class_a wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>> class_a wrote:
>> 
>>> Spike wrote:
>>>> class_a wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Spike wrote:
>>>>>> class_a wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>> Brian MW0GKX wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. How can a grown man of 42 years be proud to hold, and have
>>>>>>>>>> held for a number of years now, a licence intended for 6-year-olds?
>>>>>>>>>> The RSCB makes much of these 6-year-olds and how they are
>>>>>>>>>> progressing to full licences. What's holding M3GDW back in
>>>>>>>>>> the kindergarten class?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You do not know what people are doing in their personal lives.
>>>>>>>>> Many people have many reasons for not being able to progress straight away, 
>>>>>>>>> I'll admit that many "can't be bothered" but there are people who find the 
>>>>>>>>> study time difficult.
>>>>>>>> Never forget that the dimwit you're in discussion with came up by the
>>>>>>>> easiest route to an HF licence that existed at the time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That route included a seven-year period of inactivity due to personal
>>>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>>> So, you have been too busy to get a licence in the 50 years you've had 
>>>>>>> an interest?  Or just too lazy?
>>>>>> Boring little fart, aren't you. Are you a dimwit too?
>>>>> Awww, did you not like that question?  Did it hit a little too close to 
>>>>> home?  So let's ask it again "So, you have been too busy to get a 
>>>>> licence in the 50 years you've had an interest?  Or just too lazy?"
>>>>>
>>>>> And to answer your questions, no and no, which shows just how 
>>>>> ill-informed you are AGAIN.
>>>> If those that campaign for 'decency' and 'technical standards' can't
>>>> meet either requirement - amply illustrated on this ng - then those
>>>> that support them are necessarily fairly thick; dimwits, IOW. You fill
>>>> the bill nicely. 
>>> And those that couldn't even pass an amateur exam after claiming 50 
>>> years of interest, or even a FL exam in the five or so years it has been 
>>> available fit into which category?  "fairly thick" and "dimwits" is a 
>>> fair description.  And you fit those descriptions perfectly.
>> 
>> Try and parrot your own line of comments, and not merely repeat those
>> of people as unfortunate as yourself.
>
>So, no denial of being "fairly thick" or a "dimwit".  Very telling indeed!
>

I can tell you're a dipshit, if that's any help.

-- 

from
Aero Spike

Spike wrote:
> class_a wrote:
> 
>> Spike wrote:
>>> class_a wrote:
>>>
>>>> Spike wrote:
>>>>> class_a wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Spike wrote:
>>>>>>> class_a wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Brian MW0GKX wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. How can a grown man of 42 years be proud to hold, and have
>>>>>>>>>>> held for a number of years now, a licence intended for 6-year-olds?
>>>>>>>>>>> The RSCB makes much of these 6-year-olds and how they are
>>>>>>>>>>> progressing to full licences. What's holding M3GDW back in
>>>>>>>>>>> the kindergarten class?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You do not know what people are doing in their personal lives.
>>>>>>>>>> Many people have many reasons for not being able to progress straight away, 
>>>>>>>>>> I'll admit that many "can't be bothered" but there are people who find the 
>>>>>>>>>> study time difficult.
>>>>>>>>> Never forget that the dimwit you're in discussion with came up by the
>>>>>>>>> easiest route to an HF licence that existed at the time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That route included a seven-year period of inactivity due to personal
>>>>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>>>> So, you have been too busy to get a licence in the 50 years you've had 
>>>>>>>> an interest?  Or just too lazy?
>>>>>>> Boring little fart, aren't you. Are you a dimwit too?
>>>>>> Awww, did you not like that question?  Did it hit a little too close to 
>>>>>> home?  So let's ask it again "So, you have been too busy to get a 
>>>>>> licence in the 50 years you've had an interest?  Or just too lazy?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And to answer your questions, no and no, which shows just how 
>>>>>> ill-informed you are AGAIN.
>>>>> If those that campaign for 'decency' and 'technical standards' can't
>>>>> meet either requirement - amply illustrated on this ng - then those
>>>>> that support them are necessarily fairly thick; dimwits, IOW. You fill
>>>>> the bill nicely. 
>>>> And those that couldn't even pass an amateur exam after claiming 50 
>>>> years of interest, or even a FL exam in the five or so years it has been 
>>>> available fit into which category?  "fairly thick" and "dimwits" is a 
>>>> fair description.  And you fit those descriptions perfectly.
>>> Try and parrot your own line of comments, and not merely repeat those
>>> of people as unfortunate as yourself.
>> So, no denial of being "fairly thick" or a "dimwit".  Very telling indeed!
>>
> 
> I can tell you're a dipshit, if that's any help.

Spite, that's no help whatsoever, as usual.  But, at least the foul 
mouther CBer reveals himself time after time.....