Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 03, 02:21 AM
Dan/W4NTI
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"William H." wrote in message
...

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...

"Radiodan-W7RF" wrote in message
news:Gdelb.197759$%h1.191867@sccrnsc02...
Without standards and lowering of standards, there would be MORE guys

like
that.


Oh, now, you're just reaching on that one. You could use that line of
thinking
to support ANYTHING. The fact is, one of the strongest and loudest

responses
you hear from the PCTA group is that it is suppose to filter OUT people

like
that;
given that this is just but SOME proof that it doesn't, thier argument
fails. Not
only that, it's on record that the majority of rules violaters ARE hams

with
morse code endorsement... yet MORE evidence to prove that morse code
testing does not filter out the "yahoos".


You sound sore about learning morse code, try to get over it.


Any anything else that is required to learn that has no real factual
reasoning or basis and is a total waste of time.

This is
what it takes to be a HAM. Either do what it takes to get the job done

or
don't join our ranks!


...until the FCC says that it is no LONGER what it takes to be a ham.
THEN, a person can become one without the morse code testing.

Clint
KB5ZHT

..........

Note that the original post did NOT accuse anybody of jamming. I looked at
the post...the statement was, "Heard a couple guys on 14.313 saying that
they were being jammed by Roger Wiseman, AB8MQ. " The follow-up posts went
on to outright accuse others of jamming.
W4NTI was right when he said, "You people are really dumb. Anybody can

say
anything and accuse anyone they want, and you believe it. Amazing."
After looking up each of the calls and doing a Rain Report search, only

ONE
of the calls showed any attention from Riley Hollingsworth, and THAT

person
was made by Riley to retest after receiving letters of warning concerning
willful and malicious interference.
Of course this in itself proves nothing, just as malicious accusations

prove
nothing. W4NTI is correct.


Thank you. I was hopeing there was someone out there that had a brain, and
new how to use it.

Dan/W4NTI





  #12   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 03, 02:21 AM
Dan/W4NTI
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"William H." wrote in message
...

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...

"Radiodan-W7RF" wrote in message
news:Gdelb.197759$%h1.191867@sccrnsc02...
Without standards and lowering of standards, there would be MORE guys

like
that.


Oh, now, you're just reaching on that one. You could use that line of
thinking
to support ANYTHING. The fact is, one of the strongest and loudest

responses
you hear from the PCTA group is that it is suppose to filter OUT people

like
that;
given that this is just but SOME proof that it doesn't, thier argument
fails. Not
only that, it's on record that the majority of rules violaters ARE hams

with
morse code endorsement... yet MORE evidence to prove that morse code
testing does not filter out the "yahoos".


You sound sore about learning morse code, try to get over it.


Any anything else that is required to learn that has no real factual
reasoning or basis and is a total waste of time.

This is
what it takes to be a HAM. Either do what it takes to get the job done

or
don't join our ranks!


...until the FCC says that it is no LONGER what it takes to be a ham.
THEN, a person can become one without the morse code testing.

Clint
KB5ZHT

..........

Note that the original post did NOT accuse anybody of jamming. I looked at
the post...the statement was, "Heard a couple guys on 14.313 saying that
they were being jammed by Roger Wiseman, AB8MQ. " The follow-up posts went
on to outright accuse others of jamming.
W4NTI was right when he said, "You people are really dumb. Anybody can

say
anything and accuse anyone they want, and you believe it. Amazing."
After looking up each of the calls and doing a Rain Report search, only

ONE
of the calls showed any attention from Riley Hollingsworth, and THAT

person
was made by Riley to retest after receiving letters of warning concerning
willful and malicious interference.
Of course this in itself proves nothing, just as malicious accusations

prove
nothing. W4NTI is correct.


Thank you. I was hopeing there was someone out there that had a brain, and
new how to use it.

Dan/W4NTI





  #13   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 03, 04:14 AM
LRod
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #14   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 03, 04:14 AM
LRod
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017