wrote:
Lenof21 wrote:

In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes:


I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of

folks

that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply deal

back

what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found common

ground,

rather than point out differences.

Heh heh...the "common ground" is usually just capitulation to

those

which could use the Latin phrase "Primus Inter Pares" as their

motto.

["First Among Equals"] :-)


Do you see other posters here as equals, Len?

As to license numbers, the regular poster of those


Do you mean me, Len?

You seem to be unable to refer to me by first name or callsign. Why is
that?


uses massaged data


What do you mean by "massaged data", Len?

The plain, simple fact is that there is a brief, clear explanation of
the numbers I post - each time they are posted. They are the number of
*current* FCC amateur licenses held by *individuals*.

Which means that club, military, RACES and other station-only licenses
are not included. Also, licenses which are expired but in the grace
period are not included.

Only currently-licensed individual amateurs are listed in the totals I
post.


as if the massaging, whether by hisself or others, is somehow
"truth in numbers."


Is there some problem with posting the number of currently-licensed
individual amateurs, and leaving out station-license-only entries? Is
there a problem with leaving out expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses?


Not quite. The raw data is available from the
FCC...if anyone has high-speed interconnection to the 'net to get
their massive files.


Have you done that, Len?


Several sites provide such raw data, such as
www.hamdata.com. Those numbers don't agree with what the
regular poster posts.


That's because they include expired and station-only licenses.

I've explained this before, but apparently you don't understand it.


Raw data numbers are usually higher than
the massaged numbers. [for self-agitprop purposes, it would be
logical to use the higher number rather than lower]


Then it seems you are the one wanting to use them for "self-agitprop
purposes".


The rationalizations for using "massaged" data have been and no
doubt will continue to be great. :-)


I don't use "massaged" data. What you see is exactly what the posts say
it is: the total number of current FCC amateur licenses held by
individuals.

Why do you have a problem with that, Len?

Jim, N2EY


All numbers are *interpreted*. That a poster here chooses to use the
word "massaged" which has a different connotation than interpreted, it
is just another situation akin to your nonexistent quote "Hams used to
do the 911 communications."

Raw data is just that. It signifies very little. Take the "grace
period" for example. It should ONLY be included as a separate part of an
interpretation. Same goes for club calls and a few other types of
license. Even orphan classes such as Novice and to a lesser extent
Advanced must be approached with caution, du to statistical difference
in likelihood of activity. You do well to separate them.

My point is that using all numbers without differentiation will
certainly lead to unclear results that the reader would have to do their
own interpretation with.

- Mike KB3EIA -