Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Out of band use

Expand Messages
  • Ron Schwarz
    Sorry to be following this up so late, my health has been very bad and I am trying to catch up with old traffic. I don t know if this topic has been flogged
    Message 1 of 21 , Aug 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Sorry to be following this up so late, my health has been very bad and I am
      trying to catch up with old traffic. I don't know if this topic has been
      flogged to death or not in later posts, but I got this far into the digest,
      and I gotta say that *I'm* just a tad sick and tired of this turkey
      flogging ME with wild abandon.

      Look, dude, I've about had it with your smarmy condescending insults about
      my language skills.

      As fortune would have it, I happen to be a professional writer. No, I
      don't mean I'm the type of "professional writer" who sits in his loft
      scratching out reams of garble as he cross-indexes his growing pile of
      rejection notices. I'm talking about the type of writer known as
      "published author", and by "published," I mean "the same outfit thats
      committed to publish Queen Hillary's upcoming thriller. I could go on, but
      to be frank, I'd rather...

      No, I'm not gonna go there.

      Some people, I swear.

      Anyhow, "Xuan", your tiresome and pedantic rant notwithstanding, it turns
      out that the two awkward clauses, to-wit:

      >- or as otherwise expressly provided by the Commission,
      >
      >- or as otherwise expressly provided by law.

      remain.

      And though you quote them with a smirk so cheezy that it oozes through your
      keyboard, you haven't bothered to *address* them. And, I will take great
      pleasure in reminding me that the two clauses that you have elected to NOT
      address -- as you persisted in your attack on my intelligence and literary
      skills -- just happen to be the ONLY basis for my initial comments.

      You're a real piece of work. I pity your relatives.


      > Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 16:27:28 -0000
      > From: "Xaun Loc" <xaunloc@...>
      >Subject: Re: Out of band use
      >
      >Try reading it this way
      >
      >(d) That in no event shall any station engage in emergency
      >transmission
      >
      >- on frequencies other than that specified in the instrument of
      >authorization
      >
      >- or with power in excess of that specified in the instrument of
      >authorization
      >
      >- or as otherwise expressly provided by the Commission,
      >
      >- or as otherwise expressly provided by law.
      >
      >This is the exact same wording as the original, the only change is
      >that I have expanded the parallel clauses to include the duplicate
      >words that common to more than one clause at a time.
      >
      >Apparently the original was written before the country's public
      >school systems collectively decided that students should not have to
      >be constrained by learning "useless" and "restrictive" subjects like
      >grammar that might stifle their creativity (or that would require the
      >teachers to actually know their subject).
      >
      >We have enough well educated people here who attended school back
      >when parsing (or diagramming) a sentence was still being taught. I
      >invite them to compare the original text to the expansion above and
      >offer their opinion as to whether or not this version matches the
      >original.
      >
      >
    • m4bz@garlic.com
      Gosh...I m a bit surprised by your intense reaction, especially since Xuan is exactly correct. In an emergency, you can operate on any frequency you are
      Message 2 of 21 , Sep 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Gosh...I'm a bit surprised by your intense reaction, especially since Xuan
        is exactly correct.

        "In an emergency, you can operate on any frequency you are licensed to
        operate on, or which the commission says you can in another part of the
        law."

        That's what is says, regardless of how obtuse the FCC tries to write it.

        Mark

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Ron Schwarz [mailto:rs@...]
        Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 2:19 AM
        To: GMRS@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [GMRS] Re: Out of band use


        Sorry to be following this up so late, my health has been very bad and I am
        trying to catch up with old traffic. I don't know if this topic has been
        flogged to death or not in later posts, but I got this far into the digest,
        and I gotta say that *I'm* just a tad sick and tired of this turkey
        flogging ME with wild abandon.

        Look, dude, I've about had it with your smarmy condescending insults about
        my language skills.

        As fortune would have it, I happen to be a professional writer. No, I
        don't mean I'm the type of "professional writer" who sits in his loft
        scratching out reams of garble as he cross-indexes his growing pile of
        rejection notices. I'm talking about the type of writer known as
        "published author", and by "published," I mean "the same outfit thats
        committed to publish Queen Hillary's upcoming thriller. I could go on, but
        to be frank, I'd rather...

        No, I'm not gonna go there.

        Some people, I swear.

        Anyhow, "Xuan", your tiresome and pedantic rant notwithstanding, it turns
        out that the two awkward clauses, to-wit:

        >- or as otherwise expressly provided by the Commission,
        >
        >- or as otherwise expressly provided by law.

        remain.

        And though you quote them with a smirk so cheezy that it oozes through your
        keyboard, you haven't bothered to *address* them. And, I will take great
        pleasure in reminding me that the two clauses that you have elected to NOT
        address -- as you persisted in your attack on my intelligence and literary
        skills -- just happen to be the ONLY basis for my initial comments.

        You're a real piece of work. I pity your relatives.


        > Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 16:27:28 -0000
        > From: "Xaun Loc" <xaunloc@...>
        >Subject: Re: Out of band use
        >
        >Try reading it this way
        >
        >(d) That in no event shall any station engage in emergency
        >transmission
        >
        >- on frequencies other than that specified in the instrument of
        >authorization
        >
        >- or with power in excess of that specified in the instrument of
        >authorization
        >
        >- or as otherwise expressly provided by the Commission,
        >
        >- or as otherwise expressly provided by law.
        >
        >This is the exact same wording as the original, the only change is
        >that I have expanded the parallel clauses to include the duplicate
        >words that common to more than one clause at a time.
        >
        >Apparently the original was written before the country's public
        >school systems collectively decided that students should not have to
        >be constrained by learning "useless" and "restrictive" subjects like
        >grammar that might stifle their creativity (or that would require the
        >teachers to actually know their subject).
        >
        >We have enough well educated people here who attended school back
        >when parsing (or diagramming) a sentence was still being taught. I
        >invite them to compare the original text to the expansion above and
        >offer their opinion as to whether or not this version matches the
        >original.
        >
        >





        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.