{ "numMessagesInTopic": 20, "nextInTime": 1134, "senderId": "IeXbbcLOcDT56nAtqNRHZCjwaVSeni77JLNljSvNirsCu353bBqY7bgJWMGp-GrA3aV71FTP5cMU", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: [Pro-97] Re: Pro-97 Squelch Setting", "from": "tk <qmp@...>", "authorName": "tk", "msgSnippet": "I have wondered about the quality control of the manufacturing plant. When I got my pro-95 I went thru the 4 radios my local dealer had and they all were", "msgId": 1133, "profile": "wb6qmp", "topicId": 1108, "spamInfo": { "reason": "12", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 41982705, "messageBody": "
>My Pro-97 is by far the least sensitive scanner I have owned in quite some time.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
\n>I am aways checking to see if I have the ATT on.
\n>
\n>
\n>Maybe it is an allignment problem?
\n>The up-side is that I have yet to hear any intermod on it.
\n>
\n>Mark in Tucson, AZ
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>>>Larry Hassell wrote:
\n>>>I don't know if this scanner is not as sensitive as others I have
\n>>>owned or if the squelch threshold is real tight, but with the
\n>>>squelch...
\n>>>
\n>>>
\n>
\n>\t\t
\n>---------------------------------
\n> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
\n>
\n>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>Yahoo! Groups Links
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n
\n
\n