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

November 3rd 05, 12:01 PM

wrote:
From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35
wrote:
From: on Oct 29, 4:44 am
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 27 2005 3:41 pm
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am
wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:

Did you think someone ELSE bothered to read ALL
the filings on WT Docket 05-235 and compile a day-by-day
tabulation of them?

I don't think that. I know it's true. I've seen the compilation
done by someone else and it's more informative than yours.

WHO else, Jimmie?

A licensed radio amateur with experience in the field. Somebody
whose methods of analyzing the comments may be much more
accurate than yours.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...another Dudly type posting...you "know someone"
who is "better" yet won't reveal this expert? :-)

I have seen that person's results and how those results were obtained.
They're more accurate than your results.

I don't apply the title "expert" to myself or the person who compiled
the scorecard.
Nor do I apply the title "expert" to *you*, Len.

What's to "analyze?" It's called READING, Jimmie. Even
children can do that! :-)

Obviously you're not too good at it, Len ;-)

Let's see...up to the end of 31 October there were 3,680
filings of which 240 were of the "indeterminate" kind.

According to *you*. How do we know you analyzed them correctly?

That's
about 6.5 percent (only two digits used, can't use any
"illusions of accuracy" with you, can we?). The other three
categories were pretty well UN-ambiguous on deciding either
YES to the NPRM, NO to the NPRM, or "let's keep it for Extra."

That's not the whole story, Len.

You need "experts in analysis" to divine the "true meaning"
of those filings? I guess so...anything to try your damndest
to fudge, alter the percentages in favor of pro-code. Tsk.

Not at all, Len. If there's any "fudging" going on, it's *yours*.

It's interesting to note that you accuse others of "fudging" without
even knowing who they are or what methods they used...but *you*
are incapable of any error....

Also interesting how you claim to know others' motivations but won't
reveal
your own.

Now about those "indeterminates"....

If a person makes multiple filings that are not identical, you count
them
as separate comments, not duplicates, right? Someone who files both
comments and reply comments gets multiple 'votes' in your count even
though
they are only one person repeating themselves...right?

In your 'scorecard' you alternate the terms 'comments' and 'filings',
but in fact you
count comments, reply comments, the NPRM itself, and almost anything
else as
if it were a 'comment'...right?

By the way, I don't know if the FCC uses "percentages" or not.
I used them to get a clearer picture of the total of opinions.

And even your flawed methods show that the *majority* do NOT
support the NPRM. The majority do NOT want all Morse Code
testing to end.

You dislike that.

Oh no, not at all. The percentages tell the story very well.

Obviously, since the comment period start
showed that MORE were in favor of the NPRM than against.

There you go, claiming to know others' motivations but not revealing
your own.

You are begining to sound like Dudly the Imposter in here,
always NON-specific but alleging you "know" someone else.

The information is available to all who will look for it.

It really KILLS you to yield the website doesn't it? :-)

Not at all. I know where it is. So do several other rrappers.

Can't you find it, Len?

Besides, what good would it do to tell you where it is? You'd
simply attack the person who did the compilation, make fun
of them, behave according to your classic profile.

Easier to access than ECFS. You've claimed years and years of
experience in "computer-modem communications", yet you
can't find it? I am surprised.

I'm not surprised that you take your attitude, Jimmie.

I started this "computer-modem" think in early December,
1984.

There ya go, living in the past, Len.

The Internet didn't go public until 1991. Have you
seen any registry of domain names recently? No? You think
it is "easy" to find something specific even with a search
engine?

Yes. I found it in a matter of seconds. But a search engine isn't
necessary.

You must. Or you are so damn petulant about this
that you have to sit in here and heckle, heckle, heckle
about minutae just to satisfy your own wounded whatever...

Not me, Len. You're the one who acts that way.

The majority want at least code testing for Extra. That's the fact -
like it or not...

Now here's the big issue, and proof of your inaccuracy:

You claim to have read and understood ALL the filings on 05-235.
You've made a big deal about that, repeated it over and over like a
mantra, and demanded that others do the same before they dare to
even ask you a question.

But if you'd actually read all those filings, you'd know where to find
the
information I refer to. The information that shows 55% of commenters
who address the Morse Code test issue want at least some Morse Code
testing retained. And the information that only 45% of commenters who
address the Morse Code test issue want complete elimination of the
Morse Code test.

Since you can't find that website, it's clear you *didn't* read all the
filings
on WT 05-235, or at least didn't understand them.

And that's a fact. Like it or not......