Leo wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote:

From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:
snip

Not only that, but NOT ONE of those 2558 filings was done by
James Miccolis!

That is odd indeed - I would have thought that Jim would have been one
of the first to state his concerns to the FCC regarding the
elimination of Morse testing - considering that this is the last
opportunity to do so before the final ruling.

Do you think it will make any difference, Leo? Do you think there's any
chance FCC will retain Element 1?

Will multiple comment filings make any difference?

Besides, a good comment takes time to write. Why hurry, if it's so
important?

--

I think FCC will just drop Element 1. Sure, I'll file comments. So will
plenty of others. But the stage is set for FCC to just drop Element 1.

Here's why:

1) Back in 1990, FCC created medical waivers because Papa Bush wanted
to do a now-dead King a favor. In the R&O, FCC said that they could not
waiver 5 wpm because of the treaty - and only because of the treaty.

2) Back in 2000, FCC dumped all but 5 wpm code, again citing the
treaty.

3) Now the treaty's gone. End of story.

Have you seen a significant increase in the number of Canadian radio
amateurs since code testing was made optional? Has there been a
significant increase in the number of radio amateurs in any of the
other countries which have eliminated code testing? By "significant", I
mean sustained growth, not a short term flurry of new licenses and then
back to the same old levels of growth or decline.

If the growth doesn't happen, it means the code test wasn't really a
problem in the first place.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:

My purpose of the continually-running "scorecard" is just to get
some visibility into the "amateur community's" opinions on the
code test...unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship
as either vital or neccessary in amateur radio. Think of it as
a poll of opinions by those that care to Comment, visible to ALL.

That's nice, Len.

But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate?

Because he sez it is.

Why should that be good enough, Bill?
Nobody is checking Len's work.

I will repeat...if you feel there is an error or fraud,
do your own analysis.

I'm not making any claims about the comment totals one way or another.
Len is. Let *him* back up his claims, not me.

In the beginning I started my own tally but since my results were
tracking closly with Len's and due to an upcoming month long
vacation I was leaving for, I stopped.

So nobody is really checking his scorecard.

There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers. KC8EPO made a
detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything
like that. He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but
doesn't show his.

Given the numbers that have been tallied so far, even a margin of
error of 5% misanalyzed would not result in a majority in favor
of keeping morse.

Actually, if 5% were miscategorized, there would be a very slight
majority in favor of keeping at least some code testing.

He has a demonstrated record of mistakes here, and an extreme
resistance to any corrections.

Yet you have shown no mistakes or errors because (IMHO)
you don't want to do the work.

Would there be any point to it?

Suppose I "did the work" and found that Len had made significant
mistakes. What do you think the reaction would be?

I've "done the work" on Len's mistakes before, and the reaction
wasn't very nice. Why should I bother to clean up after him again?

He's accused others of 'fraud' and 'massaged numbers' with no
evidence at all, except that his opinion was different.

Feel free then to challenege his numbers in your comments or
reply comments to the FCC.

You miss the point, Bill.

He's also clearly not an unbiased observer.

Nor are you or I :-) :-)

Neither of us is as biased as Len.

Why don't you pay for an independent audit.

Would it make any difference?

Yet everyone should accept what he says as
fact even though he doesn't accept what others
say if it contradicts his opinions?

Then don't accept his numbers...do your own.

Why? FCC ignored majority opinion on the issue in 1999 - do you really
think the majority opinion matters now?

Jim, in all honesty, if you doubt the
accuracy of Len's reports, please go thru the 2500+
comments and give us a readout of your own analysis.

Suppose I did, and came up with different results
than Len.

It would depend on how different. For now, as I said above,
even if the numbers were deliberately misrepresented by
5% the "majority" would still favor complete and total
code testing removal.

Not exactly.

Do you think he'd accept my scorecard as
accurate because I say it is?

Unless you do your own tally, it's only
conjecture.

Or would his reaction be somewhat different?

Any speculation on a reaction isn't worth my time to
consider.

I think you know what his reaction would be, but you don't want to say
so here, because you know how he'd react.

Mike Deignan was right.


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
ups.com...
Leo wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote:

From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:
snip

Not only that, but NOT ONE of those 2558 filings
was done by James Miccolis!

That is odd indeed - I would have thought
that Jim would have been one
of the first to state his concerns to the FCC regarding the
elimination of Morse testing - considering that this is the
last opportunity to do so before the final ruling.

Do you think it will make any difference, Leo?
Do you think there's any
chance FCC will retain Element 1?

Will multiple comment filings make any difference?

Besides, a good comment takes time to write. Why hurry,
if it's so important?

--

I think FCC will just drop Element 1.
Sure, I'll file comments. So will
plenty of others. But the stage is set
for FCC to just drop Element 1.

Here's why:

1) Back in 1990, FCC created medical
waivers because Papa Bush wanted
to do a now-dead King a favor. In the
R&O, FCC said that they could not
waiver 5 wpm because of the treaty - and
only because of the treaty.

2) Back in 2000, FCC dumped all but 5 wpm
code, again citing the treaty.

3) Now the treaty's gone. End of story.

Actually you bring out a good point. IF (big if again)
the FCC considered keeping the 5 wpm even if only for
Extra, then the waivers would be needed again
because without a treaty requirement for
the 5 wpm test, there's no reason waivers shouldn't
be available.
(SNIP)

CHEERS AND THANKS,
Bill K2UNK

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill Sohl wrote:
I will repeat...if you feel there is an error or fraud,
do your own analysis.

I'm not making any claims about the
comment totals one way or another.
Len is. Let *him* back up his claims, not me.

In the end, what you or I think about Len's numbers
makes no difference. Let's assume Len files his final
statistics with the FCC, you can then challenge them
all you want.

In the beginning I started my own tally but since my results were
tracking closly with Len's and due to an upcoming month long
vacation I was leaving for, I stopped.

So nobody is really checking his scorecard.

No problem in my book.

There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers. KC8EPO made a
detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything
like that. He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but
doesn't show his.

Given the numbers that have been tallied so far, even a margin of
error of 5% misanalyzed would not result in a majority in favor
of keeping morse.

Actually, if 5% were miscategorized, there would be a very slight
majority in favor of keeping at least some code testing.

WRONG! If the current majority of 1311 (54%) went down by 5%,
the number would then be (1311 -66 = 1245) which still gives a
52% majority in favor of the NPRM.

(SNIP of repeated "what if's)

Why? FCC ignored majority opinion on the
issue in 1999 - do you really
think the majority opinion matters now?

Actually no I don't, but it doesn't hurt the
nocode test cause to have a majority favoring the change.

(Snip again)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

From: Leo on Oct 14, 2:45 pm

On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote:
From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:

snip
Not only that, but NOT ONE of those 2558 filings was done by
James Miccolis!

That is odd indeed - I would have thought that Jim would have been one
of the first to state his concerns to the FCC regarding the
elimination of Morse testing - considering that this is the last
opportunity to do so before the final ruling.

Too much trouble for one of the "elite," Leo. :-)

It would have been a far more productive thing to do for the hobby
that to attempt to ignite yet another flame war here......again......

No, that is entirely "predictable" on Miccolis' part. :-)

Miccolis of Morse was sorely wounded in the past verbal volleys
and has never fully healed. His pain (or pane) must be severe
to go to such great lengths of character assassination in order
to assuage that pain. :-)

shrug Just another spiteful person in this din of inequity.

Just the same, James Miccolis has NOT submitted any Comment
under WT Docket 05-235 nor has he posted any of his own
statistics on NPRM 05-143 Commentary. All he wants to do is
sit in here and make nasty to anyone who has. Pity that.

The United States "amateur community" is speaking out on the
code test. What they say doesn't sound good to those who
became self-styled apostles of the Church of St. Hiram in
their youth. Less and less of the litany of morse-is-the-best
or the morsemen being the elite of hamdom. The morsemen want
desperately to Rule and they can't realize that their "rule"
is ending in a revolution of thought unfettered by the demands
of long-ago, mostly-expired "professional amateurs" in the USA.

The morsemen will grow increasingly bitter towards their end.
This will only get worse and possibly remain that way for
decades. Never mind that amateur radio is basically a hobby.
To the amateur morsemen it is much MORE to them and their
entire self-perception-of-worth is tied up in morsemanship...
and their certificates (suitable for framing) achieved long
ago.

=============================

Back in 1958 the FCC issued an R&O creating the Class C and
D Citizens Band Radio Service in the USA. Old-timer hams of
back then were outraged and bitter that ordinary citizens
could invade their (sacred) 11 meter band...without taking
a single test of any kind! Horrors! The end of the (amateur)
world to hear some of them talk at that time. I know, I had
to work with some Amateur Extras and had to hear all their
bitching and moaning and carrying-on. :-)

Once the code test is gone in the USA amateur regulations the
same bitching and moaning and carrying-on will repeat itself.
That is also predictable. Pity that.

From: on Oct 14, 2:49 pm

wrote:
From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:


My purpose of the continually-running "scorecard" is just to get
some visibility into the "amateur community's" opinions on the
code test...unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship
as either vital or neccessary in amateur radio. Think of it as
a poll of opinions by those that care to Comment, visible to ALL.

That's nice, Len.

But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate?

Because he sez it is.

Why should that be good enough, Bill?

Nobody is checking Len's work.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...has anyone checked Jimmie's "work" on his ham
radio license totals? :-)

Jimmie just TAKES OTHERS' NUMBERS and says they are "good." :-)

The ECFS is so set up that ANYONE can go in and check my
numbers, for any given day or for cumulative totals up to
a certain day from any previous day.

Is anyone doing that, Len?

Yes, but YOU are NOT. :-)

Given the highly polarized subject, it is difficult to be
objective on the subject of amateur radio morse code testing.

I'll take that as admission that you are not objective on the subject.

Tsk. You are going to "take" it any which way you can in
order to do your attempted character assassination. :-)

However, it is plain to see unambiguous opinions which
are posted on the ECFS...on both sides of the code test
issue.

Is anyone checking your numbers, Len?

Yes.

Who checks YOUR numbers on all those bimonthly USA ham license
numbers you post? :-)

Yet everyone should accept what he says as fact even though he
doesn't accept what others say if it contradicts his opinions?

Tsk. What I do is VOLUNTARY.

You sure seem obsessed by it, though.

Methodical, not "obsessed." Not near as "obsessed" as YOU
are in attempting character assassination of anyone speaking
out against your opinions in here... :-)

As I've said in here, ANYONE can go ahead and read each and
every Comment made since 15 July 2005 on WT Docket 05-235
and do their own statistical summaries...day by day if they
want.

We all know that, Len.

But you refuse to do it. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Nobody is stopping anyone from posting.

Has anyone tried to stop you from posting here, Len? Has anyone told
you to "shut the hell up"?

Yes they have. :-)

Jim, in all honesty, if you doubt the
accuracy of Len's reports, please go thru the 2500+
comments and give us a readout of your own analysis.

Suppose I did, and came up with different results than Len.

Suppose you GET STARTED? :-)

Do you think he'd accept my scorecard as accurate because I say it is?

Why? You are hardly an "unbiased observer." :-)

[morsemen are definitely NOT unbiased on the code test...]

Or would his reaction be somewhat different?

Jimmie, you MUST stop imagining these alternate universes of
yours. In order to "prove" what you postulate (or pustulate)
you must GET STARTED in reading each and every of the 2558
Comments and present them. So far you've not done that.

Not only that, but NOT ONE of those 2558 filings was done by
James Miccolis!

Imagine that...an important issue in U.S. amateur radio license
regulations and the self-styled guru of amateurdom hasn't posted
a single Comment or Reply to Comments on WT Docket 05-235 by
13 October 2005...with the NPRM appearing to the public on 20
July 2005! [released on 15 July and appearing in the ECFS
according to the date-stamp shown on the first page of their
single 15 July 2005 filing] Tsk, two and a half months now
and Jimmie hasn't said anything to the FCC directly...but has
been in here negatively criticizing all who are against the
code test!

[afraid of getting a rebuking Reply to Comments? :-) ]

Better hurry. The official cutoff date for Comments is only
two weeks away. The official cutoff date for Replies to
Comments is four weeks away.

Like it or not, history in United States amateur radio is being
made while you sit in here and attack all those who are against
your opinions on just about anything. :-)

Gee, Len, you've just shown once again how predictable your behavior
here really is.

Is THAT all you can come up with? Tsk, tsk.

United States amateur radio history is happening NOW. We are all
(well, most) in the NOW, not living in some idealized past.

Am I "predictable" on living NOW and being a part of history?
If so, I admit it. That is REALITY. That is LIFE. I like it.

All those Comments and Replies to Comments will be on file with
the FCC in their Reading Room long after a final R&O on the NPRM
is issued. It isn't ephemeral like some Google archive. All
Comments will be there and on public view at the FCC. Official
stuff. It's not some fantasy playground where you can play at
lording it over others in a newsgroup. It's "put up or shut up"
time, Jimmie. One or the other.

wrote:
From: Leo on Oct 14, 2:45 pm

It would have been a far more productive thing to do for the hobby
that to attempt to ignite yet another flame war here......again......

No, that is entirely "predictable" on Miccolis' part. :-)

Careful, now. YOU are not permitted to profile on RRAP. YOU hold no
amateur radio license. YOUR knowledge of such things is imperfect and
suspect.

wrote:

There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers. KC8EPO made a
detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything
like that. He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but doesn't show
his.

How can he show his work when he doesn't do any?

Does the FCC have to make a decision on the code issue by a certain
date? If so, what is that date. Thanks in advance.

"StatHaldol" wrote in message
oups.com...
Does the FCC have to make a decision on the code issue by a certain
date? If so, what is that date. Thanks in advance.


Don't believe so. They can take as long as they want to.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE