Billy Smith wrote:
Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote:

Yeah, Billy here can only pass the training wheel no code technician
beginner's license. He has no real experience on HF


That is very interesting there White Trash. I've held a General for many
years. By the way, weren't you required to retest per a letter from FCC
enforcement bureau? Shall we post the record for all to see again?

You don't hold a General license. You can't even post under your
callsign, since you don't have one.

From: (LRod)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: 14.313 Jamming.K9BSD, N9PGE, and KK9G.
Message-ID:
References:
s.it

X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Lines: 41
X-Trace:
npbhgpngjbkmjfegdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcboak lfjkplkonophhikjjlgnhjkiogimbnbgackcbpannchokbekkj flfncmkmngeibpdbhojbajjenkiigmijeekfoggfnklbkpodeb jebifnnkim
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:27:01 EDT
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 03:14:02 GMT


On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:32:06 -0500, "Rick Phillips" NoSpam@NoSpam
wrote:


If you are going to tell it, tell it straight. THAT person only recieved ONE
warning letter and was made to retest, yet the letter did not give
interference as being the reason for the retest.
This newsgroup has already hashed and rehashed THAT person's retest, ad
nauseaum.

One letter?
No "interference"?

Read everything closely. There were three letters sent.

The letters to both Wiseman and Tunder were a preemptive "warning"
that did not allege any activities. That hardly qualifies as a warning
in the context of someone having actually done something.

The letter with the warning in it ALLEGED interference, and warned of
consequences.

The retest letter made no reference to interference; in fact gave no
reason for requiring the retest. Such a request is part of the
Volunteer Examining program. It could have been made for any number of
reasons that may have had nothing to do with any of the addressee's
actions. An investigation into the VE group that gave the test, would
be a good example.

Only one letter was a warning referring to interference.

So, yes; if you are going to tell it, tell it straight.


LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote:

Billy Smith wrote:

Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote:

Yeah, Billy here can only pass the training wheel no code technician
beginner's license. He has no real experience on HF


That is very interesting there White Trash. I've held a General for many
years. By the way, weren't you required to retest per a letter from FCC
enforcement bureau? Shall we post the record for all to see again?


You don't hold a General license. You can't even post under your
callsign, since you don't have one.

From: (LRod)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: 14.313 Jamming.K9BSD, N9PGE, and KK9G.
Message-ID:
References:
s.it

X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Lines: 41
X-Trace:
npbhgpngjbkmjfegdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcboak lfjkplkonophhikjjlgnhjkiogimbnbgackcbpannchokbekkj flfncmkmngeibpdbhojbajjenkiigmijeekfoggfnklbkpodeb jebifnnkim
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:27:01 EDT
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 03:14:02 GMT


On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:32:06 -0500, "Rick Phillips" NoSpam@NoSpam
wrote:



If you are going to tell it, tell it straight. THAT person only recieved ONE
warning letter and was made to retest, yet the letter did not give
interference as being the reason for the retest.
This newsgroup has already hashed and rehashed THAT person's retest, ad
nauseaum.


One letter?
No "interference"?


Read everything closely. There were three letters sent.

The letters to both Wiseman and Tunder were a preemptive "warning"
that did not allege any activities. That hardly qualifies as a warning
in the context of someone having actually done something.

The letter with the warning in it ALLEGED interference, and warned of
consequences.

The retest letter made no reference to interference; in fact gave no
reason for requiring the retest. Such a request is part of the
Volunteer Examining program. It could have been made for any number of
reasons that may have had nothing to do with any of the addressee's
actions. An investigation into the VE group that gave the test, would
be a good example.

Only one letter was a warning referring to interference.

So, yes; if you are going to tell it, tell it straight.


LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net


They don't make people retest who know how to follow the rules! Try
again loser.

Billy Smith whined:

They don't make people retest who know how to follow the rules! Try
again loser.

Learn to read:

The FCC has the authority, pursuant to §97.519(d)(2) of the rules to
readminister any examination element previously administered by a
volunteer examiner.

But that's right, you can't even spell "about" correctly.

wrote:

Billy Smith whined:


They don't make people retest who know how to follow the rules! Try
again loser.


Like when you got retested for the sole purpose of your jamming
activities and the fact you cannot follow the rules. That is exactly why
you got retested despite your bull**** spin antics. I've been a ham for
years and never retested. Try again Bubba boy.


Learn to read:

The FCC has the authority, pursuant to §97.519(d)(2) of the rules to
readminister any examination element previously administered by a
volunteer examiner.

But that's right, you can't even spell "about" correctly.


Like you can spell "broadcast" loser. Mwhahahahha. What a ****head.

wrote:

woger the wabbit hops