I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I think I can parse English
sentences as well as any of the other (apparent) followers of Sophocles
residing here, so let me suggest the following:
The "trucker" may or may not have had "normal communication systems"
(whatever that means: a cell phone is a normal means of communications to
me; it isn't to my father) at his disposal. Why do we care? It isn't
Bryan's problem: it's exclusively the trucker's problem.
Bryan found himself in the position of receiving an emergency communication
via amateur radio, or at least on an amateur frequency. Clearly, it seems
to me, no "normal communication system" is available TO HIM. The position
of an individual RECEIVING an emergency communication is quite different
from that of one SENDING an emergency communication. The sender may have a
choice as to the means; the receiver has no choice: the communication came
the way it came. Does he act on it or not? What a question! Not even
worthy of further discussion.
Rich K2WR
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|