RadioBanter - View Single Post - Another D-H* NCVEC proposal

August 14th 04, 05:35 PM

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

The "dump huck' NCVEC sent their petition to the FCC on
1 March 2003. ["dump huck is Brakob's wording not NCVEC]

The FCC put it in RM-10870 on 4 March 2004.

Brakob commented on it. I commented on Brakob's comment
as well as the petition itself.

Your comments include
errors of fact and
misleading information.

Now, as a retired member of das Amateur Schutz Staffel, you
want to DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN?!?!?!?

Is continued
discussion forbidden?

How many times do you need to rant, rave, slobber, snarl, and
otherwise act like an ashpit over something ALREADY
DISCUSSED AT IN LENGTH?!?!?!?

We ask you the same question.

265 comments on
RM-10870 in the ECFS at the FCC. [266 documents...the
petition and its cover letter plus all the comments]

Is that a problem?

I shouldn't be amazed. This group of amateur inmates seems
to just love living in the past, recreating the past, doing the past
over and over and over again. [eventually they might get it right]

Most of your
postings here
consist of the
same material,
rehashed over
and over.

Including your
service as a
maintenance
person at ADA.

And you, portly old ham, seem to take great delight in TRYING
to get the better of those who've gotten the better of you in
the past. You've had too many oriongasms with your expensive
"I was able to download firmware over the Internet!" transceiver.

We would like
to see examples
of when someone
has "gotten the
better of" K8MN.

Can you provide
some?

You are wasting your time. You are wasting everyone else's time.
You've run out of valid thinking...and time.

Are you the
moderator here?

Or simply a
kibitzer?