Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Who was it who said a Conditional exam taken away
from an FCC office probably involved cheating?

I don't know. You?

It was someone who replied to my posting about receiving
a Conditional class license in the '50's. I thought it
was you. If it wasn't, my apologies.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:26:50 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Who was it who said a Conditional exam taken away
from an FCC office probably involved cheating?

I don't know. You?

It was someone who replied to my posting about receiving
a Conditional class license in the '50's.

I wouldn't even think along those lines.

I thought it was you. If it wasn't, my apologies.

Accepted.

On 15 Aug 2006 07:23:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are
swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that

Derail what, Markie? Oh, right, the change in the rules. And you
accuse us of being the ones who want to change things.

Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 07:23:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are
swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that

Derail what, Markie? Oh, right, the change in the rules. And you
accuse us of being the ones who want to change things.
never said anything was wrong with change per se changing histrical
facts to suit your case is wrong Al but is it what you want to change
that is the problem

BTW why are you such an ill manner lout that you can't address me by
name

Al Klein wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 07:23:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are
swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that

Derail what, Markie? Oh, right, the change in the rules. And you
accuse us of being the ones who want to change things.
never said anything was wrong with change per se changing histrical
facts to suit your case is wrong Al but is it what you want to change
that is the problem

BTW why are you such an ill mannered lout that you can't address me by
name

Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

wrote:

How did capacitors escape getting color coded?

ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Develop "b)" a little more.

wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 18:58:18 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

wrote:

How did capacitors escape getting color coded?

ssshhhhh bb don't ask such questions please

Since a) you don't know the answer and b) they didn't.

Develop "b)" a little more.
he sure turning out like steve

even started following to most of the ngs I like to post in nice guy

"an old friend" wrote in
ups.com:


BTW why are you such an ill mannered lout that you can't address me by
name




Maybe Al doesn't like to type dirty words.


Sc

slow code wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in
ups.com:


BTW why are you such an ill mannered lout that you can't address me by
name




Maybe Al doesn't like to type dirty words.
well mark certainly isn't one


Sc

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:48:18 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Those trying to eliminate the code requirement are the ones trying to
alter history.

The past cannot be altered. Only the present, which is not
history, can be altered.

WOW! Did you come up with that with no outside help? (I'm not
overwhelmed - I'm not even whelmed.)

You are the one who suggested above that it is possible
to alter the past, i.e. "alter history".

Keep going, Cecil, they'll name a book of aphorisms after you
eventually.

Aphorisms are statements of truth, however brief or terse. Do you consider
truth a negative attribute?