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

November 7th 05, 11:52 PM

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35
cut

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.

now you are making accusation of fraud
cut

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".....

more name calling Jim

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.

now you claim to know what the FCC will enact?

personaly I hope that they will heed my word and Jim Haneys ( sp?an
ARRL officer) and enact a R&O that gives the intail class currently
called Tech the prevelegdes of the class once known as Tech plus

cut
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.

some hams do not all

some hams NEVER use manual morse and never will
cut

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.

why?

cut

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...

and you jim

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

Not as closed as yours, Len.

as you confess here

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.

BUUUZZ a lie Jim your statement is an opinion

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?

lied about Len amoug other things
cut