RadioBanter - View Single Post

October 14th 05, 05:59 PM

wrote:
From: Leo on Wed, Oct 12 2005 5:40 pm

wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:

My purpose of the continually-running "scorecard" is just to get
some visibility into the "amateur community's" opinions on the
code test...unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship
as either vital or neccessary in amateur radio. Think of it as
a poll of opinions by those that care to Comment, visible to ALL.

That's nice, Len.

But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate?

Because he sez it is. Jim, in all honesty, if you doubt the
accuracy of Len's reports, please go thru the 2500+
comments and give us a readout of your own analysis.

...or opine on how inaccurate it *may* be, without investing the time
and effort to substantiate your theory.......

There should be NO problem on ascertaining the accuracy of
anything where the entire contents are OUT IN THE OPEN for
ALL TO SEE. All that is left is to tally up the opinions
into the four categories I used...of all 2545 Comments filed
as of 11 October 2005, beginning with "comment" #1 on 15 July.
It's "easy." Just read every single Comment filed. :-)

Have you done that, Len? How would any of us know if you had or hadn't?

"For accuracy" Jimmie

Who do you refer to as "Jimmie", Len?

If you mean me, why not just call me "Jim"?

Is there some reason you can't do that?

MUST decide on what to do with the
duplicates (only two major offenders there, one FOR, one
Against the NPRM), what to do with the half dozen who are
Commenting on a totally different subject (not even amateur
radio), and generally try to decode what some of them are
trying to say (not always easy).

KC8EPO gave us a detailed breakdown of each comment. He got at
least of them wrong, though - mine.

Are you immune from mistakes, Len?

Those FOR, those Against the NPRM are fairly clear and un-
ambiguous. Should be an easy decision on just reading them.
For the "Extra Only" group it isn't that clear since those
generally add a lot of commentary that is NOT in the NPRM.

Does anyone else check your work on this, Len? Or do you expect that
everyone should consider you infallible?

Larry Klose got a lot of static on his large, and more
complex analysis of WT Docket 98-143.

From whom?

Show us some examples of the "static", Len.

Some links to usenet posts or websites where his work
was not objectively criticized would be a good start.

I don't think you can do that.

You're making the claim - you show us where he got "static".

That's still in the
ECFS database if anyone wants to look. I expected the same
on WT Docket 05-235 on NPRM 05-143.

Show us the alleged "static", Len.

Jimmie is getting draconian in his mistrust, dislike, and
general ****iness on those who won't agree with him that
morsemanship is the holy grail of amateurism.

To whom do you refer, Len?

Screum.

???

JIMMIE CAN DO HIS OWN WORK on the stats if he is so shirty
about it...and SHOW IT. :-)

Why should anyone else "show their work" when you won't show yours,
Len?

Besides, it's not about me. I'm not making any claims about what the
comments do or do not recommend. You are.

Seems to me that someone who is confident in their analysis of the
comments would be glad to have it checked by others. Instead, Len
attacks the messenger/questioner, as it were. Guilty conscience? Lack
of confidence? Faked results? Just plain mistakes?

Your behavior in response to my questions fits your profile perfectly,
Len.