If I tried something like that I'd get the record setting fine for such a
thing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Vece" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: Repeater


Well, I wouldn't want to put them to the test.

73 De Anthony W2AJV
[log in to unmask]
ECHOLINK NODE NUMBER: 74389


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Humbert" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: Repeater


>I don't think the FCC cares about anything going on on the amateur radio
> frequencies.  There is a man here in southern California who for years has
> blatantly in every way violated every conceivable way all regulations.
> With
> much more than legal power he blocks repeaters.  He plays tapes of his
> political beliefs and boasts on the air that the FCC will never touch him
> because he will tie them up with hearing after hearing.  He was once
> actually jailed for interfering with police broadcasts but the FCC just
> ignores countless complaints from hams and ham clubs.  As far as amateur
> radio is concerned the FCC is nothing but a  toothless paper tiger.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Louis Kim Kline" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 10:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Repeater
>
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> My first thought when I read Kevin's post was "And they wonder why the
>> FCC
>> doesn't give spit about Amateur Radio anymore."  Could it be that the FCC
>> truly believes that BPL would be of far more benefit to the general
>> public
>> than amateur radio.  And doesn't crap like this really make their case?
>>
>> 73, de Lou K2LKK
>>
>>
>> Louis Kim Kline
>> A.R.S. K2LKK
>> Home e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
>> Work e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
>> Work Telephone:  (585) 697-5753
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.2 - Release Date: 5/2/2005
>
>