K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:

First none wonders why you consider me an idiot

You finally got one thing right this week...

Mighty white of you old man

Now THAT'S bigotry, Mark.

Perhaps

it is also sarcasm



Yes, it's true that you don't understand emission designators...Yet
it's supposed to be a part of your licensing scope.

not a question about alph numeric mode codes in my question pool

I didn't say it was a licensing question, Mark.

I said it's within the scope of your licensure.

auf anglish bitte

If you think it should you shouldaddress your coments to the NVEC

Why should I address the fact that Mark Morgan is ignorant of the
rules and regulations that he is responsible for knowing and complying
with to the NVEC?

you should not, but given your control freak mentality you may well
have done so already,

OTOH it is what I said. what I said is that if you think knowing such
codes is so important you address your concenr to NVEC

There is no requirement that I know any rule or regulation Stevie,
merely that I obey them.

I freely admit I don't or care about the meaning of j87fh76k or the
differences between it and j6gd748jd



crying cut for formating improvements

You cut yourself out? Why?

nop cut out your crying

Huh?

grow up


And get this...MARK MORGAN talking about what is or is not
"english".....

indeed and you have a problem with that, and need to start another of
your personal attack threads

It's not a personal attack, Mark. It's a professional
observation.

Nope a BIG lie for an ER nurse, not your feild

Nope.

Yep

Being able to assess the basic level of social development and
competency with "ADL'S", or "Activites of Daily Living", is a
number-one criterion for a good ER Nurse.

if so then why are you so bad at it

oH excuse you said Good ER nurse that does let you out


Now...Would YOU please show me where YOU have any credentials in
determining what is and is not within the scope of practice for a Nurse
at ANY level of licensure...?!?!

NO I will not

There are limits to the extent I will help you play your divisionary
games



You have a problem with English. You're not very proficient at
it.

but your coment that I am more proficent in Sebian is a lie

I never said you were competent in Sebian...Whatever THAT is...

more avoidance


crying cut for formating improvements

Snipped more embarrassing stuff, you mean...

Nope just one of your crying

I'm not the one crying, Markie.

yes are the one crying your are the word typing crap like
bbbbbbbbbbahhhhhhhhhhhh

Iam just cuting it out of my replies

grow up


I'm not the one having his dirty laundry and failed character held
up to the light of day.

you are just the one inistsing that irelavant info must be repated over
and over again

Dirty laundry, bull****

I am admit to being Bisexual I admit to being Pagan. I admit to
spelling poorly

Now what that has to do with Ham radio or policy therin I don't know

Stop beating the poor dead equine, please

your judgement of "failed character" only by perhaps by YOUR standards
fine so my Stevies standard my character is poor

Grow up and move on

Stop beating the poor dead equine, please


73, de Hans, K0HB

73's on an couple of snide posts is about what you'd expect

And you're one of the singularly most idiotic and narrow brained
idiots to ever be allowed to get on the Internet or hold an Amateur
Radio license!

which even if true (and franky you have a real sample problem) has
nothing to do with the statement

No...not "...even if true..."

yes even if true

Then it's true and we've found something else we can agree on.

nope another

or are you goingto pull a Clinton and start a debate on the meaning of
the word "IF"

Grow up

Stop beating the poor dead equine, please

You're idiotic and narrow brained.

Stop beating the poor dead equine, please

Good show.

glad you have enjoyed it sadist

Stop beating the poor dead equine, please

You are the close to most narrowminded idoit haolding a Ham license.

Just when I think I can't laugh any harder, Mark pushes the button
one more time!

mashochist as well I guess they do often go together


BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! !

why must you make it even harder to just read and format you bull****
with these outbrusts?

Stop beating the poor dead equine, please

Yo Doc was the worst I know of

You mean he was more aggressive in rubbing your nose in your own
droppings.

No I don't I mean what I mean, not what you in your warped mind say I
mean

Stop beating the poor dead equine, please

I can live with that.

yes you can so?



It's absolutely true.

nope

Yep.

Nope you are norrow minded

"Snide"...?!?!?!

What an IDIOT!

thinking somebody snide makes one an idiot

No...YOU calling Hans "snide" for having the temerity to actually
think he was doing you a favor by answering your question for you in an
accurate and prompt manner makes you an idiot.

Well he amswered some OTHER question not mine and not one tht had been
asked

You asked about the "60 meter band" and about what mode could be
used there.

No Iasked wether CW could be use on the 60 M band


He answered you precisely.

nope


You responded in your typical idiotic, kneejerk fashion, once again
showing the world what kind of "man" Mark Morgan is.

a better man than you


well then Hoist you idiot

Huh...?!?!

"Hoist you"...?!?!

yes aren't well enough educated

"Hoist you"...?!?!

yep go look it up


"yes aren't well enough educated"...?!?!

yes it is true you don't seem to be well enough educated

Mark, there's not one coherent thought there...Not to the rest of
the world, anyway.

more overblown bull****

Stevie Blunder speaker onbehalf of the world


Some gay pagan salute?

Nope

and more of your gaybashing

more of your pagan bashing

What gaybashing?

Yours


What pagan bashing?

yours


Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:

Jim Hampton wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

hack

Yes, Mark...that's what you do best...

why thank you


That I lack a knowledge of the arcane ways in which mode were described
is NOT disputed by me

It's not arcane.

it is arcane


It's "here and now". It's codified into the regulations for a
federal license that YOU hold and are required to at least be familiar
with.

One being codised in regs does NOT mean it is not Arcane? Indeed most
Federal regs are the very defination of Arcane

Two, No I am not required to be famiar with them, I am merely required
to obey them.

I hate to see this thread continue; perhaps I can shed some light on it.

"2K8J3E" is broken down into two parts. 2K8 and J3E.

Years ago, A1 was CW. F3 was FM. A3 was AM. Well, they clarified the
emission types to indicate whether a signal was single sideband, double
sideband, independent sidebands and whether the carrier was suppressed,
reduced, or full carrier.

I have seen fragment of this but in my reading of way part 97 recently
I don't recall it

Becasue you skipped over the parts not written in crayon, Mark.

more venom


J3E refers to the emission type. I have a strong suspicion that 2K8
represents a 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth.

you may well be right but even you don't know, not a slame on you but
pointing that you clearly know better than are not sure how can I be
expected to know it

You can be expected to at least know where to find the information
since you ARE responsible for it as a Commisssion licensee of an
Amateur Radio station.

expected sure I am expected by you to do lots of stuff

Required no

BTW exactly where are they defined by paragraph Oh font of Knowledge
rival of the Oracle of Delphi


I don't know them all either, but I know where to find out.

The Guide me Oh truely tremenous one (the title of the great Goblin of
the Misty Moutian, JRR tolkien)


We often refer to single sideband, fm, cw, or whatever. The nomenclature
that Steve put forth is a formal one that pins down the emission type and

Corecting you Hans put it forth, Steve is taking me to task for not
knowing it

No, not at all.

Yes Indeed Hans put it forth that is corect but you are right I was
merely guessing at what you are upto. I rarely know and hardly care
exactly what you are upto


I am taking you to task for treating Hans so rudely then lying
about it afterwards.

and Hans can't defend himself?

I was rdue to Han's

he was rude to me.

Why are (to use a comon figure of speech)you allowing your panties to
get into such bunch over it?


So Steve may have been a little strong in his wording, but his conclusion
was not in error. You appear to have little knowledge of emission
types/bandwidth occupancy.

Agreed
and Steve and for that Hans know this and choose to give an answer
technical correct (is it in fact technicaly correct) but dsigned to be
useless to me

It was only useless to you since you refused to follow-up on it
from there.

which does not alter the FACT the answer was useless as given


You wanted spoon-fed, written in crayon answers.

No crayon needed

You take me to task when I don't answer your yes or no questions.I have
the same right as you do


Hans' only mistake was assuming that you might be albe to
understand the answer.

gee Hans can't defend himself


Not slamming you, but Steve was not entirely remiss in his post.

I accept thatyou intend no slam but I miss you have missed Stevies
intent

There's no "intent" on my part, Mark.

If you say there was no intent on your part then we chalk up another
lie. you intended something


You asked a question. You got the answer. You then insulted the
respondant and called him a liar.

yes I askeda question

No I did not

I did rebuke the respondant (it is his place to ecide if he was
insulted) rudely if you like

Never called him a lair

You were wrong on several levels.

nope


You owe Hans Brakob an apology.

IF he asks I will consider it

But not on your say so

Steve, K4YZ

an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Big Snip To The Funny Stuff:

It's "here and now". It's codified into the regulations for a
federal license that YOU hold and are required to at least be familiar
with.

One being codised in regs does NOT mean it is not Arcane? Indeed most
Federal regs are the very defination of Arcane

Two, No I am not required to be famiar with them, I am merely required
to obey them.

BBBWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! !

I am going to wait with bated breath while you try to spin up an
explanation as to how you are not required to "be familiar" with the
regulations of the radio service in which you are a licensee, yet you
ARE required to obey them.... ! ! !

And by the way...Yes you ARE required to be familiar with Part 97.

Ask the FCC.

I have seen fragment of this but in my reading of way part 97 recently
I don't recall it

Becasue you skipped over the parts not written in crayon, Mark.

more venom

Nope.

J3E refers to the emission type. I have a strong suspicion that 2K8
represents a 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth.

you may well be right but even you don't know, not a slame on you but
pointing that you clearly know better than are not sure how can I be
expected to know it

You can be expected to at least know where to find the information
since you ARE responsible for it as a Commisssion licensee of an
Amateur Radio station.

expected sure I am expected by you to do lots of stuff

Required no

Required by the FCC...Yes.

BTW exactly where are they defined by paragraph Oh font of Knowledge
rival of the Oracle of Delphi

Where are the rules defined by paragraph?

Try Part 97 you blithering idiot!

Corecting you Hans put it forth, Steve is taking me to task for not
knowing it

No, not at all.

Yes Indeed Hans put it forth that is corect but you are right I was
merely guessing at what you are upto. I rarely know and hardly care
exactly what you are upto

I am not "upto" anything, other than showing the world that, yes,
Mark C Morgan is an idiot.

But so far YOU keep stealing all my glory by beating me to it.

I am taking you to task for treating Hans so rudely then lying
about it afterwards.

and Hans can't defend himself?

I was rdue to Han's

Yes, you were.

he was rude to me.

No, he was not.

Why are (to use a comon figure of speech)you allowing your panties to
get into such bunch over it?

Because you're so blatant in lying about it.

So Steve may have been a little strong in his wording, but his conclusion
was not in error. You appear to have little knowledge of emission
types/bandwidth occupancy.

Agreed
and Steve and for that Hans know this and choose to give an answer
technical correct (is it in fact technicaly correct) but dsigned to be
useless to me

It was only useless to you since you refused to follow-up on it
from there.

which does not alter the FACT the answer was useless as given

Useless to YOU, perhaps...

Anyone else over 12 with an interest in Amateur Radio had no
problem with it.

You wanted spoon-fed, written in crayon answers.

No crayon needed

Obviously you do.

You take me to task when I don't answer your yes or no questions.I have
the same right as you do

Actually, I consider you to have MORE rights than I consider
necesssary for myself.

Being an idiot is one of them. Being a chronic liar is yet
another.

Help yourself to them...They were made for you. They fit you like
a glove.

Hans' only mistake was assuming that you might be able to
understand the answer.

gee Hans can't defend himself

He could quite ably if he chose to.

He just wouldn't enjoy rubbing your nose in your droppings as much
as I do, though...

Not slamming you, but Steve was not entirely remiss in his post.

I accept thatyou intend no slam but I miss you have missed Stevies
intent

There's no "intent" on my part, Mark.

If you say there was no intent on your part then we chalk up another
lie. you intended something

Only in that you suggest something improper. My REAL intent was
to try and get you to spontaneously issue Hans an apology for your
smart mouth and abuse of his rendering of information to you.

Didn't work. My bad.

You asked a question. You got the answer. You then insulted the
respondant and called him a liar.

yes I askeda question

Well...SORT of a question. One can never be quite sure where your
sentences start and stop, or if they were statements, quotes or
questions.

No I did not

Lying again, Mark.

If you want to lie, got lie next your your "aprtnr" for a while.
Be sure to offer him some "Ben-Gay" first, though.

I did rebuke the respondant (it is his place to ecide if he was
insulted) rudely if you like

There was nothing to "rebuke".

The shortfallwas your own.

Never called him a lair

Good thing, too...Because you'd already called him a liar. Just
one more thing might ahve set him off.

You were wrong on several levels.

nope

Absolutely wrong on several levels.

You owe Hans Brakob an apology.

IF he asks I will consider it

But not on your say so

If you don't consider it pertinent to do so without his asking,
then you're obviously not sincere.

But then what else is new...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:

Two, No I am not required to be famiar with them, I am merely required
to obey them.

BBBWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! !

I am going to wait with bated breath while you try to spin up an
explanation as to how you are not required to "be familiar" with the
regulations of the radio service in which you are a licensee, yet you
ARE required to obey them.... ! ! !

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

IOW, a person can be ignorant of the law, and yet they must obey the
law.

Or are you too ignorant to see that?

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Big Snip To The Funny Stuff:

It's "here and now". It's codified into the regulations for a
federal license that YOU hold and are required to at least be familiar
with.

One being codised in regs does NOT mean it is not Arcane? Indeed most
Federal regs are the very defination of Arcane

Two, No I am not required to be famiar with them, I am merely required
to obey them.


must you engage in crying Stevi

BBBWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! !

I am going to wait with bated breath while you try to spin up an
explanation as to how you are not required to "be familiar" with the
regulations of the radio service in which you are a licensee, yet you
ARE required to obey them.... ! ! !

What spin? It is a simple matter, obvious to anyone with a brain, ah
prehaps that does let you out.

Obeying the rules is all that is required.In the case of mode which
sparked this thread.

don't need to what number letter combination is USB in order to use
it, I push a botton on the rig and it does that for me



And by the way...Yes you ARE required to be familiar with Part 97.

Ask the FCC.

Nope


I have seen fragment of this but in my reading of way part 97 recently
I don't recall it

Becasue you skipped over the parts not written in crayon, Mark.

more venom

Nope.

yep


J3E refers to the emission type. I have a strong suspicion that 2K8
represents a 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth.

you may well be right but even you don't know, not a slame on you but
pointing that you clearly know better than are not sure how can I be
expected to know it

You can be expected to at least know where to find the information
since you ARE responsible for it as a Commisssion licensee of an
Amateur Radio station.

expected sure I am expected by you to do lots of stuff

Required no

Required by the FCC...Yes.

You show where the FCC requires it. by rules and paragraph

I am merely required to the USE the airwaves correctly. If i di by use
Tarrot definiation the FCC doesn't care.

If I ID every 5 minute or 9 minutes because i don't remember the FCC
requires it every 10 the FCC doesn't care

Indeed in large discussions I generaly id every transmisstion since it
might not get back around to me in 10 minutes


BTW exactly where are they defined by paragraph Oh font of Knowledge
rival of the Oracle of Delphi

Where are the rules defined by paragraph?

Try Part 97 you blithering idiot!

Stevie thinks Part 97 is a single paragraph


Corecting you Hans put it forth, Steve is taking me to task for not
knowing it

No, not at all.

Yes Indeed Hans put it forth that is corect but you are right I was
merely guessing at what you are upto. I rarely know and hardly care
exactly what you are upto

I am not "upto" anything, other than showing the world that, yes,
Mark C Morgan is an idiot.

well if you are not lieing yet again you say I do that already

Instaead the turth is you up to stalking and harassment but everyone
(except perhaps you) knows that


But so far YOU keep stealing all my glory by beating me to it.

Then shut up if showing me an idoit is your sole goal and you you feel
I am beating you to it

You just manged to prove YOURself a lair

I am taking you to task for treating Hans so rudely then lying
about it afterwards.

and Hans can't defend himself?

I was rdue to Han's

Yes, you were.

and you say Hans can't defend himself?


he was rude to me.

No, he was not.

Yes he was. Only I can decide what I consider rude treatment


Why are (to use a comon figure of speech)you allowing your panties to
get into such bunch over it?

Because you're so blatant in lying about it.

no lie at all, a defference of opinion perhaps but (hear I guess is a
newsflash stevie) I don't have to agree with you


So Steve may have been a little strong in his wording, but his conclusion
was not in error. You appear to have little knowledge of emission
types/bandwidth occupancy.

Agreed
and Steve and for that Hans know this and choose to give an answer
technical correct (is it in fact technicaly correct) but dsigned to be
useless to me

It was only useless to you since you refused to follow-up on it
from there.

which does not alter the FACT the answer was useless as given

Useless to YOU, perhaps...

indeed as stated

More dead equine kicking stevie


Anyone else over 12 with an interest in Amateur Radio had no
problem with it.

a hyperbole at least, I can at least one other person other 12 with an
interest in Ham radio hwho did not understand it


You wanted spoon-fed, written in crayon answers.

No crayon needed

Obviously you do.

nope indeed crayon would not have help

All that was required was a simple yes or no answer You go on for days
and day when I decline to give YOU one


You take me to task when I don't answer your yes or no questions.I have
the same right as you do

Actually, I consider you to have MORE rights than I consider
necesssary for myself.

auf Anglish bitte

Being an idiot is one of them. Being a chronic liar is yet
another.

Then if you "grant" me these "rights" why do you haraas me for using
them?


Help yourself to them...They were made for you. They fit you like
a glove.

Then grant me the rights you say I have and get on the topic of Ham
Radio, instead of people bashing


Hans' only mistake was assuming that you might be able to
understand the answer.

gee Hans can't defend himself

He could quite ably if he chose to.

then let him


He just wouldn't enjoy rubbing your nose in your droppings as much
as I do, though...

Ah admiting to sadism again, but...

to work, it real has have some substance


Not slamming you, but Steve was not entirely remiss in his post.

I accept thatyou intend no slam but I miss you have missed Stevies
intent

There's no "intent" on my part, Mark.

If you say there was no intent on your part then we chalk up another
lie. you intended something

Only in that you suggest something improper. My REAL intent was
to try and get you to spontaneously issue Hans an apology for your
smart mouth and abuse of his rendering of information to you.

That is an improper intent, and one doomed to failure,

In addition I claim the right to respond to what you post , and deny
any responiblity to figure out what other crap is lurking in your mind


Didn't work. My bad.

a begining


You asked a question. You got the answer. You then insulted the
respondant and called him a liar.

yes I askeda question

Well...SORT of a question. One can never be quite sure where your
sentences start and stop, or if they were statements, quotes or
questions.

then indeed if you can't figure it out you don't know wether or not you
understand it


No I did not

Lying again, Mark.

I know the question even if you don't therefore ONLY I know if I got
the answer, you by your own addmission can't


If you want to lie, got lie next your your "aprtnr" for a while.
Be sure to offer him some "Ben-Gay" first, though.

Gee you know the gender of my partner? I have made a point of not
mentioning that takes a lot of typing in english.

Been stalking me more closely than I think or making stuff up again?



I did rebuke the respondant (it is his place to ecide if he was
insulted) rudely if you like

There was nothing to "rebuke".

yes there was. his failure to answer a yes or no question



The shortfallwas your own.

what?

Nope If i follow you then

you explain how a string of number s can be answer to "Is my impression
correct"


Never called him a lair

Good thing, too...Because you'd already called him a liar. Just
one more thing might ahve set him off.

If Hans lies i may well call him on it to date I have heard nothing I'd
clearly a lie. I have my doubts on some details of some of his stories
but I don't care enough to follow up

OTOH I don't care wether I set Hans off

BTW are you ever going to bother to learn to spell the word "Have"?


You were wrong on several levels.

nope

Absolutely wrong on several levels.

not at all on any level


You owe Hans Brakob an apology.

IF he asks I will consider it

But not on your say so

If you don't consider it pertinent to do so without his asking,
then you're obviously not sincere.

Not at all

Hans (nor anyone else) is entitled an apology where no offense was
intended with indaicating in some form he was offended



But then what else is new...?!?!

another stveie falsehood

Is theire a manual of this fake socail rules or do you just make it all
up

as I said I'll consider apologizing to hans if he asks, but I apologize
to NONE on your say so Stevie


Steve, K4YZ

an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Big Snip To The Funny Stuff:

It's "here and now". It's codified into the regulations for a
federal license that YOU hold and are required to at least be familiar
with.

One being codised in regs does NOT mean it is not Arcane? Indeed most
Federal regs are the very defination of Arcane

Two, No I am not required to be famiar with them, I am merely required
to obey them.


must you engage in crying Stevi

I'm not.

But I AM laughing at you...

Again...

BBBWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! !

I am going to wait with bated breath while you try to spin up an
explanation as to how you are not required to "be familiar" with the
regulations of the radio service in which you are a licensee, yet you
ARE required to obey them.... ! ! !

What spin? It is a simple matter, obvious to anyone with a brain, ah
prehaps that does let you out.

It IS a spin, Markie...

Answer my question, please...

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

Obeying the rules is all that is required.In the case of mode which
sparked this thread.

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

don't need to what number letter combination is USB in order to use
it, I push a botton on the rig and it does that for me

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

And by the way...Yes you ARE required to be familiar with Part 97.

Ask the FCC.

Nope

Uh huh...about what I figured...

You can be expected to at least know where to find the information
since you ARE responsible for it as a Commisssion licensee of an
Amateur Radio station.

expected sure I am expected by you to do lots of stuff

Required no

Required by the FCC...Yes.

You show where the FCC requires it. by rules and paragraph

The line on the back of your license where it says you will abide
by FCC rules and regualtions as thhey pertain to your Amateur Radio
station.

I am merely required to the USE the airwaves correctly. If i di by use
Tarrot definiation the FCC doesn't care.

Sure they do.

Show me a Tarot (...not Tarrot) card deck that has Part 97 in it.

If I ID every 5 minute or 9 minutes because i don't remember the FCC
requires it every 10 the FCC doesn't care

The FCC doesn't care if you "ID" once a minute...As long as there's
no more than a 10 minute interval between them.

Then they care.

Read recent FCC NOV's and NAL's...Read the ARRL's webpage that
cites letters sent to Amateurs who violated that very paragraph.

Indeed in large discussions I generaly id every transmisstion since it
might not get back around to me in 10 minutes

If you didn't cause RF to be emitted, it doesn't matter.

BTW exactly where are they defined by paragraph Oh font of Knowledge
rival of the Oracle of Delphi

Where are the rules defined by paragraph?

Try Part 97 you blithering idiot!

Stevie thinks Part 97 is a single paragraph

The rules ARE defined in paragraphs in Part 97, Markie.

If you meant only ONE paragraph, that was due to YOUR failure to
effectively express that thought...

Maybe a gradeshcool English writing course would help you...

Instaead the turth is you up to stalking and harassment but everyone
(except perhaps you) knows that

Nope. You came here. No one forced you.

But so far YOU keep stealing all my glory by beating me to it.

Then shut up if showing me an idoit is your sole goal and you you feel
I am beating you to it

There's that "idoit" thing again.

You're holding at 100%.

You just manged to prove YOURself a lair

I am not a lair. Nor am I a liar.

I am taking you to task for treating Hans so rudely then lying
about it afterwards.

and Hans can't defend himself?

I was rdue to Han's

Yes, you were.

and you say Hans can't defend himself?

Nope. That's YOU "forging" my words.

he was rude to me.

No, he was not.

Yes he was. Only I can decide what I consider rude treatment

No. Society can set the parameters by which rude treatment is
determined.

In no way shape or form did Hans cross that line.

YOU did, however....

Anyone else over 12 with an interest in Amateur Radio had no
problem with it.

a hyperbole at least, I can at least one other person other 12 with an
interest in Ham radio hwho did not understand it

I think they need to disperse flyers in your town warning them
about you...No one should allow a 12 year old alone with you.

Then if you "grant" me these "rights" why do you haraas me for using
them?

I don't "grant" you anything.

Help yourself to them...They were made for you. They fit you like
a glove.

Then grant me the rights you say I have and get on the topic of Ham
Radio, instead of people bashing

I am not people bashing.

Hans' only mistake was assuming that you might be able to
understand the answer.

gee Hans can't defend himself

He could quite ably if he chose to.

then let him

But I am having such fun showing you for the rude creep that you
are.

But it's easy fun...You don't make it much of a challenge.

He just wouldn't enjoy rubbing your nose in your droppings as much
as I do, though...

Ah admiting to sadism again, but...

to work, it real has have some substance

Sure it does...

Folks can just surf Google under any of your "KONSTANS"
nomme-de-guerre's you have used.

Only in that you suggest something improper. My REAL intent was
to try and get you to spontaneously issue Hans an apology for your
smart mouth and abuse of his rendering of information to you.

That is an improper intent, and one doomed to failure

Doomed to failure, perhaps.

Not improper, however.

In addition I claim the right to respond to what you post , and deny
any responiblity to figure out what other crap is lurking in your mind

Didn't work. My bad.

a begining

You missed the point again, but hey, what's new...?!?!

If you want to lie, got lie next your your "aprtnr" for a while.
Be sure to offer him some "Ben-Gay" first, though.

Gee you know the gender of my partner? I have made a point of not
mentioning that takes a lot of typing in english.

Been stalking me more closely than I think or making stuff up again?

Nope. If you weren't such an idiot you'd remember what you wrote
a week ago.

Or more MarkieLying..?!?!

I did rebuke the respondant (it is his place to ecide if he was
insulted) rudely if you like

There was nothing to "rebuke".

yes there was. his failure to answer a yes or no question

So he's "guilty" for imparting MORE knowledge than you are capble
of processing...

But you STILL couldn't be polite to him and ask for a better
clarification if you didn't understand...?!?!

Good thing, too...Because you'd already called him a liar. Just
one more thing might ahve set him off.

If Hans lies i may well call him on it to date I have heard nothing I'd
clearly a lie. I have my doubts on some details of some of his stories
but I don't care enough to follow up

OTOH I don't care wether I set Hans off

You should.

BTW are you ever going to bother to learn to spell the word "Have"?

Lessee.....

I OCCASSIONALLY transpose "h" and "a"...

As opposed to your near-every sentence errors?

That's a load!

BTW...Getting your "partner" to do your writing lately?

You were wrong on several levels.

nope

Absolutely wrong on several levels.

not at all on any level

Wrong.

You owe Hans Brakob an apology.

IF he asks I will consider it

But not on your say so

If you don't consider it pertinent to do so without his asking,
then you're obviously not sincere.

Not at all

Absolutely.

Hans (nor anyone else) is entitled an apology where no offense was
intended with indaicating in some form he was offended

Obviously he was.

But then what else is new...?!?!

another stveie falsehood

Nope.

Is theire a manual of this fake socail rules or do you just make it all
up

as I said I'll consider apologizing to hans if he asks, but I apologize
to NONE on your say so Stevie

And like I said...if you haven't got the cajones to jsut offer him
a sincere apology on your own, it's not..well...sincere...

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Big Snip To The Funny Stuff:

It's "here and now". It's codified into the regulations for a
federal license that YOU hold and are required to at least be familiar
with.

One being codised in regs does NOT mean it is not Arcane? Indeed most
Federal regs are the very defination of Arcane

Two, No I am not required to be famiar with them, I am merely required
to obey them.


must you engage in crying Stevi

I'm not.

But I AM laughing at you...

Again...

BBBWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! !


break
I am going to wait with bated breath while you try to spin up an
explanation as to how you are not required to "be familiar" with the
regulations of the radio service in which you are a licensee, yet you
ARE required to obey them.... ! ! !

What spin? It is a simple matter, obvious to anyone with a brain, ah
prehaps that does let you out.

It IS a spin, Markie...

nope it isn't


Answer my question, please...

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

well the regular you are referring to by punching the botton on my
radio, Yeaszu and FCC have seen to it that it generates legal types of
signals wether i know the letter codes or not

My rig will not tranmit out band so I am covered there


Obeying the rules is all that is required.In the case of mode which
sparked this thread.

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

several methods are possible such apllaince operating

not operating also insures I don't break the rules

one could count on simple luck (not wise but possible)

I am sure there are additional examples


don't need to what number letter combination is USB in order to use
it, I push a botton on the rig and it does that for me

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

asked and answered


And by the way...Yes you ARE required to be familiar with Part 97.

Ask the FCC.

Nope

Uh huh...about what I figured...

I am required to obey
not understand

Nothing in part 97 says I have to understand it



You can be expected to at least know where to find the information
since you ARE responsible for it as a Commisssion licensee of an
Amateur Radio station.

expected sure I am expected by you to do lots of stuff

Required no

Required by the FCC...Yes.

You show where the FCC requires it. by rules and paragraph

The line on the back of your license where it says you will abide
by FCC rules and regualtions as thhey pertain to your Amateur Radio
station.


....Abide by the FCC rules and regulation... nothing about understanding
them there

another Stevie LIE

I am merely required to the USE the airwaves correctly. If i di by use
Tarrot definiation the FCC doesn't care.

Sure they do.

prove it. or even show something that suggests it


Show me a Tarot (...not Tarrot) card deck that has Part 97 in it.

Tarrot Torot and Tarot are all vaild speling of the words

and you question merely shows you ignorance of the Tarrot


If I ID every 5 minute or 9 minutes because i don't remember the FCC
requires it every 10 the FCC doesn't care

The FCC doesn't care if you "ID" once a minute...As long as there's
no more than a 10 minute interval between them.

which I am fine if I id every signal I send regards of what I rember
about the rules


Then they care.

Read recent FCC NOV's and NAL's...Read the ARRL's webpage that
cites letters sent to Amateurs who violated that very paragraph.

your point?


Indeed in large discussions I generaly id every transmisstion since it
might not get back around to me in 10 minutes

If you didn't cause RF to be emitted, it doesn't matter.

not by what I hear maybe I just don't understand, and htta is what what
some of the old timers claim very loudy at time when they break and
play radio cop


BTW exactly where are they defined by paragraph Oh font of Knowledge
rival of the Oracle of Delphi

Where are the rules defined by paragraph?

Try Part 97 you blithering idiot!

Stevie thinks Part 97 is a single paragraph

The rules ARE defined in paragraphs in Part 97, Markie.

you have been asked for a citaion by paragraph All federal reg are
numbered by section and most by paragraph


If you meant only ONE paragraph, that was due to YOUR failure to
effectively express that thought...

I don't know how paragraphs you would need to cite So I don't mean One
para or ten you claim to know so you tell me


Maybe a gradeshcool English writing course would help you...

nope

You learning what the rule say instead what you think they say is what
is needed


Instaead the turth is you up to stalking and harassment but everyone
(except perhaps you) knows that

Nope. You came here. No one forced you.

so

You claim you have the right to stalk and harrass anyone that comes in
your feild of vision?


But so far YOU keep stealing all my glory by beating me to it.

Then shut up if showing me an idoit is your sole goal and you you feel
I am beating you to it

There's that "idoit" thing again.

so


You're holding at 100%.

You just manged to prove YOURself a lair

I am not a lair. Nor am I a liar.

yes you are


I am taking you to task for treating Hans so rudely then lying
about it afterwards.

and Hans can't defend himself?

I was rdue to Han's

Yes, you were.

and you say Hans can't defend himself?

Nope. That's YOU "forging" my words.

then explain what you are doing


he was rude to me.

No, he was not.

Yes he was. Only I can decide what I consider rude treatment

No. Society can set the parameters by which rude treatment is
determined.

not ture


In no way shape or form did Hans cross that line.

says you? even IF I grant your "No. Society can set the parameters by
which rude treatment is
determined" you are not empowered to act for Society, trying to do is what Makes you a Vigilanty something form another thread.


YOU did, however....

Auf anglish bitte is a phrase forbidden by Society?

Bull****


Anyone else over 12 with an interest in Amateur Radio had no
problem with it.

a hyperbole at least, I can at least one other person other 12 with an
interest in Ham radio hwho did not understand it

I think they need to disperse flyers in your town warning them
about you...No one should allow a 12 year old alone with you.

and more libel from you

If I thought you had anything worth taking that is enough to take you
to court for Stevie, at least in the Opinion of a paralegal (my partner
not me)


Then if you "grant" me these "rights" why do you haraas me for using
them?

I don't "grant" you anything.

then you were lieing when you made the statement

" Actually, I consider you to have MORE rights than I consider
necesssary for myself.

Being an idiot is one of them. Being a chronic liar is yet
another.


Help yourself to them...They were made for you. They fit you like

a glove. "

your word not mine
you cut them out ofyour last post

but by your words I have those rights and if I am merely exercising
them what right do you have to complain



Help yourself to them...They were made for you. They fit you like
a glove.

Then grant me the rights you say I have and get on the topic of Ham
Radio, instead of people bashing

I am not people bashing.

you only engage in personal attack


you edit stuff to cover your tracks


Hans' only mistake was assuming that you might be able to
understand the answer.

gee Hans can't defend himself

He could quite ably if he chose to.

then let him

But I am having such fun showing you for the rude creep that you
are.

But it's easy fun...You don't make it much of a challenge.

He just wouldn't enjoy rubbing your nose in your droppings as much
as I do, though...

Ah admiting to sadism again, but...

to work, it real has have some substance

Sure it does...

Folks can just surf Google under any of your "KONSTANS"
nomme-de-guerre's you have used.


your point? or do you have one?

Only in that you suggest something improper. My REAL intent was
to try and get you to spontaneously issue Hans an apology for your
smart mouth and abuse of his rendering of information to you.

That is an improper intent, and one doomed to failure

Doomed to failure, perhaps.

a begining boyo

Not improper, however.

It is imporper


In addition I claim the right to respond to what you post , and deny
any responiblity to figure out what other crap is lurking in your mind

Didn't work. My bad.

a begining

You missed the point again, but hey, what's new...?!?!

You had a point?


If you want to lie, got lie next your your "aprtnr" for a while.
Be sure to offer him some "Ben-Gay" first, though.

Gee you know the gender of my partner? I have made a point of not
mentioning that takes a lot of typing in english.

Been stalking me more closely than I think or making stuff up again?

Nope. If you weren't such an idiot you'd remember what you wrote
a week ago.

making up stuff as a point of fact my partner is female was avoiding it
becuase it wasn't and isn't any of your affair


Or more MarkieLying..?!?!

no just Stevie lieing


I did rebuke the respondant (it is his place to ecide if he was
insulted) rudely if you like

There was nothing to "rebuke".

yes there was. his failure to answer a yes or no question

So he's "guilty" for imparting MORE knowledge than you are capble
of processing...

He imparted no knowledge something you have already agreed


But you STILL couldn't be polite to him and ask for a better
clarification if you didn't understand...?!?!

I did ask politely

I said "Auf Anglish Bitte"

I could have said "answer the question asked ****head" or other far
ruder responses


Good thing, too...Because you'd already called him a liar. Just
one more thing might ahve set him off.

If Hans lies i may well call him on it to date I have heard nothing I'd
clearly a lie. I have my doubts on some details of some of his stories
but I don't care enough to follow up

OTOH I don't care wether I set Hans off

You should.

why?


BTW are you ever going to bother to learn to spell the word "Have"?

Lessee.....

I OCCASSIONALLY transpose "h" and "a"...

I can't recallseeing the word have speeled right by you in days



As opposed to your near-every sentence errors?

"judge not lest ye be judged"


That's a load!

BTW...Getting your "partner" to do your writing lately?

no why do you ask?


You were wrong on several levels.

nope

Absolutely wrong on several levels.

not at all on any level

Wrong.

Stevie grow up


You owe Hans Brakob an apology.

IF he asks I will consider it

But not on your say so

If you don't consider it pertinent to do so without his asking,
then you're obviously not sincere.

Not at all

Absolutely.

Stevie YOU insting on means it will not happen if hans asks I will
consider it If Jim Ney asks I will consider it, but the more you go the
less likely i will do it

I do nothing to please you


Hans (nor anyone else) is entitled an apology where no offense was
intended with indaicating in some form he was offended

Obviously he was.

obviously was what?

auf anglish bitte



But then what else is new...?!?!

another stveie falsehood

Nope.

yes


Is theire a manual of this fake socail rules or do you just make it all
up

as I said I'll consider apologizing to hans if he asks, but I apologize
to NONE on your say so Stevie

And like I said...if you haven't got the cajones to jsut offer him
a sincere apology on your own, it's not..well...sincere...

oh I see what you mean now took you long enough to say what you mean
(if you are saying what you mean now) Then you have been chasing a wild
goose form moment one in this thread since of course If aplogize to
Hans now you will not consider it sincere, so logicly thier is
certianly no point in my doing so


Steve, K4YZ

b.b. wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:

Two, No I am not required to be famiar with them, I am merely required
to obey them.

BBBWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! !

I am going to wait with bated breath while you try to spin up an
explanation as to how you are not required to "be familiar" with the
regulations of the radio service in which you are a licensee, yet you
ARE required to obey them.... ! ! !

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

IOW, a person can be ignorant of the law, and yet they must obey the
law.

Or are you too ignorant to see that?

Why Steve no answer?

b.b. wrote:
b.b. wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:

Two, No I am not required to be famiar with them, I am merely required
to obey them.

BBBWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! !

I am going to wait with bated breath while you try to spin up an
explanation as to how you are not required to "be familiar" with the
regulations of the radio service in which you are a licensee, yet you
ARE required to obey them.... ! ! !

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

IOW, a person can be ignorant of the law, and yet they must obey the
law.

Or are you too ignorant to see that?

Why Steve no answer?

Because he is too busy figuring out more name to call me most likely
after he is plain wrong


esp when he rests that on my not knowing the codes for pushing button
like FM on my rig

an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Answer my question, please...

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

well the regular you are referring to by punching the botton on my
radio, Yeaszu and FCC have seen to it that it generates legal types of
signals wether i know the letter codes or not

You are responsible for the proper operation of your radio
station.

Yeasu (NOT "Yeaszu") is NOT responsible for the emissions of the
radio.

My rig will not tranmit out band so I am covered there

Bravo Sierra.

E V E R Y RF generating device has the potential of radiating a
signal other than the one designed for.

Ask Lennie.

Obeying the rules is all that is required.In the case of mode which
sparked this thread.

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

several methods are possible such apllaince operating

"Apllaince operating" does not make you familiar with FCC rules
and regulations.

It makes you an "apllaince" operator...that's all.

not operating also insures I don't break the rules

And keeps them free of your "dreck".

one could count on simple luck (not wise but possible)

I am sure there are additional examples

None of which meet the letter of the spirit of the law.

SO you're bascially saying that you don't care what the rules are,
you'll just do what you darn well please.

don't need to what number letter combination is USB in order to use
it, I push a botton on the rig and it does that for me

How do you comply with the regulations if you aren't "familiar"
with them...???

asked and answered

Asked and answered with stupid answers.

(...as if I expected anything different...?!?!)

And by the way...Yes you ARE required to be familiar with Part 97.

Ask the FCC.

Nope

Uh huh...about what I figured...

I am required to obey
not understand

And you STILL have not adequately explained how you can "obey"
laws that you do not understand.

Nothing in part 97 says I have to understand it

Your signature on FCC form 660 an the provisions of the
Communications Act of 1934 in Section 310 and others do.

And yes, you're supposed to know them. You sign the document.


The line on the back of your license where it says you will abide
by FCC rules and regualtions as thhey pertain to your Amateur Radio
station.


...Abide by the FCC rules and regulation... nothing about understanding
them there

another Stevie LIE

Nope.

You cannot "abide" by laws you do not understand.

I am merely required to the USE the airwaves correctly. If i di by use
Tarrot definiation the FCC doesn't care.

Sure they do.

prove it. or even show something that suggests it

Done.

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices

Show me a Tarot (...not Tarrot) card deck that has Part 97 in it.

Tarrot Torot and Tarot are all vaild speling of the words

and you question merely shows you ignorance of the Tarrot

I know that it's spelled "Tarot" in English.

Indeed in large discussions I generaly id every transmisstion since it
might not get back around to me in 10 minutes

If you didn't cause RF to be emitted, it doesn't matter.

not by what I hear maybe I just don't understand, and htta is what what
some of the old timers claim very loudy at time when they break and
play radio cop

Perhaps if you knew the laws that you are governed by you wouldn't
have to depend on "...not by what I hear..."

And yes, you DON'T understand. Being wilfully ignorant doesn't
excuse you from compliance.

Instaead the turth is you up to stalking and harassment but everyone
(except perhaps you) knows that

Nope. You came here. No one forced you.

so

You claim you have the right to stalk and harrass anyone that comes in
your feild of vision?

I'm not stalking anyone nor am I harassing anyone.

You voluntarilly reply to these posts.

No one dragged you here.

But so far YOU keep stealing all my glory by beating me to it.

Then shut up if showing me an idoit is your sole goal and you you feel
I am beating you to it

There's that "idoit" thing again.

so

So you've proven yourself wrong.

Over and over.

You're holding at 100%.

You just manged to prove YOURself a lair

I am not a lair. Nor am I a liar.

yes you are

Nope. You SAY I am a liar, but you've not yet shown a single one.
(Websters refers...)

and you say Hans can't defend himself?

Nope. That's YOU "forging" my words.

then explain what you are doing

I've not forged a single word, Markie.

Look up the definition of "forged" in Websters.

No. Society can set the parameters by which rude treatment is
determined.

not ture

Absolutely "ture".

In no way shape or form did Hans cross that line.

says you?

Says everyone EXCEPT you.

even IF I grant your...(SNIP)

You're not empowered to "grant" me anything, Markie.

You haven't got the proper genetics.

YOU did, however....

Auf anglish bitte is a phrase forbidden by Society?

Where did I say it was? (Even if you continue to mispell the
germanic reference to "English"

Bull####

Yes, You are.

I think they need to disperse flyers in your town warning them
about you...No one should allow a 12 year old alone with you.

and more libel from you

Nope.

Fact.

Based upon your own words.

If I thought you had anything worth taking that is enough to take you
to court for Stevie, at least in the Opinion of a paralegal (my partner
not me)

Uh huh...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

I don't know who the bigger idiot would be...

You for trying to file such a "case" considering the tons of
admissions of sexual perversion and wilfull mistruthfulness on your
part,

Or your "partner" for suggesting such might be possible
considering the aforementioned evidence that exists in Google archives.

Then if you "grant" me these "rights" why do you haraas me for using
them?

I don't "grant" you anything.

then you were lieing when you made the statement

I never "granted" you anything. Those are YOUR words...Not mine,
you "forger" ! ! !

" Actually, I consider you to have MORE rights than I consider
necesssary for myself.

Being an idiot is one of them. Being a chronic liar is yet
another.

Yes, you are an idiot and you are a chronic liar.

I am not people bashing.

you only engage in personal attack

It's not an attack.

It's the truth.

you edit stuff to cover your tracks

Nope.

I "edit" stuff to keep these posts from being yards and yards
long.

Anyone can go back and review them if they care to...Even you....

Folks can just surf Google under any of your "KONSTANS"
nomme-de-guerre's you have used.

your point? or do you have one?

Sure.

My point is that anyone can surf Google under any of your
"KONSTANS" nomme-de-guerre's you've used and see what kind of a lyig
creep you are.

They can also surf KB9RQZ, "MWMORGAN" and a plethora of othr names
you've come and gone under as you bounce from ISP to ISP...

Speaking of which, I can only hope and pray that you finally
ditched that ISP you alleged was charging you $5/hr.

Only in that you suggest something improper. My REAL intent was
to try and get you to spontaneously issue Hans an apology for your
smart mouth and abuse of his rendering of information to you.

That is an improper intent, and one doomed to failure

Doomed to failure, perhaps.

a begining boyo

Huh?

Not improper, however.

It is imporper

What's "imporper"...???

Nope. If you weren't such an idiot you'd remember what you wrote
a week ago.

making up stuff as a point of fact my partner is female was avoiding it
becuase it wasn't and isn't any of your affair

Your sister? Or mom?

No self-respecting English speaking woman I know would
tolerate a professed liar like you unless they were in your gene pool
or your will.

So he's "guilty" for imparting MORE knowledge than you are capble
of processing...

He imparted no knowledge something you have already agreed

No, I have NOT agreed.

Hans clearly DID "impart knowledge"...YOU, on the otherhand, were
just too stupid to assimilate it.

But you STILL couldn't be polite to him and ask for a better
clarification if you didn't understand...?!?!

I did ask politely

I said "Auf Anglish Bitte"

Why do you insist on trying to look like you can speak German when
you clearly can't even do it in English?

I could have said "answer the question asked ####head" or other far
ruder responses

You basically said that anyway. That WAS the nature, if not
verbatim, response.

I OCCASSIONALLY transpose "h" and "a"...

I can't recallseeing the word have speeled right by you in days

Becasue you haven't been paying attention.

Scroll back.

As opposed to your near-every sentence errors?

"judge not lest ye be judged"

I'll take my chances.

If you don't consider it pertinent to do so without his asking,
then you're obviously not sincere.

Not at all

Absolutely.

Stevie YOU insting on means it will not happen if hans asks I will
consider it If Jim Ney asks I will consider it, but the more you go the
less likely i will do it

I do nothing to please you

Sure you do.

And who's "Jim Ney"...???

Hans (nor anyone else) is entitled an apology where no offense was
intended with indaicating in some form he was offended

Obviously he was.

obviously was what?

auf anglish bitte

If you're going to ask a question, Markie, regardless of the
language you're trying to abuse, please use the proper punctuation.

And what part of "offended" do you not understand?

And like I said...if you haven't got the cajones to just offer him
a sincere apology on your own, it's not..well...sincere...

oh I see what you mean now took you long enough to say what you mean
(if you are saying what you mean now)...(SNIP)

Huh?

Then you have been chasing a wild goose form...(SNIP)

A "wild goose form"..?!?!

Is that as opposed to a tame goose form?

How can you tell?

(UNSNIP)...moment one in this thread since of course If aplogize to
Hans now you will not consider it sincere, so logicly thier is
certianly no point in my doing so

Sure there is...

Because it's the right thing to do.

If that's not reason enough, I don't know what is...

Steve, K4YZ