What does a person think when they hear 'ham radio operator'?
 

wrote:
he is afard of being arrested for violating WV cyber stalking law and
most of his google account have been terminated and he lacks valid
email addresses to sign up for more

Wrong again Morkie! Hey Morkie, tell us about how you don't neglect
your dying daddy again!

What does a person think when they hear 'ham radio operator'?
 

On 9 Nov 2006 05:02:10 -0800, Not Cocksucker Lloyd Secwet Woger wrote:

Slow Code wrote:
Lloyd wrote in :


GLENDALE, WV: The FCC requested July 11, 2000, that Roger L. Wiseman,
KC8JBO, retake the General examination elements under the supervision of
an ARRL-VEC volunteer examiner team. Wiseman must appear for retesting
by September 11, 2000, or his license will be canceled. Applicants
appearing for re-examination are granted an Amateur Radio license
consistent with the elements passed. The FCC had written Wiseman on
March 29, 2000, advising that it had been made aware of "an ongoing
personal dispute" between Wiseman and another licensee that included
allegations of interference or jamming on 20 meters. FCC Special Counsel
for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth invited the two
licensees to contact him to discuss the matter. Additionally, the FCC
had sent Wiseman a Warning Notice last November in response to
allegations of deliberate and malicious interference on 20 meters.


ROFL, I always laugh at that one.

...

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.

ROFL, I always laugh at that reply, because he posts it so much.

No other person from the VE group was tested, so we have to assume
that the FCC guys were just sitting around the office one day when one
of them said, "Hey, guys: Let's retest Roger Wiseman." There was no
reason for it at all, of course, and it just happened.

What does a person think when they hear 'ham radio operator'?
 

Lloyd wrote in :

On 9 Nov 2006 05:02:10 -0800, Not Cocksucker Lloyd Secwet Woger wrote:

Slow Code wrote:
Lloyd wrote in
:


GLENDALE, WV: The FCC requested July 11, 2000, that Roger L.
Wiseman, KC8JBO, retake the General examination elements under the
supervision of an ARRL-VEC volunteer examiner team. Wiseman must
appear for retesting by September 11, 2000, or his license will be
canceled. Applicants appearing for re-examination are granted an
Amateur Radio license consistent with the elements passed. The FCC
had written Wiseman on March 29, 2000, advising that it had been
made aware of "an ongoing personal dispute" between Wiseman and
another licensee that included allegations of interference or
jamming on 20 meters. FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio
Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth invited the two licensees to
contact him to discuss the matter. Additionally, the FCC had sent
Wiseman a Warning Notice last November in response to allegations
of deliberate and malicious interference on 20 meters.


ROFL, I always laugh at that one.

...

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.

ROFL, I always laugh at that reply, because he posts it so much.


LOL!

Wouldn't it really suck to have to take the General exam twice?
Hee Hee Heeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

SC

What does a person think when they hear 'ham radio operator'?
 

Lardass and 33 year old virgin Lloyd who can't pass 5 wpm code or the
General exam once whined:
On 9 Nov 2006 05:02:10 -0800, Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrong again, fatty,. imagine that! wrote:

Slow Code wrote:
Lloyd wrote in :


GLENDALE, WV: The FCC requested July 11, 2000, that Roger L. Wiseman,
KC8JBO, retake the General examination elements under the supervision of
an ARRL-VEC volunteer examiner team. Wiseman must appear for retesting
by September 11, 2000, or his license will be canceled. Applicants
appearing for re-examination are granted an Amateur Radio license
consistent with the elements passed. The FCC had written Wiseman on
March 29, 2000, advising that it had been made aware of "an ongoing
personal dispute" between Wiseman and another licensee that included
allegations of interference or jamming on 20 meters. FCC Special Counsel
for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth invited the two
licensees to contact him to discuss the matter. Additionally, the FCC
had sent Wiseman a Warning Notice last November in response to
allegations of deliberate and malicious interference on 20 meters.


ROFL, I always laugh at that one.

...

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.

ROFL, I always laugh at that reply, because he posts it so much.

Then you also laugh at your reflerction of your pig like face in the
mirror. Why can't you even pass the General test even once?

No other person from the VE group was tested,

BWHAHAHAHA Lardass, you'd better go re-read the FCC enforcement actions
(in your case you need somebody to re-read it for you), plenty of
retests have been given and most either fail or don't show. Roger pased
his test and upgraded (something you can't do), so that was a real
lousy "sanction", huh?


so we have to assume
that the FCC guys were just sitting around the office one day when one
of them said, "Hey, guys: Let's retest Roger Wiseman."
From: http://www.arrl.org
NOTE: Issuance by the FCC of a Warning Notice indicates that the FCC
has what it believes to be reliable evidence of possible rules
infractions and not necessarily that the recipient has violated FCC
rules. 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.

There was no
reason for it at all, of course, and it just happened.

------------
July 11, 2000

CERTIFIED MAIL--RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Roger L. Wiseman

610 Glen Haven Avenue

Glendale, WV 26038-1302

SUBJECT: Amateur Radio license KC8JBO

Dear Mr. Wiseman:

Pursuant to Section 97.519(d)(2) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.
Section 97.519(d)(2), the Commission has the authority to re-administer
any
examination element previously administered by Volunteer Examiners
(VE's).
The Commission may either administer the examination itself, or under
the
supervision of a Volunteer Examiner Coordinator (VEC) or VE designated
by
the Commission.

Accordingly, we are requiring you to re-take the General Class Amateur
Examination, (Elements 2, 3(A) and 3(B)) under the supervision of an
American Radio Relay League Volunteer Examiner Coordinator. This
examination
must be completed on or before September 11, 2000. The required code
speed
that you must demonstrate is 5 words per minute.

Please be prepared to verify your current address and to present a
photo
identification. Pursuant to Commission rules, your license will be
cancelled
if you do not appear for re-examination. You will be granted an Amateur
Radio license consistent with the elements you pass upon
re-examination.


Sincerely,



W. Riley Hollingsworth

Special Counsel, Amateur Radio

Enforcement Bureau
------------------------------

Poor Lardass.........................................

What does a person think when they hear 'ham radio operator'?
 

Slow Code wrote:
Wouldn't it really suck to have to take the General exam twice?
Hee Hee Heeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

Lardass Lloyd N0VFP can't even pass the test ONCE! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What does a person think when they hear 'ham radio operator'?
 

wrote:
On 9 Nov 2006 05:03:05 -0800, "Not Cocksucker Lloyd"
wrote:


wrote:
he is afard of being arrested for violating WV cyber stalking law and
most of his google account have been terminated and he lacks valid
email addresses to sign up for more

Wrong again Morkie! Hey Morkie, tell us about how you don't neglect
your dying daddy again!

obviously I am right

Obviously you are never right, dumb****.

there has never been any complaint from HIM

That's not what the State of Michigan Health and HUman services
says.......
and you are just a a turd by your own admission

And you ****ed an underage boy up the ass by your own admission.

What does a person think when they hear 'ham radio operator'?
 

On 9 Nov 2006 05:02:10 -0800, Not Cocksucker Lloyd Secwet Woger plagiarized:

: "Two-test" Slow **** makes good sentence. Slow **** is so stupid, he
: rehashes 6 year old bull****. Roger still PASSED his retest and
: upgraded, something you couldn't do.
:
: 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.

Oh my! Another plagiarism by Woger. Who would've thought? Here's
the relevant part of the original post, as archived by Google (for the
whole post, see http://tinyurl.com/ynxoam):

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

| ...
| 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

Woger's ho?

====================
"Plagiarize,
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize"
-- Tom Leherer, the Lobachevsky song

What does a person think when they hear 'ham radio operator'?
 

Saggytits Stan Lawson Lee whined:
On 9 Nov 2006 05:02:10 -0800, Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrong again, ****tard didn't plagiarize:

: "Two-test" Slow **** makes good sentence. Slow **** is so stupid, he
: rehashes 6 year old bull****. Roger still PASSED his retest and
: upgraded, something you couldn't do.
:
: 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.

Oh my! Another

Oh, my, the pot calling the kettle black cut and paste FROM any physics
websites lately, ****tard?

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

| ...
| 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

Woger's ho?

That would be you, bitch boy from Plano, Texas!

"****UP Lee" geography idiot and imbecile
****s up as usual when he thinks Marshall County, Alabama
and Marshall County, West Virginia are the same place in message
:
" Then what is at http://www.geocities.com/skywarncanwarn/ doodle
brain? It sure looks like the Marshall County ARES, and it even has a
place to
send email."

What does a person think when they hear "retested ham radio operator'?
 

Twice Tested General lied:
On 9 Nov 2006 05:02:10 -0800, Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrong again, fatty,.
imagine that! wrote:

Slow Code wrote:



GLENDALE, WV: The FCC requested July 11, 2000, that Roger L.
Wiseman,
KC8JBO, retake the General examination elements under the
supervision of
an ARRL-VEC volunteer examiner team. Wiseman must appear for
retesting
by September 11, 2000, or his license will be canceled. Applicants
appearing for re-examination are granted an Amateur Radio license
consistent with the elements passed. The FCC had written Wiseman on
March 29, 2000, advising that it had been made aware of "an ongoing
personal dispute" between Wiseman and another licensee that included
allegations of interference or jamming on 20 meters. FCC Special
Counsel
for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth invited the two
licensees to contact him to discuss the matter. Additionally, the
FCC
had sent Wiseman a Warning Notice last November in response to
allegations of deliberate and malicious interference on 20 meters.


ROFL, I always laugh at that one.

...

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.

ROFL, I always laugh at that reply, because he posts it so much.

Then you also laugh at your reflerction of your pig like face in the
mirror. Why can't you even pass the General test even once?


It has always been a hoot to watch him twist that to suit his lies.

The letter sent specifically states, "an ongoing personal dispute between
Wiseman and another licensee that included allegations of interference or
jamming on 20 meters."

Un-Wiseman, take NOTE once and for all; The letter does NOT imply that you
were being retested for, as you say, "any number of reasons". It
specifically states, "allegations of interference or jamming on 20 meters"
and dance as you try, you cannot change the meaning of the text. It is no
secret you did this, Un-Wiseman. You simply make yourself look even more
foolish than you already are by continually lying about the letter, thus
allowing us poke to the soft spot in Baby Wiseman's little head so we can
hear him squeal.

Nice dancing, though.

What does a person think when they hear 'ham radio operator'?
 

"Not Cocksucker Lloyd" wrote in
ups.com:


Lardass and 33 year old virgin Lloyd who can't pass 5 wpm code or the
General exam once whined:
On 9 Nov 2006 05:02:10 -0800, Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrong again,
fatty,.
imagine that! wrote:

Slow Code wrote:
Lloyd wrote in
:


GLENDALE, WV: The FCC requested July 11, 2000, that Roger L.
Wisema
n,
KC8JBO, retake the General examination elements under the
supervisi
on of
an ARRL-VEC volunteer examiner team. Wiseman must appear for
retest
ing
by September 11, 2000, or his license will be canceled.
Applicants appearing for re-examination are granted an Amateur
Radio license consistent with the elements passed. The FCC had
written Wiseman on March 29, 2000, advising that it had been made
aware of "an ongoing personal dispute" between Wiseman and
another licensee that included allegations of interference or
jamming on 20 meters. FCC Special Co
unsel
for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth invited the two
licensees to contact him to discuss the matter. Additionally, the
F
CC
had sent Wiseman a Warning Notice last November in response to
allegations of deliberate and malicious interference on 20
meters.


ROFL, I always laugh at that one.

...

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.

ROFL, I always laugh at that reply, because he posts it so much.

Then you also laugh at your reflerction of your pig like face in the
mirror. Why can't you even pass the General test even once?


He might be like Mark in the Dark and is hoping to get one of those new
fangled welfare licenses the FCC is talking about.

SC