wrote in :

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:53:35 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:

"Slow Code" wrote in message
SC

Personally, I think, "Well, I can darn sure be certain that ham is NOT
slow idiot!"

JS


indeed


Shut-up. You can't even get a real ham license. The only HF you can do
is 11 meters.

SC

wrote:
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:34:21 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

wrote in :

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:53:35 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:

"Slow Code" wrote in message
SC

Personally, I think, "Well, I can darn sure be certain that ham is NOT
slow idiot!"

JS


indeed


Shut-up. You can't even get a real ham license.



sure I do SC at least according to the FCC

No you only have the beginner's training wheel ham license, dumbass.

On 8 Nov 2006 04:57:02 -0800, Secwet Woger wrote:

No you only have the beginner's training wheel ham license, dumbass.

When you get a more advanced license, you can become as cool as Woger is
like this:

GLENDALE, WV: The FCC sent a Warning Notice November 9, 1999, to General
licensee Roger L. Wiseman, KC8JBO, citing evidence that the licensee had
been "deliberately and maliciously interfering with the radio operations
of other licensed amateurs" on 20 meters. "This interference has
occurred at various times in the last several months and includes
broadcasting music and other unidentified transmissions," said a letter
from FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley
Hollingsworth. Hollingsworth warned that continued operation of the
type described could result in a fine or license revocation proceeding,
and he requested that the licensee contact him to discuss the
allegations.

GLENDALE, WV [UPDATE]: The FCC had written General licensee Roger L.
Wiseman, KC8JBO, on March 29, 2000, advising that it had been made aware
of "an ongoing personal dispute" between Wiseman and Advanced licensee
Steven A. Tunder, N8WGM, that included allegations of interference or
jamming on 20 meters. FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement
Riley Hollingsworth cautioned Tunder and Wiseman to review §97.1 of the
Amateur Radio rules and "to make certain that whatever disputes that may
exist are not carried over to Amateur Radio frequencies." Hollingsworth
invited the two licensees to contact him to discuss the matter. Wiseman
alleged in a subsequent communication to the ARRL that Tunder had been
harassing him and that he had made the FCC aware of it in the first
place. Wiseman indicated that he had been in touch with Hollingsworth to
clarify the situation. The FCC had sent Wiseman a Warning Notice last
November in response to allegations of deliberate and malicious
interference on 20 meters.

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.

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.

I wonder why ol Two-test hasn't been around much. Maybe too much ham
radio talk.

SC

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.

But then you ARE easily amused huh, bright shiny objects seem to
capture all your attention.

I wonder why ol Two-test hasn't been around much. Maybe too much ham
radio talk.

"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.

Only one letter was a warning referring to interference.
But then Republicans aren't noted for telling the truth, are they?

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.

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

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.........................................

Roger Wiseman AB8MQ, posing as "Not Cocksucker Lloyd" wrote:

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.

Do they send warning letters to those who have done nothing, Rog?

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

Yep. The FCC allegedly has an interesting tape of you doing the alleged
deed. There are allegedly a number of other copies floating about.
Want 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.

Was there an investigation into the VE group administering one of your
exams, Roger?

Dave K8MN

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