Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim
Facts? Good grief. Its a friggen calculator...sitting on top of a do nothing box, for Christs sake! Of course it is not a transmitter.
Lets just agree we disagree. Lowering yourself to Dell Winders tactics is neither warranted or wanted.
|
Lower myself to Dell Winders level?
The only thing I am guilty of is lowering myself to giving a fair argument to a person of your level.
You pretend to have facts while you try to obfuscate the facts. You make posts here with an agenda you want to prove with innuendos based on false information, then when you are shown to be wrong, you look for ways to prove it is someone else's fault, and call people names.
Isn't that what Dell sometimes does?
For example, before starting in on me, you called hung the "the gossiping Nancy".
Then, when I explained how your innuendo that the Examiner may not be compliant with Part 15 of Fedaral Law seems to have no basis in fact, because you erroneously assumed it is a transmitter, You continued to call the Examiner a transmitter, which It is not. Then you tried to prove it is subject to the FCC ID because according to you, it is required for even sticks that you rub together as long as the sticks are called a transmitter.
But when You discovered I wouldn't pretend the Examiner is a transmitter to help your innuendo, then you switched to trying to a new innuendo also based on erroneous facts, stating that resonant frequency amplification circuit is an awesome feat of engineering, as if it had not been done before. When I also pointed out this error, you then switched to a new way to prove your point --- focus the blame for your errors on me!
All you needed to do is to somehow prove I gave a bad explanation, then you could easily obfuscate the fact that you had no clue whether the Examiner has any FCC ID requirements, nor do you have any idea whether it is claimed to be a transmitter or receiver. You came here to advance your agenda regardless of the basic fact that has been known for some time:
The Rangertell factory claims the Examiner is a receiver that is tuned through small signals that are induced from outside the enclosure.
The manufacturer never claimed it was a transmitter.
Only hung and you made the claim the Examiner is a transmitter, and used that argument to advance your own agendas.
Sure, you proved something. You proved you preferred to use false information to prove your point rather than to admit you were were wrong from the beginning.
Based on your original faulty information that the Examiner is a transmitter, I can safely say you did not read what the Rangertell factory published on their website or what I repeated from their manual. Instead you chose to believe hung's version of how it works in order to support your innuendos that it is subject to FCC ID.
Now you are hoping I will drop your whole argument because you think I am lowering myself to Dells level?
Hahahahahaa...
No, I don't simply agree to disagree with you. I believe you are one of the few people who is willing to use false information to prove whatever agenda you have at the moment and call people names, rather than to use facts and evidence to support what you are saying. And when you are shown to be wrong, then you are happy to look for ways to obfuscate the facts so readers will loose tract of how you began with false information to begin with. As I said, I will keep your pretentious attitude in mind in all your future posts.
But I will run some tests on the calculator as soon as I get a chance.
Best wishes,
J_P