RadioBanter - View Single Post

November 12th 05, 03:34 PM

wrote:
From: K4YZ on Nov 11, 4:06 am

wrote:
From: on Nov 10, 4:41 pm

Interesting that after having had his nose rubbed in his own
numbers,

Len

changes style and format of his "scorecard" series of
posts and threads...Trying to hide the facts, as usual...The FACTS that
those comments Jim was refering to DON'T support

Len's

opinion as
being in the majority.

Len's own "scorecard" shows his opinion (complete elimination
of all Morse Code testing for any class of FCC-issued amateur radio
license)
to be in the minority

Unknown person

has no "facts" to accuse anyone of anything.

I started the "score card" postings on 2 August 2005 after
accumulating enough opinion data on WT Docket 05-235 filings
to see four categories. The first non-FCC filings began
on 20 July 2005.

The official Comment beginning did not occur until the Federal
Register notice of NPRM 05-143 on 31 August 2005. At that
date I elected to show a double tally of opinions, the original
one and one that began on 31 August. The first posting of
that new tally format began 1 September 2005.

Due to a great number of posts under the above 2nd subject
thread that went beyond the scope of the "score card," I
changed the "score card" posts to another thread beginning
17 October 2005. The same format of the 2nd thread ("double
tally") was kept in this third thread.

It appears that Len wished to avoide comment and discussion,
and wanted a thread containing only his scorecard.

The tally postings were almost daily except for one 2 1/2
week period in September-October when my wife and I were on
a trip and I was away from easy Internet access and tallies.

One word: Wireless

All of the categorizations were done as honestly and fairly
as possible,

Purely subjective opinion.

reading each of the Comments and Replies to
Comments.

If that were true, Len would have been aware of the fact that there
was indeed at least one other 'scorecard'

Opinions of greater than 90% of all filings were
rather obviously in three categories of For the NPRM, Against
the NPRM, or Code-Test-for-Extra-but-OK-to-drop-code-test-for-
other-classes.

Which leaves 10% uncertain. Yet Len posted results to four decimal
places, as if his tally was that accurate.

All of my "score card" postings are still in Google and may
be accessed by anyone with Google access.

So is the commentary on their deficiencies.

NOTHING was "hidden."

Incorrect.

Len counted multiple filings by the same person as different opinions
if they were not identical. Only identical filings by the same person
were counted as duplicates. Thus, in his own tally, Len's comments
and five reply comments (last time I looked) counted as if they
were written by six different people.

Len's postings are also unclear about what was counted. In parts of the
posting he uses the word "comments" and in others the word "filings",
hiding the fact that he was counting comments and reply comments.

By viewing the continuously-posted tally postings,
it is quite evident that a better than 2:1 ratio in favor of
the NPRM was held at the starting weeks of the Comment
period.

Irrelevant.

That ratio began to change from the date of notice
in the Federal Register that the NPRM Comment period had
begun on 31 August 2005. The tallies can be verified by
anyone reading all 3,760 filings in WT Docket 05-235 as of
the close of ECFS updates on 10 November 2005.

Someone else did read them, and came up with a different
result than Len.

It should be noted that the official Comment period on NPRM
05-143 ENDED on 31 October. The Reply to Comments period is
still officially OPEN until Monday, 14 November 2005, as
stated in the Federal Register of 31 August 2005. Among the
9 official Replies to Comments (the other 48 are unofficial
Comments), all of them are FOR the NPRM. Those who bother
to look at the many tally postings I made will see the trend
of opinion changing weekly.

The final result is what matters.

Nothing was hidden.

Incorrect, as shown above.

Posting of the "score card" was terminated after the official
end of the Comment period on 31 October 2005. The number of
other posts of continual argument and bickering were so great
that it was no longer worthwhile to continue the tally posting
in public.

In other words, Len did not want his results criticized or examined
closely. He wanted them accepted as fact, without question.

There are no "rules" on posting tallies of public opinion
except those of the person(s) doing the tally.

Yet when questions were posed about Len's "rules", he became
the source of "continual argument and bickering" rather than
answering the questions honestly.

That another
has posted an alleged "analysis" of WT Docket 05-235 filing
contents is not any valid argument against what I have done.

Why not? Is Leonard H. Anderson incapable of error?

None-the-less, it will be interesting to see, after whatever
action the FCC takes in regards to dropping the Code Test,

Regardless of comments, that will almost certainly be to drop
all Morse Code testing.

if

Len

will then get the "Extra Lite" (or any other HF-authorized license) or
continue to spam the NG with his anti-Amateur Radio bile...

Isn't that answer clear?

Irrelevant and incorrect.

Neither.

What I do in the future is of no
concern to any action of the FCC to make a final Report and
Order as a result of the end of the Comments and Replies to
Comments. The Commission will make a decision at some
future time but that time will not be soon. The number of
filings in WT Docket 05-235 exceed those made on WT Docket
98-143 ("Restructuring") by about 1,500; WT Docket 98-143
had only about 2,200 filings in the official Comment and
Replies to Comments period of about 11 months time.

Len has repeatedly given opinions about others' motivations, yet
will not reveal his own. Except for one outburst in January 2000,
he has not expressed the desire or intention to get an amateur radio
license.

As to the past,

unknown person

has NOT yet provided any
proof whatsoever that he was ever IN any of the alleged
"seven hostile actions" he claimed he was in.

Veterans of military and government service who disagree with Len have
been
subject to Len's insults and denigration of their service,
regardless of what or when it was. Len's classic "sphinters post"
proves that.