From: James_Hastings-Trew@telepro.UUCP (James Hastings-Trew)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Black Belt vs the FCC
Distribution: world
Date: 26 Sep 92 12:14:46 CST
Organization: TelePro Technologies

In a message dated Sat 26 Sep 92  6:10, Pk-Asdg@cup.portal.com (perry S Kiv
wrote:

 PAS> James, it pains me to see someone as completely deluded as yourself.
 PAS> There
 PAS> is no grounds for the use of the term ``rumor.'' The text I included
 PAS> in my
 PAS> message was *in fact* taken from the FCC compliance BBS. I invite 
 PAS> you  to
 PAS> call  it  yourself. The FCC BBS is a 1200 baud system which can be
 PAS> reached
 PAS> at 1(301)725-1072.

I find it very interesting indeed that you had that text at hand to include
in your message. I also find it interesting that you just happen to have
the FCC compliance BBS phone number and baud rate at your fingertips. Since
ASDG markets no hardware that I am aware of, I wonder just what is your
interest in this matter, or why you are so well versed in the "facts" of
this case?

 PAS> Actually, James,  I only know that you are repeating what was told
 PAS> to you
 PAS> by someone you trust. Someone, who in my opinion, is not being
 PAS> completely
 PAS> up-front  with you. In the FCC database, you will find the name of
 PAS> an FCC
 PAS> investigator. If you are concerned enough, why not give this
 PAS> investigator
 PAS> a call, and, if she is willing to discuss any part of the details of
 PAS> this
 PAS> case with you, why not report them here.

It is interesting here that you have details. You know there is the name of
an investigator in the database. You even know the SEX of the investigator.
You also probably know that this investigator is VERY unlikely to discuss
the details of a dead case with a disinterested third party from another
country.

If this "case" had any merit, there are a couple of questions that come to
mind: If Black Belt Systems had built and sold the HAM-E without the proper
FCC registration, why were no criminal charges filed against them, or a
stiff fine imposed? If there had been a screw-up that prevented the sale of
the HAM-E temporarily, wouldn't it have been resolved? Or perhaps the truth
really is that Black Belt Systems decided to stop advertising the product,
sell off the remaining stock, and that the FCC case is completely unrelated
to this decision.

Here are some facts: The HAM-E WAS registered by the FCC - it has a
registration ID number on the bottom of the case. The HAM-E does not
disrupt electronic devices that are in it's vicinity, so the FCC would have
had no reason to refuse registration and classification of the device in
any case. 

I am in contact with someone who is DIRECTLY affected by this information,
I was told certain things that pertain to the validity of the case, and
where the "information" about the case and the original inquiry originated
from. I have no reason to doubt or dispute those claims, in the absence of
any contrary information. 

On the other hand, I have YOU, a person who has a negative interest in the
case - a competitor - who is displaying an alarming degree of interest in
it, and who seems to have an awful lot of knowledge about the case. You are
not directly involved in the case - you are neither the FCC or Black Belt
Systems - you are a bystander. Or are you? Are you indeed involved in this
case?

>But please, go ahead and childishly keep spreading this rumor that damages
>the reputation of a competitor. I know you can't compete on product alone,
>so you have to resort to tactics like this.

 PAS> I am truly sorry that you feel this way. But clearly, your mind is
 PAS> closed.

Not really. Compare your product with theirs. There are several areas where
you product falls short, or is lacking features entirely. The moment that
you produce a product that competes with theirs, I will consider it, and
purchase it if it exceeds what they are doing. As I explained to you before
(in a message which you decided to ignore) - my loyalty goes to whoever
sells me a product that I can use, and provides me with the tools that I
need to get a job done. Imagemaster does provide this, AD Pro does not. I
own both programs, and I never use ADPro. This is not based on some silly
notion that I dislike you or your company, or that my mind is closed. It is
based on the fact that your product does not perform to my specifications,
and theirs does. Simple.

The fact of the matter is that you did repeat the FCC information here, in
this newsgroup, this very week. And that you have now backed that original
text posting with the phone number of the FCC BBS, and with other details
of a case that you supposedly have no direct interest in. This is what I
meant by you insisting on spreading information that is damaging to the
reputation of a competitor. This is what I meant by a childish tactic --
especially now that the case is more than dead, and never had any merit to
begin with.

-- Via DLG Pro v0.992

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
Telepro!james_hastings-trew@access.usask.ca
"[Democratic philosphy consists of] the idea of running your paycheck
through the salad shooter and dumping the shreds on the compost heap of
good intentions." -P.J. O'Rourke in Bill Clinton, The Rolling Stone
Interview
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy