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

November 8th 05, 11:49 PM

From: on Mon 7 Nov 2005 09:35

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:

Your methods are faulty.

All anti-morse are "faulty." By morseman definition! :-)

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.

Morsemen think they know all about radio... :-)

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

Tsk, nothing was "hidden" in all those "score card." They
are what they are.

Joe Speroni hides the fact that the official comment
period didn't begin until 31 August.

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

Tsk, your opinion is faulty. :-)

You dislike that.

Not at all.

Yes, you do. :-)

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

I kept on reporting the tally, like it or not.

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

Reporting a tally requires a website? Oh, my...! :-)

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

Doesn't matter, Jimmie. I never said it did.

The direct communication by citizens with the Commission
"tells" them.

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

Poor baby. Feeling petulant and whiny are you? :-)

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.

Tsk, tsk, Jimmie. WRONG. The FCC doesn't "enact NPRMs."

Those are just NOTICES of PROPOSED Rulemaking. That's
why they are called what they are. :-)

"Enacts" come from Reports and Orders.

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.

You were there? You were in the military? I didn't know that.

Transmitters (a "bunch" of THREE DOZEN) was "run" by a
COMPANY, Jimmie. [C Company in this case] Better read
your books a little closer... :-)

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

"Peak the grid and dip the plate." :-) "Set procedure" for
tube finals. Same "set procedure" for tube finals today, a
half century later... :-)

After a (short) while *I* became one of the "experienced
personnel," Jimmie. "Three up and one down" on the sleeve.
Operating Team Supervisor. E-5. NCO.

Oh, and I was NEVER trained to operate high-power transmitters
in the Army, Jimmie. My Signal schooling was on microwave
radio relay. A Field Radio MOS got trained on high-power
transmitters on HF. [you need to read your books carefully]

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

Electrons, fields and waves don't differentiate between
human discriminations in human ideas of things like human
laws. Really.

Didn't you learn that at "Dexter?" :-)

FCC "recognizes" that they ONLY regulate United States
CIVIL radio, Jimmie. They are limited to CIVIL radio by
two Acts of Congress of the United States.

FCC can recognize other kinds of "civility" too! :-)

Tsk, you aren't being civil in here...

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

"Conditioned thinking" is known by its colloquial name
of "brain washing."

If your mind wasn't "washed," then it must be dirty.

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

Tsk, you aren't being "civil"! :-)

You haven't "dropped it", Len.

True! Don't plan to, either! :-)

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 telling me what to do! Tsk. :-)

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

I do. Haven't detected any "hacker" trying to post their
words under my screen name. :-)

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

How AWFUL! I'm the only one, right? :-)

Nobody made ME any "judge," Jimmie.

But you act like one here.

Fear being laid off? :-)

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

That leaves you out...

Tsk, tsk, incivility!

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

Not as closed as yours, Len.

MORE incivility! :-)

Your methods are inaccurate. That's a fact.

Tsk, MY tally doesn't go by YOUR "standards."

MY tally doesn't go by Joe Speroni's "standards."

Sunnuvagun!

What have I "done wrong", Len?

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

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

You oppose my posting in here. Ergo, you are the majority.

A majority of one.

Your skewing has been revealed

It is a HEINOUS and IMMORAL to act against a morseman!

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

You are? I didn't know that...

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

Hey, let's count ALL 20 of those LAW STUDENTS (who don't have
any professed desire to get ham licenses and doing some kind
of class exercise at University of Tennessee) who got into the
official time period of comments on 05-235! Some were FOR,
some were AGAINST the NPRM. Do you know which ones, Jimmie?

Let's count an instructor at an English Departement of a west
coast university who also stated outright she wasn't interested
in any amateur radio license yet was against the NPRM! Joe
Speroni counts her Comment as "pro-CW!"

How about Dwayne Sparks, Jimmie? He Commented (not one of his
were Replies to Comments) 13 times "pro-CW." He is an Extra.

Jimmie, Joe Speroni's "analysis" does NOT consider what the
federal government says is an official comment period and
merely counts ALL. HIS "standards" set out to make it
absolutely favorable towards radiotelegraphy testing...but he
is "okay." He is "okay" because He is a morseman and that's
"okay." [cue an old tired Monty Python sketch here...]

I'll let Bill the Cat comment: "Pbthbththththth..." :-)

[from "Opus" 2]