; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:02:20 -0500 (EST) From: WarmSpgs@aol.com Message-ID: <9b.55b281ef.2f02dd8c@aol.com> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:02:20 EST To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5036 X-SPF-Result: relay.thorcom.net: domain of aol.com designates 64.12.137.1 as permitted sender X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=no,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,NO_REAL_NAME=0.285 Subject: Re: LF: Trans Atlantic Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

In a message dated 12/28/2004 6:53:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, captbrian@ukonline.co.uk writes:

>Exactly how does a transmission on a permitted frequency in one country

>become offensive if its later reception is acknowledged in another country
>by a transmission on a different frequency which is authorised there ?

It's not the initial transmission that commits the offense. It's the "acknowledgement" which is the problem; not because it's on a different frequency, but because it constitutes communication with a station operating in a DIFFERENT SERVICE.

If both stations are authorized to communicate in the amateur service, most administrations have few restrictions on cross-band contact. That's not the issue. However, most have restrictions on what sort of communication IS authorised on any given frequency, and that includes with whom the communication is permitted.

> ..we elected "them" and not them us.!

We elect "them" to do a job, and that is what they do by creating and enforcing regulations. In a representative democracy, if we're dissatisfied with the result, we can try to replace "them" at election time. That's all "we elected 'them'" signifies...it's no license to follow our own whims, just as it's no guarantee our fellow citizens will always exhibit common sense at the ballot box. It's still better than the alternatives, so far as I can tell.