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

November 7th 05, 05:35 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:

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

Your methods are faulty.

You need "experts in analysis" to divine the "true meaning"
of those filings?

Nope. Just common sense.

I guess so...anything to try your damndest
to fudge, alter the percentages in favor of pro-code. Tsk.

You're the one "fudging", Len. By counting multiple comments
and reply comments from the same person as separate opinions
rather than duplicates, you're saying that some people's opinions
are worth more than others simply because they wrote more.

What's worse is that you tried to hide that fact, and the effect it
has on the 'scorecard'.

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.

You muddied that clarity by counting some people's opinions
multiple times.

You dislike that.

Not at all.

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

And then the trend went the other way. Like it or not.

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

It was easy for me. Just googled "05-235 stats" and it came
right up.

You don't have website, though, even though AOL has a homepage
for every screen name.

I'm telling the Federal Communications
Commission (a U.S. federal government agency) what I think
the regulations on GETTING INTO amateur radio "should be."
[i.e., my desires]

How does your posting a 'scorecard' *here* tell the FCC anything,
Len?

As an attachment to THREE filings on WT Docket 05-235, Jimmie.

How does your posting it *here* tell the FCC anything, Len?

Notice the word "here"?

Your posts *here* are full of your ideas about How Amateur Radio
Should Be.

No.

Yes. That's a fact.

Your comments to FCC are full of your ideas about
How Amateur Radio Should Be.

MOST of my filings to the FCC have been about MORSE CODE
TESTING, Jimmie.

But not all of it. I saw your anti-Extra diatribe. Some would say it
was "petulant" and "whiny".....

The code test is essentially about
GETTING INTO amateur radio HF privileges.

So are the written tests. If FCC enacts the NPRM, it
will take at least a General license for new hams to
get *any* HF privileges.

Long ago I
started communications on HF without a single requirement
to know or test for morse code and did it LEGALLY.

Sure - as part of a *battalion* of military servicepeople caring
for a bunch of transmitters. You were trained to do the job,
tested along the way, and supervised at every opportunity.

The transmitter operation was completely governed by set
procedures and by experienced personnel.

Amateur radio is a completely different thing. FCC recognizes
that, even if you don't.

You've
never fully explained why the artificiality of testing
for morsemanship is so damn necessary for amateur
operations

Because hams use Morse Code, for one.

(you think you have but you are only parroting
your conditioned thinking imposed by long-ago morsemen).

Nope. I think for myself. I've given my reasons for
my support of Morse Code testing in my comments
to FCC, and here.

You don't like them, so you attack me and claim
nonsense like "conditioned thinking" rather than
a simple difference of opinion.

You
would spend days, weeks, even years arguing over a "discussion"
as you did on "age requirements" LONG AFTER I dropped it. :-)

If you had really "dropped it", there would be no discussion....

Tsk, tsk. You come along every once in a while and BRING
IT TO THE SURFACE AGAIN (in rather sulpherous phrasing) and
*I* am the one "bringing it up?"

You haven't "dropped it", Len.

You've spent most of a decade on usenet arguing against a simple
test for a license in a radio service with which you have no
involvement. That's your right, of course, but it is kind of odd
behavior. You must be very invested *emotionally*...

Good grief...you aren't going into the MOTIVATIONAL aspects
are you?

Why not?

You go into detail explaining other people's motivations, so yours
are fair game even if you won't discuss them or admit to them.

You've been doing heckling, catcalls, and booing from the
peanut gallery in computer-modem communications since 1984, eh?

No, sweetums, I said I am used to receiving heckling,
catcalls, and booing from the peanut gallery.

No, you didn't write that. Read what you actually wrote, Len.

1. The "answers" were ALREADY POSTED in each of the "score cards"
I put up via Google. Well before you "asked" for the first
one.

Those "answers" aren't clear.

Then SHOW us "clarity."

Here's an example:

"Len's scorecard counts not only comments but all filings on the NPRM.
If
the same person submits multiple filings, they are counted as
duplicates
only if they are exactly identical. Multiple nonidentical filings are
counted
the same as if they were filed by different people, thereby skewing the
count towards support for Len's opinion."

Now *that's* clear. Also true.

So far, all you've done is bitch and
whine and mewl about in a remarkable display of petulant,
peurile juvenility of displeasure with certain folks.

I'm not calling people names, Len. You are.

Who appoint you "judge" of what is "a good thing" or a "bad thing?"

Same person who made *you* the judge.

Nobody made ME any "judge," Jimmie.

But you act like one here.

3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S. amateur
community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from the old,
Old, OLD standards and practices.

Really? How do you know?

I OBSERVE it. It's apparant to anyone with an open mind.

That leaves you out...

You seem to be of a CLOSED mind when it comes to code testing.

Not as closed as yours, Len.

Compare the percentages of commenters supporting Morse Code testing
in 1998-1999 with those of the current NPRM. How much difference
is there *really*?

Roughly, 1400 more filings. In three months of WT Docket 05-235
there have been 3,680 filings. In the eleven months of WT
Docket 98-143 filings there were only about 2,200.

*Percentages*, Len. Percentages in support of the various options.

What you want is different from the way things actually work, Len.

You may *want* everyone to just accept what you write here, but
they may not.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. All I was doing was a tally of filings on
WT Docket 05-235. You hopped in and made this a Cause
Celebre' (with oak leaf clusters) of "mistakes"! :-)

Your methods are inaccurate. That's a fact.

YOU are NOT in the FCC. YOU are NOT on the ARRL BoD.

Neither are you, Len.

That doesn't explain why YOU constantly pretend to be "judge"
and try to make nasty to others who state opinions contrary to
what YOU find "objectionable."

"make nasty"? How? Looks to me like you consider any disagreement
with your views to be "making nasty".

Sweetums, you are getting LESS "superior" every time you deny
YOU ever did anything wrong. :-)

What have I "done wrong", Len?

Disagreed with you?
"Asking for clarification" of yours is nothing more than adult-
language puerile petulant HECKLING done for malicious intent
of your own.

How is asking for clarification "heckling"?

...when it's obvious that others opinions in the "amateur
community" aren't skewed the way YOU WANT them to be! :-)

It's clear you tried to skew them the way *you* want them, Len. But
the majority still opposed it.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...my Notes said that DUPLICATES would be counted
as "Indeterminate" category and not used for the Percentage
figures. Clearly.

Not "clearly", because you don't define what a "duplicate" really is.
If the
same person files comments that are not identical, do you count them as
duplicates? Or are they separate comments and counted as such?

Yes and no. Take your choice.

Your skewing has been revealed

How about Leonard H. Anderson, who has 6 filings? Do they show
up as a count of 1 or 6 on the tally of "for" filings? I think you
count them as 6 in the "for" column because they're not identical
and hence not duplicates.

The ONLY way you will know FOR SURE is to do your OWN tally,
Jimmie. You obviously don't believe a thing I write about
my own tally.

You avoid the question because you know I'm right.

Why am I supposed to follow the "rules" of this "alternate
compilation?"

You don't have to, Len. But your scorecard would be more accurate
if you did.

Why would it be "more accurate" Jimmie?

Because one person's opinion should not be counted multiple times.

Well then, go BITCH to the FCC and NTIA (who govern part of the
U.S. Internet) that I am being terribly "dishonest" and have me
thrown off the 'net or something! :-)

Why? You're the source of the inaccuracy, so I'm telling you.

WRONG. I'm accurate.

No, you're not. QED