D
dickfry
Guest
> > It's very sad that your recent trail of very good
> technical
> > posts has degenerated into nitpicking interpretation of
> FCC
> > rules. The technical trails were informative and
> > constructive to the part 15 community. The controversial
> > interpretations of FCC rules have been divisive and
> certaily
> > not constructive. (Phil Bolyn)
> ________
>
> Interesting when the same attention to logic, research and
> detail that produced "very good technical posts" is labeled
> nitpicky and divisive when applied to understanding the
> definitions and limits of Part 15.
>
It's pretty obvious that the only reason your "very good technical posts" were even entered here was to put us in our place. But I'd like to point out that this is our place, not yours. Go back where you came from and leave us alone. Your glory days are long past and nobody here really cares anyway.
-Love, Dick
> technical
> > posts has degenerated into nitpicking interpretation of
> FCC
> > rules. The technical trails were informative and
> > constructive to the part 15 community. The controversial
> > interpretations of FCC rules have been divisive and
> certaily
> > not constructive. (Phil Bolyn)
> ________
>
> Interesting when the same attention to logic, research and
> detail that produced "very good technical posts" is labeled
> nitpicky and divisive when applied to understanding the
> definitions and limits of Part 15.
>
It's pretty obvious that the only reason your "very good technical posts" were even entered here was to put us in our place. But I'd like to point out that this is our place, not yours. Go back where you came from and leave us alone. Your glory days are long past and nobody here really cares anyway.
-Love, Dick