****face Boy Drools wrote:
"Hot Tamale" wrote in message
ink.net...

Hi "Billy" the retard!

wrote in message
oups.com...
assraped an_old_friend wrote:
N0VFP wrote:
raped an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:

Yes, fatass Davies, tell us why you are stil a virgin at 32 years
of
age.

stil obessed with sex

Still an imbecile are you, Markie?
nope but you are still sexualy obessed as you alteration proves

Yep, you are, stupid.

get mental help prevert

You'll be back in your old rubber room soon, Markie.

BTW why are you obeseed with alt.test

BTW, it's just another tweak to make you whine, ****.

have extra tests on your mind 2 test

Wrong again, dumbass. At least Roger could pass it, unlike you, who
took at least 10 tries to pass that General the first time.


Not to mention the fact you had to retest to keep your license because you
were busted jamming 20 meters. Shall we post the letters again.

Wrong as usual, Lardass!

Here's the FCC letter he received (from Hap Holly's site when he posted
such letters)

------------
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
------------------------------

How does it feel to be such a fool that you can't get your facts
straight?

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




It will do no good. Woger will claim that he was "invited" to be retested.
He claims that since he originally tested via a VEC that Mr. Hollingsworth
picked Woger at random.

The FCC rules are very specific, **** for brains:

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.


Roger continues to pick at definitions so as to salve his warning letters
and retest requirements. Bottom line? Roger was forced to retest at the risk
of having his Ham license rescinded. Roger HAD to retest. Period. It was
that or lose his Ham license. Why? Because Roger caused malicious
intererence on several occasions and he got caught.

No, stupid:

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.

It wasn't any reason in the retest letter other than that. You are too
****ing stupid to even read what is right in front of you. It wasn't
much of a "sanction", for Roger passed it and upgraded.


And now the ugly little gnome is moving on to other nefarious activities,
including posting filth over the names of others.

Hey Dave, here you are posting under another name when you said you
don't do such things. You are a liar. And, now, you can go clean out
that ugly, Finnish ex-streetwalker's yeasty ****.

On 5 Mar 2006 10:03:58 -0800, wrote:


****face Boy Drools wrote:

took at least 10 tries to pass that General the first time.


Not to mention the fact you had to retest to keep your license because you
were busted jamming 20 meters. Shall we post the letters again.

Wrong as usual, Lardass!

Here's the FCC letter he received (from Hap Holly's site when he posted
such letters)

so
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

wrote:
On 5 Mar 2006 10:03:58 -0800, wrote:


****face Boy Drools wrote:

took at least 10 tries to pass that General the first time.


Not to mention the fact you had to retest to keep your license because you
were busted jamming 20 meters. Shall we post the letters again.

Wrong as usual, Lardass!

Here's the FCC letter he received (from Hap Holly's site when he posted
such letters)

so

So it proves that the retest wasn't done becuase of "interference," you
****ing imbecile.

On 5 Mar 2006 10:26:02 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
On 5 Mar 2006 10:03:58 -0800, wrote:


****face Boy Drools wrote:

took at least 10 tries to pass that General the first time.


Not to mention the fact you had to retest to keep your license because you
were busted jamming 20 meters. Shall we post the letters again.

Wrong as usual, Lardass!

Here's the FCC letter he received (from Hap Holly's site when he posted
such letters)

so

So it proves that the retest wasn't done becuase of "interference," you
****ing imbecile.
so?
interfence or re testing is the subject here
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

wrote:
On 5 Mar 2006 10:26:02 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
On 5 Mar 2006 10:03:58 -0800, wrote:


****face Boy Drools wrote:

took at least 10 tries to pass that General the first time.


Not to mention the fact you had to retest to keep your license because you
were busted jamming 20 meters. Shall we post the letters again.

Wrong as usual, Lardass!

Here's the FCC letter he received (from Hap Holly's site when he posted
such letters)

so

So it proves that the retest wasn't done because of "interference," you
****ing imbecile.
so?
interfence or re testing is the subject here

Then it doesn't apply in Wiseman's case, does it, dumbass?

wrote:
Then it doesn't apply in Wiseman's case, does it, dumbass?
indeed Mr Wismen does not apply to this NG

and yet you obesse indefending him and denieing that you are him

You know why he defends him, because he and whinyslit are one in the same.
He's such a delusional ****wit that he cannot keep from speaking in the
third person about himself. That's a clear sign of someone in severe mental
distress when they have to invent friends to take up a fight. They are the
same person posting under different accounts.

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Then it doesn't apply in Wiseman's case, does it, dumbass?
indeed Mr Wismen does not apply to this NG

and yet you obesse indefending him and denieing that you are him

assraped an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Then it doesn't apply in Wiseman's case, does it, dumbass?
indeed Mr Wismen does not apply to this NG

and yet you obesse indefending him and denieing that you are him

You are ****ing stupid, Markie. There are several of us "defending him"
you ****ing ignoramus.

Wiseman, you're probably the biggest ****in moron that I have ever
encountered in my years in amateur radio if not usenet. You're useless to
the core, ill-educated, and a total moron. It is obvious to see that you're
so poorly education that you cannot make logic of the fact that you were
retested on the basis of not using good amateur practice. Everyone knows it.
What an idiot you truly are.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
On 5 Mar 2006 10:26:02 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
On 5 Mar 2006 10:03:58 -0800, wrote:


****face Boy Drools wrote:

took at least 10 tries to pass that General the first time.


Not to mention the fact you had to retest to keep your license
because you
were busted jamming 20 meters. Shall we post the letters again.

Wrong as usual, Lardass!

Here's the FCC letter he received (from Hap Holly's site when he
posted
such letters)

so

So it proves that the retest wasn't done because of "interference," you
****ing imbecile.
so?
interfence or re testing is the subject here

Then it doesn't apply in Wiseman's case, does it, dumbass?