an old friend wrote:

dxAce wrote:
Mark Zenier wrote:

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Probably more 'into' radio than you are, 'tard boy!

Then why don't you have your Advanced?

What does that have to do with being 'into' radio?

it has more to do with radio of anykind than your giving all radio
users a bad with "tards" coments

"ALL", 'tard boy?

You obviously didn't put your thinking cap on before replying. OH.. that's
right, you don't have one.

LMFAO at the 'tard, yet again.

Run along, boy.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

dxAce wrote:
an old friend wrote:

dxAce wrote:
Mark Zenier wrote:

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Probably more 'into' radio than you are, 'tard boy!

Then why don't you have your Advanced?

What does that have to do with being 'into' radio?

it has more to do with radio of anykind than your giving all radio
users a bad with "tards" coments

"ALL", 'tard boy?

yep all

you give all of us a bad name

Buzzygirl wrote:
"Panzer240" wrote...
Should it be removed as a requirement? Possibly, but if so it should be
replaced with much stiffer technical examinations, including an above
average user levl computer component, than what currently exsists.

This has come up frequently in conversations I've had with long-time hams.
While I don't disagree with you in principle, there is no way the FCC is
going to toughen up the exams.

The promise made when the original no-code proposal was new was that there
would be a MUCH more difficult technical exam. When they actually pushed
no-code through, they added five measly questions from the same lame
question pool already used for Technician licenses.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Everytime we are typing on a computer keyboard we are typing code,1's
and 0's.Learn the ABC's,,, learn the Dit's and Dah's.
cuhulin

clifto wrote:
cut
The promise made when the original no-code proposal was new was that there
would be a MUCH more difficult technical exam. When they actually pushed
no-code through, they added five measly questions from the same lame
question pool already used for Technician licenses.

who made this promise?

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

an old friend wrote:

dxAce wrote:
Mark Zenier wrote:

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Probably more 'into' radio than you are, 'tard boy!

Then why don't you have your Advanced?

What does that have to do with being 'into' radio?

it has more to do with radio of anykind than your giving all radio
users a bad with "tards" coments

"ALL", 'tard boy?

You obviously didn't put your thinking cap on before replying. OH.. that's
right, you don't have one.

LMFAO at the 'tard, yet again.

Run along, boy.

I'd settle for him not changing his handle. Looks like he keeps getting
kicked from one Internet service after another.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

an old friend wrote:
clifto wrote:
cut
The promise made when the original no-code proposal was new was that there
would be a MUCH more difficult technical exam. When they actually pushed
no-code through, they added five measly questions from the same lame
question pool already used for Technician licenses.

who made this promise?

I got it indirectly, so I don't know. But I got it from people I trusted, and
still trust.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

an old friend wrote:

not long ago?

more than 20 years


Apparently the point was lost on you?

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

Brian Denley wrote:
an old friend wrote:

not long ago?

more than 20 years


Apparently the point was lost on you?

not at all then of course your radical editing makes me guess at
exactly what was said

but clearly someone said that something was "not long ago" but was more
than 20 yars ago

which is certainly a LONG time ago in any tech related feild

but if you have to resort to ****ing the context that badly to try and
make a point you obviously did not have one in the first place

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

clifto wrote:
an old friend wrote:
clifto wrote:
cut
The promise made when the original no-code proposal was new was that there
would be a MUCH more difficult technical exam. When they actually pushed
no-code through, they added five measly questions from the same lame
question pool already used for Technician licenses.

who made this promise?

I got it indirectly, so I don't know. But I got it from people I trusted, and
still trust.

prehaps your trust is misplaced

the only body with the POWER to make that promise and keep was the FCC,
today the NEVEC could make it but then only the FCC, and I have found
no evidence they ever made any such promise

I have Heard the ARRL said something like this may have been said by
the ARRL but they lack the power to make such a pledge

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.