Mike Coslo wrote:
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."
Agreed, Mike.
Len has posted here that it's legal for a ham to operate with a license
that's expired but in the grace period. That's simply not true.
You'd think Len, who claims to know so much about radio, and who
tells us how the regulations should be changed, would at least
know a simple, basic fact about license terms and expirations.
No interpretation necessary on operating with an expired license, just
read 97.21(b)
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.
If someone wants to include expired-but-in-the-grace-period licenses in
the total, and identifies the totals as including such licenses, that's
fine. Where the "massaging" happens is when such pertinet details are
left out.
It's like that picture of Hanoi Jane and John Kerry at the antiwar
rally, sitting a couple of rows apart. Some folks like to leave out the
pertinent fact that it was taken *two years before* Jane went to North
Vietnam...
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.
It's simply a matter of including all the pertinent facts. And getting
them right.
Of course it's also possible that Len has gotten so desperate for
attention that he's intentionally posting untrue things (like the
legality of operating with an expired license mistake) just to get a
response. After all, how does it affect *him* if some ham reads his
words, thinks they're true, and operates illegally?
73 de Jim, N2EY