Text 12202, 97 rader
Skriven 2005-04-25 22:06:37 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 12165 av MARNIE TROSCLAIR (1:123/140)
Ärende: FCC on Ham radio
========================
MARNIE TROSCLAIR -> ED HULETT wrote:
 MT> Hey Ed!

 EH>> As I have said before that in a dire emergency they can
 EH>> transmit on any radio frequency in order to communicate that
 EH>> emergency.

 MT> FINE!  End of story!

No, that isn't the end of the story. You don't have that authority. If you
don't want to read this thread hit the next key.

 MT> This thread on Ham Radios has been entertaining
 MT> and informative, but all of the chestbeating that you and Sean (I've
 MT> got you in my twit filter) Dennis have been doing is making you look
 MT> very foolish.

Foolish in what way? Do you even have a clue what this thread is about?
You certainly don't show it with this reply.

 MT> The thread about HAM Radio began when Vern ran into
 MT> trouble while hiking in the wilderness.  The recommendation was that
 MT> he have a HAM Radio handy.  And, as you point out, if he had one,
 MT> and he had an emergency, he could use that radio to call for help,
 MT> regardless of any FCC requirements.  No need to demand that he
 MT> learn CW.  END OF STORY.

No, not "end of story." If Vern had an emergency such as if he had fallen and
broke a leg or arm he could have justified using any radio frequency to get
help. His "emergency" wasn't dire. He merely broke his straps on his backpack.
That doesn't qualify under the dire emergency clause.

For him to keep in touch with home and arrange for pickup at a different
location he would be best served by having a HAM license. HAM radio is more
likely to help in that situation.

From what you have said it is more than obvious you have no clue regarding FCC
rules and regulations. I'd suggest you educate yourself before making more of a
fool of yourself.


 EH>> You are an idiot.

 MT> Shame on you, Ed.  Shame on you.

Can the condescending attitude.

 EH>> You don't think at all.

 MT> Clearly the truth is the total opposite of your claim.

Clearly you are in error.

 MT> Had you been
 MT> thinking during the past couple of weeks, you would have realized
 MT> that your recommendation to Vern that he have a small HAM Radio
 MT> handy in case of an emergency was valid, without you pressing any
 MT> arguments that he learn CW or get licensed.  If his possessing the
 MT> HAM portable is strictly for emergency purposes, then what is all
 MT> of the arguing about, Ed?

You don't have a clue. Not a single clue. You are the fool here.

 EH>> All you like to do is post your smarmy comments thinking you can
 EH>> impress someone.

 MT> I invite you to have a peek in the Fidonet CONSPRCY - Conspiracy Echo
 MT> where you might find some evidence that I think and do more than
 MT> what you claim.  You might not agree with what I have to say on any
 MT> given subject, Ed, but that doesn't mean that you're correct.

I don't care for your silly conspiracy nonsense. I've read some of your idiocy
about computer chips being the mark of the beast. You are clueless there as
well. And, no, I will not turn this thread into a discussion on religion.

 EH>> One thing they better be willing to do is defend themself in the
 EH>> in the event that their "emergency" isn't found to be a real
 EH>> emergency.

 MT> Like I said, I think you guys have totally lost all perspective here.

You think in error. You are absolutely clueless regarding HAM radio and FCC
rules and regulations.

 MT> You were talking to Vern about his "emergency" in the wilderness.

No, his troubles in the wilderness were not an emergency justifying use of HAM
radio without a license.

 MT> You think Vern's capable, Ed?  You think he can defend himself, Ed?

Huh? What on earth are you prattling on about?

Ed

--- Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)