Thread
:
Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
View Single Post
#
32
August 15th 04, 12:21 PM
Quitefine
Posts: n/a
In article ,
(William) writes:
(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
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.
Such as?
Read the reply comments
and find out. Think about
whether all Technicians
are non-code-tested, as
claimed by Len.
Now, as a retired member of das Amateur Schutz Staffel, you
want to DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN?!?!?!?
Is continued
discussion forbidden?
Only by non-amateurs.
Says who? The above-
named non-amateur
is one of the most
frequent and verbose
"discussers" here.
It is Len who tells
others to shut up,
tells them which
subjects are and
are not to be discussed
here, and in general
behaves like the southern
end of a northbound
equine.
Everyone else can carry on.
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.
Did you arrive at a different answer?
Yes.
Reply With Quote
