Are you by nature a jerk, or did you have study and pass a test for that, too?

Referring to dxace

Reloader wrote:

Are you by nature a jerk, or did you have study and pass a test for
that, too?

The truth hurts, does it not, 'tard boy?

Run along...

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

dxAce wrote:
Joel Rubin wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc

John

Code ability should be one alternative among other technical tests.
It seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone
technology.

If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have
absolutely no business obtaining an amateur license.

dxAce
Michigan
USA


That's like saying that if you don't know how to do octal math you have no
business using a computer. Where is the logic (no pun intended) ? Most new
amateurs have no interest in cw. If they have the theory down (and the
bucks for the equipment), let 'em join! If they are too stupid, they'll
electrocute themselves anyway.

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html

Reloader wrote:

Are you by nature a jerk, or did you have study and pass a test for
that, too?


Funny you should ask. I thought it was perfectly obvious. He needs no test as he
got in under the 'grandfather' provisions of the Asinine Association.

He's very repetitious. 'LMFAO' and 'tard come to mind. It's all he knows, poor
soul. That and collecting insurance settlements.




mike

m II wrote:

Reloader wrote:

Are you by nature a jerk, or did you have study and pass a test for
that, too?

Funny you should ask. I thought it was perfectly obvious. He needs no test as he
got in under the 'grandfather' provisions of the Asinine Association.

He's very repetitious. 'LMFAO' and 'tard come to mind. It's all he knows, poor
soul. That and collecting insurance settlements.

LMFAO at the stupid Canuck.

Keep trying, 'tard boy!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

Reloader wrote:
Are you by nature a jerk, or did you have study and pass a test for
that, too?


--
Reloader

DXace has three pat responses he has programmed into pf-keys. He
doesn't have to think, but just push the keys and the usual LMFAO and
TARD and CANADUH spew forth. Thus his ability to respond to a large
number of messages in a seemingly short amount of time.

"John S." wrote:

Reloader wrote:
Are you by nature a jerk, or did you have study and pass a test for
that, too?


--
Reloader

DXace has three pat responses he has programmed into pf-keys. He
doesn't have to think, but just push the keys and the usual LMFAO and
TARD and CANADUH spew forth. Thus his ability to respond to a large
number of messages in a seemingly short amount of time.

Amazing, isn't it, 'tard boy?

Keep trying!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Oh really, funny? Well, yah, funny the cobol'ers/fortran'ers don't
get a clue...

Stating that assembly and C++ are cutting edge is funny.

"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
...
beerbarrel wrote:


I took a course in COBOL in college and also C++. C++ was by far more
difficult to pick up. COBOL was just too wordy for me. I hated writing
term papers and that is kinda what in reminded me of.

Never took a course in cobol, but used to help students debug their code
at the computer center. Wordy is an understatement.

It seemed they needed about a page of code to get the title up.

At the time, I liked fortran. But it's been years since I had time to
write my own software.

Yes fortran was/is very powerful. Was very easy to bring a high-end
mainframe to its knees with a few lines of code.