.... well, when one old guy turned me in here, because he thought I was
using 10 meter equip to chat on 11 meters at illegal power levels
(because I had told him off--refused to join his "club" and he had
gotten his buddies to complain with him)... the FCC rep who came to
inspect my station (the rep called first to see if I would be around--I
thought that nice of him) asked me for a copy of my license and told me
I should have it displayed... perhaps he was lying? And, of course, I
will go by "your rules."

John

wrote in message
ups.com...
John Smith wrote:
K4YZ:

I hang my master and Phd

As if.

on the wall because those really did take hard
work and are truly a demonstration of proving myself a scholar... my
ham
license hangs at the station because it is required by law!!!

Bwaaaahaha! ROTFLMAO! . . there is NO requirement for displaying any
ham license anywhere.

What a flaming no-clue magnitude one bull**** artist.

Add this tome to your library "scholar".

http://www.opengroup.com/hubooks/089/0898048044.shtml

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
.. . . .

number of countries which have abandoned the code tests it just might
be that the decision to retain the code test here was quietly carved in
stone 4-5 years ago. Conversly though the waivers problem is still out
there . . .


No the waivers problem is over as waivers are no longer allowed since the
only code test is 5wpm.

Ooops. . I've obviously gotten out of touch with this one and it looks
like I need to get back in touch. My recollection is that when the FCC
didn't competely eliminate code tests for the disabled they claimed
they couldn't do that because the treaty demanded a code test
disabilities or not.

Now that the treaty makes code tests optional the FCC can't use that
"excuse" any longer so it seems to me that we're back to the
possibility of somebody looking for a medical waiver vs. any code test
at all . . ?? . . ?

w3rv

John Smith wrote:
... well, when one old guy turned me in here, because he thought I was
using 10 meter equip to chat on 11 meters at illegal power levels
(because I had told him off--refused to join his "club" and he had
gotten his buddies to complain with him)... the FCC rep who came to
inspect my station (the rep called first to see if I would be around--I
thought that nice of him) asked me for a copy of my license and told me
I should have it displayed... perhaps he was lying? And, of course, I
will go by "your rules."

You're the whackiest pup who has shown up around here for YEARS! I
don't make any "rules", the FCC makes the rules. It's called "Part 97"
for ham radio.

.. . never mind, you're beyond hopeless . . .


John


w3rv

That is a real trait of the group on the bands isn't it--personal
attacks, planting doubt, suspicion, rumor, innuendo...
And then, I suppose you expect those watching such a performance to
"respect" you--you are probably quite angry when they don't--what is
next, threats?

John

wrote in message
oups.com...

John Smith wrote:
... well, when one old guy turned me in here, because he thought I
was
using 10 meter equip to chat on 11 meters at illegal power levels
(because I had told him off--refused to join his "club" and he had
gotten his buddies to complain with him)... the FCC rep who came to
inspect my station (the rep called first to see if I would be
around--I
thought that nice of him) asked me for a copy of my license and told
me
I should have it displayed... perhaps he was lying? And, of course,
I
will go by "your rules."

You're the whackiest pup who has shown up around here for YEARS! I
don't make any "rules", the FCC makes the rules. It's called "Part 97"
for ham radio.

. . never mind, you're beyond hopeless . . .


John


w3rv

From: "bb" on Thurs 9 Jun 2005 15:26


K4YZ wrote:
John Smith wrote:

You just dismissed the fact that Haynie is seeing a real problem here,
he is beginning to tell hams to stop acting like such immature jerks and
get with the program--

Has he been reading old copies of Wayne Green's editorials in "73
Magazine?"

I think Jim Haynie has been peeking into THIS newsgroup of late.
He was in here once a few years ago. We corresponded briefly
via private e-mail.


you take these words are turn them into him giving
you an "Atta Boy!"

I am wondering who he's allegedly talking to, then.

Allegedly?

He's talking to you. He's talking to all of us.

Stebie is getting so that he doesn't know who to believe
anymore...therefore the "alleged" word. :-)

He would describe Benedict the Sixteenth as "allegedly"
the Pope! :-)

Didn't you follow the link to the ARRL site?

Go back up the the top, and click on the blue thingy.

Let Stebie figure it out for himself. Good mental
therapy for the congenitally confused. :-)

Those problems don't seem to be manifest here.

Hi!

Stebie blind as well as nuts.

From: on Thurs 9 Jun 2005 19:04


K=D8=88B wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote


=2E . Mom hollered out the window "Don't you even THINK about peeing on
that bush and get back in here!"

w3rv

And you heard that last when? At age 36?

:-)

wrote:
From: on Thurs 9 Jun 2005 19:04

K=D8=88B wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote


. . Mom hollered out the window "Don't you even THINK about peeing on
that bush and get back in here!"

w3rv

And you heard that last when? At age 36?

At least he heard it.

We've been telling you that your lies and deceit are unwelcome for
years and you don't seem to hear it.



Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee Flint" wrote


Wasn't it the council of VECs who made that decision? I believe that
Part 97 does not specify how the 5wpm test is to be administered.


I think you're correct Dee. The FCC rules are silent on the form of
actual examination:

§97.503 Element standards.

(a) A telegraphy examination must be sufficient to prove that the examinee
has the ability to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear
texts in the international Morse code at not less than the prescribed
speed, using all the letters of the alphabet, numerals 0-9, period, comma,
question mark, slant mark and prosigns AR, BT and SK.
Element 1: 5 words per minute.

Interestingly, the NCVEC has chosen to ignore the "ability to send
correctly by hand" clause of the rules.


Probably just following the example of the FCC itself. I have read that the
FCC dropped the sending test as it was rare for someone to be unable to send
even though they could receive. The more common scenario is that most
people can send faster than they can receive anyway.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
. . . .

number of countries which have abandoned the code tests it just might
be that the decision to retain the code test here was quietly carved in
stone 4-5 years ago. Conversly though the waivers problem is still out
there . . .

No the waivers problem is over as waivers are no longer allowed since the
only code test is 5wpm.

Ooops. . I've obviously gotten out of touch with this one and it looks
like I need to get back in touch. My recollection is that when the FCC
didn't competely eliminate code tests for the disabled they claimed
they couldn't do that because the treaty demanded a code test
disabilities or not.

That's right.

But remember that the whole waiver thing came about because Papa
Bush wanted to do a king a favor. FCC cited the treaty as the reason
they couldn't just waiver all code tests. Papa Bush was kinda anti-code
because they wanted to get rid of ROs on ships (like oil tankers) and
their salaries.

But said king is now dead. And Shrub thinks BPL is a good idea.

Now that the treaty makes code tests optional the FCC can't use that
"excuse" any longer so it seems to me that we're back to the
possibility of somebody looking for a medical waiver vs. any code test
at all . . ?? . . ?

Sure - but has anybody really asked for that?

Remember it wasn't US hams who asked for waivers in the first place.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote

Papa Bush was kinda anti-code...............

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Incredible stretch!

73, de Hans, K0HB