RadioBanter - View Single Post - Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

October 27th 05, 11:41 PM

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am
wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:41:58 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:23:24 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Nice MISDIRECTION away from the NPRM. :-)

The thread is about your "scorecard", Len.

No, it is about A score card, specifically on WT Docket 05-235,
done to provide some insight on the Comments made and the
prevailing opinions of OTHERS out there, as much up to date as
possible for anyone else interested in NPRM 05-143.

It's about *your* 'scorecard', Len.

The first thread was begun by me on 2 August, 2005, intended as
a quick-look compilation of filings that had begun on 20 July by
individuals. The second thread was begun by me on 2 August 2005,
specifically to show both the original Docket opening filings and
those filed after the Notice in the Federal Register. The third
thread (this one) was begun on 17 October due to all the
gabbling and squabbling about charges of "inaccuracy" by all
those who didn't bother to do their own compilation. shrug

To almost the end of 26 October 2005, there have been 3,055
filings on WT Docket 05-235.

Do those 'filings' include only Comments, or other things like Reply
Comments?

Has Miccolis READ them?

Some of them.

But it's not about me, Len. I'm not posting a 'scorecard' and making
any claims. You are.

ALL
of them? I have.

You claim to, anyway.

I have appended two listings of filings
with my Replies to Comments done at the date those Replies
were filed. Miccolis FAILED to note that had been done; ergo,
Miccolis has READ ALL of the filings in WT Docket 05-235.

It's not about me, Len. I'm not posting a 'scorecard' and making
any claims. You are.

Brian Burke has filed on WT Docket 05-235, even Dan Jeswald,
Bill Sohl, and a few others. James P. Miccolis has NOT filed
ANYTHING on WT Docket 05-235 as of 7 PM EDT on 26 October 2005.

So?

Why is that so important to you?

Asking how the
numbers are derived, what rules are used in the derivation,
and who checks your work are right on-subject.

But NOT necessary.

Why not?

I include Notes with each posting of the
"score card" which explain the categorization. Those are
comprehensive to those who bother to READ things.

I read those notes. They are not comprehensive. They do not
answer several questions I have raised.

Since this is a private compilation, I do my own "checking"
prior to each posting. Those can be verified by ANYONE who
bothers to READ ALL of the filings in WT Docket 05-235.

In other words, nobody checks your work.

For example, if someone filed 1 comment and 3 reply comments
on the NPRM, did you count them as 1 or 4 or something else?

The OPINION expressed in EACH Comment or Reply to Comments
is EVIDENT in their CONTENT. That is self-evident (to
those who are not busy with misdirection of asking stupid
little questions designed to annoy the score-keeper).

Did you count them as 1 or 4 or something else, Len?

It's a very simple question. You've filed at least 5 different comments
and reply comments, all of which are in support of the NPRM.

Do they show up as a count of 1 or 5 on the tally of "for" filings?

James P. Miccolis has NOT posted ANYTHING similar to what
I have done...yet wishes to be some kind of "judge" on
what should be and what should not be. Tsk, tsk.

Why does what I have posted matter at all? You're
ducking some very basic questions. Seems to me you'd
be proud to show how your totals came about, but instead
you attack the messenger.

Your mistakes are well documented. Such as the legality of
amateur operation by hams with expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses.

THIS thread is about NPRM 05-143 and the filings in WT
Docket 05-235.

So? The fact is that you've posted things here with serious
mistakes in them, and then attacked the person who pointed
out the mistakes.

If there are "mistakes" in the tabulations,
those can be found by ANYONE who bothers to READ the filings.

So far, the ONLY "mistake" was a juxtaposition of two note
numbers in the new form of the second thread begun on the
first of September. That was pointed out by Bill Sohl in
public, I acknowledged that and correct the juxtaposition.

Neither NPRM 05-143 nor WT Docket 05-235 concern themselves
with any "operation by hams with expired-but-in-the-grace-
period." :-)

Gosh, Len, so you *can* call me by my name!

Your name is James P. Miccolis.

That's one way to write it.

You haven't filed anything
in the FCC ECFS since 23 August 2004.

So? Why is that important?

It is NOT "Jim."

Yes, it is.

But for some reason you have extreme difficulty calling people by their
names.

US citizenship is not a requirement for getting an FCC
amateur radio license. Passing the required tests *is* a
requirement.

NPRM 05-143 is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by the FCC.
Any Report and Order issued as a RESULT of Comments then
becomes LAW in the form of an FCC Regulation of U.S. civil
radio. Do you understand that, or must it be explained in
voluminous detail to you?

Y'know, Len, you seem to miss the point on a lot of things.

A comment to FCC is not a vote. Citizenship is not required
to comment.

Did you fail high school Civics class?

No - I got all A's.

The First Amendment
of the United States Constitution guarantees CITIZENS the
right to make comments to their government. United States
citizens...NOT citizens of OTHER countries.

So?

FCC accepts comments from noncitizens too. They don't *have* to do
that, but they do it anyway.

If FCC is willing to accept comments from foreigners, why don't you
list them as part of the total?

Neither is there an age requirement to comment.

Given the childish behavior of some, especially those spiteful
ones attempting to misdirect a thread showing the day-by-day
change in the filings of WT Docket 05-235, perhaps there
should be.

Gee, Len, you exhibit very childish behavior here ;-)

Even more so when those spiteful children have
great difficulty in accepting the prevailing opinions in the
"amateur community."

Looks like the prevailing opinion is in support of code testing. For
Extras, at least.

You've had "great difficulty in accepting the prevailing opinions in
the
"amateur community"" for years, Len.

Of course Len has admitted that he has had problems integrating young
people into what he considers 'adult' activities....

There is a minimum age to serve in the United States military.
I have NO difficulty with that. I HAVE served.

As you remind us over and over.

There's no age limit on an amateur radio license, nor on commentary to
FCC.

Has James P.
Miccolis served his country in that country's military? No, he
has not.

Would it make any difference if I had? We've seen how you treat people
who have served our country, both in the military and in other ways.
Your behavior is that if they disagree with you their service is
simply one more thing you can insult.

Miccolis perceives "problems" on such minimum age
limits, yet has NOT served.

I see no need for a minimum age requirement for licensing in the
amateur radio service.

The state of California has a minimum age limit on many things,
drivers licenses for one. I have no problem with those. Miccolis
perceives I have "problems" there? I have not.

You have stated here that you have always had problems integrating
young people into what you consider an adult activity.

There are hundreds of local communities which have very definite
AGE LIMITS in their ordinances and codifications of law, all with
definite moral and ethical purposes to those. I have no "problem"
with them. Miccolis perceives "problems" where none exist.

Miccolis wishes to drag up SEVEN-YEAR-OLD Comments on WT Docket
98-143...which are NOT a part of NPRM 05-143. Why?

Because they're relevant to your attitude towards young people.

You bring up your military service of a half-century ago - why is that
relevant?

A comment is not a vote. An NPRM is not an election. FCC doesn't have
to act on what the majority of comments want.

Had Miccolis done HIS OWN COMPILATION on the filings of WT Docket
05-235, he would have found that the majority of those making
Comments since Federal Register Notice date of 31 August are NOT
favoring NPRM 05-143. Miccolis should keep that in mind, if and
when the FCC gets around to making their Report and Order. :-)

Note that Miccolis has often referred to FCC 99-412
("Restructuring")
Report and Order as "not following the majority!" :-)

And they didn't. The majority did not want 5 wpm as the only code test.

The issue is the accuracy of your 'scorecard'.

I try to issue those daily. As a service to anyone interested in
the progress of the public comment period on NPRM 05-143. I try to
make them as accurate as possible.

Yet you don't answer questions on the process. Why?

James P. Miccolis hasn't issued any tabulations/compilations on the
filings of WT Docket 05-235. One wonders if he has READ them at
all.

The CHARGES of "inaccuracy" are specious, NOT backed up by any
other tabulations/compilations on WT Docket 05-235.

There are no "CHARGES of inaccuracy" - just some questions on your
processes.

Tsk, tsk. Since this is a private

It's not private at all.

It is a PRIVATE ENDEAVOR.

Not once you post it.

As in "by myself."

Nobody checks your work, then.

It is made "public"
as in public view, as a result of posting.

Which means it's fair game for comments and questions.

I can do it by private e-mail as easily. That way it would not
(seemingly) offend you so much that you write the following:

You blab it all over a public forum,
so it's fair game for comment and question by others.

Sigh...you still do NOT understand computer-modem communications.

Yes, I do, Len. That's what bugs you so much.

These newsgroups unrestricted by moderators are ALL open and
public to anyone who has access to a provider or to Google.

And that means your postings are fair game for comment and question by
others. They are not somehow sacred and unimpeachable. They are not
immune to question and/or debat.

That's the nature of "computer-modem communciations".

That's what free speech in a public forum is all about, Len.

You ABUSE "free speech" by general heckling...apparently because
of personal spite at getting opposite opinions to your mighty and
imperious statements made in public.

Where's the abuse? I asked some questions, pointed out some facts.

It seems to me that you cannot tolerate any disagreement with your
views.

If you make statements here, others have the right to comment
on them and question their validity.

Hello? You've just gotten a taste of "rights" right up your
I/O port. :-)

See? There you go.

Is your 'scorecard' a collection of alleged facts, or is it
just your opinion?

Neither. It is my honest effort to show the day-by-day
compilation of filings on WT Docket 05-235.

So it's a collection of alleged facts.

Such a compilation/tabulation can be done by ANYONE having
access to the FCC ECFS or to the FCC Reading Room.

Miccolis has NOT done ANY of his own compilation/tabultion
in order to BACK UP HIS CHARGES OF INACCURACY. Tsk, tsk.

What charges of inaccuracy?

Did I say the numbers were wrong? Or did I simply ask how they were
derived, and pointed out how they *might be* in error?

For example, if you count multiple comments from the same person,
you'll get a different tally than if you just count the commenters
themselves.

The NPRM does not state that comments must be about Morse Code testing
and nothing else.

NPRM 05-143 is solely about morse code testing, elimination of
test element 1 to be specific.

The NPRM does not state that comments must be about Morse Code testing
and nothing else.

Had you bothered to READ ALL of
filings in WT Docket 05-235 you would have seen some filings
which were NOT EVEN ABOUT THE NPRM! :-) Is the FCC going to
consider those in regards to NPRM 05-143? :-)

They might, if the arguments are judged worthy.

Should your reply comments be called "indeterminate" because
of that?

You will label my comments anydamnthing you want...that's totally
predictable! :-)

I'd not call your spiteful little misdirections in here as
"indeterminate." INDEFATIGUABLE is more like it... :-)

Perhaps your explanation is incomplete?

Perhaps you ought to grow up and accept the FACT that a very
large group in the amateur community does NOT think like you do
about either morse code or morse code testing! [sunnuvagun!]

A very large group in the amateur community does think like you do
about morse code or morse code testing, Len. Or about a bunch of other
things, like an age requirement for an amateur radio license.

Yes. You've made serious mistakes in your statements about
Part 97. And you've refused to correct or even acknowledge them.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...then you should cancel my amateur radio license
then, refuse to give me my amateur paycheck? :-)

It's really all about money to you, isn't it?

It's called stating a fact.

Here's a FACT: James P. Miccolis spending a lot of time late at
night (almost 11:30 PM when his latest missive was launched) in
order to HECKLE a no-code-test-advocate. :-)

Guess what, Len - I stay up very late to operate my amateur radio
station.

You're not the only one reading the comments, Len. And your
numbers don't agree with others' results.

PRESENT THOSE "NUMBERS" then. "Prove" the "inaccuracy."

Why? You'll just attack the messenger.

Besides, you're such an experienced expert on "computer-modem
communications" that you should be able to find the tally without
my help.

"Put up or shut up," Jimmie (that's a phrase, not a command).

Free speech, Len. I'll not shut up.

You've spent days on trying to imply "inaccuracy" on my part,
yet you have NO PROOF out in public. You "babble" in here in
an effort to misdirect everyone's attention.

Why not just answer the questions I posed, Len?

[it isn't
working, Jimmie, get a new knuckle-spanking ruler for the
Nun of the Above]

Ah yes, you advocate violence against those who question your
statements and beliefs.

Jimmie has NOT even made ONE filing on WT Docket 05-235.

James P. Miccolis has made one, either... :-)

Jimmie has NOT stated he has READ a single filing on 05-235.

Who is "Jimmie", Len? Can't be me, because I've read several of
the comments. Reply comments too. And the whole NPRM.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Nun of the Above, try to go with the flow of
newsgrouping. Don't PRETEND you don't know... :-)

My name is not "Jimmie", so it can't be me.

I've simply asked questions and stated facts.

Snide, spiteful heckling is more like it... :-)

It's a fact that
you have a proven track record of mistakes here.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...more uncivil attempts at character assassination.
Keep it up...it worked well for the National Socialist Party of
Germany in the 1930s. :-)

Godwin invoked. You lose, Len.

If you try real hard, you might even convince others I have
underarm odor!

Is that your methodology here, Len?

All I'm doing is READING ALL the filings in WT Docket 05-235 and
showing - as honestly as I can, as accurately as I can - the
four categories of opinions therein.

And ignoring honest questions about the process.

Perhaps you're counting on nobody checking your work.

Doesn't matter. ANYONE can "check my work." All they have to
do is go in and READ ALL of the filings, count them up, tabulate
the results.

ANYONE can go in to the FCC ECFS and "check my totals" posted in
here. Just set the date blocks on the ECFS form and the ECFS
will automatically total ALL of those within that date period!

[new technology applied...you should try some sometime...]

Had Jimmie seen other NPRMs and the
resulting R&Os, he would understand that. Obviously,
he has NOT.

I don't know what "Jimmie" has read, but I've read plenty of
NPRMs and the resultinf R&Os.

Jimmie Noserve also pretends to be an expert on military life.

Well, that's not me.

Hasn't served a day, though.

You haven't been a radio amateur - ever - yet you tell us
all How It Should Be in amateur radio.

The Nun of the Above is busy
looking for knuckles to slap with her ruler. ["give a Nun
an inch and she thinks she's a ruler"]

Hello? You are in a NEWSGROUP. You wish to heckle your
perceived enemies...yet you demand all this "civility" of
"proper names" and other bullsnit. :-)

You equate questions with heckling.

Not just CITZENS, Len - all interested parties. FCC has
not rejected the comments of noncitizens - why chould you?

Okay, James P. Miccolis, you hop on over to some Australian
place and TELL THEM HOW THEIR LAWS SHOULD BE. You think
you will be "considered," mate? :-)

Jimmie-James, you get yourself a copy of the United States
Constitution and try to UNDERSTAND IT. Especially the
First Amendment.

Tell it to the FCC. They accept comments from any interested party. Who
are you to reject them?

In fact, one doesn't even have to be a human being to
comment.

The ARRL hasn't filed anything on WT Docket 05-235 as of
8 PM EDT, 26 October. Some describe the ARRL as "soul less"
and without substance. :-)

Jimmie-James P. Miccolis of PA has NOT FILED ANYTHING on
WT Docket 05-235 (as of 8 PM EDT, 26 October 2005).

If Kenwood files comments, will you count them or reject them?

Kenwood who? :-)

The company.

Does that mean no one can question your scorecard? Why?
Is it somehow sacred and not open to any questions or
comments?

I've EXPLAINED my categorizations since my first "score card"
posting on 2 August 2005. See the "Notes" for each one.

Your explanations are incomplete and inadequate.

Jimmie-James, I can't grab your finger and point it FOR YOU
at the Notes. You HAVE to read them.

I did. Your explanations are incomplete and inadequate.

It's not about me, Len. It's about *your* 'scorecard'.

Tsk, tsk, Jimmie-James. You are busy, busy, busy making it
YOUR teeny little "judgement at Nuremburg." :-)

Paging Mr. Godwin...

Who checks Miccolis' "work" on his bi-monthly "license
number" postings? [he won't say from where he cribs
his numbers]

Anyone can check my posted numbers very simply by doing the
math. I've stated the source of those numbers here.

If anyone with newsgroup access can access them, WHY do
you post them here AS IF you "derived them?" :-)

The source does not do historical data, only current numbers.
By posting them here, they will endure as long as Usenet is archived.

The ARRL represents a distinct MINORITY of all USA
amateur radio licensees. A mere 20%.

How is that number derived?

That's been EXPLAINED to you in public several times!

Go to the QST advertising page at the ARRL site, observe
the "Publisher's Sworn Statement" that appears there twice
a year. Compare that to the total number of USA amateur
radio licensees at about the same time.

That's so terribly EASY to do...even for a double-degree.

:-)

How could anyone check your work, Len? You haven't shown it.

Two tabulations have been appended to two Replies to Comments.
Those are in PUBLIC VIEW at the FCC ECFS under WT Docket 05-235.

ANYONE can go to the ECFS and READ ALL the filings and do their
own compilations/tabulations. Really. It should be EASY for
any Amateur Extra with two degrees. :-)

By the way, "filings" refer to each document as listed in the
Search Results for any ECFS listing. That includes some filings
which have nothing at all to do with NPRM 05-143 or even the
amateur radio regulations! [sunnuvagun!] Another one is
completely blank. I've seen it. Do you know at which date it
was filed? You would if you had READ ALL of them.

Are you afraid of having your work checked, Len?

Not at all. Feel free to "check it" by READING ALL filings. :-)

You're afraid.

If I make 10 nonidentical comments, will they count as 1 comment or
more than 1?

So...MAKE THEM! :-)

James P. Miccolis has NOT filed anything with the ECFS since
August of last year. ["put your money where your mouth is"]

Why don't you, Len?

Leads me to believe you're counting reply comments too.
And not checking for dupes.

Speaking of "dupes," why are you trying to DUPE everyone into
thinking I'm "always in error?" :-)

Are you so ****ed off at certain posters in here you stay up
until nearly midnight to post nastygrams? :-)

Go ahead, READ ALL of the filings in WT Docket 05-235 and do
your own compilations/tabulations. Check it out.

So far, Miccolis has NOT CHECKED MY WORK,

Nobody can. You haven't shown it.

Yes I have. It's IN the ECFS in two different Replies to
Comments. You just haven't seen it yet. :-)

Want to check my numbers out for totals? Easy to do with the
FCC ECFS and proper use of the date blocks. ECFS does the
totals for that period for you. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

And the totals say you're looking at all filings, not just comments.

Is a comment a requirement? The deadline isn't till next week.

NOBODY "requires" you to do anything, Jimmie-James. :-)

The deadline (official) for WT Docket 05-235 Comments is
31 October 2005. The deadline (official) for Replies to
Comments is 14 November 2005. Both dates are Mondays (in
case you can't do a calendar in your head).

So far, James P. Miccolis has NOT filed anything in WT
Docket 05-235. But, he has been busy, busy, busy baring
his spite in here, asking dumb questions about things which
have already been EXPLAINED to him in each "score card"
posting I've made. :-)

I'm just asking some questions, Len.

Ho, ho, ho...and the moon is made of green cheese... :-)

I'm just asking some questions, Len. That really seems to bother you.

James Miccolis wasn't IN the FCC in 1998, 1999, and he isn't
IN the FCC in 2005.

Neither are you, Len - ever.

I don't have to be, Jimmie-James...not to exercise my First
Amendment Rights. :-)

I'm just asking some questions, Len.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)

I'm just asking some questions, Len.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)

You're the one 'snarling'. Len.

Nah. I'm just "answering your questions!" :-)

With a snarl. Perhaps you have a guilty conscience?

I'm just asking some questions.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)

The test may be gone, but Morse Code use by hams will go on.
For a long time.

ERROR! MISTAKE! The code test is STILL there! :-)

That's about the 5th ERROR you've made in your one heckle-gram.

You are building up a fine "track record for mistakes!" :-)

I'm just asking some questions, Len.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)

Besides - what does all this matter to you? You're not going to
get a license anyway, test or no test.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...are you FORBIDDING my getting an amateur radio
license? That's not NICE, Jimmie-James.

Are you "nice", Len? You don't behave nicely here.

I'm simply pointing out that you're not going to get an amateur radio
license. If you wanted one, you'd have gotten one years ago. You don't
want one and you're not going to get one.

What you really want is something very different.