On 02 Jan 2005 04:04:54 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

Total all classes - 671,773 (decrease of 3019)
73 es HNY de Jim, N2EY

Yep the No-Code CBplussers were right, Dumbing Down of Ham Radio will cause the
RANKS to GROW.

The decrease is more likely due to Ye Olde Farhtz like Dick Carroll
finally becoming silent keys...

"Sciz" wrote in message
...
On 02 Jan 2005 04:04:54 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

Total all classes - 671,773 (decrease of 3019)
73 es HNY de Jim, N2EY

Yep the No-Code CBplussers were right, Dumbing Down of Ham Radio will
cause the
RANKS to GROW.

The decrease is more likely due to Ye Olde Farhtz like Dick Carroll
finally becoming silent keys...

And yet another wannabe putting what would likely be an old-timer's call (as
former WA3RJX was issued to me in 1971) in his headers (the WB3 call which
may well have never been issued).

LOL


With all due regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA (former WN2CJV, WB2OSP, WA3RJX, N2JH)

And yet another wannabe putting what would likely be an old-timer's call (as
former WA3RJX was issued to me in 1971) in his headers (the WB3 call which
may well have never been issued).

LOL

What's sad is these No-Code CBplussers know they can NEVER be an EQUAL to REAL
HAMS. They will all ways be referred to as WELFARE HAMS no matter how many
CALLSIGNS they BUY.

"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
And yet another wannabe putting what would likely be an old-timer's call
(as
former WA3RJX was issued to me in 1971) in his headers (the WB3 call
which
may well have never been issued).

LOL

What's sad is these No-Code CBplussers know they can NEVER be an EQUAL to
REAL
HAMS. They will all ways be referred to as WELFARE HAMS no matter how many
CALLSIGNS they BUY.

The problem is that I can't define a "real ham". Perhaps you can?

There are folks running moonbounce - and it would take me a bit of studying
to get to their level - not so much on the electronics, but the rotation of
the earth and motion of the moon in its' orbit.

There are others that deal in pretty high frequencies. Seems I remember a
couple of guys doing moonbounce on 24 GHz. Not a simple problem.

There is some truth buried in most posts, but it gets hidden by our own
standards of belief - along with the usual flames.

I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of folks
that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply deal back
what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found common ground,
rather than point out differences.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes:

I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of folks
that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply deal back
what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found common ground,
rather than point out differences.

Heh heh...the "common ground" is usually just capitulation to those
which could use the Latin phrase "Primus Inter Pares" as their motto.
["First Among Equals"] :-)

As to license numbers, the regular poster of those uses massaged
data as if the massaging, whether by hisself or others, is somehow
"truth in numbers." Not quite. The raw data is available from the
FCC...if anyone has high-speed interconnection to the 'net to get
their massive files. Several sites provide such raw data, such as
www.hamdata.com. Those numbers don't agree with what the
regular poster posts. Raw data numbers are usually higher than
the massaged numbers. [for self-agitprop purposes, it would be
logical to use the higher number rather than lower]

The rationalizations for using "massaged" data have been and no
doubt will continue to be great. :-)

In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes:

I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of folks
that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply deal back
what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found common ground,
rather than point out differences.

Heh heh...the "common ground" is usually just capitulation to those
which could use the Latin phrase "Primus Inter Pares" as their motto.
["First Among Equals"] :-)

As to license numbers, the regular poster of those uses massaged
data as if the massaging, whether by hisself or others, is somehow
"truth in numbers." Not quite. The raw data is available from the
FCC...if anyone has high-speed interconnection to the 'net to get
their massive files. Several sites provide such raw data, such as
www.hamdata.com. Those numbers don't agree with what the
regular poster posts. Raw data numbers are usually higher than
the massaged numbers. [for self-agitprop purposes, it would be
logical to use the higher number rather than lower]

The rationalizations for using "massaged" data have been and no
doubt will continue to be great. :-)

One problem with using "massaged" numbers is that those massagers
seldom show their justification for such massaging. As an example,
the data from www.hamdata.com for January 1, 2005, and January 1,
2004 is given following, as Hamdata totalled it -

In the left blocks, in one year's time, there have been 12,203 license
class changes. Total number of licensed amateurs is not affected
by that. For the same period, there were 17,282 new amateurs, but
19,065 are expired and no longer licensed. As far as the overall
license totals go, that means a 1,783 DROP in numbers. Not a
big thing and might be ascribed to normal attrition rates.

The one thing the regular poster wants to downplay is the number
of Technician Class licensees. Those have been continually growing
and now make up (within 0.02%) two-fifths of all licensees. That
growth rate is, by far, the biggest of all classes, amounting to
nearly 10 thousand a year. So much for the alleged "drop due to
end of grace period." :-) That allegation turned out to be false.

Class totals can be compared from Hamdata numbers based on
January 1 of 2005 growth/decline relative to January 1, 2004:

Technician 289,868 (39.98% of total) (growth of 9,902)
Technician Plus 60,664 ( 8.37% of total) (decline of 9,326)
Novice 35,894 (4.95% of total) (decline of 4,117)
General 146,668 (20.23% of total) (growth of 846)
Advanced 83,424 (11.51% of total) (decline of 1,566)
Extra 108,537 (14.97% of total) (growth of 1,768)

All excepting
club calls 725,055 (decline of
2,493)

Note: Rounding of percentages to one-hundredths decimals
results in 100.01% instead of 100.00%.

All licensees are perfectly legal to continue operating in their grace
period. There is no necessity (nor sense) to eliminate those in the
grace period from those in the normal 10-year license period from
any class totals.

To repeat, the allegation that there is a "big drop" in Technician
Class numbers is WRONG. Raw data doesn't show that. Implying
that the allegation still exists is merely compounding the wrongness.

To paraphrase McLuhan, the medium is the massage.

Someone is kneading to bake bad bread.

.

Lenof21 wrote:
In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes:

I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of
folks
that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply deal
back
what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found common
ground,
rather than point out differences.

Heh heh...the "common ground" is usually just capitulation to
those
which could use the Latin phrase "Primus Inter Pares" as their
motto.
["First Among Equals"] :-)

Do you see other posters here as equals, Len?

As to license numbers, the regular poster of those

Do you mean me, Len?

You seem to be unable to refer to me by first name or callsign. Why is
that?

uses massaged data

What do you mean by "massaged data", Len?

The plain, simple fact is that there is a brief, clear explanation of
the numbers I post - each time they are posted. They are the number of
*current* FCC amateur licenses held by *individuals*.

Which means that club, military, RACES and other station-only licenses
are not included. Also, licenses which are expired but in the grace
period are not included.

Only currently-licensed individual amateurs are listed in the totals I
post.

as if the massaging, whether by hisself or others, is somehow
"truth in numbers."

Is there some problem with posting the number of currently-licensed
individual amateurs, and leaving out station-license-only entries? Is
there a problem with leaving out expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses?

Not quite. The raw data is available from the
FCC...if anyone has high-speed interconnection to the 'net to get
their massive files.

Have you done that, Len?

Several sites provide such raw data, such as
www.hamdata.com. Those numbers don't agree with what the
regular poster posts.

That's because they include expired and station-only licenses.

I've explained this before, but apparently you don't understand it.

Raw data numbers are usually higher than
the massaged numbers. [for self-agitprop purposes, it would be
logical to use the higher number rather than lower]

Then it seems you are the one wanting to use them for "self-agitprop
purposes".

The rationalizations for using "massaged" data have been and no
doubt will continue to be great. :-)

I don't use "massaged" data. What you see is exactly what the posts say
it is: the total number of current FCC amateur licenses held by
individuals.

Why do you have a problem with that, Len?

Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Lenof21 wrote:
In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes:

I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of
folks
that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply
deal
back
what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found
common
ground,
rather than point out differences.

Heh heh...the "common ground" is usually just capitulation to
those
which could use the Latin phrase "Primus Inter Pares" as their
motto.
["First Among Equals"] :-)

Do you see other posters here as equals, Len?

As to license numbers, the regular poster of those

Do you mean me, Len?

You seem to be unable to refer to me by first name or callsign. Why
is
that?

To call you by your given name would be to treat you with dignity
and respect, and we all know Lennie is incapable of that.

To address you by your callsign would be to acknowledge that you
have something he doesn't have...And again, Lennie can't do that.

uses massaged data

What do you mean by "massaged data", Len?

The plain, simple fact is that there is a brief, clear explanation of
the numbers I post - each time they are posted. They are the number
of
*current* FCC amateur licenses held by *individuals*.

Which means that club, military, RACES and other station-only
licenses
are not included. Also, licenses which are expired but in the grace
period are not included.

Only currently-licensed individual amateurs are listed in the totals
I
post.

Simple. Plain English is not to Lennie's liking. For it is by
creative wordsmitihing and deception that he can hide his own failures
and inadequacies. And he has plenty of both.

The rationalizations for using "massaged" data have been and no
doubt will continue to be great. :-)

I don't use "massaged" data. What you see is exactly what the posts
say
it is: the total number of current FCC amateur licenses held by
individuals.

Why do you have a problem with that, Len?
As I said....

73

Steve, K4YZ

wrote:
Lenof21 wrote:

In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes:


I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of

folks

that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply deal

back

what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found common

ground,

rather than point out differences.

Heh heh...the "common ground" is usually just capitulation to

those

which could use the Latin phrase "Primus Inter Pares" as their

motto.

["First Among Equals"] :-)


Do you see other posters here as equals, Len?

As to license numbers, the regular poster of those


Do you mean me, Len?

You seem to be unable to refer to me by first name or callsign. Why is
that?


uses massaged data


What do you mean by "massaged data", Len?

The plain, simple fact is that there is a brief, clear explanation of
the numbers I post - each time they are posted. They are the number of
*current* FCC amateur licenses held by *individuals*.

Which means that club, military, RACES and other station-only licenses
are not included. Also, licenses which are expired but in the grace
period are not included.

Only currently-licensed individual amateurs are listed in the totals I
post.


as if the massaging, whether by hisself or others, is somehow
"truth in numbers."


Is there some problem with posting the number of currently-licensed
individual amateurs, and leaving out station-license-only entries? Is
there a problem with leaving out expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses?


Not quite. The raw data is available from the
FCC...if anyone has high-speed interconnection to the 'net to get
their massive files.


Have you done that, Len?


Several sites provide such raw data, such as
www.hamdata.com. Those numbers don't agree with what the
regular poster posts.


That's because they include expired and station-only licenses.

I've explained this before, but apparently you don't understand it.


Raw data numbers are usually higher than
the massaged numbers. [for self-agitprop purposes, it would be
logical to use the higher number rather than lower]


Then it seems you are the one wanting to use them for "self-agitprop
purposes".


The rationalizations for using "massaged" data have been and no
doubt will continue to be great. :-)


I don't use "massaged" data. What you see is exactly what the posts say
it is: the total number of current FCC amateur licenses held by
individuals.

Why do you have a problem with that, Len?

Jim, N2EY


All numbers are *interpreted*. That a poster here chooses to use the
word "massaged" which has a different connotation than interpreted, it
is just another situation akin to your nonexistent quote "Hams used to
do the 911 communications."

Raw data is just that. It signifies very little. Take the "grace
period" for example. It should ONLY be included as a separate part of an
interpretation. Same goes for club calls and a few other types of
license. Even orphan classes such as Novice and to a lesser extent
Advanced must be approached with caution, du to statistical difference
in likelihood of activity. You do well to separate them.

My point is that using all numbers without differentiation will
certainly lead to unclear results that the reader would have to do their
own interpretation with.

- Mike KB3EIA -