{ "numMessagesInTopic": 11, "nextInTime": 788, "senderId": "ijmrweMRjHEef5EiX45cycqnaRRr7z1ExwEsY9dhYQtbMrrGu52et4XZRXf_l-B23X3hNn_KugYW9mVjYc-yQT8m7JNAgIt_8w", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: [Pro-97] Just curious regarding the Signal stalker feature", "from": "Matt Roberts <qoatzecotl1@...>", "authorName": "Matt Roberts", "msgSnippet": "I have found it to be far superior than the Signal Stalker in my PRO-83... ... Matt Roberts It may not be what you believe, but that doesn t make it wrong. ", "msgId": 787, "profile": "qoatzecotl", "topicId": 743, "spamInfo": { "reason": "12", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 164054598, "messageBody": "
On Jul 7, 2005, at 11:43 AM, JETorres wrote:
\n
\n> Me too, I can almost use my Pro-97 in Signal Stalker mode as a regular
\n> scanner.
\n> Maybe the people not picking up stuff on theirs might need to check
\n> that their attenuator is off.
\n> And also never discard the possibility of a defective radio. Another
\n> possibility is a very RF rich environment interfering with reception.
\n> Who knows, it could be a lot of things.
\n>
\n> I get very good results with it, a lot more than with Uniden's Close
\n> Call.
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n> On 7/7/05, Matt Roberts <qoatzecotl1@...> wrote:
\n>> I get several hits quite frequently on my mine in Signal Stalker... I
\n>> love it, works like a champ...