wrote:

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 01:39:05 +0000 (UTC), get help
wrote:


Sounds just like you, Mark.

realy and how time have I ever gone on voice?

I rarely do
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Scheissman just wants to blame others for his jamming episodes a few
years back when he was running 20 meters and trying albeit weakly to jam
some people on 14.275, 3.950, 14.313 and other frequencies

"Billy Smith" wrote in message
ink.net...
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 01:39:05 +0000 (UTC), get help
wrote:


Sounds just like you, Mark.

realy and how time have I ever gone on voice?

I rarely do
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


You claiming your boasts of EME were done via CW? Oh, wait, you DID use
voice, but you were conversing with low power, unconfirmed stations....

Billy Smith wrote:
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 01:39:05 +0000 (UTC), get help
wrote:


Sounds just like you, Mark.

realy and how time have I ever gone on voice?

I rarely do
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/



Hey, Lardass, why did the FCC recently DF you on 20 meters?

Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote:

Billy Smith wrote:

wrote:


On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 01:39:05 +0000 (UTC), get help
wrote:



Sounds just like you, Mark.

realy and how time have I ever gone on voice?

I rarely do
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/



Hey, Lardass, why did the FCC recently DF you on 20 meters?


Interesting that you received letters about it. Would you like us to
repost them again? Just like you were jamming 14.313.

Billy Smith wrote:
Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote:

Billy Smith wrote:

wrote:


On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 01:39:05 +0000 (UTC), get help
wrote:



Sounds just like you, Mark.

realy and how time have I ever gone on voice?

I rarely do
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/



Hey, Lardass, why did the FCC recently DF you on 20 meters?


Interesting that you received letters about it. Would you like us to
repost them again?

Repost them all you want. Thay don't prove Roger was jamming. He never
got any fines nor was his license suspended.

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.

Just like you were jamming 14.313.

Wrong again, dumb****. You can't read can you?

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.

Not Lloyd wrote:
"Billy Smith" wrote in message
ink.net...
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 01:39:05 +0000 (UTC), get help
wrote:


Sounds just like you, Mark.

realy and how time have I ever gone on voice?

I rarely do
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


You claiming your boasts of EME were done via CW?
nope I never made such a claim

they were done via JT65B, a digital mode, not voice not CW

Oh, wait, you DID use
voice, but you were conversing with low power, unconfirmed stations....

nope you can't get it right

Like anyone here believes your story, right 2 TEST? They don't make
people retest unless they have violated the rules and shown they aren't
responsible with their privleges. I've been an amateur radio operator
for years and can tell you that I've never received a letter much less
anything less than complimentary about my station. You on the other hand
show what a filthy loser you are every time you key the mike.



Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote:

Billy Smith wrote:

Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote:


Billy Smith wrote:


wrote:



On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 01:39:05 +0000 (UTC), get help
wrote:




Sounds just like you, Mark.

realy and how time have I ever gone on voice?

I rarely do
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/



Hey, Lardass, why did the FCC recently DF you on 20 meters?


Interesting that you received letters about it. Would you like us to
repost them again?


Repost them all you want. Thay don't prove Roger was jamming. He never
got any fines nor was his license suspended.

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.


Just like you were jamming 14.313.


Wrong again, dumb****. You can't read can you?

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.

an old fraud wrote:
Not Lloyd wrote:
"Billy Smith" wrote in message
ink.net...
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 01:39:05 +0000 (UTC), get help
wrote:


Sounds just like you, Mark.

realy and how time have I ever gone on voice?

I rarely do
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


You claiming your boasts of EME were done via CW?
nope I never made such a claim

they were done via JT65B, a digital mode, not voice not CW


No, you lied and talked to unlicensed stations.

Oh, wait, you DID use
voice, but you were conversing with low power, unconfirmed stations....

nope you can't get it right

You admitted it on here, dumb****.

Billy Smith whined:
Like anyone here believes your story, right 2 TEST? They don't make
people retest unless they have violated the rules and shown they aren't
responsible with their privleges.

You can't read, can you, Toad? You'll be getting a big NAL soon enough.
You haven't been a ham radio operator at all, Toad, you are just a
wannabe. You had to take your tests a few times before you could even
pass them. You only have the beginner's training wheel license because
you can't pass the morse code\ like Markie, either. Wiseman passed his
twice, (which was 6 years ago, you sure couldn't retake yours and pass
them) and upgraded. So much for those "sanctions" if that's what they
are. How is it Wiseman never had his license suspended or revoked? You
can't sem to answer that one, you just make more excuses.

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.

Now cry a river, ****.



Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote:

Billy Smith wrote:

Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote:


Billy Smith wrote:


wrote:



On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 01:39:05 +0000 (UTC), get help
wrote:




Sounds just like you, Mark.

realy and how time have I ever gone on voice?

I rarely do
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/



Hey, Lardass, why did the FCC recently DF you on 20 meters?


Interesting that you received letters about it. Would you like us to
repost them again?


Repost them all you want. Thay don't prove Roger was jamming. He never
got any fines nor was his license suspended.

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.


Just like you were jamming 14.313.


Wrong again, dumb****. You can't read can you?

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.

wrote:
an old fraud wrote:

they were done via JT65B, a digital mode, not voice not CW


No, you lied and talked to unlicensed stations.
nope

Oh, wait, you DID use
voice, but you were conversing with low power, unconfirmed stations....

nope you can't get it right

You admitted it on here, dumb****.
no woger

learn to read if it is not too late

woger: kook on parade