Mrs.Nugatory, by her own admission has singularly failed to
pass any qualifying exam for Radio Hammery, including those
aimed at 6-year-olds, despite claiming to have had an interest
going back 50 years.

Mrs.Nugatory pollutes this NG with repeated infantile assaults
aimed at those who _HAVE_ passed their exams, in many
cases some decades ago.

I propose the motion that Mrs.Nugatory be asked to leave this
NG and concentrate on her studies to bring herself up to the
technical standard of a 6-year-old, and stop polluting this
NG with irrelevant and infantile outbursts.

DO I HAVE A SECONDER?

Please vote Yeah or Nay.

12 WPM Class A wrote:

> Mrs.Nugatory, by her own admission has singularly failed to
> pass any qualifying exam for Radio Hammery,

But you have never passed an exam in radio hammey either, so why go on 
about it?

> Mrs.Nugatory pollutes this NG with repeated infantile assaults
> aimed at those who _HAVE_ passed their exams, in many
> cases some decades ago.

The loser that calls himself 12 WPM Class A  posted 41 times in my 
session of switch on.

Spike posted 24 times during the same period.

> I propose the motion that Mrs.Nugatory be asked to leave this
> NG and concentrate on her studies to bring herself up to the
> technical standard of a 6-year-old, and stop polluting this
> NG with irrelevant and infantile outbursts.
> 
> DO I HAVE A SECONDER?

NO! I leave it to the rest of the group to say the same thing, if they 
can be bothered to reply to 'THE LOSER'

> Please vote Yeah or Nay.

Dave

Dave wrote:

>12 WPM Class A wrote:
>
>> Mrs.Nugatory, by her own admission has singularly failed to
>> pass any qualifying exam for Radio Hammery,
>
>But you have never passed an exam in radio hammey either, so why go on 
>about it?

ROFL

You've got him with that one, Dave.

He can't even bang the 'written RAE' drum as a response, because he
sat an exam the syllabus of which contained a requirement about valved
PAs and their tuning, which flummoxed him totally to the point of
selling his rig, advertised as 'not used by me on TX as vital
tuning-up pages missing from manual'. Tha's the level of his
competence: shameful.


-- 

from
Aero Spike

Spike wrote:

> He can't even bang the 'written RAE' drum as a response, because he
> sat an exam the syllabus of which contained a requirement about valved
> PAs and their tuning, which flummoxed him totally to the point of
> selling his rig, advertised as 'not used by me on TX as vital
> tuning-up pages missing from manual'. Tha's the level of his
> competence: shameful.

So Spite, which RAE have you passed after a claimed 50 years of interest?

Spike wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> 
> 
>>12 WPM Class A wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mrs.Nugatory, by her own admission has singularly failed to
>>>pass any qualifying exam for Radio Hammery,
>>
>>But you have never passed an exam in radio hammey either, so why go on 
>>about it?
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> You've got him with that one, Dave.
> 
> He can't even bang the 'written RAE' drum as a response, because he
> sat an exam the syllabus of which contained a requirement about valved
> PAs and their tuning, which flummoxed him totally to the point of
> selling his rig, advertised as 'not used by me on TX as vital
> tuning-up pages missing from manual'. Tha's the level of his
> competence: shameful.

I always remember my mentor on tuning up an FT 101. He talked us through 
tuning it up by telling us that we should tune up to maximum output. Not 
swr.


LOL I didn't realise I had wounded him so much, Can I have some pointers?

Dave

Spike wrote:

> Dave wrote:
> 
> 
>>12 WPM Class A wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mrs.Nugatory, by her own admission has singularly failed to
>>>pass any qualifying exam for Radio Hammery,
>>
>>But you have never passed an exam in radio hammey either, so why go on 
>>about it?
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> You've got him with that one, Dave.
> 
> He can't even bang the 'written RAE' drum as a response, because he
> sat an exam the syllabus of which contained a requirement about valved
> PAs and their tuning, which flummoxed him totally to the point of
> selling his rig, advertised as 'not used by me on TX as vital
> tuning-up pages missing from manual'. That's the level of his
> competence: shameful.


Dave

class_a wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>
>> He can't even bang the 'written RAE' drum as a response, because he
>> sat an exam the syllabus of which contained a requirement about valved
>> PAs and their tuning, which flummoxed him totally to the point of
>> selling his rig, advertised as 'not used by me on TX as vital
>> tuning-up pages missing from manual'. Tha's the level of his
>> competence: shameful.
>
>So Spite, which RAE have you passed after a claimed 50 years of interest?

I once passed a 600cc Norton at 105 mph, on my 499cc Velocette. Does
that count?

If it's any help, it was on a trip between between a transport cafe
and a coffee bar, 17 miles apart. Did it in 14 minutes. Unlit country
roads to boot. Try that on a 6V 24W headlight, pre 'cling rubber'
tyres, and drum brakes.

-- 

from
Aero Spike

Dave wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>>12 WPM Class A wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mrs.Nugatory, by her own admission has singularly failed to
>>>>pass any qualifying exam for Radio Hammery,
>>>
>>>But you have never passed an exam in radio hammey either, so why go on 
>>>about it?
>> 
>> ROFL
>> 
>> You've got him with that one, Dave.
>> 
>> He can't even bang the 'written RAE' drum as a response, because he
>> sat an exam the syllabus of which contained a requirement about valved
>> PAs and their tuning, which flummoxed him totally to the point of
>> selling his rig, advertised as 'not used by me on TX as vital
>> tuning-up pages missing from manual'. That's the level of his
>> competence: shameful.
>
>I always remember my mentor on tuning up an FT 101. He talked us through 
>tuning it up by telling us that we should tune up to maximum output. Not 
>swr.
>
>LOL I didn't realise I had wounded him so much, Can I have some pointers?

You don't need any - the chap's techniques are very limited in number
and originality, little better than a toddler's excuse for staying up
late but far less inventive.

See, for example, the exchange between him and Jeff about the various
Terrorism Acts. The chap, having been nailed to the floor by Jeff,
resorted to accusations of rudeness as a means of deflecting attention
from his plight.

You can bet your bottom dollar that when the chap accuses someone of
something, as above, he will used that same technique himself, either
immediately before or after. You just need to watch for it - such as
'shouting', then accusing Jeff in this case, of it. 

The most amazing thing is that there are people on here, less limited
in number than one might have hoped, who can't see through these
elementary flailings, and who seem to think that he speaks wonderful
things. Amazing, because they variously claim to be 'class a' of one
sort or another; they can read Morse, but not words.


-- 

from
Aero Spike

"Dave"  wrote in message 
news:kfmdnS_9m-s_nvnVnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> But you have never passed an exam in radio hammey either, so why go on 
> about it?
> The loser that calls himself 12 WPM Class A  posted 41 times in my session 
> of switch on.
> NO! I leave it to the rest of the group to say the same thing, if they can 
> be bothered to reply to 'THE LOSER'

"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
news:3o7864564vuv253uj0v24enmbp8ioh53p3@4ax.com...
> He can't even bang the 'written RAE' drum as a response, because he
> sat an exam the syllabus of which contained a requirement about valved
> PAs and their tuning, which flummoxed him totally to the point of
> selling his rig, advertised as 'not used by me on TX as vital
> tuning-up pages missing from manual'. Tha's the level of his
> competence: shameful.


There you are again Mrs.Nugatory, banging on the same topic,
but you're ignoring my responses to you, which were ....

1. If it's OK for you to delay a project, in your case a trivial
noisy electrical connection, whilst seeking further information from
others, then surely it's OK for me to do the same?

2. What is the specification of the "standard transceiver" that you
bang on about?

3. Please cite a reference where I may go and study that standard.

4. If it is such a trivial matter to tune up such "standard transceivers",
why have you never proved yourself capable of tuning them up despite
claiming an interest going back 50+ years?

"Dave"  wrote in message 
news:3LSdnc2iub7hs_nVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> I always remember my mentor on tuning up an FT 101. He talked us through 
> tuning it up by telling us that we should tune up to maximum output. Not 
> swr.
> LOL I didn't realise I had wounded him so much, Can I have some pointers?

So, it's OK for you to have outside assistance on how to tune up a FT101, 
but
not OK for others to seek such tuition?

"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
news:8159645u91js0pqnfdp94bbq4q5k791954@4ax.com...
> The most amazing thing is that there are people on here, less limited
> in number than one might have hoped, who can't see through these
> elementary flailings, and who seem to think that he speaks wonderful
> things.

But we _CAN_ see through your "elementary flailings" and the smokescreens
you put up to attempt to mask your disgraceful lack of achievements, in the
light of the following questions put to you and from which you are squirming 
...

1. What is the specification of the "standard transceiver" that you bang on 
about?

2. What is the reference for that standard such that we may go and read it
for ourselves?

3. If it such a trivially simple matter to tune up these "standard 
transceivers" such
as you claim, how many of them have you tuned up yourself, and under what
authorising licences?

4. Why have you singularly failed to qualify, even at the level intended for
6-year-olds, to tune up these trivially simple "standard transceivers" 
despite
that you claim to have had an interest going back 50+ years?

Spike wrote:
> class_a wrote:
> 
>> Spike wrote:
>>
>>> He can't even bang the 'written RAE' drum as a response, because he
>>> sat an exam the syllabus of which contained a requirement about valved
>>> PAs and their tuning, which flummoxed him totally to the point of
>>> selling his rig, advertised as 'not used by me on TX as vital
>>> tuning-up pages missing from manual'. Tha's the level of his
>>> competence: shameful.
>> So Spite, which RAE have you passed after a claimed 50 years of interest?
> 
> I once passed a 600cc Norton at 105 mph, on my 499cc Velocette. Does
> that count?

Oh dear, another one with basic English comprehension problems.  The 
question was, "which _RAE_ have you passed after a claimed 50 years of 
interest?".  What have motorbikes got to do with a question about a 
Radio Amateurs Examination?  Maybe the lack of basic English 
comprehension is one reason you've never managed to pass any amateur 
radio exam in your 50 years of interest?

class_a wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>> class_a wrote:
>> 
>>> Spike wrote:
>>>
>>>> He can't even bang the 'written RAE' drum as a response, because he
>>>> sat an exam the syllabus of which contained a requirement about valved
>>>> PAs and their tuning, which flummoxed him totally to the point of
>>>> selling his rig, advertised as 'not used by me on TX as vital
>>>> tuning-up pages missing from manual'. Tha's the level of his
>>>> competence: shameful.
>>> So Spite, which RAE have you passed after a claimed 50 years of interest?
>> 
>> I once passed a 600cc Norton at 105 mph, on my 499cc Velocette. Does
>> that count?
>
>Oh dear, another one with basic English comprehension problems.  The 
>question was, "which _RAE_ have you passed after a claimed 50 years of 
>interest?".  What have motorbikes got to do with a question about a 
>Radio Amateurs Examination?  Maybe the lack of basic English 
>comprehension is one reason you've never managed to pass any amateur 
>radio exam in your 50 years of interest?

HLS.

Spike:  I once passed a 600cc Norton at 105 mph, on my 499cc
Velocette.

class_a idiot: Oh dear, another one with basic English comprehension
problems.  The question was, "which _RAE_ have you passed after a
claimed 50 years of interest?".

Spike: Does that count?

class_a idiot: RANT RANT RANT

That one certainly whooshed.


-- 

from
Aero Spike

Spike wrote:
> class_a wrote:
> 
>> Spike wrote:
>>> class_a wrote:
>>>
>>>> Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He can't even bang the 'written RAE' drum as a response, because he
>>>>> sat an exam the syllabus of which contained a requirement about valved
>>>>> PAs and their tuning, which flummoxed him totally to the point of
>>>>> selling his rig, advertised as 'not used by me on TX as vital
>>>>> tuning-up pages missing from manual'. Tha's the level of his
>>>>> competence: shameful.
>>>> So Spite, which RAE have you passed after a claimed 50 years of interest?
>>> I once passed a 600cc Norton at 105 mph, on my 499cc Velocette. Does
>>> that count?
>> Oh dear, another one with basic English comprehension problems.  The 
>> question was, "which _RAE_ have you passed after a claimed 50 years of 
>> interest?".  What have motorbikes got to do with a question about a 
>> Radio Amateurs Examination?  Maybe the lack of basic English 
>> comprehension is one reason you've never managed to pass any amateur 
>> radio exam in your 50 years of interest?
> 
> HLS.
> 
> Spike:  I once passed a 600cc Norton at 105 mph, on my 499cc
> Velocette.
> 
> class_a idiot: Oh dear, another one with basic English comprehension
> problems.  The question was, "which _RAE_ have you passed after a
> claimed 50 years of interest?".
> 
> Spike: Does that count?
> 
> class_a idiot: RANT RANT RANT
> 
> That one certainly whooshed.

Not at all.  You were asked a simple question which you didn't seem to 
understand as you pulled out your usual diversion tactics and answered a 
totally different question that wasn't even asked.  It somewhat 
backfired on you because it just made you look an even bigger SPITEful 
idiot.

So, let's see if you can answer it this time without any diversion 
tactics..... "which RAE have you passed after a claimed 50 years of 
interest?"

"class_a"  wrote in message 
news:WIKdnZdxpoWwfvnVnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@comcast.com...
> You were asked a simple question which you didn't seem to understand as 
> you pulled out your usual diversion tactics and answered a totally 
> different question that wasn't even asked.

Interesting that Mrs.Nugatory employs the very tactic that she accuses me
of using.

Freudian Projection, in fact.

class_a wrote:

>Not at all.  You were asked a simple question which you didn't seem to 
>understand as you pulled out your usual diversion tactics and answered a 
>totally different question that wasn't even asked.  It somewhat 
>backfired on you because it just made you look an even bigger SPITEful 
>idiot.

Now, who does that sound like?

ROFL

-- 

from
Aero Spike

"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
news:beq964dib1pd2ijjr400e4brm46bvragri@4ax.com...
> class_a wrote:
>>Not at all.  You were asked a simple question which you didn't seem to
>>understand as you pulled out your usual diversion tactics and answered a
>>totally different question that wasn't even asked.  It somewhat
>>backfired on you because it just made you look an even bigger SPITEful
>>idiot.
>
> Now, who does that sound like?

Exactly like you, Mrs.Nugatory.

Now, back to that "standard transceiver" that you are using the
above technique to divert attention from ...

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:26:32 +0100, "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:beq964dib1pd2ijjr400e4brm46bvragri@4ax.com...
>> class_a wrote:
>>>Not at all.  You were asked a simple question which you didn't seem to
>>>understand as you pulled out your usual diversion tactics and answered a
>>>totally different question that wasn't even asked.  It somewhat
>>>backfired on you because it just made you look an even bigger SPITEful
>>>idiot.
>>
>> Now, who does that sound like?
>
>Exactly like you, Mrs.Nugatory.
>
>Now, back to that "standard transceiver" that you are using the
>above technique to divert attention from ...
>

IEEE and IET have many articles on Standard transceiver architectures

Spike wrote:
> class_a wrote:
> 
>> Not at all.  You were asked a simple question which you didn't seem to 
>> understand as you pulled out your usual diversion tactics and answered a 
>> totally different question that wasn't even asked.  It somewhat 
>> backfired on you because it just made you look an even bigger SPITEful 
>> idiot.
> 
> Now, who does that sound like?

You?

12 WPM Class A wrote:

> "Dave"  wrote in message 
> news:3LSdnc2iub7hs_nVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> 
>>I always remember my mentor on tuning up an FT 101. He talked us through 
>>tuning it up by telling us that we should tune up to maximum output. Not 
>>swr.
>>LOL I didn't realise I had wounded him so much, Can I have some pointers?
> 
> 
> So, it's OK for you to have outside assistance on how to tune up a FT101, 
> but
> not OK for others to seek such tuition?

At that time, I was not licensed, unlike you.

Dave

class_a wrote:

> Spike wrote:
> 
>> class_a wrote:
>>
>>> Spike wrote:
>>>
>>>> He can't even bang the 'written RAE' drum as a response, because he
>>>> sat an exam the syllabus of which contained a requirement about valved
>>>> PAs and their tuning, which flummoxed him totally to the point of
>>>> selling his rig, advertised as 'not used by me on TX as vital
>>>> tuning-up pages missing from manual'. Tha's the level of his
>>>> competence: shameful.
>>>
>>> So Spite, which RAE have you passed after a claimed 50 years of 
>>> interest?

You relay are out of touch here. A pass of the RAE is not the only way 
to an amateur radio licence

>> I once passed a 600cc Norton at 105 mph, on my 499cc Velocette. Does
>> that count?

It does with me  :-)

> Oh dear, another one with basic English comprehension problems.

You as well then.

> The 
> question was, "which _RAE_ have you passed after a claimed 50 years of 
> interest?".

Is this relevant to the question?

   What have motorbikes got to do with a question about a
> Radio Amateurs Examination?

Indeed, this was subject that was added to widen the question. Can you 
not see this>

> Maybe the lack of basic English 
> comprehension is one reason you've never managed to pass any amateur 
> radio exam in your 50 years of interest?

Maybe yours will be your downfall.

Dave