Hans

And THIS is part of the problem. I never got mad I didn't take it as people were disagreeing. I was genuinely trying to understand and internalize the particular regulation. There was no argument to agree or disagree about. I was sincerely asking questions in a logical polite manner and what I got back from this forum was, "You talk like a *** and your **** is all ********." (Idiocracy reference.)

Aw, buddy, it wasn't just this thread. It was just the whole vibe of the place since I came back and tried to get caught up on some of the topics from years ago and recently. I didn't express myself as clearly as I should've. It's probably 80% me and 20% what I have experienced here today. Regardless, it is time for me to move on. I appreciate the kind gesture and to those I knew from back when (including @marcspaz, I appreciate and cherish the interactions we had. I learned a lot and met many wonderful people.

Believe me, my favorite Tuber-of-the-You, if I could find that damned delete button, I would be so gone from this place. This place used to be different. I don't much care for how it has turned out. No Sad Pork-product here. Life is too short.

Since obviously Rich has not had enough time to notice, read, and act upon my deletion request (I realize it make take days/weeks), I might as well respond... I've been a member here since something like 2016. I haven't been able to be as involved community-wise for a long while but have gotten back into the community side of it over the past couple of months. I was checking out the forums again and in less than 8~12 hours (?) I have been replied to in unnecessarily nasty and ridiculing ways. I also happened to stumble upon a nasty and untrue old posting about our local group by the head of a pay-to-play group that I handed our list and basically the freely associating group over to. This was done as an official statement from the radio group. The guy apparently is an absolute snake-in-the-grass. Bottom line is, if this is seriously what this particular set of forums has degenerated into then it's not something I want to use or even have my name associated with. Y'all can have at it. I want no part of it. It really is that simple.

It wasn't that it was serious. I was genuinely asking in good faith. Jackasses are a drag. Nobody is threatening to leave. I deleted my repeater from the database and have sent a message to Rich asking him to delete my account because I cannot find the delete account button referred to in the FAQs.

Thanks. Will do.

If these forums are going to become just another collection of a*holes on the internet, then I really won't want to have any further part in it.

Really? I was trying to understand the regulation. It helps me remember and abide by them better by understanding them myself. It was not theater to me. If you believe that way, why waste your time posting in the thread or even reading it?

Statements like this and the dead horse flogging lead me to believe that this is no longer the forum for me. I ask you both, dear arbiters of all things equine... Am I and my honest and genuine questions not welcome here anymore? If not, then I will go about requesting the deletion of my account. Standing by...

Now wait a darn minute! My inquiry was genuine. I could not see it until I could read the definition of station. How the hell was it flogging a dead horse when I honestly was trying to understand?

It looks so far like we have a winner! For the purposes of part 95, a "station" is defined as "Any transmitter, with or without an incorporated antenna or receiver, which is certified by the FCC to be operated in one or more of the Personal Radio Services. So, when we plug that definition back in... Any transmitter, with or without an incorporated antenna or receiver, which is certified by the FCC to be operated in one or more of the Personal Radio Services is prohibited from communicating messages (except emergency messages) to any station in the Amateur Radio Service. So, a more logical interpretation of the regulation yields a prohibition on the equipment communicating a message; presumed on its own and not focused on the person. In the back of my mind, there is still a little wiggle room until "communicate" and "message" are defined by regulation; when a station transmits under a person's control, a message from amateur service to GMRS, is the station still a station "certified by the FCC to be operated in one or more of the Personal Radio Services" when it is in the act of passing a message from one service to another? Or, is that a recursive reading of the prohibition? For example, FRS units are licensed by rule as long at they comply with part 95 (a) and (b). However, the minute the radio has a removable antenna, is frequency agile outside of channels, exceeds bandwidth, exceeds power, etc, it is no longer "certified by the FCC to be operated in one or more of the Personal Radio Services." Likewise, when a GMRS station is used to transmit a message from an amateur station or a GMRS station, is the transmitting station still a certified GMRS station? But, I believe that the station definition clears up the main, read most probable, prohibition. Thank you, @SteveShannon. Hopefully, when I forget this in the years to come (happens all the time anymore with me), others will remind me that we all hashed it out and remind of the definition of station.

Now, THAT is the best explanation against this particular interpretation of mine. I will digest it and post back. Thanks! I agree that is is absurd. However, it would not be alone as an absurd plain language prohibition in federal regulations. No, that would just be another opinion. As we have seen recently, Chevron Deference has been severely weakened in recent years. Also, we have seen time and time again where the courts have ruled that an agency or commission's opinion, even written, is not necessarily binding. I ALWAYS prefer to understand a law, regulation, or policy for myself using the plain language, precedent, etc.

I get what you are explaining and did before. However, what are respective definitions of "message" and "communicate" in the regulations that would be directly bearing on part95 (a) and (e)? Words have meaning and we cannot come to a consensus on understanding the whole if we cannot adequately and reliably define the main parts.

"GMRS stations must not communicate... messages to any... unauthorized station." Put another way, we have hashed out what defines a GMRS station and an amateur station. I think we can agree on what roughly defines an unauthorized station. What defines messages and what defines communicate?