K1MAN Responds

Don't confuse him with the facts. He'll only get cranky.

 

Don't forget his defenders.

 

I have a habbit of reading too fast, so it look that way how I read it. OK, I'll retract that Fred was defending him.

 

[sarcastic]And WHat are you talking about!? Cranky??

WhatDoYaMean Cranky?...

I DON'T GET CRANKY!! #$%$%^[/sarcastic]

 

Just like with a scheduled net, the ARRL had better be monitoring before they start. If I happen to be having a QSO on that frequency and they have an automated broadcast that begins on top of me, they are in violation IMO.

 

Leonard- Maybe you need to slow down. And possibly go back and redo grade school. The part where they teach spelling.

And remember this thread started when Fred posted Baxter's letter on this site.

 

Please help K1MAN urge the FCC to take swift action.
Volunteer to testify as to his operating practices
Urge consideration of his license renewal
Demand a hearing ASAP

WF1R I am available to testify

 

Charles,

You beat me to it

If the FCC is going after KIMAN (and I am NOT defending him as I was on his Nazi list) for the same thing that the ARRL wants the FCC to allow borders on the remarkable. At least MAN was limited to one frequency per band.

WL2K will have the run of the bands popping up on QSO's in progress in every bandwidth segment it is allowed to operate. If what KI MAN is doing is considered bad, why is rampant interference from digital bots any different?

One would think that any station op who unleashes intentional (and just be letting a semi automatic digital wun the bands seems intentional to me) should wind up with the same enforcement that KIMAN is subject to.

73
George
K3UD

 

Is this true?? If  so, here is my agreement with you:

Well, I'm a brand new General from TechPlus and I believe my test questions and study material made it clear that ONE WAY communications are considered BROADCASTING since their is no control operator, nor a remote control operator since the word "automated" by its very nature suggests no human control and also proves that it is a ONE WAY communication since it will not stop and "answer" you if you call it. PERIOD.

Automated broadcasts by the spirit and letter of the FCC rules should be illegal IMO on amateur radio bands for any purpose. You can not have a one-way QSO and I thought that was what amateur radio was all about. If anyone, k1MAN or ARRL, wants to have an automated broadcast, they need to buy a commercial radio station.

 

Glenn, you know the rules, you have flaunted them for years, now just shut the f up and pay the ticket.

 

The only service IARN ever provided was to inflate Baxter's ego. All this writing in the third person, and his imaginary great deeds demonstrate that the guy suffers from delusions and needs some strong medication to bring him back to reality.

We only know who he is because he is an idiot. If he wasn't an idiot he would be a nobody.

 

Am I confused? Isn't a Ham Radio license a PRIVELEGE granted by the Government not an inalienable Creator endowed right guaranteed by the Constitution? And doesn't the operator agree to the terms of the license by signing it to put it into effect? And can't the Government freely revoke that privilege for violation of the rules? And is the licensee not agreeing with the FCC's rules?

David

KB5DRJ

 

KB5DRJ - If you're confused then so am I, but I agree with you.

N3JJA - cool, "beating a dead horse". Perhaps, at this point, we are.

 

You guys are absolutely right.

But, you should also include Winlink and Airmail, and whatever other "mode" that Jim Correnman and Steve Waterman have invented, to spew their internet email on the Ham frequencies, along with WL2K/ARESCOM.

Perhaps when the FCC gets thorugh with this Baxter idiot, they may want to look into why these Pactor robots start transmitting on a frequency already in use, and also ask why, if a connect is not made, that they don't identify their station.

73, Bernie / KF4FHS
.
.

 

"Flouted." Flout the law is what you do when you break the speed limit. Flaunt the law is what the cop does when he catches you.

In Baxterd's case, he seems to think he's flaunting Part 97 by flouting it; or, flouting Part 97 by flaunting the Constitution. Now I'm confused!