Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Is\s+the\s+FCC\s+sharp\?\s+Is\s+ARRL\s+counsel\s+swift\?\s*$/: 55 ]

Total 55 documents matching your query.

41. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: n7us@arrl.net (Jim McDonald)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 21:28:05 -0700
That's been my experience in every move I've made. Not exactly conducive to marital bliss either. Jim N7US -- Original Message -- From: "Alan Braun" <albraun@earthlink.net> To: "Richard M. Gillingham
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00615.html (16,651 bytes)

42. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: george.skoubis@verizon.net (George Skoubis)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 23:14:53 -0600
Rick, I live in Wisconsin and the latest trend is to impose county-wide ordinances limiting antenna towers. It doesn't matter how far you live from town, or if you own a section (640 acres), you stil
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00616.html (15,392 bytes)

43. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: dan@anwireless.com (Dan Simmonds)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 00:57:24 -0500
George brings up some very good points here, One of the real killers to us is the fact that the whole 'RF Radiation' idea has been blown way out of proportion, becuase the term 'radiation' is taken f
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00617.html (12,214 bytes)

44. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: W4EF@dellroy.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 23:06:05 -0800
The crux of our constitutional right to pursue happiness is best summed up in the idea that one mans fist can extend as far as another man's nose. The problem with towers is that everyone has a diffe
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00619.html (20,533 bytes)

45. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: w7ni@easystreet.com (Stan or Patricia Griffiths)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 00:15:25 -0800
Hi Gil, The "reduced property value" argument because of a ham antenna in the neighborhood ought to be REAL EASY to defeat. Can ANY of those people who claim their property values declined show a DEC
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00620.html (14,962 bytes)

46. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: SPELUNK.SUENO@prodigy.net (EUGENE SMAR)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:55:34 -0500
TT: What a coincidence! Yesterday I received my property assessment from the county and guess what? My property value has actually INCREASED since I erected the tower on my lot this past summer, acco
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00621.html (15,370 bytes)

47. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: w2up@mindspring.com (Barry )
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:54:14 -0000
I hate to say it, but property values can be affected: One day, my next-door neighbor (who built about 4 years after I did) and I were chatting. He told me that he used my tower as a way to negotiate
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00622.html (17,025 bytes)

48. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: msewing@yahoo.com (M Ewing)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 09:48:37 -0500
It's hard to argue that a community doesn't have the right to set standards for appearance, safety, etc. Maybe the real problem is that people don't like to look at our antennas. On this list, most o
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00624.html (9,105 bytes)

49. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: n0tt1@juno.com (n0tt1@juno.com)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 18:00:04 +0000
Interesting threads about CC&R's....some years ago there was an article in QST about one ham's solution. He erected a vertical antenna complete with a good radial system. The vertical antenna was wel
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00637.html (9,576 bytes)

50. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: jimsmith@shaw.ca (Jim Smith)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 16:29:23 -0800
My third attempt to post this to TT. It seems that you can't name a religion on TT. I'll try again by breaking up the offending word with hyphens. Rick, I'm having a lot of problems with your post. Y
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00646.html (15,679 bytes)

51. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: aa0cy@VRINTER.NET (Bob Wanderer)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 20:53:00 -0500
You don't have a constitutional right to pursue happiness. That's only in the Declaration of Independence. (Ditto for life and liberty.) Actually, you don't have an inalienable right to life, liberty
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00648.html (21,512 bytes)

52. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: wa2moe@firstinter.net (Stu Greene)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 19:45:47 -0700
Sure we do, Bob. That's what the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are about. But I have to agree. We don't have a constitutional right to erect towers AN Wireless Self Supporting Towers are now availa
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00649.html (9,997 bytes)

53. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: htodd@twofifty.com (Hisashi T Fujinaka)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 18:49:49 -0800 (PST)
Well, he was replying to a VE7 and I really have no idea what they get. :) -- Hisashi T Fujinaka - htodd@twofifty.com BSEE (6/86) + BSChem (3/95) + BAEnglish (8/95) + $2.50 = mocha latte AN Wireless
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00650.html (10,155 bytes)

54. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: W4EF@dellroy.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 19:58:31 -0800
Seems to me that the question of erecting towers is really a property rights issue. Not really sure though how private property is protected under the U.S. Constitution. With a few noteable exception
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00652.html (11,214 bytes)

55. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: wa2moe@firstinter.net (Stu Greene)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 21:53:52 -0700
You're right. Property is not mentioned because, aside from due process of law and equal protection under law, the courts in England and then here have created an entire body of law regarding propert
/archives//html/Towertalk/2001-12/msg00654.html (10,801 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu