I don't want you to feel that I'm unfair with you in any way. I'll be the first
one to point out that a reader rebuffed an earlier letter of mine. In my
letter, I'd pointed out that it was difficult to apply the term "illegal" to
the breaking of FCC rules/regs since the FCC has no voted representation. I
further pointed out that, I do realize that the FCC rules/regs are laws and the
violation of said laws technically and correctly termed "illegal." I was just
making a point.
While the reader stated "I realize he <me> was just making a point, however,
considering the confusion with the definition of "is" some freebanders might be
disoriented and not read between the lines of his letter." This sounds very
much like your assertion that some "impressionable" freebanders might infer a
degree of righteousness. This was not my intent and I am certainly not above a
public apology if anybody inferred such from my words. He then goes on to issue
a reminder with "So a word of warning to your freeband readers - check the
options the FCC has if a person is found guilty of illegal operations in the
radio spectrum by an unlicensed station." This is very correct and I'll be the
first to say so. So perhaps, you can send this fellow an anti-freebanding
Unfortunately for this reader, it turns out he was the unknowing victim of a,
somewhat cruel, April fool's joke. The case he chose to cite was a spoof run by
the staff of CQ Amateur Radio magazine (Pop'Comm's sister publication.) on pp.
28-32 of their April 2001 issue. Perhaps he should've followed his own advise
and done some research before submitting a letter citing specific enforcement
actions. Despite his minor mishap, (Which resulted in his being heartily
heckled by the editor.) his message is correct. This letter and the editor's
response can be found on pp. 76-77 of the October 2001 issue.
I also have excerpts of my USENET posts along with those of a well-known
r.r.cb/r.r.a.p. poster appear on pp. 26-27 under the title of 'Follow The
Money.' Some of you may remember this thread. It was titled 'ARRL PRAISES
CBERS' on r.r.a.p., and it ended up being 569 articles long. (I think that's
the correct thread?) So there you have it, Aaron. I'll rib you when you're
wrong, but no more so than I'd have done to myself.
73 de Bert