Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Alun wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in news:fZEPb.22599$zj7.10801 @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: "Alun" wrote From K0HB: The governing regulation is §97.527 which allows, but does NOT require, VEC's to collect reimbursement for examinations. (In other words, there is no requirement that VEC's collect money for ANY examination.) Collection of reimbursement is AUTHORIZED but it is not MANDATORY. I don't think that qualifies as proof. Since it is a citation of the actual federal rules, it is certainly more convincing than your tenuous assertion that you "read somewhere"..... That's the problem though, isn't it? What we need is the statute, not the rules, which prove nothing in the absence of Novice testing. So if I understand your view, you'd like to see a statute as proof that the statute does not exist. Does that sum it up? Dave K8MN |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Heil" wrote | That's the problem though, isn't it? What we need is the statute, not the | rules, which prove nothing in the absence of Novice testing. | | So if I understand your view, you'd like to see a statute as proof that | the statute does not exist. Does that sum it up? It's clear he doesn't wish to be confused with any facts which spoil his rant. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|