Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Wymsey wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:26:55 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Someone please explain to the wally what provable lies about a person can
lead to. I can't be bothered!

You can't be bothered, yet you're firing off replies all over the shop?
Looks like you're gotten to.


Libel 1: "The pirate 2E0WYM here"

Libel 2: "masquerading as a full licensee"

Libel 3: "cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate
to dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam."


Chaz, you admitted that you dodged the Full exam by cashing in an old pass
certificate.


Not only old, but also obsolete.

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...
Percy Picacity wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Wymsey wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:57:47 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

You should know that nearly everyone in ukra has a colourful past, some
more recent than others, some abusive, some not, as you will see if you
check out the postings of the person you are replying to.

More laughing guarranteed.


Indeed. The pirate 2E0WYM here, for example, is masquerading as a full
licensee, having avoided training to the correct standard by
fortuitously
"finding" and cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate
to
dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam.

AMI, that is almost certainly an actionable libel. Shame I doubt if you
have enough money to be worth suing.

Percy, you spend too much time pontificating in uk.legal.moderated, my
hysterical friend.


hoisted.......!

Not only old, but also obsolete.


....and totally legal to use

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 8/26/2013 5:26 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Wymsey wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:57:47 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

You should know that nearly everyone in ukra has a colourful past, some
more recent than others, some abusive, some not, as you will see if you
check out the postings of the person you are replying to.

More laughing guarranteed.


Indeed. The pirate 2E0WYM here, for example, is masquerading as a full
licensee, having avoided training to the correct standard by fortuitously
"finding" and cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate to
dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam.


Hmmm, I don't know about over there, but here in the U.S., the tests were
MUCH harder 42 years ago when I passed my Amateur Extra exam. Tests were
administered by FCC personnel, not volunteer examiners. The question
pool was not published, and you had to actually know and understand
electronics and the laws to pass it. In fact, I found the Amateur Extra
to be harder than either the Second or First Class Radiotelephone
(commercial) test i had passed 9 months earlier (back then you had to
have General or above to test for the Amateur Extra).

Nowadays here you can sit in class, memorize the answers and pass all of
the tests before going home for dinner.


Hi Jerry. The short response is; I'm yanking Charlie's chain. And it was a
glorious success, which is no surprise as he's *very* sensitive about it!
Chaz's biggest problem is his pomposity, and it's a great wheeze giving him
a kick up the arse and sending him into a flying fit.

I'm not denigrating the old style qualifications and exams, not at all. I'm
positive that they were more rigorous, standards were higher. The UK full
exam today, though, is not far removed from that which was extant in the
60s, which is when Chaz says he sat it (but bizarrely didn't convert it to
a licence for 4 decades!), the main difference being that it was long form
answers rather than multiple choice. Which isn't, to my mind, that big a
deal. If one knows something one should be able to quite easily write about
it. We don't get the answers pool over here, either.

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:32:55 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:


Well from what you have said Charlie is a pirate and a
cheat...simple...and all the people in the other groups crossposted to
will think the same thing......

Exactly.

He doesn't realise that some things are fine whilst other's are not. I
believe that if anyone could be bothered to check (ZZZZZZZZZZZ) what I
have posted to or about him they have in the main been about his
behaviour not him.

Probably the worse I said about him is that he is a troll and that if he
got laid then maybe we have a bit more peace. Which is somewhat ****
taking but hardly as abusive as what he implied about my secualaity or
his playground name calling. All small beer when compared to his current
behaviour.



Enough already :-)




--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/
http://sales-at-radio-wymsey.ebid.net/

In message , Stephen Thomas Cole
writes
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Wymsey wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:26:55 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Someone please explain to the wally what provable lies about a person can
lead to. I can't be bothered!

You can't be bothered, yet you're firing off replies all over the shop?
Looks like you're gotten to.


Libel 1: "The pirate 2E0WYM here"

Libel 2: "masquerading as a full licensee"

Libel 3: "cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate
to dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam."


Chaz, you admitted that you dodged the Full exam by cashing in an old pass
certificate.


Not only old, but also obsolete.

IIRC, the RAE pass certificate was valid for life. However, the morse
pass was only valid for 6 months, so if you didn't apply for a licence
within 6 months after passing the morse, you had to retake (and pass)
the test.
--
Ian

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Stephen Thomas Cole
writes
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Wymsey wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:26:55 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Someone please explain to the wally what provable lies about a person can
lead to. I can't be bothered!

You can't be bothered, yet you're firing off replies all over the shop?
Looks like you're gotten to.


Libel 1: "The pirate 2E0WYM here"

Libel 2: "masquerading as a full licensee"

Libel 3: "cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate
to dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam."


Chaz, you admitted that you dodged the Full exam by cashing in an old pass
certificate.


Not only old, but also obsolete.

IIRC, the RAE pass certificate was valid for life. However, the morse
pass was only valid for 6 months, so if you didn't apply for a licence
within 6 months after passing the morse, you had to retake (and pass) the test.

Obsolete insofar as it was a pass for a long defunct qualification. That
there existed some bizarre loophole that Charlie was able to exploit in
order to dodge sitting the Full exam is, frankly, outrageous.

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

In article ,
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:


an old pass
certificate.


Not only old, but also obsolete.

Mine's still valid, AFAICT.

--

Percy Picacity

On 8/26/2013 7:45 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 8/26/2013 5:26 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Wymsey wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:57:47 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

ROFLMAO. I would have loved to see that!

You should know that nearly everyone in ukra has a colourful past, some
more recent than others, some abusive, some not, as you will see if you
check out the postings of the person you are replying to.

More laughing guarranteed.


Indeed. The pirate 2E0WYM here, for example, is masquerading as a full
licensee, having avoided training to the correct standard by fortuitously
"finding" and cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate to
dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam.


Hmmm, I don't know about over there, but here in the U.S., the tests were
MUCH harder 42 years ago when I passed my Amateur Extra exam. Tests were
administered by FCC personnel, not volunteer examiners. The question
pool was not published, and you had to actually know and understand
electronics and the laws to pass it. In fact, I found the Amateur Extra
to be harder than either the Second or First Class Radiotelephone
(commercial) test i had passed 9 months earlier (back then you had to
have General or above to test for the Amateur Extra).

Nowadays here you can sit in class, memorize the answers and pass all of
the tests before going home for dinner.


Hi Jerry. The short response is; I'm yanking Charlie's chain. And it was a
glorious success, which is no surprise as he's *very* sensitive about it!
Chaz's biggest problem is his pomposity, and it's a great wheeze giving him
a kick up the arse and sending him into a flying fit.


The short reply is you are an obnoxious troll who's life is so limited
you need to denigrate others to satisfy your own lack of self-esteem.

plonk

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

==================

In article ,
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
snip
Obsolete insofar as it was a pass for a long defunct qualification. That
there existed some bizarre loophole that Charlie was able to exploit in
order to dodge sitting the Full exam is, frankly, outrageous.

That's stupid, it is as much a qualification as the licence it might
have been used to obtain. Are your GCSE's still valid?

--

Percy Picacity