[Useless]

:idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:

Ahh!! The Light of Inspiration hag just gone off!!

My Next Venture!!

I'm going to take RR's postings, and have them printed upon toilet paper rolls!!

How many of you would buy a roll??

i wouldn't buy any. i find myself somewhat morbidly obsessed with his cut and paste court documents that i would sit there and read the tp instead of wiping my ass.

[Bandit102]

Yeah, what channel does Ray use? This could be fun. No offense Ray, but come on. We run the radios we want to run. If ever I am on a channel and offend someone, I'll gladly move to another, no problem. But FCC? I aint skeert. I aint gonna be skeert. They can take my radio away and I'll have another just like it tomorrow.

[RadioRay]

Amateurs don't USE "channels". We are talking about the internationally assigned 10 Meter band. What I have been trying to get across (and SOME of us, like SunCom DO get it!) is that the use of the 10 Meter band requires a license issued by the Federal Government. These frequencies are not part of CB and the use of them by unlicensed people WILL get them in trouble plenty. It is the equivilent of installing a police radio in your truck and talking on their band; the law is the same. You are placing yourself in danger of large fines if you do this. Persist and you can find yourself in jail. NO joke! To you, due to the unregulated nature of CB and the undisciplined treatment of CB radios (a child's toy, really as it has not advanced in 50 years) it is funny, but there are people right now IN PRISON over this very thing. (See "Rabbit Ears" who got 8 years for his "extree channels" and harassing lawful radio operators. Also look on the FCC website for "Jack Gerritsen"--also serving time for misdeeds related to interference, unlicensed operation, and interfering with an actual rescue at sea). There were photos of Mr Rabitt Ears in shackles and chains :shock: as he appeared in court.

There is a pecular quirk amonst some people that when they get a microphone in their hand, their head swells and they become this BIG, BAD REDDIO operator. "Nobody can do anything with ME!" I'm BIG and I'm BAD, and I got this h'yar BIG reddiddo; cain't no FCC mess with ME! Funny how this peculiarity only seems to show up with CBers (and an occasional ham who migrated from CB radio).

So, sure! You can go out and buy another radio just like you say! A Mr L. Duckworth did EXACTLY that. He first got cited for operating overpower. The agents seized his "linear". So what did this guy do? He goes out and buys a Galaxy 99V and a 2500 watt amp! How STOOPID can you get? Not much more! $10,000 fine later reduced to $2500 upon proof that he could not possibly pay 10 grand (tax records)

************************************************** **********

From: www.fcc.gov/eb

(snipped)

2. In response to a complaint, on July 18, 2006, agents from the Commission's Atlanta Office of the Enforcement Bureau ("Atlanta Office") conducted an inspection of Mr. Duckworth's CB radio station located inside his residence. The agents observed a coaxial cable connecting a linear amplifier to his CB transmitter. The power of the station as installed measured at 106 watts. Mr. Duckworth admitted to the agents that he had been operating the station with the attached linear amplifier. The agents informed him that he was in violation of the Commission's Rules ("Rules") and that use of a linear amplifier voided his authority to operate his station. Mr. Duckworth voluntarily surrendered his linear amplifier.

3. In response to another complaint, on September 28, 2006, agents from the Atlanta Office re-inspected the CB station in Mr. Duckworth's residence. The agents observed a coaxial cable connecting two linear amplifiers to his CB transmitter. The power of the station as installed measured at 2500 watts. The CB transmitter at his station was a non-certificated CB transmitter, Galaxy model DX99V. Mr. Duckworth admitted he used his station as configured.

4. On December 15, 2006, the Atlanta Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Mr. Duckworth in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Duckworth submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay.

III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Duckworth's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.

4. Section 301 of the Act requires that no person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio within the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. Section 95.404 of the Rules states that CB operators do not require an individual license to operate a CB station because they are authorized by this rule to operate in accordance with the rules in this subpart.

5. Section 95.409(a) of the Rules requires that CB operators use an FCC certificated CB transmitter at their CB stations. Section 95.409 of the Rules also states that use of a non-certificated transmitter voids your authority to operate your station. On September 28, 2006, agents from the Atlanta Office observed a non-certificated CB transmitter, a Galaxy DX99V, installed at his Mr. Duckworth's CB station. Mr. Duckworth admitted using a non-certificated CB transmitter.

6. Section 95.410(a) of the Rules states that CB station transmitter output must not exceed 4 watts carrier power. Section 95.410(c) of the Rules also states that use of a transmitter which has carrier power in excess of that authorized voids your authority to operate the station. On July 18, and September 28, 2006, Mr. Duckworth's station carrier power was measured to be 106 watts and 2500 watts, respectively. 4. Section 95.411(a)(1) of the Rules prohibits attaching an external radio frequency (RF) power amplifier, sometimes called a linear amplifier, to a CB transmitter in any way. Section 95.411(b) of the Rules states that there are no exceptions to this rule and use of a power amplifier voids your authority to operate the station. On July 18 and September 28, 2006, agents observed linear amplifiers attached to Mr. Duckworth's CB transmitter. On both dates, Mr. Duckworth admitted using the linear amplifiers attached to his transmitter. 5. Because Mr. Duckworth violated the CB Rules by using a non-certificated CB transmitter, attaching linear amplifiers to his CB transmitter, and operating overpower, he voided his authority to operate his CB station pursuant to Section 95.404 of the Rules. Thus, based on the evidence, we find that Mr. Duckworth willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmitter, his CB transmitter, without the required authorization from the Commission. 6. In his response to the NAL, Mr. Duckworth asserts that a $10,000 forfeiture would produce a financial hardship and requests that the forfeiture be cancelled or significantly reduced. The Commission has determined that, in general, an entity's gross revenues are the best indicator of its ability to pay a forfeiture. After reviewing Mr. Duckworth's financial documentation, we conclude that a reduction of the forfeiture to $2,500 would be appropriate.

7. We have examined Mr. Duckworth's response to the NAL pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy Statement. As a result of our review, we conclude that Mr. Duckworth willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. Although cancellation of the proposed monetary forfeiture is not warranted, reduction of the forfeiture amount to $2,500 is appropriate based on Mr. Duckworth's demonstrated inability to pay.

IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Larry J. Duckworth IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 9. Payment of the forfeiture

(snip)
************************************************** ***********

Then again from the FCC website


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
ENFORCEMENT BUREAU NORTHEAST REGION
Detroit Office 24897 Hathaway Street
Farmington Hills, Michigan 48375
August 16, 2007
(Sent via Certified Return Receipt Requested and First Class U.S. Mail)
Seldon Turner
Batavia, Ohio
NOTICE OF UNLICENSED OPERATION
Case Number: EB-07-DT-140 Document Number: W20073236006

The Detroit Office received information that your Citizens Band ("CB") Radio Service station was being operated illegally and causing interference in Batavia, Ohio. On May 16, 2007, an agent from this office inspected the radio station at your residence and confirmed that you were operating a Galaxy DX88HL radio in your vehicle and a galaxy Saturn in your home, which are non-certified CB transceivers. By using these non- certified transceivers, you voided your authority to operate this station. Radio stations must be licensed by the FCC pursuant to 47 U.S.C. S: 301.
You are hereby warned that operation of radio transmitting equipment without a valid radio station authorization constitutes a violation of the Federal laws cited above and could subject the operator to severe penalties, including, but not limited to, substantial monetary fines, in rem arrest action against the offending radio equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment. (see 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503 and 510). UNLICENSED OPERATION OF THIS RADIO STATION MUST BE DISCONTINUED IMMEDIATELY.

(snipped)

From: www.fcc.gov/eb

************************************************** **********

The days of NO chance of getting nailed for CB outlaw-ism are gone. Sure, it's a crap shoot. You might not get caught. But, then.................
with so many people just ready to drop a dime on you...........................
I guess it boils down to whether you can afford to pay $2500 to $10,000 to FCC for violating the law. It could also mean your JOB if the company gets nailed for allowing illegal equipment in the truck AFTER you were told previously to get it out. Those folks above sure hated having to pay, I'd bet! Do you feel lucky?? :twisted:

RR

[greg3564]

Originally Posted by RadioRay

Amateurs don't USE "channels". We are talking about the internationally assigned 10 Meter band. What I have been trying to get across (and SOME of us, like SunCom DO get it!) is that the use of the 10 Meter band requires a license issued by the Federal Government. These frequencies are not part of CB and the use of them by unlicensed people WILL get them in trouble plenty. It is the equivilent of installing a police radio in your truck and talking on their band; the law is the same. You are placing yourself in danger of large fines if you do this. Persist and you can find yourself in jail. NO joke! To you, due to the unregulated nature of CB and the undisciplined treatment of CB radios (a child's toy, really as it has not advanced in 50 years) it is funny, but there are people right now IN PRISON over this very thing. (See "Rabbit Ears" who got 8 years for his "extree channels" and harassing lawful radio operators. Also look on the FCC website for "Jack Gerritsen"--also serving time for misdeeds related to interference, unlicensed operation, and interfering with an actual rescue at sea). There were photos of Mr Rabitt Ears in shackles and chains :shock: as he appeared in court.

There is a pecular quirk amonst some people that when they get a microphone in their hand, their head swells and they become this BIG, BAD REDDIO operator. "Nobody can do anything with ME!" I'm BIG and I'm BAD, and I got this h'yar BIG reddiddo; cain't no FCC mess with ME! Funny how this peculiarity only seems to show up with CBers (and an occasional ham who migrated from CB radio).

So, sure! You can go out and buy another radio just like you say! A Mr L. Duckworth did EXACTLY that. He first got cited for operating overpower. The agents seized his "linear". So what did this guy do? He goes out and buys a Galaxy 99V and a 2500 watt amp! How STOOPID can you get? Not much more! $10,000 fine later reduced to $2500 upon proof that he could not possibly pay 10 grand (tax records)

************************************************** **********

From: www.fcc.gov/eb

(snipped)

2. In response to a complaint, on July 18, 2006, agents from the Commission's Atlanta Office of the Enforcement Bureau ("Atlanta Office") conducted an inspection of Mr. Duckworth's CB radio station located inside his residence. The agents observed a coaxial cable connecting a linear amplifier to his CB transmitter. The power of the station as installed measured at 106 watts. Mr. Duckworth admitted to the agents that he had been operating the station with the attached linear amplifier. The agents informed him that he was in violation of the Commission's Rules ("Rules") and that use of a linear amplifier voided his authority to operate his station. Mr. Duckworth voluntarily surrendered his linear amplifier.

3. In response to another complaint, on September 28, 2006, agents from the Atlanta Office re-inspected the CB station in Mr. Duckworth's residence. The agents observed a coaxial cable connecting two linear amplifiers to his CB transmitter. The power of the station as installed measured at 2500 watts. The CB transmitter at his station was a non-certificated CB transmitter, Galaxy model DX99V. Mr. Duckworth admitted he used his station as configured.

4. On December 15, 2006, the Atlanta Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Mr. Duckworth in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act. Mr. Duckworth submitted a response to the NAL requesting a reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture based on his inability to pay.

III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mr. Duckworth's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.

4. Section 301 of the Act requires that no person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio within the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. Section 95.404 of the Rules states that CB operators do not require an individual license to operate a CB station because they are authorized by this rule to operate in accordance with the rules in this subpart.

5. Section 95.409(a) of the Rules requires that CB operators use an FCC certificated CB transmitter at their CB stations. Section 95.409 of the Rules also states that use of a non-certificated transmitter voids your authority to operate your station. On September 28, 2006, agents from the Atlanta Office observed a non-certificated CB transmitter, a Galaxy DX99V, installed at his Mr. Duckworth's CB station. Mr. Duckworth admitted using a non-certificated CB transmitter.

6. Section 95.410(a) of the Rules states that CB station transmitter output must not exceed 4 watts carrier power. Section 95.410(c) of the Rules also states that use of a transmitter which has carrier power in excess of that authorized voids your authority to operate the station. On July 18, and September 28, 2006, Mr. Duckworth's station carrier power was measured to be 106 watts and 2500 watts, respectively. 4. Section 95.411(a)(1) of the Rules prohibits attaching an external radio frequency (RF) power amplifier, sometimes called a linear amplifier, to a CB transmitter in any way. Section 95.411(b) of the Rules states that there are no exceptions to this rule and use of a power amplifier voids your authority to operate the station. On July 18 and September 28, 2006, agents observed linear amplifiers attached to Mr. Duckworth's CB transmitter. On both dates, Mr. Duckworth admitted using the linear amplifiers attached to his transmitter. 5. Because Mr. Duckworth violated the CB Rules by using a non-certificated CB transmitter, attaching linear amplifiers to his CB transmitter, and operating overpower, he voided his authority to operate his CB station pursuant to Section 95.404 of the Rules. Thus, based on the evidence, we find that Mr. Duckworth willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmitter, his CB transmitter, without the required authorization from the Commission. 6. In his response to the NAL, Mr. Duckworth asserts that a $10,000 forfeiture would produce a financial hardship and requests that the forfeiture be cancelled or significantly reduced. The Commission has determined that, in general, an entity's gross revenues are the best indicator of its ability to pay a forfeiture. After reviewing Mr. Duckworth's financial documentation, we conclude that a reduction of the forfeiture to $2,500 would be appropriate.

7. We have examined Mr. Duckworth's response to the NAL pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy Statement. As a result of our review, we conclude that Mr. Duckworth willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act. Although cancellation of the proposed monetary forfeiture is not warranted, reduction of the forfeiture amount to $2,500 is appropriate based on Mr. Duckworth's demonstrated inability to pay.

IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Larry J. Duckworth IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 9. Payment of the forfeiture

(snip)
************************************************** ***********

Then again from the FCC website


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
ENFORCEMENT BUREAU NORTHEAST REGION
Detroit Office 24897 Hathaway Street
Farmington Hills, Michigan 48375
August 16, 2007
(Sent via Certified Return Receipt Requested and First Class U.S. Mail)
Seldon Turner
Batavia, Ohio
NOTICE OF UNLICENSED OPERATION
Case Number: EB-07-DT-140 Document Number: W20073236006

The Detroit Office received information that your Citizens Band ("CB") Radio Service station was being operated illegally and causing interference in Batavia, Ohio. On May 16, 2007, an agent from this office inspected the radio station at your residence and confirmed that you were operating a Galaxy DX88HL radio in your vehicle and a galaxy Saturn in your home, which are non-certified CB transceivers. By using these non- certified transceivers, you voided your authority to operate this station. Radio stations must be licensed by the FCC pursuant to 47 U.S.C. S: 301.
You are hereby warned that operation of radio transmitting equipment without a valid radio station authorization constitutes a violation of the Federal laws cited above and could subject the operator to severe penalties, including, but not limited to, substantial monetary fines, in rem arrest action against the offending radio equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment. (see 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503 and 510). UNLICENSED OPERATION OF THIS RADIO STATION MUST BE DISCONTINUED IMMEDIATELY.

(snipped)

From: www.fcc.gov/eb

************************************************** **********

The days of NO chance of getting nailed for CB outlaw-ism are gone. Sure, it's a crap shoot. You might not get caught. But, then.................
with so many people just ready to drop a dime on you...........................
I guess it boils down to whether you can afford to pay $2500 to $10,000 to FCC for violating the law. It could also mean your JOB if the company gets nailed for allowing illegal equipment in the truck AFTER you were told previously to get it out. Those folks above sure hated having to pay, I'd bet! Do you feel lucky?? :twisted:

RR

Dude you're one thick headed person.

1. NOBODY CARES!!!!!
2. NOBODY CARES!!!!!
3. NOBODY CARES!!!!!

and 4. NOBODY CARES!!!!!

Go start up your own radio site and complain till your blue in the face. There are just as many non truck drivers screwing around on your beloved 10 meter radio too. Get a life, get on some meds and call Dr. Phil.

[Bandit102]

Ok, ametures don't use channels. So, why are you so upset when someone else does "use" one? I thought some of this 10 meter band was opened up by the FCC. Free band or something of the sort. I dunno. Its just nice to be able to get off the 40 every now and then and have some intelligent conversation now and then. Not so long ago, I used to spend hours on 27.555 and in that neighborhood on the sidebands talking literally all over the world. That was a lot of fun. Never did I hear any Hams out there throwing a fit. Never have I heard one complain on the radio...ever. But, here I come to this forum and here you are, Ray. I think maybe you have a one man crusade going here. But what do I know, I's just a bigg reddio havin hi skool drop out truck drivin' son uv a gunn.

[Twilight Flyer]

So, I believe what we are getting to is that if your name is Mr. Duckworth, you're toast. The rest of you carry on!

:roll:

Greg is right. Nobody here really cares. You are doing nothing but giving Hams a bad name and goading people into actually doing the things you are whining about. I know, I've seen a few of the PM's. You tick off several dozen people here enough to play in your precious 10 meters just to "show you", what have you accomplished? Nothing but muck up your precious 10 meters and if you think any of them are going to get caught, you're deluding yourself. Figure it out here, Ray. The problem at this point is you. There are plenty of different ways to handle the 'problem'. Your way is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire in hopes of putting it out.

:roll:

[RadioRay]

Originally Posted by Bandit102

Ok, ametures don't use channels. So, why are you so upset when someone else does "use" one? I thought some of this 10 meter band was opened up by the FCC. Free band or something of the sort. I dunno. Its just nice to be able to get off the 40 every now and then and have some intelligent conversation now and then. Not so long ago, I used to spend hours on 27.555 and in that neighborhood on the sidebands talking literally all over the world. That was a lot of fun. Never did I hear any Hams out there throwing a fit. Never have I heard one complain on the radio...ever. But, here I come to this forum and here you are, Ray. I think maybe you have a one man crusade going here. But what do I know, I's just a bigg reddio havin hi skool drop out truck drivin' son uv a gunn.

************************************************** **********

OK, I'm gonna answer THIS one and quit. The 10 Meter band is an internationally assigned, treaty-governed allocation. It is allocated to LICENSED amateur radio operators. The FCC cannot, and WILL not "open up" 10 Meters; they do not have the authority so long as the USA is a signatory to those treaties. Just as info, the 10 Meter band is 28.000 thru 29.700 MHZ. That 27.555 thing is a part of the mythical "freeband" that untrained CBers have convinced themselves they have a 'right' to operate on. That's another issue. The hams are not worried about 27 MHZ, but 10 Meters IS their "turf". Play around on 10 Meters and you will eventually be sorry. Read that letter to Mr Duckworth. The Feds gave him a chance and seized his amplifier. Obviously, the man thought his sh-- didn't stink, so he went out and bought TWO amplifiers and a Galaxy 99V to boost his power to 2500 watts
(the "Ah'm this h'yar BIG, BAD reddio operator thar, tan-fer thar?" syndrome) It caused a $10,000 forfeiture (later reduced to $2500 upon proof of inability to pay 10 grand). If he does it again, he WILL find himself in court facing up to 10 years in prison.

There are PLENTY of warnings and notices to CB operators as well as truckers over the 10 Meter issue. They appear at www.arrl.org and on the FCC website. There's enough of them to convince a sane person that playing around on licensed spectrum isn't a good idea. Liking or hating RadioRay doesn't change the facts of the matter, nor will it make your chances of getting in trouble over this any less. Going onto 10 Meters is a BAD idea!

For many years, truckers have complained on various websites about being like Rodney Dangerfield----not getting any respect. I remember a time when truckers WERE members of a respected profession. Then the "cowboy" image, the "bad boy" genre. and the "BIG BAD REDDIO operator" with this idea that because he has a large vehicle he has a right to push around other vehicles thru intimidation, additionally that large truck gives them the right to break the law regards radio; radio that is assigned to other users for their exclusive use. While most drivers ARE professional and clean, the image is tarnished by a "seedy", rough-hewn bunch who feel they should be looked up to no matter WHAT they do. It is these few that cause trouble for the REST of the profession. They think they are "cowboys" riding the trail in white hats and nothing they do can be suspect. Then the entire profession wonders why they DON'T get respect. :?

Respecting the law of the land is part of earning respect and trust. When a group of people is being aggrieved by a bunch of unlicensed CBers who DEMAND, PUSH, GRAB radio space and STEAL something that they have NO right to, how can you expect to be "respected"? The hams (most of them, of course, who have never posted here) EARNED the privilege of using blocks of radio spectrum NOT by GRABBING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T BELONG TO THEM, BUT BY FOLLOWING THE LAW, STUDYING THE MATERIAL, THEN TESTING TO MEET THE MIMIMUM REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. Outlaw CBers, OTH, simply STEAL that which doesn't belong to them like the common thief they are, then wonder why "Ah jist don' git no respect"! Respect is earned, and RETURNED in the measure it is due! Your image as a profession is being tarnished by this small (?) group of people who feel that THEY are just SOOOOOO important that they can brush others aside and walk right into some else's "house" without invitation (in this case, license). CB radio as a whole, while a useful tool (sometimes) has a negative image among the public who has migrated from that to computers, cellphones and fax. That image is one of trailer parks, interference to TV and entertainment devices, outlaw-ism, disregard for rules, low income, bad attitudes, and a certain low classness. Yes, that sounds bad---and it is, but it is THERE, and not because I say so. CB has never shaken the "Smokey and the Bandit", car chases, ten-four goody buddy image, and all the public knows is, his TV is on the fritz because of this CBer down the street who insists on using that "leenyar". Drivers who filch 10 Meters have this same image among those hams who EARNED their privileges. Yes, you can place all your anger on ME since I'm the one who posts here. If you think that I am the only one who DISRESPECTS outlaws because *they* aren't posting here, you are delusional. (Google "truckers and 10 Meters" ifyou don't believe me). Google "Hammies want us off 10 Meters"----DAMN straight we do; it BELONGS to US! :evil: It isn't JUST me that RESENTS those of you show up on 28 MHZ! Read www.qrz.com for some of the archives on this subject and you will see some REAL hatred for the outlaws! Even a disdain for CB radio as a whole! Nope it isn't "them elitist hams thinkin' they's better than us"! It isn't about being "stuck up"! CB radio has EARNED its reputation (dis)honestly and gets exactly the reputation it deserves ranging from mild disdain to a full hatred for all things CB! :shock: It's about earning respect for your fellow man! You don't do it by thieving something from the other guy!

And while you laugh, remember the things that are being done behind the scenes to stop your theft! (those who think they are radio Gods who are exempt from the law. Just because you aren't reading it doesn't mean things are being done.

Want respect? Then EARN it with dignity by giving respect to those you want it from. Follow the law. Keep your CB radio on the 40 channels; most of the time, the majority of them are quiet. The going outside of them is mostly a way to feel "important" ("I gots dem extree channels an' you ain't got none" like a 5th grader.

I've said my piece, this thread is now worn tired. I'm done for now.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Z

RR

[Ridge Runner]

OK, I'm gonna answer THIS one and quit.

Thank God!!!! :roll:

[Twilight Flyer]

Google "Hammies want us off 10 Meters"----DAMN straight we do; it BELONGS to US!

That type of arrogance you show in your posts is exactly what I'm talking about. Makes me want to go out and buy a CB and live in the 10 meter band, just to make you mad.

:roll:

No one here cares, Ray. And if anyone here is in the 10 meter band, no one here is afraid of getting caught. You aren't the only Ham on this board. But you are alone on your own little island. There's not a lot of respect out there for you.

:roll: