Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type.
;-)

Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very short-lived.
It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the
consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models and
engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as
"stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is
considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's an
interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the
Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed had
started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios and
horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car".

Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in engineering
and engine design, there are some current model cars that can outperform
their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger R/T
with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high output
440.
Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true of
the limited production version of the new GTO.

So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it.

Eisboch



I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)
Grow up and act like a man.

Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of the
newsgroup. Neither of you knows when to shut up and let things just do by.

This is classic!! How funny. Let's see, we've got Bert, who blindly and
ignorantly calls me Kevin every post, saying that *I* don't know when
to let things go!!! How stupid can it get, folks?


Kevin, you keep responding to posts that according to you don't apply to
you. How much more fun can this be?

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

basskisser wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:

JimH wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any
type.
;-)

Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very
short-lived.
It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the
consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car
models and
engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as
"stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is
considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car".
(It's an
interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the
Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the
fed had
started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression
ratios and
horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car".

Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in
engineering
and engine design, there are some current model cars that can
outperform
their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge
Charger R/T
with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high
output
440.
Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is
true of
the limited production version of the new GTO.

So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it.

Eisboch



I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)

Grow up and act like a man.

Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of the
newsgroup. Neither of you knows when to shut up and let things *just
do by*.

Oh my! You're 'special' Bertie.

Don, do you attack everyone's typing mistakes, yours included? Do you
incessantly send letters to your local newspaper every time you find an
error in typesetting or a grammatical error?

If someone stutters while speaking do you attack them and say they are
"special?" Your pedantic ways are akin to Kevin's dogged attack of
anything and everything.

I only attack idiots and childish acting fools who are too dumb to
figure out that I'm not Kevin.


Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:

JimH wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any
type.
;-)

Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very
short-lived.
It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the
consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car
models and
engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as
"stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is
considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car".
(It's an
interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the
Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the
fed had
started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression
ratios and
horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car".

Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in
engineering
and engine design, there are some current model cars that can
outperform
their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge
Charger R/T
with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high
output
440.
Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is
true of
the limited production version of the new GTO.

So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it.

Eisboch



I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)

Grow up and act like a man.

Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of the
newsgroup. Neither of you knows when to shut up and let things *just
do by*.

Oh my! You're 'special' Bertie.

Don, do you attack everyone's typing mistakes, yours included? Do you
incessantly send letters to your local newspaper every time you find an
error in typesetting or a grammatical error?

If someone stutters while speaking do you attack them and say they are
"special?" Your pedantic ways are akin to Kevin's dogged attack of
anything and everything.

I only attack idiots and childish acting fools who are too dumb to
figure out that I'm not Kevin.


Whatever you say Kevin!

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ps.com...

Jim, what happened to you calling him all kinds of childish names and
petty insults because he has things you don't?


Why don't you just shut up?

This is getting old and I, for one, am getting tired of it.

Eisboch (getting very tempted to use the killfile for the first time, ever)

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message Why don't you just shut up?

This is getting old and I, for one, am getting tired of it.

Eisboch (getting very tempted to use the killfile for the first time,
ever)

Don't you understand that these BS posts are the reason they are here? They
are people without a life, and this NG serves as a surrogate. If you are
posting here dozens of time per day, how much real life can you have?

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

Danlw wrote:
Great article in the August Nor'Westing on radio procedure. I really get
tired of hearing the "Got your ears on" hails along with the "negative
contact, channel clear" waste of bandwidth.

Hope you are correct that boater education will improve that for the willing
to learn.

Regards, Dan

Thanks for the kind remark.

We're back to return to work just a bit earlier than we really wanted
to be, (and came home to a very distressing health crisis with my
90-year old father in law).

We had a great time, and enjoyed wonderful weather almost every day.
"Indulgence" ran flawlwessly, and we got a lot of spontaneous
compliments about the newly refurbushed boat. I shot a few hundred
photos and of course had to do at least a little "work" everyday to
make a portion of the cruise tax deductible. (Back with a few articles
to run this winter). During the 17 nights we were out, we ran into
people that we knew at nearly every anchorage and marina where we put
in. What a lot of fun, exchanging sea stories over hot snacks and cold
refreshments. (We did dinner at the Treehouse in Ganges with some
friends one night- and then ran into some other friends who insisted
that we join them for dinner the following night, once again at the
Treehouse. Fortunately, it's one of my very favorite spots in the Gulf
Islands.) The fun thing about boating friends is that because of the
common bond it is so easy to converse. We were invited aboard the boat
of one couple we haven't seen in about 4 years, and it seemed like we
had all been sitting around yakking just a couple of days ago. :-)

I might have posted that VHF thing here a few months ago. It was
sitting in the "hopper" when the stormwater runoff issue suddenly
became more urgent- and I tossed it into the last issue as we were
deadlining and getting ready to leave for vacation.

For those with an interest in one boater's opinion on VHF protocol,
here it is again:




Deregulated VHF, Ten Years After

It seems impossible that ten years have elapsed since the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 eliminated the licensing requirement for
VHF radios, EBIRPS, and radar transmitters operated by "voluntary"
vessels in the domestic waters of the United States.
"Voluntary" boats are vessels that are not required by law or by
international treaty to carry a radio, but do so anyway. The vast
majority of pleasure boaters in the Pacific NW are not required to
carry a VHF, but there are some excellent reasons that nearly everybody
should have a VHF radio telephone aboard, and in most cases a handheld
backup as well.

Boating rookies have been overheard to say, "I don't need a VHF. I
carry my cell phone everywhere I go." Of course when the rookie gets
into a jamb in the middle of the Strait of Juan de Fuca he or she will
realize that getting in touch with Aunt Harriet in Yakima, calling
Brother Bob in Billings, or even phoning the Coast Guard at Port
Angeles probably won't result in getting assistance very quickly.
Unless there's a life-threatening emergency, the Coast Guard will
normally attempt to find a nearby vessel willing to assist. To do so,
the Coast Guard will employ the technology the rookie will learn he or
she should have had aboard: a VHF radio. Odds are minute that the
imperiled boater will know the number of a cell phone aboard even a
single boat within sight, but most boats with a VHF will be complying
with the protocol to monitor Channel 16.

As useful as VHF can be, careless or malicious misuse of the technology
endangers all of us. Boaters with more than ten years experience on the
water will clearly remember the time when each vessel with a VHF was
required to apply for a FCC license and call letters. An oft-cited
justification for deregulating the service was the theory that
decreased regulation would probably result in more universal use, and
increased use may indeed be a benefit. "Traffic" on the VHF
continues to get goofier and more informal year by year, with bogus
distress calls, long chatty conversations, and obscene remarks
(directed at no specific vessel identified by name) to "Watch your
blankety blank wake!" cluttering up the emergency frequencies. The
bogus "mayday" calls present an obvious problem, and it's easy to
recognize that two boaters chatting on 16 about the salmon bite or the
waitress at the waterfront coffee shop are hogging a frequency that may
be needed, at any moment, for an emergency broadcast. Increasingly
frequent bouts of " rules of the road rage" on the VHF can also
have deadly consequences if boaters begin turning off the VHF radios to
avoid listening to the angry shouting and outraged epithets of some
poor slob in a rocking boat.

With mandatory boater education laws now in effect, there may be reason
to hope the situation will improve. The worst VHF offenders will
certainly include some people who don't know any better, as well as
others who know the rules but choose to amuse themselves by violating
them. Education won't deter the deliberate jerks, but some who might
misuse the radio because they were not familiar with proper procedure
will happily learn the appropriate protocols.

No small amount of confusion prevails regarding the use of VHF by US
vessels in Canadian waters, but according to the FCC website
(wireless.fcc.gov/marine/fstcht 14.html):

(page 3): "If you travel to a foreign port, (e.g. Canada, Mexico,
Bahamas, British Virgin Islands) a license is required. Additionally,
if you travel to a foreign port, you are required to have an operator
permit as described in Section III."

(page 4):
"If you plan to dock in a foreign port (e.g., Canada or the Bahamas)
or if you communicate with foreign coast or shop stations, you must
have a "Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permit (sometimes referred
to by boaters as an "individual license") in addition to your ship
radio station license....However, if (1) you merely plan to sail in
domestic or international waters without docking in any foreign ports
and without communicating with foreign coast stations, and (2) your
radio operates only on VHF frequencies, you do not need an operator
permit."

According to the FCC, not only do we need a ship's radio station
license but we also need an individual Restricted Radiotelephone
Operator Permit if we plan to dock in any Canadian ports. That would
include most of us who travel north for summer cruising, but I
wouldn't be surprised to discover that few US boats in Canadian
waters are compliant with the ship's station licensing rules or that
very few boaters actually have an additional "individual license"
as the regulations require. Most of us aren't scrambling rescue
services with phony May Day broadcasts, monopolizing the emergency
frequency with chit-chat, or turning the air waves blue with profanity-
but more of us probably need to dig out that old FCC license and check
the expiration date before crossing into Canadian waters. More of us
are probably operating illegally that we realize.

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

Eisboch wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ps.com...

Jim, what happened to you calling him all kinds of childish names and
petty insults because he has things you don't?


Why don't you just shut up?

No. Jim deserves to get everything he gets. And it will continue until
HE stops.

This is getting old and I, for one, am getting tired of it.

Oh, well.

Eisboch (getting very tempted to use the killfile for the first time, ever)

See above.

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

John Wentworth wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message Why don't you just shut up?

This is getting old and I, for one, am getting tired of it.

Eisboch (getting very tempted to use the killfile for the first time,
ever)

Don't you understand that these BS posts are the reason they are here? They
are people without a life, and this NG serves as a surrogate. If you are
posting here dozens of time per day, how much real life can you have?

Plenty. For people that can put together complete sentences, have the
ability to think, and can type, it takes very little time at all.

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type.
;-)

Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very short-lived.
It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the
consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models and
engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as
"stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is
considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's an
interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the
Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed had
started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios and
horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car".

Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in engineering
and engine design, there are some current model cars that can outperform
their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger R/T
with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high output
440.
Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true of
the limited production version of the new GTO.

So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it.

Eisboch



I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)
Grow up and act like a man.

Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of the
newsgroup. Neither of you knows when to shut up and let things just do by.

This is classic!! How funny. Let's see, we've got Bert, who blindly and
ignorantly calls me Kevin every post, saying that *I* don't know when
to let things go!!! How stupid can it get, folks?


Kevin, you keep responding to posts that according to you don't apply to
you. How much more fun can this be?

Are you really so stupid that you can't figure that out? YOU, being
dumb as a post, respond to ME, to my posts, and ignorantly call me
Kevin. Grow up.

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Eisboch wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ps.com...

Jim, what happened to you calling him all kinds of childish names and
petty insults because he has things you don't?


Why don't you just shut up?

No. Jim deserves to get everything he gets. And it will continue until
HE stops.

This is getting old and I, for one, am getting tired of it.

Oh, well.

Eisboch (getting very tempted to use the killfile for the first time,
ever)

See above.


Plonk.

Eisboch

Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.
 

basskisser wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ps.com...

Jim, what happened to you calling him all kinds of childish names and
petty insults because he has things you don't?

Why don't you just shut up?

No. Jim deserves to get everything he gets. And it will continue until
HE stops.
This is getting old and I, for one, am getting tired of it.

Oh, well.
Eisboch (getting very tempted to use the killfile for the first time, ever)

See above.



Glad you made it to work on Monday morning to spend the day stealing
from your employer again.