"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all
license classes requiring a code test.

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

Then why ask in the first place?

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

Bert Craig wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all
license classes requiring a code test.

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

Then why ask in the first place?

one becuase they are required to by law

two to see if there is something they overlooked

I guess the LAW is something you like to ignore if it gets in your way

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Craig wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all
license classes requiring a code test.

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

Then why ask in the first place?

one becuase they are required to by law

two to see if there is something they overlooked

I guess the LAW is something you like to ignore if it gets in your way

If you only knew how wrong you are... hihi

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

Bert Craig wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Craig wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
57% is a clear majority, but FCC ignored it and went to 5 wpm for all
license classes requiring a code test.

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

Then why ask in the first place?

one becuase they are required to by law

two to see if there is something they overlooked

I guess the LAW is something you like to ignore if it gets in your way

If you only knew how wrong you are... hihi

intersting ask a question get 2 answers that are basicaly the same rude
to polite the other

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Craig wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
I guess the LAW is something you like to ignore if it gets in your way

If you only knew how wrong you are... hihi

intersting ask a question get 2 answers that are basicaly the same rude
to polite the other


Mark, (KB9RQZ?)

The difference between your reply and Phil's is your addition of the
statement above. Phil answered the question with the insight of a fmr. FCC
employee. He made no sarcastic quips based on a guess re. my
approach to "the LAW."

In essence, it is you who closed with a rude statement. BTW, I did not mean
to be rude to you. hihi is meant as a friendly chuckle, similar to :-)

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

Then why ask in the first place?


one becuase they are required to by law

two to see if there is something they overlooked


Exactly. A comment that points out something that
was overlooked will have much impact. Not so for
many comments that say "This should be, because it
is "right and good"...

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:24:51 -0400, Bert Craig wrote:

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

Then why ask in the first place?

A. Because the Administrative Procedures Act required it and

B. To see how many ya-yas and yuck-yucks come out of the woodwork.

Relieves the tensions of 8 hours "in the box" sandwiched between two
hours of car-pool on either end.. Maybe that's why I never went to HQ.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ast.net...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:24:51 -0400, Bert Craig wrote:

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

Then why ask in the first place?

A. Because the Administrative Procedures Act required it and

B. To see how many ya-yas and yuck-yucks come out of the woodwork.

Relieves the tensions of 8 hours "in the box" sandwiched between two
hours of car-pool on either end.. Maybe that's why I never went to HQ.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Lol! Thanks for the honest answer, Phil. As always, it's appreciated.

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384/CC #1736
QRP ARCI #11782

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ast.net...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:24:51 -0400, Bert Craig wrote:

wrong the FCC looked at it and did their JOB and ruled on what they
thought was in the Public Interest, they did not ignore anything

Then why ask in the first place?

A. Because the Administrative Procedures Act required it and

B. To see how many ya-yas and yuck-yucks come out of the woodwork.

Relieves the tensions of 8 hours "in the box" sandwiched between two
hours of car-pool on either end.. Maybe that's why I never went to HQ.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



Wow! Howdy, Phil!

Kim W5TIT

A. Because the Administrative Procedures Act required it and

B. To see how many ya-yas and yuck-yucks come out of the woodwork.

Relieves the tensions of 8 hours "in the box" sandwiched between two
hours of car-pool on either end.. Maybe that's why I never went to HQ.


I can just imagine the bureaucrat at the FCC who gets stuck
wading thru all the filed comments searching for the one
that might actually point out something of substance that was
overlooked and would matter. I made my comment short and
to the point: "I agree, do it, drop the code test". So
whoever at the FCC doesn't have to waste much time on
my comment.