Good grief ! Do you people carry your heads around
with you ALL DAY long? Or, just part time?
Bill Cheek
Author/Publisher
==========[Begin copy of Tandy's Statement]==============
From: RSPSC1 RS Store POS Mail user[SMTP: RSP...@tandy.com ]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 7:49 PM
To: 99ERS/SPANLINK
Subj: RE: Pro-2006 Service Manual
The FCC has requested that all vendors and scanner manufacturers not
release schematics for scanner products that are offered. Radio Shack
is complying with this request. We regret we are unable to assist you
with your request.
Thank you,
TANDY PRODUCT SUPPORT CENTER
CC/cb
---
jc123
This is bunch of bullshit if you ask me, All this is going to accomplish
is another way for private owners to make money selling their copies of
schematics to people who need them! Is the FCC this fucking stupid?
As stated in many other subjects in the past:( you can find pictures of
3 year olds getting fucked on the internet, people eating shit and
drinking piss,murders, scams on just about anything imaginable), but now
THEY WANNA FUCK WITH NORMAL PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT A MEASLY SCHEMATIC FOR
SOMETHING THEY OWN! Like this is really going to stop people from
monitoring blocked frequencies, I guess we are labeled STUPID or naive
and we couldnt possibly listen to anything we really wanted to hear
without a scanner!UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGH !!!!!! this really pisses me
off!
Disgusted
Toolman
Typical Tandy. They are so shitscared of offending the FCC that they won't
even sell unblocked or moddable scanners in Canada. Which, by the way, has
no such stupid legislation prohibiting their sale.
Tim
Steve Uhrig
bch...@san.rr.com (Bill Cheek) wrote:
>Please explain the meaning of the below utterly silly
>and nescient reply from your facility yesterday with
>respect to service manuals for scanners.
>Good grief ! Do you people carry your heads around
>with you ALL DAY long? Or, just part time?
Might it be effective to vote with our wallets, and refuse to buy a
product unless the manufacturer will provide documentation on how to
maintain the thing they want us to buy?
In the alternative, a lifetime warranty would suffice. If we can't be
trusted with service information, then the manufacturer can assume
that responsibility in perpetuity.
Steve
****************************************************************
Steve Uhrig, SWS Security, Maryland USA
Manufacturers of electronic surveillance and commo gear
tel +1+410-879-4035 fax +1+410-836-1190
mailto:St...@swssec.com
website: http://www.swssec.com
Celebrating our 25th anniversary in 1997
"In God We Trust, All Others We Monitor"
****************************************************************
JPB
Well you know Radio Shacks moto,"If you got questions, We got blank
stares."0
- )
0
________________________________________________________________
Rich Wells
LA wrote:
> Bill Cheek wrote:
> > The FCC has requested that all vendors and scanner manufacturers not
> > release schematics for scanner products that are offered. Radio Shack
> > is complying with this request. We regret we are unable to assist you
> > with your request.
> >
>
> Then the FCC has now declared the First Amendmant of the United States
> Constitution null and void. Now you cannot publish a schematic?!?!?!
I think the important piece here is that the FCC has "requested" this
policy(according to above verbage). Possibly because they know they
have no chance of enforcing it.
I have a bigger problem with Radio Shack if they do intend on
complying with this "request". Talk about totally gutless. I
guess Radio Shack figures the FCC buys all of its scanners and
not us so it should therefore comply with their wishes.
The FCC is simply being a spineless whore for the CTIA if this
is true. Money talks ladies and gentlemen.
Can't say much better about RS. If any of the other radio manufacturers
are gullible enough to fall for this crap then we have only seen the
beginning...
Strong signals,
Rich Wells N2MCA http://www.qsl.net/n2mca/
New Users FAQ : http://www.qsl.net/n2mca/NEW_USER.HTM
North Carolina editor for The Scanner Club
Carl Porter
LA wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> > and nescient reply from your facility yesterday with
> > respect to service manuals for scanners.
> >
> > Good grief ! Do you people carry your heads around
> > with you ALL DAY long? Or, just part time?
> >
> > Author/Publisher
> >
> > ==========[Begin copy of Tandy's Statement]==============
> >
> > From: RSPSC1 RS Store POS Mail user[SMTP: RSP...@tandy.com ]
> > Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 7:49 PM
> > To: 99ERS/SPANLINK
> >
> > release schematics for scanner products that are offered. Radio Shack
> > is complying with this request. We regret we are unable to assist you
> > with your request.
> >
> >
> > TANDY PRODUCT SUPPORT CENTER
> > CC/cb
> >
> > ---
>
> Constitution null and void. Now you cannot publish a schematic?!?!?!
>
> works now!
>
> Maybe I shall have to publish instructions on how to build your own
> cellular telephone receiver, xerox off a bazillion copies and distribute
> them free of charge to EVERYBODY!
>
> LA
>
I'd love to see the schematics for all CBs & scanners placed on a cd,
with all the improvements from Secret CB, Cheeks scanner books, & any
other
reputable sources. Sort of a new improved SAMs... It would need to be in
Mac
& PC format, or maybe a .pdf file although I'm not impressed with the
pdf
format.
Tim Cline
> I'd love to see the schematics for all CBs & scanners placed on a cd,
>with all the improvements from Secret CB, Cheeks scanner books, & any
>other
>reputable sources. Sort of a new improved SAMs... It would need to be in
>Mac
>& PC format, or maybe a .pdf file although I'm not impressed with the
>pdf
>format.
Jesus Christ! Let's NOT start that thread again, last time, I said That I
would buy two if it existed, resulted in me getting dozens of e-mail orders
from people willing to part with large sums of money to get my "spare"
Dan Morisseau
In article BLACKEAGLE <us...@isp.net> writes:
>Now you're just being silly. Our a%s H*le Prez works for the chinese.
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!! He works for US .... he just does what THEY tell him.
====================================================================
"I distrust a close-mouthed man. He generally picks the wrong time
to talk and says the wrong things. Talking is something you can't do
judiciously unless you keep in practice"
- Casper Gutman, The Maltese Falcon
========== This .sig exceeds Plate "C" specifications ==============
Don Bordeaux
I don't understand what all the fuss is about scanning cell phones. Is
the gov.afraid we'll accidently pick up on an invaision of China plan
from the Pentagon? Seems the gov is increasingly in the business of
keeping the people in the dark on just about everything.
BLACKEAGLE
Glenn
>
>
Well, it certainly is a step in the right direction Dan. Look at those
treasonous bastards Bush and Ronnie Raygun selling arms to Iran and
helping the Contra's transport and sell cocaine in the United States.
Now the Republikan's take the lead in trying to ban our scanners.
Sheesh, before you know it they will use the be Christian Collation's
nonprofit status to raise money and get more anti-scanner Republikan's
in office. Whoops, they already did that didn't they! Sorry my mistake
there.
David.A.
jc123 wrote:
>
> Bill Cheek wrote:
> >
> > To: RSP...@tandy.com sup...@tandy.com
> >
> > Please explain the meaning of the below utterly silly
> > and nescient reply from your facility yesterday with
> > respect to service manuals for scanners.
> >
> > Good grief ! Do you people carry your heads around
> > with you ALL DAY long? Or, just part time?
> >
> > Bill Cheek
> > Author/Publisher
> >
> > ==========[Begin copy of Tandy's Statement]==============
> >
> > From: RSPSC1 RS Store POS Mail user[SMTP: RSP...@tandy.com ]
> > Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 7:49 PM
> > To: 99ERS/SPANLINK
> > Subj: RE: Pro-2006 Service Manual
> >
> > The FCC has requested that all vendors and scanner manufacturers not
> > release schematics for scanner products that are offered. Radio Shack
> > is complying with this request. We regret we are unable to assist you
> > with your request.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > TANDY PRODUCT SUPPORT CENTER
> > CC/cb
> >
> > ---
> This is bunch of bullshit if you ask me, All this is going to accomplish
> is another way for private owners to make money selling their copies of
> schematics to people who need them! Is the FCC this fucking stupid?
> As stated in many other subjects in the past:( you can find pictures of
> 3 year olds getting fucked on the internet, people eating shit and
> drinking piss,murders, scams on just about anything imaginable), but now
> THEY WANNA FUCK WITH NORMAL PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT A MEASLY SCHEMATIC FOR
> SOMETHING THEY OWN! Like this is really going to stop people from
> monitoring blocked frequencies, I guess we are labeled STUPID or naive
> and we couldnt possibly listen to anything we really wanted to hear
> without a scanner!UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGH !!!!!! this really pisses me
> off!
>
> Disgusted
Someone needs to develope a single chip scanner. An electronics mag I
once owned had this TDA 7000 chip produced by Texas Instruments articule
which was a radio on a chip. It could be used to tune in many
frequencies, but had no scan capability, nor a freq counter, but it
worked great!
All we need to do is start selling a single chip radio here and it
will have the effect of going around all of these stupid, heavy handed,
government regulations on the scanning industry. And, it could be sold
as components that snap together to produce a radio if you so desire!
How long untill a law is imposed upon us that says you cannot buy
chips like the TDA 7000? Surely the FCC is going to become the next
IRS in America!
House sweeps for scanners and Tabacco! Ohhhhh NOOOOOOOOOO!
Knock! Knock! Knock! OPEN UP! We know you have illegal chips in
there!
New Law: Worship your government or it will kill you!
--
NEED TO CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN?
CONGRESSIONAL E-MAIL ADDRESSES ARE LOCATED AT:
http://www.jbs.org/cgmail.htm
Refuse to vote for any Socialist Democrat!
Let's continue to turn out the Socialists Democrats in Congress in 1998!
David.A.
Sorry, but you are so full of leftwing brainwash!
Did you worship Bill CLinton today?
Who passed the:
1. Brady Bill
2. The Radar Dectector ban for trucks
3. The Assualt Rifle Ban
4. A modified version of the Brady Bill
Not Reagan! Not Bush! But our wonderful president, Uncle Big
Brother Bill CLinton.
Wake up idiot!
Glenn
David.A. wrote:
>
> Glenn wrote:
> >
> > Dan Morisseau wrote:
> > >
> > > In article BLACKEAGLE <us...@isp.net> writes:
> > >
> > > >Now you're just being silly. Our a%s H*le Prez works for the chinese.
> > >
> > > WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!! He works for US .... he just does what THEY tell him.
> > >
> >
> > Well, it certainly is a step in the right direction Dan. Look at those
> > treasonous bastards Bush and Ronnie Raygun selling arms to Iran and
> > helping the Contra's transport and sell cocaine in the United States.
> > Now the Republikan's take the lead in trying to ban our scanners.
> > Sheesh, before you know it they will use the be Christian Collation's
> > nonprofit status to raise money and get more anti-scanner Republikan's
> > in office. Whoops, they already did that didn't they! Sorry my mistake
> > there.
>
> Sorry, but you are so full of leftwing brainwash!
What part of what I said is untrue?
> Did you worship Bill CLinton today?
Did I even say I supported Clinton?
>
> Who passed the:
> 1. Brady Bill
Democrats AND Republicans
> 2. The Radar Dectector ban for trucks
Democrats AND Republicans
> 3. The Assualt Rifle Ban
Democrats AND Republicans
> 4. A modified version of the Brady Bill
Democrats AND Republicans
> Not Reagan! Not Bush! But our wonderful president, Uncle Big
> Brother Bill CLinton.
I didn't know Bill was KING. You are telling me that any law that is
thought up can be passed by just Bills nod of the head.
> Wake up idiot!
Glad to see you didn't dispute any of what I said though.
BTW, the anti scanner bill is a Republikan bill. It will more than
likely be passed by Democrats AND Republicans.
Dan Morisseau
In article "David.A." <davi...@flash.net> writes:
>Glenn wrote:
>>
>> Well, it certainly is a step in the right direction Dan. Look at those
>> treasonous bastards Bush and Ronnie Raygun ...more anti-scanner
>>Republikan's in office.
> Sorry, but you are so full of leftwing brainwash!
> Did you worship Bill CLinton today?
> Who passed the:
> 1. Brady Bill
> 2. The Radar Dectector ban for trucks
> 3. The Assualt Rifle Ban
> 4. A modified version of the Brady Bill
>
> Not Reagan! Not Bush! But our wonderful president, Uncle Big
>Brother Bill CLinton.
>Refuse to vote for any Socialist Democrat!
>Let's continue to turn out the Socialists Democrats in Congress in 1998!
David,
You hit the nail right square on the head! This Glenn guy is a gadfly who
delights in abusing those of us who have a sharper insight into the character
of that ignorant, redneck, womanizing hilbilly that occupies the Whitehouse.
I'm surprised that more people don't identify "Glenn" as the disruptive
element that he is!! I've often wondered if he isn't just another of John
Mackey's aliases.
Tom Norris
In article <34323c5d...@news2.ibm.net>, St...@swssec.com utters...
>Might it be effective to vote with our wallets, and refuse to buy a
>product unless the manufacturer will provide documentation on how to
>maintain the thing they want us to buy?
>
>In the alternative, a lifetime warranty would suffice. If we can't be
>trusted with service information, then the manufacturer can assume
>that responsibility in perpetuity.
It was mentioned in an earlier followup that some companies do not
provide service materials to "mere mortals". I have run up against
this for years, even as a technician for a government ran shop.
Try buying a service document for, lets say, a Dell monitor.
"Proprietory information" I am told. Try getting ifo on some of the
inner workings of some of Motorola's newer digital radios -- again
"Proprietory information". In other words -- we cant trust YOU to
work on our gear, so send it in to our depot and we will gladly
swap it for a new one for a nominal fee.....
Makers of two-way gear are getting away from keeping
parts stocks to support repair of older models as well.
Used to be a time when Motorola sold parts for any
radio made, now try finding a part for any unit over 5
years old. And with service literature, the newer
stuff is almost impossible to talk them out of detailed
service info.
So it ain't just Tandy, it's an industry trend.
Tom
--
SPAM bait: the current board of the Federal Communications Commission:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov Commissioner James Quello:
jqu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov Commissioner Rachelle Chong:
rch...@fcc.gov
more spambait: abuse@localhost postmaster@localhost admin@localhost
cust...@email.usps.go
Glenn
Dan Morisseau wrote:
>
> You hit the nail right square on the head! This Glenn guy is a gadfly who
> delights in abusing those of us who have a sharper insight into the character
> of that ignorant, redneck, womanizing hilbilly that occupies the Whitehouse.
> I'm surprised that more people don't identify "Glenn" as the disruptive
> element that he is!! I've often wondered if he isn't just another of John
> Mackey's aliases.
You forgot to say "read my lips" Dan or were you blinded by the thousand
points of light??
What an insult and I demand a public apology Mr. Morisseau. Comparing me
to Mackey is low even for a sneaky Republican. BTW, please show me where
in my post I supported Mr. Clinton? You Republicans always freak out and
scream "you love Bill" if anyone says anything about "your" party. After
all who could put down a party that brought you people like Newt,
Richard M. Nixon and "I don't remember" Raygun? I bet you were our
stumping for Spiro too weren't you Dan? Yes you should be proud.
Now, the apology or I spill the beans about YOUR profession!
Rage
>In article "David.A." <davi...@flash.net> writes:
>
>>Glenn wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Well, it certainly is a step in the right direction Dan. Look at those
>>> treasonous bastards Bush and Ronnie Raygun ...more anti-scanner
>>>Republikan's in office.
>
>
>> Sorry, but you are so full of leftwing brainwash!
>> Did you worship Bill CLinton today?
>
>> Who passed the:
>> 1. Brady Bill
The Congress of The United States.
>> 2. The Radar Dectector ban for trucks
Scanners are also outlawed also.
>> 3. The Assualt Rifle Ban
The U.S Congress with Clinton and there was a ban also by George "New
World Order " Bush
FYI: What assault weapon has been banned??
All anti-gun laws are directed to the honest law abiding citizens.
As long as we have "free trade " with China .......
There will be plenty of guns available to the bad guys.
Also from a unsecured border with Mexico.
The 1968 Anti-gun bill came from the same law of Nazi Germany back in
1938 I believe.
>> 4. A modified version of the Brady Bill
>>
No comment.
>> Not Reagan! Not Bush! But our wonderful president, Uncle Big
>>Brother Bill CLinton.
Reagan and Bush are just as responsible as weirdo Bill.
Both Reagan and Bush signed anti-gun bills.
Do I need to mention the Trillion dollars of debt???
>
>>Refuse to vote for any Socialist Democrat!
>>Let's continue to turn out the Socialists Democrats in Congress in 1998!
What about the Socialists , Globalist, New World Order Republicans???
>David,
>
> You hit the nail right square on the head! This Glenn guy is a gadfly who
>delights in abusing those of us who have a sharper insight into the character
>of that ignorant, redneck, womanizing hilbilly that occupies the Whitehouse.
>I'm surprised that more people don't identify "Glenn" as the disruptive
>element that he is!! I've often wondered if he isn't just another of John
>Mackey's aliases.
>
>
>
Bill Nelson
David.A. (davi...@flash.net) wrote:
: Sorry, but you are so full of leftwing brainwash!
:
: Who passed the:
: 1. Brady Bill
: 3. The Assualt Rifle Ban
: 4. A modified version of the Brady Bill
:
: Not Reagan! Not Bush! But our wonderful president, Uncle Big
: Brother Bill CLinton.
Wrong. It was our Republican congress that passed all those bills. The
president, whichever one(s) signed the laws only enabled the "will of
congress".
: Wake up idiot!
I suggest that you wake up. We need MASSIVE congressional reform. Both
major parties are out to screw us - in one way or another. They just have
somewhat different agendas.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
Don Bordeaux (bx...@erols.com) wrote:
:
: I don't understand what all the fuss is about scanning cell phones. Is
: from the Pentagon? Seems the gov is increasingly in the business of
: keeping the people in the dark on just about everything.
No. The cellular phone industry just bought the congressional votes
necessary. The have the bucks to waste - cellular radio is an industry
with huge profits.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
MR. BOB
Bill Nelson <bi...@peak.org> wrote in article
<6158d9$3on$6...@bashir.peak.org>...
> David.A. (davi...@flash.net) wrote:
> : Sorry, but you are so full of leftwing brainwash!
> : Did you worship Bill CLinton today?
> :
> : Who passed the:
> : 1. Brady Bill
> : 2. The Radar Dectector ban for trucks
> : 3. The Assualt Rifle Ban
> : 4. A modified version of the Brady Bill
> :
> : Not Reagan! Not Bush! But our wonderful president, Uncle Big
> : Brother Bill CLinton.
>
> Wrong. It was our Republican congress that passed all those bills. The
> president, whichever one(s) signed the laws only enabled the "will of
> congress".
It seems to me that it is only recently that we have a Republican congress.
I believe, except for the modified Brady bill, these other bills were
passed into law while the democrats were running the show in congress.
Am I wrong on this?
>
msi...@tefbbs.com
I thought laws were passed by Congress. A nominally "Republican"
Congress.
There is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats except
rhetoric. And talk is cheap (except for Congress).
Were the Republicans in Congress duped by Big Brother Bill or are they
in league with him? You decide.
Simon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert John" <RAJo...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>When you have a bunch of Ultra Left Liberals in the White House, This is
>what you can expect!
>
>David.A. <davi...@flash.net> wrote in article <3434AF...@flash.net>...
>> --
>> NEED TO CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN?
>> CONGRESSIONAL E-MAIL ADDRESSES ARE LOCATED AT:
>> http://www.jbs.org/cgmail.htm
>>
>> Refuse to vote for any Socialist Democrat!
>> Let's continue to turn out the Socialists Democrats in Congress in 1998!
>>
Opinions expressed herein are solely my own and may or may not reflect my opinion at this particular time or any other.
Mr. E
*It's time for another government-to-english lesson again.
>The FCC has requested that all vendors and scanner manufacturers not
> release schematics for scanner products that are offered.
*The Government has requested that no printed material be given out which
could jeopardise Mr. President's image on the 5 O'clock news. This will be
accomplished through the FCC
>Radio Shack is complying with this request.
*Radio Shack is gutless.
>We regret we are unable to assist you.
*Big brother might slap my rist.
>with your request.
*with you rights as a U.S. citizen
>Thank you,
*screw you. (or could be interpreted as "vote democrat")
>TANDY PRODUCT SUPPORT CENTER
*TANDY BREAK ROOM
--
( Dear Government, )
( Want my gun? You can pry it from )
( my cold dead fingers. )
( Love, )
( Mr.E
BLACKEAGLE
get a grip bud
Robert John
When you have a bunch of Ultra Left Liberals in the White House, This is
what you can expect!
David.A. <davi...@flash.net> wrote in article <3434AF...@flash.net>...
> jc123 wrote:
> >
> > Bill Cheek wrote:
> > >
> > > To: RSP...@tandy.com sup...@tandy.com
> > >
> > > Please explain the meaning of the below utterly silly
> > > and nescient reply from your facility yesterday with
> > > respect to service manuals for scanners.
> > >
> > > Good grief ! Do you people carry your heads around
> > > with you ALL DAY long? Or, just part time?
> > >
> > > Bill Cheek
> > > Author/Publisher
> > >
> > > ==========[Begin copy of Tandy's Statement]==============
> > >
> > > From: RSPSC1 RS Store POS Mail user[SMTP: RSP...@tandy.com ]
> > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 7:49 PM
> > > To: 99ERS/SPANLINK
> > > Subj: RE: Pro-2006 Service Manual
> > >
> > > The FCC has requested that all vendors and scanner manufacturers not
> > > release schematics for scanner products that are offered. Radio
Shack
JTWard01
You know, I called up this message in hopes of actually learning something
valuable. As usual with messages on the newsgroups, I was wrong. Why don't you
folks take this shit to private e-mail.
Bill Nelson
MR. BOB (cas...@gte.net) wrote:
: Bill Nelson <bi...@peak.org> wrote in article
: >
: > Wrong. It was our Republican congress that passed all those bills. The
: > president, whichever one(s) signed the laws only enabled the "will of
: > congress".
:
: It seems to me that it is only recently that we have a Republican congress.
: I believe, except for the modified Brady bill, these other bills were
: passed into law while the democrats were running the show in congress.
: Am I wrong on this?
We had a republican congress, when Bushy was prez. At least one of the
bills that was mentioned was signed into law by Raygun, and at least one
of the others by Bush.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
David,
Glenn wrote:
>
> David.A. wrote:
> >
> > Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > > Dan Morisseau wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article BLACKEAGLE <us...@isp.net> writes:
> > > >
> > > > >Now you're just being silly. Our a%s H*le Prez works for the chinese.
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!! He works for US .... he just does what THEY tell him.
> > > >
> > >
> > > helping the Contra's transport and sell cocaine in the United States.
> > > Now the Republikan's take the lead in trying to ban our scanners.
> > > Sheesh, before you know it they will use the be Christian Collation's
> > > nonprofit status to raise money and get more anti-scanner Republikan's
> > > in office. Whoops, they already did that didn't they! Sorry my mistake
> > > there.
> >
>
>
>
>
> >
> > 1. Brady Bill
>
> > 2. The Radar Dectector ban for trucks
>
> > 3. The Assualt Rifle Ban
>
> > 4. A modified version of the Brady Bill
>
> > Not Reagan! Not Bush! But our wonderful president, Uncle Big
> > Brother Bill CLinton.
>
> thought up can be passed by just Bills nod of the head.
>
> > Wake up idiot!
> Glad to see you didn't dispute any of what I said though.
>
> BTW, the anti scanner bill is a Republikan bill. It will more than
> likely be passed by Democrats AND Republicans.
I dont know if that is true at this point. The democrat who started
the anti scanner bill HR 2369, is from named Markey (D).
Next, Democrats controlled the Congress from 1954 to 1994 as I stated
before. They had FULL control, and therefore, when uncle bill wanted to
pass the Brady bill and the Assualt weapons ban, he knew his DEMOCRATIC
party friends in Congress, who were in control of Congress, would pass
these bills in seconds!
Malard Filmore
You keep on pulling that second lever and creating career politicians
welcome to the world you created
Don Bordeaux <bx...@erols.com> wrote in article
<34341A...@erols.com>...
> Tim Cline wrote:
> >
> > In article <3433A6...@msg.ti.com>, C-Po...@msg.ti.com wrote:
> >
> > > I'd love to see the schematics for all CBs & scanners placed
on a cd,
> > >with all the improvements from Secret CB, Cheeks scanner books, & any
> > >other
> > >reputable sources. Sort of a new improved SAMs... It would need to be
in
> > >Mac
> > >& PC format, or maybe a .pdf file although I'm not impressed with the
> > >pdf
> > >format.
> > Jesus Christ! Let's NOT start that thread again, last time, I said That
I
> > would buy two if it existed, resulted in me getting dozens of e-mail
orders
> > from people willing to part with large sums of money to get my "spare"
>
>
Phil
I can explain it for them: $$M-O-N-E-Y$$
When my Pro-25 decided that it was a base scanner (wouldn't charge the
batteries, but worked great plugged in) and not a handheld I took it in for
service as it was only 3 weeks old. They sent it off to the service center
who replaced a faulty barrel plug and diode, and re-adjusted the scanner
while it was there(at least that's what my receipt said). The whole
adventure would have cost over $80 if it were not for the warranty. Now the
scanner is out of warranty and it happened again. I gave in to it's demands
and it is now a permanent base scanner. I don't want to open the case,
because when I do that to scanners they get mad and don't work anymore
(Dammit Jim, I'm a programmer not an engineer!) But if I had the technical
knowledge I could buy the parts and fix it for about $3 myself.
So now they are saying it's the FCC that requires this, but I personally
don't buy it. They just want to keep scanners coming into their service
centers. Besides, scanner sales make up a mere 2% or less of Tandy's annual
revenue, with electronic parts only slightly higher - what do they care if
we don't buy them anymore? That's why I will not buy RS scanners anymore.
As each one breaks, it will now get the Uniden equivalent or better.
Ask 'em to show you this "FCC Order". Betcha they won't even reply!
-Phil
Jason Anderson
What's the real deal here?????? Everyone in this group bitches and complains
about how their scanner won't get cellular so they resort to tactits to try
to work the system.
Bitch Bitch Bitch,
My scanner won't pick up private cell fone calls.WAAAAAAAAA
My Radio Shack won't sell me the manual to make it get private cell fone
calls. WAAAAAAA
My government is trying to screw me over(well we all knew that) WAAAAAAAAAAA
Hind sight is 20/20, and EVERY FUCKING BODY WHO HAS BITCHED OUT HERE
ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO GET THEIR MANUAL OR HAVE THEIR SCANNER GET CELLULAR
HAS ALL SAID ONE THING,,,
"well my scanner has the ability to get it, BUT I DON'T LISTEN to them",
"my scanner is modified, but I don't listen to the 800mhz range for phone
calls",
" I just wan't to have the manual so I can FIX THE SCANNER WHEN IT BREAKS",
1. WHY IN THE FUCK DO YOU BITCH ABOUT THE CELLULAR RANGE IF YOU DON'T LISTEN
TO IT....
2. WHY DO YOU MAKE IT SUCH A BIG DEAL THAT YOUR SCANNER GET'S
800mhz(particularly the cell range) IF YOU DON'T FUCKING LISTEN.
3. Like you could grab an O-SCOPE, SIG-GEN and fix the scanner yourself.
Most scanner users don't know the difference between a Zener Diode and a
SIGNAL DIODE. Or the color code on the resistor...etc...
The boy that cried WOLF is the one that get's screwed at the end of the
story. And the story out here is a sad one.. Everyone who has RE'd to
Illegal scanner service manual, has had one thing on their mind,
I want it so I can modify my scanner to do an ILLEGAL thing. Why do you care
so much if you're not going to use it anyways?....
Where are your morals as far as privacy goes. I could broadcast ALL!! of
your credit history over the net to all of the wounderful people out here
and it would be PERFECTLY LEGAL. (I know, I'm a lawer). It's public
information(that's the truth) but you wouldn't want anybody to know cause
it's your PRIVATE LIFE. RIGHT???
You may bitch about well, I'm not invading or tresspassing on anybody's
property to get this info. I'm just pulling off the airwaves.
But still, you are intercepting a signal that was not INTENDED FOR YOU
either by the WRITTEN CONSCENT OF THE OWNER OF THE BROADCAST(the sender) or
the listening of the BROADCAST(the person on the other end) and there for
you are in VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-WIRE TAP LAW that everybody around here
thinks they know so much about.
Well, the person knows that he/she is BROADCASTING ON PUBLIC AIRWAVES AND
THEREFORE, MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THE SIGNAL COULD BE INTERCEPTED AT
ANY TIME WITHOUT THEM KNOWING.
Nice try but that won't work. For you to broadcast on ANY,,ANY,,ANY!!
FREQ. is a privelege. And those rights can be taken away from you at
anytime. How many FM stations have you seen lose their FCC lisc. because of
vulgar lang...etc...THERE IS NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS THAT YOU
HAVE THE RIGHT TO BROADCAST ON ANY RADIO FREQ.
Why don't you BITCH about not being able to TRANSMIT on 144mhz without
having a liscense....."It's my right to be able to BROADCAST on any freq. I
want" BULLSHIT. You have no rights when it comes to FREQ. allocation. You
may not like it, but it is a PRIVELEGE to use a CELLULAR FONE BECAUSE YOU
ARE ALLOWED TO BROADCAST ON THAT FREQ..... The FCC can take it right back
without even blinking an eye. That's why you need a HAM liscense to transmit
on HAM FREQ.'s If you do without one, then it's ILLEGAL no matter how much
you like it or not. You are NOT PRIVELEGED TO TRANSMIT ON THOSE FREQ'S
WITHOUT A LISCENSE......PERIOD!!
So why do you bitch so much about trying to do something illegal... Why
don't you bitch about why we should be allowed to drive drunk...... Fight
something you know more about rather than just bitching about...
WHY DO YOU USE "BITCHING" so much?
Cause that's what 97% (of the 179 messages on this subject) seem to do.
BITCH about why they can't have illegal freq. in their scanner..
But I paid for the scanner. I have a right to the manuals.
That's true... But LISTEN ALL YOU DIPSHITS OUT HERE,,, IT'S A "R E P A I R"
let me say it again..... "REPAIR" manual...
That means that you use the info to FIX THE PRODUCT. Not to ILLEGALY modify
the product. And how many of you could actually go down to the componet
level and de-solder surface mount chips, or decode the timing of the
CPU...etc. You say that I talk down to you??? WELL LOOK AT THE IMPRESSION I
GET FROM A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT WANT TO DO ILLEGAL THINGS..
I want plans for a NUCLEAR BOMB so I can protect the world from war(that's
good,, here you go, in the name of world peace).
I want plans for a NUCLEAR BOMB so I can plan a terroist atack on any city
of my choice( NO WAY IN HELL I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE PLANS)..
I would like a service manual for my Pro-2006 cause it just died and I need
to know some voltage points to test for..(Okay, here you go.. I should know,
I did it last week at my nearby Radio Shack)
I would like a service manual for my Pro-2006 cause I need to know how to
get it to recieve Cellular fone calls.( Yea right buddy, get the hell out of
my store)
Yes, I did order one last week.. After telling the Regional Manager that I
was a lawer and that he and Tandy were going to have some serious legal
implications if they didn't...
"well the FCC tells us that we can't",
They have no power to do so.. They can't legally ban you(Tandy) from selling
scanners if you don't comply...
Well after about an hour fone call. I recieved my Service Manual.
THE POINT OF THIS STORY IS,,
If you want to use the manual to fix your scanner. Go for it.. I even help
you out!!
If you want to use the manual to do ILLEGAL things..(98% of you do).. Well
have a nice life
HAVE PHUN,
Jason
Reverend Tweek
Jason Anderson <j4c...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>What's the real deal here?????? Everyone in this group bitches and complains
>about how their scanner won't get cellular so they resort to tactits to try
>to work the system.
The real deal here, at this moment, has nothing to do with cellular
phone monitoring. It has to do with a spineless American <cough> company
who either does not care about the First Amendment Right of being free
from government censorship of what one publishes, OR is to damn spineless
to admit that it is their own decision to no longer offer scanner service
manuals for sale to the general public, and is simply using the excuse
that the government asked them not to.
> Nice try but that won't work. For you to broadcast on ANY,,ANY,,ANY!!
>FREQ. is a privelege. And those rights can be taken away from you at
>anytime. How many FM stations have you seen lose their FCC lisc. because of
>vulgar lang...etc...THERE IS NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS THAT YOU
>HAVE THE RIGHT TO BROADCAST ON ANY RADIO FREQ.
We are not talking about transmitting. We are not even talking about
receiving. We are talking about the government (as claimed by Radio
Shack) forcing a private company to not publish material which is 100%
legal to publish.
>I want plans for a NUCLEAR BOMB so I can protect the world from war(that's
>good,, here you go, in the name of world peace).
>
>I want plans for a NUCLEAR BOMB so I can plan a terroist atack on any city
>of my choice( NO WAY IN HELL I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE PLANS)..
The plans are available already. They were available 20 years ago when
some school kids used unclassified reference sources to build one
for a science project. It is not illegal to publish nuclear bomb How-To's.
(Although Diane Feinstein would like to see it so)
>I would like a service manual for my Pro-2006 cause it just died and I need
>to know some voltage points to test for..(Okay, here you go.. I should know,
>I did it last week at my nearby Radio Shack)
>
>I would like a service manual for my Pro-2006 cause I need to know how to
>get it to recieve Cellular fone calls.( Yea right buddy, get the hell out of
>my store)
>
>Yes, I did order one last week.. After telling the Regional Manager that I
>was a lawer and that he and Tandy were going to have some serious legal
>implications if they didn't...
I applaud you for at least finding out the story first hand. On my
visit to Radio Shack yesterday to do the same thing, there was no
Regional Manager around. I dealt with a clerk with NO "manager" listed
on his tag, and the only other employee in the story, looked more like a
sales person rather than someone who cared to really help a customer
(although at points, I did speak loud enough for him to hear, just in
case he had some insight to add)...
>"well the FCC tells us that we can't",
>
>They have no power to do so.. They can't legally ban you(Tandy) from selling
>scanners if you don't comply...
>
>Well after about an hour fone call. I recieved my Service Manual.
And as a lawyer, how much could you have earned in that hour if you
had not had to make that phone call? Should you have had to jump
through all sorts of hoops just to satisfy the seller that you were
not up to anything evil?
Should the Government start requesting that bookstores start making
sure that purchasers of "The Joy Of Sex" aren't going to commit acts
of sodomy, before they sell them the book?
Should the Government request of hardware stores, to verify that you
are not making a Potato Gun before they sell you that PVC pipe?
Should the government request of nurseries, to verify that you are not
growing marijuana, before they sell you that bottle of VF-11?
Should each of those above mentioned businesses decide to comply with
the request and then use the excuse that their hands are tied because
the government asked them to do such?
>THE POINT OF THIS STORY IS,,
>
>If you want to use the manual to fix your scanner. Go for it.. I even help
>you out!!
>
>If you want to use the manual to do ILLEGAL things..(98% of you do).. Well
>have a nice life
It's a sad day in this country, when the act of purchasing a manual which
*can be used* for doing something illegal, itself becomes a crime.
--
Reverend Tweek Spiritual Advisor and Religious Liaison
DataBasix mailto: tw...@databasix.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Followups to Enoch and Cramer are deposited in alt.fan.kooks.mikael-enoch
Glen Quarnstrom
Jason Anderson <j4c...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>1. WHY IN THE FUCK DO YOU BITCH ABOUT THE CELLULAR RANGE IF YOU DON'T LISTEN
>TO IT....
<130 lines of similar screeching deleted>
You're an idiot, Jason. I'd explain why, but you wouldn't understand
it.
<PLONK>
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
WB7DOW @ KB7CFD.ID.USA.NOAM
Glen Quarnstrom
tw...@netcom-NO.SPAM-com (Reverend Tweek) wrote:
>Jason Anderson <j4c...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<The Rev wastes time explaining facts and logic to an idiot>
>We are not talking about transmitting. We are not even talking about
>receiving. We are talking about the government (as claimed by Radio
>Shack) forcing a private company to not publish material which is 100%
>legal to publish.
Have we really validated this rumor? Given the original source, I
suspect that there's less to this story than we've been led to
believe.
CHARLES MANDUS
Reverend Tweek (tw...@netcom-NO.SPAM-com) wrote:
: >I want plans for a NUCLEAR BOMB so I can protect the world from war(that's
: >good,, here you go, in the name of world peace).
: >
: >I want plans for a NUCLEAR BOMB so I can plan a terroist atack on any city
: >of my choice( NO WAY IN HELL I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE PLANS)..
: The plans are available already. They were available 20 years ago when
: some school kids used unclassified reference sources to build one
: for a science project. It is not illegal to publish nuclear bomb How-To's.
: (Although Diane Feinstein would like to see it so)
You could look it up in any library. When I was in fourth grade (1976 -
77, the Internet back then was known as the ARPANET that linked military,
scientists, and university computers at that time), I did a science
project on the atom bomb and how it was composed and even made a drawing
of "Little Boy," aka the Hiroshima Bomb. I just looked it up in books
and encyclopedias. That info has always been available since the late
1940's at least.
Back to the service manual issue, I'll try to see if I can get one at my
local Radio Shack to verify this. It wouldn't surprise me to see the FCC
tell Radio Shack not to sell them, but I'd like some confirmation
myself. RS caving to the government, the evidence seems to be there
since not one of their new handhelds covers military UHF.
Welcome to Amerika, my friend....
Chuck, just some thoughts....
DE KA3WRW
--
"Guns don't kill people, government does." - Dale Gribble - King of the Hill
Bad Borg! Bad Borg! Whatcha gonna do when they assimilate you?!
JungleJim
> 1. WHY IN THE FUCK DO YOU BITCH ABOUT THE CELLULAR RANGE IF YOU DON'T LISTEN TO IT....
> Where are your morals as far as privacy goes. I could broadcast ALL!! of your credit history over the net to all of the wounderful people out here and it would be PERFECTLY LEGAL. (I know, I'm a lawer). It's public
information(that's the truth) but you wouldn't want anybody to know
cause > it's your PRIVATE LIFE. RIGHT???
No wonder so many people hate lawyers.
JTWard01
>Have we really validated this rumor? Given the original source, I suspect
that there's less to this story than we've been led to
>believe.
>
I called Tandy media relations today, and they had heard nothing about service
manuals and schematics being withheld from the public. This does not mean it's
not happening, and the person I spoke to promised to check it out and let me
know tomorrow (it was quite late today when I called). I also called Uniden,
but they did not return my call. I'll be checking with the FCC tomorrow. I'll
let you all know what I find out.
John Ward
Contributing Editor
PopComm
Ron Yanchuck
JungleJim <jung...@delta.com> wrote in article
<343C1D...@delta.com>...
> > 1. WHY IN THE FUCK DO YOU BITCH ABOUT THE CELLULAR RANGE IF YOU DON'T
LISTEN TO IT....
>
> > Where are your morals as far as privacy goes. I could broadcast ALL!!
of your credit history over the net to all of the wounderful people out
here and it would be PERFECTLY LEGAL. (I know, I'm a lawer). It's public
> information(that's the truth) but you wouldn't want anybody to know
> cause > it's your PRIVATE LIFE. RIGHT???
>
>
> No wonder so many people hate lawyers.
>
But, he's not a LAWYER. He's a LAWER. Stated it 2 times if I remember
correctly.
Glen Quarnstrom
jtwa...@aol.com (JTWard01) wrote:
Good. I find this whole thing to be just a bit more than I care to
believe without a lot more documentation than I've seen so far. The
facts of what the Feds are trying to do to us is bad enough, without
getting distracted with unverified rumors and pointless witchhunts.
David Abrams
Jason Anderson wrote:
> and it would be PERFECTLY LEGAL. (I know, I'm a lawer).
Talking about bitching! WOW, you do a great job of that!
So, youre a lawer? What is that? Do you mean lawyer?
Nah, that is a mistake no real lawyer would make.
Stop complaining about our complaining.
Reverend Tweek
Glen Quarnstrom <address@sig> wrote:
>tw...@netcom-NO.SPAM-com (Reverend Tweek) wrote:
>
>>We are not talking about transmitting. We are not even talking about
>>receiving. We are talking about the government (as claimed by Radio
>>Shack) forcing a private company to not publish material which is 100%
>>legal to publish.
>
>suspect that there's less to this story than we've been led to
>believe.
Well, we know (I know) that on the in-store POS computer, when the
service manual number for the Pro-2004 is input, back comes a screen
which lists the price as something like $15.99 and the word "RESTRICTED".
I also know that when the RS droid mentioned that it was "unavailable",
he casually added "as of last week". I am told (by that droid) that
"RESTRICTED" means that the item "is not in the warehouse."
In an attempt to find out further information, I sent the following
letter to Radio Shack Media Relations (and a CC to a media type)
===========================================================
From: tw...@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Radio Shack's new scanner manual policy.
To: fmc...@tandy.com (Fran McGehee, Media Relations Senior Manager)
Cc: ber...@bernieward.com
October 8, 1997
To whom it may concern,
Yesterday I paid a visit to a local Radio Shack store to check
up on ordering a service manual for a Pro-2004 scanner. I found
the manual listing and copied its part number out of the Radio
Shack Unlimited catalog.
The store clerk entered the item number into the POS terminal and
told me that the manual was no longer being sold, "as of last week".
The POS screen showed an entry of "RESTRICTED". When I asked the
store clerk what restrictions were applied to the manual, I was told
that it meant the item is "not in the warehouse." A second and third
reiteration of the question of "RESTRICTED" failed to elicit a more
detailed response.
Rumors abound right now, on how the FCC "requested" that Radio Shack
cease from selling the service manual, but yet one response I have
seen, attributed to a response to a letter sent to Radio Shack Customer
Relations states:
"We at RadioShack prefer that you have access to schematics,
but the FCC asked us and Uniden to withhold them."
followed closely, with:
"we are not withholding the information voluntarily."
This gives me the impression that the FCC is conducting illegal
government censorship, which you are protected from, through the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution. If such is
the case, then it would be in your best interest, and that of
every citizen of this nation, to make widely known, the issues
and circumstances involved in this situation.
On the other hand, if the FCC merely asked Radio Shack to consider
the possibility of ceasing the sales of scanner service manuals,
and if Radio Shack made it's own decision to do so, then Radio
Shack is doing themselves a disservice by alluding to the request
from the FCC as the reason they are "forced" to halt sales.
What disservice is Radio Shack doing themselves, if this is the case?
- The image of Radio Shack not having the backbone to
stand up against the government for the fundamental
rights protected in the First Amendment.
- The lack of any backbone to accept any responsibility
for their own corporate decision to abide by the FCC's
wish.
- The willingness to outright lie to their customers so as to
make it appear that Radio Shack is on the customer's side
in opposition to the FCC's request.
I guess, what I am asking is, did the FCC send a request to Radio Shack,
Uniden, and/or Tandy, and order them to cease sale of such service
manuals? Did the FCC simply "request"? Was such a request given in
a threatening "or else" manner? Did Radio Shack willingly cease sales
of these manuals, or did they feel that there was no other option open
to them? If Radio Shack willingly made the corporate decision to cease
sales of these publications, why all the subtle and not so subtle hints
that it is the fault of the FCC?
Sincerely,
Michael D. Maxfield
<tw...@netcom.com>
===================================================================
JungleJim
> LISTEN TO IT....
> >
> of your credit history over the net to all of the wounderful people out
> here and it would be PERFECTLY LEGAL. (I know, I'm a lawer). It's public
> > information(that's the truth) but you wouldn't want anybody to know
> > cause > it's your PRIVATE LIFE. RIGHT???
> >
> >
> >
> But, he's not a LAWYER. He's a LAWER. Stated it 2 times if I remember
> correctly.
Whats a "Lawer"?
Reverend Tweek
Reverend Tweek <tw...@netcom-NO.SPAM-com> wrote:
>Glen Quarnstrom <address@sig> wrote:
>>
>>Have we really validated this rumor? Given the original source, I
>>suspect that there's less to this story than we've been led to
>>believe.
>
>letter to Radio Shack Media Relations (and a CC to a media type)
CANNED RESPONSE received back today:
]From: Fran McGehee <FMC...@Tandy.com>
]To: "'tw...@netcom.com'" <tw...@netcom.com>
]Subject: RE: Radio Shack's new scanner manual policy.
]Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:27:43 -0500
]
]Mr. Maxfield,
]
]Thank you for your message and for sharing your concerns. The FCC has
]requested that all scanner vendors and manufacturers not release
]schematics for scanner products. RadioShack is complying with this
]request. We regret we are unable to assist you with your request.
]Thanks again, and thanks for your business.
]Fran McGehee
]Tandy Media Relations
Glenn
Steve Kennedy wrote:
(snip)
> Is anyone sure this isn't just another masterful piece of flame bait?
> Is this "ban" restricted to those older models that CAN be modified in
> some way that the FCC deems evil?
I'll be betting that you have hit the nail on the head and the FCC HAS
deemed service manuals/schematics of the modifiable models to be EVIL
and must be taken out of the evil doers hands!
> Methinks we know everything but the facts!
Yea, but they usually are boring and dull. ;-)
Glenn
Steve Kennedy
I think there is a lot of conjecture going on here and too many people
accept it as gospel.
I called Radio Shack today (1-800-THE-SHACK) and ordered two service
manuals.... for the HTX-202 Amateur Handheld and the Pro-2045 scanner.
Now, neither one of these products are known to be modifiable to do
anything other than what they were designed to do, so there won't be
any "special" info in the service manual.
They took my order as a matter of fact (they asked if I was a store or
a customer, and I told them I was a customer), gave me the prices,
total, and shipping schedule.
If I get a phone call from them backing out of anything, I'll post it.
Otherwise, I was treated as they always treat me and they took my
order.
Is anyone sure this isn't just another masterful piece of flame bait?
Is this "ban" restricted to those older models that CAN be modified in
some way that the FCC deems evil?
Methinks we know everything but the facts!
Steve
WB7PSD
David Abrams
Steve, the letters I posted were actual contacts with RS personnel.
Wayne of RS told me that the FCC "asked" them to stop allowing
customers to have schematics of scanners.
I wrote a letter to Wayne and the president of RS about this very
issue and how it seems to violate the First Amendment.
If RS holds true to the requests of the FCC, maybe we can file a suit
against them and take this issue before a jury to decide!
Tate - Spam Fryer 1st Class
Steve's got a possible point here.
It could be the potentially modifiable scanners are on the FCC/RS 'hit
list'
I tried the same thing today, but for the Pro-2026 Service Manual. 1st I
tried the local RS, their POS computer resulted in a "Not Available -
Restricted" for RSU# 10822963 (Pro 2026 Service Manual). I also called
1-800-THE-SHACK and tried to order it from there. Same result. I asked the
quite friendly lady to find out why. Her response was from her supervisor
"Our legal department made it so".
Anyone have a Pro-2026 Service Manual they wouldn't mind photcoping? Or
even just posting to a web site or something? If RS/FCC are gonna make it
difficult for legitimate users to get a hold of - let's make 'em ALL
public so even the broke 'wannabes' can find 'em.
Steve Kennedy wrote:
> I think there is a lot of conjecture going on here and too many people
> accept it as gospel.
>
> I called Radio Shack today (1-800-THE-SHACK) and ordered two service
> manuals.... for the HTX-202 Amateur Handheld and the Pro-2045 scanner.
>
> Now, neither one of these products are known to be modifiable to do
> anything other than what they were designed to do, so there won't be
> any "special" info in the service manual.
>
> They took my order as a matter of fact (they asked if I was a store or
> a customer, and I told them I was a customer), gave me the prices,
> total, and shipping schedule.
>
> If I get a phone call from them backing out of anything, I'll post it.
> Otherwise, I was treated as they always treat me and they took my
> order.
>
> Is anyone sure this isn't just another masterful piece of flame bait?
> Is this "ban" restricted to those older models that CAN be modified in
> some way that the FCC deems evil?
>
> Methinks we know everything but the facts!
>
> Steve
> WB7PSD
--
All opinions are my own.
You may read them, understand them at your leisure
and are encouraged to disagree or agree
your choice.
They are still mine.
To Send me email, remove the SpamBot blinders
"127" and then "721" from my Reply To address
For the more simply oriented <g> - email me at:
TateB at(@)cyberhighway dot(.) net
Steven Iverson
Hey, Jason--You sound like an asshole. Also, your arguments are weak.
Save your energy next time you think about posting here.
MR. BOB
Jason Anderson <j4c...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<343B3270...@pacbell.net>...
> What's the real deal here?????? Everyone in this group bitches and
complains
> about how their scanner won't get cellular so they resort to tactits to
try
> to work the system.
>
> Bitch Bitch Bitch,
>
> My scanner won't pick up private cell fone calls.WAAAAAAAAA
>
> My Radio Shack won't sell me the manual to make it get private cell fone
> calls. WAAAAAAA
>
> My government is trying to screw me over(well we all knew that)
WAAAAAAAAAAA
>
> Hind sight is 20/20, and EVERY FUCKING BODY WHO HAS BITCHED OUT HERE
> ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO GET THEIR MANUAL OR HAVE THEIR SCANNER GET
CELLULAR
> HAS ALL SAID ONE THING,,,
>
> "well my scanner has the ability to get it, BUT I DON'T LISTEN to them",
I really can't believe you are an attorney. I would think you would be
in favor of free speech and having access to information.
I also can't believe you're not able to see the whole picture here.
It's really not just the "scanner" laws in question here.
I believe there is a subtle yet systematic effort on the governments
part to limit our abilities to defend ourselves not just from foreigners
but from
our own government.
This starts with a simple law that seems not to have any real importance
to the general public and then becomes amended and bastardized to something
that now affects us all.
kevin p
Jason Anderson <j4c...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<343B3270...@pacbell.net>...
bitches <snip>
> Bitch Bitch Bitch,
<snip>
BITCHED
<snip>
BITCH
<snip>
bitch
<snip>
BITCH
<snip>
BITCHING
<snip>
BITCH ..
.
>
> THE POINT OF THIS STORY IS,,
The point is Jason has a problem
Hmmm. 132 lines of bitching about bitching.
Lawyer....I don't think so.............Dipshit?( his own words)........no
doubt!
<snip>
> Jason
Cathy De Viney
This is the reply I got from TANDY...straight from the horse's
mouth!!!
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: Cathy De Viney
To: sup...@TANDY.COM
Subject: PRO-2041
Date: Wednesday, October 08, 1997 11:02PM
How may I order the schematics for the PRO-2041?
I understand schematics are available through Radio Shack Unlimited?
Thank You...
From: RSPSC1 RS Store POS Mail user <RSP...@Tandy.com>
To: Cathy De Viney <cdev...@sibyl.intellinet.com>
Subject: RE: PRO-2041
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:33:00 -0500
The FCC has requested that all vendors and scanner manufacturers not
release schematics for scanner products that are offered. Radio Shack
is complying with this request. We regret we are unable to assist you
with your request.
Thank you,
TANDY PRODUCT SUPPORT CENTER
CC/cb
----------
Professor
If he's a lawyer, then why didn't he spell it right...
--
Professor
"WindowsNT Powered"
David Abrams wrote in article <343C6C...@flash.net>...
>Jason Anderson wrote:
>
>> and it would be PERFECTLY LEGAL. (I know, I'm a lawer).
>
Bill Nelson
Reverend Tweek (tw...@netcom-NO.SPAM-com) wrote:
:
: - The image of Radio Shack not having the backbone to
: stand up against the government for the fundamental
: rights protected in the First Amendment.
They don't have any backbone.
: - The lack of any backbone to accept any responsibility
: for their own corporate decision to abide by the FCC's
: wish.
Probably true.
: - The willingness to outright lie to their customers so as to
: make it appear that Radio Shack is on the customer's side
: in opposition to the FCC's request.
Also probably true.
: I guess, what I am asking is, did the FCC send a request to Radio Shack,
: Uniden, and/or Tandy, and order them to cease sale of such service
: manuals? Did the FCC simply "request"? Was such a request given in
: a threatening "or else" manner? Did Radio Shack willingly cease sales
: of these manuals, or did they feel that there was no other option open
: to them? If Radio Shack willingly made the corporate decision to cease
: sales of these publications, why all the subtle and not so subtle hints
: that it is the fault of the FCC?
If there was a request, it was unofficial. There has NOT been any official
action by the FCC. If there had been, it would have been published in their
NPRMs.
I suspect that if I needed a manual, and they told me it was restricted,
I would demand that they either sell it to me or they would be answering
a lawsuit.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Rich Wall
>>>(I know, I'm a lawer).
word, not mine). How do you accuse anyone of doing something before they
actually do it?
That is the point !!! Don't accuse someone of something before they have
done it.
Secondly, anything that bounces off the four walls in my house will be
intercepted, decoded, unscrambled and listened to by me without
repercussions of ANY law as long as what I intercept, decode, unscramble
and listen to is kept within my four walls. That's MY law in MY house. I
dare you, Mr. Lawyer, to try and change that!
Finally, I am more than certain that if RS has a policy, they could care
less about what your profession is. A big company such as they are not
about to go against a government order to satisfy you, no matter what you
claim to be. Either the claim about securing schematics is bogus or your
story is. I think you would want to emphasis the truth about which is
bogus....as a lawyer, that is.
> Yes, I did order one last week.. After telling the Regional Manager that
I
> was a lawer and that he and Tandy were going to have some serious legal
> implications if they didn't...
Oh...don't look now but, you spelled that word that word...you know....your
claimed profession....wrong again. I think a lawyer would know how to spell
"LAWYER". A mistake is OK but you did it twice. I am really starting to
doubt your credentials.
As a lawyer, you should let people vent what they feel is fair and not
fair. We make the laws, as stupid as they may seem. Shutting people up
stifles their input and only isolates them from the system.
Your writing seems to jump around, in and out of different ideas. If I
missed any of your points it may be due to the lack of continuity in your
writing. That is not a good trait for a lawyer to have. I would work on
that.
louis h morong
JTWard01 <jtwa...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971009010...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >Have we really validated this rumor? Given the original source, I
suspect
> that there's less to this story than we've been led to
> >believe.
> >
Well, whether it`s a "rumour" or not is a moot point. Maybe some thinking
is in order here, about Radio Shack`s position with relation to the FCC and
the FCC`s power over Radio Shack. I can assure you, the FCC, does NOT have
to say "OR ELSE" to Radio Shack, since just about every device to be sold
by Tandy has to be approved by the FCC prior to it being sold. This means
that FCC power over Radio Shack would be absolute, since it could just fail
to approve any new devices for sale, thereby putting Tandy out of business,
if it wanted to. NOBODY has mentioned this ability to coerce Tandy (or any
other scanner manufacturer / Electronics devices dealer) that the FCC wants
to. So when the FCC makes a "suggestion" to Tandy, or any other electronics
dealer, the "OR ELSE" part does not need to be voiced, since it is already
understood.......
Who is the FCC answerable to ? Probably nobody but itself, as far as I can
determine.
I have sat quietly and read postings about "suing the federal government".
Wishful thinking. First, you would need the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT`S PERMISSION
TO SUE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Although this has happened is a few rare
cases in legal history, it is unlikely to be given in this case. Let me
know how you make out with this in 10 or 15 years, when they are done
"deciding if the case against them has merit"..... In the meantime, enjoy
your tax audits, and don`t try to get a government job, especially one that
requires any security clearance. If you already work in some government
capacity, start job hunting now, and avoid the rush. Check often to make
sure that no drugs have mysteriously "appeared " in your car, house,
etc....... Make sure that nobody "messes up the federal records" of your
wife, mother, or any one else near, dear, (and related) to you. You
wouldn`t want their Social SEcurity checks to suddenly stop because the
Federal Government had suddenly decided they were "deceased" or , as
actually happened to a friend of mine, that they had NEVER EXISTED IN THE
FIRST PLACE. Yes. By all means. File suit against the Federal government.
And then go jump off a tall building to see if you "bounce".......
Tim Cline
In article <61jjbh$8pu$1...@gte1.gte.net>, "MR. BOB" <cas...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>
>Jason Anderson <j4c...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
><343B3270...@pacbell.net>...
>> Hind sight is 20/20, and EVERY FUCKING BODY WHO HAS BITCHED OUT HERE
>> ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO GET THEIR MANUAL OR HAVE THEIR SCANNER GET
>CELLULAR
>> HAS ALL SAID ONE THING,,,
>>
>> "well my scanner has the ability to get it, BUT I DON'T LISTEN to them",
>
>in favor of free speech and having access to information.
> I also can't believe you're not able to see the whole picture here.
> It's really not just the "scanner" laws in question here.
> I believe there is a subtle yet systematic effort on the governments
>part to limit our abilities to defend ourselves not just from foreigners
>but from
>our own government.
> This starts with a simple law that seems not to have any real importance
>to the general public and then becomes amended and bastardized to something
>
>that now affects us all.
>
wanted to, but I don't" that IS the whole point of the arguement. It's a moral
decision that every scanner user has to make, and most of them say "I can
listen, but I really don't care about what I would hear". The best analogy I
can come up with is this:
My Corvette has the ABILITY to go 150mph, the speed limit is 70 and I choose
to obey it.
My scanner has the ability to pick up cell phones, the law says I shouldn't
listen to them, so I choose not to.